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
Going Against Green
🔊 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

Just as the Latinization of the US does not bode well for Jews, an increasingly non-white America does not bode well for things putatively most concerning to white leftists:

The Green trend is even more pronounced on the other side of the Atlantic. The migration crisis is even more pronounced there, too.

Do Green voters in Britain and Germany really think young soldiers of fortune coming from Africa and the Middle East into cultures alien to them to carve out existences for themselves give a moment’s thought to climate modeling predictions for what the weather will be like in the year 2080?

Is it merely a socially laudable way to virtue-signal in favor of globalism–climate change is a global ‘problem’, after all.

Or is it an indication of increasing existential uncertainty, manifesting itself in a way that is more comfortable for those on the left just as more strident nationalism and populism is a manifestation of the same increasing existential uncertainty among those on the right?

Parenthetically, the collapse in stated material concerns among white Democrats over a generation is staggering. The hard-hat blue-collar concerns that defined Democrats a generation ago is perceived today as embarrassingly declasse, maybe even racist. It’s all culture now.

 
• Category: Ideology, Science • Tags: Environment, Polling 
Hide 49 CommentsLeave a Comment
49 Comments to "Going Against Green"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. “Or is it an indication of increasing existential uncertainty, manifesting itself in a way that is more comfortable for those on the left just as more strident nationalism and populism is a manifestation of the same increasing existential uncertainty among those on the right?”

    I think their sense of reality is seriously shaken. And I also think it is in direct response to poor leadership.

    They their candidate would win in a cake walk —

    They thought for sure this president would be ousted one or another — they were assured of this —

    And they did not prepare for any other possibility. When the certain is not only not certain but nonexistent, it can really send you into a world grabbing for anything that at least feels certain — existential angst —-

    It’s really bad when your contingencies doesn’t doesn’t materialize either. And in the political arena the democrats don’t have any contingencies in at least two arenas.

    • Agree: Travis
  2. Correction:
    It’s really bad when your contingencies don’t materialize either. And in the political arena the democrats don’t have any contingencies in at least two arenas.

    ——————-

  3. “an increasingly non-white America does not bode well for things putatively most concerning to white leftists”

    White leftists hate themselves, as they’ve been taught to. We do not seek to maintain that in which we hate.

    It’s similar to an observation I made about Trump some time ago, and the way celebrities seem to hate him in an especially unhinged way. Trump is one of them. Prior to the presidency, he was an entertainer; uber rich, jet setter, elbow rubber, Democratic contributor, friend of the Clintons. A glamorous veneer masking a vulgar personality. He was one of them, in lifestyle and in at least some policy. The hate him because he is them.

    • Replies: @216
    The left, knowingly or not, follows the line of T. Adorno's The Authoritarian Personality which serves to demonize any expression of traditional right-wing thought.

    Trump is specifically hated, but similar hatred is extended to any right-wing figure. The left has full use of the Tribal Gun, while quickly stamping out any effort by the right to utilize tribalism.

    Beyond the elite, Trump's alpha male attitude towards women rubs people the wrong way. I find the fact he's had three wives disgusting. Trump could improve if he lost some weight, but he's too old to seriously maintain countervailing sex appeal that would excuse his actions.

    It's an observable pattern throughout Northern Europe and its descended countries, that there is a gender chasm among the younger generations. This pattern supposedly doesn't exist in Southern Europe.

    Souveranists and Dissidents have no clear answers to the "Women Question".
  4. Sid says:

    A lot of being a white Millennial Democrat is finding ways to justify one’s own downward mobility and relative poverty.

    30 something and live with roommates? Hey, it’s good for the environment. Same thing with not owning a car, not having kids, etc.

    A big hallmark of Millennial pleasure-seeking is that it’s comparatively cheap. Parents owned a boat? Yeah, too bad you don’t have one, but hey, Netflix is just $13 a month or so!

    But no one wants to admit to being a loser. As such, being obsessed with Harry Potter, the Avengers, and Star Wars just means you’re environmentally conscious.

    But the thing that sucks about being broke in America isn’t the hunger, drudgery, or lack of entertainment. It’s the knowledge a sudden illness or unexpected injury can cripple you financially. Hence the desire for single-payer.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone, 216
    • Replies: @Feryl
    I can't recall if you ever hung out at Agnostic's blog, but one the best posts I saw over there was the one where he talked about the different priorities that each generation has. Silents and Boomers came of age taking career opportunities and wealth acquisition for granted, so a lot of their activity and image is wrapped up in commercialism.

    Gen X-ers came of age with relatively few "good" jobs being available, and career advancement moving at a snail's pace (because Silents and Boomers don't retire young like the Losts and GIs did in the 20th century). So X-ers had to content themselves with the glorification of living a particular "lifestyle" on a moderate budget (that "lifestyle" includes everything from religious proselytizing, to homeschooling, to surfing; point being that a "lifestyle" is not a career or commercial venture).

    Millennials have come of age with sky high living expenses, high immigration levels, expensive must have education, and the knowledge that low-moderate skilled work now pays much worse than it used to, if you can get it in the first place. Unlike older generations, a lot of Millennials are flat-out rejecting capitalism as a pro-social concept (whereas even X-ers could tell themselves that capitalism works fine as long as you hold a certain number of bad guys accountable). Millennials are becoming a "sloth" generation, being detached from any kind of ambition WRT to either career or lifestyle, to the horror of older generations who boast about all the great things they and their peers did.

    It is true that X-ers and Millennials have lower divorce rates than older generations, which I think can be put down to the fact that younger generations don't like the idea of being a narcissistic family/community destroyer. Of course, these generations also aren't getting married all that much, either; but that says more about coming of age in the post-Reagan era than it does generational personality (people who are broke won't attract marriage partners).

    But no one wants to admit to being a loser. As such, being obsessed with Harry Potter, the Avengers, and Star Wars just means you’re environmentally conscious.
     
    Uh, I actually notice that a lot of X-ers and Millennials have a wry sense of awareness that society has slated them to be a permanent underclass (until the Silents and Boomers die off, at which point their money will end up in the hands of their descendants). Silents and Boomers loath the idea of losing the rat race, since they were the ones who've been glorifying the rat race since the 70's. And why do you suppose that tax rates on rich people remain low, and so many Silents and Boomers took so long to retire? They want to keep raking in the dough, no matter how terrible it is for society's well-being, and no matter how it's lead to a state of affairs where people now have to wait until they in their 40's (and even 50's!) to make any real advancement in their career (whereas in the 1960's-1980's, Silents and Boomers rapidly climbed the ladder because most GIs retired young, or just plain died before reaching older age).
  5. “Parenthetically, the collapse in stated material concerns among white Democrats over a generation is staggering. The hard-hat blue-collar concerns that defined Democrats a generation ago is perceived today as embarrassingly declasse, maybe even racist. It’s all culture now.”

    Yes, this another one of the great unreported (by the MSM) news stories of this century.

    Of course, it is the inevitable fruit of multiculturalism that the former political parties are becoming de facto race parties. The only white Dems are either (((white))), hardcore virtue snivellers, or an aging rump of Old Dems who don’t realize what has happened yet.

  6. Or is it an indication of increasing existential uncertainty, manifesting itself in a way that is more comfortable for those on the left

    Greens have always been extreme leftists, anti-national & self-hating whites. I know some of them & whichever their differences, they are: a) apologists for historical red terror, b) haters of historical Western culture (though, they don’t know much about it), c) idolators of coloreds (Gypsies, Africans, brown Muslims,..), d) completely clueless about real ecological problems.

    Perhaps there are few of them whose chief concern is about pollution etc., but I don’t know a single one. Lunatic & spoiled oxygen wasters.

  7. Except for immigration, blacks have their priorities in the right order.

    • Replies: @Mark G.
    Actually, you can take any political position the majority of blacks hold and then think of what the opposite would be and that would most likely actually be the correct position to hold. If you eliminated all whites in the U.S. and blacks ran the country it would quickly descend to African levels of dysfunction. Blacks, with a few exceptions, show a stunning lack of political judgement. You can take a city like Detroit and put blacks in charge and in fifty years it looks like it had a nuclear bomb dropped on it.
    , @res
    It is interesting that Blacks and Hispanics have different numerical priorities but the same ordering. What do the corresponding numbers look like for Republicans?
    , @Abelard Lindsey
    I agree (lol)!

    All the HBD people go on and on about how blacks are less intelligent than whites and Asians. However, they do have a lot a shrewdness and a kind of horse sense that is lacking in a lot of others.
  8. Do you think they really care about the environment? Do our leaders care at all?

    The “Green” movement is just another anti-white movement, that promotes self-hatred among easily guilt-induced whites. It’s an anti-civilization cause. It all leads to the same goal, the destruction of white societies. It causes the destruction of the working class. The green ideology is a total farce.

    So, environmentalism is just one tool of many, and the cause will be dumped by the elites, and subsequently forgotten by the useful idiots, once it is no longer needed.

    I am noticing though, that more and more often the bulk of these eco protesters are loony old cat ladies and assorted boomers. The number of millenials who seem to believe this tripe is shrinking as they realize how they’re getting screwed over by the immigrant tide.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    environmentalism is just one tool of many, and the cause will be dumped by the elites, and subsequently forgotten by the useful idiots, once it is no longer needed.
     
    We're already seeing environmentalism being demonized as "racist" because it prizes nature and wilderness over more enemygrant hordes.  Whether this is associated with the dissident right standing up for the environment, or the globalists being done with the "hideously White" movement, I haven't looked closely enough to have an opinion yet.

    That may blow back against the globalists, in which case they're likely to tone it down for a bit.
    , @Feryl
    I think that the various eco movements are perceived to be an annoying bickering contest involving today's older generations. So it kind of bores younger people, who probably do care about helping the environment but don't want to listen to guys like Al Gore smugly drone on and on about this stuff.

    Also, older generations were much whiter, grew up in a middle class utopia, and used to be in more agreement about the issues we needed to tackle. Later and more diverse generations don't have much camaraderie, due to obvious racial tension but also due to coming of age in a Gilded Age, where nobody has anyone else's back anymore.

    Economic populism or ID politics seem to be the chief concern of today's younger people. In the middle class, mostly white paradise of 1970, Boomers had certain concerns which made sense at the time but now seem dated to today's younger generations.
  9. Lot says:

    I don’t agree that hispanic migration is especially bad for American Jews compared to other whites.

    Supposed “antisemitism” expressed in polls of Hispanics simply reflects they don’t know the proper PC attitude the poll is primed to elicit.

    My experience with actual Hispanics, primarily Mexican Mexicans and Mexican Americans, is they have very positive opinions of both whites, and Jews as “superwhites.”

    The regular ADL polling of “antisemitism” includes questions that involve positive or neutral stereotypes. Say Jews are good with money, and that is weighted as “antisemitic” per the ADL poll.

    The reality is virtually 100% of Mexicans would be happy and flattered to have a Jew marry into their family. They also have one of the highest rates of evangelical—zionism. It is also common for Mexicans to search their family tree for a Sephardi, which they will generally be excited to find.

    The especially bad migration for Jews are Muslims, Africans, and possibly Hindus, who seem to be attracted to similar niches as Jews like medicine, finance, programming and journalism, and to a lesser extent law and politics.

    That’s not to say mass mestizo migration is positively good for Jews either. They are the largest per capita net taxpayers, and whatever benefit they might get from cheap nannies etc is outweighed by those migrants making 25k, paying under 1k in taxes, but consuming 20-40k per year in public services and benefits over their lifetime. Jews also are not that big in industries that involve lots of Mexicans like ag, meat, food service, suburban housing development and building trades. Compare this to heavily Jewish industries like law, media, software, finance, and advertising, which employ few mestizo migrants or their descendants.

    • Replies: @Feryl

    Jews also are not that big in industries that involve lots of Mexicans like ag, meat, food service, suburban housing development and building trades. Compare this to heavily Jewish industries like law, media, software, finance, and advertising, which employ few mestizo migrants or their descendants.
     
    Something that never stops bugging me is that conservatives are in denial about the degree to which Right leaning industries like construction and Ag have contributed to mass immigration. Money is always the central factor in corruption, not naive ideology (e.g., the demand for cheap labor gave us our current immigration crisis; true Leftists had diddly squat to do with any of this, besides, the GOP became the dominant part in the 1980's and 90's, which is exactly when we de-regulated immigration, de-regulated the markets, and so forth). The Left was dominant during the New Deal and Great Society era (the 1930's-1970's). Righties need to put the crack pipe down and stop blaming "Lefists" for the crises that the GOP (and neo-liberal Democrats) have inflicted on us. And neo-liberals Dems are corporate traitors, not real Leftists (prior to Bernie Sanders, Americans had been drifting further and further away from socialism since the mid-70's).
    , @SFG
    Yeah, the ADL's oversensitive with that. "Jews talk too much about the Holocaust." Well, I mean, I think that, and I lost four great-uncles. I suspect a lot of people think that and think it's understandable. "Jim talks too much about his grandma getting run over by a drunk driver." "You hate Jim?" "Nah, just talks too much about his grandma getting run over. I get it, it's his grandma..."
  10. @Fidelios Automata
    Except for immigration, blacks have their priorities in the right order.

    Actually, you can take any political position the majority of blacks hold and then think of what the opposite would be and that would most likely actually be the correct position to hold. If you eliminated all whites in the U.S. and blacks ran the country it would quickly descend to African levels of dysfunction. Blacks, with a few exceptions, show a stunning lack of political judgement. You can take a city like Detroit and put blacks in charge and in fifty years it looks like it had a nuclear bomb dropped on it.

  11. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Do you think they really care about the environment? Do our leaders care at all?

    The "Green" movement is just another anti-white movement, that promotes self-hatred among easily guilt-induced whites. It's an anti-civilization cause. It all leads to the same goal, the destruction of white societies. It causes the destruction of the working class. The green ideology is a total farce.

    So, environmentalism is just one tool of many, and the cause will be dumped by the elites, and subsequently forgotten by the useful idiots, once it is no longer needed.

    I am noticing though, that more and more often the bulk of these eco protesters are loony old cat ladies and assorted boomers. The number of millenials who seem to believe this tripe is shrinking as they realize how they're getting screwed over by the immigrant tide.

    environmentalism is just one tool of many, and the cause will be dumped by the elites, and subsequently forgotten by the useful idiots, once it is no longer needed.

    We’re already seeing environmentalism being demonized as “racist” because it prizes nature and wilderness over more enemygrant hordes.  Whether this is associated with the dissident right standing up for the environment, or the globalists being done with the “hideously White” movement, I haven’t looked closely enough to have an opinion yet.

    That may blow back against the globalists, in which case they’re likely to tone it down for a bit.

    • Replies: @216
    Environmentalism will be used as a justification for reparations.

    The left has too much invested to abandon the pursuit of "100% renewable energy", which also might be an employment sink in a post-automation world.

    It should be a priority of souveranist parties, and the dissident movements, to push for cuts in military spending.* To be redirected to incentivizing migrants to stay home. In the current media environment we cannot hope to successfully use Israeli-style methods to control entry, when dealing with a population riven by pathological altruism.

    *I strongly suspect that a hypothetical souveranist government in Core Europe would face a globalist military coup, thus it is imperative to weaken the military.
  12. @Sid
    A lot of being a white Millennial Democrat is finding ways to justify one's own downward mobility and relative poverty.

    30 something and live with roommates? Hey, it's good for the environment. Same thing with not owning a car, not having kids, etc.

    A big hallmark of Millennial pleasure-seeking is that it's comparatively cheap. Parents owned a boat? Yeah, too bad you don't have one, but hey, Netflix is just $13 a month or so!

    But no one wants to admit to being a loser. As such, being obsessed with Harry Potter, the Avengers, and Star Wars just means you're environmentally conscious.

    But the thing that sucks about being broke in America isn't the hunger, drudgery, or lack of entertainment. It's the knowledge a sudden illness or unexpected injury can cripple you financially. Hence the desire for single-payer.

    I can’t recall if you ever hung out at Agnostic’s blog, but one the best posts I saw over there was the one where he talked about the different priorities that each generation has. Silents and Boomers came of age taking career opportunities and wealth acquisition for granted, so a lot of their activity and image is wrapped up in commercialism.

    Gen X-ers came of age with relatively few “good” jobs being available, and career advancement moving at a snail’s pace (because Silents and Boomers don’t retire young like the Losts and GIs did in the 20th century). So X-ers had to content themselves with the glorification of living a particular “lifestyle” on a moderate budget (that “lifestyle” includes everything from religious proselytizing, to homeschooling, to surfing; point being that a “lifestyle” is not a career or commercial venture).

    Millennials have come of age with sky high living expenses, high immigration levels, expensive must have education, and the knowledge that low-moderate skilled work now pays much worse than it used to, if you can get it in the first place. Unlike older generations, a lot of Millennials are flat-out rejecting capitalism as a pro-social concept (whereas even X-ers could tell themselves that capitalism works fine as long as you hold a certain number of bad guys accountable). Millennials are becoming a “sloth” generation, being detached from any kind of ambition WRT to either career or lifestyle, to the horror of older generations who boast about all the great things they and their peers did.

    It is true that X-ers and Millennials have lower divorce rates than older generations, which I think can be put down to the fact that younger generations don’t like the idea of being a narcissistic family/community destroyer. Of course, these generations also aren’t getting married all that much, either; but that says more about coming of age in the post-Reagan era than it does generational personality (people who are broke won’t attract marriage partners).

    But no one wants to admit to being a loser. As such, being obsessed with Harry Potter, the Avengers, and Star Wars just means you’re environmentally conscious.

    Uh, I actually notice that a lot of X-ers and Millennials have a wry sense of awareness that society has slated them to be a permanent underclass (until the Silents and Boomers die off, at which point their money will end up in the hands of their descendants). Silents and Boomers loath the idea of losing the rat race, since they were the ones who’ve been glorifying the rat race since the 70’s. And why do you suppose that tax rates on rich people remain low, and so many Silents and Boomers took so long to retire? They want to keep raking in the dough, no matter how terrible it is for society’s well-being, and no matter how it’s lead to a state of affairs where people now have to wait until they in their 40’s (and even 50’s!) to make any real advancement in their career (whereas in the 1960’s-1980’s, Silents and Boomers rapidly climbed the ladder because most GIs retired young, or just plain died before reaching older age).

  13. @Lot
    I don’t agree that hispanic migration is especially bad for American Jews compared to other whites.

    Supposed “antisemitism” expressed in polls of Hispanics simply reflects they don’t know the proper PC attitude the poll is primed to elicit.

    My experience with actual Hispanics, primarily Mexican Mexicans and Mexican Americans, is they have very positive opinions of both whites, and Jews as “superwhites.”

    The regular ADL polling of “antisemitism” includes questions that involve positive or neutral stereotypes. Say Jews are good with money, and that is weighted as “antisemitic” per the ADL poll.

    The reality is virtually 100% of Mexicans would be happy and flattered to have a Jew marry into their family. They also have one of the highest rates of evangelical—zionism. It is also common for Mexicans to search their family tree for a Sephardi, which they will generally be excited to find.

    The especially bad migration for Jews are Muslims, Africans, and possibly Hindus, who seem to be attracted to similar niches as Jews like medicine, finance, programming and journalism, and to a lesser extent law and politics.

    That’s not to say mass mestizo migration is positively good for Jews either. They are the largest per capita net taxpayers, and whatever benefit they might get from cheap nannies etc is outweighed by those migrants making 25k, paying under 1k in taxes, but consuming 20-40k per year in public services and benefits over their lifetime. Jews also are not that big in industries that involve lots of Mexicans like ag, meat, food service, suburban housing development and building trades. Compare this to heavily Jewish industries like law, media, software, finance, and advertising, which employ few mestizo migrants or their descendants.

    Jews also are not that big in industries that involve lots of Mexicans like ag, meat, food service, suburban housing development and building trades. Compare this to heavily Jewish industries like law, media, software, finance, and advertising, which employ few mestizo migrants or their descendants.

    Something that never stops bugging me is that conservatives are in denial about the degree to which Right leaning industries like construction and Ag have contributed to mass immigration. Money is always the central factor in corruption, not naive ideology (e.g., the demand for cheap labor gave us our current immigration crisis; true Leftists had diddly squat to do with any of this, besides, the GOP became the dominant part in the 1980’s and 90’s, which is exactly when we de-regulated immigration, de-regulated the markets, and so forth). The Left was dominant during the New Deal and Great Society era (the 1930’s-1970’s). Righties need to put the crack pipe down and stop blaming “Lefists” for the crises that the GOP (and neo-liberal Democrats) have inflicted on us. And neo-liberals Dems are corporate traitors, not real Leftists (prior to Bernie Sanders, Americans had been drifting further and further away from socialism since the mid-70’s).

    • Agree: Lot
  14. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Do you think they really care about the environment? Do our leaders care at all?

    The "Green" movement is just another anti-white movement, that promotes self-hatred among easily guilt-induced whites. It's an anti-civilization cause. It all leads to the same goal, the destruction of white societies. It causes the destruction of the working class. The green ideology is a total farce.

    So, environmentalism is just one tool of many, and the cause will be dumped by the elites, and subsequently forgotten by the useful idiots, once it is no longer needed.

    I am noticing though, that more and more often the bulk of these eco protesters are loony old cat ladies and assorted boomers. The number of millenials who seem to believe this tripe is shrinking as they realize how they're getting screwed over by the immigrant tide.

    I think that the various eco movements are perceived to be an annoying bickering contest involving today’s older generations. So it kind of bores younger people, who probably do care about helping the environment but don’t want to listen to guys like Al Gore smugly drone on and on about this stuff.

    Also, older generations were much whiter, grew up in a middle class utopia, and used to be in more agreement about the issues we needed to tackle. Later and more diverse generations don’t have much camaraderie, due to obvious racial tension but also due to coming of age in a Gilded Age, where nobody has anyone else’s back anymore.

    Economic populism or ID politics seem to be the chief concern of today’s younger people. In the middle class, mostly white paradise of 1970, Boomers had certain concerns which made sense at the time but now seem dated to today’s younger generations.

    • Replies: @216
    The Greens have grown the fastest with youth in Northern European countries. In the particular case of Germany, the Greens have been out of government at the national level since 2005, so they aren't considered responsible for the failures of Merkel.

    The traditional socialist parties were based around a manufacturing workforce that no longer exists in the same number, replacing them with urban professionals was untenable.

    Green politics is often identity politics, as it is chiefly a female concern. The "Green New Deal" is designed to function as a racial redistribution process to a skeptical non-white audience. It humorously included the "Magical Native American" trope. Greens are also strongest in urban areas, and among university indoctrinated people. Their approach to the environment is better described as "tourist" rather than "grassroots".

    The concerns of Greens do the best when the economy is stronger, in 2009, 2013 the Greens lost votes in Germany despite not being in government. In the present, the Greens are now much stronger because of the economy and for being the harshest critics of the AfD. Should Germany go into recession, the Greens will tank, as the public will rapidly shift to pro-nuclear as a way to regain competitiveness.
  15. Parenthetically, the collapse in stated material concerns among white Democrats over a generation is staggering. The hard-hat blue-collar concerns that defined Democrats a generation ago is perceived today as embarrassingly declasse, maybe even racist. It’s all culture now.

    huh? What’s “culture”? ID politics isn’t a cultural thing, and neither is environmentalism*. Culture to me has always meant stuff like guns, abortion, religion, media obscenity, drugs, etc.

    Cultural issues peaked during the 80’s and 90’s economic booms/neo-liberal expansion period (whereas the 1930’s-1970’s was defined by much debate regarding the responsible use of resources to secure economic and environmental stability for Western countries). The “culture wars” were a stupid waste of time for the generations who took relatively good times for granted (and squandered what they inherited) and could afford to bicker with each other about relatively trivial matters.

    And let’s face it; it’s the Right that tend to buy into mystical mumbo jumbo about the “magic of the market”** and the “ingenuity of people”. Back when people didn’t have shit for brains (the New Deal era), Leftists saw to it that that society be tightly regulated to prevent decadence, waste, and greed. The Reaganite neo-liberal era (which the entire West bought into) is fundamentally about de-regulation and attacking the notion that the public sector ought to be given great power to stabilize society in the interest of the lower class.

    *Issues that came to prominence in the 1930’s-1960’s were fundamentally about resources, their management and stewardship, which has nothing to do with “culture” (culture here defined as being about issues of moral gravity and personal identity that mean much more to some people but hardly nothing to others, e.g. there are many Americans who don’t think all that much about guns, relative to the number of people concerned about toxic waste being dumped, or concerned about affording health care).

    **Said “magic” has destroyed the middle class, brought about de-industrialization, increased rates of drug abuse and suicide, etc.

    • Replies: @Miro23

    And let’s face it; it’s the Right that tend to buy into mystical mumbo jumbo about the “magic of the market”** and the “ingenuity of people”.

    **Said “magic” has destroyed the middle class, brought about de-industrialization, increased rates of drug abuse and suicide, etc.
     
    The financialization of the government/media is even worse. Lobbies are all about buying influence. The tiny Zio-Glob minority see it as their free market right to dictate to US society when they grab top government positions, own the media and pay the most.
  16. 216 says:
    @Feryl
    I think that the various eco movements are perceived to be an annoying bickering contest involving today's older generations. So it kind of bores younger people, who probably do care about helping the environment but don't want to listen to guys like Al Gore smugly drone on and on about this stuff.

    Also, older generations were much whiter, grew up in a middle class utopia, and used to be in more agreement about the issues we needed to tackle. Later and more diverse generations don't have much camaraderie, due to obvious racial tension but also due to coming of age in a Gilded Age, where nobody has anyone else's back anymore.

    Economic populism or ID politics seem to be the chief concern of today's younger people. In the middle class, mostly white paradise of 1970, Boomers had certain concerns which made sense at the time but now seem dated to today's younger generations.

    The Greens have grown the fastest with youth in Northern European countries. In the particular case of Germany, the Greens have been out of government at the national level since 2005, so they aren’t considered responsible for the failures of Merkel.

    The traditional socialist parties were based around a manufacturing workforce that no longer exists in the same number, replacing them with urban professionals was untenable.

    Green politics is often identity politics, as it is chiefly a female concern. The “Green New Deal” is designed to function as a racial redistribution process to a skeptical non-white audience. It humorously included the “Magical Native American” trope. Greens are also strongest in urban areas, and among university indoctrinated people. Their approach to the environment is better described as “tourist” rather than “grassroots”.

    The concerns of Greens do the best when the economy is stronger, in 2009, 2013 the Greens lost votes in Germany despite not being in government. In the present, the Greens are now much stronger because of the economy and for being the harshest critics of the AfD. Should Germany go into recession, the Greens will tank, as the public will rapidly shift to pro-nuclear as a way to regain competitiveness.

    • Replies: @Feryl

    Green politics is often identity politics, as it is chiefly a female concern.
     
    So it's not about culture, right? The Culture War era (circa 1980-2000) was about letting America began to descend into Gilded Age norms of individualism and status seeking while people blathered about relatively meaningless stuff (like protesting slasher movies). Whereas in the current era, we're seeing disputes about how resources ought to be distributed, which certainly is meaningful; Westerners thought that arguments over resources were settled in the 80's and 90's (when the average person believed that those who work hard would be fairly rewarded).

    So perhaps these young aspiring elite women want to grab more of the pie; I have no problem with anyone saying that the tables need to be turned on the neo-liberal era so that resources are distributed in the best interests of a stable society with a strong middle. I do have a problem with 30-40% of the population in any given demographic trying to wrest an unfair amount of resources from another. What we're seeing in Western countries is a minority of Millennials trying to hog the rhetorical spotlight with non-sense about prole class white guys being the problem. But it's a vocal minority, which happens to be more educated and ambitious than other people. At the end of the day, though, most people are just sick and tired of corrupt neo-liberal capitalism and want to restore greater regulation of the market*. These reforms won't happen over-night, unless perhaps a major meltdown happens or a notable country descends into revolution/Civil War (e.g., the Russian Revolution and the Great Depression were the catalyst for American elites to enforce greater regulation of the markets).

    *Numerous studies indicate that younger generations want a restoration of greater regulation and equality; what's more, even older people have recently indicated that they no longer are as quick to worship the "free market". We are already in a different era, we just haven't made the full transition yet. BTW, if we look at the Western countries it's clear that in the late 70's and 80's one country after another elected supply siders, attackers of unions, attackers of welfare, etc. The degree of social Darwinism differed from one country to another (w/America and Britian being the biggest offenders), but it still was a trend affecting every country. But at this stage of the game many of us are sick and tired of our countries literally falling apart due to neglect and mal-investment. And ideological trends only have a shelf-life of about 50 years; Social Darwinist capitalism was over by 1930, and state enforced equality (New Dealism) lasted for another 50 or so years. Going on that schedule, by 2030 we ought to see the complete transition away from the neo-liberal era (1980-2030).

    It does bear repeating that since Millennials and Gen Z haven't benefited from the neo-liberal era to their liking (and neither have a lot of X-ers, frankly), it's only a matter of time before the graying retirees who embraced the "tax cuts" and "de-regulation" mantra back when they were younger in the 80's fade from influence. Younger generation's have different motivations and standards, so therefore, we can't continue to run in place as if it's still 1985. If Joe Biden ran, and lost, that would send the message to the Dems that the time to run a true econ. populist was at hand (BTW, if 2020 had the same result in every state but Trump losing MI/PA/FL this time, Trump would still win!).
  17. 216 says:
    @Mr. Rational

    environmentalism is just one tool of many, and the cause will be dumped by the elites, and subsequently forgotten by the useful idiots, once it is no longer needed.
     
    We're already seeing environmentalism being demonized as "racist" because it prizes nature and wilderness over more enemygrant hordes.  Whether this is associated with the dissident right standing up for the environment, or the globalists being done with the "hideously White" movement, I haven't looked closely enough to have an opinion yet.

    That may blow back against the globalists, in which case they're likely to tone it down for a bit.

    Environmentalism will be used as a justification for reparations.

    The left has too much invested to abandon the pursuit of “100% renewable energy”, which also might be an employment sink in a post-automation world.

    It should be a priority of souveranist parties, and the dissident movements, to push for cuts in military spending.* To be redirected to incentivizing migrants to stay home. In the current media environment we cannot hope to successfully use Israeli-style methods to control entry, when dealing with a population riven by pathological altruism.

    *I strongly suspect that a hypothetical souveranist government in Core Europe would face a globalist military coup, thus it is imperative to weaken the military.

    • Replies: @Feryl

    It should be a priority of souveranist parties, and the dissident movements, to push for cuts in military spending.* To be redirected to incentivizing migrants to stay home. In the current media environment we cannot hope to successfully use Israeli-style methods to control entry, when dealing with a population riven by pathological altruism.
     
    We don't need police state measures, we just need to step up employer sanctions to send a message that America no longer needs legions of cheap labor. Americans and Mexicans aren't blowing each other up, or anything. And of course we also need to apply pressure to Mexico to get them to get their shit together. And if Mexico fails to do so, than slap various things onto them in order to get Mexico's elite to wake the hell up, for once.

    Many younger people and women are fooled by deceptive media coverage of immigration related issues. It's imperative that the media and tech conglomerates be broken up, so that their globalist multi-cultural ambitions can be held in check. But of course the cuck undead Reaganite GOP isn't going to go on a rampage of trust-busting anytime soon. The turn toward pro-immigrant globalism largely coincides with the consolidation of media firms over the last 30 years (and of course the globalists were emboldened by the fall of the Soviets). De-regulation enabled many smaller companies to be swallowed up by ambitious multi-national entities (including those who report the news), and this has been a disaster for both the populist Left and the populist Right. Massive conglomerates are 100% aligned with pro-immigrant globalists, something for which the Right bears much responsibility (because back in the 80's and 90's, they never questioned the mania for mergers and acquisitions).
    , @Mr. Rational

    Environmentalism will be used as a justification for reparations.
     
    There's always some "justification" for massive wealth transfers, under the control of "the right people", of course.  And it's always the same (((right people))), who manage to get fantastically rich from unearned wealth while "correcting" past "sins" of others.

    Same old scam, new bottles.

    In the case of the environment, the needs are obvious:

    1.  Keep the alien hordes OUT.  They have no respect for their own environment and need to be kept from trashing ours too.
    2.  Fix the problem directly.  If the problem is too much CO2, stop burning carbon-containing goo for energy.  Uranium is about 50 million times better per atom than carbon, and we're sitting on more uranium than we know what to do with.

    We WOULD have fixed this problem 50 years ago, except "environmentalists" (paid for by the Rockefeller Foundation, oddly enough) decided that nuclear energy was "dangerous".  It was... to coal and oil interests.  Still is, and they're still trying to kill it.  Meanwhile we burn heaping assloads of coal, oil and natural gas.


    The left has too much invested to abandon the pursuit of “100% renewable energy”, which also might be an employment sink in a post-automation world.
     
    When Germany's failure to meet its carbon goals despite massive spending on "renewables" prompts almost 100 Polish scientists and activists to beg them to keep their nuclear plants running, that tactic is past its sell-by date.  The contradictions are too obvious and there are multiple organizations engaged in pushback.
  18. 216 says:
    @MikeatMikedotMike
    "an increasingly non-white America does not bode well for things putatively most concerning to white leftists"

    White leftists hate themselves, as they've been taught to. We do not seek to maintain that in which we hate.

    It's similar to an observation I made about Trump some time ago, and the way celebrities seem to hate him in an especially unhinged way. Trump is one of them. Prior to the presidency, he was an entertainer; uber rich, jet setter, elbow rubber, Democratic contributor, friend of the Clintons. A glamorous veneer masking a vulgar personality. He was one of them, in lifestyle and in at least some policy. The hate him because he is them.

    The left, knowingly or not, follows the line of T. Adorno’s The Authoritarian Personality which serves to demonize any expression of traditional right-wing thought.

    Trump is specifically hated, but similar hatred is extended to any right-wing figure. The left has full use of the Tribal Gun, while quickly stamping out any effort by the right to utilize tribalism.

    Beyond the elite, Trump’s alpha male attitude towards women rubs people the wrong way. I find the fact he’s had three wives disgusting. Trump could improve if he lost some weight, but he’s too old to seriously maintain countervailing sex appeal that would excuse his actions.

    It’s an observable pattern throughout Northern Europe and its descended countries, that there is a gender chasm among the younger generations. This pattern supposedly doesn’t exist in Southern Europe.

    Souveranists and Dissidents have no clear answers to the “Women Question”.

  19. SFG says:
    @Lot
    I don’t agree that hispanic migration is especially bad for American Jews compared to other whites.

    Supposed “antisemitism” expressed in polls of Hispanics simply reflects they don’t know the proper PC attitude the poll is primed to elicit.

    My experience with actual Hispanics, primarily Mexican Mexicans and Mexican Americans, is they have very positive opinions of both whites, and Jews as “superwhites.”

    The regular ADL polling of “antisemitism” includes questions that involve positive or neutral stereotypes. Say Jews are good with money, and that is weighted as “antisemitic” per the ADL poll.

    The reality is virtually 100% of Mexicans would be happy and flattered to have a Jew marry into their family. They also have one of the highest rates of evangelical—zionism. It is also common for Mexicans to search their family tree for a Sephardi, which they will generally be excited to find.

    The especially bad migration for Jews are Muslims, Africans, and possibly Hindus, who seem to be attracted to similar niches as Jews like medicine, finance, programming and journalism, and to a lesser extent law and politics.

    That’s not to say mass mestizo migration is positively good for Jews either. They are the largest per capita net taxpayers, and whatever benefit they might get from cheap nannies etc is outweighed by those migrants making 25k, paying under 1k in taxes, but consuming 20-40k per year in public services and benefits over their lifetime. Jews also are not that big in industries that involve lots of Mexicans like ag, meat, food service, suburban housing development and building trades. Compare this to heavily Jewish industries like law, media, software, finance, and advertising, which employ few mestizo migrants or their descendants.

    Yeah, the ADL’s oversensitive with that. “Jews talk too much about the Holocaust.” Well, I mean, I think that, and I lost four great-uncles. I suspect a lot of people think that and think it’s understandable. “Jim talks too much about his grandma getting run over by a drunk driver.” “You hate Jim?” “Nah, just talks too much about his grandma getting run over. I get it, it’s his grandma…”

  20. SFG says:

    Eh, the catch with having the ‘fringe party’ is your various constituents don’t see eye-to-eye–look at Jews and Muslims on Israel, blacks/Hispanics and LGBT on homosexuality, etc. You can rile them up about the evil Straight White Males but I think that works better on activists than the general public. The Dems’ big advantage is economics–if you saw the Voter Study Group chart lots of GOP voters are economically moderate and P.O.ed about PC and ‘woke’ culture.

    I personally think global warming is real and one of the big reasons I want immigration stopped is… so as many of the remaining immigrants as possible can assimilate (as opposed to staying separate and surly) and we have a more cohesive country when all the climate refugees want in. Also makes it easier to spread the damage caused by the increasing disasters over a bigger country. Better if NYC and the Midwest can bail each other out if one gets flooded (both have been in the past few years) than having them fight over immigration (or transgender bathrooms).

    Slam shut the gates, bad times are coming.

    • Replies: @Feryl

    Eh, the catch with having the ‘fringe party’ is your various constituents don’t see eye-to-eye–look at Jews and Muslims on Israel, blacks/Hispanics and LGBT on homosexuality, etc. You can rile them up about the evil Straight White Males but I think that works better on activists than the general public. The Dems’ big advantage is economics–if you saw the Voter Study Group chart lots of GOP voters are economically moderate and P.O.ed about PC and ‘woke’ culture.
     
    Trump actually benefited from trashing the neo-cons, trashing the off-shoring traitors, and the like. That's what people responded to. If he had just said generic Reaganite rhetoric, nobody would've voted for him. I can't emphasize enough that focusing on Trump's personality or style is a dead-end when it comes to analyzing election results/popularity. The media has been doing that for ages (at least going back to the JFK era where his victory was attributed to his smile and tan skin, rather than the real reason he won: his presumed inclination to keep the New Deal era running smoothly). People listen to what a candidate says about ideology, and they make their choice accordingly (there's no way in hell that Barry Goldwater was going to be elected in 1964, don't let anyone fool you that any particular moment or gaffe was the end of him; Goldwater was the most extreme opponent of the New Deal imaginable, and the GOP were fools to think he was electable)

    The New Deal era was about keeping culture and demographics stable, to insure that society would function better. Modern libs need to shut up about fringy ID politics and culture war issues, which would draw more normies to the Dem party (and after all, the undead Reaganites of the GOP elite are never ever going to change their tune unless they get clobbered in 5 straight elections, similar to how FDR's reign motivated the GOP to get with the times). If the Dems keeping running Neo-lib centrists who fail to deliver desired reforms, or they run fringe ID politics idiots, their party stock will stay pretty low in the eyes of normies.

    So far it looks like the useless GOP will continue to benefit from zany or out-dated Dems, which the GOP doesn't deserve since they back-stabbed Trump on almost everything (health-care, trade, immigration, etc.). But at some point one or both parties will wake up and actually give commoners what they want, we just don't know exactly when a lot of movement in that direction will happen.
  21. @216
    The Greens have grown the fastest with youth in Northern European countries. In the particular case of Germany, the Greens have been out of government at the national level since 2005, so they aren't considered responsible for the failures of Merkel.

    The traditional socialist parties were based around a manufacturing workforce that no longer exists in the same number, replacing them with urban professionals was untenable.

    Green politics is often identity politics, as it is chiefly a female concern. The "Green New Deal" is designed to function as a racial redistribution process to a skeptical non-white audience. It humorously included the "Magical Native American" trope. Greens are also strongest in urban areas, and among university indoctrinated people. Their approach to the environment is better described as "tourist" rather than "grassroots".

    The concerns of Greens do the best when the economy is stronger, in 2009, 2013 the Greens lost votes in Germany despite not being in government. In the present, the Greens are now much stronger because of the economy and for being the harshest critics of the AfD. Should Germany go into recession, the Greens will tank, as the public will rapidly shift to pro-nuclear as a way to regain competitiveness.

    Green politics is often identity politics, as it is chiefly a female concern.

    So it’s not about culture, right? The Culture War era (circa 1980-2000) was about letting America began to descend into Gilded Age norms of individualism and status seeking while people blathered about relatively meaningless stuff (like protesting slasher movies). Whereas in the current era, we’re seeing disputes about how resources ought to be distributed, which certainly is meaningful; Westerners thought that arguments over resources were settled in the 80’s and 90’s (when the average person believed that those who work hard would be fairly rewarded).

    So perhaps these young aspiring elite women want to grab more of the pie; I have no problem with anyone saying that the tables need to be turned on the neo-liberal era so that resources are distributed in the best interests of a stable society with a strong middle. I do have a problem with 30-40% of the population in any given demographic trying to wrest an unfair amount of resources from another. What we’re seeing in Western countries is a minority of Millennials trying to hog the rhetorical spotlight with non-sense about prole class white guys being the problem. But it’s a vocal minority, which happens to be more educated and ambitious than other people. At the end of the day, though, most people are just sick and tired of corrupt neo-liberal capitalism and want to restore greater regulation of the market*. These reforms won’t happen over-night, unless perhaps a major meltdown happens or a notable country descends into revolution/Civil War (e.g., the Russian Revolution and the Great Depression were the catalyst for American elites to enforce greater regulation of the markets).

    *Numerous studies indicate that younger generations want a restoration of greater regulation and equality; what’s more, even older people have recently indicated that they no longer are as quick to worship the “free market”. We are already in a different era, we just haven’t made the full transition yet. BTW, if we look at the Western countries it’s clear that in the late 70’s and 80’s one country after another elected supply siders, attackers of unions, attackers of welfare, etc. The degree of social Darwinism differed from one country to another (w/America and Britian being the biggest offenders), but it still was a trend affecting every country. But at this stage of the game many of us are sick and tired of our countries literally falling apart due to neglect and mal-investment. And ideological trends only have a shelf-life of about 50 years; Social Darwinist capitalism was over by 1930, and state enforced equality (New Dealism) lasted for another 50 or so years. Going on that schedule, by 2030 we ought to see the complete transition away from the neo-liberal era (1980-2030).

    It does bear repeating that since Millennials and Gen Z haven’t benefited from the neo-liberal era to their liking (and neither have a lot of X-ers, frankly), it’s only a matter of time before the graying retirees who embraced the “tax cuts” and “de-regulation” mantra back when they were younger in the 80’s fade from influence. Younger generation’s have different motivations and standards, so therefore, we can’t continue to run in place as if it’s still 1985. If Joe Biden ran, and lost, that would send the message to the Dems that the time to run a true econ. populist was at hand (BTW, if 2020 had the same result in every state but Trump losing MI/PA/FL this time, Trump would still win!).

    • Replies: @216

    So perhaps these young aspiring elite women want to grab more of the pie; I have no problem with anyone saying that the tables need to be turned on the neo-liberal era so that resources are distributed in the best interests of a stable society with a strong middle.
     
    A lot of female anger is rooted in later marraiges, high student debt, and a sense that men are not keeping their end of the bargain. The corporate media has droned for decades about angry white men, but says little about growing female resentment. I'd say that the narrative among younger men has shifted from anger, which has been pathologized and medicated. Instead we have a shift to fruitless entertainment pursuits, and a disengagement from relationships.

    At the age I am right now, my Boomer parents had just gotten married, and my Silent gen grandparents married at 20. As married women tend to be happier, perhaps due to selection bias in the present, this might be causal in explaining the N. Europe gender chasm. How much of this is cyclical and structural would be an interesting test. The structural cost of homeownership probably explains my reluctance to engage in relationships.

    The genesis of WokeCapital has let to a tail-off of anti-corporate anger, previously a leftist staple. There is almost no union organizing amongst a generation that is on paper the most pro-union. Various 'Woke' issues tend to consume the time of social-media using young women, that in prior eras would have been expressed in shoe leather organizing.
  22. @SFG
    Eh, the catch with having the 'fringe party' is your various constituents don't see eye-to-eye--look at Jews and Muslims on Israel, blacks/Hispanics and LGBT on homosexuality, etc. You can rile them up about the evil Straight White Males but I think that works better on activists than the general public. The Dems' big advantage is economics--if you saw the Voter Study Group chart lots of GOP voters are economically moderate and P.O.ed about PC and 'woke' culture.

    I personally think global warming is real and one of the big reasons I want immigration stopped is... so as many of the remaining immigrants as possible can assimilate (as opposed to staying separate and surly) and we have a more cohesive country when all the climate refugees want in. Also makes it easier to spread the damage caused by the increasing disasters over a bigger country. Better if NYC and the Midwest can bail each other out if one gets flooded (both have been in the past few years) than having them fight over immigration (or transgender bathrooms).

    Slam shut the gates, bad times are coming.

    Eh, the catch with having the ‘fringe party’ is your various constituents don’t see eye-to-eye–look at Jews and Muslims on Israel, blacks/Hispanics and LGBT on homosexuality, etc. You can rile them up about the evil Straight White Males but I think that works better on activists than the general public. The Dems’ big advantage is economics–if you saw the Voter Study Group chart lots of GOP voters are economically moderate and P.O.ed about PC and ‘woke’ culture.

    Trump actually benefited from trashing the neo-cons, trashing the off-shoring traitors, and the like. That’s what people responded to. If he had just said generic Reaganite rhetoric, nobody would’ve voted for him. I can’t emphasize enough that focusing on Trump’s personality or style is a dead-end when it comes to analyzing election results/popularity. The media has been doing that for ages (at least going back to the JFK era where his victory was attributed to his smile and tan skin, rather than the real reason he won: his presumed inclination to keep the New Deal era running smoothly). People listen to what a candidate says about ideology, and they make their choice accordingly (there’s no way in hell that Barry Goldwater was going to be elected in 1964, don’t let anyone fool you that any particular moment or gaffe was the end of him; Goldwater was the most extreme opponent of the New Deal imaginable, and the GOP were fools to think he was electable)

    The New Deal era was about keeping culture and demographics stable, to insure that society would function better. Modern libs need to shut up about fringy ID politics and culture war issues, which would draw more normies to the Dem party (and after all, the undead Reaganites of the GOP elite are never ever going to change their tune unless they get clobbered in 5 straight elections, similar to how FDR’s reign motivated the GOP to get with the times). If the Dems keeping running Neo-lib centrists who fail to deliver desired reforms, or they run fringe ID politics idiots, their party stock will stay pretty low in the eyes of normies.

    So far it looks like the useless GOP will continue to benefit from zany or out-dated Dems, which the GOP doesn’t deserve since they back-stabbed Trump on almost everything (health-care, trade, immigration, etc.). But at some point one or both parties will wake up and actually give commoners what they want, we just don’t know exactly when a lot of movement in that direction will happen.

  23. 216 says:
    @Feryl

    Green politics is often identity politics, as it is chiefly a female concern.
     
    So it's not about culture, right? The Culture War era (circa 1980-2000) was about letting America began to descend into Gilded Age norms of individualism and status seeking while people blathered about relatively meaningless stuff (like protesting slasher movies). Whereas in the current era, we're seeing disputes about how resources ought to be distributed, which certainly is meaningful; Westerners thought that arguments over resources were settled in the 80's and 90's (when the average person believed that those who work hard would be fairly rewarded).

    So perhaps these young aspiring elite women want to grab more of the pie; I have no problem with anyone saying that the tables need to be turned on the neo-liberal era so that resources are distributed in the best interests of a stable society with a strong middle. I do have a problem with 30-40% of the population in any given demographic trying to wrest an unfair amount of resources from another. What we're seeing in Western countries is a minority of Millennials trying to hog the rhetorical spotlight with non-sense about prole class white guys being the problem. But it's a vocal minority, which happens to be more educated and ambitious than other people. At the end of the day, though, most people are just sick and tired of corrupt neo-liberal capitalism and want to restore greater regulation of the market*. These reforms won't happen over-night, unless perhaps a major meltdown happens or a notable country descends into revolution/Civil War (e.g., the Russian Revolution and the Great Depression were the catalyst for American elites to enforce greater regulation of the markets).

    *Numerous studies indicate that younger generations want a restoration of greater regulation and equality; what's more, even older people have recently indicated that they no longer are as quick to worship the "free market". We are already in a different era, we just haven't made the full transition yet. BTW, if we look at the Western countries it's clear that in the late 70's and 80's one country after another elected supply siders, attackers of unions, attackers of welfare, etc. The degree of social Darwinism differed from one country to another (w/America and Britian being the biggest offenders), but it still was a trend affecting every country. But at this stage of the game many of us are sick and tired of our countries literally falling apart due to neglect and mal-investment. And ideological trends only have a shelf-life of about 50 years; Social Darwinist capitalism was over by 1930, and state enforced equality (New Dealism) lasted for another 50 or so years. Going on that schedule, by 2030 we ought to see the complete transition away from the neo-liberal era (1980-2030).

    It does bear repeating that since Millennials and Gen Z haven't benefited from the neo-liberal era to their liking (and neither have a lot of X-ers, frankly), it's only a matter of time before the graying retirees who embraced the "tax cuts" and "de-regulation" mantra back when they were younger in the 80's fade from influence. Younger generation's have different motivations and standards, so therefore, we can't continue to run in place as if it's still 1985. If Joe Biden ran, and lost, that would send the message to the Dems that the time to run a true econ. populist was at hand (BTW, if 2020 had the same result in every state but Trump losing MI/PA/FL this time, Trump would still win!).

    So perhaps these young aspiring elite women want to grab more of the pie; I have no problem with anyone saying that the tables need to be turned on the neo-liberal era so that resources are distributed in the best interests of a stable society with a strong middle.

    A lot of female anger is rooted in later marraiges, high student debt, and a sense that men are not keeping their end of the bargain. The corporate media has droned for decades about angry white men, but says little about growing female resentment. I’d say that the narrative among younger men has shifted from anger, which has been pathologized and medicated. Instead we have a shift to fruitless entertainment pursuits, and a disengagement from relationships.

    At the age I am right now, my Boomer parents had just gotten married, and my Silent gen grandparents married at 20. As married women tend to be happier, perhaps due to selection bias in the present, this might be causal in explaining the N. Europe gender chasm. How much of this is cyclical and structural would be an interesting test. The structural cost of homeownership probably explains my reluctance to engage in relationships.

    The genesis of WokeCapital has let to a tail-off of anti-corporate anger, previously a leftist staple. There is almost no union organizing amongst a generation that is on paper the most pro-union. Various ‘Woke’ issues tend to consume the time of social-media using young women, that in prior eras would have been expressed in shoe leather organizing.

    • Replies: @Feryl

    A lot of female anger is rooted in later marraiges, high student debt, and a sense that men are not keeping their end of the bargain. The corporate media has droned for decades about angry white men, but says little about growing female resentment. I’d say that the narrative among younger men has shifted from anger, which has been pathologized and medicated. Instead we have a shift to fruitless entertainment pursuits, and a disengagement from relationships.
     
    Perhaps this is applicable to people born in the 90's, but amongst people born in the 70's and 80's, there isn't any definite "anger" at a whole lot, men included. It's more of a sense that things are as fucked up as they ever were, and can we finally get some changes?

    Also, "anger" defined the Boomers in the late 60's and 70's; we're not seeing the same sort of seething these days. It's more of a sentiment of anxiety and depression, really. People are on edge for lots of reasons, chief among them coming of age during an era of a non-existent middle class (compared to America's historical norms) and cynical and treacherous behavior by those striving to get ahead.

    I think that "anger" requires some degree of confidence, self-felt righteousness and power. Most Millennials and Gen Z are not solidly footed in who they are and what they can be; after all, they came of age when everyone was dropping the ball, and very little has inspired them (insisting that they build their resumes for a "winning" career and future rubs younger generations the wrong way, since they, unlike Silents and Boomers, do not relish ruthless competition). Silents and Boomers chose to accelerate the rat race after coming of age in the generally low-key climate of the 1930's-early 1980's; they've imposed this super competitive culture on their children and grandchildren, not caring about whether this was culturally or psychologically healthy in the long-run.

    Lastly, 20-40% of wannabe elite young woman pissing and moaning about men is not representative of what the others want; it's not much different from what we saw in the early 70's, when a bunch of feminist harpies claimed that "all sex is rape", sentiments that totally were alien to the general populace, who were gleefully having tons of sex at that time. Most women don't "hate" or resent men, but then again it is true that in this Gilded Age young adults have become much more exacting in their standards than young Silents and Boomers were*

    *These generations may have created the new Gilded Age, but some of their New Deal era programming still lingers; Silents and Boomers have lower standards of partner attractiveness than later generations, Silents and Boomers have a better understanding of basic manners and friendliness (since rude and standoff-ish people were resented as me-first assholes before Reagan was re-elected). The good news is that anxiety-ridden modern youngsters will eventually realize that the only good way forward is the rejection of the elitism and arrogance that's defined the neo-liberal era. Who wants to keep living in a chaotic every man for himself world?
  24. @216
    Environmentalism will be used as a justification for reparations.

    The left has too much invested to abandon the pursuit of "100% renewable energy", which also might be an employment sink in a post-automation world.

    It should be a priority of souveranist parties, and the dissident movements, to push for cuts in military spending.* To be redirected to incentivizing migrants to stay home. In the current media environment we cannot hope to successfully use Israeli-style methods to control entry, when dealing with a population riven by pathological altruism.

    *I strongly suspect that a hypothetical souveranist government in Core Europe would face a globalist military coup, thus it is imperative to weaken the military.

    It should be a priority of souveranist parties, and the dissident movements, to push for cuts in military spending.* To be redirected to incentivizing migrants to stay home. In the current media environment we cannot hope to successfully use Israeli-style methods to control entry, when dealing with a population riven by pathological altruism.

    We don’t need police state measures, we just need to step up employer sanctions to send a message that America no longer needs legions of cheap labor. Americans and Mexicans aren’t blowing each other up, or anything. And of course we also need to apply pressure to Mexico to get them to get their shit together. And if Mexico fails to do so, than slap various things onto them in order to get Mexico’s elite to wake the hell up, for once.

    Many younger people and women are fooled by deceptive media coverage of immigration related issues. It’s imperative that the media and tech conglomerates be broken up, so that their globalist multi-cultural ambitions can be held in check. But of course the cuck undead Reaganite GOP isn’t going to go on a rampage of trust-busting anytime soon. The turn toward pro-immigrant globalism largely coincides with the consolidation of media firms over the last 30 years (and of course the globalists were emboldened by the fall of the Soviets). De-regulation enabled many smaller companies to be swallowed up by ambitious multi-national entities (including those who report the news), and this has been a disaster for both the populist Left and the populist Right. Massive conglomerates are 100% aligned with pro-immigrant globalists, something for which the Right bears much responsibility (because back in the 80’s and 90’s, they never questioned the mania for mergers and acquisitions).

    • Replies: @216

    Massive conglomerates are 100% aligned with pro-immigrant globalists, something for which the Right bears much responsibility (because back in the 80’s and 90’s, they never questioned the mania for mergers and acquisitions).
     
    AUS leftists routinely blame the "Murdoch press" for the inability of the Labor Party to win elections.

    Over here, Trump did literally nothing to have the DOJ stop the Disney-Fox merger, because R. Murdoch told him that Fox News would not be transferred to Disney.

    Otoh, the AT&T/Time Warner merger was fought by the DOJ, and they lost in court, quite possibly because Trump is annoyed at CNN (a Boomer channel only valuable for its Twitter feed).

    Both mergers should have been blocked, and I question allowing any phone company to own non-telecom assets given the conflict of interest potential.

    ---

    One smallball item I find quite odious is the gleefulness that state legislators have towards film tax credits. The local dead tree media are helping run interference to subsidize a wealthy industry that disrespects cultural conservatives.

    https://www.cleveland.com/opinion/2019/06/unneeded-tax-debate-is-diverting-statehouse-energy-from-an-ohio-budget-that-must-look-to-the-future-editorial.html
  25. @216
    Environmentalism will be used as a justification for reparations.

    The left has too much invested to abandon the pursuit of "100% renewable energy", which also might be an employment sink in a post-automation world.

    It should be a priority of souveranist parties, and the dissident movements, to push for cuts in military spending.* To be redirected to incentivizing migrants to stay home. In the current media environment we cannot hope to successfully use Israeli-style methods to control entry, when dealing with a population riven by pathological altruism.

    *I strongly suspect that a hypothetical souveranist government in Core Europe would face a globalist military coup, thus it is imperative to weaken the military.

    Environmentalism will be used as a justification for reparations.

    There’s always some “justification” for massive wealth transfers, under the control of “the right people”, of course.  And it’s always the same (((right people))), who manage to get fantastically rich from unearned wealth while “correcting” past “sins” of others.

    Same old scam, new bottles.

    In the case of the environment, the needs are obvious:

    1.  Keep the alien hordes OUT.  They have no respect for their own environment and need to be kept from trashing ours too.
    2.  Fix the problem directly.  If the problem is too much CO2, stop burning carbon-containing goo for energy.  Uranium is about 50 million times better per atom than carbon, and we’re sitting on more uranium than we know what to do with.

    We WOULD have fixed this problem 50 years ago, except “environmentalists” (paid for by the Rockefeller Foundation, oddly enough) decided that nuclear energy was “dangerous”.  It was… to coal and oil interests.  Still is, and they’re still trying to kill it.  Meanwhile we burn heaping assloads of coal, oil and natural gas.

    The left has too much invested to abandon the pursuit of “100% renewable energy”, which also might be an employment sink in a post-automation world.

    When Germany’s failure to meet its carbon goals despite massive spending on “renewables” prompts almost 100 Polish scientists and activists to beg them to keep their nuclear plants running, that tactic is past its sell-by date.  The contradictions are too obvious and there are multiple organizations engaged in pushback.

  26. 216 says:
    @Feryl

    It should be a priority of souveranist parties, and the dissident movements, to push for cuts in military spending.* To be redirected to incentivizing migrants to stay home. In the current media environment we cannot hope to successfully use Israeli-style methods to control entry, when dealing with a population riven by pathological altruism.
     
    We don't need police state measures, we just need to step up employer sanctions to send a message that America no longer needs legions of cheap labor. Americans and Mexicans aren't blowing each other up, or anything. And of course we also need to apply pressure to Mexico to get them to get their shit together. And if Mexico fails to do so, than slap various things onto them in order to get Mexico's elite to wake the hell up, for once.

    Many younger people and women are fooled by deceptive media coverage of immigration related issues. It's imperative that the media and tech conglomerates be broken up, so that their globalist multi-cultural ambitions can be held in check. But of course the cuck undead Reaganite GOP isn't going to go on a rampage of trust-busting anytime soon. The turn toward pro-immigrant globalism largely coincides with the consolidation of media firms over the last 30 years (and of course the globalists were emboldened by the fall of the Soviets). De-regulation enabled many smaller companies to be swallowed up by ambitious multi-national entities (including those who report the news), and this has been a disaster for both the populist Left and the populist Right. Massive conglomerates are 100% aligned with pro-immigrant globalists, something for which the Right bears much responsibility (because back in the 80's and 90's, they never questioned the mania for mergers and acquisitions).

    Massive conglomerates are 100% aligned with pro-immigrant globalists, something for which the Right bears much responsibility (because back in the 80’s and 90’s, they never questioned the mania for mergers and acquisitions).

    AUS leftists routinely blame the “Murdoch press” for the inability of the Labor Party to win elections.

    Over here, Trump did literally nothing to have the DOJ stop the Disney-Fox merger, because R. Murdoch told him that Fox News would not be transferred to Disney.

    Otoh, the AT&T/Time Warner merger was fought by the DOJ, and they lost in court, quite possibly because Trump is annoyed at CNN (a Boomer channel only valuable for its Twitter feed).

    Both mergers should have been blocked, and I question allowing any phone company to own non-telecom assets given the conflict of interest potential.

    One smallball item I find quite odious is the gleefulness that state legislators have towards film tax credits. The local dead tree media are helping run interference to subsidize a wealthy industry that disrespects cultural conservatives.

    https://www.cleveland.com/opinion/2019/06/unneeded-tax-debate-is-diverting-statehouse-energy-from-an-ohio-budget-that-must-look-to-the-future-editorial.html

    • Replies: @Feryl

    Otoh, the AT&T/Time Warner merger was fought by the DOJ, and they lost in court, quite possibly because Trump is annoyed at CNN (a Boomer channel only valuable for its Twitter feed).
     
    The vast majority of judges in the post-Reagan era are largely disinterested in enforcing New Deal era norms* about regulating corporate excess, because, well, it's not the New Deal era anymore. You can't expect that many elites to "jump the gun" on ending the post-Reagan era; as I indicated above, I don't expect that many thing to go our way until we are in the mid-2020's at the earliest (like how immigration was over-hauled in 1924 during the very late Progressive era, an early indicator of the coming New Deal era)

    *In the Bush era, which was an intensified version of the Reagan era, important aspects of the law WRT the treatment of criminal suspects and prisoners were totally shredded; "conservatives" who complain about legal tradition being disrespected have a lot of 'splaining to do, seeing as how they, by the early 2000's, no longer seem to think that criminal suspects and prisoners have any rights, lest they "get away" with crimes.

    A local lawyer who did lots of talk radio often expressed amazement at how much the Bush regime/era tried and often succedded in trashing the rights of the accused and incarcerated. And "extralegal" methods of surveillance and "handling" people (including torture) have been enthusiastically embraced by many hi profile figures of the Bush, Obama, and Trump admins (whereas in the New Deal era, such methods to the extent that they existed were desperately concealed by authorities who felt shame about violating people's privacy and diginity; moreover, the average American in the 1950's had far less reason to fear the government/police/the military than he does now, since America is now run by callous tyrants of a Gilded Age, rather than by the relatively benevolent class we had in the mid-20th century).
  27. @216

    So perhaps these young aspiring elite women want to grab more of the pie; I have no problem with anyone saying that the tables need to be turned on the neo-liberal era so that resources are distributed in the best interests of a stable society with a strong middle.
     
    A lot of female anger is rooted in later marraiges, high student debt, and a sense that men are not keeping their end of the bargain. The corporate media has droned for decades about angry white men, but says little about growing female resentment. I'd say that the narrative among younger men has shifted from anger, which has been pathologized and medicated. Instead we have a shift to fruitless entertainment pursuits, and a disengagement from relationships.

    At the age I am right now, my Boomer parents had just gotten married, and my Silent gen grandparents married at 20. As married women tend to be happier, perhaps due to selection bias in the present, this might be causal in explaining the N. Europe gender chasm. How much of this is cyclical and structural would be an interesting test. The structural cost of homeownership probably explains my reluctance to engage in relationships.

    The genesis of WokeCapital has let to a tail-off of anti-corporate anger, previously a leftist staple. There is almost no union organizing amongst a generation that is on paper the most pro-union. Various 'Woke' issues tend to consume the time of social-media using young women, that in prior eras would have been expressed in shoe leather organizing.

    A lot of female anger is rooted in later marraiges, high student debt, and a sense that men are not keeping their end of the bargain. The corporate media has droned for decades about angry white men, but says little about growing female resentment. I’d say that the narrative among younger men has shifted from anger, which has been pathologized and medicated. Instead we have a shift to fruitless entertainment pursuits, and a disengagement from relationships.

    Perhaps this is applicable to people born in the 90’s, but amongst people born in the 70’s and 80’s, there isn’t any definite “anger” at a whole lot, men included. It’s more of a sense that things are as fucked up as they ever were, and can we finally get some changes?

    Also, “anger” defined the Boomers in the late 60’s and 70’s; we’re not seeing the same sort of seething these days. It’s more of a sentiment of anxiety and depression, really. People are on edge for lots of reasons, chief among them coming of age during an era of a non-existent middle class (compared to America’s historical norms) and cynical and treacherous behavior by those striving to get ahead.

    I think that “anger” requires some degree of confidence, self-felt righteousness and power. Most Millennials and Gen Z are not solidly footed in who they are and what they can be; after all, they came of age when everyone was dropping the ball, and very little has inspired them (insisting that they build their resumes for a “winning” career and future rubs younger generations the wrong way, since they, unlike Silents and Boomers, do not relish ruthless competition). Silents and Boomers chose to accelerate the rat race after coming of age in the generally low-key climate of the 1930’s-early 1980’s; they’ve imposed this super competitive culture on their children and grandchildren, not caring about whether this was culturally or psychologically healthy in the long-run.

    Lastly, 20-40% of wannabe elite young woman pissing and moaning about men is not representative of what the others want; it’s not much different from what we saw in the early 70’s, when a bunch of feminist harpies claimed that “all sex is rape”, sentiments that totally were alien to the general populace, who were gleefully having tons of sex at that time. Most women don’t “hate” or resent men, but then again it is true that in this Gilded Age young adults have become much more exacting in their standards than young Silents and Boomers were*

    *These generations may have created the new Gilded Age, but some of their New Deal era programming still lingers; Silents and Boomers have lower standards of partner attractiveness than later generations, Silents and Boomers have a better understanding of basic manners and friendliness (since rude and standoff-ish people were resented as me-first assholes before Reagan was re-elected). The good news is that anxiety-ridden modern youngsters will eventually realize that the only good way forward is the rejection of the elitism and arrogance that’s defined the neo-liberal era. Who wants to keep living in a chaotic every man for himself world?

    • Replies: @216

    Lastly, 20-40% of wannabe elite young woman pissing and moaning about men is not representative of what the others want; it’s not much different from what we saw in the early 70’s, when a bunch of feminist harpies claimed that “all sex is rape”, sentiments that totally were alien to the general populace, who were gleefully having tons of sex at that time. Most women don’t “hate” or resent men, but then again it is true that in this Gilded Age young adults have become much more exacting in their standards than young Silents and Boomers were*
     
    https://blogs-images.forbes.com/niallmccarthy/files/2017/10/20171013_Obesity_FO.jpg
    , @Miro23

    The good news is that anxiety-ridden modern youngsters will eventually realize that the only good way forward is the rejection of the elitism and arrogance that’s defined the neo-liberal era. Who wants to keep living in a chaotic every man for himself world?
     
    Having some close up contact with Gen Z (in the West), there's a definite lack of competitiveness. In fact I would say that (at least) 20% of them already have a blanket addiction to online multi-player video gaming. This is the reason for life, and occupies their thoughts and actions the whole day, with quick toilet and food breaks. School attendance is a necessary chore, and I've got no reason to think that they'll approach work any differently. Like the typical alcoholic they'll get through their work day just waiting to finish and open the bottle, and generally be lousy employees.

    A big problem will be to stop them gaming (sneaking out for a drink) in work hours.
  28. @216

    Massive conglomerates are 100% aligned with pro-immigrant globalists, something for which the Right bears much responsibility (because back in the 80’s and 90’s, they never questioned the mania for mergers and acquisitions).
     
    AUS leftists routinely blame the "Murdoch press" for the inability of the Labor Party to win elections.

    Over here, Trump did literally nothing to have the DOJ stop the Disney-Fox merger, because R. Murdoch told him that Fox News would not be transferred to Disney.

    Otoh, the AT&T/Time Warner merger was fought by the DOJ, and they lost in court, quite possibly because Trump is annoyed at CNN (a Boomer channel only valuable for its Twitter feed).

    Both mergers should have been blocked, and I question allowing any phone company to own non-telecom assets given the conflict of interest potential.

    ---

    One smallball item I find quite odious is the gleefulness that state legislators have towards film tax credits. The local dead tree media are helping run interference to subsidize a wealthy industry that disrespects cultural conservatives.

    https://www.cleveland.com/opinion/2019/06/unneeded-tax-debate-is-diverting-statehouse-energy-from-an-ohio-budget-that-must-look-to-the-future-editorial.html

    Otoh, the AT&T/Time Warner merger was fought by the DOJ, and they lost in court, quite possibly because Trump is annoyed at CNN (a Boomer channel only valuable for its Twitter feed).

    The vast majority of judges in the post-Reagan era are largely disinterested in enforcing New Deal era norms* about regulating corporate excess, because, well, it’s not the New Deal era anymore. You can’t expect that many elites to “jump the gun” on ending the post-Reagan era; as I indicated above, I don’t expect that many thing to go our way until we are in the mid-2020’s at the earliest (like how immigration was over-hauled in 1924 during the very late Progressive era, an early indicator of the coming New Deal era)

    *In the Bush era, which was an intensified version of the Reagan era, important aspects of the law WRT the treatment of criminal suspects and prisoners were totally shredded; “conservatives” who complain about legal tradition being disrespected have a lot of ‘splaining to do, seeing as how they, by the early 2000’s, no longer seem to think that criminal suspects and prisoners have any rights, lest they “get away” with crimes.

    A local lawyer who did lots of talk radio often expressed amazement at how much the Bush regime/era tried and often succedded in trashing the rights of the accused and incarcerated. And “extralegal” methods of surveillance and “handling” people (including torture) have been enthusiastically embraced by many hi profile figures of the Bush, Obama, and Trump admins (whereas in the New Deal era, such methods to the extent that they existed were desperately concealed by authorities who felt shame about violating people’s privacy and diginity; moreover, the average American in the 1950’s had far less reason to fear the government/police/the military than he does now, since America is now run by callous tyrants of a Gilded Age, rather than by the relatively benevolent class we had in the mid-20th century).

  29. 216 says:
    @Feryl

    A lot of female anger is rooted in later marraiges, high student debt, and a sense that men are not keeping their end of the bargain. The corporate media has droned for decades about angry white men, but says little about growing female resentment. I’d say that the narrative among younger men has shifted from anger, which has been pathologized and medicated. Instead we have a shift to fruitless entertainment pursuits, and a disengagement from relationships.
     
    Perhaps this is applicable to people born in the 90's, but amongst people born in the 70's and 80's, there isn't any definite "anger" at a whole lot, men included. It's more of a sense that things are as fucked up as they ever were, and can we finally get some changes?

    Also, "anger" defined the Boomers in the late 60's and 70's; we're not seeing the same sort of seething these days. It's more of a sentiment of anxiety and depression, really. People are on edge for lots of reasons, chief among them coming of age during an era of a non-existent middle class (compared to America's historical norms) and cynical and treacherous behavior by those striving to get ahead.

    I think that "anger" requires some degree of confidence, self-felt righteousness and power. Most Millennials and Gen Z are not solidly footed in who they are and what they can be; after all, they came of age when everyone was dropping the ball, and very little has inspired them (insisting that they build their resumes for a "winning" career and future rubs younger generations the wrong way, since they, unlike Silents and Boomers, do not relish ruthless competition). Silents and Boomers chose to accelerate the rat race after coming of age in the generally low-key climate of the 1930's-early 1980's; they've imposed this super competitive culture on their children and grandchildren, not caring about whether this was culturally or psychologically healthy in the long-run.

    Lastly, 20-40% of wannabe elite young woman pissing and moaning about men is not representative of what the others want; it's not much different from what we saw in the early 70's, when a bunch of feminist harpies claimed that "all sex is rape", sentiments that totally were alien to the general populace, who were gleefully having tons of sex at that time. Most women don't "hate" or resent men, but then again it is true that in this Gilded Age young adults have become much more exacting in their standards than young Silents and Boomers were*

    *These generations may have created the new Gilded Age, but some of their New Deal era programming still lingers; Silents and Boomers have lower standards of partner attractiveness than later generations, Silents and Boomers have a better understanding of basic manners and friendliness (since rude and standoff-ish people were resented as me-first assholes before Reagan was re-elected). The good news is that anxiety-ridden modern youngsters will eventually realize that the only good way forward is the rejection of the elitism and arrogance that's defined the neo-liberal era. Who wants to keep living in a chaotic every man for himself world?

    Lastly, 20-40% of wannabe elite young woman pissing and moaning about men is not representative of what the others want; it’s not much different from what we saw in the early 70’s, when a bunch of feminist harpies claimed that “all sex is rape”, sentiments that totally were alien to the general populace, who were gleefully having tons of sex at that time. Most women don’t “hate” or resent men, but then again it is true that in this Gilded Age young adults have become much more exacting in their standards than young Silents and Boomers were*

  30. And America was much skinnier in 1980 than it was in 2000. The generations who’ve been negatively affected by the new Gilded Age (Boomers and so on) have been stuffing their faces more aggressively with every passing decade, egged on by scummy businesses who care more about profits than they do social health (fast food places have huge profit margins on soda sales; they can charge an extra 3-4$ for a full meal which includes soda that restaurants don’t pay that much money for).

    It’s my impression that a lot of Boomers and X-ers who were relatively skinny in the 60’s-90’s have since gained a lot weight; I do know that Silents are the last generation to maintain reasonably good physical shape throughout their lives. According to the military, young people before the late 90’s were generally in solid physical shape, and that obviously includes Boomers and X-ers.

    At my workplace, at least 40% of the women over 30 seem to be legit over-weight. The Gen Z women, esp. the white ones, are typically thin. Unfortunately, per personal observation and the military record, Millennial and esp. Gen Z are much more physically weak than older generations. So besides obesity stats not being favorable for younger generations (even when very young), they aren’t adequately strong, either (over-protective parenting and indoor screen time probably creates a life-long deficit in bone and muscle growth, also not being “tested” by rugged out-door activity and street fights sends the body the message that it doesn’t need to be strong and tough to survive).

    The adult cohort, in 2020, is now comprised heavily of people born after 1940. Previous eras had a lower rate primarily due to GIs and Silents, who were too old to be affected by the over-eating trend that started in the 80’s. Gilded Age norms create a wide disparity in body types (including gym bodies) because people no longer wish to blend in with the common masses.

    • Replies: @Miro23

    It’s my impression that a lot of Boomers and X-ers who were relatively skinny in the 60’s-90’s have since gained a lot weight; I do know that Silents are the last generation to maintain reasonably good physical shape throughout their lives.
     
    That wasn't too difficult for Silents. Speaking of the post-war northern industrial towns in the UK, there were very few cars and people had to get around on bicycles or walk a couple of miles to bus stops. In pre-supermarket days food came over the counter in Co-op type stores and meat, fats and sugar were expensive. A chicken was a special once a week thing (and tasted a lot better than it does now).

    Not too difficult to keep a reasonably good physical shape in that environment.
  31. @Feryl

    Parenthetically, the collapse in stated material concerns among white Democrats over a generation is staggering. The hard-hat blue-collar concerns that defined Democrats a generation ago is perceived today as embarrassingly declasse, maybe even racist. It’s all culture now.
     
    huh? What's "culture"? ID politics isn't a cultural thing, and neither is environmentalism*. Culture to me has always meant stuff like guns, abortion, religion, media obscenity, drugs, etc.

    Cultural issues peaked during the 80's and 90's economic booms/neo-liberal expansion period (whereas the 1930's-1970's was defined by much debate regarding the responsible use of resources to secure economic and environmental stability for Western countries). The "culture wars" were a stupid waste of time for the generations who took relatively good times for granted (and squandered what they inherited) and could afford to bicker with each other about relatively trivial matters.

    And let's face it; it's the Right that tend to buy into mystical mumbo jumbo about the "magic of the market"** and the "ingenuity of people". Back when people didn't have shit for brains (the New Deal era), Leftists saw to it that that society be tightly regulated to prevent decadence, waste, and greed. The Reaganite neo-liberal era (which the entire West bought into) is fundamentally about de-regulation and attacking the notion that the public sector ought to be given great power to stabilize society in the interest of the lower class.

    *Issues that came to prominence in the 1930's-1960's were fundamentally about resources, their management and stewardship, which has nothing to do with "culture" (culture here defined as being about issues of moral gravity and personal identity that mean much more to some people but hardly nothing to others, e.g. there are many Americans who don't think all that much about guns, relative to the number of people concerned about toxic waste being dumped, or concerned about affording health care).

    **Said "magic" has destroyed the middle class, brought about de-industrialization, increased rates of drug abuse and suicide, etc.

    And let’s face it; it’s the Right that tend to buy into mystical mumbo jumbo about the “magic of the market”** and the “ingenuity of people”.

    **Said “magic” has destroyed the middle class, brought about de-industrialization, increased rates of drug abuse and suicide, etc.

    The financialization of the government/media is even worse. Lobbies are all about buying influence. The tiny Zio-Glob minority see it as their free market right to dictate to US society when they grab top government positions, own the media and pay the most.

  32. @Feryl

    A lot of female anger is rooted in later marraiges, high student debt, and a sense that men are not keeping their end of the bargain. The corporate media has droned for decades about angry white men, but says little about growing female resentment. I’d say that the narrative among younger men has shifted from anger, which has been pathologized and medicated. Instead we have a shift to fruitless entertainment pursuits, and a disengagement from relationships.
     
    Perhaps this is applicable to people born in the 90's, but amongst people born in the 70's and 80's, there isn't any definite "anger" at a whole lot, men included. It's more of a sense that things are as fucked up as they ever were, and can we finally get some changes?

    Also, "anger" defined the Boomers in the late 60's and 70's; we're not seeing the same sort of seething these days. It's more of a sentiment of anxiety and depression, really. People are on edge for lots of reasons, chief among them coming of age during an era of a non-existent middle class (compared to America's historical norms) and cynical and treacherous behavior by those striving to get ahead.

    I think that "anger" requires some degree of confidence, self-felt righteousness and power. Most Millennials and Gen Z are not solidly footed in who they are and what they can be; after all, they came of age when everyone was dropping the ball, and very little has inspired them (insisting that they build their resumes for a "winning" career and future rubs younger generations the wrong way, since they, unlike Silents and Boomers, do not relish ruthless competition). Silents and Boomers chose to accelerate the rat race after coming of age in the generally low-key climate of the 1930's-early 1980's; they've imposed this super competitive culture on their children and grandchildren, not caring about whether this was culturally or psychologically healthy in the long-run.

    Lastly, 20-40% of wannabe elite young woman pissing and moaning about men is not representative of what the others want; it's not much different from what we saw in the early 70's, when a bunch of feminist harpies claimed that "all sex is rape", sentiments that totally were alien to the general populace, who were gleefully having tons of sex at that time. Most women don't "hate" or resent men, but then again it is true that in this Gilded Age young adults have become much more exacting in their standards than young Silents and Boomers were*

    *These generations may have created the new Gilded Age, but some of their New Deal era programming still lingers; Silents and Boomers have lower standards of partner attractiveness than later generations, Silents and Boomers have a better understanding of basic manners and friendliness (since rude and standoff-ish people were resented as me-first assholes before Reagan was re-elected). The good news is that anxiety-ridden modern youngsters will eventually realize that the only good way forward is the rejection of the elitism and arrogance that's defined the neo-liberal era. Who wants to keep living in a chaotic every man for himself world?

    The good news is that anxiety-ridden modern youngsters will eventually realize that the only good way forward is the rejection of the elitism and arrogance that’s defined the neo-liberal era. Who wants to keep living in a chaotic every man for himself world?

    Having some close up contact with Gen Z (in the West), there’s a definite lack of competitiveness. In fact I would say that (at least) 20% of them already have a blanket addiction to online multi-player video gaming. This is the reason for life, and occupies their thoughts and actions the whole day, with quick toilet and food breaks. School attendance is a necessary chore, and I’ve got no reason to think that they’ll approach work any differently. Like the typical alcoholic they’ll get through their work day just waiting to finish and open the bottle, and generally be lousy employees.

    A big problem will be to stop them gaming (sneaking out for a drink) in work hours.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Post-Boomer generations definitely can "sand-bag", which I think to some extent is driven by vindictiveness toward workaholic Boomers. However, those who want to be in the top 20% generally are going to be very industrious and ambitious. But, that doesn't include all X-ers, or Millennials, or Gen Z.

    Unfortunately, all it takes is the aspiring elites to ruin everything. Back when the Me Generation was stepping on the careerist accelerator in the 70's and 80's, they for the most part accepted that their own self-indulgence would probably hurt the people around them, but they rationalized it for the sake of their own ego and competitiveness. On the other hand, many post-Boomers are horrified by the just-gotta-win mentality. But it's the status competitors who run the media, the corporations, the political parties, etc.
  33. @Feryl
    And America was much skinnier in 1980 than it was in 2000. The generations who've been negatively affected by the new Gilded Age (Boomers and so on) have been stuffing their faces more aggressively with every passing decade, egged on by scummy businesses who care more about profits than they do social health (fast food places have huge profit margins on soda sales; they can charge an extra 3-4$ for a full meal which includes soda that restaurants don't pay that much money for).

    It's my impression that a lot of Boomers and X-ers who were relatively skinny in the 60's-90's have since gained a lot weight; I do know that Silents are the last generation to maintain reasonably good physical shape throughout their lives. According to the military, young people before the late 90's were generally in solid physical shape, and that obviously includes Boomers and X-ers.

    At my workplace, at least 40% of the women over 30 seem to be legit over-weight. The Gen Z women, esp. the white ones, are typically thin. Unfortunately, per personal observation and the military record, Millennial and esp. Gen Z are much more physically weak than older generations. So besides obesity stats not being favorable for younger generations (even when very young), they aren't adequately strong, either (over-protective parenting and indoor screen time probably creates a life-long deficit in bone and muscle growth, also not being "tested" by rugged out-door activity and street fights sends the body the message that it doesn't need to be strong and tough to survive).

    The adult cohort, in 2020, is now comprised heavily of people born after 1940. Previous eras had a lower rate primarily due to GIs and Silents, who were too old to be affected by the over-eating trend that started in the 80's. Gilded Age norms create a wide disparity in body types (including gym bodies) because people no longer wish to blend in with the common masses.

    It’s my impression that a lot of Boomers and X-ers who were relatively skinny in the 60’s-90’s have since gained a lot weight; I do know that Silents are the last generation to maintain reasonably good physical shape throughout their lives.

    That wasn’t too difficult for Silents. Speaking of the post-war northern industrial towns in the UK, there were very few cars and people had to get around on bicycles or walk a couple of miles to bus stops. In pre-supermarket days food came over the counter in Co-op type stores and meat, fats and sugar were expensive. A chicken was a special once a week thing (and tasted a lot better than it does now).

    Not too difficult to keep a reasonably good physical shape in that environment.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Over-eating began in the 80's, but that didn't affect people who were well into middle age or older (GIs and Silents). Prudent use of resources continued for GIs and Silents.

    Boomers started a lot of terrible habits which were then handed down to Gen X and Millennials. It's very difficult for a lot of people to say "no" to excessive portions, when you're surrounded by gluttons.

    I don't think that what we eat is a big deal, as much as how much we eat. If you look at groups of random people in the 50's or 60's, you just don't see that many fat people. And it's not because they were studiously avoiding carbs and sugar; it's because it was socially unacceptable to sit around and stuff your face with any kind of food. By the 80's, you start to see more people with voluminous rolls of fat, and it's been getting worse ever since, even though people have been getting better advice over the last 10-15 years about what to avoid eating. The only sure fire way to lower obesity is to start stigmatizing over-eating again, like we did before the 80's.
  34. @Fidelios Automata
    Except for immigration, blacks have their priorities in the right order.

    It is interesting that Blacks and Hispanics have different numerical priorities but the same ordering. What do the corresponding numbers look like for Republicans?

  35. Global warming – sorry, “climate change” – is principally a way for power-leftists to justify the catastrophic results of their other social policies, such as crumbling infrastructure (natural disasters!) and mass migration (they’re climate refugees!). It’s also a convenient way to collect and launder truckloads of cash.

    Remember, nothing is ever a real principle on the left. If you want to understand why, then the only question you should be asking is cui bono?

  36. When I am at the supermarket I notice Hispanics love plastic bags. Even when the cashier leaves something out of a bag, such as a gallon of milk, they will go ahead and put it in a bag. I often see whites bring their own non-plastic bags to the store, It’s a total SWPL thing and Hispanics never do it.

    It’s the little things in life that make me happy such as seeing Hispanics so loyal to plastic bags. There are two things I like about this. First it shows they don’t buy into the climate change story like good whites do. I can relate. The other thing I like is how this could puncture the big tent the Democrats have. Hispanics vote Democrat purely for economic liberalism. White Democrats mostly have their material needs met and vote strictly for cultural issues such as gay rights, abortion and climate change.

    The Dem coalition of wealthy educated whites and poor minorities is an unholy alliance…both groups have different interests and motivations. Sooner or later this conflict of interests will cause problems for the Democrats.

    • Replies: @216

    It’s the little things in life that make me happy such as seeing Hispanics so loyal to plastic bags. There are two things I like about this. First it shows they don’t buy into the climate change story like good whites do. I can relate. The other thing I like is how this could puncture the big tent the Democrats have. Hispanics vote Democrat purely for economic liberalism. White Democrats mostly have their material needs met and vote strictly for cultural issues such as gay rights, abortion and climate change.
     
    I can't imagine the GOP doing it, but they'd be wise to consider the opposite: getting on the anti-plastic bandwagon to head off the coming generational eclipse.

    With whites/asians, the GOP does worse among the credentialed, but the opposite (marginally) with sun people. Adopting some Green policies might actually lessen the stigma for both "white college" and "non-white college" that otherwise hate the "anti-science" GOP, but share some concerns about higher taxes and cultural conservatism.
  37. 216 says:
    @Jay Fink
    When I am at the supermarket I notice Hispanics love plastic bags. Even when the cashier leaves something out of a bag, such as a gallon of milk, they will go ahead and put it in a bag. I often see whites bring their own non-plastic bags to the store, It's a total SWPL thing and Hispanics never do it.

    It's the little things in life that make me happy such as seeing Hispanics so loyal to plastic bags. There are two things I like about this. First it shows they don't buy into the climate change story like good whites do. I can relate. The other thing I like is how this could puncture the big tent the Democrats have. Hispanics vote Democrat purely for economic liberalism. White Democrats mostly have their material needs met and vote strictly for cultural issues such as gay rights, abortion and climate change.

    The Dem coalition of wealthy educated whites and poor minorities is an unholy alliance...both groups have different interests and motivations. Sooner or later this conflict of interests will cause problems for the Democrats.

    It’s the little things in life that make me happy such as seeing Hispanics so loyal to plastic bags. There are two things I like about this. First it shows they don’t buy into the climate change story like good whites do. I can relate. The other thing I like is how this could puncture the big tent the Democrats have. Hispanics vote Democrat purely for economic liberalism. White Democrats mostly have their material needs met and vote strictly for cultural issues such as gay rights, abortion and climate change.

    I can’t imagine the GOP doing it, but they’d be wise to consider the opposite: getting on the anti-plastic bandwagon to head off the coming generational eclipse.

    With whites/asians, the GOP does worse among the credentialed, but the opposite (marginally) with sun people. Adopting some Green policies might actually lessen the stigma for both “white college” and “non-white college” that otherwise hate the “anti-science” GOP, but share some concerns about higher taxes and cultural conservatism.

    • Replies: @216
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_California_Proposition_67

    Fwiw, the ban passed in the brown ethnostate of Imperial County, while "plastic bags" were 2 million votes more popular than Donald Trump. Odd is that Ventura and Orange County bucked the trend from coastal California.

    ---

    If an off-topic related subject

    Prop 60 in 2016, possibly the only pornography question to ever appear on a ballot. Imperial County registered the strongest support for the ban. The highest opposition was from SF and Jefferson.

    https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?fips=6&year=2016&f=0&off=60&elect=0
  38. 216 says:
    @216

    It’s the little things in life that make me happy such as seeing Hispanics so loyal to plastic bags. There are two things I like about this. First it shows they don’t buy into the climate change story like good whites do. I can relate. The other thing I like is how this could puncture the big tent the Democrats have. Hispanics vote Democrat purely for economic liberalism. White Democrats mostly have their material needs met and vote strictly for cultural issues such as gay rights, abortion and climate change.
     
    I can't imagine the GOP doing it, but they'd be wise to consider the opposite: getting on the anti-plastic bandwagon to head off the coming generational eclipse.

    With whites/asians, the GOP does worse among the credentialed, but the opposite (marginally) with sun people. Adopting some Green policies might actually lessen the stigma for both "white college" and "non-white college" that otherwise hate the "anti-science" GOP, but share some concerns about higher taxes and cultural conservatism.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_California_Proposition_67

    Fwiw, the ban passed in the brown ethnostate of Imperial County, while “plastic bags” were 2 million votes more popular than Donald Trump. Odd is that Ventura and Orange County bucked the trend from coastal California.

    If an off-topic related subject

    Prop 60 in 2016, possibly the only pornography question to ever appear on a ballot. Imperial County registered the strongest support for the ban. The highest opposition was from SF and Jefferson.

    https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?fips=6&year=2016&f=0&off=60&elect=0

  39. The are two meanings of environmentalism. The first is about clean air and water and the like, which is universally desired by people once they are above subsistence. The other is the idealization of nature, which is exclusively a western European phenomenon. It is only to be expected that political desire for the latter will wane with the decline of the white percentage of the U.S. population.

  40. @Fidelios Automata
    Except for immigration, blacks have their priorities in the right order.

    I agree (lol)!

    All the HBD people go on and on about how blacks are less intelligent than whites and Asians. However, they do have a lot a shrewdness and a kind of horse sense that is lacking in a lot of others.

  41. @Miro23

    It’s my impression that a lot of Boomers and X-ers who were relatively skinny in the 60’s-90’s have since gained a lot weight; I do know that Silents are the last generation to maintain reasonably good physical shape throughout their lives.
     
    That wasn't too difficult for Silents. Speaking of the post-war northern industrial towns in the UK, there were very few cars and people had to get around on bicycles or walk a couple of miles to bus stops. In pre-supermarket days food came over the counter in Co-op type stores and meat, fats and sugar were expensive. A chicken was a special once a week thing (and tasted a lot better than it does now).

    Not too difficult to keep a reasonably good physical shape in that environment.

    Over-eating began in the 80’s, but that didn’t affect people who were well into middle age or older (GIs and Silents). Prudent use of resources continued for GIs and Silents.

    Boomers started a lot of terrible habits which were then handed down to Gen X and Millennials. It’s very difficult for a lot of people to say “no” to excessive portions, when you’re surrounded by gluttons.

    I don’t think that what we eat is a big deal, as much as how much we eat. If you look at groups of random people in the 50’s or 60’s, you just don’t see that many fat people. And it’s not because they were studiously avoiding carbs and sugar; it’s because it was socially unacceptable to sit around and stuff your face with any kind of food. By the 80’s, you start to see more people with voluminous rolls of fat, and it’s been getting worse ever since, even though people have been getting better advice over the last 10-15 years about what to avoid eating. The only sure fire way to lower obesity is to start stigmatizing over-eating again, like we did before the 80’s.

    • Replies: @Abelard Lindsey
    People ate like pigs in the 1970's when I was a child. There was plenty of fast food around at the time as well. We used to go on family trips (Yellowstone, etc.) at the time and my mother would comment about how "stout" tourists were.

    It was the 1990's that people began bloating like crazy. I left the U.S. in '91 and did not return until '01. Everytime I visited, starting from when I first into LAX, I noticed that people were "bigger" than the last time I visited.

    It seems like American adults are bifurcating into two groups. One group, which spends a lot of time in the gym and is active, looks better than ever and better than the general public at anytime in the past. The second group seems to gradually gaining excess weight over time.

    , @Miro23
    There's also the fact that food's relatively cheaper than it's ever been (obese poverty) and food marketing is now very sophisticated. Masses of niche options and snacks on offered everywhere for maximum convenience.

    Apart from that, there's increased time pressure (equals snacks and fast food) and more work and social stress (equals comfort food).

    IMO taking daily exercise, and eating healthy food at regular times and normal amounts, now needs a lot of discipline - and that's not getting into alcohol, which is a whole other story.
  42. @Miro23

    The good news is that anxiety-ridden modern youngsters will eventually realize that the only good way forward is the rejection of the elitism and arrogance that’s defined the neo-liberal era. Who wants to keep living in a chaotic every man for himself world?
     
    Having some close up contact with Gen Z (in the West), there's a definite lack of competitiveness. In fact I would say that (at least) 20% of them already have a blanket addiction to online multi-player video gaming. This is the reason for life, and occupies their thoughts and actions the whole day, with quick toilet and food breaks. School attendance is a necessary chore, and I've got no reason to think that they'll approach work any differently. Like the typical alcoholic they'll get through their work day just waiting to finish and open the bottle, and generally be lousy employees.

    A big problem will be to stop them gaming (sneaking out for a drink) in work hours.

    Post-Boomer generations definitely can “sand-bag”, which I think to some extent is driven by vindictiveness toward workaholic Boomers. However, those who want to be in the top 20% generally are going to be very industrious and ambitious. But, that doesn’t include all X-ers, or Millennials, or Gen Z.

    Unfortunately, all it takes is the aspiring elites to ruin everything. Back when the Me Generation was stepping on the careerist accelerator in the 70’s and 80’s, they for the most part accepted that their own self-indulgence would probably hurt the people around them, but they rationalized it for the sake of their own ego and competitiveness. On the other hand, many post-Boomers are horrified by the just-gotta-win mentality. But it’s the status competitors who run the media, the corporations, the political parties, etc.

  43. @Feryl
    Over-eating began in the 80's, but that didn't affect people who were well into middle age or older (GIs and Silents). Prudent use of resources continued for GIs and Silents.

    Boomers started a lot of terrible habits which were then handed down to Gen X and Millennials. It's very difficult for a lot of people to say "no" to excessive portions, when you're surrounded by gluttons.

    I don't think that what we eat is a big deal, as much as how much we eat. If you look at groups of random people in the 50's or 60's, you just don't see that many fat people. And it's not because they were studiously avoiding carbs and sugar; it's because it was socially unacceptable to sit around and stuff your face with any kind of food. By the 80's, you start to see more people with voluminous rolls of fat, and it's been getting worse ever since, even though people have been getting better advice over the last 10-15 years about what to avoid eating. The only sure fire way to lower obesity is to start stigmatizing over-eating again, like we did before the 80's.

    People ate like pigs in the 1970’s when I was a child. There was plenty of fast food around at the time as well. We used to go on family trips (Yellowstone, etc.) at the time and my mother would comment about how “stout” tourists were.

    It was the 1990’s that people began bloating like crazy. I left the U.S. in ’91 and did not return until ’01. Everytime I visited, starting from when I first into LAX, I noticed that people were “bigger” than the last time I visited.

    It seems like American adults are bifurcating into two groups. One group, which spends a lot of time in the gym and is active, looks better than ever and better than the general public at anytime in the past. The second group seems to gradually gaining excess weight over time.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Most of what I've seen in terms of stats indicate that 1980 is when Americans began getting fatter (1980 is also when women matched men WRT high ed completion). It became an "epidemic" by the 90's. What passes for "skinny" has changed a great deal; young males in say, the 60's, usually had a fairly "hard" (sinewy) physique. Nowadays "skinny" often includes a slight gut and slight moobs (unless you are in an area of the 20%ers, in which cases "good " shape means beings shredded).

    People ate like pigs in the 1970’s when I was a child. There was plenty of fast food around at the time as well. We used to go on family trips (Yellowstone, etc.) at the time and my mother would comment about how “stout” tourists were.
     
    https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Trends-in-food-portion-sizes-kcal-for-selected-key-foods-in-US-children-2-18-y-old_fig4_51081921

    Portion sizes grew from the late 70's thru the mid-2000's. The only exception is that pizza actually shrank in the 90's, before resuming the upward trend in the mid-2000's. "Pigging" out was just not as common back then, sorry. And soda has got to be the worst thing to happen to the American waste-line. You don't need a gallon of sugar water to complete a meal. The New Progressives ought to promote a full ban on soda until we get our obesity trends reversed.

    https://media.mercola.com/assets/images/obese.gif

    The rate of obesity was 12.7% in 1976-1980, then rises to be 20.5% in 1988-1994; I wasn't born until 1985, but in my viewing of images of social gatherings from the 1950's-1980's, it isn't until the late 80's that you start to notice a fair number of noticeably pudgy people. The rise in obesity can be attributed primarily to gluttonous indulgence that occurs primarily among low class people when they sense that the 20%ers are leaving them behind. In New Deal America (about 1930-1980), having a presentable body was part of the normal person's life; after all, we're all in this together and need to check off the basic boxes of a wholesome life. Once elites started hoovering up resources to buy Ferraris and 3rd homes in the mid-80's (while off-shoring, down-sizing, union-busting, merging, etc.), proles became discouraged from even attempting to meet certain basic standards of dignity (like not stuffing one's face).

    Contra the Reaganites, the last 35 years have been an unmitigated disaster for the physical, psychological, and social health of the United States. The Progressives gave us increasing signs of a well-functioning society from circa 1900-1970, then the Silents and Boomers (who had no memory of a decadent time) turned their back on wholesome regulation in the 70's and 80's....And it's been a steep decline ever since.
  44. @Abelard Lindsey
    People ate like pigs in the 1970's when I was a child. There was plenty of fast food around at the time as well. We used to go on family trips (Yellowstone, etc.) at the time and my mother would comment about how "stout" tourists were.

    It was the 1990's that people began bloating like crazy. I left the U.S. in '91 and did not return until '01. Everytime I visited, starting from when I first into LAX, I noticed that people were "bigger" than the last time I visited.

    It seems like American adults are bifurcating into two groups. One group, which spends a lot of time in the gym and is active, looks better than ever and better than the general public at anytime in the past. The second group seems to gradually gaining excess weight over time.

    Most of what I’ve seen in terms of stats indicate that 1980 is when Americans began getting fatter (1980 is also when women matched men WRT high ed completion). It became an “epidemic” by the 90’s. What passes for “skinny” has changed a great deal; young males in say, the 60’s, usually had a fairly “hard” (sinewy) physique. Nowadays “skinny” often includes a slight gut and slight moobs (unless you are in an area of the 20%ers, in which cases “good ” shape means beings shredded).

    People ate like pigs in the 1970’s when I was a child. There was plenty of fast food around at the time as well. We used to go on family trips (Yellowstone, etc.) at the time and my mother would comment about how “stout” tourists were.

    https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Trends-in-food-portion-sizes-kcal-for-selected-key-foods-in-US-children-2-18-y-old_fig4_51081921

    Portion sizes grew from the late 70’s thru the mid-2000’s. The only exception is that pizza actually shrank in the 90’s, before resuming the upward trend in the mid-2000’s. “Pigging” out was just not as common back then, sorry. And soda has got to be the worst thing to happen to the American waste-line. You don’t need a gallon of sugar water to complete a meal. The New Progressives ought to promote a full ban on soda until we get our obesity trends reversed.

    The rate of obesity was 12.7% in 1976-1980, then rises to be 20.5% in 1988-1994; I wasn’t born until 1985, but in my viewing of images of social gatherings from the 1950’s-1980’s, it isn’t until the late 80’s that you start to notice a fair number of noticeably pudgy people. The rise in obesity can be attributed primarily to gluttonous indulgence that occurs primarily among low class people when they sense that the 20%ers are leaving them behind. In New Deal America (about 1930-1980), having a presentable body was part of the normal person’s life; after all, we’re all in this together and need to check off the basic boxes of a wholesome life. Once elites started hoovering up resources to buy Ferraris and 3rd homes in the mid-80’s (while off-shoring, down-sizing, union-busting, merging, etc.), proles became discouraged from even attempting to meet certain basic standards of dignity (like not stuffing one’s face).

    Contra the Reaganites, the last 35 years have been an unmitigated disaster for the physical, psychological, and social health of the United States. The Progressives gave us increasing signs of a well-functioning society from circa 1900-1970, then the Silents and Boomers (who had no memory of a decadent time) turned their back on wholesome regulation in the 70’s and 80’s….And it’s been a steep decline ever since.

    • Replies: @Abelard Lindsey

    Contra the Reaganites, the last 35 years have been an unmitigated disaster for the physical, psychological, and social health of the United States.
     
    Nevertheless, I really do believe that limited government and free markets create the most opportunities for economic growth and prosperity. I'm not willing to give this up for anything else. I consider myself a "Reaganite".

    Besides, I'm one of the people who are fat. I'm in the bifurcated group that regularly works out (and a practicing DIY life extensionist to boot). Its only an issue of aspiration and self-discipline.

    I believe in liberty and am not willing to give it up because others can't "handle" it.

  45. @Feryl
    Most of what I've seen in terms of stats indicate that 1980 is when Americans began getting fatter (1980 is also when women matched men WRT high ed completion). It became an "epidemic" by the 90's. What passes for "skinny" has changed a great deal; young males in say, the 60's, usually had a fairly "hard" (sinewy) physique. Nowadays "skinny" often includes a slight gut and slight moobs (unless you are in an area of the 20%ers, in which cases "good " shape means beings shredded).

    People ate like pigs in the 1970’s when I was a child. There was plenty of fast food around at the time as well. We used to go on family trips (Yellowstone, etc.) at the time and my mother would comment about how “stout” tourists were.
     
    https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Trends-in-food-portion-sizes-kcal-for-selected-key-foods-in-US-children-2-18-y-old_fig4_51081921

    Portion sizes grew from the late 70's thru the mid-2000's. The only exception is that pizza actually shrank in the 90's, before resuming the upward trend in the mid-2000's. "Pigging" out was just not as common back then, sorry. And soda has got to be the worst thing to happen to the American waste-line. You don't need a gallon of sugar water to complete a meal. The New Progressives ought to promote a full ban on soda until we get our obesity trends reversed.

    https://media.mercola.com/assets/images/obese.gif

    The rate of obesity was 12.7% in 1976-1980, then rises to be 20.5% in 1988-1994; I wasn't born until 1985, but in my viewing of images of social gatherings from the 1950's-1980's, it isn't until the late 80's that you start to notice a fair number of noticeably pudgy people. The rise in obesity can be attributed primarily to gluttonous indulgence that occurs primarily among low class people when they sense that the 20%ers are leaving them behind. In New Deal America (about 1930-1980), having a presentable body was part of the normal person's life; after all, we're all in this together and need to check off the basic boxes of a wholesome life. Once elites started hoovering up resources to buy Ferraris and 3rd homes in the mid-80's (while off-shoring, down-sizing, union-busting, merging, etc.), proles became discouraged from even attempting to meet certain basic standards of dignity (like not stuffing one's face).

    Contra the Reaganites, the last 35 years have been an unmitigated disaster for the physical, psychological, and social health of the United States. The Progressives gave us increasing signs of a well-functioning society from circa 1900-1970, then the Silents and Boomers (who had no memory of a decadent time) turned their back on wholesome regulation in the 70's and 80's....And it's been a steep decline ever since.

    Contra the Reaganites, the last 35 years have been an unmitigated disaster for the physical, psychological, and social health of the United States.

    Nevertheless, I really do believe that limited government and free markets create the most opportunities for economic growth and prosperity. I’m not willing to give this up for anything else. I consider myself a “Reaganite”.

    Besides, I’m one of the people who are fat. I’m in the bifurcated group that regularly works out (and a practicing DIY life extensionist to boot). Its only an issue of aspiration and self-discipline.

    I believe in liberty and am not willing to give it up because others can’t “handle” it.

    • Replies: @Miro23

    Nevertheless, I really do believe that limited government and free markets create the most opportunities for economic growth and prosperity. I’m not willing to give this up for anything else. I consider myself a “Reaganite”.

     

    You've already given it up your opportunities for economic growth and prosperity.

    The US is now run by special interest lobbies like Healthcare (worst value for money in the world), Zionists (5 trillion $ in new public debt to fight Israel's wars), and the US MIC (spending more each year on "defence" than the whole of the rest of the world combined).

    These are the same guys that outsourced US industries (and jobs) to Asia for extra profits, and opened US frontiers to mass immigration for cheap labour. The last thing they are interested in is your prosperity.
    , @Feryl
    You're entitled to your opinion, but not your facts.

    The average American feels engulfed by the chaos caused by de-regulation. Every step towards greater de-regulation has thinned the middle class, rotted our infrastructure, put a "normal" life (buy house, have kids) out of reach for an every growing number of people, and so forth. This is all objectively proven. When we had socialism-lite in the 1930's-1970's, America made things, didn't permit that many immigrants, and prevented The Market from heavily abusing people.

    During the neo-liberal revolution, we were constantly told that regulators were ruining everything, because people could be trusted to make good decisions and respect each other. Uh-huh. In practice, naked greed usurped all other impulses/goals. The borders got opened wide up, corporations began essentially writing the laws/controlling the politicians, banks began to "innovate" a lot of practices designed to fill the coffers of elites at the expense of long-term system stability, monopolies have gotten terrible, and income inequality is nearing historic levels. Oh, and there's also rising suicide and drug abuse levels.

    Let's face it, despair and dysfunction occur when we no longer have elites looking out of the rest of us. If said elites bothered to do the right thing, then regulation would be much more vigorously enforced to secure the financial, physical, and psychological well-being of the average person. That's how things worked in the 1930's-70's, for the most part. The neo-libs undid all that so that the "hardest working" elites could accumulate vast wealth while glibly denying the damage they were inflicting on everyone else.
  46. @Feryl
    Over-eating began in the 80's, but that didn't affect people who were well into middle age or older (GIs and Silents). Prudent use of resources continued for GIs and Silents.

    Boomers started a lot of terrible habits which were then handed down to Gen X and Millennials. It's very difficult for a lot of people to say "no" to excessive portions, when you're surrounded by gluttons.

    I don't think that what we eat is a big deal, as much as how much we eat. If you look at groups of random people in the 50's or 60's, you just don't see that many fat people. And it's not because they were studiously avoiding carbs and sugar; it's because it was socially unacceptable to sit around and stuff your face with any kind of food. By the 80's, you start to see more people with voluminous rolls of fat, and it's been getting worse ever since, even though people have been getting better advice over the last 10-15 years about what to avoid eating. The only sure fire way to lower obesity is to start stigmatizing over-eating again, like we did before the 80's.

    There’s also the fact that food’s relatively cheaper than it’s ever been (obese poverty) and food marketing is now very sophisticated. Masses of niche options and snacks on offered everywhere for maximum convenience.

    Apart from that, there’s increased time pressure (equals snacks and fast food) and more work and social stress (equals comfort food).

    IMO taking daily exercise, and eating healthy food at regular times and normal amounts, now needs a lot of discipline – and that’s not getting into alcohol, which is a whole other story.

  47. @Abelard Lindsey

    Contra the Reaganites, the last 35 years have been an unmitigated disaster for the physical, psychological, and social health of the United States.
     
    Nevertheless, I really do believe that limited government and free markets create the most opportunities for economic growth and prosperity. I'm not willing to give this up for anything else. I consider myself a "Reaganite".

    Besides, I'm one of the people who are fat. I'm in the bifurcated group that regularly works out (and a practicing DIY life extensionist to boot). Its only an issue of aspiration and self-discipline.

    I believe in liberty and am not willing to give it up because others can't "handle" it.

    Nevertheless, I really do believe that limited government and free markets create the most opportunities for economic growth and prosperity. I’m not willing to give this up for anything else. I consider myself a “Reaganite”.

    You’ve already given it up your opportunities for economic growth and prosperity.

    The US is now run by special interest lobbies like Healthcare (worst value for money in the world), Zionists (5 trillion $ in new public debt to fight Israel’s wars), and the US MIC (spending more each year on “defence” than the whole of the rest of the world combined).

    These are the same guys that outsourced US industries (and jobs) to Asia for extra profits, and opened US frontiers to mass immigration for cheap labour. The last thing they are interested in is your prosperity.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Abelard Lindsey
    Ah yes! The ZOG. We can't forget about the ZOG.
  48. @Miro23

    Nevertheless, I really do believe that limited government and free markets create the most opportunities for economic growth and prosperity. I’m not willing to give this up for anything else. I consider myself a “Reaganite”.

     

    You've already given it up your opportunities for economic growth and prosperity.

    The US is now run by special interest lobbies like Healthcare (worst value for money in the world), Zionists (5 trillion $ in new public debt to fight Israel's wars), and the US MIC (spending more each year on "defence" than the whole of the rest of the world combined).

    These are the same guys that outsourced US industries (and jobs) to Asia for extra profits, and opened US frontiers to mass immigration for cheap labour. The last thing they are interested in is your prosperity.

    Ah yes! The ZOG. We can’t forget about the ZOG.

  49. @Abelard Lindsey

    Contra the Reaganites, the last 35 years have been an unmitigated disaster for the physical, psychological, and social health of the United States.
     
    Nevertheless, I really do believe that limited government and free markets create the most opportunities for economic growth and prosperity. I'm not willing to give this up for anything else. I consider myself a "Reaganite".

    Besides, I'm one of the people who are fat. I'm in the bifurcated group that regularly works out (and a practicing DIY life extensionist to boot). Its only an issue of aspiration and self-discipline.

    I believe in liberty and am not willing to give it up because others can't "handle" it.

    You’re entitled to your opinion, but not your facts.

    The average American feels engulfed by the chaos caused by de-regulation. Every step towards greater de-regulation has thinned the middle class, rotted our infrastructure, put a “normal” life (buy house, have kids) out of reach for an every growing number of people, and so forth. This is all objectively proven. When we had socialism-lite in the 1930’s-1970’s, America made things, didn’t permit that many immigrants, and prevented The Market from heavily abusing people.

    During the neo-liberal revolution, we were constantly told that regulators were ruining everything, because people could be trusted to make good decisions and respect each other. Uh-huh. In practice, naked greed usurped all other impulses/goals. The borders got opened wide up, corporations began essentially writing the laws/controlling the politicians, banks began to “innovate” a lot of practices designed to fill the coffers of elites at the expense of long-term system stability, monopolies have gotten terrible, and income inequality is nearing historic levels. Oh, and there’s also rising suicide and drug abuse levels.

    Let’s face it, despair and dysfunction occur when we no longer have elites looking out of the rest of us. If said elites bothered to do the right thing, then regulation would be much more vigorously enforced to secure the financial, physical, and psychological well-being of the average person. That’s how things worked in the 1930’s-70’s, for the most part. The neo-libs undid all that so that the “hardest working” elites could accumulate vast wealth while glibly denying the damage they were inflicting on everyone else.

    • Agree: iffen

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS