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
States the New York Times Cares About
🔊 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

The following map and table show the number of articles in The New York Times mentioning each of the fifty states and Washington, D.C., per 10,000 people in population, over the last decade:

State Mentions
Vermont 133.1
Alaska 104.0
New York 103.6
Washington, D.C. 76.9
Maine 65.3
New Hampshire 65.2
Delaware 63.1
Wyoming 57.1
Montana 53.4
Connecticut 51.3
Iowa 48.7
Hawaii 48.4
Kansas 46.8
North Dakota 45.3
Rhode Island 42.9
New Jersey 35.6
Utah 31.6
Massachusetts 31.6
Nevada 30.9
West Virginia 30.8
Mississippi 29.6
Kentucky 29.3
South Dakota 28.7
Minnesota 27.2
Colorado 26.5
Arizona 26.4
New Mexico 25.9
Virginia 25.8
Oklahoma 25.6
Nebraska 24.8
Idaho 23.3
South Carolina 22.8
Oregon 22.2
Wisconsin 22.1
Alabama 21.9
Louisiana 20.9
Arkansas 20.8
Ohio 20.1
Michigan 19.3
Maryland 18.9
Florida 17.3
California 16.6
Pennsylvania 16.5
Indiana 16.4
Tennessee 16.2
Georgia 14.4
Washington 14.1
Texas 13.8
North Carolina 13.6
Missouri 12.8
Illinois 9.9

This approach is approximate. There are false positives (ie, an article mentioning the USS Arizona that has nothing to do with the southwestern state) and false negatives (ie, the paper misspelling a state). New York and Washington were particularly tricky. From “New York” I backed out all returns for “New York Times” and “New Yorker” strings. For Washington, I searched for “Washington” and “[City]”, where “[City]” consisted of the twenty most populous cities in the state. For the imperial capital, I used “Washington, D.C.” instead of “District of Columbia”, as the former returned more results. For “Virginia”, I backed out returns for “West Virginia”, an approach that removes articles mentioning both states from Virginia’s total count. Despite an unearned bonus from articles about the country bordering the Black Sea, the American southern state still comes in near the bottom of the list.

A couple of broad trends stand out. The first is an expected regional bias, with the northeast overrepresented. The other is that states with smaller populations loom relatively larger. The correlation between a state’s total population and its per capita mentions is an inverse .30. This appears to largely be on account of political articles, especially those discussing national results, mentioning several or even all fifty states in them. This ‘benefits’ sparsely populated states like Alaska and ‘harms’ populous states like California.

I plan on doing a global version of the same soon. It shouldn’t suffer from the same problem of electoral skew.

 
• Category: Arts/Letters, Culture/Society • Tags: Media, The states 
Hide 81 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. When things happen in other big cities, the state is often not mentioned. That could explain the low ranking of several states dominated by a few cities– Pennsylvania, Texas, Florida, Georgia, Washington.

    Missouri– St Louis would be datelined without the state, and so would much larger Kansas City. But Kansas City, Mo., would be counted under Kansas unless you caught that. Note that Kansas ranks awfully high, and probably not for Thomas Frank’s book.

    Illinois– Does any news from there come from outside Chicago?

    • Replies: @GU
    “Illinois– Does any news from there come from outside Chicago?”

    Sure. Lots of news out of Springfield (the capital). There are also lots of large corporations headquartered in Illinois that are not in Chicago. Most are in the suburbs, but there are exceptions (e.g., Caterpillar in Peoria until very recently and John Deere in Moline). Also, East St. Louis is often in the news for ghetto antics! :)
    , @Jim Bob Lassiter
    Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Dallas, Houston, Miami, Orlando, and Atlanta all probably slip by without mention of their respective states. Maine probably punches above its weight due Somali colonization and SWPL lifestyle articles.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Good points. There are issues like the one with Kansas City, too. As mentioned in the post, Washington is the biggest challenge because it's a fairly common last name and there are several cities across the country named Washington.

    I was wondering the same thing re: Illinois. Surprisingly low, but it could be that Chicago essentially equals Illinois without mentioning the latter.
  2. ROTFL

  3. I imagine Vermont and Alaska have inflated totals because of Bernie and Palin.

    The most interesting thing to me is that Illinois – you know, Obama’s “home state,” – is dead last on the list. This is has to be intentional, no? I mean, Chicago, Illinois is the vanguard of the brazenly corrupt Democratic Machine. A deliberate effort to minimize and outright hide the state’s political lawlessness, economic decay, and renegade negro population is a realistic possibility, I’d say.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Jim Bob Lassiter
    In addition to SWPL lifestyle articles in the case of Vermont.
    , @Peter Akuleyev
    A deliberate effort to minimize and outright hide the state’s political lawlessness, economic decay, and renegade negro population is a realistic possibility, I’d say.

    I'd say you are crazy overthinking it. Liberals don't see Chicago as corrupt or lawless, so it wouldn't cross their mind to "bury" Obama's Chicago connections. I would just attribute the lack of attention to traditional New York arrogance versus Chicago.
  4. Surprised at Illinois. I assume that Chicago is often mentioned without appending “Illinois.”

  5. GU says:
    @Reg Cæsar
    When things happen in other big cities, the state is often not mentioned. That could explain the low ranking of several states dominated by a few cities-- Pennsylvania, Texas, Florida, Georgia, Washington.

    Missouri-- St Louis would be datelined without the state, and so would much larger Kansas City. But Kansas City, Mo., would be counted under Kansas unless you caught that. Note that Kansas ranks awfully high, and probably not for Thomas Frank's book.


    Illinois-- Does any news from there come from outside Chicago?

    “Illinois– Does any news from there come from outside Chicago?”

    Sure. Lots of news out of Springfield (the capital). There are also lots of large corporations headquartered in Illinois that are not in Chicago. Most are in the suburbs, but there are exceptions (e.g., Caterpillar in Peoria until very recently and John Deere in Moline). Also, East St. Louis is often in the news for ghetto antics! 🙂

  6. @MikeatMikedotMike
    I imagine Vermont and Alaska have inflated totals because of Bernie and Palin.

    The most interesting thing to me is that Illinois - you know, Obama's "home state," - is dead last on the list. This is has to be intentional, no? I mean, Chicago, Illinois is the vanguard of the brazenly corrupt Democratic Machine. A deliberate effort to minimize and outright hide the state's political lawlessness, economic decay, and renegade negro population is a realistic possibility, I'd say.

    -

    In addition to SWPL lifestyle articles in the case of Vermont.

  7. @Reg Cæsar
    When things happen in other big cities, the state is often not mentioned. That could explain the low ranking of several states dominated by a few cities-- Pennsylvania, Texas, Florida, Georgia, Washington.

    Missouri-- St Louis would be datelined without the state, and so would much larger Kansas City. But Kansas City, Mo., would be counted under Kansas unless you caught that. Note that Kansas ranks awfully high, and probably not for Thomas Frank's book.


    Illinois-- Does any news from there come from outside Chicago?

    Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Dallas, Houston, Miami, Orlando, and Atlanta all probably slip by without mention of their respective states. Maine probably punches above its weight due Somali colonization and SWPL lifestyle articles.

    • Replies: @Endgame Napoleon
    Maybe, a lot of Mainers are ex New Yorkers who left the city due to unaffordable rent and violent crime, which used to be higher before they cracked down on it. Maine has a lot of middle aged and older, childless people, the kind of people who don’t qualify for any of the Federal government’s or New York’s pay for sex and reproduction handouts, meaning NYC was much more expensive for them due to the fact that they live on earned-only income. They might read the NYT to keep up with what’s going on in their former city. How many people moved from NYC to Chicago to escape violent crime and unaffordable rent in safe areas? The articles probably cater to the subscribers’ interests.

    Alaska’s heavy coverage seems out of place. Unless it’s travel-related, it probably arises from the same impulse that makes some Southern states more represented than others. A few Southern states retain more of the old, mock-able Southern ways than others, providing better junior-high dissing opportunities for the NYT’s mature, Woke staff. Some Southern states have more Blacks, and in many of those rural, deep-South states, the violent crime rate is actually lower than in non-Southern cities with big Black populations like Chicago. This reflects better on minorites, reinforcing the NYT’s cognitive bias. Rural Blacks will be idealized, with the rural whites useful for ego-boosting superiority illusions, kicks and giggles. In the case of a few majority-Black Southern cities that are very poor and almost as violent as Chicago, the coverage is spartan. Texas is also lacking in coverage, making you wonder since it seems like a wonderland of opportunities for the NYT staff to glorify Hispanic “working families,” albeit few Texans may subscribe to the NYT.
  8. @Jim Bob Lassiter
    Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Dallas, Houston, Miami, Orlando, and Atlanta all probably slip by without mention of their respective states. Maine probably punches above its weight due Somali colonization and SWPL lifestyle articles.

    Maybe, a lot of Mainers are ex New Yorkers who left the city due to unaffordable rent and violent crime, which used to be higher before they cracked down on it. Maine has a lot of middle aged and older, childless people, the kind of people who don’t qualify for any of the Federal government’s or New York’s pay for sex and reproduction handouts, meaning NYC was much more expensive for them due to the fact that they live on earned-only income. They might read the NYT to keep up with what’s going on in their former city. How many people moved from NYC to Chicago to escape violent crime and unaffordable rent in safe areas? The articles probably cater to the subscribers’ interests.

    Alaska’s heavy coverage seems out of place. Unless it’s travel-related, it probably arises from the same impulse that makes some Southern states more represented than others. A few Southern states retain more of the old, mock-able Southern ways than others, providing better junior-high dissing opportunities for the NYT’s mature, Woke staff. Some Southern states have more Blacks, and in many of those rural, deep-South states, the violent crime rate is actually lower than in non-Southern cities with big Black populations like Chicago. This reflects better on minorites, reinforcing the NYT’s cognitive bias. Rural Blacks will be idealized, with the rural whites useful for ego-boosting superiority illusions, kicks and giggles. In the case of a few majority-Black Southern cities that are very poor and almost as violent as Chicago, the coverage is spartan. Texas is also lacking in coverage, making you wonder since it seems like a wonderland of opportunities for the NYT staff to glorify Hispanic “working families,” albeit few Texans may subscribe to the NYT.

  9. They care about Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho because those states are in their future plans – mass demographic change.

    They have flipped mighty Colorado from red to blue – what is going to stop them in the tiny mountain states?

    Ditto in North Dakota, with the mass Somalian intake, and their TFR of nearly 4 (at least the whites in N.D. are still having babies as well).

    The goal is control of the Senate, and ultimately dispossession and genocide of non-Hispanic white Americans.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Whites in the Mountain West states report being far more liberal, on cultural issues, since about the year 2000 (per the GSS). Prior to the 2000's, people in the Mountain West often self-reported that they were nearly as conservative on cultural issues as people from the Midwest and South.

    Why do we always have to blame POC for our problems? Whites have nobody to blame but themselves for pissing away so much.

    Also, over the last 20 years a fissure seems to be developing in this country based on East Vs West, as opposed to the North Vs South divide that's risen and fallen in various cycles throughout this country's history. Then again, it's not really all that new to see a divide between the urban/developed East and the frontier West, it's just that what happens to be the frontier has changed over the years. Wisconsin and Tennessee were, at one point, the frontier. But whites in the NW Midwest seem pretty normal* these days, suggesting that over the last 50-70 years we've reached a point where we can say with certainty that the Western frontier now encompasses the Rockies to the Pacific.

    *Whites in the Pacific and Mountain states seem quite decadent by comparison, with their tolerance of gambling, drugs, prostitution, and the like. During the New Deal, Great Society, and early Reagan era (essentially 1930-2000), the Mountain states (and to a lesser extent, the Pacific states) were more wholesome, but now that we've slid into a new Gilded Age, people in the Western US seem more eager to accelerate the decadence relative to what Easterners are comfortable with.
    , @Feryl
    Nobody cares about Wyoming, Idaho, etc. Hardly anyone lives there, they've never been centers of culture or industry. I heard a recent interview with Chris Hedges where he talks about Midwestern cities that once housed massive factories, but after NAFTA was passed many of the plants were flat out demolished, destroying the lives of unionized workers who made at least 25$ an hour, and leaving nothing but dejection, welfare, and drugs since the mid-90's.

    It's the Rust-belt we need to be focusing on, not the least populated region of America.
  10. @Reg Cæsar
    When things happen in other big cities, the state is often not mentioned. That could explain the low ranking of several states dominated by a few cities-- Pennsylvania, Texas, Florida, Georgia, Washington.

    Missouri-- St Louis would be datelined without the state, and so would much larger Kansas City. But Kansas City, Mo., would be counted under Kansas unless you caught that. Note that Kansas ranks awfully high, and probably not for Thomas Frank's book.


    Illinois-- Does any news from there come from outside Chicago?

    Good points. There are issues like the one with Kansas City, too. As mentioned in the post, Washington is the biggest challenge because it’s a fairly common last name and there are several cities across the country named Washington.

    I was wondering the same thing re: Illinois. Surprisingly low, but it could be that Chicago essentially equals Illinois without mentioning the latter.

  11. @MikeatMikedotMike
    I imagine Vermont and Alaska have inflated totals because of Bernie and Palin.

    The most interesting thing to me is that Illinois - you know, Obama's "home state," - is dead last on the list. This is has to be intentional, no? I mean, Chicago, Illinois is the vanguard of the brazenly corrupt Democratic Machine. A deliberate effort to minimize and outright hide the state's political lawlessness, economic decay, and renegade negro population is a realistic possibility, I'd say.

    -

    A deliberate effort to minimize and outright hide the state’s political lawlessness, economic decay, and renegade negro population is a realistic possibility, I’d say.

    I’d say you are crazy overthinking it. Liberals don’t see Chicago as corrupt or lawless, so it wouldn’t cross their mind to “bury” Obama’s Chicago connections. I would just attribute the lack of attention to traditional New York arrogance versus Chicago.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    "I would just attribute the lack of attention to traditional New York arrogance versus Chicago."

    Absurd.

    When 500 negro teenagers engage in a social media coordinated rampage through downtown Chicago, resulting in 38 arrests, (plus assaults and robberies and injuries that I don't remember the numbers on) and it doesn't make the news, I'm going to go ahead and say I'm not crazy over thinking anything. These wilding events happen several times per year and news of them is deliberately suppressed.

    If 500 Stetson clad white boys ran roughshod through downtown Galveston, the NYT would commence in a 2 week long front page masturbatory celebration of the evils of toxic white male privilege and racism.

    Further, the Rod Blagojevich scandal, trial, and imprisonment should have pulled Illinois out of last place on its own, as that was going on between 2009 -12. Blago went on a national media campaign to proclaim his innocence, for Christ's sake.
  12. NY and Chicago are competitive cities believe it or not. It might be interesting to note they don’t talk about Seattle, Los Angeles or Dallas Texas either.

  13. Feryl says:
    @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    They care about Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho because those states are in their future plans - mass demographic change.

    They have flipped mighty Colorado from red to blue - what is going to stop them in the tiny mountain states?

    Ditto in North Dakota, with the mass Somalian intake, and their TFR of nearly 4 (at least the whites in N.D. are still having babies as well).

    The goal is control of the Senate, and ultimately dispossession and genocide of non-Hispanic white Americans.

    Whites in the Mountain West states report being far more liberal, on cultural issues, since about the year 2000 (per the GSS). Prior to the 2000’s, people in the Mountain West often self-reported that they were nearly as conservative on cultural issues as people from the Midwest and South.

    Why do we always have to blame POC for our problems? Whites have nobody to blame but themselves for pissing away so much.

    Also, over the last 20 years a fissure seems to be developing in this country based on East Vs West, as opposed to the North Vs South divide that’s risen and fallen in various cycles throughout this country’s history. Then again, it’s not really all that new to see a divide between the urban/developed East and the frontier West, it’s just that what happens to be the frontier has changed over the years. Wisconsin and Tennessee were, at one point, the frontier. But whites in the NW Midwest seem pretty normal* these days, suggesting that over the last 50-70 years we’ve reached a point where we can say with certainty that the Western frontier now encompasses the Rockies to the Pacific.

    *Whites in the Pacific and Mountain states seem quite decadent by comparison, with their tolerance of gambling, drugs, prostitution, and the like. During the New Deal, Great Society, and early Reagan era (essentially 1930-2000), the Mountain states (and to a lesser extent, the Pacific states) were more wholesome, but now that we’ve slid into a new Gilded Age, people in the Western US seem more eager to accelerate the decadence relative to what Easterners are comfortable with.

    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    I wasnt blaming POC for Colorado turning blue. It turned blue because of white liberals swarming the place. They are going to do the same in every state - either with white liberals, or with POC immigrants.

    No strategy is off the table, in their quest to destroy the white race.

    , @Almost Missouri

    "Whites in the Mountain West states report being far more liberal, on cultural issues, since about the year 2000 (per the GSS)."
    ...
    "Whites in the Pacific and Mountain states seem quite decadent by comparison, with their tolerance of gambling, drugs, prostitution, and the like. "
     
    To what extent is this the domination of narco-state Colorado over the category "Mountain West", plus the in-migration of refugees from California to Utah and Idaho, where they carry on voting the same way they did when they wrecked California?
  14. @Peter Akuleyev
    A deliberate effort to minimize and outright hide the state’s political lawlessness, economic decay, and renegade negro population is a realistic possibility, I’d say.

    I'd say you are crazy overthinking it. Liberals don't see Chicago as corrupt or lawless, so it wouldn't cross their mind to "bury" Obama's Chicago connections. I would just attribute the lack of attention to traditional New York arrogance versus Chicago.

    “I would just attribute the lack of attention to traditional New York arrogance versus Chicago.”

    Absurd.

    When 500 negro teenagers engage in a social media coordinated rampage through downtown Chicago, resulting in 38 arrests, (plus assaults and robberies and injuries that I don’t remember the numbers on) and it doesn’t make the news, I’m going to go ahead and say I’m not crazy over thinking anything. These wilding events happen several times per year and news of them is deliberately suppressed.

    If 500 Stetson clad white boys ran roughshod through downtown Galveston, the NYT would commence in a 2 week long front page masturbatory celebration of the evils of toxic white male privilege and racism.

    Further, the Rod Blagojevich scandal, trial, and imprisonment should have pulled Illinois out of last place on its own, as that was going on between 2009 -12. Blago went on a national media campaign to proclaim his innocence, for Christ’s sake.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    When Chicago is covered, Illinois is rarely mentioned. Hardly anything ever happens in the other three-quarters of the state. It's that simple.
  15. Feryl says:
    @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    They care about Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho because those states are in their future plans - mass demographic change.

    They have flipped mighty Colorado from red to blue - what is going to stop them in the tiny mountain states?

    Ditto in North Dakota, with the mass Somalian intake, and their TFR of nearly 4 (at least the whites in N.D. are still having babies as well).

    The goal is control of the Senate, and ultimately dispossession and genocide of non-Hispanic white Americans.

    Nobody cares about Wyoming, Idaho, etc. Hardly anyone lives there, they’ve never been centers of culture or industry. I heard a recent interview with Chris Hedges where he talks about Midwestern cities that once housed massive factories, but after NAFTA was passed many of the plants were flat out demolished, destroying the lives of unionized workers who made at least 25$ an hour, and leaving nothing but dejection, welfare, and drugs since the mid-90’s.

    It’s the Rust-belt we need to be focusing on, not the least populated region of America.

    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    No, but the globalist forces are eyeing Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming as easy flips by moving just 50,000 Democrats into the state. This is six extra Senate seats once they turn blue.
  16. @Feryl
    Whites in the Mountain West states report being far more liberal, on cultural issues, since about the year 2000 (per the GSS). Prior to the 2000's, people in the Mountain West often self-reported that they were nearly as conservative on cultural issues as people from the Midwest and South.

    Why do we always have to blame POC for our problems? Whites have nobody to blame but themselves for pissing away so much.

    Also, over the last 20 years a fissure seems to be developing in this country based on East Vs West, as opposed to the North Vs South divide that's risen and fallen in various cycles throughout this country's history. Then again, it's not really all that new to see a divide between the urban/developed East and the frontier West, it's just that what happens to be the frontier has changed over the years. Wisconsin and Tennessee were, at one point, the frontier. But whites in the NW Midwest seem pretty normal* these days, suggesting that over the last 50-70 years we've reached a point where we can say with certainty that the Western frontier now encompasses the Rockies to the Pacific.

    *Whites in the Pacific and Mountain states seem quite decadent by comparison, with their tolerance of gambling, drugs, prostitution, and the like. During the New Deal, Great Society, and early Reagan era (essentially 1930-2000), the Mountain states (and to a lesser extent, the Pacific states) were more wholesome, but now that we've slid into a new Gilded Age, people in the Western US seem more eager to accelerate the decadence relative to what Easterners are comfortable with.

    I wasnt blaming POC for Colorado turning blue. It turned blue because of white liberals swarming the place. They are going to do the same in every state – either with white liberals, or with POC immigrants.

    No strategy is off the table, in their quest to destroy the white race.

    • Replies: @216
    Not everything can be so easily chucked over to white liberal in-migration. This is a typical cheap shot that Westerners make. There's been a major shift in upper-middle class voters since 1988, observable in the entire Western world. Absent anti-communism, the UMC has no real tie to social conservatism that impinges on their lifestyle habits.

    The GOP has actually improved ('04 vs '16) in legacy Hispanic Southern Colorado, a sort of Appalachian-like Rockies. Moving the party leftward on fiscal policy might consolidate these gains.

    Most conservatives are loath to blame "responsible" middle class white/Asian voters as the source of their troubles. Boomers are particularly ignorant to the fact that evangelical is basically a perjorative for those under 30.
  17. @Feryl
    Nobody cares about Wyoming, Idaho, etc. Hardly anyone lives there, they've never been centers of culture or industry. I heard a recent interview with Chris Hedges where he talks about Midwestern cities that once housed massive factories, but after NAFTA was passed many of the plants were flat out demolished, destroying the lives of unionized workers who made at least 25$ an hour, and leaving nothing but dejection, welfare, and drugs since the mid-90's.

    It's the Rust-belt we need to be focusing on, not the least populated region of America.

    No, but the globalist forces are eyeing Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming as easy flips by moving just 50,000 Democrats into the state. This is six extra Senate seats once they turn blue.

    • Replies: @216
    Belarus or Bust
    , @Feryl
    The stupid party doesn't care about gettting it's ass kicked. If they did care, they'd stop taking money from the neo-liberal mega donors who laid waste to the Rust-Belt (even Chuck Schumer voted against NAFTA in 1992).

    The Dems can always be relied on to put at least some effort into re-distributing resources from the rich/corporations to the underclass;the GOP can offer token support on cultural issues (on LGBT, abortion, guns, etc.) to cultural conservative whites but is utterly worthless on foreign policy issues and economic issues (when have the Reaganites ever done a damn thing to oppose stuff like Payday loans?).

    If it's true that the GOP is too inept to hang onto even the interior West, than good riddance. This is a party that has proven, since the Reagan era, to be addicted to self-pity and paranoia when it comes to it's failures to appeal to a broad mass of Americans (always blaming media, academia, etc.) (and BTW, the Clintonite Democrats are equally pathetic WRT denial about the broadly unpopular aspects of "woke" Reaganism).

    In the New Deal and Great Society era, both parties accepted accountability when they faltered, instead of retreating into delusions about "forces beyond their control" preventing more voters from voting for the "correct" party (and Americans to a man were, in the 1930's-1970's, less addicted to partisan crack).
    , @Feryl
    Who gives a shit about the GOP? No, really; this is a party that places Israel ahead of America. Since the Reagan era we've plowed tons of resources into an increasingly decadent Pentagon establishment, and managed to find dumber and dumber ways to start shit in other countries and needlessly damage the lives of our personnel.

    America is way overdue for a house cleaning, which is what Trump was supposed to do (Trump called out the free traders, the neo-cons, etc. for being the worthless traitors that they are). But since Reagan, the GOP when it gets into the White House invariably manages to make our foreign policy and our economy even more unhealthy. I'm very concerned that another term for Trump could lead to disastrous "intervention" in say, Venezuela. I mean, we have to go back to, like, Nixon I guess(?) in terms of a full presidency not being involved in totally moronic meddling.

    GW Bush really is the worst president we've had over the last 40 years, on account of foreign policy alone. It would be tough for Trump to do worse than that, but anything is possible. It does seem like Iran and Russia flexing their muscle in the MENA have discouraged the neo-cons a bit, but lest anyone gets the idea that the Pentagon is "getting soft", we just might get lots of Latin American mischief instead ala the Reagan admin sponsoring tons of coups and death squads in the 1980's (which destablized the region and sent tons of Latin Americans Northward to the US). But perhaps, unlike Reagan's reluctance to actually send sustained US combat forces to the Southern hemisphere, today's generation of retarded military/foreign policy elites might actually send a large occupying force into say, Venezuela, with which to fend off repeated attempts by Venezuelans to kick the damn imperialists out.

    There's no question that the America Empire is teetering on collapse, but at what point can our "leaders" shake their delusions about Pax Americana?
  18. 216 says:
    @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    I wasnt blaming POC for Colorado turning blue. It turned blue because of white liberals swarming the place. They are going to do the same in every state - either with white liberals, or with POC immigrants.

    No strategy is off the table, in their quest to destroy the white race.

    Not everything can be so easily chucked over to white liberal in-migration. This is a typical cheap shot that Westerners make. There’s been a major shift in upper-middle class voters since 1988, observable in the entire Western world. Absent anti-communism, the UMC has no real tie to social conservatism that impinges on their lifestyle habits.

    The GOP has actually improved (’04 vs ’16) in legacy Hispanic Southern Colorado, a sort of Appalachian-like Rockies. Moving the party leftward on fiscal policy might consolidate these gains.

    Most conservatives are loath to blame “responsible” middle class white/Asian voters as the source of their troubles. Boomers are particularly ignorant to the fact that evangelical is basically a perjorative for those under 30.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Absent anti-communism, the UMC has no real tie to social conservatism that impinges on their lifestyle habits."

    Elites have never been culturally conservative; it's more that in wholesome eras, they respect the conservatism of working class voters. Certainly among Europeans, it's been the case that the wealthy cosmopolitans often feel more kinship with foreign elites than they do with their lower class co-nationals. But this doesn't become a serious problem unless we are in a climate of arrogance, corruption, and decadence, when elites become stridently against the values of the working class.

    "Not everything can be so easily chucked over to white liberal in-migration. This is a typical cheap shot that Westerners make."

    I guess that people in the Western US are socialized to be paranoid and anti-social, so that every problem affecting your community/your life can be attributed to some group of interlopers (who just happen to be BadWhites, ideological aliens and enemies). I think that people in the Eastern US are better at understanding the overall failings of humanity, not in a nihilistic sense (since Western US culture is more nihilistic) but in a pragmatic and modest sense (e.g., we've all let ourselves down, we can't act like it's just one particular group who've failed us).

    Millennials and Gen Z from the Western US might as well be from outer space. The Western US was kept in check during the New Deal era (Californian Nixon, off the record, said that societies in decline invariably allow homosexuals to have too much power), but has re-embraced it's outlaw/frontier mentality since the Carter era.
  19. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    No, but the globalist forces are eyeing Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming as easy flips by moving just 50,000 Democrats into the state. This is six extra Senate seats once they turn blue.

    Belarus or Bust

  20. Anon[394] • Disclaimer says:

    I thought I would offer an interesting OT story on Gallup manipulating their polls since this thread seems to have died down: Gallup caught massaging Israel vs Palestine polling data among Americans for decades.

    “Pollster Gallup admitted on March 28 that three decades of polling data contain fundamental flaws “well beyond what we would attribute to normal sampling error. … The analysis of results … found that contrary to Gallup results the majority of Americans do not sympathize more with Israelis “in the Middle East situation.”

    https://original.antiwar.com/smith-grant/2019/04/16/gallup-quietly-admits-israeli-vs-palestinian-sympathy-polls-are-misleading/

    • Replies: @iffen
    Gallup caught massaging Israel vs Palestine polling data

    Wow! First, the all-powerful cosmic overlords can't push a simple resolution through the House and now this. What is the world coming to? What will happen next?

  21. @Anon
    I thought I would offer an interesting OT story on Gallup manipulating their polls since this thread seems to have died down: Gallup caught massaging Israel vs Palestine polling data among Americans for decades.

    "Pollster Gallup admitted on March 28 that three decades of polling data contain fundamental flaws "well beyond what we would attribute to normal sampling error. ... The analysis of results ... found that contrary to Gallup results the majority of Americans do not sympathize more with Israelis "in the Middle East situation."

    https://original.antiwar.com/smith-grant/2019/04/16/gallup-quietly-admits-israeli-vs-palestinian-sympathy-polls-are-misleading/

    Gallup caught massaging Israel vs Palestine polling data

    Wow! First, the all-powerful cosmic overlords can’t push a simple resolution through the House and now this. What is the world coming to? What will happen next?

  22. J1234 says:

    Ask 1000 Nebraskans what state Yonkers is in. Some won’t know, but many will.

    Then ask 1000 New Yorkers what state Grand Island is in.

    Both cities are ranked the same within their respective states in terms of pop., yet New Yorkers generally feel they know a lot more about flyover country than vice versa. This is the sort of mythology they often surround themselves with, particularly if they’re leftists. I was in a truck stop when two elderly people (Jews, I presume…pretty confidently) on a road trip from the east coast walked in. They saw all the tall people in cowboy hats and shook their heads. “Such a red state!” one of them declared. For all of their education and intelligence, I’m sure they didn’t see the caricature of themselves that they created.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Which is funny because per Haidt's moral dimensions, those on the right tend to be much better at articulating a version of the left's perspective in a way that resembles the way those on the left themselves would articulate it than those on the left are able to articulate the way the right views things.

    Those on the right have all the moral dimensions those on the left do, they just don't put as much emphasis on them. The left, however, is missing moral dimensions that the right has. This leads to the right understanding where the left is coming from but thinking they tend to take things too far while the left genuinely can't understand the right and just thinks it's evil.

  23. @MikeatMikedotMike
    "I would just attribute the lack of attention to traditional New York arrogance versus Chicago."

    Absurd.

    When 500 negro teenagers engage in a social media coordinated rampage through downtown Chicago, resulting in 38 arrests, (plus assaults and robberies and injuries that I don't remember the numbers on) and it doesn't make the news, I'm going to go ahead and say I'm not crazy over thinking anything. These wilding events happen several times per year and news of them is deliberately suppressed.

    If 500 Stetson clad white boys ran roughshod through downtown Galveston, the NYT would commence in a 2 week long front page masturbatory celebration of the evils of toxic white male privilege and racism.

    Further, the Rod Blagojevich scandal, trial, and imprisonment should have pulled Illinois out of last place on its own, as that was going on between 2009 -12. Blago went on a national media campaign to proclaim his innocence, for Christ's sake.

    When Chicago is covered, Illinois is rarely mentioned. Hardly anything ever happens in the other three-quarters of the state. It’s that simple.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    If I were making a case for the state to be near the top of the list you'd have a point. But the state is last. Last. The Blago (the governor of Illinois, not Chicago) scandal alone should have kept it out of that spot.

    A lot of guys poo-poo'd my prediction that Smollet would never see jail time, including geniuses like Sailer and Jack D. Those guys are smart and know quite a bit about a lot of things, but I know the Chicago machine. The NYT avoiding coverage of Chicago's home state smacks of ChiMach influence. Corruption in Springfield is almost beyond comprehension and those involved don't even hide it very well.
  24. @Reg Cæsar
    When Chicago is covered, Illinois is rarely mentioned. Hardly anything ever happens in the other three-quarters of the state. It's that simple.

    If I were making a case for the state to be near the top of the list you’d have a point. But the state is last. Last. The Blago (the governor of Illinois, not Chicago) scandal alone should have kept it out of that spot.

    A lot of guys poo-poo’d my prediction that Smollet would never see jail time, including geniuses like Sailer and Jack D. Those guys are smart and know quite a bit about a lot of things, but I know the Chicago machine. The NYT avoiding coverage of Chicago’s home state smacks of ChiMach influence. Corruption in Springfield is almost beyond comprehension and those involved don’t even hide it very well.

    • Agree: Almost Missouri
    • Replies: @216
    The fact that Cook County can dominate the state's politics is an affront to the Constitutional notions of the "republican form of government".

    West Virginia was for all intents and purposes illegally created. So there is precedent that downstate Illinois should be seperated by virtue of a "Restored Government of Illinois".

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restored_Government_of_Virginia
    , @Reg Cæsar
    Why would the NYT be interested in corruption in state capitals other than Albany, Trenton, Hartford, and one or two others nearby? Springfield is halfway across flyover country the continent. Other papers cover it.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Well done on the Smollett prediction. I wasn't confident he would see jail time, but I wasn't confident he wouldn't, either. You held steadfast and the facts have validated your assessment from the outset.
  25. 216 says:
    @MikeatMikedotMike
    If I were making a case for the state to be near the top of the list you'd have a point. But the state is last. Last. The Blago (the governor of Illinois, not Chicago) scandal alone should have kept it out of that spot.

    A lot of guys poo-poo'd my prediction that Smollet would never see jail time, including geniuses like Sailer and Jack D. Those guys are smart and know quite a bit about a lot of things, but I know the Chicago machine. The NYT avoiding coverage of Chicago's home state smacks of ChiMach influence. Corruption in Springfield is almost beyond comprehension and those involved don't even hide it very well.

    The fact that Cook County can dominate the state’s politics is an affront to the Constitutional notions of the “republican form of government”.

    West Virginia was for all intents and purposes illegally created. So there is precedent that downstate Illinois should be seperated by virtue of a “Restored Government of Illinois”.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restored_Government_of_Virginia

    • Agree: MikeatMikedotMike
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    West Virginia was for all intents and purposes illegally created.
     
    It was too white to have any legitimacy, then and now, right?


    This could have been done with the white counties of North Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia, and Tennessee, who hated the planters more than the did the Yankees, and thus often fought for the Union. We visited an ancestor's grave in Nashville's National Cemetery, and there were plenty of Tennessee men buried there, even though Confederates were barred from it and buried across the street in a private graveyard.

    It is huge, though, because Tennessee earned the sobriquet "Volunteer State", and was overrepresented in all the following wars.
  26. @MikeatMikedotMike
    If I were making a case for the state to be near the top of the list you'd have a point. But the state is last. Last. The Blago (the governor of Illinois, not Chicago) scandal alone should have kept it out of that spot.

    A lot of guys poo-poo'd my prediction that Smollet would never see jail time, including geniuses like Sailer and Jack D. Those guys are smart and know quite a bit about a lot of things, but I know the Chicago machine. The NYT avoiding coverage of Chicago's home state smacks of ChiMach influence. Corruption in Springfield is almost beyond comprehension and those involved don't even hide it very well.

    Why would the NYT be interested in corruption in state capitals other than Albany, Trenton, Hartford, and one or two others nearby? Springfield is halfway across flyover country the continent. Other papers cover it.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    Alaska received more mentions than New York (State) did, in the NYT. It was the 2nd most mentioned state. Think about that. Alaska. 2nd. That alone defies your theory.

    But I do wonder, what is so interesting about Alaska, starting in 2009, that the NYT mentions it more than its own state? It couldn't have anything to do with a certain hated former Republican governor of said state, who went on to be the face of an equally hated (and now defunct) rightish populist movement?

    To answer your question - A state governor on trial for corruption is national news. Blago was convicted of basically trying to sell President Obama's senate seat to the highest bidder.

    If you don't think the NYT would work deliberately to suppress a negative story related to Obama (think about it - any negative press out of Illinois during Obama's presidency would have raised questions about Obama's relationship to them; and we can't have that!) - because there's no way you'll ever convince me Obama wasn't aware of what was going on, and he was probably expecting a taste of the payout - then you have a faith in the US political/media system that I long ago lost.

    Again - I'm not saying Illinois should be at or even near the top of the list. But last? No fucking way unless by design.

  27. “First, the all-powerful cosmic overlords can’t push a simple resolution through the House and now this.”

    Well, they passed aid for Israel almost unanimously.

  28. @216
    The fact that Cook County can dominate the state's politics is an affront to the Constitutional notions of the "republican form of government".

    West Virginia was for all intents and purposes illegally created. So there is precedent that downstate Illinois should be seperated by virtue of a "Restored Government of Illinois".

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restored_Government_of_Virginia

    West Virginia was for all intents and purposes illegally created.

    It was too white to have any legitimacy, then and now, right?

    This could have been done with the white counties of North Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia, and Tennessee, who hated the planters more than the did the Yankees, and thus often fought for the Union. We visited an ancestor’s grave in Nashville’s National Cemetery, and there were plenty of Tennessee men buried there, even though Confederates were barred from it and buried across the street in a private graveyard.

    It is huge, though, because Tennessee earned the sobriquet “Volunteer State”, and was overrepresented in all the following wars.

  29. “Liberals don’t see Chicago as corrupt or lawless”

    Liberals must certainly be aware that conservatives have reported Chicago as both, so it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if the democrat mainstream media decided to bury the subject in response.

  30. Anon[412] • Disclaimer says:

    “Why would the NYT be interested in corruption in state capitals other than Albany, Trenton, Hartford, and one or two others nearby?”

    Couldn’t you claim the same of their foreign policy coverage? Billing yourself as the “Newspaper of Record” sorta obligates you to widen your focus a bit. In that light, their lack of coverage says almost as much as the focus of their coverage itself. NYT coverage of states and countries is fascinating as it potentially not only reveals what’s happening in the world but also elucidates what their SWPL customers are thinking. For example, I’d guess that MT and WY get excess coverage due to their national parks, and SWPL types loooove thinking of themselves as environmentalists; liberals may also be thinking of retiring or relocating there once they decide to flee California just as they did with Colorado before.

    Additionally, you’ll see that the South isn’t covered very much. Simply being far away from NYC isn’t an excuse as MT, WY, IA, KS, ND, and UT all get proportionately more coverage, and they are nearly equally far away. Prima facie, this is odd considering SPWL self-professed claims to care so much about the plight of black Americans, and even more so when you consider that blacks make up a significant fraction of the same voting base as a majority of NYT readers. I would posit the reason the South isn’t mentioned as much, as least in part, is due to the fact that it has lots of poor blacks and hypocritical Ben&Jerrys types don’t want to think of themselves as vacationing there or relocating there after they flee California or New York’s encroaching diversity. Florida probably doesn’t get as much coverage as you’d think because going to the beach is more of a middle-class thing and SPWLs love to imagine themselves as rich or culturally refined. That means environmentalism and outdoors or a big house next to a body of water far away from commoners (The Hamptons).

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  31. @Reg Cæsar
    Why would the NYT be interested in corruption in state capitals other than Albany, Trenton, Hartford, and one or two others nearby? Springfield is halfway across flyover country the continent. Other papers cover it.

    Alaska received more mentions than New York (State) did, in the NYT. It was the 2nd most mentioned state. Think about that. Alaska. 2nd. That alone defies your theory.

    But I do wonder, what is so interesting about Alaska, starting in 2009, that the NYT mentions it more than its own state? It couldn’t have anything to do with a certain hated former Republican governor of said state, who went on to be the face of an equally hated (and now defunct) rightish populist movement?

    To answer your question – A state governor on trial for corruption is national news. Blago was convicted of basically trying to sell President Obama’s senate seat to the highest bidder.

    If you don’t think the NYT would work deliberately to suppress a negative story related to Obama (think about it – any negative press out of Illinois during Obama’s presidency would have raised questions about Obama’s relationship to them; and we can’t have that!) – because there’s no way you’ll ever convince me Obama wasn’t aware of what was going on, and he was probably expecting a taste of the payout – then you have a faith in the US political/media system that I long ago lost.

    Again – I’m not saying Illinois should be at or even near the top of the list. But last? No fucking way unless by design.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    To answer your question – A state governor on trial for corruption is national news.
     
    In Illinois, corruption is not news. It is ambience.

    A trial, though, is unusual. Most of the small fish swim away scot-free.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Prior to Trump, I don't think any figure had as much vitriol poured on her by the corporate media than Sarah Palin did.
  32. Feryl says:
    @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    No, but the globalist forces are eyeing Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming as easy flips by moving just 50,000 Democrats into the state. This is six extra Senate seats once they turn blue.

    The stupid party doesn’t care about gettting it’s ass kicked. If they did care, they’d stop taking money from the neo-liberal mega donors who laid waste to the Rust-Belt (even Chuck Schumer voted against NAFTA in 1992).

    The Dems can always be relied on to put at least some effort into re-distributing resources from the rich/corporations to the underclass;the GOP can offer token support on cultural issues (on LGBT, abortion, guns, etc.) to cultural conservative whites but is utterly worthless on foreign policy issues and economic issues (when have the Reaganites ever done a damn thing to oppose stuff like Payday loans?).

    If it’s true that the GOP is too inept to hang onto even the interior West, than good riddance. This is a party that has proven, since the Reagan era, to be addicted to self-pity and paranoia when it comes to it’s failures to appeal to a broad mass of Americans (always blaming media, academia, etc.) (and BTW, the Clintonite Democrats are equally pathetic WRT denial about the broadly unpopular aspects of “woke” Reaganism).

    In the New Deal and Great Society era, both parties accepted accountability when they faltered, instead of retreating into delusions about “forces beyond their control” preventing more voters from voting for the “correct” party (and Americans to a man were, in the 1930’s-1970’s, less addicted to partisan crack).

  33. Feryl says:
    @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    No, but the globalist forces are eyeing Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming as easy flips by moving just 50,000 Democrats into the state. This is six extra Senate seats once they turn blue.

    Who gives a shit about the GOP? No, really; this is a party that places Israel ahead of America. Since the Reagan era we’ve plowed tons of resources into an increasingly decadent Pentagon establishment, and managed to find dumber and dumber ways to start shit in other countries and needlessly damage the lives of our personnel.

    America is way overdue for a house cleaning, which is what Trump was supposed to do (Trump called out the free traders, the neo-cons, etc. for being the worthless traitors that they are). But since Reagan, the GOP when it gets into the White House invariably manages to make our foreign policy and our economy even more unhealthy. I’m very concerned that another term for Trump could lead to disastrous “intervention” in say, Venezuela. I mean, we have to go back to, like, Nixon I guess(?) in terms of a full presidency not being involved in totally moronic meddling.

    GW Bush really is the worst president we’ve had over the last 40 years, on account of foreign policy alone. It would be tough for Trump to do worse than that, but anything is possible. It does seem like Iran and Russia flexing their muscle in the MENA have discouraged the neo-cons a bit, but lest anyone gets the idea that the Pentagon is “getting soft”, we just might get lots of Latin American mischief instead ala the Reagan admin sponsoring tons of coups and death squads in the 1980’s (which destablized the region and sent tons of Latin Americans Northward to the US). But perhaps, unlike Reagan’s reluctance to actually send sustained US combat forces to the Southern hemisphere, today’s generation of retarded military/foreign policy elites might actually send a large occupying force into say, Venezuela, with which to fend off repeated attempts by Venezuelans to kick the damn imperialists out.

    There’s no question that the America Empire is teetering on collapse, but at what point can our “leaders” shake their delusions about Pax Americana?

  34. Feryl says:
    @216
    Not everything can be so easily chucked over to white liberal in-migration. This is a typical cheap shot that Westerners make. There's been a major shift in upper-middle class voters since 1988, observable in the entire Western world. Absent anti-communism, the UMC has no real tie to social conservatism that impinges on their lifestyle habits.

    The GOP has actually improved ('04 vs '16) in legacy Hispanic Southern Colorado, a sort of Appalachian-like Rockies. Moving the party leftward on fiscal policy might consolidate these gains.

    Most conservatives are loath to blame "responsible" middle class white/Asian voters as the source of their troubles. Boomers are particularly ignorant to the fact that evangelical is basically a perjorative for those under 30.

    Absent anti-communism, the UMC has no real tie to social conservatism that impinges on their lifestyle habits.”

    Elites have never been culturally conservative; it’s more that in wholesome eras, they respect the conservatism of working class voters. Certainly among Europeans, it’s been the case that the wealthy cosmopolitans often feel more kinship with foreign elites than they do with their lower class co-nationals. But this doesn’t become a serious problem unless we are in a climate of arrogance, corruption, and decadence, when elites become stridently against the values of the working class.

    “Not everything can be so easily chucked over to white liberal in-migration. This is a typical cheap shot that Westerners make.”

    I guess that people in the Western US are socialized to be paranoid and anti-social, so that every problem affecting your community/your life can be attributed to some group of interlopers (who just happen to be BadWhites, ideological aliens and enemies). I think that people in the Eastern US are better at understanding the overall failings of humanity, not in a nihilistic sense (since Western US culture is more nihilistic) but in a pragmatic and modest sense (e.g., we’ve all let ourselves down, we can’t act like it’s just one particular group who’ve failed us).

    Millennials and Gen Z from the Western US might as well be from outer space. The Western US was kept in check during the New Deal era (Californian Nixon, off the record, said that societies in decline invariably allow homosexuals to have too much power), but has re-embraced it’s outlaw/frontier mentality since the Carter era.

    • Replies: @216

    Elites have never been culturally conservative; it’s more that in wholesome eras, they respect the conservatism of working class voters.
     
    I don't really see it that way. UMC and elites tend to have far lower rates of out-of-wedlock births. They are more pro-feminist on paper than the working class, but that's in part because they have the lower time preference to benefit from two incomes.

    I think that people in the Eastern US are better at understanding the overall failings of humanity, not in a nihilistic sense (since Western US culture is more nihilistic) but in a pragmatic and modest sense (e.g., we’ve all let ourselves down, we can’t act like it’s just one particular group who’ve failed us).
     
    Do you notice a regional divergence in acculturation among immigrants? The Asian and Hispanic Dem congressmen elected from the East do seem more pragmatic than the odious Ted Lieu and Pramila Jayapal from the West Coast. (otoh, as foreign Dems go, I do admire Ro Khanna for not being a total shill for the Silicon Dons, and showing a willigness to cooperate with non-interventionist GOP reps)
  35. 216 says:
    @Feryl
    Absent anti-communism, the UMC has no real tie to social conservatism that impinges on their lifestyle habits."

    Elites have never been culturally conservative; it's more that in wholesome eras, they respect the conservatism of working class voters. Certainly among Europeans, it's been the case that the wealthy cosmopolitans often feel more kinship with foreign elites than they do with their lower class co-nationals. But this doesn't become a serious problem unless we are in a climate of arrogance, corruption, and decadence, when elites become stridently against the values of the working class.

    "Not everything can be so easily chucked over to white liberal in-migration. This is a typical cheap shot that Westerners make."

    I guess that people in the Western US are socialized to be paranoid and anti-social, so that every problem affecting your community/your life can be attributed to some group of interlopers (who just happen to be BadWhites, ideological aliens and enemies). I think that people in the Eastern US are better at understanding the overall failings of humanity, not in a nihilistic sense (since Western US culture is more nihilistic) but in a pragmatic and modest sense (e.g., we've all let ourselves down, we can't act like it's just one particular group who've failed us).

    Millennials and Gen Z from the Western US might as well be from outer space. The Western US was kept in check during the New Deal era (Californian Nixon, off the record, said that societies in decline invariably allow homosexuals to have too much power), but has re-embraced it's outlaw/frontier mentality since the Carter era.

    Elites have never been culturally conservative; it’s more that in wholesome eras, they respect the conservatism of working class voters.

    I don’t really see it that way. UMC and elites tend to have far lower rates of out-of-wedlock births. They are more pro-feminist on paper than the working class, but that’s in part because they have the lower time preference to benefit from two incomes.

    I think that people in the Eastern US are better at understanding the overall failings of humanity, not in a nihilistic sense (since Western US culture is more nihilistic) but in a pragmatic and modest sense (e.g., we’ve all let ourselves down, we can’t act like it’s just one particular group who’ve failed us).

    Do you notice a regional divergence in acculturation among immigrants? The Asian and Hispanic Dem congressmen elected from the East do seem more pragmatic than the odious Ted Lieu and Pramila Jayapal from the West Coast. (otoh, as foreign Dems go, I do admire Ro Khanna for not being a total shill for the Silicon Dons, and showing a willigness to cooperate with non-interventionist GOP reps)

    • Replies: @Feryl
    "I don’t really see it that way. UMC and elites tend to have far lower rates of out-of-wedlock births. They are more pro-feminist on paper than the working class, but that’s in part because they have the lower time preference to benefit from two incomes. "

    We're talking about stated values, not actual behavior. The intelligent and privileged class* behaves well (with the exception of apparently higher levels of infidelity), but that is precisely why they are so cavalier about many social issues (they themselves have never been to jail or had a drug addiction, nor have they known that many people who struggle with these issues, so thus, they have a more libertarian attitude about things).

    On a similar level, people were most hostile toward drugs in the 1980's and early 90's, precisely because so many people's lives had been ruined in the 70's and 80's by poor behavior.

    Remember that if, say, 30-40% of the population had seriously struggled with substance abuse, it therefore follows that 60-70% of people would likely know some people who got burned by drugs/alcohol abuse; so many people would have a personal reason for passionately opposing drugs. Since Millennials and Gen Z don't do drugs (because they saw it what it did to their parents), society no longer feels much urgency to speak out against drugs. That's why the libertarian morons always say that the War on Drugs was a failure; they willfully distort or ignore the youth culture of the 70's and 80's which sparked the War on Drugs in the first place.

    As our culture slips further into decadance, elites no longer are able or willing to understand that they need to do more to encourage cultural and economic stability, out of duty to the lower class. Here we see that in wholesome times, the authorities look out for people, but in corrupt times, it's dog-eat-dog and the elites get to enjoy success while the "losers" end up homeless, in jail, on drugs, etc. In the New Deal and Great Society era, middle aged and elderly elites were against homosexuality, gambling, drunken sleaze, drugs, etc. But by circa 1980, even as many normies became hostile to the nihilistic youth culture of the period, our elites began to permit gambling, gay sex clubs, etc. Drug abuse was so self-evidently terrible, +we still had GI and Silent elites who weren't perverted, so we did manage to get the War on Drugs going in the 80's. But for the most part, since 1980 we've asked Boomers, X-ers, and Millennials to "find their own way" in a chaotic and Darwinist culture, that's been getting worse with each passing decade (as we can tell from the mortgage debacle of the 2000's).

    Since lower class people are much more likely to be homeless, incarcerated, addicted to drugs etc., it stands to reason that they are the ones most opposed to social Darwinism, making them socially conservative and economically liberal. It's indicative of a corrupt era that elites pretend to act dumb as to why they can do well while so many others fail. It's not just from a "lack of hard work", but rather, because society has failed in it's duty to protect the lower classes.

    *not counting air-heads who married into the elite

    , @Feryl
    "Do you notice a regional divergence in acculturation among immigrants? The Asian and Hispanic Dem congressmen elected from the East do seem more pragmatic than the odious Ted Lieu and Pramila Jayapal from the West Coast. (otoh, as foreign Dems go, I do admire Ro Khanna for not being a total shill for the Silicon Dons, and showing a willigness to cooperate with non-interventionist GOP reps)"

    Well, sure; the Western US from day one was more opposed to Trumpism, regardless of the ethnic origins involved. California voted the most passionately against Trump (he even did poorly among white voters in the state). One of Bill Clinton's 1990's era econ. advisors said that Trump won due to his support among Midwestern and Northeastern working class voters*. Southern and especially Western voters acted as if it was a normal election, with the obvious exception of California being really motivated to vote against Trump.

    *The GOP's performance among working class voters in the Northeast and Midwest was much better in 2016 than it was in 2012; this dynamic was less pronounced in the South and West.

    Why do Adam Schiff, Maxine Waters, etc. act so hostile to Trump? Because Trump is legitimately hated, passionately so, in California. They are playing to their local base, not caring about what normies elsewhere think.

    Now the funny thing, of course, is that many Trump voters don't feel that invested in Trump, either. But the thing is, the early Trump haters hate him for his "mean" temperament and his early anti-globalist stance, and the anti-Trumpers on the Left have never wavered. Whereas Rust-belters made their vote based on anti-globalism, but many have since judged Trump to be unsatisfactory.

    There are four tiers of people since the '16 election:

    1)Republican die hards who embraced Trump early and will never let him go, "Trump is the new Reagan"(about 20-30% of the population)
    2)Republican die hards who hated Trump early but have since adopted him, but might try and primary him out (10-15% of the population, but rather common among the GOP elite)
    3) Leftist zealots of all kinds who show no willingness to give any quarter to Trump (even in the even of a national crisis, like the one we are seeing on the border now). 40-50% of the population/
    4) Moderates and pragmatists who either didn't vote, or voted for Trump, but are now disappointed that Trump didn't fulfil all of his anti-globalist ideas. 20-30% of the population.

    Since Leftists and moderates form the majority of the electorate*, the 2020 election hinges on the Democrats fielding a candidate who won't alienate the substantial number of moderates. In fact, a "good" scenario could be lots of moderates staying home, since an extremely obnoxious Dem candidate could motivate moderates to show up and vote against the Dem, instead of for the Republican. "Negative" voting was already apparent in 2016, anyway.

    *Saying that America is 1/2 red and 1/2 blue is a bald-faced lie. Most Republican die-hards are disproportionately rural, older, and religious, so it's true that they can punch above their weight electorally but the click is ticking on their power, just not as fast as the media or liberals would have you believe. Die-hard Leftists tend to be younger, urban, and educated; research indicates that late Gen X-ers, Millennials, and Gen Z are not showing many signs of moving away from the Dems, which is terrifying GOP demographers (who once saw Silents and Boomers move dramatically toward the GOP in the 80's and 90's**). Being non-partisan/moderate/apolitical does describe about 20-30% of the population; the "purple" faction, I suppose. But since this demographic is the lowest income, and does the least amount of donating and voting, they are generally ignored, although Trump was able to win precisely by motivating these people to show up.

    **The GOP counts on people aging into affluent caretakers of families and large outer suburban/rural properties; people born since the mid-70's, however, are delaying marriage, not having many kids, and not piling up the money that makes voting for the cut the taxes on rich people party attractive).
  36. Feryl says:
    @216

    Elites have never been culturally conservative; it’s more that in wholesome eras, they respect the conservatism of working class voters.
     
    I don't really see it that way. UMC and elites tend to have far lower rates of out-of-wedlock births. They are more pro-feminist on paper than the working class, but that's in part because they have the lower time preference to benefit from two incomes.

    I think that people in the Eastern US are better at understanding the overall failings of humanity, not in a nihilistic sense (since Western US culture is more nihilistic) but in a pragmatic and modest sense (e.g., we’ve all let ourselves down, we can’t act like it’s just one particular group who’ve failed us).
     
    Do you notice a regional divergence in acculturation among immigrants? The Asian and Hispanic Dem congressmen elected from the East do seem more pragmatic than the odious Ted Lieu and Pramila Jayapal from the West Coast. (otoh, as foreign Dems go, I do admire Ro Khanna for not being a total shill for the Silicon Dons, and showing a willigness to cooperate with non-interventionist GOP reps)

    “I don’t really see it that way. UMC and elites tend to have far lower rates of out-of-wedlock births. They are more pro-feminist on paper than the working class, but that’s in part because they have the lower time preference to benefit from two incomes. ”

    We’re talking about stated values, not actual behavior. The intelligent and privileged class* behaves well (with the exception of apparently higher levels of infidelity), but that is precisely why they are so cavalier about many social issues (they themselves have never been to jail or had a drug addiction, nor have they known that many people who struggle with these issues, so thus, they have a more libertarian attitude about things).

    On a similar level, people were most hostile toward drugs in the 1980’s and early 90’s, precisely because so many people’s lives had been ruined in the 70’s and 80’s by poor behavior.

    Remember that if, say, 30-40% of the population had seriously struggled with substance abuse, it therefore follows that 60-70% of people would likely know some people who got burned by drugs/alcohol abuse; so many people would have a personal reason for passionately opposing drugs. Since Millennials and Gen Z don’t do drugs (because they saw it what it did to their parents), society no longer feels much urgency to speak out against drugs. That’s why the libertarian morons always say that the War on Drugs was a failure; they willfully distort or ignore the youth culture of the 70’s and 80’s which sparked the War on Drugs in the first place.

    As our culture slips further into decadance, elites no longer are able or willing to understand that they need to do more to encourage cultural and economic stability, out of duty to the lower class. Here we see that in wholesome times, the authorities look out for people, but in corrupt times, it’s dog-eat-dog and the elites get to enjoy success while the “losers” end up homeless, in jail, on drugs, etc. In the New Deal and Great Society era, middle aged and elderly elites were against homosexuality, gambling, drunken sleaze, drugs, etc. But by circa 1980, even as many normies became hostile to the nihilistic youth culture of the period, our elites began to permit gambling, gay sex clubs, etc. Drug abuse was so self-evidently terrible, +we still had GI and Silent elites who weren’t perverted, so we did manage to get the War on Drugs going in the 80’s. But for the most part, since 1980 we’ve asked Boomers, X-ers, and Millennials to “find their own way” in a chaotic and Darwinist culture, that’s been getting worse with each passing decade (as we can tell from the mortgage debacle of the 2000’s).

    Since lower class people are much more likely to be homeless, incarcerated, addicted to drugs etc., it stands to reason that they are the ones most opposed to social Darwinism, making them socially conservative and economically liberal. It’s indicative of a corrupt era that elites pretend to act dumb as to why they can do well while so many others fail. It’s not just from a “lack of hard work”, but rather, because society has failed in it’s duty to protect the lower classes.

    *not counting air-heads who married into the elite

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Increasing the share of the non-white population has made it easy for elites to lazily state how much they care about POC without having to pay attention to them or to lower class whites. It allows elites to maintain a static outlook irrespective of what is actually happening on the ground. That outlook is that POC are oppressed by systemic racism and thus are always deserving of reverence while whites who aren't at least comfortably middle class are losers who have it coming.
  37. @MikeatMikedotMike
    Alaska received more mentions than New York (State) did, in the NYT. It was the 2nd most mentioned state. Think about that. Alaska. 2nd. That alone defies your theory.

    But I do wonder, what is so interesting about Alaska, starting in 2009, that the NYT mentions it more than its own state? It couldn't have anything to do with a certain hated former Republican governor of said state, who went on to be the face of an equally hated (and now defunct) rightish populist movement?

    To answer your question - A state governor on trial for corruption is national news. Blago was convicted of basically trying to sell President Obama's senate seat to the highest bidder.

    If you don't think the NYT would work deliberately to suppress a negative story related to Obama (think about it - any negative press out of Illinois during Obama's presidency would have raised questions about Obama's relationship to them; and we can't have that!) - because there's no way you'll ever convince me Obama wasn't aware of what was going on, and he was probably expecting a taste of the payout - then you have a faith in the US political/media system that I long ago lost.

    Again - I'm not saying Illinois should be at or even near the top of the list. But last? No fucking way unless by design.

    To answer your question – A state governor on trial for corruption is national news.

    In Illinois, corruption is not news. It is ambience.

    A trial, though, is unusual. Most of the small fish swim away scot-free.

  38. Feryl says:
    @216

    Elites have never been culturally conservative; it’s more that in wholesome eras, they respect the conservatism of working class voters.
     
    I don't really see it that way. UMC and elites tend to have far lower rates of out-of-wedlock births. They are more pro-feminist on paper than the working class, but that's in part because they have the lower time preference to benefit from two incomes.

    I think that people in the Eastern US are better at understanding the overall failings of humanity, not in a nihilistic sense (since Western US culture is more nihilistic) but in a pragmatic and modest sense (e.g., we’ve all let ourselves down, we can’t act like it’s just one particular group who’ve failed us).
     
    Do you notice a regional divergence in acculturation among immigrants? The Asian and Hispanic Dem congressmen elected from the East do seem more pragmatic than the odious Ted Lieu and Pramila Jayapal from the West Coast. (otoh, as foreign Dems go, I do admire Ro Khanna for not being a total shill for the Silicon Dons, and showing a willigness to cooperate with non-interventionist GOP reps)

    “Do you notice a regional divergence in acculturation among immigrants? The Asian and Hispanic Dem congressmen elected from the East do seem more pragmatic than the odious Ted Lieu and Pramila Jayapal from the West Coast. (otoh, as foreign Dems go, I do admire Ro Khanna for not being a total shill for the Silicon Dons, and showing a willigness to cooperate with non-interventionist GOP reps)”

    Well, sure; the Western US from day one was more opposed to Trumpism, regardless of the ethnic origins involved. California voted the most passionately against Trump (he even did poorly among white voters in the state). One of Bill Clinton’s 1990’s era econ. advisors said that Trump won due to his support among Midwestern and Northeastern working class voters*. Southern and especially Western voters acted as if it was a normal election, with the obvious exception of California being really motivated to vote against Trump.

    *The GOP’s performance among working class voters in the Northeast and Midwest was much better in 2016 than it was in 2012; this dynamic was less pronounced in the South and West.

    Why do Adam Schiff, Maxine Waters, etc. act so hostile to Trump? Because Trump is legitimately hated, passionately so, in California. They are playing to their local base, not caring about what normies elsewhere think.

    Now the funny thing, of course, is that many Trump voters don’t feel that invested in Trump, either. But the thing is, the early Trump haters hate him for his “mean” temperament and his early anti-globalist stance, and the anti-Trumpers on the Left have never wavered. Whereas Rust-belters made their vote based on anti-globalism, but many have since judged Trump to be unsatisfactory.

    There are four tiers of people since the ’16 election:

    1)Republican die hards who embraced Trump early and will never let him go, “Trump is the new Reagan”(about 20-30% of the population)
    2)Republican die hards who hated Trump early but have since adopted him, but might try and primary him out (10-15% of the population, but rather common among the GOP elite)
    3) Leftist zealots of all kinds who show no willingness to give any quarter to Trump (even in the even of a national crisis, like the one we are seeing on the border now). 40-50% of the population/
    4) Moderates and pragmatists who either didn’t vote, or voted for Trump, but are now disappointed that Trump didn’t fulfil all of his anti-globalist ideas. 20-30% of the population.

    Since Leftists and moderates form the majority of the electorate*, the 2020 election hinges on the Democrats fielding a candidate who won’t alienate the substantial number of moderates. In fact, a “good” scenario could be lots of moderates staying home, since an extremely obnoxious Dem candidate could motivate moderates to show up and vote against the Dem, instead of for the Republican. “Negative” voting was already apparent in 2016, anyway.

    *Saying that America is 1/2 red and 1/2 blue is a bald-faced lie. Most Republican die-hards are disproportionately rural, older, and religious, so it’s true that they can punch above their weight electorally but the click is ticking on their power, just not as fast as the media or liberals would have you believe. Die-hard Leftists tend to be younger, urban, and educated; research indicates that late Gen X-ers, Millennials, and Gen Z are not showing many signs of moving away from the Dems, which is terrifying GOP demographers (who once saw Silents and Boomers move dramatically toward the GOP in the 80’s and 90’s**). Being non-partisan/moderate/apolitical does describe about 20-30% of the population; the “purple” faction, I suppose. But since this demographic is the lowest income, and does the least amount of donating and voting, they are generally ignored, although Trump was able to win precisely by motivating these people to show up.

    **The GOP counts on people aging into affluent caretakers of families and large outer suburban/rural properties; people born since the mid-70’s, however, are delaying marriage, not having many kids, and not piling up the money that makes voting for the cut the taxes on rich people party attractive).

  39. SimpleJack won’t ban this hate

    https://twitter.com/sairasameerarao/status/1125114819005296643

    Hey Boomercons,

    Those hard working LEGAL immigrants hate what you are.

    Saira,

    You have to go back

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    More of her, please.

    Give me Sarah Huckabee Sanders any day over these ACLU-loving, Trump-hating, New Yorker-devouring marching-day-and-night liberals.There is a special place in hell for you. Don’t worry, they serve green juice there.— saira rao (@sairasameerarao) May 5, 2019
     
  40. O/T

    Polls, Canada

    http://angusreid.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/2019.05.02_Federal_May_2019.pdf

    Take a look at the gender chasm here. Women 18-34 only register 10% for the weaksauce Conservative Party.

    Women have replaced God and man with Woke and the state.

    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    That's because most 18-34 women in Canada have been thoroughly brainwashed. They have never faced any real hardship, nor have they every worked a real job. They have gone from High School, to uni to get a communications degree, and now they work in Toronto doing career things at a company for 50k/year. Keep in mind this cohort includes a very healthy dose of non-white women. The brown girls seem to love the poz even more than white women. Yay assimilation!

    However, I don't find those numbers too interesting. Most of those women won't vote anyways. Until they get married and have kids, they will remain leftist as anything.

    What *is* interesting, is the strong 9% PPC showing among 18-34 men. The PPC is run by Maxime Bernier, who is pledging to reduce legal immigration and fight for traditional western values. Check out his Twitter feed for more info. The fact that his largest demographic is by far and away young men is very interesting. Combine that with a 28% showing for the Conservatives, and this is a really good sign for the right wing in Canada.

    I know a total of 37% going to the right wing parties doesn't seem great, but you have to take into account just how bad the brainwashing is. So I say 37% is great.

    Trudeau is likely to be out, and a rising PPC is going to keep the Conservatives on their toes. Beware of moving too far into the center. This election season will be very interesting, as I believe Canadians are fed up with the amount of non-white invaders in this country - even if most won't admit it.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Some silver lining in the strong support for People's Party among young men. Will that continue to grow?
  41. @216
    O/T

    Polls, Canada

    http://angusreid.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/2019.05.02_Federal_May_2019.pdf

    Take a look at the gender chasm here. Women 18-34 only register 10% for the weaksauce Conservative Party.

    Women have replaced God and man with Woke and the state.

    That’s because most 18-34 women in Canada have been thoroughly brainwashed. They have never faced any real hardship, nor have they every worked a real job. They have gone from High School, to uni to get a communications degree, and now they work in Toronto doing career things at a company for 50k/year. Keep in mind this cohort includes a very healthy dose of non-white women. The brown girls seem to love the poz even more than white women. Yay assimilation!

    However, I don’t find those numbers too interesting. Most of those women won’t vote anyways. Until they get married and have kids, they will remain leftist as anything.

    What *is* interesting, is the strong 9% PPC showing among 18-34 men. The PPC is run by Maxime Bernier, who is pledging to reduce legal immigration and fight for traditional western values. Check out his Twitter feed for more info. The fact that his largest demographic is by far and away young men is very interesting. Combine that with a 28% showing for the Conservatives, and this is a really good sign for the right wing in Canada.

    I know a total of 37% going to the right wing parties doesn’t seem great, but you have to take into account just how bad the brainwashing is. So I say 37% is great.

    Trudeau is likely to be out, and a rising PPC is going to keep the Conservatives on their toes. Beware of moving too far into the center. This election season will be very interesting, as I believe Canadians are fed up with the amount of non-white invaders in this country – even if most won’t admit it.

    • Replies: @216
    That poll was one of the better results for the Conservatives, it has the lowest showing for Trudeau of any poll listed on Wiki. The other polls that week have a range of LIB 27-32, which could possibly mean that Trudeau hangs on as a minority government, or an NDP coalition (yikes!).

    Green cult has taken on in a major way with younger (urban) women, who often have the least contact with nature.

    Further down the poll, it showed that Green voting was highest in the Maritimes and lower income voters. That's odd, perhaps your Greens won't be as insane as the OZ or German Greens, considering that your two leftist parites are bereft of any (white) social conservatives.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Wrote the previous comment before I read this so obviously disregard.
  42. 216 says:
    @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    That's because most 18-34 women in Canada have been thoroughly brainwashed. They have never faced any real hardship, nor have they every worked a real job. They have gone from High School, to uni to get a communications degree, and now they work in Toronto doing career things at a company for 50k/year. Keep in mind this cohort includes a very healthy dose of non-white women. The brown girls seem to love the poz even more than white women. Yay assimilation!

    However, I don't find those numbers too interesting. Most of those women won't vote anyways. Until they get married and have kids, they will remain leftist as anything.

    What *is* interesting, is the strong 9% PPC showing among 18-34 men. The PPC is run by Maxime Bernier, who is pledging to reduce legal immigration and fight for traditional western values. Check out his Twitter feed for more info. The fact that his largest demographic is by far and away young men is very interesting. Combine that with a 28% showing for the Conservatives, and this is a really good sign for the right wing in Canada.

    I know a total of 37% going to the right wing parties doesn't seem great, but you have to take into account just how bad the brainwashing is. So I say 37% is great.

    Trudeau is likely to be out, and a rising PPC is going to keep the Conservatives on their toes. Beware of moving too far into the center. This election season will be very interesting, as I believe Canadians are fed up with the amount of non-white invaders in this country - even if most won't admit it.

    That poll was one of the better results for the Conservatives, it has the lowest showing for Trudeau of any poll listed on Wiki. The other polls that week have a range of LIB 27-32, which could possibly mean that Trudeau hangs on as a minority government, or an NDP coalition (yikes!).

    Green cult has taken on in a major way with younger (urban) women, who often have the least contact with nature.

    Further down the poll, it showed that Green voting was highest in the Maritimes and lower income voters. That’s odd, perhaps your Greens won’t be as insane as the OZ or German Greens, considering that your two leftist parites are bereft of any (white) social conservatives.

  43. @J1234
    Ask 1000 Nebraskans what state Yonkers is in. Some won't know, but many will.

    Then ask 1000 New Yorkers what state Grand Island is in.

    Both cities are ranked the same within their respective states in terms of pop., yet New Yorkers generally feel they know a lot more about flyover country than vice versa. This is the sort of mythology they often surround themselves with, particularly if they're leftists. I was in a truck stop when two elderly people (Jews, I presume...pretty confidently) on a road trip from the east coast walked in. They saw all the tall people in cowboy hats and shook their heads. "Such a red state!" one of them declared. For all of their education and intelligence, I'm sure they didn't see the caricature of themselves that they created.

    Which is funny because per Haidt’s moral dimensions, those on the right tend to be much better at articulating a version of the left’s perspective in a way that resembles the way those on the left themselves would articulate it than those on the left are able to articulate the way the right views things.

    Those on the right have all the moral dimensions those on the left do, they just don’t put as much emphasis on them. The left, however, is missing moral dimensions that the right has. This leads to the right understanding where the left is coming from but thinking they tend to take things too far while the left genuinely can’t understand the right and just thinks it’s evil.

  44. @MikeatMikedotMike
    If I were making a case for the state to be near the top of the list you'd have a point. But the state is last. Last. The Blago (the governor of Illinois, not Chicago) scandal alone should have kept it out of that spot.

    A lot of guys poo-poo'd my prediction that Smollet would never see jail time, including geniuses like Sailer and Jack D. Those guys are smart and know quite a bit about a lot of things, but I know the Chicago machine. The NYT avoiding coverage of Chicago's home state smacks of ChiMach influence. Corruption in Springfield is almost beyond comprehension and those involved don't even hide it very well.

    Well done on the Smollett prediction. I wasn’t confident he would see jail time, but I wasn’t confident he wouldn’t, either. You held steadfast and the facts have validated your assessment from the outset.

  45. anon[732] • Disclaimer says:

    “Those on the right have all the moral dimensions those on the left do, they just don’t put as much emphasis on them. The left, however, is missing moral dimensions that the right has.”

    That sounds a bit like psychopathy to me, or maybe something closely akin to it: an evolved parasitic or predatory social strategy. The Right are consensus-building pragmatists in social settings. That requires an understanding of how others think and feel – empathy. In contrast, the Left are predators who advance themselves through exploiting others – Machiavellianism, serial lying, tribalism, and iconoclasm. The only good thing here is that the Left are breeding themselves out the population; they could be dramatically reduced in numbers over the next half century.

    The bad thing is that technology is letting an ever fewer number of people control the means of information distribution. The future could very well end up as Eloi and Morlock – predator and prey. This is why the Right has historically needed strong governments like monarchy to rule them: they are incapable of degrading themselves morally to compete with the psychopathic Left, so they need a strong man (a right-wing SJW) monarch to put the sword to their enemies on their behalf, to do what they can’t bring themselves to do.

    “Ben&Jerrys types don’t want to think of themselves as vacationing there or relocating there after they flee California or New York’s encroaching diversity.”

    You’ll also notice that Vermont gets a lot of coverage. That’s because SWPL types vacation in Vermont to see the leaves change (code for escaping inner city minorities). Not coincidentally, Bernie Sanders moved from diverse NY to Vermont as it started getting racially diverse, IIRC. And Ben & Jerry’s is located there as well. Strange. You’d think that morally superior liberals would move their company to a place like Flint, Michigan and give poor minorities jobs. It guess it’s easier to put diverse people on your ice cream carton than it is to actually care enough to do something for them. It’s almost like these people are being disingenuous or something. Like I said, “Machiavellianism, serial lying, tribalism, and iconoclasm.”

    “Leftist zealots of all kinds who show no willingness to give any quarter to Trump (even in the even of a national crisis, like the one we are seeing on the border now). 40-50% of the population.”

    I wouldn’t go quite that far. The number of Leftist WHITE zealots is probably much smaller. That 40-50% is boosted by minorities who likely aren’t as SJW socially. Immigration has been particularly bad for the United States because it has empowered radical white religious left zealots through a large and growing block of voters who prioritize racial affiliation over ideology. It’s Reagan’s “A rising tide lifts all boats” except applied to elections: radical reds are empowered by a rising tide of racialist browns and, especially, blacks.*

    *Oh, what could have been. If blacks had been shipped back to Africa after the Civil War or never imported to begin with, race relations would be much better in the United States. We could probably even handle something akin to open borders for decades considering non-black demographics and the fact that a non-trivial number of Hispanics vote republican – impressive considering how inept and corrupt the GOP is.

    “Trump did poorly among white Californians.”

    There are reasons for this, as you write. But it goes beyond simple economics and culture, I think:

    1) Californian whites are a shrinking minority and, as such, they probably don’t want to be the target of reprisals by the majority; therefore, they advertise that they are on the POC side so they’ll be left alone. Since republicans can never again win California due to racial demographics, game theory suggests the optimal strategy in this situation is to ally with the ruling group. This explains why Muslims are quieter in India than in Muslim-dominated countries and why Southern Jews pre-Leo Frank were amenable to the local Southern culture: there was/is a large majority of non-minorities who’ll squash you should you ally against them.

    This also explains why both Asians and Jews will never majority vote republican, despite the efforts of civnats like Steve Sailer and IQ nationalists like Jared Taylor or Boomercons like Trump and Conservatism Inc. There will be no Jewexit. Both groups see that whites are shrinking in numbers (real and relative) and are concomitantly reduced in power; they will soon be cut out of power entirely, so it is foolish to cast your lot with a sinking ship. Both groups will continue signaling that they are on the POC coalition side so they won’t face reprisals when POC take over. Ironically, more lower-IQ Hispanics probably voted republican than either of those groups (less future time orientation ability than Asians and Jews who see what’s coming but also more testosterone and less racial meekness and greater rivalry with blacks, too).

    2) California has lost a huge number of middle-class whites since 1980 or so. I wouldn’t be surprised if 500,000 – 1,000,000 net middle-class whites had left the state by now. That has certainly worsened white performance there. The remaining whites either don’t want to be the target of reprisals by the ruling democrat coalition or they tend to be upper-class and geographically disconnected in rich, closed-off areas.

    Also, Californian Asians tend to be more odious because they are on the right side of history (0r want to be) per demographics. Not only can they get away with bad behavior, but they also want to protect themselves by being openly against the POC enemies: whites. On the other hand, East Coast Asians might still be the subject of reprisals should they become openly racists against whites. This is why East Coast Asians are not only more moderate but are much better liked by nearly all racial groups.

    As an aside, this might partly explain why Asians are underrepresented in Hollywood, despite whites having a much higher opinion of them overall compared with blacks. West Coast Asians tend to be more odious, pushy and racist toward normie white movie producers and writers, so they don’t cast them in roles or write for them even though whites as a whole like them and their culture much better than they like blacks. I have long advocated replacing uncomfortable black actors in movies with amenable Asians. If Hollywood relocated a couple of studios to the East Coast, you’d probably see more Asians in your movies, television and video games because the toxic culture of racial identity politics is different there – black versus normie white and not everyone versus all whites.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    I guess it’s easier to put diverse people on your ice cream carton than it is to actually care enough to do something for them.

    Ha!
    , @UrbaneFrancoOntarian

    Both groups see that whites are shrinking in numbers (real and relative) and are concomitantly reduced in power; they will soon be cut out of power entirely, so it is foolish to cast your lot with a sinking ship.
     
    I've witnessed this with my own 2 eyes in the past several years. I've seen brown people and Asian people go from friendly and normal just like us, to forming their own ethnic enclaves and trying to take over.

    This comes as Trudeau sneakily admits over one million people into the country per year. They go whatever way the wind is blowing.

    Non-whites are not your friend, no matter how much it seems like it. I'm constantly warning Boomercons about this threat. Yes, they're nice to you now, because you're in control and in the majority. That will not be the case when your numbers shrink. Unfortunately, racial nepotism is a concept that Boomers can't grasp. So we'll wait for them to die off and then have a real mess to clean up.

    It's very frustrating. I see it first hand, at the 70% non-white universities. I tell the Boomers - your friendly neighborhood minorities in the 80% white area are just biding their time until they take over. Don't be fooled. I see the future of the country in the present, given my circumstances, and it's not pretty.
    , @Feryl
    Caucasians (but especially Jewish ones*) find Asians to be culturally and intellectually threatening; see the now notorious anti-Asian policies pursued by the Ivy League. Talented tenth blacks are charming to white liberals, but do not represent any sort of commercial or cultural threat. American white elites want to have a token representation of most kinds of POC in the elite, but they are terrified of large numbers of Asians who are perceived to be smart, hardworking, but also boring and rather sneaky.

    White American elites want to pat a handful of POC on the head, not have the whole culture of certain classes/industries be altered beyond recognition by Asian drones. Of course, it's too late to "save" the tech industry, but academia and entertainment are still stubbornly insistent on keeping whites and blacks ahead of everyone else. There's also a fear that Asians, as others have noted, are both unique and competent, which means that they have no desire to respect or preserve the culture created by Caucasians with some African and Mesizo input, since Asian culture works pretty well.

    *Asian fetishes aren't unheard of among blonde gentiles (the most stoic Europeans), but are essentially non-existent among extroverted Jews.
    , @Feryl
    Ironically, more lower-IQ Hispanics probably voted republican than either of those groups (less future time orientation ability than Asians and Jews who see what’s coming but also more testosterone and less racial meekness and greater rivalry with blacks, too)."

    I seem to recall reading somewhere that East Asian males actually have higher levels of testosterone than Europeans. Though they do have, of course, smaller frames on average. The human ethnic group most notorious for being spindly and nerdy is.....Dot Indians. East Asians actually have a respected culture of martial arts, combat sports are horrifically bloody in the Orient, pro wrestling is popular in Japan, ninja movies and toys were big in the West during the 80's and early 90's. Introversion is not the same thing as poor athleticism or meekness.

    Jews do seem to be rather nerdy, though. And Hispanics are rather languid in their affect, though they do get tribal/violent out of a sense of survival/being territorial.

    Nobody ever thought Europeans were that nerdy or anything, prior to recent generations being socialized to take abuse that their ancestors would never have tolerated. But the physical and mental tools to fight tough are still there, they just need to be re-activated.
  46. @MikeatMikedotMike
    Alaska received more mentions than New York (State) did, in the NYT. It was the 2nd most mentioned state. Think about that. Alaska. 2nd. That alone defies your theory.

    But I do wonder, what is so interesting about Alaska, starting in 2009, that the NYT mentions it more than its own state? It couldn't have anything to do with a certain hated former Republican governor of said state, who went on to be the face of an equally hated (and now defunct) rightish populist movement?

    To answer your question - A state governor on trial for corruption is national news. Blago was convicted of basically trying to sell President Obama's senate seat to the highest bidder.

    If you don't think the NYT would work deliberately to suppress a negative story related to Obama (think about it - any negative press out of Illinois during Obama's presidency would have raised questions about Obama's relationship to them; and we can't have that!) - because there's no way you'll ever convince me Obama wasn't aware of what was going on, and he was probably expecting a taste of the payout - then you have a faith in the US political/media system that I long ago lost.

    Again - I'm not saying Illinois should be at or even near the top of the list. But last? No fucking way unless by design.

    Prior to Trump, I don’t think any figure had as much vitriol poured on her by the corporate media than Sarah Palin did.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    No question about it. I liked Palin early on but the way she so suddenly sold out on her newfound celebrity turned me off almost just as fast.
  47. @Feryl
    "I don’t really see it that way. UMC and elites tend to have far lower rates of out-of-wedlock births. They are more pro-feminist on paper than the working class, but that’s in part because they have the lower time preference to benefit from two incomes. "

    We're talking about stated values, not actual behavior. The intelligent and privileged class* behaves well (with the exception of apparently higher levels of infidelity), but that is precisely why they are so cavalier about many social issues (they themselves have never been to jail or had a drug addiction, nor have they known that many people who struggle with these issues, so thus, they have a more libertarian attitude about things).

    On a similar level, people were most hostile toward drugs in the 1980's and early 90's, precisely because so many people's lives had been ruined in the 70's and 80's by poor behavior.

    Remember that if, say, 30-40% of the population had seriously struggled with substance abuse, it therefore follows that 60-70% of people would likely know some people who got burned by drugs/alcohol abuse; so many people would have a personal reason for passionately opposing drugs. Since Millennials and Gen Z don't do drugs (because they saw it what it did to their parents), society no longer feels much urgency to speak out against drugs. That's why the libertarian morons always say that the War on Drugs was a failure; they willfully distort or ignore the youth culture of the 70's and 80's which sparked the War on Drugs in the first place.

    As our culture slips further into decadance, elites no longer are able or willing to understand that they need to do more to encourage cultural and economic stability, out of duty to the lower class. Here we see that in wholesome times, the authorities look out for people, but in corrupt times, it's dog-eat-dog and the elites get to enjoy success while the "losers" end up homeless, in jail, on drugs, etc. In the New Deal and Great Society era, middle aged and elderly elites were against homosexuality, gambling, drunken sleaze, drugs, etc. But by circa 1980, even as many normies became hostile to the nihilistic youth culture of the period, our elites began to permit gambling, gay sex clubs, etc. Drug abuse was so self-evidently terrible, +we still had GI and Silent elites who weren't perverted, so we did manage to get the War on Drugs going in the 80's. But for the most part, since 1980 we've asked Boomers, X-ers, and Millennials to "find their own way" in a chaotic and Darwinist culture, that's been getting worse with each passing decade (as we can tell from the mortgage debacle of the 2000's).

    Since lower class people are much more likely to be homeless, incarcerated, addicted to drugs etc., it stands to reason that they are the ones most opposed to social Darwinism, making them socially conservative and economically liberal. It's indicative of a corrupt era that elites pretend to act dumb as to why they can do well while so many others fail. It's not just from a "lack of hard work", but rather, because society has failed in it's duty to protect the lower classes.

    *not counting air-heads who married into the elite

    Increasing the share of the non-white population has made it easy for elites to lazily state how much they care about POC without having to pay attention to them or to lower class whites. It allows elites to maintain a static outlook irrespective of what is actually happening on the ground. That outlook is that POC are oppressed by systemic racism and thus are always deserving of reverence while whites who aren’t at least comfortably middle class are losers who have it coming.

    • Replies: @iffen
    The elites know how to play different groups against each other in order to maintain control. It's who they are; it's what they are; it's in their genes. The last time we had a class based coalition that cut across race, religious, ethnic and geographic boundaries (The New Deal) which accomplished economic and policy changes on behalf of the common folk, the immigration question had been put to bed some 10 years before (The Immigration Act of 1924:The Johnson-Reed Act). They are not going to repeat that mistake this time.
    , @Feryl
    But these cycles of elite arrogance happen regardless of demographics; it's just that in the modern West, we have an elite who is so decadent that they've swung the gates wide open and welcomed the barbarians in.
  48. @216
    SimpleJack won't ban this hate

    https://twitter.com/ScottMGreer/status/1125065426084552704

    https://twitter.com/sairasameerarao/status/1125114819005296643

    Hey Boomercons,

    Those hard working LEGAL immigrants hate what you are.

    Saira,

    You have to go back

    More of her, please.

    Give me Sarah Huckabee Sanders any day over these ACLU-loving, Trump-hating, New Yorker-devouring marching-day-and-night liberals.There is a special place in hell for you. Don’t worry, they serve green juice there.— saira rao (@sairasameerarao) May 5, 2019

  49. @216
    O/T

    Polls, Canada

    http://angusreid.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/2019.05.02_Federal_May_2019.pdf

    Take a look at the gender chasm here. Women 18-34 only register 10% for the weaksauce Conservative Party.

    Women have replaced God and man with Woke and the state.

    Some silver lining in the strong support for People’s Party among young men. Will that continue to grow?

    • Replies: @216
    Not if the deranged in the replies here have anything to say about it.

    https://twitter.com/macleans/status/1125404241718382592

    It's time for War Plan Red
  50. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    That's because most 18-34 women in Canada have been thoroughly brainwashed. They have never faced any real hardship, nor have they every worked a real job. They have gone from High School, to uni to get a communications degree, and now they work in Toronto doing career things at a company for 50k/year. Keep in mind this cohort includes a very healthy dose of non-white women. The brown girls seem to love the poz even more than white women. Yay assimilation!

    However, I don't find those numbers too interesting. Most of those women won't vote anyways. Until they get married and have kids, they will remain leftist as anything.

    What *is* interesting, is the strong 9% PPC showing among 18-34 men. The PPC is run by Maxime Bernier, who is pledging to reduce legal immigration and fight for traditional western values. Check out his Twitter feed for more info. The fact that his largest demographic is by far and away young men is very interesting. Combine that with a 28% showing for the Conservatives, and this is a really good sign for the right wing in Canada.

    I know a total of 37% going to the right wing parties doesn't seem great, but you have to take into account just how bad the brainwashing is. So I say 37% is great.

    Trudeau is likely to be out, and a rising PPC is going to keep the Conservatives on their toes. Beware of moving too far into the center. This election season will be very interesting, as I believe Canadians are fed up with the amount of non-white invaders in this country - even if most won't admit it.

    Wrote the previous comment before I read this so obviously disregard.

  51. @anon
    "Those on the right have all the moral dimensions those on the left do, they just don’t put as much emphasis on them. The left, however, is missing moral dimensions that the right has."

    That sounds a bit like psychopathy to me, or maybe something closely akin to it: an evolved parasitic or predatory social strategy. The Right are consensus-building pragmatists in social settings. That requires an understanding of how others think and feel - empathy. In contrast, the Left are predators who advance themselves through exploiting others - Machiavellianism, serial lying, tribalism, and iconoclasm. The only good thing here is that the Left are breeding themselves out the population; they could be dramatically reduced in numbers over the next half century.

    The bad thing is that technology is letting an ever fewer number of people control the means of information distribution. The future could very well end up as Eloi and Morlock - predator and prey. This is why the Right has historically needed strong governments like monarchy to rule them: they are incapable of degrading themselves morally to compete with the psychopathic Left, so they need a strong man (a right-wing SJW) monarch to put the sword to their enemies on their behalf, to do what they can't bring themselves to do.

    "Ben&Jerrys types don’t want to think of themselves as vacationing there or relocating there after they flee California or New York’s encroaching diversity.”

    You'll also notice that Vermont gets a lot of coverage. That's because SWPL types vacation in Vermont to see the leaves change (code for escaping inner city minorities). Not coincidentally, Bernie Sanders moved from diverse NY to Vermont as it started getting racially diverse, IIRC. And Ben & Jerry's is located there as well. Strange. You'd think that morally superior liberals would move their company to a place like Flint, Michigan and give poor minorities jobs. It guess it's easier to put diverse people on your ice cream carton than it is to actually care enough to do something for them. It's almost like these people are being disingenuous or something. Like I said, "Machiavellianism, serial lying, tribalism, and iconoclasm."

    "Leftist zealots of all kinds who show no willingness to give any quarter to Trump (even in the even of a national crisis, like the one we are seeing on the border now). 40-50% of the population."

    I wouldn't go quite that far. The number of Leftist WHITE zealots is probably much smaller. That 40-50% is boosted by minorities who likely aren't as SJW socially. Immigration has been particularly bad for the United States because it has empowered radical white religious left zealots through a large and growing block of voters who prioritize racial affiliation over ideology. It's Reagan's "A rising tide lifts all boats" except applied to elections: radical reds are empowered by a rising tide of racialist browns and, especially, blacks.*

    *Oh, what could have been. If blacks had been shipped back to Africa after the Civil War or never imported to begin with, race relations would be much better in the United States. We could probably even handle something akin to open borders for decades considering non-black demographics and the fact that a non-trivial number of Hispanics vote republican - impressive considering how inept and corrupt the GOP is.

    "Trump did poorly among white Californians."

    There are reasons for this, as you write. But it goes beyond simple economics and culture, I think:

    1) Californian whites are a shrinking minority and, as such, they probably don't want to be the target of reprisals by the majority; therefore, they advertise that they are on the POC side so they'll be left alone. Since republicans can never again win California due to racial demographics, game theory suggests the optimal strategy in this situation is to ally with the ruling group. This explains why Muslims are quieter in India than in Muslim-dominated countries and why Southern Jews pre-Leo Frank were amenable to the local Southern culture: there was/is a large majority of non-minorities who'll squash you should you ally against them.

    This also explains why both Asians and Jews will never majority vote republican, despite the efforts of civnats like Steve Sailer and IQ nationalists like Jared Taylor or Boomercons like Trump and Conservatism Inc. There will be no Jewexit. Both groups see that whites are shrinking in numbers (real and relative) and are concomitantly reduced in power; they will soon be cut out of power entirely, so it is foolish to cast your lot with a sinking ship. Both groups will continue signaling that they are on the POC coalition side so they won't face reprisals when POC take over. Ironically, more lower-IQ Hispanics probably voted republican than either of those groups (less future time orientation ability than Asians and Jews who see what's coming but also more testosterone and less racial meekness and greater rivalry with blacks, too).

    2) California has lost a huge number of middle-class whites since 1980 or so. I wouldn't be surprised if 500,000 - 1,000,000 net middle-class whites had left the state by now. That has certainly worsened white performance there. The remaining whites either don't want to be the target of reprisals by the ruling democrat coalition or they tend to be upper-class and geographically disconnected in rich, closed-off areas.

    Also, Californian Asians tend to be more odious because they are on the right side of history (0r want to be) per demographics. Not only can they get away with bad behavior, but they also want to protect themselves by being openly against the POC enemies: whites. On the other hand, East Coast Asians might still be the subject of reprisals should they become openly racists against whites. This is why East Coast Asians are not only more moderate but are much better liked by nearly all racial groups.

    As an aside, this might partly explain why Asians are underrepresented in Hollywood, despite whites having a much higher opinion of them overall compared with blacks. West Coast Asians tend to be more odious, pushy and racist toward normie white movie producers and writers, so they don't cast them in roles or write for them even though whites as a whole like them and their culture much better than they like blacks. I have long advocated replacing uncomfortable black actors in movies with amenable Asians. If Hollywood relocated a couple of studios to the East Coast, you'd probably see more Asians in your movies, television and video games because the toxic culture of racial identity politics is different there - black versus normie white and not everyone versus all whites.

    I guess it’s easier to put diverse people on your ice cream carton than it is to actually care enough to do something for them.

    Ha!

  52. iffen says:
    @Audacious Epigone
    Increasing the share of the non-white population has made it easy for elites to lazily state how much they care about POC without having to pay attention to them or to lower class whites. It allows elites to maintain a static outlook irrespective of what is actually happening on the ground. That outlook is that POC are oppressed by systemic racism and thus are always deserving of reverence while whites who aren't at least comfortably middle class are losers who have it coming.

    The elites know how to play different groups against each other in order to maintain control. It’s who they are; it’s what they are; it’s in their genes. The last time we had a class based coalition that cut across race, religious, ethnic and geographic boundaries (The New Deal) which accomplished economic and policy changes on behalf of the common folk, the immigration question had been put to bed some 10 years before (The Immigration Act of 1924:The Johnson-Reed Act). They are not going to repeat that mistake this time.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    America in the 1920's hadn't reached it's apogee yet, so our elites were not confident about their ability to continuously take in millions of immigrants. So the elites played it safe and slammed the door shut.

    America's immigration history has reflected it's understandable need for early growth while taking moderate to heavy measures to limit who we let in. Well, at least that was the case before the Carter admin (which is when both legal and illegal arrivals began to soar).

    When this country reached it's apogee from about 1945-1975*, it instilled very high levels of confidence in our leaders that we could do anything and we'd never "back down" from any challenge. Including accepting a huge number of diverse new arrivals. Americans since the mid-70's have been increasingly detached from any realistic grasp of this country's resources and capabilities. At least, this was the case among all classes prior to 2008. Since 2008, many poor and working class people grasp this country's growing weakness, but many elites are as delusional as ever.

    *The New Deal+victory in WW2+putting a man on the moon+Nixon withdrawing troops from Vietnam to placate the public&creating the EPA/OSHA; roughly 1976-the present is the Neo-liberal and neo-conservative era, which has pissed away almost everything good about mid-Century America.
    , @Feryl
    The Progressive era was also rather isolationist, again reflecting America's lack of self confidence. We should chart this country's confidence relative to it's abilities.

    Progressive era: moderate ability, low confidence. We don't do much, but we're okay at what we do.
    New Deal and Great Society era: high ability, high confidence. We do a lot of great things.
    Neo-liberal era: low ability, moderate confidence. Our reach far exceeds our grasp.

    The neo-liberal era has been one of record high crime rates (when Boomers and X-ers were young, in any event), rising suicide rates, the mainstreaming of dangerous dog ownership, a massive increase in mass murders, and the like. Meanwhile, our elites insist on having non-stop immigration into the country while committing more and more resources to colonial occupations and coups.

    In the New Deal/Great Society era, crime was generally low, children didn't get mauled by aggressive dog breeds, gun ownership was common (but rampages were nearly unheard of), the military was used judiciously and results were demanded (the public demanded to be given specific time-tables and goals WRT Vietnam, and when the Pentagon lied it's ass off the public became outraged and demanded the end of the war, which our elites mostly acquiesced to).
  53. anon[329] • Disclaimer says:

    “Prior to Trump, I don’t think any figure had as much vitriol poured on her by the corporate media than Sarah Palin did.”

    Where do you think that comes from, though? My first guess would be perhaps working-class contempt by people who’ve made it in the entertainment industry directed at boomercon corporate sycophants like Palin; Tina Fey, for example, was born/raised in working-class Pennsylvania, IIRC. I imagine there is some resentment there. My second guess is that it’s just naked bigotry and contempt for rural whites and Christians. During the Bush presidency, the man was subjected to comparisons with monkeys and he was (perhaps rightly in retrospect) mocked for his fake* cowboy antics at the Crawford ranch. Even without Iraq, he would have been subjected to mockery because the Left hates the people they imagine voted for him – racist, uneducated philistines in the middle of nowhere.

    Consider some of the movies the Left made during that time. The Wrong Turn series portrayed rural whites as inbred cannibalistic monsters; so did the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake. Rob Zombie did the same with his horror movies. Michael Moore was all the rage for documentaries attacking Bush over spying policies Obama later kept and dramatically widened. One Hollywood movie broached the subject of a fictional assassination of George W. Bush, which Kevin Costner rebuked. We had acclaimed movies like Brokeback Mountain, ostensibly about gays but actually about sticking it to rural whites whom liberals imagine vote republican. Movies like Big Fish were ignored because they were about Southerners and didn’t also portray them negatively.

    Television wasn’t much better. Evangelicals were a big part of the Bush coalition, so they got it bad. Guys like Bill Maher mocked John Ashcroft for the boobie statue thing, but now the Left demands burkas for female video game avatars. Maher also made several popular comedy specials launching invective at religion (read: Christians); so did George Carlin and a host of others. We had documentaries like Jesus Camp which portrayed evangelicals, specifically, as dangerous maniacs. There were essentially no Christian terrorist attacks during that era. Shows like The Simple Life with Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie mocked rural whites and the poor. The Borat character took off mocking Bush’s war on terror** (which Obama later continued and widened without protest) and rural whites – including Southerns, I believe. Shows like Heroes had episodes where evil white rural men with guns would patrol the Southern Border with guns. MTV laid it on poor whites with shows like 16 and pregnant; trailer parks were a common sight. SNL savaged a GOP Virginia senatorial candidate for supposedly using the word “maccaca” in relation to a black; he lost. The current democrat governor of that state dressed in blackface, kept his job, and now it’s old news.

    And that’s a short list. We could continue with Star Trek: Enterprise, which had an episode about (of course) proto-alt-right male racists whom the woke crew must defeat before they kill aliens or alien immigrants if I recall. And Aaron Sorkin’s The West Wing savaged Bush-era conservative caricatures with snappily dressed, physically attractive, youngish hipsters on the right side of history. And his Studio 60 On the Sunset Strip had an episode where the hipster liberal broadcast some program rural troglodytes in Pine-Bluff Arkansas got offended by; the character proudly refuses to change the program and stated they’d come back begging.

    …when you control the megaphone like this, you can win any cultural battle.

    YouTube content creators also took note of the cultural winds and launched hateful attacks on Christians. Atheism was used as a front for attacking the Left’s religious enemies then but now the same kinds of critiques against Muslims is taboo (or even illegal in some countries). Just ask Richard Dawkins about it. They called him a hateful racist for saying exactly the same things about Islam as he did about Christians. He got away with attacking Christians because they are the enemy of the left which controls the media. He didn’t get away with attacking Muslims because they vote for the same political party that the left votes for, the democrats.

    *It was all theater. Bush sold his ranch immediately after his second term and moved to an upperclass, socially left-wing area of Texas where he and his wife presided over gay marriages. All fake.

    **Ungrateful jerks. While horribly misguided, essentially the entire effort was promoted and executed by white male republicans, rural whites, and Southerners on behalf of a people who later repaid their attempts at doing the right thing (but misguided) with hatred, constant mockery, and contempt. Georgia wasn’t attacked on 9/11 but how many guys from that area of the country – how many Bush voters – died in Afghanistan anyway?

    • Replies: @Feryl
    "Consider some of the movies the Left made during that time. The Wrong Turn series portrayed rural whites as inbred cannibalistic monsters; so did the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake. Rob Zombie did the same with his horror movies. Michael Moore was all the rage for documentaries attacking Bush over spying policies Obama later kept and dramatically widened. One Hollywood movie broached the subject of a fictional assassination of George W. Bush, which Kevin Costner rebuked. We had acclaimed movies like Brokeback Mountain, ostensibly about gays but actually about sticking it to rural whites whom liberals imagine vote republican. Movies like Big Fish were ignored because they were about Southerners and didn’t also portray them negatively."

    Derogatory portrayals of rural and suburban America are common when violent crime is fairly low or falling, but they largely vanish when crime is rising. For example, Texas Chainsaw Massacre (from 1974) was quite popular in it's day, but by 1978 Halloween far surpassed TCM in popularity. And in Halloween, the suburbanites are portrayed as ordinary people preyed on by a lunatic who escaped from an asylum. Whereas in TCM, the villians are psycho yahoos from the middle of nowhere whose activities have never been noticed by the authorities. The late 70's-early 90's typically portrayed urban areas as seedy and crime ridden; many movies opted to not even have any scenes take place in urban settings, simply because of how much of the audience hated and fear the city during that period. By circa 1980, too many people had been mugged, raped, and murdered, etc. to continue the non-sense that rural areas were frightening. And the 1980's were the peak of heroic characters often taking refuge in nature; Stallone in Rocky 4 training in and around a mountain cabin, Luke in Empire Strikes Back training on a swamp/jungle planet, etc. The heroes in Red Dawn are all small town kids who grew up hunting, and use their knowledge of the landscape to their advantage.

    Once crime started declining in about 1994-1995, that's when urban life started to be glorified again. By the mid-2000's, crime had declined to the point that, as you point out, a re-make of TCM was a big hit.
    , @Feryl
    The late 70's and 80's actually did have some affection for the South. Burt Reynolds (a Southerner) had some hit movies filmed and set in the South. On TV, the Dukes of Hazard "got away" with a confederate themed car; nobody complained and the series ran for a while. Another TV show set in the South, In the Heat of the Night, featured a generally affable cast working together to defend their community.

    The late 70's and early 80's were also a period of "country-Western" themed fashion and pop culture going mainstream.

    I would argue that the 2000's were a period of rapid political and cultural disintegration, because the neo-libs and neo-cons so badly mishandled the post 9/11 period. Plus there was so much damn whining about Gore being jobbed in 2000; it's odd that mainstream culture didn't have much respect for Bill Clinton in the 90's, yet somehow a lot of people got really pissy when Gore didn't get to continue Clinton's legacy.
  54. @Audacious Epigone
    Prior to Trump, I don't think any figure had as much vitriol poured on her by the corporate media than Sarah Palin did.

    No question about it. I liked Palin early on but the way she so suddenly sold out on her newfound celebrity turned me off almost just as fast.

  55. @anon
    "Those on the right have all the moral dimensions those on the left do, they just don’t put as much emphasis on them. The left, however, is missing moral dimensions that the right has."

    That sounds a bit like psychopathy to me, or maybe something closely akin to it: an evolved parasitic or predatory social strategy. The Right are consensus-building pragmatists in social settings. That requires an understanding of how others think and feel - empathy. In contrast, the Left are predators who advance themselves through exploiting others - Machiavellianism, serial lying, tribalism, and iconoclasm. The only good thing here is that the Left are breeding themselves out the population; they could be dramatically reduced in numbers over the next half century.

    The bad thing is that technology is letting an ever fewer number of people control the means of information distribution. The future could very well end up as Eloi and Morlock - predator and prey. This is why the Right has historically needed strong governments like monarchy to rule them: they are incapable of degrading themselves morally to compete with the psychopathic Left, so they need a strong man (a right-wing SJW) monarch to put the sword to their enemies on their behalf, to do what they can't bring themselves to do.

    "Ben&Jerrys types don’t want to think of themselves as vacationing there or relocating there after they flee California or New York’s encroaching diversity.”

    You'll also notice that Vermont gets a lot of coverage. That's because SWPL types vacation in Vermont to see the leaves change (code for escaping inner city minorities). Not coincidentally, Bernie Sanders moved from diverse NY to Vermont as it started getting racially diverse, IIRC. And Ben & Jerry's is located there as well. Strange. You'd think that morally superior liberals would move their company to a place like Flint, Michigan and give poor minorities jobs. It guess it's easier to put diverse people on your ice cream carton than it is to actually care enough to do something for them. It's almost like these people are being disingenuous or something. Like I said, "Machiavellianism, serial lying, tribalism, and iconoclasm."

    "Leftist zealots of all kinds who show no willingness to give any quarter to Trump (even in the even of a national crisis, like the one we are seeing on the border now). 40-50% of the population."

    I wouldn't go quite that far. The number of Leftist WHITE zealots is probably much smaller. That 40-50% is boosted by minorities who likely aren't as SJW socially. Immigration has been particularly bad for the United States because it has empowered radical white religious left zealots through a large and growing block of voters who prioritize racial affiliation over ideology. It's Reagan's "A rising tide lifts all boats" except applied to elections: radical reds are empowered by a rising tide of racialist browns and, especially, blacks.*

    *Oh, what could have been. If blacks had been shipped back to Africa after the Civil War or never imported to begin with, race relations would be much better in the United States. We could probably even handle something akin to open borders for decades considering non-black demographics and the fact that a non-trivial number of Hispanics vote republican - impressive considering how inept and corrupt the GOP is.

    "Trump did poorly among white Californians."

    There are reasons for this, as you write. But it goes beyond simple economics and culture, I think:

    1) Californian whites are a shrinking minority and, as such, they probably don't want to be the target of reprisals by the majority; therefore, they advertise that they are on the POC side so they'll be left alone. Since republicans can never again win California due to racial demographics, game theory suggests the optimal strategy in this situation is to ally with the ruling group. This explains why Muslims are quieter in India than in Muslim-dominated countries and why Southern Jews pre-Leo Frank were amenable to the local Southern culture: there was/is a large majority of non-minorities who'll squash you should you ally against them.

    This also explains why both Asians and Jews will never majority vote republican, despite the efforts of civnats like Steve Sailer and IQ nationalists like Jared Taylor or Boomercons like Trump and Conservatism Inc. There will be no Jewexit. Both groups see that whites are shrinking in numbers (real and relative) and are concomitantly reduced in power; they will soon be cut out of power entirely, so it is foolish to cast your lot with a sinking ship. Both groups will continue signaling that they are on the POC coalition side so they won't face reprisals when POC take over. Ironically, more lower-IQ Hispanics probably voted republican than either of those groups (less future time orientation ability than Asians and Jews who see what's coming but also more testosterone and less racial meekness and greater rivalry with blacks, too).

    2) California has lost a huge number of middle-class whites since 1980 or so. I wouldn't be surprised if 500,000 - 1,000,000 net middle-class whites had left the state by now. That has certainly worsened white performance there. The remaining whites either don't want to be the target of reprisals by the ruling democrat coalition or they tend to be upper-class and geographically disconnected in rich, closed-off areas.

    Also, Californian Asians tend to be more odious because they are on the right side of history (0r want to be) per demographics. Not only can they get away with bad behavior, but they also want to protect themselves by being openly against the POC enemies: whites. On the other hand, East Coast Asians might still be the subject of reprisals should they become openly racists against whites. This is why East Coast Asians are not only more moderate but are much better liked by nearly all racial groups.

    As an aside, this might partly explain why Asians are underrepresented in Hollywood, despite whites having a much higher opinion of them overall compared with blacks. West Coast Asians tend to be more odious, pushy and racist toward normie white movie producers and writers, so they don't cast them in roles or write for them even though whites as a whole like them and their culture much better than they like blacks. I have long advocated replacing uncomfortable black actors in movies with amenable Asians. If Hollywood relocated a couple of studios to the East Coast, you'd probably see more Asians in your movies, television and video games because the toxic culture of racial identity politics is different there - black versus normie white and not everyone versus all whites.

    Both groups see that whites are shrinking in numbers (real and relative) and are concomitantly reduced in power; they will soon be cut out of power entirely, so it is foolish to cast your lot with a sinking ship.

    I’ve witnessed this with my own 2 eyes in the past several years. I’ve seen brown people and Asian people go from friendly and normal just like us, to forming their own ethnic enclaves and trying to take over.

    This comes as Trudeau sneakily admits over one million people into the country per year. They go whatever way the wind is blowing.

    Non-whites are not your friend, no matter how much it seems like it. I’m constantly warning Boomercons about this threat. Yes, they’re nice to you now, because you’re in control and in the majority. That will not be the case when your numbers shrink. Unfortunately, racial nepotism is a concept that Boomers can’t grasp. So we’ll wait for them to die off and then have a real mess to clean up.

    It’s very frustrating. I see it first hand, at the 70% non-white universities. I tell the Boomers – your friendly neighborhood minorities in the 80% white area are just biding their time until they take over. Don’t be fooled. I see the future of the country in the present, given my circumstances, and it’s not pretty.

  56. Feryl says:
    @anon
    "Prior to Trump, I don’t think any figure had as much vitriol poured on her by the corporate media than Sarah Palin did."

    Where do you think that comes from, though? My first guess would be perhaps working-class contempt by people who've made it in the entertainment industry directed at boomercon corporate sycophants like Palin; Tina Fey, for example, was born/raised in working-class Pennsylvania, IIRC. I imagine there is some resentment there. My second guess is that it's just naked bigotry and contempt for rural whites and Christians. During the Bush presidency, the man was subjected to comparisons with monkeys and he was (perhaps rightly in retrospect) mocked for his fake* cowboy antics at the Crawford ranch. Even without Iraq, he would have been subjected to mockery because the Left hates the people they imagine voted for him - racist, uneducated philistines in the middle of nowhere.

    Consider some of the movies the Left made during that time. The Wrong Turn series portrayed rural whites as inbred cannibalistic monsters; so did the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake. Rob Zombie did the same with his horror movies. Michael Moore was all the rage for documentaries attacking Bush over spying policies Obama later kept and dramatically widened. One Hollywood movie broached the subject of a fictional assassination of George W. Bush, which Kevin Costner rebuked. We had acclaimed movies like Brokeback Mountain, ostensibly about gays but actually about sticking it to rural whites whom liberals imagine vote republican. Movies like Big Fish were ignored because they were about Southerners and didn't also portray them negatively.

    Television wasn't much better. Evangelicals were a big part of the Bush coalition, so they got it bad. Guys like Bill Maher mocked John Ashcroft for the boobie statue thing, but now the Left demands burkas for female video game avatars. Maher also made several popular comedy specials launching invective at religion (read: Christians); so did George Carlin and a host of others. We had documentaries like Jesus Camp which portrayed evangelicals, specifically, as dangerous maniacs. There were essentially no Christian terrorist attacks during that era. Shows like The Simple Life with Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie mocked rural whites and the poor. The Borat character took off mocking Bush's war on terror** (which Obama later continued and widened without protest) and rural whites - including Southerns, I believe. Shows like Heroes had episodes where evil white rural men with guns would patrol the Southern Border with guns. MTV laid it on poor whites with shows like 16 and pregnant; trailer parks were a common sight. SNL savaged a GOP Virginia senatorial candidate for supposedly using the word "maccaca" in relation to a black; he lost. The current democrat governor of that state dressed in blackface, kept his job, and now it's old news.

    And that's a short list. We could continue with Star Trek: Enterprise, which had an episode about (of course) proto-alt-right male racists whom the woke crew must defeat before they kill aliens or alien immigrants if I recall. And Aaron Sorkin's The West Wing savaged Bush-era conservative caricatures with snappily dressed, physically attractive, youngish hipsters on the right side of history. And his Studio 60 On the Sunset Strip had an episode where the hipster liberal broadcast some program rural troglodytes in Pine-Bluff Arkansas got offended by; the character proudly refuses to change the program and stated they'd come back begging.

    ...when you control the megaphone like this, you can win any cultural battle.

    YouTube content creators also took note of the cultural winds and launched hateful attacks on Christians. Atheism was used as a front for attacking the Left's religious enemies then but now the same kinds of critiques against Muslims is taboo (or even illegal in some countries). Just ask Richard Dawkins about it. They called him a hateful racist for saying exactly the same things about Islam as he did about Christians. He got away with attacking Christians because they are the enemy of the left which controls the media. He didn't get away with attacking Muslims because they vote for the same political party that the left votes for, the democrats.

    *It was all theater. Bush sold his ranch immediately after his second term and moved to an upperclass, socially left-wing area of Texas where he and his wife presided over gay marriages. All fake.

    **Ungrateful jerks. While horribly misguided, essentially the entire effort was promoted and executed by white male republicans, rural whites, and Southerners on behalf of a people who later repaid their attempts at doing the right thing (but misguided) with hatred, constant mockery, and contempt. Georgia wasn't attacked on 9/11 but how many guys from that area of the country - how many Bush voters - died in Afghanistan anyway?

    “Consider some of the movies the Left made during that time. The Wrong Turn series portrayed rural whites as inbred cannibalistic monsters; so did the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake. Rob Zombie did the same with his horror movies. Michael Moore was all the rage for documentaries attacking Bush over spying policies Obama later kept and dramatically widened. One Hollywood movie broached the subject of a fictional assassination of George W. Bush, which Kevin Costner rebuked. We had acclaimed movies like Brokeback Mountain, ostensibly about gays but actually about sticking it to rural whites whom liberals imagine vote republican. Movies like Big Fish were ignored because they were about Southerners and didn’t also portray them negatively.”

    Derogatory portrayals of rural and suburban America are common when violent crime is fairly low or falling, but they largely vanish when crime is rising. For example, Texas Chainsaw Massacre (from 1974) was quite popular in it’s day, but by 1978 Halloween far surpassed TCM in popularity. And in Halloween, the suburbanites are portrayed as ordinary people preyed on by a lunatic who escaped from an asylum. Whereas in TCM, the villians are psycho yahoos from the middle of nowhere whose activities have never been noticed by the authorities. The late 70’s-early 90’s typically portrayed urban areas as seedy and crime ridden; many movies opted to not even have any scenes take place in urban settings, simply because of how much of the audience hated and fear the city during that period. By circa 1980, too many people had been mugged, raped, and murdered, etc. to continue the non-sense that rural areas were frightening. And the 1980’s were the peak of heroic characters often taking refuge in nature; Stallone in Rocky 4 training in and around a mountain cabin, Luke in Empire Strikes Back training on a swamp/jungle planet, etc. The heroes in Red Dawn are all small town kids who grew up hunting, and use their knowledge of the landscape to their advantage.

    Once crime started declining in about 1994-1995, that’s when urban life started to be glorified again. By the mid-2000’s, crime had declined to the point that, as you point out, a re-make of TCM was a big hit.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    The TMNT movies immediately spring to mind. Crocodile Dundee is an even better example of urban life being portrayed as degenerate/dangerous trash and rural living as laudable and fulfilling.
  57. Feryl says:
    @anon
    "Prior to Trump, I don’t think any figure had as much vitriol poured on her by the corporate media than Sarah Palin did."

    Where do you think that comes from, though? My first guess would be perhaps working-class contempt by people who've made it in the entertainment industry directed at boomercon corporate sycophants like Palin; Tina Fey, for example, was born/raised in working-class Pennsylvania, IIRC. I imagine there is some resentment there. My second guess is that it's just naked bigotry and contempt for rural whites and Christians. During the Bush presidency, the man was subjected to comparisons with monkeys and he was (perhaps rightly in retrospect) mocked for his fake* cowboy antics at the Crawford ranch. Even without Iraq, he would have been subjected to mockery because the Left hates the people they imagine voted for him - racist, uneducated philistines in the middle of nowhere.

    Consider some of the movies the Left made during that time. The Wrong Turn series portrayed rural whites as inbred cannibalistic monsters; so did the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake. Rob Zombie did the same with his horror movies. Michael Moore was all the rage for documentaries attacking Bush over spying policies Obama later kept and dramatically widened. One Hollywood movie broached the subject of a fictional assassination of George W. Bush, which Kevin Costner rebuked. We had acclaimed movies like Brokeback Mountain, ostensibly about gays but actually about sticking it to rural whites whom liberals imagine vote republican. Movies like Big Fish were ignored because they were about Southerners and didn't also portray them negatively.

    Television wasn't much better. Evangelicals were a big part of the Bush coalition, so they got it bad. Guys like Bill Maher mocked John Ashcroft for the boobie statue thing, but now the Left demands burkas for female video game avatars. Maher also made several popular comedy specials launching invective at religion (read: Christians); so did George Carlin and a host of others. We had documentaries like Jesus Camp which portrayed evangelicals, specifically, as dangerous maniacs. There were essentially no Christian terrorist attacks during that era. Shows like The Simple Life with Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie mocked rural whites and the poor. The Borat character took off mocking Bush's war on terror** (which Obama later continued and widened without protest) and rural whites - including Southerns, I believe. Shows like Heroes had episodes where evil white rural men with guns would patrol the Southern Border with guns. MTV laid it on poor whites with shows like 16 and pregnant; trailer parks were a common sight. SNL savaged a GOP Virginia senatorial candidate for supposedly using the word "maccaca" in relation to a black; he lost. The current democrat governor of that state dressed in blackface, kept his job, and now it's old news.

    And that's a short list. We could continue with Star Trek: Enterprise, which had an episode about (of course) proto-alt-right male racists whom the woke crew must defeat before they kill aliens or alien immigrants if I recall. And Aaron Sorkin's The West Wing savaged Bush-era conservative caricatures with snappily dressed, physically attractive, youngish hipsters on the right side of history. And his Studio 60 On the Sunset Strip had an episode where the hipster liberal broadcast some program rural troglodytes in Pine-Bluff Arkansas got offended by; the character proudly refuses to change the program and stated they'd come back begging.

    ...when you control the megaphone like this, you can win any cultural battle.

    YouTube content creators also took note of the cultural winds and launched hateful attacks on Christians. Atheism was used as a front for attacking the Left's religious enemies then but now the same kinds of critiques against Muslims is taboo (or even illegal in some countries). Just ask Richard Dawkins about it. They called him a hateful racist for saying exactly the same things about Islam as he did about Christians. He got away with attacking Christians because they are the enemy of the left which controls the media. He didn't get away with attacking Muslims because they vote for the same political party that the left votes for, the democrats.

    *It was all theater. Bush sold his ranch immediately after his second term and moved to an upperclass, socially left-wing area of Texas where he and his wife presided over gay marriages. All fake.

    **Ungrateful jerks. While horribly misguided, essentially the entire effort was promoted and executed by white male republicans, rural whites, and Southerners on behalf of a people who later repaid their attempts at doing the right thing (but misguided) with hatred, constant mockery, and contempt. Georgia wasn't attacked on 9/11 but how many guys from that area of the country - how many Bush voters - died in Afghanistan anyway?

    The late 70’s and 80’s actually did have some affection for the South. Burt Reynolds (a Southerner) had some hit movies filmed and set in the South. On TV, the Dukes of Hazard “got away” with a confederate themed car; nobody complained and the series ran for a while. Another TV show set in the South, In the Heat of the Night, featured a generally affable cast working together to defend their community.

    The late 70’s and early 80’s were also a period of “country-Western” themed fashion and pop culture going mainstream.

    I would argue that the 2000’s were a period of rapid political and cultural disintegration, because the neo-libs and neo-cons so badly mishandled the post 9/11 period. Plus there was so much damn whining about Gore being jobbed in 2000; it’s odd that mainstream culture didn’t have much respect for Bill Clinton in the 90’s, yet somehow a lot of people got really pissy when Gore didn’t get to continue Clinton’s legacy.

  58. Would the schoolmarm give consideration to banning the use of the word boomer? These macroaggressions are hurtful and are chipping away at my safe space.

    • LOL: 216
  59. Feryl says:
    @iffen
    The elites know how to play different groups against each other in order to maintain control. It's who they are; it's what they are; it's in their genes. The last time we had a class based coalition that cut across race, religious, ethnic and geographic boundaries (The New Deal) which accomplished economic and policy changes on behalf of the common folk, the immigration question had been put to bed some 10 years before (The Immigration Act of 1924:The Johnson-Reed Act). They are not going to repeat that mistake this time.

    America in the 1920’s hadn’t reached it’s apogee yet, so our elites were not confident about their ability to continuously take in millions of immigrants. So the elites played it safe and slammed the door shut.

    America’s immigration history has reflected it’s understandable need for early growth while taking moderate to heavy measures to limit who we let in. Well, at least that was the case before the Carter admin (which is when both legal and illegal arrivals began to soar).

    When this country reached it’s apogee from about 1945-1975*, it instilled very high levels of confidence in our leaders that we could do anything and we’d never “back down” from any challenge. Including accepting a huge number of diverse new arrivals. Americans since the mid-70’s have been increasingly detached from any realistic grasp of this country’s resources and capabilities. At least, this was the case among all classes prior to 2008. Since 2008, many poor and working class people grasp this country’s growing weakness, but many elites are as delusional as ever.

    *The New Deal+victory in WW2+putting a man on the moon+Nixon withdrawing troops from Vietnam to placate the public&creating the EPA/OSHA; roughly 1976-the present is the Neo-liberal and neo-conservative era, which has pissed away almost everything good about mid-Century America.

  60. Feryl says:
    @iffen
    The elites know how to play different groups against each other in order to maintain control. It's who they are; it's what they are; it's in their genes. The last time we had a class based coalition that cut across race, religious, ethnic and geographic boundaries (The New Deal) which accomplished economic and policy changes on behalf of the common folk, the immigration question had been put to bed some 10 years before (The Immigration Act of 1924:The Johnson-Reed Act). They are not going to repeat that mistake this time.

    The Progressive era was also rather isolationist, again reflecting America’s lack of self confidence. We should chart this country’s confidence relative to it’s abilities.

    Progressive era: moderate ability, low confidence. We don’t do much, but we’re okay at what we do.
    New Deal and Great Society era: high ability, high confidence. We do a lot of great things.
    Neo-liberal era: low ability, moderate confidence. Our reach far exceeds our grasp.

    The neo-liberal era has been one of record high crime rates (when Boomers and X-ers were young, in any event), rising suicide rates, the mainstreaming of dangerous dog ownership, a massive increase in mass murders, and the like. Meanwhile, our elites insist on having non-stop immigration into the country while committing more and more resources to colonial occupations and coups.

    In the New Deal/Great Society era, crime was generally low, children didn’t get mauled by aggressive dog breeds, gun ownership was common (but rampages were nearly unheard of), the military was used judiciously and results were demanded (the public demanded to be given specific time-tables and goals WRT Vietnam, and when the Pentagon lied it’s ass off the public became outraged and demanded the end of the war, which our elites mostly acquiesced to).

  61. @Audacious Epigone
    Increasing the share of the non-white population has made it easy for elites to lazily state how much they care about POC without having to pay attention to them or to lower class whites. It allows elites to maintain a static outlook irrespective of what is actually happening on the ground. That outlook is that POC are oppressed by systemic racism and thus are always deserving of reverence while whites who aren't at least comfortably middle class are losers who have it coming.

    But these cycles of elite arrogance happen regardless of demographics; it’s just that in the modern West, we have an elite who is so decadent that they’ve swung the gates wide open and welcomed the barbarians in.

  62. @anon
    "Those on the right have all the moral dimensions those on the left do, they just don’t put as much emphasis on them. The left, however, is missing moral dimensions that the right has."

    That sounds a bit like psychopathy to me, or maybe something closely akin to it: an evolved parasitic or predatory social strategy. The Right are consensus-building pragmatists in social settings. That requires an understanding of how others think and feel - empathy. In contrast, the Left are predators who advance themselves through exploiting others - Machiavellianism, serial lying, tribalism, and iconoclasm. The only good thing here is that the Left are breeding themselves out the population; they could be dramatically reduced in numbers over the next half century.

    The bad thing is that technology is letting an ever fewer number of people control the means of information distribution. The future could very well end up as Eloi and Morlock - predator and prey. This is why the Right has historically needed strong governments like monarchy to rule them: they are incapable of degrading themselves morally to compete with the psychopathic Left, so they need a strong man (a right-wing SJW) monarch to put the sword to their enemies on their behalf, to do what they can't bring themselves to do.

    "Ben&Jerrys types don’t want to think of themselves as vacationing there or relocating there after they flee California or New York’s encroaching diversity.”

    You'll also notice that Vermont gets a lot of coverage. That's because SWPL types vacation in Vermont to see the leaves change (code for escaping inner city minorities). Not coincidentally, Bernie Sanders moved from diverse NY to Vermont as it started getting racially diverse, IIRC. And Ben & Jerry's is located there as well. Strange. You'd think that morally superior liberals would move their company to a place like Flint, Michigan and give poor minorities jobs. It guess it's easier to put diverse people on your ice cream carton than it is to actually care enough to do something for them. It's almost like these people are being disingenuous or something. Like I said, "Machiavellianism, serial lying, tribalism, and iconoclasm."

    "Leftist zealots of all kinds who show no willingness to give any quarter to Trump (even in the even of a national crisis, like the one we are seeing on the border now). 40-50% of the population."

    I wouldn't go quite that far. The number of Leftist WHITE zealots is probably much smaller. That 40-50% is boosted by minorities who likely aren't as SJW socially. Immigration has been particularly bad for the United States because it has empowered radical white religious left zealots through a large and growing block of voters who prioritize racial affiliation over ideology. It's Reagan's "A rising tide lifts all boats" except applied to elections: radical reds are empowered by a rising tide of racialist browns and, especially, blacks.*

    *Oh, what could have been. If blacks had been shipped back to Africa after the Civil War or never imported to begin with, race relations would be much better in the United States. We could probably even handle something akin to open borders for decades considering non-black demographics and the fact that a non-trivial number of Hispanics vote republican - impressive considering how inept and corrupt the GOP is.

    "Trump did poorly among white Californians."

    There are reasons for this, as you write. But it goes beyond simple economics and culture, I think:

    1) Californian whites are a shrinking minority and, as such, they probably don't want to be the target of reprisals by the majority; therefore, they advertise that they are on the POC side so they'll be left alone. Since republicans can never again win California due to racial demographics, game theory suggests the optimal strategy in this situation is to ally with the ruling group. This explains why Muslims are quieter in India than in Muslim-dominated countries and why Southern Jews pre-Leo Frank were amenable to the local Southern culture: there was/is a large majority of non-minorities who'll squash you should you ally against them.

    This also explains why both Asians and Jews will never majority vote republican, despite the efforts of civnats like Steve Sailer and IQ nationalists like Jared Taylor or Boomercons like Trump and Conservatism Inc. There will be no Jewexit. Both groups see that whites are shrinking in numbers (real and relative) and are concomitantly reduced in power; they will soon be cut out of power entirely, so it is foolish to cast your lot with a sinking ship. Both groups will continue signaling that they are on the POC coalition side so they won't face reprisals when POC take over. Ironically, more lower-IQ Hispanics probably voted republican than either of those groups (less future time orientation ability than Asians and Jews who see what's coming but also more testosterone and less racial meekness and greater rivalry with blacks, too).

    2) California has lost a huge number of middle-class whites since 1980 or so. I wouldn't be surprised if 500,000 - 1,000,000 net middle-class whites had left the state by now. That has certainly worsened white performance there. The remaining whites either don't want to be the target of reprisals by the ruling democrat coalition or they tend to be upper-class and geographically disconnected in rich, closed-off areas.

    Also, Californian Asians tend to be more odious because they are on the right side of history (0r want to be) per demographics. Not only can they get away with bad behavior, but they also want to protect themselves by being openly against the POC enemies: whites. On the other hand, East Coast Asians might still be the subject of reprisals should they become openly racists against whites. This is why East Coast Asians are not only more moderate but are much better liked by nearly all racial groups.

    As an aside, this might partly explain why Asians are underrepresented in Hollywood, despite whites having a much higher opinion of them overall compared with blacks. West Coast Asians tend to be more odious, pushy and racist toward normie white movie producers and writers, so they don't cast them in roles or write for them even though whites as a whole like them and their culture much better than they like blacks. I have long advocated replacing uncomfortable black actors in movies with amenable Asians. If Hollywood relocated a couple of studios to the East Coast, you'd probably see more Asians in your movies, television and video games because the toxic culture of racial identity politics is different there - black versus normie white and not everyone versus all whites.

    Caucasians (but especially Jewish ones*) find Asians to be culturally and intellectually threatening; see the now notorious anti-Asian policies pursued by the Ivy League. Talented tenth blacks are charming to white liberals, but do not represent any sort of commercial or cultural threat. American white elites want to have a token representation of most kinds of POC in the elite, but they are terrified of large numbers of Asians who are perceived to be smart, hardworking, but also boring and rather sneaky.

    White American elites want to pat a handful of POC on the head, not have the whole culture of certain classes/industries be altered beyond recognition by Asian drones. Of course, it’s too late to “save” the tech industry, but academia and entertainment are still stubbornly insistent on keeping whites and blacks ahead of everyone else. There’s also a fear that Asians, as others have noted, are both unique and competent, which means that they have no desire to respect or preserve the culture created by Caucasians with some African and Mesizo input, since Asian culture works pretty well.

    *Asian fetishes aren’t unheard of among blonde gentiles (the most stoic Europeans), but are essentially non-existent among extroverted Jews.

    • Replies: @216

    *Asian fetishes aren’t unheard of among blonde gentiles (the most stoic Europeans), but are essentially non-existent among extroverted Jews.
     
    The robotic Zuckerberg, and his more loquacious co-founder Saverin are both married to East Asian women.
    , @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Haha well let's see how Canada does. We just have masses of asians pouring in.
  63. anon[782] • Disclaimer says:

    “The late 70’s and 80’s actually did have some affection for the South.”

    I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Jimmy Carter, a Southern democrat, was president during much of that time. The South started being hated again under Ronald Reagan but then experienced a brief resurgence of acceptance under another Southern democrat president, Bill Clinton, with movies like Forest Gump, Fried Green Tomatoes, and The Legend of Bagger Vance; even the movie My Cousin Vinny was shot at a time leading up to the 92 election when the economy crashed and LA democrats thought they suddenly had a good chance of being competitive in the general election. Since then, it’s all been downhill. Although, I suppose we could have seen another upsurge had Al Gore won. We missed out on some great movies, I guess. Obviously, the people influencing the culture from LA alternate their opinions of the rural poor and Southerners depending upon whether they need to be conciliatory in the first place (no need when Obama was there as he was from Illinois*) or whether their side is winning (W. Bush vs. Gore).

    “I would argue that the 2000’s were a period of rapid political and cultural disintegration, because the neo-libs and neo-cons so badly mishandled the post 9/11 period. Plus there was so much damn whining about Gore being jobbed in 2000”.

    That could be true, but I wonder if the rise of the internet simply allowed grievances to be aired more quickly and more personally than before and perhaps this contributed in a major way. Also, around 2000 was the period when the demographics had shifted to the point where it was getting hard for traditional conservatives to win presidential elections without appealing to identity politics.

    *I could have easily added a list of negative movies under Obama, too. Django Unchained, for example. In one of Tarantino’s movies, I believe they lynch a white female Southerner (or maybe just a white female, it slips my mind because he’s greatly overrated, a lot of people in the industry think so too – she’s rural in any case). In addition to movies, this statue burning craze is just another iteration of the Left’s social hatred for poor, disadvantaged whites and ethnic hatred of Southerners by another name. It’s not a coincidence that this whole thing started 1) mostly coinciding with Trump 2) with Confederate monuments when there are other monuments elsewhere to non-Southern slaveholders like George Washington (monument and bridge) and imperialists like Teddy Roosevelt 3) in red states, mostly by out-of state college students and antifa, and far away from important places like NYC’s George Washington Bridge.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Rob Zombie is a hipster D-bag who somehow parlayed a kind of cool (but really stupid and shallow) rock career into a (short-lived) career as a Hollywood filmmaker. His contempt for good taste is tolerable in a 5 minute long rock song with a decent riff, but is unbearable in a feature length movie.

    Tarantino is a pretentious ass-hole who, unlike Zombie, is under the impression that his bad taste means something, rather than just being the yowlings of an obnoxious party guest who keeps getting drunker instead of leaving.
    , @Anon
    FRIED GREEN TOMATOES is an anti-white movie.
  64. @anon
    "Those on the right have all the moral dimensions those on the left do, they just don’t put as much emphasis on them. The left, however, is missing moral dimensions that the right has."

    That sounds a bit like psychopathy to me, or maybe something closely akin to it: an evolved parasitic or predatory social strategy. The Right are consensus-building pragmatists in social settings. That requires an understanding of how others think and feel - empathy. In contrast, the Left are predators who advance themselves through exploiting others - Machiavellianism, serial lying, tribalism, and iconoclasm. The only good thing here is that the Left are breeding themselves out the population; they could be dramatically reduced in numbers over the next half century.

    The bad thing is that technology is letting an ever fewer number of people control the means of information distribution. The future could very well end up as Eloi and Morlock - predator and prey. This is why the Right has historically needed strong governments like monarchy to rule them: they are incapable of degrading themselves morally to compete with the psychopathic Left, so they need a strong man (a right-wing SJW) monarch to put the sword to their enemies on their behalf, to do what they can't bring themselves to do.

    "Ben&Jerrys types don’t want to think of themselves as vacationing there or relocating there after they flee California or New York’s encroaching diversity.”

    You'll also notice that Vermont gets a lot of coverage. That's because SWPL types vacation in Vermont to see the leaves change (code for escaping inner city minorities). Not coincidentally, Bernie Sanders moved from diverse NY to Vermont as it started getting racially diverse, IIRC. And Ben & Jerry's is located there as well. Strange. You'd think that morally superior liberals would move their company to a place like Flint, Michigan and give poor minorities jobs. It guess it's easier to put diverse people on your ice cream carton than it is to actually care enough to do something for them. It's almost like these people are being disingenuous or something. Like I said, "Machiavellianism, serial lying, tribalism, and iconoclasm."

    "Leftist zealots of all kinds who show no willingness to give any quarter to Trump (even in the even of a national crisis, like the one we are seeing on the border now). 40-50% of the population."

    I wouldn't go quite that far. The number of Leftist WHITE zealots is probably much smaller. That 40-50% is boosted by minorities who likely aren't as SJW socially. Immigration has been particularly bad for the United States because it has empowered radical white religious left zealots through a large and growing block of voters who prioritize racial affiliation over ideology. It's Reagan's "A rising tide lifts all boats" except applied to elections: radical reds are empowered by a rising tide of racialist browns and, especially, blacks.*

    *Oh, what could have been. If blacks had been shipped back to Africa after the Civil War or never imported to begin with, race relations would be much better in the United States. We could probably even handle something akin to open borders for decades considering non-black demographics and the fact that a non-trivial number of Hispanics vote republican - impressive considering how inept and corrupt the GOP is.

    "Trump did poorly among white Californians."

    There are reasons for this, as you write. But it goes beyond simple economics and culture, I think:

    1) Californian whites are a shrinking minority and, as such, they probably don't want to be the target of reprisals by the majority; therefore, they advertise that they are on the POC side so they'll be left alone. Since republicans can never again win California due to racial demographics, game theory suggests the optimal strategy in this situation is to ally with the ruling group. This explains why Muslims are quieter in India than in Muslim-dominated countries and why Southern Jews pre-Leo Frank were amenable to the local Southern culture: there was/is a large majority of non-minorities who'll squash you should you ally against them.

    This also explains why both Asians and Jews will never majority vote republican, despite the efforts of civnats like Steve Sailer and IQ nationalists like Jared Taylor or Boomercons like Trump and Conservatism Inc. There will be no Jewexit. Both groups see that whites are shrinking in numbers (real and relative) and are concomitantly reduced in power; they will soon be cut out of power entirely, so it is foolish to cast your lot with a sinking ship. Both groups will continue signaling that they are on the POC coalition side so they won't face reprisals when POC take over. Ironically, more lower-IQ Hispanics probably voted republican than either of those groups (less future time orientation ability than Asians and Jews who see what's coming but also more testosterone and less racial meekness and greater rivalry with blacks, too).

    2) California has lost a huge number of middle-class whites since 1980 or so. I wouldn't be surprised if 500,000 - 1,000,000 net middle-class whites had left the state by now. That has certainly worsened white performance there. The remaining whites either don't want to be the target of reprisals by the ruling democrat coalition or they tend to be upper-class and geographically disconnected in rich, closed-off areas.

    Also, Californian Asians tend to be more odious because they are on the right side of history (0r want to be) per demographics. Not only can they get away with bad behavior, but they also want to protect themselves by being openly against the POC enemies: whites. On the other hand, East Coast Asians might still be the subject of reprisals should they become openly racists against whites. This is why East Coast Asians are not only more moderate but are much better liked by nearly all racial groups.

    As an aside, this might partly explain why Asians are underrepresented in Hollywood, despite whites having a much higher opinion of them overall compared with blacks. West Coast Asians tend to be more odious, pushy and racist toward normie white movie producers and writers, so they don't cast them in roles or write for them even though whites as a whole like them and their culture much better than they like blacks. I have long advocated replacing uncomfortable black actors in movies with amenable Asians. If Hollywood relocated a couple of studios to the East Coast, you'd probably see more Asians in your movies, television and video games because the toxic culture of racial identity politics is different there - black versus normie white and not everyone versus all whites.

    Ironically, more lower-IQ Hispanics probably voted republican than either of those groups (less future time orientation ability than Asians and Jews who see what’s coming but also more testosterone and less racial meekness and greater rivalry with blacks, too).”

    I seem to recall reading somewhere that East Asian males actually have higher levels of testosterone than Europeans. Though they do have, of course, smaller frames on average. The human ethnic group most notorious for being spindly and nerdy is…..Dot Indians. East Asians actually have a respected culture of martial arts, combat sports are horrifically bloody in the Orient, pro wrestling is popular in Japan, ninja movies and toys were big in the West during the 80’s and early 90’s. Introversion is not the same thing as poor athleticism or meekness.

    Jews do seem to be rather nerdy, though. And Hispanics are rather languid in their affect, though they do get tribal/violent out of a sense of survival/being territorial.

    Nobody ever thought Europeans were that nerdy or anything, prior to recent generations being socialized to take abuse that their ancestors would never have tolerated. But the physical and mental tools to fight tough are still there, they just need to be re-activated.

  65. @anon
    "The late 70’s and 80’s actually did have some affection for the South."

    I don't think it's a coincidence that Jimmy Carter, a Southern democrat, was president during much of that time. The South started being hated again under Ronald Reagan but then experienced a brief resurgence of acceptance under another Southern democrat president, Bill Clinton, with movies like Forest Gump, Fried Green Tomatoes, and The Legend of Bagger Vance; even the movie My Cousin Vinny was shot at a time leading up to the 92 election when the economy crashed and LA democrats thought they suddenly had a good chance of being competitive in the general election. Since then, it's all been downhill. Although, I suppose we could have seen another upsurge had Al Gore won. We missed out on some great movies, I guess. Obviously, the people influencing the culture from LA alternate their opinions of the rural poor and Southerners depending upon whether they need to be conciliatory in the first place (no need when Obama was there as he was from Illinois*) or whether their side is winning (W. Bush vs. Gore).

    "I would argue that the 2000’s were a period of rapid political and cultural disintegration, because the neo-libs and neo-cons so badly mishandled the post 9/11 period. Plus there was so much damn whining about Gore being jobbed in 2000".

    That could be true, but I wonder if the rise of the internet simply allowed grievances to be aired more quickly and more personally than before and perhaps this contributed in a major way. Also, around 2000 was the period when the demographics had shifted to the point where it was getting hard for traditional conservatives to win presidential elections without appealing to identity politics.

    *I could have easily added a list of negative movies under Obama, too. Django Unchained, for example. In one of Tarantino's movies, I believe they lynch a white female Southerner (or maybe just a white female, it slips my mind because he's greatly overrated, a lot of people in the industry think so too - she's rural in any case). In addition to movies, this statue burning craze is just another iteration of the Left's social hatred for poor, disadvantaged whites and ethnic hatred of Southerners by another name. It's not a coincidence that this whole thing started 1) mostly coinciding with Trump 2) with Confederate monuments when there are other monuments elsewhere to non-Southern slaveholders like George Washington (monument and bridge) and imperialists like Teddy Roosevelt 3) in red states, mostly by out-of state college students and antifa, and far away from important places like NYC's George Washington Bridge.

    Rob Zombie is a hipster D-bag who somehow parlayed a kind of cool (but really stupid and shallow) rock career into a (short-lived) career as a Hollywood filmmaker. His contempt for good taste is tolerable in a 5 minute long rock song with a decent riff, but is unbearable in a feature length movie.

    Tarantino is a pretentious ass-hole who, unlike Zombie, is under the impression that his bad taste means something, rather than just being the yowlings of an obnoxious party guest who keeps getting drunker instead of leaving.

  66. anon[745] • Disclaimer says:

    “If Hollywood relocated a couple of studios to the East Coast, you’d probably see more Asians in your movies”

    In fact, you already have – sorta. The Walking Dead series was filmed in Georgia, and that show had an Asian male / white female romantic relationship; both characters were fan favorites. On the other hand, they paired white male lead Rick Grimes with the very black Michonne. It was awkward and even uncomfortable to watch. Didn’t work. At all, and probably killed the show. If Michonne had been a hot Asian chick like Grace Park, she would have been a fan favorite, too. Truthfully, race relations between blacks and every other group are pretty low right now, even to the point where interracial romantic relationships can be off-putting, even in this day and age. A lot of this is due to the never ending stories of racial grievances people see on television: BLM, #oscarssowhite, various whitewashing controversies, statue burning, police shootings … Personally, I think replacing black actors with cute Asians and Latinas would allow for diversity without also being off-putting to white audiences. It also saves one from the potential headache of suffering accusations of racism because that demographic is particularly prone to making them (and their white knights in the media).

    But you don’t see that as much as you could. I suspect, but can’t prove, that’s partly because liberal white female casting directors fear Asian and Latina women as sexual competition. In fact, if you’ll take a moment you’ll notice that a hugely disproportionate number of interracial advertisements involving white men involve black woman – a demographic white females don’t feel threatened by in the looks department; white females in ads are, however, free to imagine themselves with anyone they want.

  67. anon[240] • Disclaimer says:

    “Derogatory portrayals of rural and suburban America are common when violent crime is fairly low or falling, but they largely vanish when crime is rising. For example, Texas Chainsaw Massacre (from 1974) was quite popular in it’s day, but by 1978 Halloween far surpassed TCM in popularity.”

    Maybe that’s true, but there is another possibility: Hollywood portrayals of their counterparts in rural, Western, and Southern areas depends upon what mood they’re in at the moment. In 1974, republican Richard Nixon was president; he won re-election on the much lambasted Southern Strategy. The media hated that guy. In 1978, affable Southern Democrat Jimmy Carter was president. That marked the beginning of the clothing, movie, and television trends you noted above. Coincidence?

    • Replies: @Feryl
    When Reagan was president, lots of movies featuring dangerous urban areas were made. The media doesn't control crime rates; it reflects crime rates. You must be delusional to not notice that unflattering depictions of urban areas peaked from the late 70's-early 90's, which is when......Crime reached record high levels. The 1994 "comedy" Clerks was supposed to end with the main character being shot to death in a convenience store robbery, but they decided to re-shoot the ending for obvious reasons.
  68. Feryl says:
    @anon
    "Derogatory portrayals of rural and suburban America are common when violent crime is fairly low or falling, but they largely vanish when crime is rising. For example, Texas Chainsaw Massacre (from 1974) was quite popular in it’s day, but by 1978 Halloween far surpassed TCM in popularity."

    Maybe that's true, but there is another possibility: Hollywood portrayals of their counterparts in rural, Western, and Southern areas depends upon what mood they're in at the moment. In 1974, republican Richard Nixon was president; he won re-election on the much lambasted Southern Strategy. The media hated that guy. In 1978, affable Southern Democrat Jimmy Carter was president. That marked the beginning of the clothing, movie, and television trends you noted above. Coincidence?

    When Reagan was president, lots of movies featuring dangerous urban areas were made. The media doesn’t control crime rates; it reflects crime rates. You must be delusional to not notice that unflattering depictions of urban areas peaked from the late 70’s-early 90’s, which is when……Crime reached record high levels. The 1994 “comedy” Clerks was supposed to end with the main character being shot to death in a convenience store robbery, but they decided to re-shoot the ending for obvious reasons.

  69. @Feryl
    "Consider some of the movies the Left made during that time. The Wrong Turn series portrayed rural whites as inbred cannibalistic monsters; so did the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake. Rob Zombie did the same with his horror movies. Michael Moore was all the rage for documentaries attacking Bush over spying policies Obama later kept and dramatically widened. One Hollywood movie broached the subject of a fictional assassination of George W. Bush, which Kevin Costner rebuked. We had acclaimed movies like Brokeback Mountain, ostensibly about gays but actually about sticking it to rural whites whom liberals imagine vote republican. Movies like Big Fish were ignored because they were about Southerners and didn’t also portray them negatively."

    Derogatory portrayals of rural and suburban America are common when violent crime is fairly low or falling, but they largely vanish when crime is rising. For example, Texas Chainsaw Massacre (from 1974) was quite popular in it's day, but by 1978 Halloween far surpassed TCM in popularity. And in Halloween, the suburbanites are portrayed as ordinary people preyed on by a lunatic who escaped from an asylum. Whereas in TCM, the villians are psycho yahoos from the middle of nowhere whose activities have never been noticed by the authorities. The late 70's-early 90's typically portrayed urban areas as seedy and crime ridden; many movies opted to not even have any scenes take place in urban settings, simply because of how much of the audience hated and fear the city during that period. By circa 1980, too many people had been mugged, raped, and murdered, etc. to continue the non-sense that rural areas were frightening. And the 1980's were the peak of heroic characters often taking refuge in nature; Stallone in Rocky 4 training in and around a mountain cabin, Luke in Empire Strikes Back training on a swamp/jungle planet, etc. The heroes in Red Dawn are all small town kids who grew up hunting, and use their knowledge of the landscape to their advantage.

    Once crime started declining in about 1994-1995, that's when urban life started to be glorified again. By the mid-2000's, crime had declined to the point that, as you point out, a re-make of TCM was a big hit.

    The TMNT movies immediately spring to mind. Crocodile Dundee is an even better example of urban life being portrayed as degenerate/dangerous trash and rural living as laudable and fulfilling.

  70. @Feryl
    Caucasians (but especially Jewish ones*) find Asians to be culturally and intellectually threatening; see the now notorious anti-Asian policies pursued by the Ivy League. Talented tenth blacks are charming to white liberals, but do not represent any sort of commercial or cultural threat. American white elites want to have a token representation of most kinds of POC in the elite, but they are terrified of large numbers of Asians who are perceived to be smart, hardworking, but also boring and rather sneaky.

    White American elites want to pat a handful of POC on the head, not have the whole culture of certain classes/industries be altered beyond recognition by Asian drones. Of course, it's too late to "save" the tech industry, but academia and entertainment are still stubbornly insistent on keeping whites and blacks ahead of everyone else. There's also a fear that Asians, as others have noted, are both unique and competent, which means that they have no desire to respect or preserve the culture created by Caucasians with some African and Mesizo input, since Asian culture works pretty well.

    *Asian fetishes aren't unheard of among blonde gentiles (the most stoic Europeans), but are essentially non-existent among extroverted Jews.

    *Asian fetishes aren’t unheard of among blonde gentiles (the most stoic Europeans), but are essentially non-existent among extroverted Jews.

    The robotic Zuckerberg, and his more loquacious co-founder Saverin are both married to East Asian women.

  71. @Audacious Epigone
    Some silver lining in the strong support for People's Party among young men. Will that continue to grow?

    Not if the deranged in the replies here have anything to say about it.

    It’s time for War Plan Red

    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Lol nah the left wing media is just scared that Scheer is going to move right (to stop the bleeding to the PPC). The greatest fear is that the Cons might become an actual conservative party.

    Something like 70% of conservative voters believe there are too many visible minorities in canada. Yet the party line doesn't seem to reflect this.

    We have to push the Cons to acknowledge this.
  72. @anon
    "The late 70’s and 80’s actually did have some affection for the South."

    I don't think it's a coincidence that Jimmy Carter, a Southern democrat, was president during much of that time. The South started being hated again under Ronald Reagan but then experienced a brief resurgence of acceptance under another Southern democrat president, Bill Clinton, with movies like Forest Gump, Fried Green Tomatoes, and The Legend of Bagger Vance; even the movie My Cousin Vinny was shot at a time leading up to the 92 election when the economy crashed and LA democrats thought they suddenly had a good chance of being competitive in the general election. Since then, it's all been downhill. Although, I suppose we could have seen another upsurge had Al Gore won. We missed out on some great movies, I guess. Obviously, the people influencing the culture from LA alternate their opinions of the rural poor and Southerners depending upon whether they need to be conciliatory in the first place (no need when Obama was there as he was from Illinois*) or whether their side is winning (W. Bush vs. Gore).

    "I would argue that the 2000’s were a period of rapid political and cultural disintegration, because the neo-libs and neo-cons so badly mishandled the post 9/11 period. Plus there was so much damn whining about Gore being jobbed in 2000".

    That could be true, but I wonder if the rise of the internet simply allowed grievances to be aired more quickly and more personally than before and perhaps this contributed in a major way. Also, around 2000 was the period when the demographics had shifted to the point where it was getting hard for traditional conservatives to win presidential elections without appealing to identity politics.

    *I could have easily added a list of negative movies under Obama, too. Django Unchained, for example. In one of Tarantino's movies, I believe they lynch a white female Southerner (or maybe just a white female, it slips my mind because he's greatly overrated, a lot of people in the industry think so too - she's rural in any case). In addition to movies, this statue burning craze is just another iteration of the Left's social hatred for poor, disadvantaged whites and ethnic hatred of Southerners by another name. It's not a coincidence that this whole thing started 1) mostly coinciding with Trump 2) with Confederate monuments when there are other monuments elsewhere to non-Southern slaveholders like George Washington (monument and bridge) and imperialists like Teddy Roosevelt 3) in red states, mostly by out-of state college students and antifa, and far away from important places like NYC's George Washington Bridge.

    FRIED GREEN TOMATOES is an anti-white movie.

  73. @Feryl
    Caucasians (but especially Jewish ones*) find Asians to be culturally and intellectually threatening; see the now notorious anti-Asian policies pursued by the Ivy League. Talented tenth blacks are charming to white liberals, but do not represent any sort of commercial or cultural threat. American white elites want to have a token representation of most kinds of POC in the elite, but they are terrified of large numbers of Asians who are perceived to be smart, hardworking, but also boring and rather sneaky.

    White American elites want to pat a handful of POC on the head, not have the whole culture of certain classes/industries be altered beyond recognition by Asian drones. Of course, it's too late to "save" the tech industry, but academia and entertainment are still stubbornly insistent on keeping whites and blacks ahead of everyone else. There's also a fear that Asians, as others have noted, are both unique and competent, which means that they have no desire to respect or preserve the culture created by Caucasians with some African and Mesizo input, since Asian culture works pretty well.

    *Asian fetishes aren't unheard of among blonde gentiles (the most stoic Europeans), but are essentially non-existent among extroverted Jews.

    Haha well let’s see how Canada does. We just have masses of asians pouring in.

  74. @216
    Not if the deranged in the replies here have anything to say about it.

    https://twitter.com/macleans/status/1125404241718382592

    It's time for War Plan Red

    Lol nah the left wing media is just scared that Scheer is going to move right (to stop the bleeding to the PPC). The greatest fear is that the Cons might become an actual conservative party.

    Something like 70% of conservative voters believe there are too many visible minorities in canada. Yet the party line doesn’t seem to reflect this.

    We have to push the Cons to acknowledge this.

  75. anon[144] • Disclaimer says:

    “You must be delusional to not notice that unflattering depictions of urban areas peaked from the late 70’s-early 90’s, which is when……Crime reached record high levels.”

    1) Selection bias (see below). Additionally, many of those movies were made back before CGI and modern production budgets. Thus, it’s not surprising they shot on location in areas that, coincidentally, were quite decayed (it was less expensive back then to just shoot in the city than it was to shoot in multiple locations elsewhere).

    The obvious exception is TMNT 1990, which was filmed in NC for the most part, but that movie’s setting was based in a city that had been well-known as a sleaze factory for decades at the time of production, so it’s not like they had a choice in the matter of the location’s portrayal; it was also an indie movie, so the budget was limited to what they could find unlike Ghostbusters 1984. BTW, the Ghostbusters sequel (1989) was released after the homicide rate had been skyrocketing in New York for years and the city was portrayed just fine. Movies like *Batteries Not Included (1987) and The Secret of My Success (1987) – near the lower mid-point of the upward trend but still at a rate much higher than the mid-90s and before NYC was fully cleaned up – offered a reasonable depiction of the city.

    2) It’s completely possible the point you mentioned is accurate (I happen to believe it is to a degree), but it would do zilch to disconfirm what I have written because my comment wasn’t limited to urban areas or about them specifically. You’re trying to use “urban areas” to negate the point I made which wasn’t even about urban areas. But negative depictions of urban areas do not also prohibit the obvious trend I noted of Southern and rural areas (and people) being negatively depicted when democrats/Hollywood social liberals were out of power but then alternately depicted disproportionately well when they got their way in a national election with a Southern Democrat; the trend for Southerners, in particular, is very strong…but obviously not absolute as there will always be exceptions.

    I could continue the trend I noted by listing movies such as Deliverance (1972); Richard Nixon was president then. Tell me, sir. Where was the urban setting in that movie? Didn’t 1972 coincide with Nixon’s Southern Strategy? Hadn’t the homicide rate been increasing for years before that movie was made, with the decade’s highest murder rate being just two years later in 1974? From the wiki: “The film was a critical success, earning three Oscar nominations and five Golden Globe Award nominations. Widely acclaimed as a landmark picture …” Hollywood sure loved that movie’s portrayal of the rural people whom Nixon appealed to, and they made sure people knew it, too.

    The late 80s, which coincided with increasing homicide rates, also saw movies like “Mississippi Burning” and Glory (gotta get them Southerners, stupid republican Reagan, stupid, dumb Bush, Re … stupid).

    Further examples post-Clinton: Movies like Maverick 1994 (Jodie Foster’s character) and sitcoms like Hearts Afire, an early 90s John Ritter sitcom about a guy from Arkansas in Washington DC when the homicide rate for that city was near its peak and FAR above the national average.

    And if I really wanted to get nuanced, I could look at portrayals of rural Americans and Southerners post 1995 when the republicans took back the congress from the Clinton democrats; hint: we started getting episodes of X-files where rural people are portrayed as dangerous, inbred, cannibals. Oh, and we got Amistad (1997), a movie about a slave revolt. *

    *Side note: Spielberg seems to have a strong anti-Southern fetish: Amistad, The Color Purple, Lincoln … hmm, maybe somebody should tell this guy that Nazi Bun meetings were being held in Madison Square Garden at the same time Southerners were voting through Lend Lease and voting to help get the US into the war against Germany, which saved his people’s collective a$$es (well, some of them) – ungrateful jerk. But I’m not surprised. Good director doesn’t mean historically literate or honorable person. Scorpion does as scorpion does.

    I could further continue my point by listing movies and television shows produced under George W. Bush: Avatar (filmed under Bush) featured a hick Southerner militarist bad guy who wanted to kill cute aliens and steal their natural resources (obvious Iraq War parallel); an enormous number of Law & Order SVU episodes under Bush alluding to Southern states being the source of New York City’s gun problems + other unflattering episodes attacking Christians and Southerners, including a particularly odious episode where a black female cop excoriates “The New South” after she catches racist Southern cops raping a black girl; Squidbillies (2005); … seriously, I could make a very extensive list.

    Personally, I think it’s absurd to attribute all of that to mere “crime rates” considering the breadth and depth of the material and the very obvious social commentary some of those properties had in connection with real life events, including wars, contemporary social policy, and the Bush administration.

    “Unflattering depictions of urban areas”

    Post-apocalyptic games and movies featuring destroyed urban areas were/are still very popular despite a decades-long downward trend in the crime rate. Fallout 3, for example, takes place in the post nuclear apocalypse of Washington, D.C.; it was released in 2008. The main antagonist of the game is Colonel Augustus Autumn, a jingoistic Southerner with an obvious accent.

    “The 1994 “comedy” Clerks was supposed to end with the main character being shot to death in a convenience store robbery, but they decided to re-shoot the ending for obvious reasons.”

    That was an indie movie made by a guy using his credit cards. The director of that film, Kevin Smith, later went on to make Red State, finishing the movie’s first draft in 2007. Here’s a snippet of the plot description from the wiki: “Jarod wakes up in a covered cage and realizes he is inside Five Points Trinity Church, a fanatically conservative church, after he identifies church leader Abin Cooper. Cooper begins a long, hate-filled sermon. His followers ritually murder a captive gay man …” Bush’s key demographic was evangelical, socially conservative, rural Christians.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Kevin Smith was a blue collar normie when he wrote "Clerks"; but spending decades in Hollywood's dream factory can really make you delusional.

    "*Side note: Spielberg seems to have a strong anti-Southern fetish: Amistad, The Color Purple, Lincoln … hmm, maybe somebody should tell this guy that Nazi Bun meetings were being held in Madison Square Garden at the same time Southerners were voting through Lend Lease and voting to help get the US into the war against Germany, which saved his people’s collective a$$es (well, some of them) – ungrateful jerk. But I’m not surprised. Good director doesn’t mean historically literate or honorable person. Scorpion does as scorpion does."

    The South is always more pro-war (against foreign enemies, at any rate). Puritan and Teutonic whites (! during WW2) are much more dove-ish. And this still hasn't changed, even though you might think that Teutonic Americans would over-react to WW2 era accusations of lacking patriotism by enthusiastically supporting future wars. Also, those aren't very popular movies, compared to Indiana Jones, ET, etc. Hollywood lets Spielberg indulge his pet liberal concerns (about the treatment of blacks) because his other movies are big enough to give him clout.

    "BTW, the Ghostbusters sequel (1989) was released after the homicide rate had been skyrocketing in New York for years and the city was portrayed just fine. Movies like *Batteries Not Included (1987) and The Secret of My Success (1987) – near the lower mid-point of the upward trend but still at a rate much higher than the mid-90s and before NYC was fully cleaned up – offered a reasonable depiction of the city."

    Ghostbusters is a fantasy and family film, as is Batteries. The secret of my success was targeted at young girls, who are the least concerned about violent crime. Movies targeted to teenage boys and men made absolutely no effort to conceal just how dangerous the streets were. Last Action Hero, although mostly a lightweight spoof, still featured the lead character's home being robbed. Home Alone had two robbers as the antagonists. Then of course there's the legions of action movies from the 70's, 80's, and early 90's that are about frustration with thuggish assholes being a nuisance. Death Wish, Dirty Harry, Cobra, most of Seagal's movies, Robocop, etc.

    Now look, we could go forever with "cherry picking" particular titles, but at the end of the day the point is that the 1970's-mid 90's were a very dangerous time to walk the city streets, which pop culture emphasized.

    I could continue the trend I noted by listing movies such as Deliverance (1972); Richard Nixon was president then. Tell me, sir. Where was the urban setting in that movie? Didn’t 1972 coincide with Nixon’s Southern Strategy?

    Death Wish came out in '74, and was based on novel written in '72; the fact that Hollywood almost immediately produced an adaptation ought to tell you something. I would argue that 1970's pop culture was equally afraid of the country and the city, with Wes Craven making both look bad in Last House on the Left (Krug the head villain lives in an apartment) and the Hills Have Eyes (about a desert cannibal clan). But in the 80's, there was a major shift to pastoral and wilderness settings being tranquil and healthy, while the city was teeming with noise and crime (the fact that immigration soared in the 1980's certainly helped with this ambiance, with Blade Runner reflecting this in the movies). A survey of prospective home-owners revealed that around 1981 is when many people began to report that a fear of crime (which obviously is most common in cities) took priority over other concerns. People were clearly getting fed up with home invaders and roving gangs of young males by the early 80's. They weren't afraid of inbred hillbillies anymore.
    , @Feryl
    "Cooper begins a long, hate-filled sermon. His followers ritually murder a captive gay man …” Bush’s key demographic was evangelical, socially conservative, rural Christians."

    I don't see what the problem is, because Smith is tapping into the fact that terrorism gets worse during a climate of increasing political tension. Yeah, I know, whatabout Muslims, Leftists, etc. doing stuff? Well, it's liberal Hollywood, what do you expect?

    And since Leftist true believers are disproportionately young, that would certainly account for why so much terrorism is motivated by Leftism. In societies where tension is primarily between Left and Right, the Left will commit most of the terrorism due to being the younger side (The "Hard Hat Riot" involved often middle-aged construction workers beating up on mostly young Leftist radicals). Also, I would suspect that in religious and ethnic conflicts, the younger side will be more violent; if no age difference exists, than both sides will inflict the same amount of damage.
  76. anon[130] • Disclaimer says:

    “Caucasians (but especially Jewish ones*) find Asians to be culturally and intellectually threatening.”

    I wouldn’t necessarily say that. There are tons of white [schoolmarm word?] out there – [schoolmarm word?] who speak fluent Japanese despite living in places like Iowa and Ohio. The famous mass murderer and YouTube star Mr. Anime was a [schoolmarm word?] from rural Texas. Asians are quite well liked by normie whites in general. AE has another post on this. Further, if you use China’s approval rating as a measure of how different social groups view the Asian threat, pretty much only the upper-class, disproportionately Jewish, sees any threat. A fair number of alt-right types have passing respect for the Chinese government, as Karlin has noted IIRC.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Lower class whites vastly prefer Asians to other groups. The technocratic white elites obviously don't mind them, either. But the verbal/cultural elites (law, academia, media, entertainment) absolutely don't want their fields to be over-run by Asians, who are thought to be threats to Western norms; as long as these fields are 70-80% white, with token representation of blacks, Mestizos, Arabs, Dot Indians, etc., then BAU will continue.

    Part of the dread is that reflexive anti-Badwhite ideology will wither because Asians are too no-nonsense, and too insufficiently hostile to gentile whites, to support the PC blathering that the current regime demands.

    "A fair number of alt-right types have passing respect for the Chinese government, as Karlin has noted IIRC."

    It's not moral respect or support, it's more an acknowledgement that the Chinese (and Russia) are licking their chops after the US did a giant face-plant starting with the "globalism" (treason) promoted by Western elites in the 1990's.
  77. @Feryl
    Whites in the Mountain West states report being far more liberal, on cultural issues, since about the year 2000 (per the GSS). Prior to the 2000's, people in the Mountain West often self-reported that they were nearly as conservative on cultural issues as people from the Midwest and South.

    Why do we always have to blame POC for our problems? Whites have nobody to blame but themselves for pissing away so much.

    Also, over the last 20 years a fissure seems to be developing in this country based on East Vs West, as opposed to the North Vs South divide that's risen and fallen in various cycles throughout this country's history. Then again, it's not really all that new to see a divide between the urban/developed East and the frontier West, it's just that what happens to be the frontier has changed over the years. Wisconsin and Tennessee were, at one point, the frontier. But whites in the NW Midwest seem pretty normal* these days, suggesting that over the last 50-70 years we've reached a point where we can say with certainty that the Western frontier now encompasses the Rockies to the Pacific.

    *Whites in the Pacific and Mountain states seem quite decadent by comparison, with their tolerance of gambling, drugs, prostitution, and the like. During the New Deal, Great Society, and early Reagan era (essentially 1930-2000), the Mountain states (and to a lesser extent, the Pacific states) were more wholesome, but now that we've slid into a new Gilded Age, people in the Western US seem more eager to accelerate the decadence relative to what Easterners are comfortable with.

    “Whites in the Mountain West states report being far more liberal, on cultural issues, since about the year 2000 (per the GSS).”

    “Whites in the Pacific and Mountain states seem quite decadent by comparison, with their tolerance of gambling, drugs, prostitution, and the like. “

    To what extent is this the domination of narco-state Colorado over the category “Mountain West”, plus the in-migration of refugees from California to Utah and Idaho, where they carry on voting the same way they did when they wrecked California?

    • Replies: @Feryl
    The interior Western state samples are taken from those who reported living in the region when they were 16. So transplants don't count (although you obviously could make the argument that the transplants raised their kids differently compared to the natives).

    GSS uses representative samples, e.g. they will survey a lot more Californians than Idahoans because way more people live in California, so over-sampling Idahoans would not give an accurate account of how Americans live and think. Colorado and Arizona are going to have better representation in the interior West's GSS results since they have more people than say, Wyoming.

    To avoid large urban areas influencing GSS results too much, you can exclude people who lived in big cities when they were 16.

    The generations born during the New Deal (Silents and Boomers), who were raised in the interior West, are a lot more conservative than younger generations. This is true in every region, but it's most pronounced in the interior West (like I said above, before 2000 the interior West was nearly as culturally conservative as the South and Midwest; now the interior West is the second most liberal region).

    Most Midwesterners don't complain about other Americans moving to the region, I dunno why so many people in the Western states are so grouchy about American transplants. Let's focus on keeping immigrants out, shall we?
  78. Feryl says:
    @Almost Missouri

    "Whites in the Mountain West states report being far more liberal, on cultural issues, since about the year 2000 (per the GSS)."
    ...
    "Whites in the Pacific and Mountain states seem quite decadent by comparison, with their tolerance of gambling, drugs, prostitution, and the like. "
     
    To what extent is this the domination of narco-state Colorado over the category "Mountain West", plus the in-migration of refugees from California to Utah and Idaho, where they carry on voting the same way they did when they wrecked California?

    The interior Western state samples are taken from those who reported living in the region when they were 16. So transplants don’t count (although you obviously could make the argument that the transplants raised their kids differently compared to the natives).

    GSS uses representative samples, e.g. they will survey a lot more Californians than Idahoans because way more people live in California, so over-sampling Idahoans would not give an accurate account of how Americans live and think. Colorado and Arizona are going to have better representation in the interior West’s GSS results since they have more people than say, Wyoming.

    To avoid large urban areas influencing GSS results too much, you can exclude people who lived in big cities when they were 16.

    The generations born during the New Deal (Silents and Boomers), who were raised in the interior West, are a lot more conservative than younger generations. This is true in every region, but it’s most pronounced in the interior West (like I said above, before 2000 the interior West was nearly as culturally conservative as the South and Midwest; now the interior West is the second most liberal region).

    Most Midwesterners don’t complain about other Americans moving to the region, I dunno why so many people in the Western states are so grouchy about American transplants. Let’s focus on keeping immigrants out, shall we?

  79. Feryl says:
    @anon
    "Caucasians (but especially Jewish ones*) find Asians to be culturally and intellectually threatening."

    I wouldn't necessarily say that. There are tons of white [schoolmarm word?] out there - [schoolmarm word?] who speak fluent Japanese despite living in places like Iowa and Ohio. The famous mass murderer and YouTube star Mr. Anime was a [schoolmarm word?] from rural Texas. Asians are quite well liked by normie whites in general. AE has another post on this. Further, if you use China's approval rating as a measure of how different social groups view the Asian threat, pretty much only the upper-class, disproportionately Jewish, sees any threat. A fair number of alt-right types have passing respect for the Chinese government, as Karlin has noted IIRC.

    Lower class whites vastly prefer Asians to other groups. The technocratic white elites obviously don’t mind them, either. But the verbal/cultural elites (law, academia, media, entertainment) absolutely don’t want their fields to be over-run by Asians, who are thought to be threats to Western norms; as long as these fields are 70-80% white, with token representation of blacks, Mestizos, Arabs, Dot Indians, etc., then BAU will continue.

    Part of the dread is that reflexive anti-Badwhite ideology will wither because Asians are too no-nonsense, and too insufficiently hostile to gentile whites, to support the PC blathering that the current regime demands.

    “A fair number of alt-right types have passing respect for the Chinese government, as Karlin has noted IIRC.”

    It’s not moral respect or support, it’s more an acknowledgement that the Chinese (and Russia) are licking their chops after the US did a giant face-plant starting with the “globalism” (treason) promoted by Western elites in the 1990’s.

  80. Feryl says:
    @anon
    "You must be delusional to not notice that unflattering depictions of urban areas peaked from the late 70’s-early 90’s, which is when……Crime reached record high levels."

    1) Selection bias (see below). Additionally, many of those movies were made back before CGI and modern production budgets. Thus, it's not surprising they shot on location in areas that, coincidentally, were quite decayed (it was less expensive back then to just shoot in the city than it was to shoot in multiple locations elsewhere).

    The obvious exception is TMNT 1990, which was filmed in NC for the most part, but that movie's setting was based in a city that had been well-known as a sleaze factory for decades at the time of production, so it's not like they had a choice in the matter of the location's portrayal; it was also an indie movie, so the budget was limited to what they could find unlike Ghostbusters 1984. BTW, the Ghostbusters sequel (1989) was released after the homicide rate had been skyrocketing in New York for years and the city was portrayed just fine. Movies like *Batteries Not Included (1987) and The Secret of My Success (1987) - near the lower mid-point of the upward trend but still at a rate much higher than the mid-90s and before NYC was fully cleaned up - offered a reasonable depiction of the city.

    2) It's completely possible the point you mentioned is accurate (I happen to believe it is to a degree), but it would do zilch to disconfirm what I have written because my comment wasn't limited to urban areas or about them specifically. You're trying to use "urban areas" to negate the point I made which wasn't even about urban areas. But negative depictions of urban areas do not also prohibit the obvious trend I noted of Southern and rural areas (and people) being negatively depicted when democrats/Hollywood social liberals were out of power but then alternately depicted disproportionately well when they got their way in a national election with a Southern Democrat; the trend for Southerners, in particular, is very strong...but obviously not absolute as there will always be exceptions.

    I could continue the trend I noted by listing movies such as Deliverance (1972); Richard Nixon was president then. Tell me, sir. Where was the urban setting in that movie? Didn't 1972 coincide with Nixon's Southern Strategy? Hadn't the homicide rate been increasing for years before that movie was made, with the decade's highest murder rate being just two years later in 1974? From the wiki: "The film was a critical success, earning three Oscar nominations and five Golden Globe Award nominations. Widely acclaimed as a landmark picture ..." Hollywood sure loved that movie's portrayal of the rural people whom Nixon appealed to, and they made sure people knew it, too.

    The late 80s, which coincided with increasing homicide rates, also saw movies like "Mississippi Burning" and Glory (gotta get them Southerners, stupid republican Reagan, stupid, dumb Bush, Re ... stupid).

    Further examples post-Clinton: Movies like Maverick 1994 (Jodie Foster's character) and sitcoms like Hearts Afire, an early 90s John Ritter sitcom about a guy from Arkansas in Washington DC when the homicide rate for that city was near its peak and FAR above the national average.

    And if I really wanted to get nuanced, I could look at portrayals of rural Americans and Southerners post 1995 when the republicans took back the congress from the Clinton democrats; hint: we started getting episodes of X-files where rural people are portrayed as dangerous, inbred, cannibals. Oh, and we got Amistad (1997), a movie about a slave revolt. *

    *Side note: Spielberg seems to have a strong anti-Southern fetish: Amistad, The Color Purple, Lincoln ... hmm, maybe somebody should tell this guy that Nazi Bun meetings were being held in Madison Square Garden at the same time Southerners were voting through Lend Lease and voting to help get the US into the war against Germany, which saved his people's collective a$$es (well, some of them) - ungrateful jerk. But I'm not surprised. Good director doesn't mean historically literate or honorable person. Scorpion does as scorpion does.

    I could further continue my point by listing movies and television shows produced under George W. Bush: Avatar (filmed under Bush) featured a hick Southerner militarist bad guy who wanted to kill cute aliens and steal their natural resources (obvious Iraq War parallel); an enormous number of Law & Order SVU episodes under Bush alluding to Southern states being the source of New York City's gun problems + other unflattering episodes attacking Christians and Southerners, including a particularly odious episode where a black female cop excoriates "The New South" after she catches racist Southern cops raping a black girl; Squidbillies (2005); ... seriously, I could make a very extensive list.

    Personally, I think it's absurd to attribute all of that to mere "crime rates" considering the breadth and depth of the material and the very obvious social commentary some of those properties had in connection with real life events, including wars, contemporary social policy, and the Bush administration.

    "Unflattering depictions of urban areas"

    Post-apocalyptic games and movies featuring destroyed urban areas were/are still very popular despite a decades-long downward trend in the crime rate. Fallout 3, for example, takes place in the post nuclear apocalypse of Washington, D.C.; it was released in 2008. The main antagonist of the game is Colonel Augustus Autumn, a jingoistic Southerner with an obvious accent.

    "The 1994 “comedy” Clerks was supposed to end with the main character being shot to death in a convenience store robbery, but they decided to re-shoot the ending for obvious reasons."

    That was an indie movie made by a guy using his credit cards. The director of that film, Kevin Smith, later went on to make Red State, finishing the movie's first draft in 2007. Here's a snippet of the plot description from the wiki: "Jarod wakes up in a covered cage and realizes he is inside Five Points Trinity Church, a fanatically conservative church, after he identifies church leader Abin Cooper. Cooper begins a long, hate-filled sermon. His followers ritually murder a captive gay man ..." Bush's key demographic was evangelical, socially conservative, rural Christians.

    Kevin Smith was a blue collar normie when he wrote “Clerks”; but spending decades in Hollywood’s dream factory can really make you delusional.

    “*Side note: Spielberg seems to have a strong anti-Southern fetish: Amistad, The Color Purple, Lincoln … hmm, maybe somebody should tell this guy that Nazi Bun meetings were being held in Madison Square Garden at the same time Southerners were voting through Lend Lease and voting to help get the US into the war against Germany, which saved his people’s collective a$$es (well, some of them) – ungrateful jerk. But I’m not surprised. Good director doesn’t mean historically literate or honorable person. Scorpion does as scorpion does.”

    The South is always more pro-war (against foreign enemies, at any rate). Puritan and Teutonic whites (! during WW2) are much more dove-ish. And this still hasn’t changed, even though you might think that Teutonic Americans would over-react to WW2 era accusations of lacking patriotism by enthusiastically supporting future wars. Also, those aren’t very popular movies, compared to Indiana Jones, ET, etc. Hollywood lets Spielberg indulge his pet liberal concerns (about the treatment of blacks) because his other movies are big enough to give him clout.

    “BTW, the Ghostbusters sequel (1989) was released after the homicide rate had been skyrocketing in New York for years and the city was portrayed just fine. Movies like *Batteries Not Included (1987) and The Secret of My Success (1987) – near the lower mid-point of the upward trend but still at a rate much higher than the mid-90s and before NYC was fully cleaned up – offered a reasonable depiction of the city.”

    Ghostbusters is a fantasy and family film, as is Batteries. The secret of my success was targeted at young girls, who are the least concerned about violent crime. Movies targeted to teenage boys and men made absolutely no effort to conceal just how dangerous the streets were. Last Action Hero, although mostly a lightweight spoof, still featured the lead character’s home being robbed. Home Alone had two robbers as the antagonists. Then of course there’s the legions of action movies from the 70’s, 80’s, and early 90’s that are about frustration with thuggish assholes being a nuisance. Death Wish, Dirty Harry, Cobra, most of Seagal’s movies, Robocop, etc.

    Now look, we could go forever with “cherry picking” particular titles, but at the end of the day the point is that the 1970’s-mid 90’s were a very dangerous time to walk the city streets, which pop culture emphasized.

    I could continue the trend I noted by listing movies such as Deliverance (1972); Richard Nixon was president then. Tell me, sir. Where was the urban setting in that movie? Didn’t 1972 coincide with Nixon’s Southern Strategy?

    Death Wish came out in ’74, and was based on novel written in ’72; the fact that Hollywood almost immediately produced an adaptation ought to tell you something. I would argue that 1970’s pop culture was equally afraid of the country and the city, with Wes Craven making both look bad in Last House on the Left (Krug the head villain lives in an apartment) and the Hills Have Eyes (about a desert cannibal clan). But in the 80’s, there was a major shift to pastoral and wilderness settings being tranquil and healthy, while the city was teeming with noise and crime (the fact that immigration soared in the 1980’s certainly helped with this ambiance, with Blade Runner reflecting this in the movies). A survey of prospective home-owners revealed that around 1981 is when many people began to report that a fear of crime (which obviously is most common in cities) took priority over other concerns. People were clearly getting fed up with home invaders and roving gangs of young males by the early 80’s. They weren’t afraid of inbred hillbillies anymore.

  81. Feryl says:
    @anon
    "You must be delusional to not notice that unflattering depictions of urban areas peaked from the late 70’s-early 90’s, which is when……Crime reached record high levels."

    1) Selection bias (see below). Additionally, many of those movies were made back before CGI and modern production budgets. Thus, it's not surprising they shot on location in areas that, coincidentally, were quite decayed (it was less expensive back then to just shoot in the city than it was to shoot in multiple locations elsewhere).

    The obvious exception is TMNT 1990, which was filmed in NC for the most part, but that movie's setting was based in a city that had been well-known as a sleaze factory for decades at the time of production, so it's not like they had a choice in the matter of the location's portrayal; it was also an indie movie, so the budget was limited to what they could find unlike Ghostbusters 1984. BTW, the Ghostbusters sequel (1989) was released after the homicide rate had been skyrocketing in New York for years and the city was portrayed just fine. Movies like *Batteries Not Included (1987) and The Secret of My Success (1987) - near the lower mid-point of the upward trend but still at a rate much higher than the mid-90s and before NYC was fully cleaned up - offered a reasonable depiction of the city.

    2) It's completely possible the point you mentioned is accurate (I happen to believe it is to a degree), but it would do zilch to disconfirm what I have written because my comment wasn't limited to urban areas or about them specifically. You're trying to use "urban areas" to negate the point I made which wasn't even about urban areas. But negative depictions of urban areas do not also prohibit the obvious trend I noted of Southern and rural areas (and people) being negatively depicted when democrats/Hollywood social liberals were out of power but then alternately depicted disproportionately well when they got their way in a national election with a Southern Democrat; the trend for Southerners, in particular, is very strong...but obviously not absolute as there will always be exceptions.

    I could continue the trend I noted by listing movies such as Deliverance (1972); Richard Nixon was president then. Tell me, sir. Where was the urban setting in that movie? Didn't 1972 coincide with Nixon's Southern Strategy? Hadn't the homicide rate been increasing for years before that movie was made, with the decade's highest murder rate being just two years later in 1974? From the wiki: "The film was a critical success, earning three Oscar nominations and five Golden Globe Award nominations. Widely acclaimed as a landmark picture ..." Hollywood sure loved that movie's portrayal of the rural people whom Nixon appealed to, and they made sure people knew it, too.

    The late 80s, which coincided with increasing homicide rates, also saw movies like "Mississippi Burning" and Glory (gotta get them Southerners, stupid republican Reagan, stupid, dumb Bush, Re ... stupid).

    Further examples post-Clinton: Movies like Maverick 1994 (Jodie Foster's character) and sitcoms like Hearts Afire, an early 90s John Ritter sitcom about a guy from Arkansas in Washington DC when the homicide rate for that city was near its peak and FAR above the national average.

    And if I really wanted to get nuanced, I could look at portrayals of rural Americans and Southerners post 1995 when the republicans took back the congress from the Clinton democrats; hint: we started getting episodes of X-files where rural people are portrayed as dangerous, inbred, cannibals. Oh, and we got Amistad (1997), a movie about a slave revolt. *

    *Side note: Spielberg seems to have a strong anti-Southern fetish: Amistad, The Color Purple, Lincoln ... hmm, maybe somebody should tell this guy that Nazi Bun meetings were being held in Madison Square Garden at the same time Southerners were voting through Lend Lease and voting to help get the US into the war against Germany, which saved his people's collective a$$es (well, some of them) - ungrateful jerk. But I'm not surprised. Good director doesn't mean historically literate or honorable person. Scorpion does as scorpion does.

    I could further continue my point by listing movies and television shows produced under George W. Bush: Avatar (filmed under Bush) featured a hick Southerner militarist bad guy who wanted to kill cute aliens and steal their natural resources (obvious Iraq War parallel); an enormous number of Law & Order SVU episodes under Bush alluding to Southern states being the source of New York City's gun problems + other unflattering episodes attacking Christians and Southerners, including a particularly odious episode where a black female cop excoriates "The New South" after she catches racist Southern cops raping a black girl; Squidbillies (2005); ... seriously, I could make a very extensive list.

    Personally, I think it's absurd to attribute all of that to mere "crime rates" considering the breadth and depth of the material and the very obvious social commentary some of those properties had in connection with real life events, including wars, contemporary social policy, and the Bush administration.

    "Unflattering depictions of urban areas"

    Post-apocalyptic games and movies featuring destroyed urban areas were/are still very popular despite a decades-long downward trend in the crime rate. Fallout 3, for example, takes place in the post nuclear apocalypse of Washington, D.C.; it was released in 2008. The main antagonist of the game is Colonel Augustus Autumn, a jingoistic Southerner with an obvious accent.

    "The 1994 “comedy” Clerks was supposed to end with the main character being shot to death in a convenience store robbery, but they decided to re-shoot the ending for obvious reasons."

    That was an indie movie made by a guy using his credit cards. The director of that film, Kevin Smith, later went on to make Red State, finishing the movie's first draft in 2007. Here's a snippet of the plot description from the wiki: "Jarod wakes up in a covered cage and realizes he is inside Five Points Trinity Church, a fanatically conservative church, after he identifies church leader Abin Cooper. Cooper begins a long, hate-filled sermon. His followers ritually murder a captive gay man ..." Bush's key demographic was evangelical, socially conservative, rural Christians.

    “Cooper begins a long, hate-filled sermon. His followers ritually murder a captive gay man …” Bush’s key demographic was evangelical, socially conservative, rural Christians.”

    I don’t see what the problem is, because Smith is tapping into the fact that terrorism gets worse during a climate of increasing political tension. Yeah, I know, whatabout Muslims, Leftists, etc. doing stuff? Well, it’s liberal Hollywood, what do you expect?

    And since Leftist true believers are disproportionately young, that would certainly account for why so much terrorism is motivated by Leftism. In societies where tension is primarily between Left and Right, the Left will commit most of the terrorism due to being the younger side (The “Hard Hat Riot” involved often middle-aged construction workers beating up on mostly young Leftist radicals). Also, I would suspect that in religious and ethnic conflicts, the younger side will be more violent; if no age difference exists, than both sides will inflict the same amount of damage.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS