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
Deportation Nation?
🔊 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
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The percentages of respondents in a Reuters-Ipsos poll that ran from late 2016 through early 2017, by selected demographics, who say “all” or “most” illegal aliens should be deported:

The sharpest fault lines emerge along partisan affiliation, with other demographic categories that proxy for it like race and marital status rather predictably distributed.

A pattern consistently revealed in US opinion polling–whether the polls mention politicians and political parties or not (this one did not)–is blacks tending to be the least restrictionist group of all. Even though Hispanics and Asians are themselves considerably more likely to be immigrants than blacks in the US are, it is blacks who express the strongest support for unfettered immigration, legal or illegal.

Another pattern is the one Steve Sailer first pointed out several years ago–the marriage gap is consistently wider than the gender gap is.

 
Hide 173 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. the marriage gap is consistently wider than the gender gap is.

    Especially among women.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone, res
  2. Single female voters really are an electoral disaster no matter how you slice the pie. Only blacks have a worse track record. Maybe Trump can make a deal: DACA expansion for repealing the 19th. It would be an improvement.

    I’m also willing to bet that if we could drill down into the “Asian” group and separate East Asians from subcontinentals, we’d see a stark difference. Indians are constantly agitating to eliminate per-origin population caps. To a man, they think their whole damn country should be allowed in, and they’re willing to accept allowing all of Mexico and Central America in too if that will help their brothers and cousins.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    Maybe Trump can make a deal: DACA expansion for repealing the 19th. It would be an improvement.
     
    I thought Mr. Trump was supposed to be this "art of the deal" guy. DACA needs to simply stop, per ending of the executive order. Instead, the President could easily get away with getting rid of Amendment XIX in return for weekly televised fashion shows from the West Wing. That could be Ivanka's thing, instead of making policy.
    , @Rosie

    Maybe Trump can make a deal: DACA expansion for repealing the 19th.
     
    It’s clear what your priorities are. Here’s the deal:

    You can’t get rid of women’s suffrage until you get rid of the hostile elite.
    Once you get rid of the hostile elite, you don’t need to get rid of women’s suffrage.

    As long as the hostile elite is in place, you are never going to get serious immigration enforcement, no matter what the opinion polls say, nor what happens in our sham elections.
  3. Including the Unsures, [Deport All] + [Deport Most] = 47% to 50% (margin of error)

    …whic happens to be exactly the Trump vote share in Nov. 2016 — 48.9% in the two-way contest; 46.1% in all-way contest.

  4. The black pro-every-immigrant attitude is entirely predictable and unsurprising. Flooding the country with non-Whites hurts Whites, categorically… and the black prime directive is to harm and destroy Whites. (Just as for Jews, the prime directive “Is it good for the Jews?” is functionally interchangeable with “Does it harm the goyim?”). They never had the numbers to steal the whole country on their own, but thanks to immigration, now they do.

    And it’s working. Foreigners who have absolutely nothing in common with one another, and who have zero racism credits, are all united against Whitey in an imaginary identity group called “people of color” which does not and cannot possibly exist. The more foreigners, the more proxy political power for blacks.

    They don’t even mind being edged out of the labor market by immigrants, since most blacks don’t actually want to work anyway. Presumably in 2020 when the Mudslide Apocalypse achieves permanent political ascendancy, blacks will be given permanent free stuff (pillaged from whitey) by the actual Jew-Asian-Brahmin troika that will run things, as a reward for being the tip of the racism spear. Then the labor issue will cease to matter.

    The only jobs you’ll see blacks lining up to apply for will be as prison guards in the white girl rape-camps.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Jew-Asian-Brahmin troika
     
    You missed this, eh?
    https://www.unz.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/israel.png
    , @SunBakedSuburb
    " ... and the black prime directive is to harm and destroy Whites."

    The blood feud is ancient and will not dissipate until whiteness becomes a terror of the past to the clay-colored children.
    , @ogunsiron
    One of the most high profile anti-immigration blacks is actually Tariq Nasheed from twitter. Tariq is a low IQ, supremely confident clown, but he does appear to be motivated more by love of his own folks than by hatred of wyte pipo. He does hate whites, but he loves his own enough to refuse to be taken advantage of by someone like Kamala "Kabbalah" Harris who's a fake african-american. He's simple and uncomplicated that way.
  5. White Americans identifying as Christian
    Views on deporting illegals, by education (link)

    Less Than HS (n=114) [3% of sample]
    N/A — insufficient data

    HS or Some College (n=2489) [56% of sample]
    – All Stay: 3.4%
    – Most Stay: 22.0%
    – Deport Most: 35.0%
    – Deport All: 30.3%
    – Unsure: 9.3%

    College (n=1134) [25% of sample]
    – All Stay: 3.5%
    – Most Stay: 32.4%
    – Deport Most: 40.4%
    – Deport All: 17.1%
    – Unsure: 6.6%

    Beyond College (n=738) [16% of sample]
    – All Stay: 10.4%
    – Most Stay: 35.9%
    – Deport Most: 32.1%
    – Deport All: 15.8%
    – Unsure: 5.9%

    ___________________

    Comment: A mild education gap, as might be expected.

    The highest-education group (‘Beyond College;’ MA holders and above) is no more for ‘Stay’ than the national (all-race, all-religion, all-education figure) average. Whites with highest education are also for ‘Deport’ at the same % as the actual Trump vote in Nov. 2016, which is encouraging.

    The much-commented-upon 2015-2016 MAGA base is clearly discernible here, namely HS or Some College White Christians — 65%+ say ‘Deport’ and a mere 3% say ‘All Stay.’ If excluding the Unsures, it’s up to near three-quarters ‘Deport.’

    The key to winning is getting more of the ‘College’ and ‘Beyond College’ White-Christians on the ‘Deport’ side, a process I think (would like to think) is occurring, if below the surface. Support for illegals as a high-SES White status signal must go.

    • Replies: @iffen
    The key to winning

    If more people such as yourself come to the forefront and become the face of "the movement," winning will be a slam dunk.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Things like the dead RAISE Act would probably push sentiment in that direction. For high-SES whites, it's gauche to be concerned about illegal aliens. It doesn't threaten them nor their children. High-skilled immigration does, however.
  6. Perhaps blacks fear that once the Mexicans have been deported, they’ll be next. It’ll be Liberia all over again!

    • Agree: jim jones
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    In my extensive experience with Afficans, most of them lack the ability or willingness to think it through that much. It really is difficult for people of average white or North/east-Asian intelligence to grasp the stupidity of the average nonimmigrant African in the USA, especially if they haven’t dealt extensively with them (lucky them).
  7. All the numbers are shamefully too low, even that bright red bar. C’mon, < 80%?! I bet the numbers for supporting arrest and prosecution of home invaders is 20 points higher.

    BTW, there is a company called Swift Air that flies B-737s packed with the very worst of the illegal-alien criminals accompanied by 10-15 heavily armed guards back to their home countries down south, mostly out of detention centers in Miami and Alexandria, Louisiana . They go by the call sign “Repatriate”. One of the pilots told me that there are a number of “passengers” that they have all seen before, whom they call frequent fliers.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    One of the pilots told me that there are a number of “passengers” that they have all seen before, whom they call frequent fliers.
     
    Creating "dead or alive" bounties for catching these clowns on US soil again would seriously chill their enthusiasm for border-jumping.
    , @ThreeCranes
    Two flights in specially equipped planes of 300 passengers a day from 200 airports in America to a 40 mile by 40 mile chunk of land we purchased from some cash-strapped African country would repatriate 120,000 Africans a day. That would be a million in 8.33 days. 42 million in 350 days. So in one year, problem solved.
  8. @Michael S
    Single female voters really are an electoral disaster no matter how you slice the pie. Only blacks have a worse track record. Maybe Trump can make a deal: DACA expansion for repealing the 19th. It would be an improvement.

    I'm also willing to bet that if we could drill down into the "Asian" group and separate East Asians from subcontinentals, we'd see a stark difference. Indians are constantly agitating to eliminate per-origin population caps. To a man, they think their whole damn country should be allowed in, and they're willing to accept allowing all of Mexico and Central America in too if that will help their brothers and cousins.

    Maybe Trump can make a deal: DACA expansion for repealing the 19th. It would be an improvement.

    I thought Mr. Trump was supposed to be this “art of the deal” guy. DACA needs to simply stop, per ending of the executive order. Instead, the President could easily get away with getting rid of Amendment XIX in return for weekly televised fashion shows from the West Wing. That could be Ivanka’s thing, instead of making policy.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @216
    The Administration has no political capital, it needs to manufacture some wins in foreign policy to get its poll numbers up.

    A unilateral revocation of DACA would be held up in the courts, just as the revocation of TPS has been held up. Ignoring the courts means impeachment, if the public wanted more deportations they would have re-elected the GOP House majority.

    Blame your moderate neighbors, they chose poorly. The Admin made plenty of mistakes, but this ain't all on them.
  9. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    The black pro-every-immigrant attitude is entirely predictable and unsurprising. Flooding the country with non-Whites hurts Whites, categorically... and the black prime directive is to harm and destroy Whites. (Just as for Jews, the prime directive "Is it good for the Jews?" is functionally interchangeable with "Does it harm the goyim?"). They never had the numbers to steal the whole country on their own, but thanks to immigration, now they do.

    And it's working. Foreigners who have absolutely nothing in common with one another, and who have zero racism credits, are all united against Whitey in an imaginary identity group called "people of color" which does not and cannot possibly exist. The more foreigners, the more proxy political power for blacks.

    They don't even mind being edged out of the labor market by immigrants, since most blacks don't actually want to work anyway. Presumably in 2020 when the Mudslide Apocalypse achieves permanent political ascendancy, blacks will be given permanent free stuff (pillaged from whitey) by the actual Jew-Asian-Brahmin troika that will run things, as a reward for being the tip of the racism spear. Then the labor issue will cease to matter.

    The only jobs you'll see blacks lining up to apply for will be as prison guards in the white girl rape-camps.

    Jew-Asian-Brahmin troika

    You missed this, eh?

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    Since half of Asians in the US are Muslim and Muslims are 40% approval, I think we can guess that East Asians are about 80% approval.
  10. Even though Hispanics and Asians are themselves considerably more likely to be immigrants than blacks in the US are, it is blacks who express the strongest support for unfettered immigration, legal or illegal.

    Not coincidentally, blacks are also the stupidest group in America.

    Now let’s have a poll about deporting so-called “legal” immigrants.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Now let’s have a poll about deporting so-called “legal” immigrants.
     
    You’ll be disappointed by the result.
    , @Johann Ricke

    Now let’s have a poll about deporting so-called “legal” immigrants.
     
    While I'd love to see the results of such a poll, it's not clear that it could actually be commissioned without everyone associated with bringing it to fruition being made unemployable, such are the times we live in. And then there's the question of whether poll respondents would answer honestly, given the climate of political correctness, reinforced by doxxing and Google search. For now, it remains marginally acceptable to object to illegal immigration. We are rapidly getting to the point when it won't be.
  11. In some cases deportation does seem a bit caprices. Like suddenly deciding to enforce the law after ignoring it for years. When I hear talk of amnesty I think it strange to forgive people for breaking a law that is not enforced. If not deported they should be naturalized. As citizens they would be less exploitable by employers and thus less of a drag on wages. Of course if the border is to remain open citizen and non citizen will be a distinction without a difference. Everybody on Earth will be an American. What’s needed is a moratorium. Strange as it may seem that may be politically impossible.

    • Replies: @Stan d Mute

    In some cases deportation does seem a bit caprices.
     
    No more capricious than the fact that most criminals get away with dozens of felonies before they’re caught committing one.

    But as with the “war on drugs,” the only real solution is to eliminate the demand (something that will never happen in the case of drugs). Chasing down tens of millions of illegals isn’t practical at all. It’s far easier and more effective to prosecute the people who entice them to violate our laws. Attach a reward (confiscated from the offender) to ratting out the employers of illegal workers and impose serious penalties while cutting all government benefits such as healthcare, food stamps, housing, access to financial services, education, etc, and the illegals will go home on their own. Subsistence at home beats starvation up north.

    They’re here because they are paid to be here.

    The practicality lies in the fewer targets of enforcement, the lure of the reward plus newly available jobs, and innate jealousy the working class has for the employer class. The reason that this idea is never bandied about is that it would actually work and therefore is the last thing the people who fund our politicians (not government mind you - our politicians) want to happen.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Politically possible, you mean? A moratorium is the best approach. It takes liberals' high sense of fairness into account.
  12. @Mr McKenna

    Even though Hispanics and Asians are themselves considerably more likely to be immigrants than blacks in the US are, it is blacks who express the strongest support for unfettered immigration, legal or illegal.
     
    Not coincidentally, blacks are also the stupidest group in America.

    Now let's have a poll about deporting so-called "legal" immigrants.

    Now let’s have a poll about deporting so-called “legal” immigrants.

    You’ll be disappointed by the result.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  13. @WorkingClass
    In some cases deportation does seem a bit caprices. Like suddenly deciding to enforce the law after ignoring it for years. When I hear talk of amnesty I think it strange to forgive people for breaking a law that is not enforced. If not deported they should be naturalized. As citizens they would be less exploitable by employers and thus less of a drag on wages. Of course if the border is to remain open citizen and non citizen will be a distinction without a difference. Everybody on Earth will be an American. What's needed is a moratorium. Strange as it may seem that may be politically impossible.

    In some cases deportation does seem a bit caprices.

    No more capricious than the fact that most criminals get away with dozens of felonies before they’re caught committing one.

    But as with the “war on drugs,” the only real solution is to eliminate the demand (something that will never happen in the case of drugs). Chasing down tens of millions of illegals isn’t practical at all. It’s far easier and more effective to prosecute the people who entice them to violate our laws. Attach a reward (confiscated from the offender) to ratting out the employers of illegal workers and impose serious penalties while cutting all government benefits such as healthcare, food stamps, housing, access to financial services, education, etc, and the illegals will go home on their own. Subsistence at home beats starvation up north.

    They’re here because they are paid to be here.

    The practicality lies in the fewer targets of enforcement, the lure of the reward plus newly available jobs, and innate jealousy the working class has for the employer class. The reason that this idea is never bandied about is that it would actually work and therefore is the last thing the people who fund our politicians (not government mind you – our politicians) want to happen.

    • Replies: @WorkingClass
    Yeah. Employers are the choke point. But they are upstanding members of the Chamber aren't they. Likely even Republicans. They NEED cheap labor. That's why I say closing the border may be politically impossible.
  14. @Twinkie

    Jew-Asian-Brahmin troika
     
    You missed this, eh?
    https://www.unz.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/israel.png

    Since half of Asians in the US are Muslim and Muslims are 40% approval, I think we can guess that East Asians are about 80% approval.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    In 2009 in Cairo, Barrack Obama said: "But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores — and that includes nearly 7 million American Muslims in our country today who, by the way, enjoy incomes and educational levels that are higher than the American average. "

    There were 17 million Asian Americans, including mixed, in 2010.

    West, Central and S Asians are not distinguished from East Asian by the poll, so let's swap the mixed Asian out for the African Muslims.

    That makes actually a third not a half. My mistake.

    So non-Muslim Asians become something like 70% approving.

    , @Audacious Epigone
    Half? I don't think it's that high, is it?
    , @RadicalCenter
    Almost none of the Chinese, Korean, Filipino, or Japanese immigrants to the USA have been or are Muslim. No way are half of Asians in the us muslim, even counting Indians as Asians.
  15. @Michael S
    Single female voters really are an electoral disaster no matter how you slice the pie. Only blacks have a worse track record. Maybe Trump can make a deal: DACA expansion for repealing the 19th. It would be an improvement.

    I'm also willing to bet that if we could drill down into the "Asian" group and separate East Asians from subcontinentals, we'd see a stark difference. Indians are constantly agitating to eliminate per-origin population caps. To a man, they think their whole damn country should be allowed in, and they're willing to accept allowing all of Mexico and Central America in too if that will help their brothers and cousins.

    Maybe Trump can make a deal: DACA expansion for repealing the 19th.

    It’s clear what your priorities are. Here’s the deal:

    You can’t get rid of women’s suffrage until you get rid of the hostile elite.
    Once you get rid of the hostile elite, you don’t need to get rid of women’s suffrage.

    As long as the hostile elite is in place, you are never going to get serious immigration enforcement, no matter what the opinion polls say, nor what happens in our sham elections.

    • Replies: @Mark G.
    We can't get rid of women's suffrage but if we don't get rid of the way increasing numbers of white females think we aren't going to swing the country in the right direction. The prosperity of our country is based on productive white males. If they run things we will prosper overall but the gravy train will end for women. There will be no more welfare state transfers, no more affirmative action, no more cushy make work government jobs and no more divorce and child support laws that favor women. White females will either have to work or find a provider type of male to marry and support them. If white females ally themselves with minorities and the hostile elite things will be easier for them in the short run. In the long run, though, there will be a shrinking economic pie these groups will be fighting over. The other two groups don't really care what happens to white females and they will be tossed overboard when the economic lifeboat is sinking. White males do care about what happens to them. They are our mothers, daughters, sisters and potential wives. I think that white females are the swing voters that will decide which way this country goes. White males can just kind of hope and pray they have the wisdom to make the right decision.
  16. @Hail
    White Americans identifying as Christian
    Views on deporting illegals, by education (link)

    Less Than HS (n=114) [3% of sample]
    N/A -- insufficient data

    HS or Some College (n=2489) [56% of sample]
    - All Stay: 3.4%
    - Most Stay: 22.0%
    - Deport Most: 35.0%
    - Deport All: 30.3%
    - Unsure: 9.3%

    College (n=1134) [25% of sample]
    - All Stay: 3.5%
    - Most Stay: 32.4%
    - Deport Most: 40.4%
    - Deport All: 17.1%
    - Unsure: 6.6%

    Beyond College (n=738) [16% of sample]
    - All Stay: 10.4%
    - Most Stay: 35.9%
    - Deport Most: 32.1%
    - Deport All: 15.8%
    - Unsure: 5.9%

    ___________________

    Comment: A mild education gap, as might be expected.

    The highest-education group ('Beyond College;' MA holders and above) is no more for 'Stay' than the national (all-race, all-religion, all-education figure) average. Whites with highest education are also for 'Deport' at the same % as the actual Trump vote in Nov. 2016, which is encouraging.

    The much-commented-upon 2015-2016 MAGA base is clearly discernible here, namely HS or Some College White Christians -- 65%+ say 'Deport' and a mere 3% say 'All Stay.' If excluding the Unsures, it's up to near three-quarters 'Deport.'

    The key to winning is getting more of the 'College' and 'Beyond College' White-Christians on the 'Deport' side, a process I think (would like to think) is occurring, if below the surface. Support for illegals as a high-SES White status signal must go.

    The key to winning

    If more people such as yourself come to the forefront and become the face of “the movement,” winning will be a slam dunk.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Indeed. The spleen-venting is cathartic for some, but more than anything else it is self-ghettoizing. Almost no one of NW European descent wants to be associated, even intellectually, with something that feels like racial hatred. It's a self-defeating problem on our side of the great divide.
  17. @Tyrion 2
    Since half of Asians in the US are Muslim and Muslims are 40% approval, I think we can guess that East Asians are about 80% approval.

    In 2009 in Cairo, Barrack Obama said: “But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores — and that includes nearly 7 million American Muslims in our country today who, by the way, enjoy incomes and educational levels that are higher than the American average. ”

    There were 17 million Asian Americans, including mixed, in 2010.

    West, Central and S Asians are not distinguished from East Asian by the poll, so let’s swap the mixed Asian out for the African Muslims.

    That makes actually a third not a half. My mistake.

    So non-Muslim Asians become something like 70% approving.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    Actually my numbers must be wrong. Very wrong!

    They are ludicrous considering how SJW US Asians are, partly because of neighbourhood plus income/education.

    Surely super SJW Asians cannot even be slightly pro Israel? Those types certainly aren't pro Israel in the UK, where it is just seen as a pale, male and stale state which needs immediate diversifying.

    Or maybe they are very well-informed and realise that the majority of Israelis would qualify as people of colour through mixing with Mizrahi, even if very few American Jews would?

    Who knows...maybe the numbers are actually right?

    , @Audacious Epigone
    Some of those Muslims ID as "other" or "white" rather than Asian, though, don't they?
  18. Cynicism will save the USA!

    The reason why it is politically expedient to bring up the fact that Blacks have their employment opportunities and wages adversely affected by mass legal immigration and illegal immigration is because it forces proponents of mass legal immigration and illegal immigration to defend their position in an awkward manner.

    Holy smokes, that’s cynical! So be it!

    Also, bringing up Blacks in relation to nation-wrecking mass legal immigration and illegal immigration allows you to point out that Blacks have, on average, lower IQs than Whites and Asians. It also allows you to talk about the massively disproportionate Black crime rate as compared to Whites and Asians.

    You might cynically say that since Blacks have lower IQs than Whites and Asians, it is unseemly to force Blacks to compete with imported foreigners for jobs and wages.

    You might cynically say that since Blacks commit more crime, on average, than do Whites and Asians, maybe the Blacks wouldn’t commit so much crime if they had the jobs instead of imported foreigners.

    After bringing up the Asians, you saunter right into the fact that Jews in the Ivy League are using their power over admissions policy to restrict Asian entry into the Ivy League while keeping the Ivy League Jew student quota artificially high.

    Back To Blood All The Way To Civil War II

    Civil War II is on the way folks, there is no way to stop the racialization of American politics and the disintegration of the United States.

    Cynicism says it is so.

    Tweets from 2015:

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Maybe it's naivete on my part, but I do not think a hot civil war is inevitable. There are peaceful ways for political dissolution to occur. That's certainly what I want to see happen.
  19. Boomer is a mindset, not just a cohort

    Too many people don’t understand the rules of Intersectionality. She may be a SITTING MEMBER OF CONGRESS but she’s still the victim, she’s always the victim even when she’s the bully. Someone as ethically challenged as BumblePosobiec should at least learn from experience.

    Don’t attack her, ghost her.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    So many of the same dynamics at play with AOC as with Trump. In Trump's case, he drove the narrative so there was almost no way the media could avoid attacking him. In AOC's case, though, there are a lot of globalist center-leftists who would like for her to be ghosted, but the boomercons make that next to impossible.
  20. @Tyrion 2
    In 2009 in Cairo, Barrack Obama said: "But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores — and that includes nearly 7 million American Muslims in our country today who, by the way, enjoy incomes and educational levels that are higher than the American average. "

    There were 17 million Asian Americans, including mixed, in 2010.

    West, Central and S Asians are not distinguished from East Asian by the poll, so let's swap the mixed Asian out for the African Muslims.

    That makes actually a third not a half. My mistake.

    So non-Muslim Asians become something like 70% approving.

    Actually my numbers must be wrong. Very wrong!

    They are ludicrous considering how SJW US Asians are, partly because of neighbourhood plus income/education.

    Surely super SJW Asians cannot even be slightly pro Israel? Those types certainly aren’t pro Israel in the UK, where it is just seen as a pale, male and stale state which needs immediate diversifying.

    Or maybe they are very well-informed and realise that the majority of Israelis would qualify as people of colour through mixing with Mizrahi, even if very few American Jews would?

    Who knows…maybe the numbers are actually right?

  21. @Achmed E. Newman
    All the numbers are shamefully too low, even that bright red bar. C'mon, < 80%?! I bet the numbers for supporting arrest and prosecution of home invaders is 20 points higher.

    BTW, there is a company called Swift Air that flies B-737s packed with the very worst of the illegal-alien criminals accompanied by 10-15 heavily armed guards back to their home countries down south, mostly out of detention centers in Miami and Alexandria, Louisiana . They go by the call sign "Repatriate". One of the pilots told me that there are a number of "passengers" that they have all seen before, whom they call frequent fliers.

    One of the pilots told me that there are a number of “passengers” that they have all seen before, whom they call frequent fliers.

    Creating “dead or alive” bounties for catching these clowns on US soil again would seriously chill their enthusiasm for border-jumping.

    • Replies: @Stan d Mute

    Creating “dead or alive” bounties for catching these clowns on US soil again would seriously chill their enthusiasm for border-jumping.
     
    It would surely be less expensive and more effective than the fedgov bureaucracy failing to do the job now.
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    I don't have that whole stash of [AGREE]s that you've got, so,

    AGREED!
  22. @Achmed E. Newman

    Maybe Trump can make a deal: DACA expansion for repealing the 19th. It would be an improvement.
     
    I thought Mr. Trump was supposed to be this "art of the deal" guy. DACA needs to simply stop, per ending of the executive order. Instead, the President could easily get away with getting rid of Amendment XIX in return for weekly televised fashion shows from the West Wing. That could be Ivanka's thing, instead of making policy.

    The Administration has no political capital, it needs to manufacture some wins in foreign policy to get its poll numbers up.

    A unilateral revocation of DACA would be held up in the courts, just as the revocation of TPS has been held up. Ignoring the courts means impeachment, if the public wanted more deportations they would have re-elected the GOP House majority.

    Blame your moderate neighbors, they chose poorly. The Admin made plenty of mistakes, but this ain’t all on them.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    #216, I am no policy wonk. I do trust VDare with all the news on immigration, and have been reading those writers for more than 10 years. My general recollection is that President Trump does not have to DO ANYTHING to let the DACA thing become dead, as it was an Øb☭ma executive order.

    A judge can say whatever he wants, but if the administration were to ignore him, these people *should* get sent home. Now, I put the *should* in there, because, yes, the problem is with Trump, not my neighbors*. His picks of lame-ass beltway insiders for his employees mean that the swamp has not been drained. Whatever he says as head of the executive branch does not get put into action.

    If Trump had cleaned house, getting underlings who would fire any under-underlings who won't play by Trump rules, then things would be different. Right now, the bureaucracy will follow what Big-Gov wants, not what Trump decides.

    .

    * Well, one neighbor is a ctrl-left PC idiot who makes it very easy for me to vote in local elections. As Peak Stupidity related in a post on local politics (at the bottom), I can just read her yard signs to know exactly who to vote against!
  23. @Stan d Mute

    In some cases deportation does seem a bit caprices.
     
    No more capricious than the fact that most criminals get away with dozens of felonies before they’re caught committing one.

    But as with the “war on drugs,” the only real solution is to eliminate the demand (something that will never happen in the case of drugs). Chasing down tens of millions of illegals isn’t practical at all. It’s far easier and more effective to prosecute the people who entice them to violate our laws. Attach a reward (confiscated from the offender) to ratting out the employers of illegal workers and impose serious penalties while cutting all government benefits such as healthcare, food stamps, housing, access to financial services, education, etc, and the illegals will go home on their own. Subsistence at home beats starvation up north.

    They’re here because they are paid to be here.

    The practicality lies in the fewer targets of enforcement, the lure of the reward plus newly available jobs, and innate jealousy the working class has for the employer class. The reason that this idea is never bandied about is that it would actually work and therefore is the last thing the people who fund our politicians (not government mind you - our politicians) want to happen.

    Yeah. Employers are the choke point. But they are upstanding members of the Chamber aren’t they. Likely even Republicans. They NEED cheap labor. That’s why I say closing the border may be politically impossible.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    Oh, there are ways to make cucking painful.  Boycotts hit corporations, individual actions like mobbing hit executives, board members and their families.  You also go after them for contributing to the SPLC and ADL.
  24. @Mr McKenna

    Even though Hispanics and Asians are themselves considerably more likely to be immigrants than blacks in the US are, it is blacks who express the strongest support for unfettered immigration, legal or illegal.
     
    Not coincidentally, blacks are also the stupidest group in America.

    Now let's have a poll about deporting so-called "legal" immigrants.

    Now let’s have a poll about deporting so-called “legal” immigrants.

    While I’d love to see the results of such a poll, it’s not clear that it could actually be commissioned without everyone associated with bringing it to fruition being made unemployable, such are the times we live in. And then there’s the question of whether poll respondents would answer honestly, given the climate of political correctness, reinforced by doxxing and Google search. For now, it remains marginally acceptable to object to illegal immigration. We are rapidly getting to the point when it won’t be.

    • Agree: Trevor H.
  25. @WorkingClass
    Yeah. Employers are the choke point. But they are upstanding members of the Chamber aren't they. Likely even Republicans. They NEED cheap labor. That's why I say closing the border may be politically impossible.

    Oh, there are ways to make cucking painful.  Boycotts hit corporations, individual actions like mobbing hit executives, board members and their families.  You also go after them for contributing to the SPLC and ADL.

    • Replies: @216
    Perhaps its tired to say this but...

    "Freeze the target, personalize it and polarize it"

    Targeting the NFL succeeded in getting Kapernick to be out of the game, but with a nice severance check. The wrong move was in encouraging a boycott, which most people are too weak-willed to perform. (If I had a dollar for every Boomercon that said they were watching college football instead of the NFL...)

    The better move would have been to put pressure on Roger Goodell to be fired by the owners. But Trump and Pence screwed this up by not calling for a boycott, and then having Pence perform that stupid stunt where he left a game after a few players kneeled. Instead Goodell was allowed to grease palms to get the protests to stop.

    Mobbing executives is a sure loser, the media will quickly paint them as the victim of "unhinged bigots". Silent vigils are the best protesting option available to the Right, and even that only works with numbers and discipline. See two comparable recent protests against library drag queens.

    A right wing "Sleeping Giants" that publicly shamed employers with a "This business hires illegals" might be a good idea.
    , @WorkingClass
    A general strike will pressure elected officials and give them an excuse to disappoint their donor class. The Yellow Vests have the right idea. The American working class doesn't even know it's working class. They think they are black or white. Male or female. Democrats or Republicans. You have to be conscious of being working class to achieve sufficient solidarity to make a general strike effective.

    The ongoing attacks on white people have done some consciousness raising in the white portion of American workers. White consciousness is emerging outside the Deep South. But white consciousness will not sustain a general strike. You need to get everybody involved.

    Americans need class dynamics 101. We were not always this stupid. The post war boom gave us something rare. A prosperous working class. It seemed the struggle between Capital and Labor was over. And part and parcel of cold war propaganda told us we are a classless society unlike the evil Communists.

    American workers are a one legged man in an ass kicking contest because they don't know how to organize. They don't even know they need to organize. They don't even know who they are.
  26. @Rosie

    Maybe Trump can make a deal: DACA expansion for repealing the 19th.
     
    It’s clear what your priorities are. Here’s the deal:

    You can’t get rid of women’s suffrage until you get rid of the hostile elite.
    Once you get rid of the hostile elite, you don’t need to get rid of women’s suffrage.

    As long as the hostile elite is in place, you are never going to get serious immigration enforcement, no matter what the opinion polls say, nor what happens in our sham elections.

    We can’t get rid of women’s suffrage but if we don’t get rid of the way increasing numbers of white females think we aren’t going to swing the country in the right direction. The prosperity of our country is based on productive white males. If they run things we will prosper overall but the gravy train will end for women. There will be no more welfare state transfers, no more affirmative action, no more cushy make work government jobs and no more divorce and child support laws that favor women. White females will either have to work or find a provider type of male to marry and support them. If white females ally themselves with minorities and the hostile elite things will be easier for them in the short run. In the long run, though, there will be a shrinking economic pie these groups will be fighting over. The other two groups don’t really care what happens to white females and they will be tossed overboard when the economic lifeboat is sinking. White males do care about what happens to them. They are our mothers, daughters, sisters and potential wives. I think that white females are the swing voters that will decide which way this country goes. White males can just kind of hope and pray they have the wisdom to make the right decision.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    I think that white females are the swing voters that will decide which way this country goes. White males can just kind of hope and pray they have the wisdom to make the right decision.
     
    Au contraire. I suspect it is white male voters’ excessive loyalty to the corporate GOPe establishment that allows them to continue running their scam on the White constituent they so despise.

    White male voters to the GOP: “Thank you sir, may I have another.”
    , @Charles Pewitt
    Politically pander to the White broads or eliminate the 19th Amendment.

    New York Times did a story on CIA White Democrat Party broad who beat GOP Dave Brat for a Virginia US House seat. They quoted a White lady who said she left Richmond to find better schools and more affordable housing. This White lady moved to a Virginia US House district that is mostly White and she left Richmond which is 50 percent Black and the White lady voted for the White CIA lady politician.

    Some White broads will never understand normal thinking. The CIA White lady Democrat Party politician also moved to a mostly White area to avoid having to live around Blacks and other non-Whites just like the White lady Democrat Party voter from Richmond did.

    Some White lady voters and White lady politicians are unpatriotic morons incapable of wisdom.

    It looks like the CIA is full of White lady morons and money-grubbing globalizer Mormons and bonehead open borders Leprechauns such as Brennan and other disgusting trash.

    White Core American leaders have to make it clear to White lady voters that race matters and ancestry matters and love of country matters.

    Example of pandering to White broads on immigration issue.

    You use full spectrum persuasion to win White lady voters by saying this:

    Mass immigration swamps schools, lowers wages, overwhelms hospitals, increases housing costs, harms the environment, increases income inequality and destroys cultural cohesion.

    White broads don't mind it if they are fought over. White Core American political leaders must pander to them on our own terms and win the White lady voters over.

    White lady won't admit she left Richmond to get away from Blacks -- there are a lot of bird brain White broads out there.

    Hillary Clinton moved to the mostly White town of Chappaqua, New York, in order to avoid having to live around Blacks and other non-Whites.
  27. @Mark G.
    We can't get rid of women's suffrage but if we don't get rid of the way increasing numbers of white females think we aren't going to swing the country in the right direction. The prosperity of our country is based on productive white males. If they run things we will prosper overall but the gravy train will end for women. There will be no more welfare state transfers, no more affirmative action, no more cushy make work government jobs and no more divorce and child support laws that favor women. White females will either have to work or find a provider type of male to marry and support them. If white females ally themselves with minorities and the hostile elite things will be easier for them in the short run. In the long run, though, there will be a shrinking economic pie these groups will be fighting over. The other two groups don't really care what happens to white females and they will be tossed overboard when the economic lifeboat is sinking. White males do care about what happens to them. They are our mothers, daughters, sisters and potential wives. I think that white females are the swing voters that will decide which way this country goes. White males can just kind of hope and pray they have the wisdom to make the right decision.

    I think that white females are the swing voters that will decide which way this country goes. White males can just kind of hope and pray they have the wisdom to make the right decision.

    Au contraire. I suspect it is white male voters’ excessive loyalty to the corporate GOPe establishment that allows them to continue running their scam on the White constituent they so despise.

    White male voters to the GOP: “Thank you sir, may I have another.”

    • Agree: Charles Pewitt
    • Replies: @216
    A lot of voters only pay attention to politics after the Labor Day of an election year. Partisans (like us) are a small percentage of American voters. Only the truly hardcore partisans on the Right recognize the Chamber as an enemy.

    The GOP sounds pretty good right before the election, but afterwards most voters go back to sleep.

    It's mostly white males that make up the NRA, arguably the most effective group that can punch back against the sellout nature of the GOP leadership.
    , @Charles Pewitt
    Women can be won over on the immigration issue, but Trumpy won't use all the rhetorical tools to do it because Trumpy is a whore for the GOP Cheap Labor Faction.

    Ann Coulter at her Kentucky best -- Tweet from 2015:

    https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/634090609490444288
    , @Mark G.
    Yes, the current Republican party doesn't deserve support. However, have you looked at single white female voting patterns? They certainly aren't voting to end the current crony capitalism and replace it with a true free market system. They are voting for full blown socialism and government transfers that benefit them. I've noticed that few of the supporters of the free market system that has led to our high standard of living are women. No, I think I'm on the right track overall. The fact that you automatically jump in and defend women in a knee jerk fashion when I make any criticism of them at all rather than admit there may be a problem there or try to deflect any criticism of them by saying our current state is the fault of the men who are the real victims of the current system just confirms to me that the current day female is more part of the problem than part of the solution.
    , @SunBakedSuburb
    You're correct about white (conservative, I'd add) male devotion to corporatism. But that is changing as more of them come to realize that questioning the efficacy of market fundamentalism is necessary. Capitalism is fine, but it has its limits. As for the GOP, the Bush, Ryan, Romney, McCain Republican Party is dead. Demographics killed it. Conservatism needs to integrate with populism in order to survive. The economic elites who run the show are no longer on their side.
    , @Mr McKenna
    Honestly, though this sort of remark isn't popular around here, I think you're both right.

    Good luck with that 'hostile elite' though. They run the place.

  28. Who knew that blacks are the real libertarians? After all, they consistently demonstrate apathy or hostility towards noise/illegal gathering ordinances, gun registration laws, voter registration laws, drug laws, and prostitution laws. Might as well throw immigration control in there.

    My hunch is that blacks are viscerally hostile towards imposition of government authority/control, because they think it’s a furtherance of a pre-existing police state (mass incarceration) and a furtherance of a (imaginary) ethno-fascist state. In reality, we worship “diversity” and multi-culturalism, on a mainstream level.

    And America, besides, has always been divided from the start based on the rivalry between Puritans and Cavaliers. Further adding Jews, Italians, and Slavs to the mix in the late 19th century made the idea of a “pure” American white ethnicity even more untenable, though “white ethnics” in the Northeast and Midwest largely assimilated to the cultural mores of each respective region, though I suspect that in the long run Italians, Jews, and Irish-Catholics have permanently altered the character of the Northeast beyond recognition (whereas white Midwesterners are still about the same, and remain very Anglo-Teutonic in blood and culture; for example, a Pole or Italian who married an old-stock Midwesterner would have children that are just 50% “New American; in turn, the adult child descendant marrying another old-stock Midwesterner would lead to children who are 25% New American. Eventually the “New American” genes would be absorbed into the Anglo-Teutonic standard that’s commonplace in the modern Midwest(Swedish Americans in North Dakota have a lot more in common, genetically and culturally, with founding stock Anglo-Saxons than they do Jews or Italians).

  29. @Mr. Rational
    Oh, there are ways to make cucking painful.  Boycotts hit corporations, individual actions like mobbing hit executives, board members and their families.  You also go after them for contributing to the SPLC and ADL.

    Perhaps its tired to say this but…

    “Freeze the target, personalize it and polarize it”

    Targeting the NFL succeeded in getting Kapernick to be out of the game, but with a nice severance check. The wrong move was in encouraging a boycott, which most people are too weak-willed to perform. (If I had a dollar for every Boomercon that said they were watching college football instead of the NFL…)

    The better move would have been to put pressure on Roger Goodell to be fired by the owners. But Trump and Pence screwed this up by not calling for a boycott, and then having Pence perform that stupid stunt where he left a game after a few players kneeled. Instead Goodell was allowed to grease palms to get the protests to stop.

    Mobbing executives is a sure loser, the media will quickly paint them as the victim of “unhinged bigots”. Silent vigils are the best protesting option available to the Right, and even that only works with numbers and discipline. See two comparable recent protests against library drag queens.

    A right wing “Sleeping Giants” that publicly shamed employers with a “This business hires illegals” might be a good idea.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    The NFL is too entertaining to expect major declines in viewing. What offended people about the kneeling and whining started by Kaepernick was that it reeked of the drama queen behavior that people expected from other kinds of athletes over the last 30 years (player salaries did not began to rise until the 90's; the NHL was called on the carpet in the late 80's for colluding to under-pay players, while in the NFL, players often stayed on the same team for many years prior to the salary cap being introduced in the late 90's, to prevent wealthy teams from spending too much money on too many players). The NFL is the last sport where most athletes can't complain too much or ask for too much money, since the sport doesn't tolerate entitled egos like the other sports do. That's a big reason it's still popular (whereas the stagnation in quality of play seen in the NBA, MLB, and NHL over the last 25 years makes people wonder why these jocks are now paid so much).

    The MLB has still never recovered from the 1994 strike, because of the massive rise in salaries, and the number of obese, aloof, or foreign athletes in "modern" MLB (whereas fans could relate to the more ordinary looking AMERICAN players of the early 90's and previous decades). There's a website that tracks foreign born players, and before the 90's most NBA and MLB players were American. That's a huge advantage that the NFL has; there are no ESL players who fans can't relate to in stark contrast to the other major leagues. European NBA players seem to be more popular than Latin MLB players; why that is I'm not entirely sure, though it may have to do Latin baseball players being notoriously unable or unwilling to become more articulate and expressive in English.
    , @Mr. Rational

    The wrong move was in encouraging a boycott, which most people are too weak-willed to perform.
     
    You must have missed all the outrage with fans burning their team-branded gear and boycotting games.  This year's Superbowl was the worst-rated in history, and as cord-cutting proceeds apace the monthly revenues for ESPN continue to fall.

    When (not if) ESPN goes bankrupt, the NFL TV contract becomes an issue for the court.  NFL revenues will take a serious hit.  The owners are going notice that, no matter what else they have ignored thus far.
  30. @Mark G.
    We can't get rid of women's suffrage but if we don't get rid of the way increasing numbers of white females think we aren't going to swing the country in the right direction. The prosperity of our country is based on productive white males. If they run things we will prosper overall but the gravy train will end for women. There will be no more welfare state transfers, no more affirmative action, no more cushy make work government jobs and no more divorce and child support laws that favor women. White females will either have to work or find a provider type of male to marry and support them. If white females ally themselves with minorities and the hostile elite things will be easier for them in the short run. In the long run, though, there will be a shrinking economic pie these groups will be fighting over. The other two groups don't really care what happens to white females and they will be tossed overboard when the economic lifeboat is sinking. White males do care about what happens to them. They are our mothers, daughters, sisters and potential wives. I think that white females are the swing voters that will decide which way this country goes. White males can just kind of hope and pray they have the wisdom to make the right decision.

    Politically pander to the White broads or eliminate the 19th Amendment.

    New York Times did a story on CIA White Democrat Party broad who beat GOP Dave Brat for a Virginia US House seat. They quoted a White lady who said she left Richmond to find better schools and more affordable housing. This White lady moved to a Virginia US House district that is mostly White and she left Richmond which is 50 percent Black and the White lady voted for the White CIA lady politician.

    Some White broads will never understand normal thinking. The CIA White lady Democrat Party politician also moved to a mostly White area to avoid having to live around Blacks and other non-Whites just like the White lady Democrat Party voter from Richmond did.

    Some White lady voters and White lady politicians are unpatriotic morons incapable of wisdom.

    It looks like the CIA is full of White lady morons and money-grubbing globalizer Mormons and bonehead open borders Leprechauns such as Brennan and other disgusting trash.

    White Core American leaders have to make it clear to White lady voters that race matters and ancestry matters and love of country matters.

    Example of pandering to White broads on immigration issue.

    You use full spectrum persuasion to win White lady voters by saying this:

    Mass immigration swamps schools, lowers wages, overwhelms hospitals, increases housing costs, harms the environment, increases income inequality and destroys cultural cohesion.

    White broads don’t mind it if they are fought over. White Core American political leaders must pander to them on our own terms and win the White lady voters over.

    White lady won’t admit she left Richmond to get away from Blacks — there are a lot of bird brain White broads out there.

    Hillary Clinton moved to the mostly White town of Chappaqua, New York, in order to avoid having to live around Blacks and other non-Whites.

    • Replies: @216
    You can probably thank R. Spencer and friends for the loss of Dave Brat's House seat.
  31. @Rosie

    I think that white females are the swing voters that will decide which way this country goes. White males can just kind of hope and pray they have the wisdom to make the right decision.
     
    Au contraire. I suspect it is white male voters’ excessive loyalty to the corporate GOPe establishment that allows them to continue running their scam on the White constituent they so despise.

    White male voters to the GOP: “Thank you sir, may I have another.”

    A lot of voters only pay attention to politics after the Labor Day of an election year. Partisans (like us) are a small percentage of American voters. Only the truly hardcore partisans on the Right recognize the Chamber as an enemy.

    The GOP sounds pretty good right before the election, but afterwards most voters go back to sleep.

    It’s mostly white males that make up the NRA, arguably the most effective group that can punch back against the sellout nature of the GOP leadership.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Don't be too smug, since 95% of ordinary Americans can recognize that their wages are stagnant, housing costs are rising, bubbles are being inflated, and many people in their neighborhoods don't speak English as a first language anymore. Peter Turchin says that patriotism, confidence, trust, etc. have all been declining since the late 60's, with the Bush II-Obama-Trump administrations confirming what most of us suspected all along: our ruling class are complete ass clowns nowadays. Complaining that the kind of people who used to work in factories "don't get it" is insulting and pointless. Workplace massacres began rising in the 1990's precisely because labor knows that it's being taken advantage of, lied to, cheated, stressed out, etc. Most proles born over the last 60 years are often cynically indifferent to politics because they know their voices aren't being listened to anyway. It takes quality leaders (who typically will come from a higher caste background) to really get any movement going. That's why Trump was able to simultaneously inspire a counter-culture (the alt-right) that was an intensified version of the populist ideology that inspired cross-over voters to vote Trump. And while the post-Boomer counterculture of the 60's and 70's peaked in the Western US, the Trumpite voter movement was most pronounced in the Northeast and Midwest (Trump nearly won a state, MN, that hadn't voted for the GOP in over 40 years).

    Now that Trump failed to inspire a make-over of the GOP, it looks as if, whatever Trump may do or not do in 2020 (not run, run and lose, run and win), we will once again have another election cycle where working class populism is off-limits. And I suspect that many spurned Trumpites from the Northeastern quarter of the US will vote Dem, or stay home altogether (if the views expressed by the GOP and Dem candidates are sufficiently disgusting). Then again, I'm starting to wonder if a Dem merely expressing interest in such "socialist" ideas of expanded government care for the poor and the sick is enough to make people shut the hell up about abortion and guns and remember that 99% of GOP elites are social Darwinist scum-bags, who give ample welfare to the rich and the military while claiming that "we don't have the money" to take care of anything else and/or claiming that we're incentivizing laziness.
  32. @Charles Pewitt
    Politically pander to the White broads or eliminate the 19th Amendment.

    New York Times did a story on CIA White Democrat Party broad who beat GOP Dave Brat for a Virginia US House seat. They quoted a White lady who said she left Richmond to find better schools and more affordable housing. This White lady moved to a Virginia US House district that is mostly White and she left Richmond which is 50 percent Black and the White lady voted for the White CIA lady politician.

    Some White broads will never understand normal thinking. The CIA White lady Democrat Party politician also moved to a mostly White area to avoid having to live around Blacks and other non-Whites just like the White lady Democrat Party voter from Richmond did.

    Some White lady voters and White lady politicians are unpatriotic morons incapable of wisdom.

    It looks like the CIA is full of White lady morons and money-grubbing globalizer Mormons and bonehead open borders Leprechauns such as Brennan and other disgusting trash.

    White Core American leaders have to make it clear to White lady voters that race matters and ancestry matters and love of country matters.

    Example of pandering to White broads on immigration issue.

    You use full spectrum persuasion to win White lady voters by saying this:

    Mass immigration swamps schools, lowers wages, overwhelms hospitals, increases housing costs, harms the environment, increases income inequality and destroys cultural cohesion.

    White broads don't mind it if they are fought over. White Core American political leaders must pander to them on our own terms and win the White lady voters over.

    White lady won't admit she left Richmond to get away from Blacks -- there are a lot of bird brain White broads out there.

    Hillary Clinton moved to the mostly White town of Chappaqua, New York, in order to avoid having to live around Blacks and other non-Whites.

    You can probably thank R. Spencer and friends for the loss of Dave Brat’s House seat.

  33. It’s mostly white males that make up the NRA, arguably the most effective group that can punch back against the sellout nature of the GOP leadership.

    Mass legal immigration and illegal immigration will kill the 2nd Amendment and the NRA morons keep voting for politicians who push mass legal immigration and illegal immigration.

    Tweet from 2015:

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @Feryl
    The NRA is laser focused on guns, which are a cultural issue, not an economic one. Every single GOP-leaning lobby is way to the right on economic issues, or doesn't care about them one way or the other. Useless. Stopping the "free movement of goods and people" bandwagon necessitates calling out the wealthy and privileged who started Neo-liberalism in the first place. Because the GOP coalition always starts from the position that the wealthy and privileged need not be pushed into deigning to concern themselves with the immediate economic position of the working class or poor (who's views on economic issues are unanimously rejected by the GOP elite) , who are effectively dismissed as too degenerate or stupid or lazy to lift themselves up.

    In this corrupt era, who in their right mind is going to expect the elite GOP coalition to:

    - Revive progressive taxes (lower sales taxes, higher income taxes on the assets and income of the wealthy)
    - End the all-out war on private sector unions that has been going on since the 80's
    - Transfer monies from the military to domestic infrastructure spending and healthcare
    - Slap major tariffs on foreign goods, and turn domestic manufacturing into a cornerstone of sovereignty, just as it was before NAFTA.
    - Slap major penalties on companies that hire foreigners over natives
    - End gratuitous abuse of "highly skilled" worker visas, which has been going on since the monumentally stupid 1990 immigration act (which has inflicted most of the "legal" immigration damage that's been done to us over the last 30 years)
  34. I’ve been ridiculed for my “theory” of the blonde-American, but I still think it’s as good a way as any to track the genetic changes each region of America has seen. And yep, light colored hair is way more common in the Midwest than it is in the Northeast. Since Jews and (Southern) Italians are rarely naturally blonde (compared to Northern European gentiles), and prior to at least the 1970’s often did not out-marry, it would stand to reason that Northeastern whites have seen blondeness decline since the late 19th century. I’m also reminded of the drastic decline in blue eyed American whites, observed since the early 20th century (when 2nd and 3rd generation “ethnic whites” began to make up a substantial share of the white population). Remember when the Brahmin caste of the Northeast heroically shuttered the borders in the 1920’s? Who’s gonna expect the weepy, sympathize-with-the-loser culture of the Irish-Catholics and Jews of the Northeast to be able to do the same nowadays? And yeah, Nordic Trump was able to focus on immigration partially because the media could not take the convienient tack of, “well, did he want his ancestors left out, too?”. Great, we get to look forward to Joe Biden spinning clover colored yarns. Funny though, Kamala will actually have to downplay her immigrant roots to “keep it real”, while fauxcahontas will have to embrace her Brit roots to avoid accusations of “cultural appropriation”.

  35. @Rosie

    I think that white females are the swing voters that will decide which way this country goes. White males can just kind of hope and pray they have the wisdom to make the right decision.
     
    Au contraire. I suspect it is white male voters’ excessive loyalty to the corporate GOPe establishment that allows them to continue running their scam on the White constituent they so despise.

    White male voters to the GOP: “Thank you sir, may I have another.”

    Women can be won over on the immigration issue, but Trumpy won’t use all the rhetorical tools to do it because Trumpy is a whore for the GOP Cheap Labor Faction.

    Ann Coulter at her Kentucky best — Tweet from 2015:

    • Replies: @Rosie
    We know what threatens the establishment. The pen is mightier than the ballot.

    https://www.counter-currents.com/2019/02/amazon-com-bans-the-white-nationalist-manifesto/
  36. @Charles Pewitt
    Women can be won over on the immigration issue, but Trumpy won't use all the rhetorical tools to do it because Trumpy is a whore for the GOP Cheap Labor Faction.

    Ann Coulter at her Kentucky best -- Tweet from 2015:

    https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/634090609490444288

    We know what threatens the establishment. The pen is mightier than the ballot.

    https://www.counter-currents.com/2019/02/amazon-com-bans-the-white-nationalist-manifesto/

    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt
    Sir Yaxley-Lennon, also known as Tommy Robinson, got de-platformed and censored too. Tommy is on team Israel First and is good on the Muslimization of England, so some Jews like him, but that didn't help him.

    Ruling class rats must be uprooted and expelled from European Christian nations.
  37. @216
    Perhaps its tired to say this but...

    "Freeze the target, personalize it and polarize it"

    Targeting the NFL succeeded in getting Kapernick to be out of the game, but with a nice severance check. The wrong move was in encouraging a boycott, which most people are too weak-willed to perform. (If I had a dollar for every Boomercon that said they were watching college football instead of the NFL...)

    The better move would have been to put pressure on Roger Goodell to be fired by the owners. But Trump and Pence screwed this up by not calling for a boycott, and then having Pence perform that stupid stunt where he left a game after a few players kneeled. Instead Goodell was allowed to grease palms to get the protests to stop.

    Mobbing executives is a sure loser, the media will quickly paint them as the victim of "unhinged bigots". Silent vigils are the best protesting option available to the Right, and even that only works with numbers and discipline. See two comparable recent protests against library drag queens.

    A right wing "Sleeping Giants" that publicly shamed employers with a "This business hires illegals" might be a good idea.

    The NFL is too entertaining to expect major declines in viewing. What offended people about the kneeling and whining started by Kaepernick was that it reeked of the drama queen behavior that people expected from other kinds of athletes over the last 30 years (player salaries did not began to rise until the 90’s; the NHL was called on the carpet in the late 80’s for colluding to under-pay players, while in the NFL, players often stayed on the same team for many years prior to the salary cap being introduced in the late 90’s, to prevent wealthy teams from spending too much money on too many players). The NFL is the last sport where most athletes can’t complain too much or ask for too much money, since the sport doesn’t tolerate entitled egos like the other sports do. That’s a big reason it’s still popular (whereas the stagnation in quality of play seen in the NBA, MLB, and NHL over the last 25 years makes people wonder why these jocks are now paid so much).

    The MLB has still never recovered from the 1994 strike, because of the massive rise in salaries, and the number of obese, aloof, or foreign athletes in “modern” MLB (whereas fans could relate to the more ordinary looking AMERICAN players of the early 90’s and previous decades). There’s a website that tracks foreign born players, and before the 90’s most NBA and MLB players were American. That’s a huge advantage that the NFL has; there are no ESL players who fans can’t relate to in stark contrast to the other major leagues. European NBA players seem to be more popular than Latin MLB players; why that is I’m not entirely sure, though it may have to do Latin baseball players being notoriously unable or unwilling to become more articulate and expressive in English.

    • Replies: @216
    Disagree,

    The NFL is heading for major trouble when Tom Brady retires, the charismatic QB is a major part of the game, to the detriment of the "defense wins championships" and RB-centric game of the past. Super Bowl ratings have been in secular decline, and the league faces an existential threat as Millennial parents (which would include me if I have children) don't allow their sons to play football due to injury risk.

    NFL players can be subject to the "franchise tag" which acts as a way to kneecap the demands of a a singular star player, and their contracts are not guaranteed as in the other three leagues.

    The 90s in Cleveland were the best period for baseball in the history of the city, a new stadium and a team full of stars. Just watch this:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1G2l_A9nB0

    Steroids played a big role in the 90s bulking up, along with a permanent player in the DH role for AL teams. The Indians had a notable skinny Latin player in the 90s, Omar Vizquel from Venezuela who was conversant in English.

    The NBA team in Cleveland had a notable Euro player Zydrunas Ilgauskas, better known a Z for the 2000s. He was rather popular, but I don't recall him as particularly charismatic, people respected him as both humble and a hustler after he recovered from some serious injuries early in his career.
  38. @Rosie
    We know what threatens the establishment. The pen is mightier than the ballot.

    https://www.counter-currents.com/2019/02/amazon-com-bans-the-white-nationalist-manifesto/

    Sir Yaxley-Lennon, also known as Tommy Robinson, got de-platformed and censored too. Tommy is on team Israel First and is good on the Muslimization of England, so some Jews like him, but that didn’t help him.

    Ruling class rats must be uprooted and expelled from European Christian nations.

  39. @Rosie

    I think that white females are the swing voters that will decide which way this country goes. White males can just kind of hope and pray they have the wisdom to make the right decision.
     
    Au contraire. I suspect it is white male voters’ excessive loyalty to the corporate GOPe establishment that allows them to continue running their scam on the White constituent they so despise.

    White male voters to the GOP: “Thank you sir, may I have another.”

    Yes, the current Republican party doesn’t deserve support. However, have you looked at single white female voting patterns? They certainly aren’t voting to end the current crony capitalism and replace it with a true free market system. They are voting for full blown socialism and government transfers that benefit them. I’ve noticed that few of the supporters of the free market system that has led to our high standard of living are women. No, I think I’m on the right track overall. The fact that you automatically jump in and defend women in a knee jerk fashion when I make any criticism of them at all rather than admit there may be a problem there or try to deflect any criticism of them by saying our current state is the fault of the men who are the real victims of the current system just confirms to me that the current day female is more part of the problem than part of the solution.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    They are voting for full blown socialism and government transfers that benefit them.
     
    As they should. A nation is an extended family and should have a social safety net to reflect that. Hopefully, we’ll soon have UBI to protect American families whom the corporate-whore GOP has destroyed with their greed. I suspect women’s influence on establishing a safety net in Europe is part of the reason their nationalists movements are so much further advanced than ours. They do not live in fear of total economic ruin.

    BTW, I’m not saying men are wrong for not supporting the welfare state as men do. I’m simply saying that a healthy society should reflect both masculine and feminine instincts, not only one or the other.

    And on behalf of young women voters who have consistently opposed foreign wars that disproportionately maim and kill young men, you’re welcome.

  40. @Mark G.
    Yes, the current Republican party doesn't deserve support. However, have you looked at single white female voting patterns? They certainly aren't voting to end the current crony capitalism and replace it with a true free market system. They are voting for full blown socialism and government transfers that benefit them. I've noticed that few of the supporters of the free market system that has led to our high standard of living are women. No, I think I'm on the right track overall. The fact that you automatically jump in and defend women in a knee jerk fashion when I make any criticism of them at all rather than admit there may be a problem there or try to deflect any criticism of them by saying our current state is the fault of the men who are the real victims of the current system just confirms to me that the current day female is more part of the problem than part of the solution.

    They are voting for full blown socialism and government transfers that benefit them.

    As they should. A nation is an extended family and should have a social safety net to reflect that. Hopefully, we’ll soon have UBI to protect American families whom the corporate-whore GOP has destroyed with their greed. I suspect women’s influence on establishing a safety net in Europe is part of the reason their nationalists movements are so much further advanced than ours. They do not live in fear of total economic ruin.

    BTW, I’m not saying men are wrong for not supporting the welfare state as men do. I’m simply saying that a healthy society should reflect both masculine and feminine instincts, not only one or the other.

    And on behalf of young women voters who have consistently opposed foreign wars that disproportionately maim and kill young men, you’re welcome.

    • Replies: @216

    And on behalf of young women voters who have consistently opposed foreign wars that disproportionately maim and kill young men, you’re welcome.
     
    That isn't rooted in a consistent philosophy of non-interventionism, it exists for the same reason that veganism is far more common with women. Its the outcome of a simplistic care-based morality.

    Mr. Spock. You, you can't even break a rule, how would you be expected to break bone?
    , @Mark G.
    No, a nation is not a family. A family is a family. You are saying that a man who is married should have money taken from him that he would use for his wife and children and it should then be given to support a woman who he didn't marry and children who aren't his. Your idea of the nation as an extended family is a recipe for the dissolution of actual families. The increasing number of unmarried women having children they can't support is not sustainable. You can't see that? You can have the government hold a gun on men and have them fork over the money they already have but you can't force them to make money in the future and they aren't going to bother with making money in the future if they can't keep it. BTW, thank you for opposing foreign wars. I work for the army and I want to work for an army that defends our freedom and I don't think we need all these foreign wars to do that. I personally work with soldiers and I don't want to see them killed and maimed either.
  41. @Charles Pewitt

    It’s mostly white males that make up the NRA, arguably the most effective group that can punch back against the sellout nature of the GOP leadership.

     

    Mass legal immigration and illegal immigration will kill the 2nd Amendment and the NRA morons keep voting for politicians who push mass legal immigration and illegal immigration.

    Tweet from 2015:

    https://twitter.com/CharlesPewitt/status/656561461272137728

    The NRA is laser focused on guns, which are a cultural issue, not an economic one. Every single GOP-leaning lobby is way to the right on economic issues, or doesn’t care about them one way or the other. Useless. Stopping the “free movement of goods and people” bandwagon necessitates calling out the wealthy and privileged who started Neo-liberalism in the first place. Because the GOP coalition always starts from the position that the wealthy and privileged need not be pushed into deigning to concern themselves with the immediate economic position of the working class or poor (who’s views on economic issues are unanimously rejected by the GOP elite) , who are effectively dismissed as too degenerate or stupid or lazy to lift themselves up.

    In this corrupt era, who in their right mind is going to expect the elite GOP coalition to:

    – Revive progressive taxes (lower sales taxes, higher income taxes on the assets and income of the wealthy)
    – End the all-out war on private sector unions that has been going on since the 80’s
    – Transfer monies from the military to domestic infrastructure spending and healthcare
    – Slap major tariffs on foreign goods, and turn domestic manufacturing into a cornerstone of sovereignty, just as it was before NAFTA.
    – Slap major penalties on companies that hire foreigners over natives
    – End gratuitous abuse of “highly skilled” worker visas, which has been going on since the monumentally stupid 1990 immigration act (which has inflicted most of the “legal” immigration damage that’s been done to us over the last 30 years)

    • Replies: @216

    The NRA is laser focused on guns, which are a cultural issue, not an economic one. Every single GOP-leaning lobby is way to the right on economic issues, or doesn’t care about them one way or the other
     
    Little known to most, the NRA tends to take the side of energy/mining/ranching against the environment/outdoorsman side wrt Western BLM lands policy. While irrelevant to the vast majority of Americans, this niche fight has cost the GOP in Montana, where a leftist group set up a "pro-hunting/pro-environment" front organization. The NRA's actions are not surprising when you understand that it is controlled by the same paymasters as the rest of Cuck Inc. For reasons I don't entirely grasp, lefties target the NRA as "racist" even though they eagerly promote non-whites and have done so for decades.

    One thing that I do admire about this one antifa group is that they ran free classes for poor minorities to get CCW licenses. It's shocking that the regular gun rights groups got outflanked here, but unsurprising considering the "rugged individualism" that is professed.
  42. @Feryl
    The NFL is too entertaining to expect major declines in viewing. What offended people about the kneeling and whining started by Kaepernick was that it reeked of the drama queen behavior that people expected from other kinds of athletes over the last 30 years (player salaries did not began to rise until the 90's; the NHL was called on the carpet in the late 80's for colluding to under-pay players, while in the NFL, players often stayed on the same team for many years prior to the salary cap being introduced in the late 90's, to prevent wealthy teams from spending too much money on too many players). The NFL is the last sport where most athletes can't complain too much or ask for too much money, since the sport doesn't tolerate entitled egos like the other sports do. That's a big reason it's still popular (whereas the stagnation in quality of play seen in the NBA, MLB, and NHL over the last 25 years makes people wonder why these jocks are now paid so much).

    The MLB has still never recovered from the 1994 strike, because of the massive rise in salaries, and the number of obese, aloof, or foreign athletes in "modern" MLB (whereas fans could relate to the more ordinary looking AMERICAN players of the early 90's and previous decades). There's a website that tracks foreign born players, and before the 90's most NBA and MLB players were American. That's a huge advantage that the NFL has; there are no ESL players who fans can't relate to in stark contrast to the other major leagues. European NBA players seem to be more popular than Latin MLB players; why that is I'm not entirely sure, though it may have to do Latin baseball players being notoriously unable or unwilling to become more articulate and expressive in English.

    Disagree,

    The NFL is heading for major trouble when Tom Brady retires, the charismatic QB is a major part of the game, to the detriment of the “defense wins championships” and RB-centric game of the past. Super Bowl ratings have been in secular decline, and the league faces an existential threat as Millennial parents (which would include me if I have children) don’t allow their sons to play football due to injury risk.

    NFL players can be subject to the “franchise tag” which acts as a way to kneecap the demands of a a singular star player, and their contracts are not guaranteed as in the other three leagues.

    The 90s in Cleveland were the best period for baseball in the history of the city, a new stadium and a team full of stars. Just watch this:

    Steroids played a big role in the 90s bulking up, along with a permanent player in the DH role for AL teams. The Indians had a notable skinny Latin player in the 90s, Omar Vizquel from Venezuela who was conversant in English.

    The NBA team in Cleveland had a notable Euro player Zydrunas Ilgauskas, better known a Z for the 2000s. He was rather popular, but I don’t recall him as particularly charismatic, people respected him as both humble and a hustler after he recovered from some serious injuries early in his career.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Many baseball and basketball players literally did not even work out, prior to the 1990's. Remember the status striving cycle; awards for elite status grow (higher salaries, bigger endorsement contracts), thus competitors are urged to take greater risks to "win". Employment status(and health) is more insecure in the NFL, which is why steroids have been in use since the late 60's in pro football (though it should be noted that even high-school age players were taking them by the late 80's). But in baseball and basketball, talent and a reasonable level of motivation were generally considered good enough to have a solid career, which is why players were fairly ordinary looking before the 90's. But as the rewards of high level play grew enormously in the 90's, suddenly even quite talented players (like Barry Bonds and Micheal Jordan) felt compelled to work out a lot and/or do lots of drugs to play at a higher level).

    Also, WRT football, many players were not particularly muscular or obese prior to the late 80's. If you look at trading cards, it's the late 80's and esp. early 90's when you start to see a lot of fatties and WWE-ready "gym bodies". When you're surrounded by competitors willing to go to greater and greater lengths to gain mass, what choice do you have?

    WRT Millennials, there's been a pronounced decline in PED use compared to the 1990's (when Neil Howe termed steroids the drug of choice for X-ers). Still, PED use is much more common nowadays then it was in New Deal America (the 1930's-1970's). And Millennials spend as much time at the gym as Gen X athletes did; Boomer athletes could get away with looking like the local dog catcher in the 70's.
  43. @216
    A lot of voters only pay attention to politics after the Labor Day of an election year. Partisans (like us) are a small percentage of American voters. Only the truly hardcore partisans on the Right recognize the Chamber as an enemy.

    The GOP sounds pretty good right before the election, but afterwards most voters go back to sleep.

    It's mostly white males that make up the NRA, arguably the most effective group that can punch back against the sellout nature of the GOP leadership.

    Don’t be too smug, since 95% of ordinary Americans can recognize that their wages are stagnant, housing costs are rising, bubbles are being inflated, and many people in their neighborhoods don’t speak English as a first language anymore. Peter Turchin says that patriotism, confidence, trust, etc. have all been declining since the late 60’s, with the Bush II-Obama-Trump administrations confirming what most of us suspected all along: our ruling class are complete ass clowns nowadays. Complaining that the kind of people who used to work in factories “don’t get it” is insulting and pointless. Workplace massacres began rising in the 1990’s precisely because labor knows that it’s being taken advantage of, lied to, cheated, stressed out, etc. Most proles born over the last 60 years are often cynically indifferent to politics because they know their voices aren’t being listened to anyway. It takes quality leaders (who typically will come from a higher caste background) to really get any movement going. That’s why Trump was able to simultaneously inspire a counter-culture (the alt-right) that was an intensified version of the populist ideology that inspired cross-over voters to vote Trump. And while the post-Boomer counterculture of the 60’s and 70’s peaked in the Western US, the Trumpite voter movement was most pronounced in the Northeast and Midwest (Trump nearly won a state, MN, that hadn’t voted for the GOP in over 40 years).

    Now that Trump failed to inspire a make-over of the GOP, it looks as if, whatever Trump may do or not do in 2020 (not run, run and lose, run and win), we will once again have another election cycle where working class populism is off-limits. And I suspect that many spurned Trumpites from the Northeastern quarter of the US will vote Dem, or stay home altogether (if the views expressed by the GOP and Dem candidates are sufficiently disgusting). Then again, I’m starting to wonder if a Dem merely expressing interest in such “socialist” ideas of expanded government care for the poor and the sick is enough to make people shut the hell up about abortion and guns and remember that 99% of GOP elites are social Darwinist scum-bags, who give ample welfare to the rich and the military while claiming that “we don’t have the money” to take care of anything else and/or claiming that we’re incentivizing laziness.

  44. @Feryl
    The NRA is laser focused on guns, which are a cultural issue, not an economic one. Every single GOP-leaning lobby is way to the right on economic issues, or doesn't care about them one way or the other. Useless. Stopping the "free movement of goods and people" bandwagon necessitates calling out the wealthy and privileged who started Neo-liberalism in the first place. Because the GOP coalition always starts from the position that the wealthy and privileged need not be pushed into deigning to concern themselves with the immediate economic position of the working class or poor (who's views on economic issues are unanimously rejected by the GOP elite) , who are effectively dismissed as too degenerate or stupid or lazy to lift themselves up.

    In this corrupt era, who in their right mind is going to expect the elite GOP coalition to:

    - Revive progressive taxes (lower sales taxes, higher income taxes on the assets and income of the wealthy)
    - End the all-out war on private sector unions that has been going on since the 80's
    - Transfer monies from the military to domestic infrastructure spending and healthcare
    - Slap major tariffs on foreign goods, and turn domestic manufacturing into a cornerstone of sovereignty, just as it was before NAFTA.
    - Slap major penalties on companies that hire foreigners over natives
    - End gratuitous abuse of "highly skilled" worker visas, which has been going on since the monumentally stupid 1990 immigration act (which has inflicted most of the "legal" immigration damage that's been done to us over the last 30 years)

    The NRA is laser focused on guns, which are a cultural issue, not an economic one. Every single GOP-leaning lobby is way to the right on economic issues, or doesn’t care about them one way or the other

    Little known to most, the NRA tends to take the side of energy/mining/ranching against the environment/outdoorsman side wrt Western BLM lands policy. While irrelevant to the vast majority of Americans, this niche fight has cost the GOP in Montana, where a leftist group set up a “pro-hunting/pro-environment” front organization. The NRA’s actions are not surprising when you understand that it is controlled by the same paymasters as the rest of Cuck Inc. For reasons I don’t entirely grasp, lefties target the NRA as “racist” even though they eagerly promote non-whites and have done so for decades.

    One thing that I do admire about this one antifa group is that they ran free classes for poor minorities to get CCW licenses. It’s shocking that the regular gun rights groups got outflanked here, but unsurprising considering the “rugged individualism” that is professed.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    The Original Sin of Reaganism lies in the Sun-belt take over of the GOP in the 80's. The Centrist Rockefeller GOP, and the Roosevelt Dems, allowed a manufacturing based economy, not prone to bubbles or premised on the "trickle-down" of tax cuts for the rich, to flourish. Yes, problems appeared in the 70's, but that should not have been the excuse used by yuppies (and Religious Right cranks, and anti-government extremists of the South and West) to destroy organized labor and broadly shared resources. 40 years later, we now have a "centrist" Dem party that's mostly abandoned heavy industry labor, and we have a GOP more committed then ever to welfare for agribusiness and the Pentagon (neither industry was allowed to boss around the Rockefeller Republicans in the 1940's-70's).

    The non-industrial regions of America (the non-urban Plains, the interior West, primarily) played a minimal role in the central tenets of the New Deal economy (aside from, of course, providing food, oil, and lumber, but resource extraction alone will not provide a strong middle class economy). That Western politicians were utterly delusional about this, never respecting FDR's America, didn't stop the GOP from elevating the Western US beginning in the 70's and reaching noxious levels in the 80's. The hard-core Right despised the strong unions of the industrial North, and were always nervous about activism in the South and West Coast. Now that heavy industry is a shell of it's former self, and diversity further hampered labor organizing, at least the GOP can be happy....But, there's always bitching about public sector unions to do also.
  45. @Rosie

    They are voting for full blown socialism and government transfers that benefit them.
     
    As they should. A nation is an extended family and should have a social safety net to reflect that. Hopefully, we’ll soon have UBI to protect American families whom the corporate-whore GOP has destroyed with their greed. I suspect women’s influence on establishing a safety net in Europe is part of the reason their nationalists movements are so much further advanced than ours. They do not live in fear of total economic ruin.

    BTW, I’m not saying men are wrong for not supporting the welfare state as men do. I’m simply saying that a healthy society should reflect both masculine and feminine instincts, not only one or the other.

    And on behalf of young women voters who have consistently opposed foreign wars that disproportionately maim and kill young men, you’re welcome.

    And on behalf of young women voters who have consistently opposed foreign wars that disproportionately maim and kill young men, you’re welcome.

    That isn’t rooted in a consistent philosophy of non-interventionism, it exists for the same reason that veganism is far more common with women. Its the outcome of a simplistic care-based morality.

    Mr. Spock. You, you can’t even break a rule, how would you be expected to break bone?

    • Replies: @Rosie

    That isn’t rooted in a consistent philosophy of non-interventionism, it exists for the same reason that veganism is far more common with women. Its the outcome of a simplistic care-based morality.
     
    So now what matters is not the results of women’s suffrage, but what motivates women to vote for young men’s appendages remaining attached to their bodies? According to 216, we don’t oppose the use of our young men as cannon fodder against someone else’s enemies for the right reasons.

    Swriously, can this get any more asinine?
  46. @216
    Disagree,

    The NFL is heading for major trouble when Tom Brady retires, the charismatic QB is a major part of the game, to the detriment of the "defense wins championships" and RB-centric game of the past. Super Bowl ratings have been in secular decline, and the league faces an existential threat as Millennial parents (which would include me if I have children) don't allow their sons to play football due to injury risk.

    NFL players can be subject to the "franchise tag" which acts as a way to kneecap the demands of a a singular star player, and their contracts are not guaranteed as in the other three leagues.

    The 90s in Cleveland were the best period for baseball in the history of the city, a new stadium and a team full of stars. Just watch this:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1G2l_A9nB0

    Steroids played a big role in the 90s bulking up, along with a permanent player in the DH role for AL teams. The Indians had a notable skinny Latin player in the 90s, Omar Vizquel from Venezuela who was conversant in English.

    The NBA team in Cleveland had a notable Euro player Zydrunas Ilgauskas, better known a Z for the 2000s. He was rather popular, but I don't recall him as particularly charismatic, people respected him as both humble and a hustler after he recovered from some serious injuries early in his career.

    Many baseball and basketball players literally did not even work out, prior to the 1990’s. Remember the status striving cycle; awards for elite status grow (higher salaries, bigger endorsement contracts), thus competitors are urged to take greater risks to “win”. Employment status(and health) is more insecure in the NFL, which is why steroids have been in use since the late 60’s in pro football (though it should be noted that even high-school age players were taking them by the late 80’s). But in baseball and basketball, talent and a reasonable level of motivation were generally considered good enough to have a solid career, which is why players were fairly ordinary looking before the 90’s. But as the rewards of high level play grew enormously in the 90’s, suddenly even quite talented players (like Barry Bonds and Micheal Jordan) felt compelled to work out a lot and/or do lots of drugs to play at a higher level).

    Also, WRT football, many players were not particularly muscular or obese prior to the late 80’s. If you look at trading cards, it’s the late 80’s and esp. early 90’s when you start to see a lot of fatties and WWE-ready “gym bodies”. When you’re surrounded by competitors willing to go to greater and greater lengths to gain mass, what choice do you have?

    WRT Millennials, there’s been a pronounced decline in PED use compared to the 1990’s (when Neil Howe termed steroids the drug of choice for X-ers). Still, PED use is much more common nowadays then it was in New Deal America (the 1930’s-1970’s). And Millennials spend as much time at the gym as Gen X athletes did; Boomer athletes could get away with looking like the local dog catcher in the 70’s.

  47. @Rosie

    They are voting for full blown socialism and government transfers that benefit them.
     
    As they should. A nation is an extended family and should have a social safety net to reflect that. Hopefully, we’ll soon have UBI to protect American families whom the corporate-whore GOP has destroyed with their greed. I suspect women’s influence on establishing a safety net in Europe is part of the reason their nationalists movements are so much further advanced than ours. They do not live in fear of total economic ruin.

    BTW, I’m not saying men are wrong for not supporting the welfare state as men do. I’m simply saying that a healthy society should reflect both masculine and feminine instincts, not only one or the other.

    And on behalf of young women voters who have consistently opposed foreign wars that disproportionately maim and kill young men, you’re welcome.

    No, a nation is not a family. A family is a family. You are saying that a man who is married should have money taken from him that he would use for his wife and children and it should then be given to support a woman who he didn’t marry and children who aren’t his. Your idea of the nation as an extended family is a recipe for the dissolution of actual families. The increasing number of unmarried women having children they can’t support is not sustainable. You can’t see that? You can have the government hold a gun on men and have them fork over the money they already have but you can’t force them to make money in the future and they aren’t going to bother with making money in the future if they can’t keep it. BTW, thank you for opposing foreign wars. I work for the army and I want to work for an army that defends our freedom and I don’t think we need all these foreign wars to do that. I personally work with soldiers and I don’t want to see them killed and maimed either.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    The increasing number of unmarried women having children they can’t support is not sustainable. You can’t see that?
     
    I would rather see young White women have children they can’t support than not have any at all.

    A woman is better off not marrying the father of her child if he has no income or insufficient income. That is an issue with the welfare system that a UBI would correct.

    When millions upon millions of jobs are sent overseas, the result is going to be either transfer payments, collapsed fertility on an unprecented level, or unthinkable Bangladesh-level human degradation.

    The whole premise of globalization was that the benefits would be diffuse, while the pain would be concentrated. Those who reap the benefits of globalization (cheaper consumer goods), hardly have room to complain of higher taxes to pay for the economic dislocation it has caused.

    Now, why you unload all of this on women is utterly beyond me.
    , @Rosie

    No, a nation is not a family.
     
    With this I most emphatically disagree. If a nation is not an extended family, then it is nothing but a collection of individuals exchanging goods and services in “the marketplace.” As I have said elsewhere, you cannot have nationalism without socialism, and you cannot have socialism without nationalism. You cannot have one-for-all without all-for-one. If the state owes nothing to the individual, then the individual likewise owes nothing to the state.
  48. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    The black pro-every-immigrant attitude is entirely predictable and unsurprising. Flooding the country with non-Whites hurts Whites, categorically... and the black prime directive is to harm and destroy Whites. (Just as for Jews, the prime directive "Is it good for the Jews?" is functionally interchangeable with "Does it harm the goyim?"). They never had the numbers to steal the whole country on their own, but thanks to immigration, now they do.

    And it's working. Foreigners who have absolutely nothing in common with one another, and who have zero racism credits, are all united against Whitey in an imaginary identity group called "people of color" which does not and cannot possibly exist. The more foreigners, the more proxy political power for blacks.

    They don't even mind being edged out of the labor market by immigrants, since most blacks don't actually want to work anyway. Presumably in 2020 when the Mudslide Apocalypse achieves permanent political ascendancy, blacks will be given permanent free stuff (pillaged from whitey) by the actual Jew-Asian-Brahmin troika that will run things, as a reward for being the tip of the racism spear. Then the labor issue will cease to matter.

    The only jobs you'll see blacks lining up to apply for will be as prison guards in the white girl rape-camps.

    ” … and the black prime directive is to harm and destroy Whites.”

    The blood feud is ancient and will not dissipate until whiteness becomes a terror of the past to the clay-colored children.

  49. @216

    And on behalf of young women voters who have consistently opposed foreign wars that disproportionately maim and kill young men, you’re welcome.
     
    That isn't rooted in a consistent philosophy of non-interventionism, it exists for the same reason that veganism is far more common with women. Its the outcome of a simplistic care-based morality.

    Mr. Spock. You, you can't even break a rule, how would you be expected to break bone?

    That isn’t rooted in a consistent philosophy of non-interventionism, it exists for the same reason that veganism is far more common with women. Its the outcome of a simplistic care-based morality.

    So now what matters is not the results of women’s suffrage, but what motivates women to vote for young men’s appendages remaining attached to their bodies? According to 216, we don’t oppose the use of our young men as cannon fodder against someone else’s enemies for the right reasons.

    Swriously, can this get any more asinine?

    • Replies: @216
    I missed the large numbers of GOP women going to vote for Ron Paul in the '08 and '12 primaries.

    Women in 1914 were more hawkish than the men thanks to yellow journalism about German atrocities. Conformist following of the same yellow media is the main reason that women are more dovish today.
  50. @Mark G.
    No, a nation is not a family. A family is a family. You are saying that a man who is married should have money taken from him that he would use for his wife and children and it should then be given to support a woman who he didn't marry and children who aren't his. Your idea of the nation as an extended family is a recipe for the dissolution of actual families. The increasing number of unmarried women having children they can't support is not sustainable. You can't see that? You can have the government hold a gun on men and have them fork over the money they already have but you can't force them to make money in the future and they aren't going to bother with making money in the future if they can't keep it. BTW, thank you for opposing foreign wars. I work for the army and I want to work for an army that defends our freedom and I don't think we need all these foreign wars to do that. I personally work with soldiers and I don't want to see them killed and maimed either.

    The increasing number of unmarried women having children they can’t support is not sustainable. You can’t see that?

    I would rather see young White women have children they can’t support than not have any at all.

    A woman is better off not marrying the father of her child if he has no income or insufficient income. That is an issue with the welfare system that a UBI would correct.

    When millions upon millions of jobs are sent overseas, the result is going to be either transfer payments, collapsed fertility on an unprecented level, or unthinkable Bangladesh-level human degradation.

    The whole premise of globalization was that the benefits would be diffuse, while the pain would be concentrated. Those who reap the benefits of globalization (cheaper consumer goods), hardly have room to complain of higher taxes to pay for the economic dislocation it has caused.

    Now, why you unload all of this on women is utterly beyond me.

    • Replies: @216

    I would rather see young White women have children they can’t support than not have any at all.
     
    Promoting degeneracy to own the darkies.

    What I want to encourage is responsible fertility. That should be the goal of public policy. It is among graduates that we should prod with both incentives and shaming, along the lines of successful Israeli polices.

    While we saw millions of manufacturing jobs offshored and automated, we generated large numbers of jobs in female-heavy healthcare and education (why oh why is there cost disease). Public policy could nudge women either out of the workforce or to part-time, and push men into these fields.

    A woman is better off not marrying the father of her child if he has no income or insufficient income. That is an issue with the welfare system that a UBI would correct.
     
    IIRC, the EITC is higher if you are married. UBI removes the benefits of social discipline that come from work. A conditional-based income would promote pro-social behavior.
    , @Mark G.
    How is having white women produce children they can't support better than not having any children at all? If they can't support them, they'll just starve to death. You can take money away from white men with jobs to support the children but as the numbers of out of wedlock children increase then those men will have to pay so much in taxes they won't be able to afford to marry and have their own children. Do you want married middle class white men with jobs and wives to have children or do you want to reproduce the dating and mating habits of ghetto blacks among whites? Will that type of person who recklessly breeds with no thought for the future be the type of person who can maintain civilization? No, I am not blaming all our problems on women but I also don't think women are entirely blameless, which seems to be your position. Do you have any criticisms of your fellow females at all or all women a bunch of angels and anything they do, no matter what, is something men just have to put up with and subsidize through the government so women can keep doing it? You are eventually going to run out of the type of men who can subsidize it and then what will you do?
  51. @Mark G.
    No, a nation is not a family. A family is a family. You are saying that a man who is married should have money taken from him that he would use for his wife and children and it should then be given to support a woman who he didn't marry and children who aren't his. Your idea of the nation as an extended family is a recipe for the dissolution of actual families. The increasing number of unmarried women having children they can't support is not sustainable. You can't see that? You can have the government hold a gun on men and have them fork over the money they already have but you can't force them to make money in the future and they aren't going to bother with making money in the future if they can't keep it. BTW, thank you for opposing foreign wars. I work for the army and I want to work for an army that defends our freedom and I don't think we need all these foreign wars to do that. I personally work with soldiers and I don't want to see them killed and maimed either.

    No, a nation is not a family.

    With this I most emphatically disagree. If a nation is not an extended family, then it is nothing but a collection of individuals exchanging goods and services in “the marketplace.” As I have said elsewhere, you cannot have nationalism without socialism, and you cannot have socialism without nationalism. You cannot have one-for-all without all-for-one. If the state owes nothing to the individual, then the individual likewise owes nothing to the state.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    As I have said elsewhere, you cannot have nationalism without socialism, and you cannot have socialism without nationalism.
     
    Excuse me? Ever heard of the United States of America, circa 1789 - 1920's? There was plenty of nationalism, something you're bound to have in a the freest nation the world had ever seen, or has seen since! There was not much socialism. All the taking care of neighbors and fellow white people was done on a voluntary basis. Many cannot imagine freedom nowadays, and that is the saddest thing for me.

    Socialism is the ultimate in Cuck-dom.
  52. @Hail
    White Americans identifying as Christian
    Views on deporting illegals, by education (link)

    Less Than HS (n=114) [3% of sample]
    N/A -- insufficient data

    HS or Some College (n=2489) [56% of sample]
    - All Stay: 3.4%
    - Most Stay: 22.0%
    - Deport Most: 35.0%
    - Deport All: 30.3%
    - Unsure: 9.3%

    College (n=1134) [25% of sample]
    - All Stay: 3.5%
    - Most Stay: 32.4%
    - Deport Most: 40.4%
    - Deport All: 17.1%
    - Unsure: 6.6%

    Beyond College (n=738) [16% of sample]
    - All Stay: 10.4%
    - Most Stay: 35.9%
    - Deport Most: 32.1%
    - Deport All: 15.8%
    - Unsure: 5.9%

    ___________________

    Comment: A mild education gap, as might be expected.

    The highest-education group ('Beyond College;' MA holders and above) is no more for 'Stay' than the national (all-race, all-religion, all-education figure) average. Whites with highest education are also for 'Deport' at the same % as the actual Trump vote in Nov. 2016, which is encouraging.

    The much-commented-upon 2015-2016 MAGA base is clearly discernible here, namely HS or Some College White Christians -- 65%+ say 'Deport' and a mere 3% say 'All Stay.' If excluding the Unsures, it's up to near three-quarters 'Deport.'

    The key to winning is getting more of the 'College' and 'Beyond College' White-Christians on the 'Deport' side, a process I think (would like to think) is occurring, if below the surface. Support for illegals as a high-SES White status signal must go.

    Things like the dead RAISE Act would probably push sentiment in that direction. For high-SES whites, it’s gauche to be concerned about illegal aliens. It doesn’t threaten them nor their children. High-skilled immigration does, however.

  53. @WorkingClass
    In some cases deportation does seem a bit caprices. Like suddenly deciding to enforce the law after ignoring it for years. When I hear talk of amnesty I think it strange to forgive people for breaking a law that is not enforced. If not deported they should be naturalized. As citizens they would be less exploitable by employers and thus less of a drag on wages. Of course if the border is to remain open citizen and non citizen will be a distinction without a difference. Everybody on Earth will be an American. What's needed is a moratorium. Strange as it may seem that may be politically impossible.

    Politically possible, you mean? A moratorium is the best approach. It takes liberals’ high sense of fairness into account.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Slapping major controls on the use and treatment of labor would ultimately lead to lower immigration levels, because it's easier to keep tabs on American workers (e.g., we can validate their ID and they're less likely to work under the table or lie on their taxes).

    The "contract" to restore America, that began in the early 20th century and peaked in the 1950's and early 60's, was about wresting order and consistency from the nihilistic chaos of the Guilded Age. You can't effectively maintain order and proper accounting of business practices when large numbers of aliens are streaming in year after year. The immigration moratorium of the mid-20's sent a message to both immigrants and their employers that the time to shape up was at hand....Because the race to the bottom was over. Pay improved, working conditions improved, management began to grant concessions to organized labor, and the wealthy, esp. after the Depression hit, stopped complaining about their bank accounts being raided by sore loser proles and the populist politicians who represented the little(r) guy. Moreover, WW2 was used as a tool to unite America, as elites commenced one of the greatest (and fastest!) collective projects in human history to make the best use that we possibly could have of our human and physical resources, as we converted our industrial, scientific, and mining operations to the war effort. Lost in the "accusation" that the US was some kind of backwater joke before reaping the benefit of being the only industrialized country to not suffer infrastructure damage in WW2 is the fact that America's "Greatest Generation" (and this generation's parents) had already proven itself capable of great things in the preperation for WW2. Matter of fact, indicators of civic and economic health were on the rise in the 20's and 30's (which can be gleaned from Hollywood censoring itself, the immigration moratorium, disgust at high level corruption being popularly registered by the era's culture, etc.).

    Also, a crisis alone doesn't determine the nature of the response. America's elites in the early 20th century made a lot of good calls in the Progressive era (circa 1900-1930), which came to fruition in the New Deal era (circa 1930-1980). The idiot "conservatives" who've called the shots since the 1990's can't stop bitching about FDR's welfare state long enough to realize that the increasingly liberal climate of 1900-1980 stabilized our demographics and culture. Meanwhile the last 30-40 years have given us gay marriage, large numbers of "Americans" who have no roots in this country's traditions, torture porn, death metal, gangster rap, the mass usage of dangerous "legal" drugs, transsexual movement, legions of mentally ill people having children and owning guns/large dangerous dogs. We in fact have succumbed to libertarianism, because "conservatives" in a social Darwinist era stop placing controls on financial elites, which then contributes to an atmosphere of "anything goes", which invariable gives us all the decadent crap I just listed (Go watch a TV show from the 1950's-early 1980's, and I guarantee you won't find 1/10 the trash that Boomers and early Gen X-ers (the two libertarian generations) think qualifies as entertainment, the junk they've been poisoning the "alt-Right" generations (those born since the mid-70's) with for over 30 years.

    Face it: if you can't ask rich people to give up their income, or ask business owners to not treat their workers like dog vomit, how are you going to ask people to stay married, stay off powerful drugs, avoid destructively competitive behavior, and treat your fellow man with dignity and respect? Does anyone think that the (Boomer dominated) America of the 1990's, which gave us "road rage" and Rush Limbaugh, portended a wholesome and modest culture? Wake up, put the bong down.
  54. @Tyrion 2
    Since half of Asians in the US are Muslim and Muslims are 40% approval, I think we can guess that East Asians are about 80% approval.

    Half? I don’t think it’s that high, is it?

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Half? I don’t think it’s that high, is it?
     
    He's making that up to buttress his argument.

    There are roughly 15 million Asians in America (per 2010 Census). The big ones are:

    Chinese 3.5 million
    Indian 3 million* (50% Indian, 18% Christian, and 10% Muslim per Pew)
    Filipino 2.6 million (a tiny insignificant minority Muslim)
    Vietnamese 1.6 million
    Korean 1.5 million
    Japanese 0.8 million

    That's roughly 13 million (minus 0.3 million Indian Muslims) out of 15 million total.

    Those who are identifiably from Muslim countries are:

    Bangladeshi 0.14 million
    Indonesian 0.06 million
    Malaysian 0.02 million
    Pakistani 0.38 million

    That's only 0.6 million out of 15 million (and that's assuming the Indonesians and Malaysians are not ethnic Chinese who are likely disproportionately represented among immigrants). Add the 0.3 million Indian Muslims, we have 0.9 million Muslims among Asians in America, about 6% of the total.

    "Tyrion 2" is a juvenile troll who also uses at least one duplicate/sock puppet account ("career") and likely uses others as well. Don't pay attention to him.
  55. @Rosie

    That isn’t rooted in a consistent philosophy of non-interventionism, it exists for the same reason that veganism is far more common with women. Its the outcome of a simplistic care-based morality.
     
    So now what matters is not the results of women’s suffrage, but what motivates women to vote for young men’s appendages remaining attached to their bodies? According to 216, we don’t oppose the use of our young men as cannon fodder against someone else’s enemies for the right reasons.

    Swriously, can this get any more asinine?

    I missed the large numbers of GOP women going to vote for Ron Paul in the ’08 and ’12 primaries.

    Women in 1914 were more hawkish than the men thanks to yellow journalism about German atrocities. Conformist following of the same yellow media is the main reason that women are more dovish today.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Conformist following of the same yellow media is the main reason that women are more dovish today.
     
    First it was a morality of care; now its conformism. Get your story straight.

    Women were not more hawkish because of atrocity journalism. They were trying to avoid the perception that women shouldn’t be allowed to votes because they would weaken the country with their distaste for war! Women’s organizations made the conscious decision to shelve women’s rights and support their country for the duration of the war.
  56. @iffen
    The key to winning

    If more people such as yourself come to the forefront and become the face of "the movement," winning will be a slam dunk.

    Indeed. The spleen-venting is cathartic for some, but more than anything else it is self-ghettoizing. Almost no one of NW European descent wants to be associated, even intellectually, with something that feels like racial hatred. It’s a self-defeating problem on our side of the great divide.

    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
    Hate of any kind is strategically unwise. You sow the seeds of your own demise and empower your antagonists when you give in to this destructive emotion. But you still must remain clear-eyed regarding the racial blood feud, and aware of the zeitgeist surrounding the perceived problem of whiteness.
    , @iffen
    It’s a self-defeating problem on our side of the great divide.

    Indeed, and if I (not being the brightest bulb in the package) can see it with no problem and also seeing the media and Terry McAuliffe play Charlottesville like a violin tells me than a significant number are posers and provocateurs.
  57. @Tyrion 2
    In 2009 in Cairo, Barrack Obama said: "But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores — and that includes nearly 7 million American Muslims in our country today who, by the way, enjoy incomes and educational levels that are higher than the American average. "

    There were 17 million Asian Americans, including mixed, in 2010.

    West, Central and S Asians are not distinguished from East Asian by the poll, so let's swap the mixed Asian out for the African Muslims.

    That makes actually a third not a half. My mistake.

    So non-Muslim Asians become something like 70% approving.

    Some of those Muslims ID as “other” or “white” rather than Asian, though, don’t they?

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Whoa, whoa, all of you guys wait a minute here. Are we seriously back-calculating numbers based on a statement by Barrack Hussein Øb☭ma, the guy who maintains that there are 57 states? Really? (as the kids say)
  58. @Rosie

    I think that white females are the swing voters that will decide which way this country goes. White males can just kind of hope and pray they have the wisdom to make the right decision.
     
    Au contraire. I suspect it is white male voters’ excessive loyalty to the corporate GOPe establishment that allows them to continue running their scam on the White constituent they so despise.

    White male voters to the GOP: “Thank you sir, may I have another.”

    You’re correct about white (conservative, I’d add) male devotion to corporatism. But that is changing as more of them come to realize that questioning the efficacy of market fundamentalism is necessary. Capitalism is fine, but it has its limits. As for the GOP, the Bush, Ryan, Romney, McCain Republican Party is dead. Demographics killed it. Conservatism needs to integrate with populism in order to survive. The economic elites who run the show are no longer on their side.

  59. @Charles Pewitt
    Cynicism will save the USA!

    The reason why it is politically expedient to bring up the fact that Blacks have their employment opportunities and wages adversely affected by mass legal immigration and illegal immigration is because it forces proponents of mass legal immigration and illegal immigration to defend their position in an awkward manner.

    Holy smokes, that's cynical! So be it!

    Also, bringing up Blacks in relation to nation-wrecking mass legal immigration and illegal immigration allows you to point out that Blacks have, on average, lower IQs than Whites and Asians. It also allows you to talk about the massively disproportionate Black crime rate as compared to Whites and Asians.

    You might cynically say that since Blacks have lower IQs than Whites and Asians, it is unseemly to force Blacks to compete with imported foreigners for jobs and wages.

    You might cynically say that since Blacks commit more crime, on average, than do Whites and Asians, maybe the Blacks wouldn't commit so much crime if they had the jobs instead of imported foreigners.

    After bringing up the Asians, you saunter right into the fact that Jews in the Ivy League are using their power over admissions policy to restrict Asian entry into the Ivy League while keeping the Ivy League Jew student quota artificially high.

    Back To Blood All The Way To Civil War II

    Civil War II is on the way folks, there is no way to stop the racialization of American politics and the disintegration of the United States.

    Cynicism says it is so.

    Tweets from 2015:

    https://twitter.com/CharlesPewitt/status/643511873980252160

    https://twitter.com/CharlesPewitt/status/604292667942510592

    Maybe it’s naivete on my part, but I do not think a hot civil war is inevitable. There are peaceful ways for political dissolution to occur. That’s certainly what I want to see happen.

    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt
    The English way is a test of strength. Strength of will or strength of arms.

    The British Empire wouldn't just let the American colonists go without contesting it. The ruling class rats mismanaging the American Empire ain't going to let the United States go without some test of strength.

    The British Empire -- and now the American Empire -- prattles on about peace but wades through blood.

    I don't envision 700, 000 killed and a million or more wounded as in Civil War I, but the American Empire's ruling class rats will not be dislodged without some test of strength.

    Civil War II on the way.
    , @Jay Fink
    I don't think there will be one either. I would be shocked if it happened....no matter how divided the country is. It would go against human nature...at least in modern America. Most people have a strong desire not to get in a situation where they shoot at people and are getting shot at. That sounds like the worst thing ever to normies. They want to watch sports, Netflix, play video games, hang out with their friends and family, eat food etc..not get in a hot civil war. Even the minority who are passionate about these issues would rather do something like vote or post on a blog than go to war.
  60. @216
    Boomer is a mindset, not just a cohort

    https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1100623527399575552

    https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1100630248616587264

    Too many people don't understand the rules of Intersectionality. She may be a SITTING MEMBER OF CONGRESS but she's still the victim, she's always the victim even when she's the bully. Someone as ethically challenged as BumblePosobiec should at least learn from experience.

    Don't attack her, ghost her.

    So many of the same dynamics at play with AOC as with Trump. In Trump’s case, he drove the narrative so there was almost no way the media could avoid attacking him. In AOC’s case, though, there are a lot of globalist center-leftists who would like for her to be ghosted, but the boomercons make that next to impossible.

  61. @Rosie

    The increasing number of unmarried women having children they can’t support is not sustainable. You can’t see that?
     
    I would rather see young White women have children they can’t support than not have any at all.

    A woman is better off not marrying the father of her child if he has no income or insufficient income. That is an issue with the welfare system that a UBI would correct.

    When millions upon millions of jobs are sent overseas, the result is going to be either transfer payments, collapsed fertility on an unprecented level, or unthinkable Bangladesh-level human degradation.

    The whole premise of globalization was that the benefits would be diffuse, while the pain would be concentrated. Those who reap the benefits of globalization (cheaper consumer goods), hardly have room to complain of higher taxes to pay for the economic dislocation it has caused.

    Now, why you unload all of this on women is utterly beyond me.

    I would rather see young White women have children they can’t support than not have any at all.

    Promoting degeneracy to own the darkies.

    What I want to encourage is responsible fertility. That should be the goal of public policy. It is among graduates that we should prod with both incentives and shaming, along the lines of successful Israeli polices.

    While we saw millions of manufacturing jobs offshored and automated, we generated large numbers of jobs in female-heavy healthcare and education (why oh why is there cost disease). Public policy could nudge women either out of the workforce or to part-time, and push men into these fields.

    A woman is better off not marrying the father of her child if he has no income or insufficient income. That is an issue with the welfare system that a UBI would correct.

    IIRC, the EITC is higher if you are married. UBI removes the benefits of social discipline that come from work. A conditional-based income would promote pro-social behavior.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Public policy could nudge women either out of the workforce or to part-time, and push men into these fields.
     
    No. You’re not taking our roles because you failed to do text your own from rapacious elites. F*** off!
    , @Rosie

    Promoting degeneracy to own the darkies.
     
    Having children is not degenerate. It is literally the etymological opposite of degeneracy.
    , @Feryl
    "Health care" is not amenable to organized labor, since the conditions mostly aren't really that bad, +women don't work well together.

    Actually, our elites really hammered heavy industry/male dominated occupations precisely because working stiff men often bonded over the sweat, and were prone to agitating against management when management was thought to be callous or greedy. Remember in Aliens ('79), when it's mainly the ship's mechanics who grouse about being under-paid and underappreciated? One thing that I find interesting is that people born in the 90's and 2000's have no memory whatsoever of the labor disputes that were much more common in the 1910's-early 1990's. Many men either don't work anymore, or only get work in "service" jobs which are often part-time. After NAFTA was passed, we started hemorrhaging the kind of jobs that prole men used to take for granted. It had a major chilling effect on labor activism, because you never knew just when ownership would high-tail out of the country. You wouldn't dare complain about pay or conditions in this climate. I remember seeing quite a few Boomers on the labor picket circuit back in the 90's; X-ers and Millennials just don't do labor activism, having been intimidated their entire lives that management will always win so why bother?
    , @Audacious Epigone
    More than other welfare programs do? At least it enforces some constraints and introduces budgetary elements in a way that other programs do not. If we're going to have a social safety net, UBI is the one I think we should have.

    It must be in place of existing programs rather than in addition to them, though. Without touching military spending, $1000 month per adult citizen would be a roughly equivalent swap. Like a moratorium on immigration, it gets at liberals' emphasis on the moral dimension of fairness.
  62. @216
    I missed the large numbers of GOP women going to vote for Ron Paul in the '08 and '12 primaries.

    Women in 1914 were more hawkish than the men thanks to yellow journalism about German atrocities. Conformist following of the same yellow media is the main reason that women are more dovish today.

    Conformist following of the same yellow media is the main reason that women are more dovish today.

    First it was a morality of care; now its conformism. Get your story straight.

    Women were not more hawkish because of atrocity journalism. They were trying to avoid the perception that women shouldn’t be allowed to votes because they would weaken the country with their distaste for war! Women’s organizations made the conscious decision to shelve women’s rights and support their country for the duration of the war.

  63. @216

    I would rather see young White women have children they can’t support than not have any at all.
     
    Promoting degeneracy to own the darkies.

    What I want to encourage is responsible fertility. That should be the goal of public policy. It is among graduates that we should prod with both incentives and shaming, along the lines of successful Israeli polices.

    While we saw millions of manufacturing jobs offshored and automated, we generated large numbers of jobs in female-heavy healthcare and education (why oh why is there cost disease). Public policy could nudge women either out of the workforce or to part-time, and push men into these fields.

    A woman is better off not marrying the father of her child if he has no income or insufficient income. That is an issue with the welfare system that a UBI would correct.
     
    IIRC, the EITC is higher if you are married. UBI removes the benefits of social discipline that come from work. A conditional-based income would promote pro-social behavior.

    Public policy could nudge women either out of the workforce or to part-time, and push men into these fields.

    No. You’re not taking our roles because you failed to do text your own from rapacious elites. F*** off!

  64. @216

    I would rather see young White women have children they can’t support than not have any at all.
     
    Promoting degeneracy to own the darkies.

    What I want to encourage is responsible fertility. That should be the goal of public policy. It is among graduates that we should prod with both incentives and shaming, along the lines of successful Israeli polices.

    While we saw millions of manufacturing jobs offshored and automated, we generated large numbers of jobs in female-heavy healthcare and education (why oh why is there cost disease). Public policy could nudge women either out of the workforce or to part-time, and push men into these fields.

    A woman is better off not marrying the father of her child if he has no income or insufficient income. That is an issue with the welfare system that a UBI would correct.
     
    IIRC, the EITC is higher if you are married. UBI removes the benefits of social discipline that come from work. A conditional-based income would promote pro-social behavior.

    Promoting degeneracy to own the darkies.

    Having children is not degenerate. It is literally the etymological opposite of degeneracy.

  65. @Audacious Epigone
    Maybe it's naivete on my part, but I do not think a hot civil war is inevitable. There are peaceful ways for political dissolution to occur. That's certainly what I want to see happen.

    The English way is a test of strength. Strength of will or strength of arms.

    The British Empire wouldn’t just let the American colonists go without contesting it. The ruling class rats mismanaging the American Empire ain’t going to let the United States go without some test of strength.

    The British Empire — and now the American Empire — prattles on about peace but wades through blood.

    I don’t envision 700, 000 killed and a million or more wounded as in Civil War I, but the American Empire’s ruling class rats will not be dislodged without some test of strength.

    Civil War II on the way.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Perhaps you're correct. I'm not sure anyone has the will--or the stomach--for a real bloodletting, though. War is hell.
  66. @Mr. Rational
    Oh, there are ways to make cucking painful.  Boycotts hit corporations, individual actions like mobbing hit executives, board members and their families.  You also go after them for contributing to the SPLC and ADL.

    A general strike will pressure elected officials and give them an excuse to disappoint their donor class. The Yellow Vests have the right idea. The American working class doesn’t even know it’s working class. They think they are black or white. Male or female. Democrats or Republicans. You have to be conscious of being working class to achieve sufficient solidarity to make a general strike effective.

    The ongoing attacks on white people have done some consciousness raising in the white portion of American workers. White consciousness is emerging outside the Deep South. But white consciousness will not sustain a general strike. You need to get everybody involved.

    Americans need class dynamics 101. We were not always this stupid. The post war boom gave us something rare. A prosperous working class. It seemed the struggle between Capital and Labor was over. And part and parcel of cold war propaganda told us we are a classless society unlike the evil Communists.

    American workers are a one legged man in an ass kicking contest because they don’t know how to organize. They don’t even know they need to organize. They don’t even know who they are.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    "Americans need class dynamics 101. We were not always this stupid. The post war boom gave us something rare. A prosperous working class. It seemed the struggle between Capital and Labor was over. And part and parcel of cold war propaganda told us we are a classless society unlike the evil Communists."

    Yes, and some of the dumbest legislation in this country's history was passed after it was understood that the Soviet Empire was going away. E.g., the 1990 immigration act and NAFTA in 1993. That was the one-two punch (spearheaded by the GOP, I might add) that may well have dealt this country an economic and demographic blow from which it might never recover....At least in the sense of going back to what Americans understood to be "normal" in the pre-1990's, e.g. a country that is not made up of 20,000 different ethnic groups undercutting each other's wages, and a country which actually makes things other than lawyers.

  67. @216

    The NRA is laser focused on guns, which are a cultural issue, not an economic one. Every single GOP-leaning lobby is way to the right on economic issues, or doesn’t care about them one way or the other
     
    Little known to most, the NRA tends to take the side of energy/mining/ranching against the environment/outdoorsman side wrt Western BLM lands policy. While irrelevant to the vast majority of Americans, this niche fight has cost the GOP in Montana, where a leftist group set up a "pro-hunting/pro-environment" front organization. The NRA's actions are not surprising when you understand that it is controlled by the same paymasters as the rest of Cuck Inc. For reasons I don't entirely grasp, lefties target the NRA as "racist" even though they eagerly promote non-whites and have done so for decades.

    One thing that I do admire about this one antifa group is that they ran free classes for poor minorities to get CCW licenses. It's shocking that the regular gun rights groups got outflanked here, but unsurprising considering the "rugged individualism" that is professed.

    The Original Sin of Reaganism lies in the Sun-belt take over of the GOP in the 80’s. The Centrist Rockefeller GOP, and the Roosevelt Dems, allowed a manufacturing based economy, not prone to bubbles or premised on the “trickle-down” of tax cuts for the rich, to flourish. Yes, problems appeared in the 70’s, but that should not have been the excuse used by yuppies (and Religious Right cranks, and anti-government extremists of the South and West) to destroy organized labor and broadly shared resources. 40 years later, we now have a “centrist” Dem party that’s mostly abandoned heavy industry labor, and we have a GOP more committed then ever to welfare for agribusiness and the Pentagon (neither industry was allowed to boss around the Rockefeller Republicans in the 1940’s-70’s).

    The non-industrial regions of America (the non-urban Plains, the interior West, primarily) played a minimal role in the central tenets of the New Deal economy (aside from, of course, providing food, oil, and lumber, but resource extraction alone will not provide a strong middle class economy). That Western politicians were utterly delusional about this, never respecting FDR’s America, didn’t stop the GOP from elevating the Western US beginning in the 70’s and reaching noxious levels in the 80’s. The hard-core Right despised the strong unions of the industrial North, and were always nervous about activism in the South and West Coast. Now that heavy industry is a shell of it’s former self, and diversity further hampered labor organizing, at least the GOP can be happy….But, there’s always bitching about public sector unions to do also.

  68. @WorkingClass
    A general strike will pressure elected officials and give them an excuse to disappoint their donor class. The Yellow Vests have the right idea. The American working class doesn't even know it's working class. They think they are black or white. Male or female. Democrats or Republicans. You have to be conscious of being working class to achieve sufficient solidarity to make a general strike effective.

    The ongoing attacks on white people have done some consciousness raising in the white portion of American workers. White consciousness is emerging outside the Deep South. But white consciousness will not sustain a general strike. You need to get everybody involved.

    Americans need class dynamics 101. We were not always this stupid. The post war boom gave us something rare. A prosperous working class. It seemed the struggle between Capital and Labor was over. And part and parcel of cold war propaganda told us we are a classless society unlike the evil Communists.

    American workers are a one legged man in an ass kicking contest because they don't know how to organize. They don't even know they need to organize. They don't even know who they are.

    “Americans need class dynamics 101. We were not always this stupid. The post war boom gave us something rare. A prosperous working class. It seemed the struggle between Capital and Labor was over. And part and parcel of cold war propaganda told us we are a classless society unlike the evil Communists.”

    Yes, and some of the dumbest legislation in this country’s history was passed after it was understood that the Soviet Empire was going away. E.g., the 1990 immigration act and NAFTA in 1993. That was the one-two punch (spearheaded by the GOP, I might add) that may well have dealt this country an economic and demographic blow from which it might never recover….At least in the sense of going back to what Americans understood to be “normal” in the pre-1990’s, e.g. a country that is not made up of 20,000 different ethnic groups undercutting each other’s wages, and a country which actually makes things other than lawyers.

  69. @Audacious Epigone
    Indeed. The spleen-venting is cathartic for some, but more than anything else it is self-ghettoizing. Almost no one of NW European descent wants to be associated, even intellectually, with something that feels like racial hatred. It's a self-defeating problem on our side of the great divide.

    Hate of any kind is strategically unwise. You sow the seeds of your own demise and empower your antagonists when you give in to this destructive emotion. But you still must remain clear-eyed regarding the racial blood feud, and aware of the zeitgeist surrounding the perceived problem of whiteness.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  70. @Rosie

    The increasing number of unmarried women having children they can’t support is not sustainable. You can’t see that?
     
    I would rather see young White women have children they can’t support than not have any at all.

    A woman is better off not marrying the father of her child if he has no income or insufficient income. That is an issue with the welfare system that a UBI would correct.

    When millions upon millions of jobs are sent overseas, the result is going to be either transfer payments, collapsed fertility on an unprecented level, or unthinkable Bangladesh-level human degradation.

    The whole premise of globalization was that the benefits would be diffuse, while the pain would be concentrated. Those who reap the benefits of globalization (cheaper consumer goods), hardly have room to complain of higher taxes to pay for the economic dislocation it has caused.

    Now, why you unload all of this on women is utterly beyond me.

    How is having white women produce children they can’t support better than not having any children at all? If they can’t support them, they’ll just starve to death. You can take money away from white men with jobs to support the children but as the numbers of out of wedlock children increase then those men will have to pay so much in taxes they won’t be able to afford to marry and have their own children. Do you want married middle class white men with jobs and wives to have children or do you want to reproduce the dating and mating habits of ghetto blacks among whites? Will that type of person who recklessly breeds with no thought for the future be the type of person who can maintain civilization? No, I am not blaming all our problems on women but I also don’t think women are entirely blameless, which seems to be your position. Do you have any criticisms of your fellow females at all or all women a bunch of angels and anything they do, no matter what, is something men just have to put up with and subsidize through the government so women can keep doing it? You are eventually going to run out of the type of men who can subsidize it and then what will you do?

    • Replies: @Rosie

    No, I am not blaming all our problems on women but I also don’t think women are entirely blameless, which seems to be your position.
     
    Insisting on our disenfranchisement would seem to come pretty damned close to “blaming all our problems on women.”

    I think you need to stop worrying about who is to blame and start thinking about how to move forward. (Hint: alienating White women is probably not going to help anything at this juncture).

    You can take money away from white men with jobs to support the children but as the numbers of out of wedlock children increase then those men will have to pay so much in taxes they won’t be able to afford to marry and have their own children.
     
    Sure they will. You see, you’re taxes go down when you have kids.
  71. @216

    I would rather see young White women have children they can’t support than not have any at all.
     
    Promoting degeneracy to own the darkies.

    What I want to encourage is responsible fertility. That should be the goal of public policy. It is among graduates that we should prod with both incentives and shaming, along the lines of successful Israeli polices.

    While we saw millions of manufacturing jobs offshored and automated, we generated large numbers of jobs in female-heavy healthcare and education (why oh why is there cost disease). Public policy could nudge women either out of the workforce or to part-time, and push men into these fields.

    A woman is better off not marrying the father of her child if he has no income or insufficient income. That is an issue with the welfare system that a UBI would correct.
     
    IIRC, the EITC is higher if you are married. UBI removes the benefits of social discipline that come from work. A conditional-based income would promote pro-social behavior.

    “Health care” is not amenable to organized labor, since the conditions mostly aren’t really that bad, +women don’t work well together.

    Actually, our elites really hammered heavy industry/male dominated occupations precisely because working stiff men often bonded over the sweat, and were prone to agitating against management when management was thought to be callous or greedy. Remember in Aliens (’79), when it’s mainly the ship’s mechanics who grouse about being under-paid and underappreciated? One thing that I find interesting is that people born in the 90’s and 2000’s have no memory whatsoever of the labor disputes that were much more common in the 1910’s-early 1990’s. Many men either don’t work anymore, or only get work in “service” jobs which are often part-time. After NAFTA was passed, we started hemorrhaging the kind of jobs that prole men used to take for granted. It had a major chilling effect on labor activism, because you never knew just when ownership would high-tail out of the country. You wouldn’t dare complain about pay or conditions in this climate. I remember seeing quite a few Boomers on the labor picket circuit back in the 90’s; X-ers and Millennials just don’t do labor activism, having been intimidated their entire lives that management will always win so why bother?

  72. @Mr. Rational

    One of the pilots told me that there are a number of “passengers” that they have all seen before, whom they call frequent fliers.
     
    Creating "dead or alive" bounties for catching these clowns on US soil again would seriously chill their enthusiasm for border-jumping.

    Creating “dead or alive” bounties for catching these clowns on US soil again would seriously chill their enthusiasm for border-jumping.

    It would surely be less expensive and more effective than the fedgov bureaucracy failing to do the job now.

  73. @Audacious Epigone
    Politically possible, you mean? A moratorium is the best approach. It takes liberals' high sense of fairness into account.

    Slapping major controls on the use and treatment of labor would ultimately lead to lower immigration levels, because it’s easier to keep tabs on American workers (e.g., we can validate their ID and they’re less likely to work under the table or lie on their taxes).

    The “contract” to restore America, that began in the early 20th century and peaked in the 1950’s and early 60’s, was about wresting order and consistency from the nihilistic chaos of the Guilded Age. You can’t effectively maintain order and proper accounting of business practices when large numbers of aliens are streaming in year after year. The immigration moratorium of the mid-20’s sent a message to both immigrants and their employers that the time to shape up was at hand….Because the race to the bottom was over. Pay improved, working conditions improved, management began to grant concessions to organized labor, and the wealthy, esp. after the Depression hit, stopped complaining about their bank accounts being raided by sore loser proles and the populist politicians who represented the little(r) guy. Moreover, WW2 was used as a tool to unite America, as elites commenced one of the greatest (and fastest!) collective projects in human history to make the best use that we possibly could have of our human and physical resources, as we converted our industrial, scientific, and mining operations to the war effort. Lost in the “accusation” that the US was some kind of backwater joke before reaping the benefit of being the only industrialized country to not suffer infrastructure damage in WW2 is the fact that America’s “Greatest Generation” (and this generation’s parents) had already proven itself capable of great things in the preperation for WW2. Matter of fact, indicators of civic and economic health were on the rise in the 20’s and 30’s (which can be gleaned from Hollywood censoring itself, the immigration moratorium, disgust at high level corruption being popularly registered by the era’s culture, etc.).

    Also, a crisis alone doesn’t determine the nature of the response. America’s elites in the early 20th century made a lot of good calls in the Progressive era (circa 1900-1930), which came to fruition in the New Deal era (circa 1930-1980). The idiot “conservatives” who’ve called the shots since the 1990’s can’t stop bitching about FDR’s welfare state long enough to realize that the increasingly liberal climate of 1900-1980 stabilized our demographics and culture. Meanwhile the last 30-40 years have given us gay marriage, large numbers of “Americans” who have no roots in this country’s traditions, torture porn, death metal, gangster rap, the mass usage of dangerous “legal” drugs, transsexual movement, legions of mentally ill people having children and owning guns/large dangerous dogs. We in fact have succumbed to libertarianism, because “conservatives” in a social Darwinist era stop placing controls on financial elites, which then contributes to an atmosphere of “anything goes”, which invariable gives us all the decadent crap I just listed (Go watch a TV show from the 1950’s-early 1980’s, and I guarantee you won’t find 1/10 the trash that Boomers and early Gen X-ers (the two libertarian generations) think qualifies as entertainment, the junk they’ve been poisoning the “alt-Right” generations (those born since the mid-70’s) with for over 30 years.

    Face it: if you can’t ask rich people to give up their income, or ask business owners to not treat their workers like dog vomit, how are you going to ask people to stay married, stay off powerful drugs, avoid destructively competitive behavior, and treat your fellow man with dignity and respect? Does anyone think that the (Boomer dominated) America of the 1990’s, which gave us “road rage” and Rush Limbaugh, portended a wholesome and modest culture? Wake up, put the bong down.

    • Replies: @Jay Fink
    Are today's conservatives really bitching about FDRs (or LBJs) welfare state? Other than their failed effort to repeal Obamacare I don't see Republicans making efforts to cut welfare of any kind. The GOP loves tax cuts, not spending cuts.
  74. Since we are all once again pontificating upon what will save the US, I shall reiterate the 2 keys in returning most of the illegal and even “legal” immigrants.

    As Stan said – a combination of ending all forms of welfare entitlements and harsh penalties for employers who hire illegals would dissuade more illegal aliens from venturing to the US as well as persuading the current population of illegal aliens to return to their native lands.

    A way entice “legal” aliens (BTW anchor babies are legal, I wonder how many US citizens approve of this blatant abuse of our constitutional syntax) to depart the US is of course, the return to staunch support of freedom of association. If white Americans were able to shun weirdos from other countries free of social and judicial prosecution, if employers were free to hire whom they truly prefer instead of who they are ordered to hire under threat of force, if private organizations/clubs/associations were free to exclude those not like them with impunity, etc., etc., etc., then I predict that without carte blanche access to whites and their productivity, many aliens would simply return to their home lands, and the ones who didn’t would come to understand their social status as secondary and adjust their behavior accordingly.

    The debating over “muh women’s suffruh-uhge” is misguided. Voting is a privilege, not a right, and should be restricted to intact families, defined by a hetero married couple with children; one vote each.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Uh-hu.... Those with money and power set the agenda. Racial and cultural homogeneity is considered bad for (neo-liberal) business. That's what proles want, but elites hate it. Why? Money. Elites want the race to the bottom, where demographics and culture are in a state of chaos, which they profit from.

    Shut the borders? Prole Normie: Great idea! My neighbors in 30 years will all speak English again as a first language. Corrupt sonofabitch business owner: workers will have too much power and camaraderie.

    Elites write the legislation. Elites control the police, the military, the chamber of commerce, the judiciary, and the regulatory firms.

    Elites have to become responsive to how proles want authority to be exercised. The last 30 years have been one gigantic waste of the considerable resources we started out with, as we've funneled trillions into building prisons and occupying the entire world, while the average American male has little hope of finding dignified work and starting a family on reasonable terms.

    The "dilemma" of legal immigrants is never going to be solved to the satisfaction of anyone. Best case scenario is that the economy craters ala the Great Depression, and immigration is halted while some of the legal and illegal immigrants feel unwelcome and broke, and opt to go back home. But absent ethnic cleansing (which granted, the US effectively did in the American Southwest of the 1950's), it's likely that the communities of Chinese, Asian Indians, Somalis, etc. that we've developed since the 70's are here to stay for the long run. Demographics fluctuate all over the globe(for example, the Upper US South is now whiter than it was in centuries past), outside of a handful of generally far Northern places (like pre-1990 Scandinavia and parts of Russia).

    Since I believe that economics govern everything we do, I predict that at some point in the future (lord knows when) this country will fall to financial pieces, which will be the catalyst for a revival of sentiment about shoring up stability and ethnic continuity. This could lead to, in essence, ethnic cleansing campaigns, which have already happened to varying degrees throughout this country, and every other country which has diversity. But as long as we have fools running this country, blowing smoke about "prosperity" these days (which hasn't the fundamentals of a real economy), there's not going to be much urgency for elites to wake up and do something about cleaning this place up.... Until the economy truly does hit rock bottom. I don't remember who it was, but an academic of some sort has published studies/books about how economic prosperity, when sustained, tends to result in cultural and economic experimentation which eventually heavily damages society due to the neglect of important fundamentals. In our case, the generations which came of age during the boom times of the 1950's-1990's (Boomers and early Gen X-ers) have thus far succumbed to cultural liberalism (perversion) and economic conservatism (welfare for the rich). Older and younger generations don't believe in the former and/or the latter (Silents are cultural conservatives and economic conservatives, later X-ers and Millennials are cultural liberals but hate economic conservatism). GIs, who came of age during the trials and tribulations of the 1920's-1940's, are the best of both worlds (economic liberals, cultural conservatives), which Boomers have always found perplexing, not understanding how a generation which came of age in chaos would be driven to maintain order.
  75. @216
    The Administration has no political capital, it needs to manufacture some wins in foreign policy to get its poll numbers up.

    A unilateral revocation of DACA would be held up in the courts, just as the revocation of TPS has been held up. Ignoring the courts means impeachment, if the public wanted more deportations they would have re-elected the GOP House majority.

    Blame your moderate neighbors, they chose poorly. The Admin made plenty of mistakes, but this ain't all on them.

    #216, I am no policy wonk. I do trust VDare with all the news on immigration, and have been reading those writers for more than 10 years. My general recollection is that President Trump does not have to DO ANYTHING to let the DACA thing become dead, as it was an Øb☭ma executive order.

    A judge can say whatever he wants, but if the administration were to ignore him, these people *should* get sent home. Now, I put the *should* in there, because, yes, the problem is with Trump, not my neighbors*. His picks of lame-ass beltway insiders for his employees mean that the swamp has not been drained. Whatever he says as head of the executive branch does not get put into action.

    If Trump had cleaned house, getting underlings who would fire any under-underlings who won’t play by Trump rules, then things would be different. Right now, the bureaucracy will follow what Big-Gov wants, not what Trump decides.

    .

    * Well, one neighbor is a ctrl-left PC idiot who makes it very easy for me to vote in local elections. As Peak Stupidity related in a post on local politics (at the bottom), I can just read her yard signs to know exactly who to vote against!

  76. @Rosie

    No, a nation is not a family.
     
    With this I most emphatically disagree. If a nation is not an extended family, then it is nothing but a collection of individuals exchanging goods and services in “the marketplace.” As I have said elsewhere, you cannot have nationalism without socialism, and you cannot have socialism without nationalism. You cannot have one-for-all without all-for-one. If the state owes nothing to the individual, then the individual likewise owes nothing to the state.

    As I have said elsewhere, you cannot have nationalism without socialism, and you cannot have socialism without nationalism.

    Excuse me? Ever heard of the United States of America, circa 1789 – 1920’s? There was plenty of nationalism, something you’re bound to have in a the freest nation the world had ever seen, or has seen since! There was not much socialism. All the taking care of neighbors and fellow white people was done on a voluntary basis. Many cannot imagine freedom nowadays, and that is the saddest thing for me.

    Socialism is the ultimate in Cuck-dom.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Many parts of this country became a shit-hole after we invited in masses of black free labor first, and subsequent to the abolition of slavery, invited in masses of (insert white ethnic slur here) Europeans to work as servants to lazy rich assholes. These immigrants were also treated like broken backs (and poisoned lungs) to-be in the harrowing industry of the Guilded Age.

    This fairy tale that FDR ruined a great thing we had going for however many decades or centuries is mighty appealing to libertarians. But for us folks in normie-land, we'll stick to our story that society works best when we don't bend the knee to corrupt rich people and their quislings.

    Peter Turchin's thesis is that elites become greedy and arrogant, detached and aloof from the concerns of ordinary people. When this happens, cultural liberalism runs amok and elites no longer police themselves or each other. Consequently, breakdowns in communal cohesion become common, and rebellions and Civil Wars are stirred. Contrary to your hatred of FDR, Turchin's measures of social and political health (such as stable and non-contested elections, a lack of lawyers and lawsuits, and bi-partisan legislation being common) are very favorable for the late 1930's-early 1960's. They then began to sag in the mid-60's, decline moderately in the 1970's-1990's, and have fallen off a cliff since 2000 (remember the idiocy of Al Gore's "stolen" victory?). Turchin has termed the post-2000 era the "New Guilded Era". Remember, however, that the Boomer dominated 1990's-2010's have given rise to rampant neo-liberalism which utterly detests socialism/communism as well as cultural liberalism. Of course, in the 70's and 80's we already knew from young Boomers what our government and businesses were headed for later on: A giant stink bomb, at every level of life and society they infilitrate, since they don't believe in modesty or order.

    Neil Howe has said that fears of Trump being a dictator our laughable, precisely because he's indicative of the chaos which has permeated society to an increasing degree over the last 50 years. Boomers will shuffle off the to their graves secure in the knowledge that the social order and dignity the GI Generation bled for will never be restored. The only thing they ever were good for was mass inceration of street criminals, but that's low hanging fruit; pick a tougher target, huh?
    , @Rosie

    All the taking care of neighbors and fellow white people was done on a voluntary basis. Many cannot imagine freedom nowadays, and that is the saddest thing for me.
     
    Whether we take care of each other through the government or voluntary associations makes no difference to me, so long as we do it. I’m skeptical that voluntary associations are up to the task, but I’m not hostile to the idea.
  77. @Audacious Epigone
    Some of those Muslims ID as "other" or "white" rather than Asian, though, don't they?

    Whoa, whoa, all of you guys wait a minute here. Are we seriously back-calculating numbers based on a statement by Barrack Hussein Øb☭ma, the guy who maintains that there are 57 states? Really? (as the kids say)

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    I just couldn't find consistent numbers anywhere. The same Islamic organisations went from huge numbers to lower numbers, even a few years later. I suspect Muslim apostasy in the US high, as most are from extremely selected migration , but still...

    Or maybe that is my own environment that is biasing me...I know quite a few Iranians who were Muslims... they're more into Buddhism or any other sort of spirituality now, if any.

    , @Twinkie

    Whoa, whoa, all of you guys wait a minute here. Are we seriously back-calculating numbers based on a statement by Barrack Hussein Øb☭ma, the guy who maintains that there are 57 states? Really? (as the kids say)
     
    Don't listen to that troll's nonsense. See my comment to AE above: https://www.unz.com/anepigone/deportation-nation/#comment-3066125
  78. @Mr. Rational

    One of the pilots told me that there are a number of “passengers” that they have all seen before, whom they call frequent fliers.
     
    Creating "dead or alive" bounties for catching these clowns on US soil again would seriously chill their enthusiasm for border-jumping.

    I don’t have that whole stash of [AGREE]s that you’ve got, so,

    AGREED!

  79. @MikeatMikedotMike
    Since we are all once again pontificating upon what will save the US, I shall reiterate the 2 keys in returning most of the illegal and even "legal" immigrants.

    As Stan said - a combination of ending all forms of welfare entitlements and harsh penalties for employers who hire illegals would dissuade more illegal aliens from venturing to the US as well as persuading the current population of illegal aliens to return to their native lands.

    A way entice "legal" aliens (BTW anchor babies are legal, I wonder how many US citizens approve of this blatant abuse of our constitutional syntax) to depart the US is of course, the return to staunch support of freedom of association. If white Americans were able to shun weirdos from other countries free of social and judicial prosecution, if employers were free to hire whom they truly prefer instead of who they are ordered to hire under threat of force, if private organizations/clubs/associations were free to exclude those not like them with impunity, etc., etc., etc., then I predict that without carte blanche access to whites and their productivity, many aliens would simply return to their home lands, and the ones who didn't would come to understand their social status as secondary and adjust their behavior accordingly.

    The debating over "muh women's suffruh-uhge" is misguided. Voting is a privilege, not a right, and should be restricted to intact families, defined by a hetero married couple with children; one vote each.

    Uh-hu…. Those with money and power set the agenda. Racial and cultural homogeneity is considered bad for (neo-liberal) business. That’s what proles want, but elites hate it. Why? Money. Elites want the race to the bottom, where demographics and culture are in a state of chaos, which they profit from.

    Shut the borders? Prole Normie: Great idea! My neighbors in 30 years will all speak English again as a first language. Corrupt sonofabitch business owner: workers will have too much power and camaraderie.

    Elites write the legislation. Elites control the police, the military, the chamber of commerce, the judiciary, and the regulatory firms.

    Elites have to become responsive to how proles want authority to be exercised. The last 30 years have been one gigantic waste of the considerable resources we started out with, as we’ve funneled trillions into building prisons and occupying the entire world, while the average American male has little hope of finding dignified work and starting a family on reasonable terms.

    The “dilemma” of legal immigrants is never going to be solved to the satisfaction of anyone. Best case scenario is that the economy craters ala the Great Depression, and immigration is halted while some of the legal and illegal immigrants feel unwelcome and broke, and opt to go back home. But absent ethnic cleansing (which granted, the US effectively did in the American Southwest of the 1950’s), it’s likely that the communities of Chinese, Asian Indians, Somalis, etc. that we’ve developed since the 70’s are here to stay for the long run. Demographics fluctuate all over the globe(for example, the Upper US South is now whiter than it was in centuries past), outside of a handful of generally far Northern places (like pre-1990 Scandinavia and parts of Russia).

    Since I believe that economics govern everything we do, I predict that at some point in the future (lord knows when) this country will fall to financial pieces, which will be the catalyst for a revival of sentiment about shoring up stability and ethnic continuity. This could lead to, in essence, ethnic cleansing campaigns, which have already happened to varying degrees throughout this country, and every other country which has diversity. But as long as we have fools running this country, blowing smoke about “prosperity” these days (which hasn’t the fundamentals of a real economy), there’s not going to be much urgency for elites to wake up and do something about cleaning this place up…. Until the economy truly does hit rock bottom. I don’t remember who it was, but an academic of some sort has published studies/books about how economic prosperity, when sustained, tends to result in cultural and economic experimentation which eventually heavily damages society due to the neglect of important fundamentals. In our case, the generations which came of age during the boom times of the 1950’s-1990’s (Boomers and early Gen X-ers) have thus far succumbed to cultural liberalism (perversion) and economic conservatism (welfare for the rich). Older and younger generations don’t believe in the former and/or the latter (Silents are cultural conservatives and economic conservatives, later X-ers and Millennials are cultural liberals but hate economic conservatism). GIs, who came of age during the trials and tribulations of the 1920’s-1940’s, are the best of both worlds (economic liberals, cultural conservatives), which Boomers have always found perplexing, not understanding how a generation which came of age in chaos would be driven to maintain order.

  80. @216

    I would rather see young White women have children they can’t support than not have any at all.
     
    Promoting degeneracy to own the darkies.

    What I want to encourage is responsible fertility. That should be the goal of public policy. It is among graduates that we should prod with both incentives and shaming, along the lines of successful Israeli polices.

    While we saw millions of manufacturing jobs offshored and automated, we generated large numbers of jobs in female-heavy healthcare and education (why oh why is there cost disease). Public policy could nudge women either out of the workforce or to part-time, and push men into these fields.

    A woman is better off not marrying the father of her child if he has no income or insufficient income. That is an issue with the welfare system that a UBI would correct.
     
    IIRC, the EITC is higher if you are married. UBI removes the benefits of social discipline that come from work. A conditional-based income would promote pro-social behavior.

    More than other welfare programs do? At least it enforces some constraints and introduces budgetary elements in a way that other programs do not. If we’re going to have a social safety net, UBI is the one I think we should have.

    It must be in place of existing programs rather than in addition to them, though. Without touching military spending, $1000 month per adult citizen would be a roughly equivalent swap. Like a moratorium on immigration, it gets at liberals’ emphasis on the moral dimension of fairness.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    UBI is a dumb idea in the presence of employers actually, ya know, giving people decent wages and pensions.

    UBI would further encourage employers and those who regulate them to do nothing to give the populace fairly compensated work.

    It's already been said elsewhere that employers de-facto rely on Uncle Sam as a "co-employer", as many poorly paid and under-used workers end up wanting crappier jobs (or end up being single moms) so as to still qualify for free or low-cost benefits that many private employers now refuse to provide. Healthcare is now ludicrously expensive, in all circumstances, let alone in the most devastating scenarios that require long term or frequent treatment/care. Relatively prosperous people can have their bank accounts drained in a matter of months or even weeks due to the legalized rape of modern US health care.

    Contrary to what the Reaganites would have you believe, there is in fact always resources available to assist the needy and vulnerable; it's just a matter of whether the privileged choose to make them available or not to the public. The detestable Reaganite generations have so obscenely refused to make wealthy people pay their fair share, and refused to run businesses which provide reasonable wages and benefits, that not working can perversely be more rewarding than busting your hump for employers and elites who treat you like a piece of dog crap to be scraped off and forgotten. This is why SSI use exploded. Fuck you Charles Murray. Your generation sold this country out, and then blamed the victims.
  81. @Achmed E. Newman

    As I have said elsewhere, you cannot have nationalism without socialism, and you cannot have socialism without nationalism.
     
    Excuse me? Ever heard of the United States of America, circa 1789 - 1920's? There was plenty of nationalism, something you're bound to have in a the freest nation the world had ever seen, or has seen since! There was not much socialism. All the taking care of neighbors and fellow white people was done on a voluntary basis. Many cannot imagine freedom nowadays, and that is the saddest thing for me.

    Socialism is the ultimate in Cuck-dom.

    Many parts of this country became a shit-hole after we invited in masses of black free labor first, and subsequent to the abolition of slavery, invited in masses of (insert white ethnic slur here) Europeans to work as servants to lazy rich assholes. These immigrants were also treated like broken backs (and poisoned lungs) to-be in the harrowing industry of the Guilded Age.

    This fairy tale that FDR ruined a great thing we had going for however many decades or centuries is mighty appealing to libertarians. But for us folks in normie-land, we’ll stick to our story that society works best when we don’t bend the knee to corrupt rich people and their quislings.

    Peter Turchin’s thesis is that elites become greedy and arrogant, detached and aloof from the concerns of ordinary people. When this happens, cultural liberalism runs amok and elites no longer police themselves or each other. Consequently, breakdowns in communal cohesion become common, and rebellions and Civil Wars are stirred. Contrary to your hatred of FDR, Turchin’s measures of social and political health (such as stable and non-contested elections, a lack of lawyers and lawsuits, and bi-partisan legislation being common) are very favorable for the late 1930’s-early 1960’s. They then began to sag in the mid-60’s, decline moderately in the 1970’s-1990’s, and have fallen off a cliff since 2000 (remember the idiocy of Al Gore’s “stolen” victory?). Turchin has termed the post-2000 era the “New Guilded Era”. Remember, however, that the Boomer dominated 1990’s-2010’s have given rise to rampant neo-liberalism which utterly detests socialism/communism as well as cultural liberalism. Of course, in the 70’s and 80’s we already knew from young Boomers what our government and businesses were headed for later on: A giant stink bomb, at every level of life and society they infilitrate, since they don’t believe in modesty or order.

    Neil Howe has said that fears of Trump being a dictator our laughable, precisely because he’s indicative of the chaos which has permeated society to an increasing degree over the last 50 years. Boomers will shuffle off the to their graves secure in the knowledge that the social order and dignity the GI Generation bled for will never be restored. The only thing they ever were good for was mass inceration of street criminals, but that’s low hanging fruit; pick a tougher target, huh?

    • Replies: @216
    That said, the moral puritanism of my Millennial cohort is not to the liking of most here. The Declining Female Happiness study is old salt around these parts, not sure if I've seen a Racial Happiness chart, but I do recall that non-whites are usually more optimistic.

    The main reason for neoliberalism to support A/A is to cultivate a managerial class of non-whites that will oppose socialist redistribution. But corporations routinely fail to uphold Mark Hanna's system where pro-business GOP policy is rewarded with major corporate donations and prodding employees to vote GOP. Instead GOP voters are findom.

    I sense that the current wave of feminism is mainly about a female desire for a neo-Victorianism that restrains male promiscuity, while also shaming men into marrying women of lower value. Boomer conservatives get this entirely wrong, missing the secularized moralism. Otoh, this is also a rare case where Boomer bashing of Millennials is correct, as male reluctance to signal provider status is delaying marriages, as many (including self) don't want to swallow the bitter pill.

    The racial question is also tinged with moralism, rather than the naked "gibs" demand. N0n-whites are not just interested in lucre, they want whites morally knocked down a peg and given a dose of humility. In this, we'd be wise to humble ourselves. We should be ashamed that Asians are doing better than whites, especially working class whites, on most social indicators.
    , @Achmed E. Newman

    Peter Turchin’s thesis is that elites become greedy and arrogant, detached and aloof from the concerns of ordinary people.
     
    I don't know Mr. Turchin, but it sounds exactly like the thesis of Tucker Carlson's book (Peak Stupidity review - Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3) in Ship of Fools. Mind you, I like the book a lot, but that explanation is wrong. Whether the elites care about us or not should not be our concern. How much power they have over us should be.

    You Socialists will never solve any problems when you can't even understand why you can't get anything turned in the right direction. (Hint: the Big Feral Gov't Beast doesn't give a damn what you'd like your nation to look like. It can do a lot more to harm you based on the will of the elites, because you've given it that much power, you Statist dumbasses.

    I've read both Strauss & Howe books, Generations and The Fourth Turning. As much as I respect their prescience and their hard work in laying out all the cohorts, archetypes, and generations, they come across as a couple of statists. Everything important that happens, their books read like, is something about Big Government.

    I know that you can imagine no other way, Feryl, and I'll just have to accept that.
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    I got off part of the point of my reply. That was: The exact time period you tout as a time of great stability and bi-partisanship is the time after large-scale immigration was severely curtailed up to the time the gates were opened wide again. Do you think that might just have something to do with the stability and unified American society during those years (even through a big depression and huge war)? You should go back to the words, and comments under, this A.E. post from last week to see the arguments about that.
  82. @Charles Pewitt
    The English way is a test of strength. Strength of will or strength of arms.

    The British Empire wouldn't just let the American colonists go without contesting it. The ruling class rats mismanaging the American Empire ain't going to let the United States go without some test of strength.

    The British Empire -- and now the American Empire -- prattles on about peace but wades through blood.

    I don't envision 700, 000 killed and a million or more wounded as in Civil War I, but the American Empire's ruling class rats will not be dislodged without some test of strength.

    Civil War II on the way.

    Perhaps you’re correct. I’m not sure anyone has the will–or the stomach–for a real bloodletting, though. War is hell.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    The dirty little secret is war is fun.

    https://youtu.be/PdY-1u-rk_M
  83. @Mark G.
    How is having white women produce children they can't support better than not having any children at all? If they can't support them, they'll just starve to death. You can take money away from white men with jobs to support the children but as the numbers of out of wedlock children increase then those men will have to pay so much in taxes they won't be able to afford to marry and have their own children. Do you want married middle class white men with jobs and wives to have children or do you want to reproduce the dating and mating habits of ghetto blacks among whites? Will that type of person who recklessly breeds with no thought for the future be the type of person who can maintain civilization? No, I am not blaming all our problems on women but I also don't think women are entirely blameless, which seems to be your position. Do you have any criticisms of your fellow females at all or all women a bunch of angels and anything they do, no matter what, is something men just have to put up with and subsidize through the government so women can keep doing it? You are eventually going to run out of the type of men who can subsidize it and then what will you do?

    No, I am not blaming all our problems on women but I also don’t think women are entirely blameless, which seems to be your position.

    Insisting on our disenfranchisement would seem to come pretty damned close to “blaming all our problems on women.”

    I think you need to stop worrying about who is to blame and start thinking about how to move forward. (Hint: alienating White women is probably not going to help anything at this juncture).

    You can take money away from white men with jobs to support the children but as the numbers of out of wedlock children increase then those men will have to pay so much in taxes they won’t be able to afford to marry and have their own children.

    Sure they will. You see, you’re taxes go down when you have kids.

    • Replies: @Mark G.
    I did not insist on the disenfranchisement of women. Someone else here said that. In my first comment to you I said "we can’t get rid of women’s suffrage but if we don’t get rid of the way increasing numbers of white females think we aren’t going to swing the country in the right direction". You say we should stop thinking who to blame and move forward but I think we need to identify who the problem is and isn't and then form coalitions with the people who aren't the problem. You and me are pro-female but we are for different types of females. I'm for the female who gets a job or marries a guy with a job and then uses their income to support their children. You are for the female who doesn't make enough to support children and then goes out and has sex with whoever she feels like, whether he can support children or not. Then if she has children resulting from that, you want the cost of raising the children shifted over to the taxpayer. By supporting your position, we are going to alienate many married men and women. Their tax deductions aren't enough to pay for the cost of their children now and if you increase their overall taxes to support a bunch of single moms it is going to make things even more difficult for them.
    , @Mr. Rational

    Insisting on our disenfranchisement would seem to come pretty damned close to “blaming all our problems on women.”
     
    It would put an end to all the voting for pols and policies based on feelz, and swing politics back toward family formation and support as desired by men rather than single childless career women.
  84. @Audacious Epigone
    More than other welfare programs do? At least it enforces some constraints and introduces budgetary elements in a way that other programs do not. If we're going to have a social safety net, UBI is the one I think we should have.

    It must be in place of existing programs rather than in addition to them, though. Without touching military spending, $1000 month per adult citizen would be a roughly equivalent swap. Like a moratorium on immigration, it gets at liberals' emphasis on the moral dimension of fairness.

    UBI is a dumb idea in the presence of employers actually, ya know, giving people decent wages and pensions.

    UBI would further encourage employers and those who regulate them to do nothing to give the populace fairly compensated work.

    It’s already been said elsewhere that employers de-facto rely on Uncle Sam as a “co-employer”, as many poorly paid and under-used workers end up wanting crappier jobs (or end up being single moms) so as to still qualify for free or low-cost benefits that many private employers now refuse to provide. Healthcare is now ludicrously expensive, in all circumstances, let alone in the most devastating scenarios that require long term or frequent treatment/care. Relatively prosperous people can have their bank accounts drained in a matter of months or even weeks due to the legalized rape of modern US health care.

    Contrary to what the Reaganites would have you believe, there is in fact always resources available to assist the needy and vulnerable; it’s just a matter of whether the privileged choose to make them available or not to the public. The detestable Reaganite generations have so obscenely refused to make wealthy people pay their fair share, and refused to run businesses which provide reasonable wages and benefits, that not working can perversely be more rewarding than busting your hump for employers and elites who treat you like a piece of dog crap to be scraped off and forgotten. This is why SSI use exploded. Fuck you Charles Murray. Your generation sold this country out, and then blamed the victims.

  85. @Achmed E. Newman

    As I have said elsewhere, you cannot have nationalism without socialism, and you cannot have socialism without nationalism.
     
    Excuse me? Ever heard of the United States of America, circa 1789 - 1920's? There was plenty of nationalism, something you're bound to have in a the freest nation the world had ever seen, or has seen since! There was not much socialism. All the taking care of neighbors and fellow white people was done on a voluntary basis. Many cannot imagine freedom nowadays, and that is the saddest thing for me.

    Socialism is the ultimate in Cuck-dom.

    All the taking care of neighbors and fellow white people was done on a voluntary basis. Many cannot imagine freedom nowadays, and that is the saddest thing for me.

    Whether we take care of each other through the government or voluntary associations makes no difference to me, so long as we do it. I’m skeptical that voluntary associations are up to the task, but I’m not hostile to the idea.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    Whether we take care of each other through the government or voluntary associations makes no difference to me, so long as we do it.
     
    I guess it's a matter of whether you'd rather be a free person, or don't care about being a subject. That's not to mention the inherent inefficiencies and opportunity of much graft and corruption when any government is involved.

    Rosie, don't you think people that voluntarily lay down their own money (since they'd have much more without the governments' taking of it) will be much more involved in the outcome of their charity, say when helping out alcoholics, supporting a school, or just buying a guy on the street some food*?

    Catholic Schools used to be a great example of charity that worked. Do you see how invested "The Penguin" was, and how disgusted she is with Jake and Elwood Blues?:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujxDA9VsQG4

    .

    * I've done that, as a perfect example of what I'm talking about. It's not the $1 or $2 that hurts, but I get pissed when I know I've been lied to. I gave a guy who told me he needed the cash to get to (wherever, back to where he lived) $2 at the bus stop on time, long enough ago to where that'd be ~ $4 in today's money. I saw the same guy the next day with the same story, and told him off.
  86. Lastly, there’s the utter cynicism of UBI being a bribery program to calm the restive masses. As I see it, the humiliation of being on UBI (trust me, contrary to what Reaganism would have you believe nobody likes being poor enough to go on the dole) is one sorry substitute for the pride of doing meaningful and compensated work. This is why the Rust-Belt and Appalaicha, and an ever increasing degree of downscale white America, have huge drug use and suicide levels. The most motivated and intelligent people leave to upscale parts of the country, the remaining dregs feel abandoned and hopeless, and can no longer count on the dignity and camaraderie of being in an appreciated and well-compensated work-force.

    Other ethnic groups at least feel as if they are still part of something, whether it seem to really add up or not (e.g., blacks being “brothers”). I’ve heard that white elites use to feel obligation to white proles, but over the last 50 years that’s been increasingly pathologized as “racist”, and white elites now pour all of their acrimony onto underclass whites (whereas in the 40’s or 50’s, they could’ve and sometimes did go after foreigners, sexual deviants, blasphemers, and yes, “minorities”).

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Lastly, there’s the utter cynicism of UBI being a bribery program to calm the restive masses. As I see it, the humiliation of being on UBI (trust me, contrary to what Reaganism would have you believe nobody likes being poor enough to go on the dole) is one sorry substitute for the pride of doing meaningful and compensated work.
     
    That’s the beauty of UBI. You can still do meaningful and compensated work.

    And if the masses are restive, I hadn’t noticed. They seem pretty well terrorized into submission to me. Some good the First Amendment does when there are no employment protections and no safety net.
    , @216

    This is why the Rust-Belt and Appalaicha, and an ever increasing degree of downscale white America, have huge drug use and suicide levels.
     
    The interesting thing is that this trend is also displayed among whites in New England, which despite being deindustrialized, was revitalized by tech and FIRE. That this trend exists in Massachusetts, arguably the wealthiest and most generous welfare state in the country, raises even more questions.

    Appalachia registers high levels of religious belief, but ranks much lower on affiliation and attendance. New England ranks low on both.

    https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/data/statedeaths.html

    Interesting that the rural Midwest performs the best, rather than Utah.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    With UBI, though, every additional dollar earned has no (non-tax) marginal cost associated with it. A man of modest intelligence can work as a shift lead at a fast food restaurant and afford a family (if the family lives modestly). The $1000 a month isn't really being on "the dole" since everyone is getting it.
  87. @Feryl
    Many parts of this country became a shit-hole after we invited in masses of black free labor first, and subsequent to the abolition of slavery, invited in masses of (insert white ethnic slur here) Europeans to work as servants to lazy rich assholes. These immigrants were also treated like broken backs (and poisoned lungs) to-be in the harrowing industry of the Guilded Age.

    This fairy tale that FDR ruined a great thing we had going for however many decades or centuries is mighty appealing to libertarians. But for us folks in normie-land, we'll stick to our story that society works best when we don't bend the knee to corrupt rich people and their quislings.

    Peter Turchin's thesis is that elites become greedy and arrogant, detached and aloof from the concerns of ordinary people. When this happens, cultural liberalism runs amok and elites no longer police themselves or each other. Consequently, breakdowns in communal cohesion become common, and rebellions and Civil Wars are stirred. Contrary to your hatred of FDR, Turchin's measures of social and political health (such as stable and non-contested elections, a lack of lawyers and lawsuits, and bi-partisan legislation being common) are very favorable for the late 1930's-early 1960's. They then began to sag in the mid-60's, decline moderately in the 1970's-1990's, and have fallen off a cliff since 2000 (remember the idiocy of Al Gore's "stolen" victory?). Turchin has termed the post-2000 era the "New Guilded Era". Remember, however, that the Boomer dominated 1990's-2010's have given rise to rampant neo-liberalism which utterly detests socialism/communism as well as cultural liberalism. Of course, in the 70's and 80's we already knew from young Boomers what our government and businesses were headed for later on: A giant stink bomb, at every level of life and society they infilitrate, since they don't believe in modesty or order.

    Neil Howe has said that fears of Trump being a dictator our laughable, precisely because he's indicative of the chaos which has permeated society to an increasing degree over the last 50 years. Boomers will shuffle off the to their graves secure in the knowledge that the social order and dignity the GI Generation bled for will never be restored. The only thing they ever were good for was mass inceration of street criminals, but that's low hanging fruit; pick a tougher target, huh?

    That said, the moral puritanism of my Millennial cohort is not to the liking of most here. The Declining Female Happiness study is old salt around these parts, not sure if I’ve seen a Racial Happiness chart, but I do recall that non-whites are usually more optimistic.

    The main reason for neoliberalism to support A/A is to cultivate a managerial class of non-whites that will oppose socialist redistribution. But corporations routinely fail to uphold Mark Hanna’s system where pro-business GOP policy is rewarded with major corporate donations and prodding employees to vote GOP. Instead GOP voters are findom.

    I sense that the current wave of feminism is mainly about a female desire for a neo-Victorianism that restrains male promiscuity, while also shaming men into marrying women of lower value. Boomer conservatives get this entirely wrong, missing the secularized moralism. Otoh, this is also a rare case where Boomer bashing of Millennials is correct, as male reluctance to signal provider status is delaying marriages, as many (including self) don’t want to swallow the bitter pill.

    The racial question is also tinged with moralism, rather than the naked “gibs” demand. N0n-whites are not just interested in lucre, they want whites morally knocked down a peg and given a dose of humility. In this, we’d be wise to humble ourselves. We should be ashamed that Asians are doing better than whites, especially working class whites, on most social indicators.

  88. @Feryl
    Lastly, there's the utter cynicism of UBI being a bribery program to calm the restive masses. As I see it, the humiliation of being on UBI (trust me, contrary to what Reaganism would have you believe nobody likes being poor enough to go on the dole) is one sorry substitute for the pride of doing meaningful and compensated work. This is why the Rust-Belt and Appalaicha, and an ever increasing degree of downscale white America, have huge drug use and suicide levels. The most motivated and intelligent people leave to upscale parts of the country, the remaining dregs feel abandoned and hopeless, and can no longer count on the dignity and camaraderie of being in an appreciated and well-compensated work-force.

    Other ethnic groups at least feel as if they are still part of something, whether it seem to really add up or not (e.g., blacks being "brothers"). I've heard that white elites use to feel obligation to white proles, but over the last 50 years that's been increasingly pathologized as "racist", and white elites now pour all of their acrimony onto underclass whites (whereas in the 40's or 50's, they could've and sometimes did go after foreigners, sexual deviants, blasphemers, and yes, "minorities").

    Lastly, there’s the utter cynicism of UBI being a bribery program to calm the restive masses. As I see it, the humiliation of being on UBI (trust me, contrary to what Reaganism would have you believe nobody likes being poor enough to go on the dole) is one sorry substitute for the pride of doing meaningful and compensated work.

    That’s the beauty of UBI. You can still do meaningful and compensated work.

    And if the masses are restive, I hadn’t noticed. They seem pretty well terrorized into submission to me. Some good the First Amendment does when there are no employment protections and no safety net.

  89. @Feryl
    Many parts of this country became a shit-hole after we invited in masses of black free labor first, and subsequent to the abolition of slavery, invited in masses of (insert white ethnic slur here) Europeans to work as servants to lazy rich assholes. These immigrants were also treated like broken backs (and poisoned lungs) to-be in the harrowing industry of the Guilded Age.

    This fairy tale that FDR ruined a great thing we had going for however many decades or centuries is mighty appealing to libertarians. But for us folks in normie-land, we'll stick to our story that society works best when we don't bend the knee to corrupt rich people and their quislings.

    Peter Turchin's thesis is that elites become greedy and arrogant, detached and aloof from the concerns of ordinary people. When this happens, cultural liberalism runs amok and elites no longer police themselves or each other. Consequently, breakdowns in communal cohesion become common, and rebellions and Civil Wars are stirred. Contrary to your hatred of FDR, Turchin's measures of social and political health (such as stable and non-contested elections, a lack of lawyers and lawsuits, and bi-partisan legislation being common) are very favorable for the late 1930's-early 1960's. They then began to sag in the mid-60's, decline moderately in the 1970's-1990's, and have fallen off a cliff since 2000 (remember the idiocy of Al Gore's "stolen" victory?). Turchin has termed the post-2000 era the "New Guilded Era". Remember, however, that the Boomer dominated 1990's-2010's have given rise to rampant neo-liberalism which utterly detests socialism/communism as well as cultural liberalism. Of course, in the 70's and 80's we already knew from young Boomers what our government and businesses were headed for later on: A giant stink bomb, at every level of life and society they infilitrate, since they don't believe in modesty or order.

    Neil Howe has said that fears of Trump being a dictator our laughable, precisely because he's indicative of the chaos which has permeated society to an increasing degree over the last 50 years. Boomers will shuffle off the to their graves secure in the knowledge that the social order and dignity the GI Generation bled for will never be restored. The only thing they ever were good for was mass inceration of street criminals, but that's low hanging fruit; pick a tougher target, huh?

    Peter Turchin’s thesis is that elites become greedy and arrogant, detached and aloof from the concerns of ordinary people.

    I don’t know Mr. Turchin, but it sounds exactly like the thesis of Tucker Carlson’s book (Peak Stupidity review – Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3) in Ship of Fools. Mind you, I like the book a lot, but that explanation is wrong. Whether the elites care about us or not should not be our concern. How much power they have over us should be.

    You Socialists will never solve any problems when you can’t even understand why you can’t get anything turned in the right direction. (Hint: the Big Feral Gov’t Beast doesn’t give a damn what you’d like your nation to look like. It can do a lot more to harm you based on the will of the elites, because you’ve given it that much power, you Statist dumbasses.

    I’ve read both Strauss & Howe books, Generations and The Fourth Turning. As much as I respect their prescience and their hard work in laying out all the cohorts, archetypes, and generations, they come across as a couple of statists. Everything important that happens, their books read like, is something about Big Government.

    I know that you can imagine no other way, Feryl, and I’ll just have to accept that.

    • Replies: @216

    You Socialists will never solve any problems when you can’t even understand why you can’t get anything turned in the right direction. (Hint: the Big Feral Gov’t Beast doesn’t give a damn what you’d like your nation to look like. It can do a lot more to harm you based on the will of the elites, because you’ve given it that much power, you Statist dumbasses.
     
    Socialist programs work best when created and administered by conservatives. It was Otto von Bismarck that enacted the welfare state in Germany, and support for America's entitlement programs is historically justified by the idea that people "paid into the system", a rather conservative idea. Singapore's PAP is a borderline fascist party, which has achieved enviable development records.

    The problem with socialists is that they are utopian idealists prone to ignoring fiscal reality, public choice and work ethic. DSA activists, as leftists long before them, seem to think that everyone can be "educated" to be just as productive as they are.

    This country is near the bottom of the OECD as a percentage of gov't spending to GDP. It ranks the highest on military spending % of GDP in the OECD only to subsidized Israel.

    The best course for Trump to take is to push for an arms treaty with Russia and China. No more F-35, no more aircraft carriers, no more SSBNs and no new ICBM replacements. Reduce the level of nukes to the same level as France/UK (~200). Ideally force India, Pakistan and Israel to join in too. Shut down the overseas bases. President Coolidge did something similar a century ago. With the savings we can easily provide allow people to buy into Medicare that can't get private insurance. Given population aging, a majority of the healthcare system will become socialist by default.

    Taxes are going up, the military budget is getting slashed. The only question is which party is in the majority when it happens. A party that looks kindly upon the legacy population, and a party that demolishes the Khodorkovskys is what I support.
    , @Stan d Mute

    I know that you can imagine no other way, Feryl, and I’ll just have to accept that.
     
    It’s remarkable how institutionalized this generation is. There is almost no recognition that self-reliance is possible let alone that it should be required. Likewise there is no concept of health outside the absurd bureaucratic system of twenty support staff per physician and sharply restricted numbers of physicians. It’s inconceivable that old people die or that sick people die for want of million dollar treatment regimes that didn’t exist a couple of generations ago. No matter what the problem may be, the answer is always more government - the very thing responsible for the problem in the first place.
  90. @Feryl
    Lastly, there's the utter cynicism of UBI being a bribery program to calm the restive masses. As I see it, the humiliation of being on UBI (trust me, contrary to what Reaganism would have you believe nobody likes being poor enough to go on the dole) is one sorry substitute for the pride of doing meaningful and compensated work. This is why the Rust-Belt and Appalaicha, and an ever increasing degree of downscale white America, have huge drug use and suicide levels. The most motivated and intelligent people leave to upscale parts of the country, the remaining dregs feel abandoned and hopeless, and can no longer count on the dignity and camaraderie of being in an appreciated and well-compensated work-force.

    Other ethnic groups at least feel as if they are still part of something, whether it seem to really add up or not (e.g., blacks being "brothers"). I've heard that white elites use to feel obligation to white proles, but over the last 50 years that's been increasingly pathologized as "racist", and white elites now pour all of their acrimony onto underclass whites (whereas in the 40's or 50's, they could've and sometimes did go after foreigners, sexual deviants, blasphemers, and yes, "minorities").

    This is why the Rust-Belt and Appalaicha, and an ever increasing degree of downscale white America, have huge drug use and suicide levels.

    The interesting thing is that this trend is also displayed among whites in New England, which despite being deindustrialized, was revitalized by tech and FIRE. That this trend exists in Massachusetts, arguably the wealthiest and most generous welfare state in the country, raises even more questions.

    Appalachia registers high levels of religious belief, but ranks much lower on affiliation and attendance. New England ranks low on both.

    https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/data/statedeaths.html

    Interesting that the rural Midwest performs the best, rather than Utah.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    216, the rural Midwest is comparatively (economically and psychologically) healthy compared to rural areas of other regions, not to mention the urban areas of the Rust-Belt. Credit to Agnostic that the culture of the Western US stops it from being as (mentally) healthy as the East, regardless of whatever the economic factors may be. The Anne Case (?) study about rising white mortality led to several interviews, and she said that the interior West is notorious for it's high levels of suicide (which one would assume are caused by the anomie of being in a rural area in a region full of transplants, which historically was very lightly populated until the last 50-70 years). Agnostic has also pointed out numerous times that mass murders "cluster" in the Western US, Florida, Texas, and to a lesser degree the urban Mid-Atlantic, all regions full of transplants of both the domestic and foreign variety (whereas the Midwest, South, and New England do quite a bit better). Depression is one thing, violent rage towards co-workers, class-mates, and strangers is another.

    Agnostic also says that mass murders are disproportionately committed by Ellis Islanders (Tim McVeigh) and non-whites. Whites who aren't "ethnic", or at any rate consider themselves standard issue white-Americans (as is common in Northern New England, the South, and much of the Midwest), feel more comfortable in their skin and are less likely to succumb to indiscriminate rage.
  91. @Feryl
    Many parts of this country became a shit-hole after we invited in masses of black free labor first, and subsequent to the abolition of slavery, invited in masses of (insert white ethnic slur here) Europeans to work as servants to lazy rich assholes. These immigrants were also treated like broken backs (and poisoned lungs) to-be in the harrowing industry of the Guilded Age.

    This fairy tale that FDR ruined a great thing we had going for however many decades or centuries is mighty appealing to libertarians. But for us folks in normie-land, we'll stick to our story that society works best when we don't bend the knee to corrupt rich people and their quislings.

    Peter Turchin's thesis is that elites become greedy and arrogant, detached and aloof from the concerns of ordinary people. When this happens, cultural liberalism runs amok and elites no longer police themselves or each other. Consequently, breakdowns in communal cohesion become common, and rebellions and Civil Wars are stirred. Contrary to your hatred of FDR, Turchin's measures of social and political health (such as stable and non-contested elections, a lack of lawyers and lawsuits, and bi-partisan legislation being common) are very favorable for the late 1930's-early 1960's. They then began to sag in the mid-60's, decline moderately in the 1970's-1990's, and have fallen off a cliff since 2000 (remember the idiocy of Al Gore's "stolen" victory?). Turchin has termed the post-2000 era the "New Guilded Era". Remember, however, that the Boomer dominated 1990's-2010's have given rise to rampant neo-liberalism which utterly detests socialism/communism as well as cultural liberalism. Of course, in the 70's and 80's we already knew from young Boomers what our government and businesses were headed for later on: A giant stink bomb, at every level of life and society they infilitrate, since they don't believe in modesty or order.

    Neil Howe has said that fears of Trump being a dictator our laughable, precisely because he's indicative of the chaos which has permeated society to an increasing degree over the last 50 years. Boomers will shuffle off the to their graves secure in the knowledge that the social order and dignity the GI Generation bled for will never be restored. The only thing they ever were good for was mass inceration of street criminals, but that's low hanging fruit; pick a tougher target, huh?

    I got off part of the point of my reply. That was: The exact time period you tout as a time of great stability and bi-partisanship is the time after large-scale immigration was severely curtailed up to the time the gates were opened wide again. Do you think that might just have something to do with the stability and unified American society during those years (even through a big depression and huge war)? You should go back to the words, and comments under, this A.E. post from last week to see the arguments about that.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  92. @Achmed E. Newman

    Peter Turchin’s thesis is that elites become greedy and arrogant, detached and aloof from the concerns of ordinary people.
     
    I don't know Mr. Turchin, but it sounds exactly like the thesis of Tucker Carlson's book (Peak Stupidity review - Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3) in Ship of Fools. Mind you, I like the book a lot, but that explanation is wrong. Whether the elites care about us or not should not be our concern. How much power they have over us should be.

    You Socialists will never solve any problems when you can't even understand why you can't get anything turned in the right direction. (Hint: the Big Feral Gov't Beast doesn't give a damn what you'd like your nation to look like. It can do a lot more to harm you based on the will of the elites, because you've given it that much power, you Statist dumbasses.

    I've read both Strauss & Howe books, Generations and The Fourth Turning. As much as I respect their prescience and their hard work in laying out all the cohorts, archetypes, and generations, they come across as a couple of statists. Everything important that happens, their books read like, is something about Big Government.

    I know that you can imagine no other way, Feryl, and I'll just have to accept that.

    You Socialists will never solve any problems when you can’t even understand why you can’t get anything turned in the right direction. (Hint: the Big Feral Gov’t Beast doesn’t give a damn what you’d like your nation to look like. It can do a lot more to harm you based on the will of the elites, because you’ve given it that much power, you Statist dumbasses.

    Socialist programs work best when created and administered by conservatives. It was Otto von Bismarck that enacted the welfare state in Germany, and support for America’s entitlement programs is historically justified by the idea that people “paid into the system”, a rather conservative idea. Singapore’s PAP is a borderline fascist party, which has achieved enviable development records.

    The problem with socialists is that they are utopian idealists prone to ignoring fiscal reality, public choice and work ethic. DSA activists, as leftists long before them, seem to think that everyone can be “educated” to be just as productive as they are.

    This country is near the bottom of the OECD as a percentage of gov’t spending to GDP. It ranks the highest on military spending % of GDP in the OECD only to subsidized Israel.

    The best course for Trump to take is to push for an arms treaty with Russia and China. No more F-35, no more aircraft carriers, no more SSBNs and no new ICBM replacements. Reduce the level of nukes to the same level as France/UK (~200). Ideally force India, Pakistan and Israel to join in too. Shut down the overseas bases. President Coolidge did something similar a century ago. With the savings we can easily provide allow people to buy into Medicare that can’t get private insurance. Given population aging, a majority of the healthcare system will become socialist by default.

    Taxes are going up, the military budget is getting slashed. The only question is which party is in the majority when it happens. A party that looks kindly upon the legacy population, and a party that demolishes the Khodorkovskys is what I support.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    The best course for Trump to take is to push for an arms treaty with Russia and China. No more F-35, no more aircraft carriers, no more SSBNs and no new ICBM replacements. Reduce the level of nukes to the same level as France/UK (~200). Ideally force India, Pakistan and Israel to join in too. Shut down the overseas bases. President Coolidge did something similar a century ago. .
     
    I can't argue with any of that, but just cutting back deeply on foreign adventurist-military spending is no Socialist concept. It is Conservative, in fact (huge military budgets being associated with conservatism is just a result of the Cold War, in which the left, for reasons of "Communism is Good" wanted the West to capitulate). I am all down with another Silent Cal, the best President we've seen, going at least a century and a quarter back!

    With the savings we can easily provide allow people to buy into Medicare that can’t get private insurance. Given population aging, a majority of the healthcare system will become socialist by default
     
    Now, THERE'S your Socialism. I'm not sure why you think individuals and families are too stupid to make their own decisions, and spend their own money more wisely on health care than the way the lame-ass Feral Gov't middleman would do it. Do you really have more faith and trust in the US Gov't workforce than your family? Have you ever been to a Federal Building for anything, #216?

    BTW, Silent Cal would want the US Gov't to have nothing to do with anyone's health. As far as his legislative agenda, think of a Ron Paul on ludes.
  93. To the replacement people, here to stay, if you can read this: When you turn over your leafblowers to the new arrivals, and move up to the trades, please try to somehow learn (I can’t imagine how), and care about, skills and standards. “Get it basically right” is not sufficient; sorry. While you’re at it, do not yell at each other on the job, and do not play music. To all pre-replacement workers: Yes, you already know how to use torque wrenches and tightening patterns, and how to prevent paint blocking, and how to diagnose a complex wiring problem, and so on. You are proficient and conscientious. And yet, your salary has stagnated, or you have been replaced entirely. I am very sorry about this. I miss you. I also miss medical front-office workers who, although not bilingual, possessed all the other skills needed for the job. Signing off from California, which is “ahead” of the rest of the country in this.

  94. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    The black pro-every-immigrant attitude is entirely predictable and unsurprising. Flooding the country with non-Whites hurts Whites, categorically... and the black prime directive is to harm and destroy Whites. (Just as for Jews, the prime directive "Is it good for the Jews?" is functionally interchangeable with "Does it harm the goyim?"). They never had the numbers to steal the whole country on their own, but thanks to immigration, now they do.

    And it's working. Foreigners who have absolutely nothing in common with one another, and who have zero racism credits, are all united against Whitey in an imaginary identity group called "people of color" which does not and cannot possibly exist. The more foreigners, the more proxy political power for blacks.

    They don't even mind being edged out of the labor market by immigrants, since most blacks don't actually want to work anyway. Presumably in 2020 when the Mudslide Apocalypse achieves permanent political ascendancy, blacks will be given permanent free stuff (pillaged from whitey) by the actual Jew-Asian-Brahmin troika that will run things, as a reward for being the tip of the racism spear. Then the labor issue will cease to matter.

    The only jobs you'll see blacks lining up to apply for will be as prison guards in the white girl rape-camps.

    One of the most high profile anti-immigration blacks is actually Tariq Nasheed from twitter. Tariq is a low IQ, supremely confident clown, but he does appear to be motivated more by love of his own folks than by hatred of wyte pipo. He does hate whites, but he loves his own enough to refuse to be taken advantage of by someone like Kamala “Kabbalah” Harris who’s a fake african-american. He’s simple and uncomplicated that way.

  95. The “single women” gap is caused by age and lack of life experience. More single women are young, and they have not yet faced the realities of the welfare-rigged labor market, wherein it is perfectly okay for groups of minorites to discriminate openly.

    They have not faced it, directly, with the consequences of the gap between their racism / sexism / xenophobia ideals and what life really dishes out at ground level putting their ability to keep an independent roof over their head in jeopardy.

    At that point, they have not faced much of anything without their parents’ piggy bank backing them up.

    They are also less likely to have encountered dangerous situations, like working in unsafe settings. Those young, illegal-alien-embracing, single women are also far less likely to show up on voting day with or without a pink hat.

    This does explain why the Republican Party completely disgards the economic interests of single, childless women in its policy agenda, but I think they are miscalculating, not taking into consideration the fact that many single women have been married and the way that progressive programs for single moms undercut single, childless women and single moms with kids over 18 in the labor market.

    Older and middle-aged single women rely on earned-only income, and we are in the age group that is far more likely to vote. You can ask a young, single woman anything, but that does not increase the likelihood that she will act on it by voting.

    Many, many of those young, married women that Republicans cater to with non-refundable child tax credits—like their unmarried, refundable child tax credit-cashing welfare-mom counterparts—are not even registered to vote. A greater percentage of the middle-aged and older single women are.

    • Replies: @ben tillman

    This does explain why the Republican Party completely disgards the economic interests of single, childless women in its policy agenda, but I think they are miscalculating, not taking into consideration the fact that many single women have been married . . . .
     
    By definition, a single woman has never been married.
  96. anon[184] • Disclaimer says:

    “The interesting thing is that this trend is also displayed among whites in New England.”

    Remember Russia in the 90s? If I recall, the suicide rate skyrocketed post Soviet breakup. I wonder if anyone has bothered to chart the white male American suicide rate with the Russian suicide rate with the purpose of asking if there is some kind of correlation – alcoholism (Russia) vs. opioid drug use (USA white male)? Of course, there is a correlation between suicide rate and alcoholism in Russia as it is likely an aggravating factor, but is that the true correlation we should be looking for? In other words, what caused the alcoholism in the first place? Perhaps that could tell us about our own suicide rate issue.

    Example:

    “Russia’s suicide rate has declined since the 1990s, alongside per capita alcohol consumption, despite the economic crises since then; therefore it is believed that alcohol consumption is more of a factor than economic conditions.”

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

    However, “current economic conditions” at large is not necessarily the same as relative “future economic outlook”. Perhaps a better judge is to ask Russians whether they think things are likely to improve for them in the future. During the post 1990s economic crises, Russian feelings about the future remained fairly high in comparison to the 1990s under the poor leadership of Boris Yeltsin; so, alcoholism (and the current state of the economy) may not be the right correlation we should be looking for after all. Is the same phenomenon happening in the US as happened in Russia during the 1990s? What percentage of white males at risk for suicide (and drug use) believe things are going well for them and what percentage think things will improve for them in the future?

    • Replies: @Sam Coulton
    "Russian alcoholism" is a myth created by slobbering, comorbid American idiots. The alcoholism primarily affects Yakuts, Tungusic tribes, Samoyeds, etc. Actual Slavic Russians are considerably less alcoholic than White Americans. Over 400,000 Americans die every year from alcohol related liver disease, which dwarfs the opiod death rate. Would also like to point out that white women are the ones seeing gains in both alcohol and drug related deaths. The white male rate has stagnated or increased only slightly.


    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/national/wp/2016/12/23/nine-charts-that-show-how-white-women-are-drinking-themselves-to-death/?utm_term=.4a98c0e6e37e

  97. @anon
    "The interesting thing is that this trend is also displayed among whites in New England."

    Remember Russia in the 90s? If I recall, the suicide rate skyrocketed post Soviet breakup. I wonder if anyone has bothered to chart the white male American suicide rate with the Russian suicide rate with the purpose of asking if there is some kind of correlation - alcoholism (Russia) vs. opioid drug use (USA white male)? Of course, there is a correlation between suicide rate and alcoholism in Russia as it is likely an aggravating factor, but is that the true correlation we should be looking for? In other words, what caused the alcoholism in the first place? Perhaps that could tell us about our own suicide rate issue.

    Example:

    "Russia's suicide rate has declined since the 1990s, alongside per capita alcohol consumption, despite the economic crises since then; therefore it is believed that alcohol consumption is more of a factor than economic conditions."

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

    However, "current economic conditions" at large is not necessarily the same as relative "future economic outlook". Perhaps a better judge is to ask Russians whether they think things are likely to improve for them in the future. During the post 1990s economic crises, Russian feelings about the future remained fairly high in comparison to the 1990s under the poor leadership of Boris Yeltsin; so, alcoholism (and the current state of the economy) may not be the right correlation we should be looking for after all. Is the same phenomenon happening in the US as happened in Russia during the 1990s? What percentage of white males at risk for suicide (and drug use) believe things are going well for them and what percentage think things will improve for them in the future?

    “Russian alcoholism” is a myth created by slobbering, comorbid American idiots. The alcoholism primarily affects Yakuts, Tungusic tribes, Samoyeds, etc. Actual Slavic Russians are considerably less alcoholic than White Americans. Over 400,000 Americans die every year from alcohol related liver disease, which dwarfs the opiod death rate. Would also like to point out that white women are the ones seeing gains in both alcohol and drug related deaths. The white male rate has stagnated or increased only slightly.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/national/wp/2016/12/23/nine-charts-that-show-how-white-women-are-drinking-themselves-to-death/?utm_term=.4a98c0e6e37e

    • Replies: @Jay Fink
    During the cold war another widespread myth was that Russian women were ugly and masculine. In reality most are pretty and feminine. If anything modern American women have become our former stereotype of Russian women.
    , @Stan d Mute

    Would also like to point out that white women are the ones seeing gains in both alcohol and drug related deaths
     
    When you suddenly realize at age 45 that your sexual market value is approaching zero, your lifetime habit of buying shit you don’t need because it was on sale leaves you with no comfortable old age, your womb is barren and your allotment of eggs gone, your cats don’t really love you but see you as a feeding station, and that you’ve burned up half your life without anything whatsoever to show you were ever here except a chronically recurring case of chlamydia..

    Why would that lead to despair?
  98. @Achmed E. Newman
    Whoa, whoa, all of you guys wait a minute here. Are we seriously back-calculating numbers based on a statement by Barrack Hussein Øb☭ma, the guy who maintains that there are 57 states? Really? (as the kids say)

    I just couldn’t find consistent numbers anywhere. The same Islamic organisations went from huge numbers to lower numbers, even a few years later. I suspect Muslim apostasy in the US high, as most are from extremely selected migration , but still…

    Or maybe that is my own environment that is biasing me…I know quite a few Iranians who were Muslims… they’re more into Buddhism or any other sort of spirituality now, if any.

  99. @Rosie

    I think that white females are the swing voters that will decide which way this country goes. White males can just kind of hope and pray they have the wisdom to make the right decision.
     
    Au contraire. I suspect it is white male voters’ excessive loyalty to the corporate GOPe establishment that allows them to continue running their scam on the White constituent they so despise.

    White male voters to the GOP: “Thank you sir, may I have another.”

    Honestly, though this sort of remark isn’t popular around here, I think you’re both right.

    Good luck with that ‘hostile elite’ though. They run the place.

  100. @Audacious Epigone
    Indeed. The spleen-venting is cathartic for some, but more than anything else it is self-ghettoizing. Almost no one of NW European descent wants to be associated, even intellectually, with something that feels like racial hatred. It's a self-defeating problem on our side of the great divide.

    It’s a self-defeating problem on our side of the great divide.

    Indeed, and if I (not being the brightest bulb in the package) can see it with no problem and also seeing the media and Terry McAuliffe play Charlottesville like a violin tells me than a significant number are posers and provocateurs.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  101. @Audacious Epigone
    Half? I don't think it's that high, is it?

    Half? I don’t think it’s that high, is it?

    He’s making that up to buttress his argument.

    There are roughly 15 million Asians in America (per 2010 Census). The big ones are:

    Chinese 3.5 million
    Indian 3 million* (50% Indian, 18% Christian, and 10% Muslim per Pew)
    Filipino 2.6 million (a tiny insignificant minority Muslim)
    Vietnamese 1.6 million
    Korean 1.5 million
    Japanese 0.8 million

    That’s roughly 13 million (minus 0.3 million Indian Muslims) out of 15 million total.

    Those who are identifiably from Muslim countries are:

    Bangladeshi 0.14 million
    Indonesian 0.06 million
    Malaysian 0.02 million
    Pakistani 0.38 million

    That’s only 0.6 million out of 15 million (and that’s assuming the Indonesians and Malaysians are not ethnic Chinese who are likely disproportionately represented among immigrants). Add the 0.3 million Indian Muslims, we have 0.9 million Muslims among Asians in America, about 6% of the total.

    “Tyrion 2” is a juvenile troll who also uses at least one duplicate/sock puppet account (“career”) and likely uses others as well. Don’t pay attention to him.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    The US census doesn't define West Asians as Asians, for some reason. I assumed that Reuters probably does, as they have no other suitable categories.

    There's plenty of Iranians, Afghans, Turks, Central Asian and Middle Eastern Muslims in the US. You forget those.

    Then again, I did question my own numbers already at post 20, though all of this is an interesting line of inquiry:

    Actually my numbers must be wrong. Very wrong!

    They are ludicrous considering how SJW US Asians are, partly because of neighbourhood plus income/education.

    Surely super SJW Asians cannot even be slightly pro Israel? Those types certainly aren’t pro Israel in the UK, where it is just seen as a pale, male and stale state which needs immediate diversifying.

    Or maybe they are very well-informed and realise that the majority of Israelis would qualify as people of colour through mixing with Mizrahi, even if very few American Jews would?

    Who knows…maybe the numbers are actually right?

    , @Twinkie
    Some additional information:

    MENA people are not classified as Asians for Census purposes in the United States, but even if they were...

    1. Arabs number rough 1.7 million per the 2010 Census. Of those the Lebanese are the plurality at 0.5 million. In terms religion, 63% of those 1.7 million are Christians while 24% Muslims.

    2. Iranians are about 0.5 million as of the 2011 American Community Survey. Per the 2012 national sampling, only 31% were Muslims (the Iranian immigrants in the U.S. are disproportionately non-Muslims and non-ethnic Persians).

    3. Afghans are roughly 0.1 million per the 2016 ACS.

    So even if we were to add these numbers, Muslims are a very small fraction (less than 6%) of Asians in America.

  102. @Achmed E. Newman
    Whoa, whoa, all of you guys wait a minute here. Are we seriously back-calculating numbers based on a statement by Barrack Hussein Øb☭ma, the guy who maintains that there are 57 states? Really? (as the kids say)

    Whoa, whoa, all of you guys wait a minute here. Are we seriously back-calculating numbers based on a statement by Barrack Hussein Øb☭ma, the guy who maintains that there are 57 states? Really? (as the kids say)

    Don’t listen to that troll’s nonsense. See my comment to AE above: https://www.unz.com/anepigone/deportation-nation/#comment-3066125

  103. @Audacious Epigone
    Maybe it's naivete on my part, but I do not think a hot civil war is inevitable. There are peaceful ways for political dissolution to occur. That's certainly what I want to see happen.

    I don’t think there will be one either. I would be shocked if it happened….no matter how divided the country is. It would go against human nature…at least in modern America. Most people have a strong desire not to get in a situation where they shoot at people and are getting shot at. That sounds like the worst thing ever to normies. They want to watch sports, Netflix, play video games, hang out with their friends and family, eat food etc..not get in a hot civil war. Even the minority who are passionate about these issues would rather do something like vote or post on a blog than go to war.

  104. @Audacious Epigone
    Perhaps you're correct. I'm not sure anyone has the will--or the stomach--for a real bloodletting, though. War is hell.

    The dirty little secret is war is fun.

  105. @Sam Coulton
    "Russian alcoholism" is a myth created by slobbering, comorbid American idiots. The alcoholism primarily affects Yakuts, Tungusic tribes, Samoyeds, etc. Actual Slavic Russians are considerably less alcoholic than White Americans. Over 400,000 Americans die every year from alcohol related liver disease, which dwarfs the opiod death rate. Would also like to point out that white women are the ones seeing gains in both alcohol and drug related deaths. The white male rate has stagnated or increased only slightly.


    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/national/wp/2016/12/23/nine-charts-that-show-how-white-women-are-drinking-themselves-to-death/?utm_term=.4a98c0e6e37e

    During the cold war another widespread myth was that Russian women were ugly and masculine. In reality most are pretty and feminine. If anything modern American women have become our former stereotype of Russian women.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    A lot about America has become our former stereotypes about the Soviet Union!
  106. @Feryl
    Slapping major controls on the use and treatment of labor would ultimately lead to lower immigration levels, because it's easier to keep tabs on American workers (e.g., we can validate their ID and they're less likely to work under the table or lie on their taxes).

    The "contract" to restore America, that began in the early 20th century and peaked in the 1950's and early 60's, was about wresting order and consistency from the nihilistic chaos of the Guilded Age. You can't effectively maintain order and proper accounting of business practices when large numbers of aliens are streaming in year after year. The immigration moratorium of the mid-20's sent a message to both immigrants and their employers that the time to shape up was at hand....Because the race to the bottom was over. Pay improved, working conditions improved, management began to grant concessions to organized labor, and the wealthy, esp. after the Depression hit, stopped complaining about their bank accounts being raided by sore loser proles and the populist politicians who represented the little(r) guy. Moreover, WW2 was used as a tool to unite America, as elites commenced one of the greatest (and fastest!) collective projects in human history to make the best use that we possibly could have of our human and physical resources, as we converted our industrial, scientific, and mining operations to the war effort. Lost in the "accusation" that the US was some kind of backwater joke before reaping the benefit of being the only industrialized country to not suffer infrastructure damage in WW2 is the fact that America's "Greatest Generation" (and this generation's parents) had already proven itself capable of great things in the preperation for WW2. Matter of fact, indicators of civic and economic health were on the rise in the 20's and 30's (which can be gleaned from Hollywood censoring itself, the immigration moratorium, disgust at high level corruption being popularly registered by the era's culture, etc.).

    Also, a crisis alone doesn't determine the nature of the response. America's elites in the early 20th century made a lot of good calls in the Progressive era (circa 1900-1930), which came to fruition in the New Deal era (circa 1930-1980). The idiot "conservatives" who've called the shots since the 1990's can't stop bitching about FDR's welfare state long enough to realize that the increasingly liberal climate of 1900-1980 stabilized our demographics and culture. Meanwhile the last 30-40 years have given us gay marriage, large numbers of "Americans" who have no roots in this country's traditions, torture porn, death metal, gangster rap, the mass usage of dangerous "legal" drugs, transsexual movement, legions of mentally ill people having children and owning guns/large dangerous dogs. We in fact have succumbed to libertarianism, because "conservatives" in a social Darwinist era stop placing controls on financial elites, which then contributes to an atmosphere of "anything goes", which invariable gives us all the decadent crap I just listed (Go watch a TV show from the 1950's-early 1980's, and I guarantee you won't find 1/10 the trash that Boomers and early Gen X-ers (the two libertarian generations) think qualifies as entertainment, the junk they've been poisoning the "alt-Right" generations (those born since the mid-70's) with for over 30 years.

    Face it: if you can't ask rich people to give up their income, or ask business owners to not treat their workers like dog vomit, how are you going to ask people to stay married, stay off powerful drugs, avoid destructively competitive behavior, and treat your fellow man with dignity and respect? Does anyone think that the (Boomer dominated) America of the 1990's, which gave us "road rage" and Rush Limbaugh, portended a wholesome and modest culture? Wake up, put the bong down.

    Are today’s conservatives really bitching about FDRs (or LBJs) welfare state? Other than their failed effort to repeal Obamacare I don’t see Republicans making efforts to cut welfare of any kind. The GOP loves tax cuts, not spending cuts.

  107. @Twinkie

    Half? I don’t think it’s that high, is it?
     
    He's making that up to buttress his argument.

    There are roughly 15 million Asians in America (per 2010 Census). The big ones are:

    Chinese 3.5 million
    Indian 3 million* (50% Indian, 18% Christian, and 10% Muslim per Pew)
    Filipino 2.6 million (a tiny insignificant minority Muslim)
    Vietnamese 1.6 million
    Korean 1.5 million
    Japanese 0.8 million

    That's roughly 13 million (minus 0.3 million Indian Muslims) out of 15 million total.

    Those who are identifiably from Muslim countries are:

    Bangladeshi 0.14 million
    Indonesian 0.06 million
    Malaysian 0.02 million
    Pakistani 0.38 million

    That's only 0.6 million out of 15 million (and that's assuming the Indonesians and Malaysians are not ethnic Chinese who are likely disproportionately represented among immigrants). Add the 0.3 million Indian Muslims, we have 0.9 million Muslims among Asians in America, about 6% of the total.

    "Tyrion 2" is a juvenile troll who also uses at least one duplicate/sock puppet account ("career") and likely uses others as well. Don't pay attention to him.

    The US census doesn’t define West Asians as Asians, for some reason. I assumed that Reuters probably does, as they have no other suitable categories.

    There’s plenty of Iranians, Afghans, Turks, Central Asian and Middle Eastern Muslims in the US. You forget those.

    Then again, I did question my own numbers already at post 20, though all of this is an interesting line of inquiry:

    Actually my numbers must be wrong. Very wrong!

    They are ludicrous considering how SJW US Asians are, partly because of neighbourhood plus income/education.

    Surely super SJW Asians cannot even be slightly pro Israel? Those types certainly aren’t pro Israel in the UK, where it is just seen as a pale, male and stale state which needs immediate diversifying.

    Or maybe they are very well-informed and realise that the majority of Israelis would qualify as people of colour through mixing with Mizrahi, even if very few American Jews would?

    Who knows…maybe the numbers are actually right?

  108. @216

    You Socialists will never solve any problems when you can’t even understand why you can’t get anything turned in the right direction. (Hint: the Big Feral Gov’t Beast doesn’t give a damn what you’d like your nation to look like. It can do a lot more to harm you based on the will of the elites, because you’ve given it that much power, you Statist dumbasses.
     
    Socialist programs work best when created and administered by conservatives. It was Otto von Bismarck that enacted the welfare state in Germany, and support for America's entitlement programs is historically justified by the idea that people "paid into the system", a rather conservative idea. Singapore's PAP is a borderline fascist party, which has achieved enviable development records.

    The problem with socialists is that they are utopian idealists prone to ignoring fiscal reality, public choice and work ethic. DSA activists, as leftists long before them, seem to think that everyone can be "educated" to be just as productive as they are.

    This country is near the bottom of the OECD as a percentage of gov't spending to GDP. It ranks the highest on military spending % of GDP in the OECD only to subsidized Israel.

    The best course for Trump to take is to push for an arms treaty with Russia and China. No more F-35, no more aircraft carriers, no more SSBNs and no new ICBM replacements. Reduce the level of nukes to the same level as France/UK (~200). Ideally force India, Pakistan and Israel to join in too. Shut down the overseas bases. President Coolidge did something similar a century ago. With the savings we can easily provide allow people to buy into Medicare that can't get private insurance. Given population aging, a majority of the healthcare system will become socialist by default.

    Taxes are going up, the military budget is getting slashed. The only question is which party is in the majority when it happens. A party that looks kindly upon the legacy population, and a party that demolishes the Khodorkovskys is what I support.

    The best course for Trump to take is to push for an arms treaty with Russia and China. No more F-35, no more aircraft carriers, no more SSBNs and no new ICBM replacements. Reduce the level of nukes to the same level as France/UK (~200). Ideally force India, Pakistan and Israel to join in too. Shut down the overseas bases. President Coolidge did something similar a century ago. .

    I can’t argue with any of that, but just cutting back deeply on foreign adventurist-military spending is no Socialist concept. It is Conservative, in fact (huge military budgets being associated with conservatism is just a result of the Cold War, in which the left, for reasons of “Communism is Good” wanted the West to capitulate). I am all down with another Silent Cal, the best President we’ve seen, going at least a century and a quarter back!

    With the savings we can easily provide allow people to buy into Medicare that can’t get private insurance. Given population aging, a majority of the healthcare system will become socialist by default

    Now, THERE’S your Socialism. I’m not sure why you think individuals and families are too stupid to make their own decisions, and spend their own money more wisely on health care than the way the lame-ass Feral Gov’t middleman would do it. Do you really have more faith and trust in the US Gov’t workforce than your family? Have you ever been to a Federal Building for anything, #216?

    BTW, Silent Cal would want the US Gov’t to have nothing to do with anyone’s health. As far as his legislative agenda, think of a Ron Paul on ludes.

  109. On the subject of immigration, Manchurian candidate Kamala Harris booted another one:

    https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/28/kamala-harris-policies-1192919

    Right out of the gate in her “How Dare You Question My Blackness Tour” she has repeatedly stumbled. I am beginning to have doubts about whether the elites will be able to drag her over the finish line.

  110. @Achmed E. Newman
    All the numbers are shamefully too low, even that bright red bar. C'mon, < 80%?! I bet the numbers for supporting arrest and prosecution of home invaders is 20 points higher.

    BTW, there is a company called Swift Air that flies B-737s packed with the very worst of the illegal-alien criminals accompanied by 10-15 heavily armed guards back to their home countries down south, mostly out of detention centers in Miami and Alexandria, Louisiana . They go by the call sign "Repatriate". One of the pilots told me that there are a number of "passengers" that they have all seen before, whom they call frequent fliers.

    Two flights in specially equipped planes of 300 passengers a day from 200 airports in America to a 40 mile by 40 mile chunk of land we purchased from some cash-strapped African country would repatriate 120,000 Africans a day. That would be a million in 8.33 days. 42 million in 350 days. So in one year, problem solved.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    It's funny you mention that, as I'm reading a book (due to its mention by some commenter on unz) called Out of America. It's the story of a black reporter from Detroit who spent 3 years in Africa, seeing much misery and stupidity. He would probably pass on that flight, even if offered super-duper comfort A-1 business class - his own little cabin in the front of an Airbus-380, just from my reading of the preface alone!

    Of course, he's not the one complaining. Put the complainers on the flights. Your numbers look solid, except for the A/C being able to make 2 round-trips per day. I think it might be a coupla years. Cost-wise, I can't imagine it costing more than $25,000,000,000 (25 billion bucks) which is about 2 days worth of US Feral Gov't spending.

  111. @Rosie

    No, I am not blaming all our problems on women but I also don’t think women are entirely blameless, which seems to be your position.
     
    Insisting on our disenfranchisement would seem to come pretty damned close to “blaming all our problems on women.”

    I think you need to stop worrying about who is to blame and start thinking about how to move forward. (Hint: alienating White women is probably not going to help anything at this juncture).

    You can take money away from white men with jobs to support the children but as the numbers of out of wedlock children increase then those men will have to pay so much in taxes they won’t be able to afford to marry and have their own children.
     
    Sure they will. You see, you’re taxes go down when you have kids.

    I did not insist on the disenfranchisement of women. Someone else here said that. In my first comment to you I said “we can’t get rid of women’s suffrage but if we don’t get rid of the way increasing numbers of white females think we aren’t going to swing the country in the right direction”. You say we should stop thinking who to blame and move forward but I think we need to identify who the problem is and isn’t and then form coalitions with the people who aren’t the problem. You and me are pro-female but we are for different types of females. I’m for the female who gets a job or marries a guy with a job and then uses their income to support their children. You are for the female who doesn’t make enough to support children and then goes out and has sex with whoever she feels like, whether he can support children or not. Then if she has children resulting from that, you want the cost of raising the children shifted over to the taxpayer. By supporting your position, we are going to alienate many married men and women. Their tax deductions aren’t enough to pay for the cost of their children now and if you increase their overall taxes to support a bunch of single moms it is going to make things even more difficult for them.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    I did not insist on the disenfranchisement of women?
     
    Apologies. The woman-blames around here are so numerous I get you all mixed up.

    In my first comment to you I said “we can’t get rid of women’s suffrage but if we don’t get rid of the way increasing numbers of white females think we aren’t going to swing the country in the right direction”.
     
    Haven’t you yet figured out ruling classes don’t give a damn what we think? Overwhelming majorities of people already oppose mass immigration, but nothing is done. You can’t blame the voters when we clearly have no power. White women voted for Trump to drain the swamp. He didn’t. Not our fault.

    You say we should stop thinking who to blame and move forward but I think we need to identify who the problem is and isn’t and then form coalitions with the people who aren’t the problem.
     
    No evidence women are the problem.

    You and me are pro-female but we are for different types of females. I’m for the female who gets a job or marries a guy with a job and then uses their income to support their children. You are for the female who doesn’t make enough to support children and then goes out and has sex with whoever she feels like, whether he can support children or not.
     
    A modest proposal:

    https://allthatsinteresting.com/thumb/800.422.https://allthatsinteresting.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/modest-proposal-baby-meal.jpg

    Their tax deductions aren’t enough to pay for the cost of their children now and if you increase their overall taxes to support a bunch of single moms it is going to make things even more difficult for them.
     
    Nobody cares about your small government, tax-cut Scrooge politics. That’s why the Republicans lost the House.
  112. @Achmed E. Newman

    Peter Turchin’s thesis is that elites become greedy and arrogant, detached and aloof from the concerns of ordinary people.
     
    I don't know Mr. Turchin, but it sounds exactly like the thesis of Tucker Carlson's book (Peak Stupidity review - Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3) in Ship of Fools. Mind you, I like the book a lot, but that explanation is wrong. Whether the elites care about us or not should not be our concern. How much power they have over us should be.

    You Socialists will never solve any problems when you can't even understand why you can't get anything turned in the right direction. (Hint: the Big Feral Gov't Beast doesn't give a damn what you'd like your nation to look like. It can do a lot more to harm you based on the will of the elites, because you've given it that much power, you Statist dumbasses.

    I've read both Strauss & Howe books, Generations and The Fourth Turning. As much as I respect their prescience and their hard work in laying out all the cohorts, archetypes, and generations, they come across as a couple of statists. Everything important that happens, their books read like, is something about Big Government.

    I know that you can imagine no other way, Feryl, and I'll just have to accept that.

    I know that you can imagine no other way, Feryl, and I’ll just have to accept that.

    It’s remarkable how institutionalized this generation is. There is almost no recognition that self-reliance is possible let alone that it should be required. Likewise there is no concept of health outside the absurd bureaucratic system of twenty support staff per physician and sharply restricted numbers of physicians. It’s inconceivable that old people die or that sick people die for want of million dollar treatment regimes that didn’t exist a couple of generations ago. No matter what the problem may be, the answer is always more government – the very thing responsible for the problem in the first place.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    AGREED!

    I've had long-ass back-and-forth arguments with a certain guy on this very site about this, the government healthcare crap. He's otherwise very astute and on the same page with most of the very good commenters under Sailer, Derbyshire, etc.

    It’s remarkable how institutionalized this generation is.
     
    Yeah, but then there's another crowd, one I like to call the ctrl-left, that's not been institutionalized in large enough numbers yet.
  113. @Rosie

    All the taking care of neighbors and fellow white people was done on a voluntary basis. Many cannot imagine freedom nowadays, and that is the saddest thing for me.
     
    Whether we take care of each other through the government or voluntary associations makes no difference to me, so long as we do it. I’m skeptical that voluntary associations are up to the task, but I’m not hostile to the idea.

    Whether we take care of each other through the government or voluntary associations makes no difference to me, so long as we do it.

    I guess it’s a matter of whether you’d rather be a free person, or don’t care about being a subject. That’s not to mention the inherent inefficiencies and opportunity of much graft and corruption when any government is involved.

    Rosie, don’t you think people that voluntarily lay down their own money (since they’d have much more without the governments’ taking of it) will be much more involved in the outcome of their charity, say when helping out alcoholics, supporting a school, or just buying a guy on the street some food*?

    Catholic Schools used to be a great example of charity that worked. Do you see how invested “The Penguin” was, and how disgusted she is with Jake and Elwood Blues?:

    .

    * I’ve done that, as a perfect example of what I’m talking about. It’s not the $1 or $2 that hurts, but I get pissed when I know I’ve been lied to. I gave a guy who told me he needed the cash to get to (wherever, back to where he lived) $2 at the bus stop on time, long enough ago to where that’d be ~ $4 in today’s money. I saw the same guy the next day with the same story, and told him off.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    I guess it’s a matter of whether you’d rather be a free person, or don’t care about being a subject. That’s not to mention the inherent inefficiencies and opportunity of much graft and corruption when any government is involved.

    Rosie, don’t you think people that voluntarily lay down their own money (since they’d have much more without the governments’ taking of it) will be much more involved in the outcome of their charity, say when helping out alcoholics, supporting a school, or just buying a guy on the street some food*?
     
    Mr. Newman, the difference between you and me is that I care more about who is running an imstitution than the nature of the institution. If it’s White, it works, whether it’s public or private.

    And feeedom is a slippery notion, one of those things that most everyone agrees is good, but disagree a great deal on what it actually is.
  114. @Stan d Mute

    I know that you can imagine no other way, Feryl, and I’ll just have to accept that.
     
    It’s remarkable how institutionalized this generation is. There is almost no recognition that self-reliance is possible let alone that it should be required. Likewise there is no concept of health outside the absurd bureaucratic system of twenty support staff per physician and sharply restricted numbers of physicians. It’s inconceivable that old people die or that sick people die for want of million dollar treatment regimes that didn’t exist a couple of generations ago. No matter what the problem may be, the answer is always more government - the very thing responsible for the problem in the first place.

    AGREED!

    I’ve had long-ass back-and-forth arguments with a certain guy on this very site about this, the government healthcare crap. He’s otherwise very astute and on the same page with most of the very good commenters under Sailer, Derbyshire, etc.

    It’s remarkable how institutionalized this generation is.

    Yeah, but then there’s another crowd, one I like to call the ctrl-left, that’s not been institutionalized in large enough numbers yet.

    • LOL: Mr. Rational
  115. @Sam Coulton
    "Russian alcoholism" is a myth created by slobbering, comorbid American idiots. The alcoholism primarily affects Yakuts, Tungusic tribes, Samoyeds, etc. Actual Slavic Russians are considerably less alcoholic than White Americans. Over 400,000 Americans die every year from alcohol related liver disease, which dwarfs the opiod death rate. Would also like to point out that white women are the ones seeing gains in both alcohol and drug related deaths. The white male rate has stagnated or increased only slightly.


    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/national/wp/2016/12/23/nine-charts-that-show-how-white-women-are-drinking-themselves-to-death/?utm_term=.4a98c0e6e37e

    Would also like to point out that white women are the ones seeing gains in both alcohol and drug related deaths

    When you suddenly realize at age 45 that your sexual market value is approaching zero, your lifetime habit of buying shit you don’t need because it was on sale leaves you with no comfortable old age, your womb is barren and your allotment of eggs gone, your cats don’t really love you but see you as a feeding station, and that you’ve burned up half your life without anything whatsoever to show you were ever here except a chronically recurring case of chlamydia..

    Why would that lead to despair?

    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    White Women who fail to reproduce will inevitably be condemned to a lifetime of misery, loneliness, and discomfort (at the end).

    This is their punishment for buying into the propaganda, and failing to further the White race.
  116. @Rosie

    No, I am not blaming all our problems on women but I also don’t think women are entirely blameless, which seems to be your position.
     
    Insisting on our disenfranchisement would seem to come pretty damned close to “blaming all our problems on women.”

    I think you need to stop worrying about who is to blame and start thinking about how to move forward. (Hint: alienating White women is probably not going to help anything at this juncture).

    You can take money away from white men with jobs to support the children but as the numbers of out of wedlock children increase then those men will have to pay so much in taxes they won’t be able to afford to marry and have their own children.
     
    Sure they will. You see, you’re taxes go down when you have kids.

    Insisting on our disenfranchisement would seem to come pretty damned close to “blaming all our problems on women.”

    It would put an end to all the voting for pols and policies based on feelz, and swing politics back toward family formation and support as desired by men rather than single childless career women.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    It would put an end to all the voting for pols and policies based on feelz, and swing politics back toward family formation and support as desired by men rather than single childless career women.
     
    Totally unsubstantiated assertion on every level.
  117. @216
    Perhaps its tired to say this but...

    "Freeze the target, personalize it and polarize it"

    Targeting the NFL succeeded in getting Kapernick to be out of the game, but with a nice severance check. The wrong move was in encouraging a boycott, which most people are too weak-willed to perform. (If I had a dollar for every Boomercon that said they were watching college football instead of the NFL...)

    The better move would have been to put pressure on Roger Goodell to be fired by the owners. But Trump and Pence screwed this up by not calling for a boycott, and then having Pence perform that stupid stunt where he left a game after a few players kneeled. Instead Goodell was allowed to grease palms to get the protests to stop.

    Mobbing executives is a sure loser, the media will quickly paint them as the victim of "unhinged bigots". Silent vigils are the best protesting option available to the Right, and even that only works with numbers and discipline. See two comparable recent protests against library drag queens.

    A right wing "Sleeping Giants" that publicly shamed employers with a "This business hires illegals" might be a good idea.

    The wrong move was in encouraging a boycott, which most people are too weak-willed to perform.

    You must have missed all the outrage with fans burning their team-branded gear and boycotting games.  This year’s Superbowl was the worst-rated in history, and as cord-cutting proceeds apace the monthly revenues for ESPN continue to fall.

    When (not if) ESPN goes bankrupt, the NFL TV contract becomes an issue for the court.  NFL revenues will take a serious hit.  The owners are going notice that, no matter what else they have ignored thus far.

    • Replies: @216

    You must have missed all the outrage with fans burning their team-branded gear and boycotting games.
     
    NFL ratings were up in '18 vs. '17

    https://www.thewrap.com/what-drove-the-nfls-tv-ratings-increase-in-2018/

    Burning items is symbolic, and was virulently mocked by blacks whenever Boomercons do it. They already have your money, the more consequential action is to give them items away, which substitutes for sales of new gear. It also opens up the charge of hypocrisy by signalling that the real reason is racial (which most are too cowardly to admit) rather than about "muh veterans".

    Perhaps cord-cutting will doom ESPN, but there is no sustained evidence that large numbers of White Male NFL fans acquired a identitarian mindset and quit the sport.

    The contracts run through 2022, so hopefully the audience will continue its slow decline, and pain will set in there. But the NFL could get new stars to take over the role of Brady/Manning. I'm rather hesitant that the advertisers will shy away from the still largest single audience remaining on the withering medium of broadcast TV. We can't engage in wish fulfillment here.

    http://www.sportspromedia.com/news/abc-nfl-tv-rights-espn

    The black pill is that Kapernick won this round. He's got runway to head to a far worse stadium, Congress.
    , @Feryl
    Millennials and Gen Z don't follow sports as closely as older generations do. There's a big trend in head coaching selection, possibly due to the success of Ram's coach Sean McVay, to shitcan Boomer coaches and replace them with coaches under 45 (or at least under 50). In Minnesota, the Twins, the Timberwolves, and the Gopher's men's basketball team (all high-profile teams) are now coached by people born in the mid-70's or later. Many owners and college administrators now feel as if Boomer coaches can't reach Gen Z athletes (keep in mind that Gen Z mostly has Gen X parents). We let Silent coaches coach Gen X-ers and early Millennials for a long time, but then again, Silents do not wear on people's nerves like Boomers do. Case in point: beloved Silent Chuck Noll being replaced by foaming at the mouth Boomer Bill Cowher (who consistently treated his black players with more respect).

    WRT Superbowl ratings, The Rams don't have a massive fan base , and many people have Patriots fatigue and didn't want to watch another New England team win. There was no storyline to tell, really (the Rams and Patriots have both won superbowls, there hasn't been any major "tragedy" in LA or Boston recently). Compare that to the Chiefs, Browns, or Vikings making the Superbowl; all teams have large fan bases but no Superbowl victories (in fact, none of these teams has made the Superbowl for over 40 years).

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

    Superbowl ratings are far higher now than they were in the 70's. Sports were relatively niche viewing back then. The league started doing high-profile half-time shows in the 1990's to boost casual viewer interest. Furthermore, the salary cap has been a roaring success at building fan and casual viewer interest. When the league consisted of the Raiders, Dolphins, and Steelers battering a bunch of crappy teams in the 70's, hardly anyone cared. Interest was boosted in the 1980's by the success of "fun" teams like the 49'ers, Bears, and NY Giants (all of which had large fan bases, I might add), and rule changes to favor passing. The addition of high-profile half-time shows moderately boosted ratings in the 90's (when the game itself was often terribly lop-sided and poorly played). The parity era of the 2000's and 2010's has seen the best ratings ever (the Patriots being the exception that proves the rule).
  118. @Achmed E. Newman

    Whether we take care of each other through the government or voluntary associations makes no difference to me, so long as we do it.
     
    I guess it's a matter of whether you'd rather be a free person, or don't care about being a subject. That's not to mention the inherent inefficiencies and opportunity of much graft and corruption when any government is involved.

    Rosie, don't you think people that voluntarily lay down their own money (since they'd have much more without the governments' taking of it) will be much more involved in the outcome of their charity, say when helping out alcoholics, supporting a school, or just buying a guy on the street some food*?

    Catholic Schools used to be a great example of charity that worked. Do you see how invested "The Penguin" was, and how disgusted she is with Jake and Elwood Blues?:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujxDA9VsQG4

    .

    * I've done that, as a perfect example of what I'm talking about. It's not the $1 or $2 that hurts, but I get pissed when I know I've been lied to. I gave a guy who told me he needed the cash to get to (wherever, back to where he lived) $2 at the bus stop on time, long enough ago to where that'd be ~ $4 in today's money. I saw the same guy the next day with the same story, and told him off.

    I guess it’s a matter of whether you’d rather be a free person, or don’t care about being a subject. That’s not to mention the inherent inefficiencies and opportunity of much graft and corruption when any government is involved.

    Rosie, don’t you think people that voluntarily lay down their own money (since they’d have much more without the governments’ taking of it) will be much more involved in the outcome of their charity, say when helping out alcoholics, supporting a school, or just buying a guy on the street some food*?

    Mr. Newman, the difference between you and me is that I care more about who is running an imstitution than the nature of the institution. If it’s White, it works, whether it’s public or private.

    And feeedom is a slippery notion, one of those things that most everyone agrees is good, but disagree a great deal on what it actually is.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    If it’s White, it works, whether it’s public or private.
     
    Here we go again. Your Honor, I present exhibit A, the Soviet Union from 1917 to 1989 (72 years, Rosie!)

    I rest my case.
  119. @Mr. Rational

    Insisting on our disenfranchisement would seem to come pretty damned close to “blaming all our problems on women.”
     
    It would put an end to all the voting for pols and policies based on feelz, and swing politics back toward family formation and support as desired by men rather than single childless career women.

    It would put an end to all the voting for pols and policies based on feelz, and swing politics back toward family formation and support as desired by men rather than single childless career women.

    Totally unsubstantiated assertion on every level.

  120. @ThreeCranes
    Two flights in specially equipped planes of 300 passengers a day from 200 airports in America to a 40 mile by 40 mile chunk of land we purchased from some cash-strapped African country would repatriate 120,000 Africans a day. That would be a million in 8.33 days. 42 million in 350 days. So in one year, problem solved.

    It’s funny you mention that, as I’m reading a book (due to its mention by some commenter on unz) called Out of America. It’s the story of a black reporter from Detroit who spent 3 years in Africa, seeing much misery and stupidity. He would probably pass on that flight, even if offered super-duper comfort A-1 business class – his own little cabin in the front of an Airbus-380, just from my reading of the preface alone!

    Of course, he’s not the one complaining. Put the complainers on the flights. Your numbers look solid, except for the A/C being able to make 2 round-trips per day. I think it might be a coupla years. Cost-wise, I can’t imagine it costing more than $25,000,000,000 (25 billion bucks) which is about 2 days worth of US Feral Gov’t spending.

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    It occurred to me that although America has ample facilities to handle the takeoffs, my proposed Afrotopia would probably lack facilities for landing them all. I mean, our airports are dispersed over 50 states, those receiving would be densely concentrated in a mere 1600 square miles. Hmmm. Won't work.

    Well, what about parachuting them in? Nothing malicious intended here. None need get hurt. If Bernanke could propose parachuting billions of dollars all over the countryside, then surely we could parachute people into Africa. Why not? It's not like they would be a burden to the receiving nations. After all, we are told by every human resource department; we hear on every commercial on television that it's people who matter; it's customers and workers who make the difference. People, we are told, are our greatest asset. Let's spread the wealth. This is even more great-hearted than dropping planeloads of one hundred dollar bills.

    Dang, it feels good to be magnanimous.

  121. @Rosie

    I guess it’s a matter of whether you’d rather be a free person, or don’t care about being a subject. That’s not to mention the inherent inefficiencies and opportunity of much graft and corruption when any government is involved.

    Rosie, don’t you think people that voluntarily lay down their own money (since they’d have much more without the governments’ taking of it) will be much more involved in the outcome of their charity, say when helping out alcoholics, supporting a school, or just buying a guy on the street some food*?
     
    Mr. Newman, the difference between you and me is that I care more about who is running an imstitution than the nature of the institution. If it’s White, it works, whether it’s public or private.

    And feeedom is a slippery notion, one of those things that most everyone agrees is good, but disagree a great deal on what it actually is.

    If it’s White, it works, whether it’s public or private.

    Here we go again. Your Honor, I present exhibit A, the Soviet Union from 1917 to 1989 (72 years, Rosie!)

    I rest my case.

    • Agree: Mark G., Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Rosie

    Here we go again. Your Honor, I present exhibit A, the Soviet Union from 1917 to 1989 (72 years, Rosie!)
     
    Nice gotcha!

    In any event, the failure of the Soviet Union has nothing tomdo with the prospects of the mixed social welfare economy.
  122. @Mark G.
    I did not insist on the disenfranchisement of women. Someone else here said that. In my first comment to you I said "we can’t get rid of women’s suffrage but if we don’t get rid of the way increasing numbers of white females think we aren’t going to swing the country in the right direction". You say we should stop thinking who to blame and move forward but I think we need to identify who the problem is and isn't and then form coalitions with the people who aren't the problem. You and me are pro-female but we are for different types of females. I'm for the female who gets a job or marries a guy with a job and then uses their income to support their children. You are for the female who doesn't make enough to support children and then goes out and has sex with whoever she feels like, whether he can support children or not. Then if she has children resulting from that, you want the cost of raising the children shifted over to the taxpayer. By supporting your position, we are going to alienate many married men and women. Their tax deductions aren't enough to pay for the cost of their children now and if you increase their overall taxes to support a bunch of single moms it is going to make things even more difficult for them.

    I did not insist on the disenfranchisement of women?

    Apologies. The woman-blames around here are so numerous I get you all mixed up.

    In my first comment to you I said “we can’t get rid of women’s suffrage but if we don’t get rid of the way increasing numbers of white females think we aren’t going to swing the country in the right direction”.

    Haven’t you yet figured out ruling classes don’t give a damn what we think? Overwhelming majorities of people already oppose mass immigration, but nothing is done. You can’t blame the voters when we clearly have no power. White women voted for Trump to drain the swamp. He didn’t. Not our fault.

    You say we should stop thinking who to blame and move forward but I think we need to identify who the problem is and isn’t and then form coalitions with the people who aren’t the problem.

    No evidence women are the problem.

    You and me are pro-female but we are for different types of females. I’m for the female who gets a job or marries a guy with a job and then uses their income to support their children. You are for the female who doesn’t make enough to support children and then goes out and has sex with whoever she feels like, whether he can support children or not.

    A modest proposal:

    Their tax deductions aren’t enough to pay for the cost of their children now and if you increase their overall taxes to support a bunch of single moms it is going to make things even more difficult for them.

    Nobody cares about your small government, tax-cut Scrooge politics. That’s why the Republicans lost the House.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    The trouble with your reasoning, Mark G, is that you assume people will abuse welfare to the point of bankrupting the state. “Certain” demographic groups may do that, but White women certainly do not. Otherwise, Sweden would have a much higher birthrate. If only...
  123. @Mr. Rational

    The wrong move was in encouraging a boycott, which most people are too weak-willed to perform.
     
    You must have missed all the outrage with fans burning their team-branded gear and boycotting games.  This year's Superbowl was the worst-rated in history, and as cord-cutting proceeds apace the monthly revenues for ESPN continue to fall.

    When (not if) ESPN goes bankrupt, the NFL TV contract becomes an issue for the court.  NFL revenues will take a serious hit.  The owners are going notice that, no matter what else they have ignored thus far.

    You must have missed all the outrage with fans burning their team-branded gear and boycotting games.

    NFL ratings were up in ’18 vs. ’17

    https://www.thewrap.com/what-drove-the-nfls-tv-ratings-increase-in-2018/

    Burning items is symbolic, and was virulently mocked by blacks whenever Boomercons do it. They already have your money, the more consequential action is to give them items away, which substitutes for sales of new gear. It also opens up the charge of hypocrisy by signalling that the real reason is racial (which most are too cowardly to admit) rather than about “muh veterans”.

    Perhaps cord-cutting will doom ESPN, but there is no sustained evidence that large numbers of White Male NFL fans acquired a identitarian mindset and quit the sport.

    The contracts run through 2022, so hopefully the audience will continue its slow decline, and pain will set in there. But the NFL could get new stars to take over the role of Brady/Manning. I’m rather hesitant that the advertisers will shy away from the still largest single audience remaining on the withering medium of broadcast TV. We can’t engage in wish fulfillment here.

    http://www.sportspromedia.com/news/abc-nfl-tv-rights-espn

    The black pill is that Kapernick won this round. He’s got runway to head to a far worse stadium, Congress.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Castefootball regularly mocks "drunk white fans", who don team apparel and face paint, and take things too seriously. Like you suggest, burning a jersey is silly because the jock has the last laugh; after all, the fan bought the jersey, the tickets, tunes into games, etc. The league, the the owners, the players already got paid; they couldn't care less what "fans" think. If you look at footage of fan behavior and dress from the past, it isn't until the 80's that people started acting and looking like fools at these games. In the 60's, people dressed normally and didn't get carried away.

    On a positive note, the recent uptick in white running backs (Danny Woodhead, Rex Burkhead, Christian McCaffrey) and receivers (Adam Thielen recently had a historic season, and has looked good three years in a row), +the utter domination of the tight end position by whites (Gronkowski, Travis Kelce, Greg Olson, etc.), actually makes the NFL much more appealing to white fans than it was in late 90's/early 2000's doldrums, when teams went out of their way emphasize blacks at these high-profile positions.

    Quarterback-wise, each generation of blacks will produce 3-4 decent quarterbacks who typically flame out pretty fast (e.g., Daunte Culpepper and Mike Vick in the 2000's, and Kaapernick, Cam Newton, and Robert Griffin all experiencing production declines after 3-4 years in the 2010's), while 1-2 black quarterbacks are talented or at least reliable in their passing and judgement, and will be in the top 50-60% of quarterbacks during their careers (e.g., Donovan McNabb and Steve McNair in the 2000's, Russel Wilson and Patrick Mahomes in the 2010's).

    Even though teams at the High School and College level start blacks at QB to a substantially greater than they did before circa 2000, white QB's still tend to be the better QB's in the NFL. Other than Warren Moon and Mahomes, black QB's seldom pile up gaudy passing yardage and TD stats, to the point that Castefootball jokes that black QB defenders have to resort to the cliche that black QB's are good at "just winning".

    According to ESPN's QB ratings, of the top 10 QB's in 2018, 8 are white and 2 are black. Of the ones ranked from 10-20, 6 are white and 4 are black.

    Cam Newton, hyped as MVP material a couple seasons ago, was ranked 20. Warren Moon and Russel Wilson are notable for being possibly the only black QBs to ever sustain good to great performance beyond 4-5 seasons. If anyone has any other examples, please add them. Marcus Mariota has failed to impress in his first several seasons. Dak Prescott has benefited from a good running game and/or defense in his early seasons, but has failed to do a whole lot given the strength of his team.
    , @Mr. Rational

    The contracts run through 2022
     
    Bankruptcy makes the contracts moot.  Can't you understand that?

    With cords being cut left and right no other network is going to be able to make enough revenue to meet the expectations of the NFL either.  That means ESPNs bankruptcy is going to be a serious shock to the system.
  124. @Achmed E. Newman

    If it’s White, it works, whether it’s public or private.
     
    Here we go again. Your Honor, I present exhibit A, the Soviet Union from 1917 to 1989 (72 years, Rosie!)

    I rest my case.

    Here we go again. Your Honor, I present exhibit A, the Soviet Union from 1917 to 1989 (72 years, Rosie!)

    Nice gotcha!

    In any event, the failure of the Soviet Union has nothing tomdo with the prospects of the mixed social welfare economy.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    As is now well-established, Russians actually did worse after the Soviet Union dissolved, and before Putin laid down the law. Crony capitalists, at the behest of decadent Western elites, were given the green light to raid Soviet assets. The ascension of crony capitalism throughout the West, over the last 30 years, has been much more psychologically and culturally harmful than the socialism-lite economic model which was practiced to some degree in the West from the 1930's-1980's.

    BTW, "crony" capitalism is in fact the default mode of any capitalist society. Absent reliable government over-sight, greedy assholes will create monopolies and bribe crooked authorities. The mania to cut taxes on the assets and income of the wealthy, which is most apparent in the US, does not in the least lead to "trickle-down" growth for the lower classes. Wages and benefits have stagnated while living costs have soared since the mid-80's. To the extent that this economy worked in the late 80's, 90's, and mid-2000's, a lot of it was illusory; e.g., the 90's economic "boom" being premised on financial wizardy and de-industrialization rather than developing a solid "back-stop" of high wages and pensions for most workers.
  125. @Rosie

    I did not insist on the disenfranchisement of women?
     
    Apologies. The woman-blames around here are so numerous I get you all mixed up.

    In my first comment to you I said “we can’t get rid of women’s suffrage but if we don’t get rid of the way increasing numbers of white females think we aren’t going to swing the country in the right direction”.
     
    Haven’t you yet figured out ruling classes don’t give a damn what we think? Overwhelming majorities of people already oppose mass immigration, but nothing is done. You can’t blame the voters when we clearly have no power. White women voted for Trump to drain the swamp. He didn’t. Not our fault.

    You say we should stop thinking who to blame and move forward but I think we need to identify who the problem is and isn’t and then form coalitions with the people who aren’t the problem.
     
    No evidence women are the problem.

    You and me are pro-female but we are for different types of females. I’m for the female who gets a job or marries a guy with a job and then uses their income to support their children. You are for the female who doesn’t make enough to support children and then goes out and has sex with whoever she feels like, whether he can support children or not.
     
    A modest proposal:

    https://allthatsinteresting.com/thumb/800.422.https://allthatsinteresting.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/modest-proposal-baby-meal.jpg

    Their tax deductions aren’t enough to pay for the cost of their children now and if you increase their overall taxes to support a bunch of single moms it is going to make things even more difficult for them.
     
    Nobody cares about your small government, tax-cut Scrooge politics. That’s why the Republicans lost the House.

    The trouble with your reasoning, Mark G, is that you assume people will abuse welfare to the point of bankrupting the state. “Certain” demographic groups may do that, but White women certainly do not. Otherwise, Sweden would have a much higher birthrate. If only…

    • Replies: @Rosie
    A question for you, Mark. Are you against welfare that benefits men, or only welfare that benefits women and children?

    If you’re so concerned about the poor, put-upon taxpayers, perhaps we could trim the criminal justice budget? A hangman or head chopper-offer would be cheaper than a modern prison with sanitation, healthcare, three hots and a cot, etc....

    https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_gender.jsp
  126. @Rosie
    The trouble with your reasoning, Mark G, is that you assume people will abuse welfare to the point of bankrupting the state. “Certain” demographic groups may do that, but White women certainly do not. Otherwise, Sweden would have a much higher birthrate. If only...

    A question for you, Mark. Are you against welfare that benefits men, or only welfare that benefits women and children?

    If you’re so concerned about the poor, put-upon taxpayers, perhaps we could trim the criminal justice budget? A hangman or head chopper-offer would be cheaper than a modern prison with sanitation, healthcare, three hots and a cot, etc….

    https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_gender.jsp

    • Replies: @Mark G.
    I'm against welfare that benefits men. I can see that you have no concern for the people who pay taxes. I do, so you and me are not on the same side. Your side won't win in the long run. As Margaret Thatcher once said, the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money. You don't think the welfare state will eventually bankrupt the country but it will. Sweden had to cut back on it's welfare state because it was costing too much to continue as it was. Sweden became wealthy before it became socialist, adopted an extreme form of socialism that had even liberal Swedes like the author of the Pippi Longstocking books complaining about the high taxes (her tax rate was 102%) and then elected reformers who reduced benefits. I think you are a hopeless case but it is important for me to state the truth because when other people who believe in the truth hear me they will feel better that they are not alone. If civilization ends up collapsing because of people like you it will be all the people who understand the truth who will rebuild society on a sounder basis.
  127. @Rosie
    A question for you, Mark. Are you against welfare that benefits men, or only welfare that benefits women and children?

    If you’re so concerned about the poor, put-upon taxpayers, perhaps we could trim the criminal justice budget? A hangman or head chopper-offer would be cheaper than a modern prison with sanitation, healthcare, three hots and a cot, etc....

    https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_gender.jsp

    I’m against welfare that benefits men. I can see that you have no concern for the people who pay taxes. I do, so you and me are not on the same side. Your side won’t win in the long run. As Margaret Thatcher once said, the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money. You don’t think the welfare state will eventually bankrupt the country but it will. Sweden had to cut back on it’s welfare state because it was costing too much to continue as it was. Sweden became wealthy before it became socialist, adopted an extreme form of socialism that had even liberal Swedes like the author of the Pippi Longstocking books complaining about the high taxes (her tax rate was 102%) and then elected reformers who reduced benefits. I think you are a hopeless case but it is important for me to state the truth because when other people who believe in the truth hear me they will feel better that they are not alone. If civilization ends up collapsing because of people like you it will be all the people who understand the truth who will rebuild society on a sounder basis.

    • LOL: Rosie
    • Replies: @Feryl
    And the problem with Reaganism/Thatcherism is that it's premised on off-shoring lots of high paying unionized jobs, bringing in foreign laborers to do much of the remaining domestic work, and running up ginormous deficits by increasing military spending while cutting taxes on the wealthy. I realize that a lot of middle aged Reaganites just can't bring themselves to admit that they were conned, but the sooner we get over this phobia about giving our income to the government the better. And besides, those of us born over the last 40 or so years never had a crack at the prosperity that Boomers and Gen-Xers took for granted (yeah, I said it: Gen X-ers need to stop whining that they got a raw deal, since they've been on easy street compared to anyone who entered the workforce after 2000). We've relied on cheap labor, bubbles, "credit", and low interest rates for 35 years. Enough is enough.
  128. @Achmed E. Newman
    It's funny you mention that, as I'm reading a book (due to its mention by some commenter on unz) called Out of America. It's the story of a black reporter from Detroit who spent 3 years in Africa, seeing much misery and stupidity. He would probably pass on that flight, even if offered super-duper comfort A-1 business class - his own little cabin in the front of an Airbus-380, just from my reading of the preface alone!

    Of course, he's not the one complaining. Put the complainers on the flights. Your numbers look solid, except for the A/C being able to make 2 round-trips per day. I think it might be a coupla years. Cost-wise, I can't imagine it costing more than $25,000,000,000 (25 billion bucks) which is about 2 days worth of US Feral Gov't spending.

    It occurred to me that although America has ample facilities to handle the takeoffs, my proposed Afrotopia would probably lack facilities for landing them all. I mean, our airports are dispersed over 50 states, those receiving would be densely concentrated in a mere 1600 square miles. Hmmm. Won’t work.

    Well, what about parachuting them in? Nothing malicious intended here. None need get hurt. If Bernanke could propose parachuting billions of dollars all over the countryside, then surely we could parachute people into Africa. Why not? It’s not like they would be a burden to the receiving nations. After all, we are told by every human resource department; we hear on every commercial on television that it’s people who matter; it’s customers and workers who make the difference. People, we are told, are our greatest asset. Let’s spread the wealth. This is even more great-hearted than dropping planeloads of one hundred dollar bills.

    Dang, it feels good to be magnanimous.

    • LOL: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    3-C, I'd thought you meant 200 departure airports just to better serve those with the complaints against white society (though, once you get up to A-380 size, you are very limited - may have to borrow military runways). Either way, you could do this out of 10 airports.

    On the other end, quite to the contrary, you could get away with 1 2-runway airport, though 2 or 3 of these might be better. The heavies coming in could be separated by 3 or 4 minutes, allowing easily 200 arrivals per day on one runway, and take-offs on the other. The limits would be taxiways and ramp space, as, at that rate, with, say a reasonable 1-hour turn-around time (no boarding time needed on the flip-side, right?), you'd need space for 20 25 of these monsters.

    During the Berlin Airlift, they were landing at a rate of 1 per minute during good weather in little old Templehof Airport (completely gone now). General Clay (?) didn't plan on this in the summer, but by winter, these DC-3's and DC-4's were flying in enough coal to heat the city of 2 million people! - West Berlin, that was. A DC-4, though, is about 5% or so of the weight of one of those A-380's.
  129. @Stan d Mute

    Would also like to point out that white women are the ones seeing gains in both alcohol and drug related deaths
     
    When you suddenly realize at age 45 that your sexual market value is approaching zero, your lifetime habit of buying shit you don’t need because it was on sale leaves you with no comfortable old age, your womb is barren and your allotment of eggs gone, your cats don’t really love you but see you as a feeding station, and that you’ve burned up half your life without anything whatsoever to show you were ever here except a chronically recurring case of chlamydia..

    Why would that lead to despair?

    White Women who fail to reproduce will inevitably be condemned to a lifetime of misery, loneliness, and discomfort (at the end).

    This is their punishment for buying into the propaganda, and failing to further the White race.

    • Replies: @Jay Fink
    Even if they reproduce (and most do) growing old isn't necessarily fun and can be lonely. I know a woman who moved out of state to be near her grandchildren. They mostly ignore her or ask for money. She is long divorced, has no man in her life and complains she is lonely. She has 3 kids, several grandkids but will still end up getting cats for companionship.
    , @Rosie

    This is their punishment for buying into the propaganda, and failing to further the White race.
     
    Maybe they can shack up with fat, balding, dirty old men who went their own way.
  130. @216

    This is why the Rust-Belt and Appalaicha, and an ever increasing degree of downscale white America, have huge drug use and suicide levels.
     
    The interesting thing is that this trend is also displayed among whites in New England, which despite being deindustrialized, was revitalized by tech and FIRE. That this trend exists in Massachusetts, arguably the wealthiest and most generous welfare state in the country, raises even more questions.

    Appalachia registers high levels of religious belief, but ranks much lower on affiliation and attendance. New England ranks low on both.

    https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/data/statedeaths.html

    Interesting that the rural Midwest performs the best, rather than Utah.

    216, the rural Midwest is comparatively (economically and psychologically) healthy compared to rural areas of other regions, not to mention the urban areas of the Rust-Belt. Credit to Agnostic that the culture of the Western US stops it from being as (mentally) healthy as the East, regardless of whatever the economic factors may be. The Anne Case (?) study about rising white mortality led to several interviews, and she said that the interior West is notorious for it’s high levels of suicide (which one would assume are caused by the anomie of being in a rural area in a region full of transplants, which historically was very lightly populated until the last 50-70 years). Agnostic has also pointed out numerous times that mass murders “cluster” in the Western US, Florida, Texas, and to a lesser degree the urban Mid-Atlantic, all regions full of transplants of both the domestic and foreign variety (whereas the Midwest, South, and New England do quite a bit better). Depression is one thing, violent rage towards co-workers, class-mates, and strangers is another.

    Agnostic also says that mass murders are disproportionately committed by Ellis Islanders (Tim McVeigh) and non-whites. Whites who aren’t “ethnic”, or at any rate consider themselves standard issue white-Americans (as is common in Northern New England, the South, and much of the Midwest), feel more comfortable in their skin and are less likely to succumb to indiscriminate rage.

  131. @Mark G.
    I'm against welfare that benefits men. I can see that you have no concern for the people who pay taxes. I do, so you and me are not on the same side. Your side won't win in the long run. As Margaret Thatcher once said, the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money. You don't think the welfare state will eventually bankrupt the country but it will. Sweden had to cut back on it's welfare state because it was costing too much to continue as it was. Sweden became wealthy before it became socialist, adopted an extreme form of socialism that had even liberal Swedes like the author of the Pippi Longstocking books complaining about the high taxes (her tax rate was 102%) and then elected reformers who reduced benefits. I think you are a hopeless case but it is important for me to state the truth because when other people who believe in the truth hear me they will feel better that they are not alone. If civilization ends up collapsing because of people like you it will be all the people who understand the truth who will rebuild society on a sounder basis.

    And the problem with Reaganism/Thatcherism is that it’s premised on off-shoring lots of high paying unionized jobs, bringing in foreign laborers to do much of the remaining domestic work, and running up ginormous deficits by increasing military spending while cutting taxes on the wealthy. I realize that a lot of middle aged Reaganites just can’t bring themselves to admit that they were conned, but the sooner we get over this phobia about giving our income to the government the better. And besides, those of us born over the last 40 or so years never had a crack at the prosperity that Boomers and Gen-Xers took for granted (yeah, I said it: Gen X-ers need to stop whining that they got a raw deal, since they’ve been on easy street compared to anyone who entered the workforce after 2000). We’ve relied on cheap labor, bubbles, “credit”, and low interest rates for 35 years. Enough is enough.

    • Replies: @Mark G.
    How much of your income do you give the government?
  132. @Rosie

    Here we go again. Your Honor, I present exhibit A, the Soviet Union from 1917 to 1989 (72 years, Rosie!)
     
    Nice gotcha!

    In any event, the failure of the Soviet Union has nothing tomdo with the prospects of the mixed social welfare economy.

    As is now well-established, Russians actually did worse after the Soviet Union dissolved, and before Putin laid down the law. Crony capitalists, at the behest of decadent Western elites, were given the green light to raid Soviet assets. The ascension of crony capitalism throughout the West, over the last 30 years, has been much more psychologically and culturally harmful than the socialism-lite economic model which was practiced to some degree in the West from the 1930’s-1980’s.

    BTW, “crony” capitalism is in fact the default mode of any capitalist society. Absent reliable government over-sight, greedy assholes will create monopolies and bribe crooked authorities. The mania to cut taxes on the assets and income of the wealthy, which is most apparent in the US, does not in the least lead to “trickle-down” growth for the lower classes. Wages and benefits have stagnated while living costs have soared since the mid-80’s. To the extent that this economy worked in the late 80’s, 90’s, and mid-2000’s, a lot of it was illusory; e.g., the 90’s economic “boom” being premised on financial wizardy and de-industrialization rather than developing a solid “back-stop” of high wages and pensions for most workers.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    BTW, “crony” capitalism is in fact the default mode of any capitalist society. Absent reliable government over-sight, greedy assholes will create monopolies and bribe crooked authorities.
     
    That is just so completely ass-backwards, I can't even ... wait, I can. Look Feryl, how are those greedy assholes going to bribe the authorities to hurt their competitors when THERE ARE NO AUTHORITES?! That's the point - the more rules you make, with the necessary bureaus and power involved to enforce them, the easier it is for a Bezos or Soros to make sure the rules get made in their favor.

    I've been through the Uber thing before already - so as not to repeat the whole thing - why, Feryl, is it the case that Uber can contract out to millions of illegal taxis, when you will get in big trouble for operation your own "illegal taxi" -- meaning one without big-fee (about a million bucks in NYC) government approval?

    Can you even imagine a non-government-regulated school for kids, Feryl? Do you know how cheap and easy it would be to run a 20 kid/classroom little school out of a small butler building or strip mall, with say, a couple of retired engineers to teach math and science, that aspiring writer cat-lady to teach English, and a board of 20 parents who get the books and web-sites taken care of? Most would rightly understand that you will be shut down 9 ways from Sunday before you've diagramed your first sentence! That's what we live under. What's worse, is that there are people like you (too many, as Stan wrote) who not only see this as being impossible due to the hand of government, but can't even imagine it'd be possible without government.

    Do you need a babysitter, you Socialists? I mean, if that's all you're longing for, maybe without paying so much in taxes, we could get you all some babysitters. GEEZE!
  133. @216

    You must have missed all the outrage with fans burning their team-branded gear and boycotting games.
     
    NFL ratings were up in '18 vs. '17

    https://www.thewrap.com/what-drove-the-nfls-tv-ratings-increase-in-2018/

    Burning items is symbolic, and was virulently mocked by blacks whenever Boomercons do it. They already have your money, the more consequential action is to give them items away, which substitutes for sales of new gear. It also opens up the charge of hypocrisy by signalling that the real reason is racial (which most are too cowardly to admit) rather than about "muh veterans".

    Perhaps cord-cutting will doom ESPN, but there is no sustained evidence that large numbers of White Male NFL fans acquired a identitarian mindset and quit the sport.

    The contracts run through 2022, so hopefully the audience will continue its slow decline, and pain will set in there. But the NFL could get new stars to take over the role of Brady/Manning. I'm rather hesitant that the advertisers will shy away from the still largest single audience remaining on the withering medium of broadcast TV. We can't engage in wish fulfillment here.

    http://www.sportspromedia.com/news/abc-nfl-tv-rights-espn

    The black pill is that Kapernick won this round. He's got runway to head to a far worse stadium, Congress.

    Castefootball regularly mocks “drunk white fans”, who don team apparel and face paint, and take things too seriously. Like you suggest, burning a jersey is silly because the jock has the last laugh; after all, the fan bought the jersey, the tickets, tunes into games, etc. The league, the the owners, the players already got paid; they couldn’t care less what “fans” think. If you look at footage of fan behavior and dress from the past, it isn’t until the 80’s that people started acting and looking like fools at these games. In the 60’s, people dressed normally and didn’t get carried away.

    On a positive note, the recent uptick in white running backs (Danny Woodhead, Rex Burkhead, Christian McCaffrey) and receivers (Adam Thielen recently had a historic season, and has looked good three years in a row), +the utter domination of the tight end position by whites (Gronkowski, Travis Kelce, Greg Olson, etc.), actually makes the NFL much more appealing to white fans than it was in late 90’s/early 2000’s doldrums, when teams went out of their way emphasize blacks at these high-profile positions.

    Quarterback-wise, each generation of blacks will produce 3-4 decent quarterbacks who typically flame out pretty fast (e.g., Daunte Culpepper and Mike Vick in the 2000’s, and Kaapernick, Cam Newton, and Robert Griffin all experiencing production declines after 3-4 years in the 2010’s), while 1-2 black quarterbacks are talented or at least reliable in their passing and judgement, and will be in the top 50-60% of quarterbacks during their careers (e.g., Donovan McNabb and Steve McNair in the 2000’s, Russel Wilson and Patrick Mahomes in the 2010’s).

    Even though teams at the High School and College level start blacks at QB to a substantially greater than they did before circa 2000, white QB’s still tend to be the better QB’s in the NFL. Other than Warren Moon and Mahomes, black QB’s seldom pile up gaudy passing yardage and TD stats, to the point that Castefootball jokes that black QB defenders have to resort to the cliche that black QB’s are good at “just winning”.

    According to ESPN’s QB ratings, of the top 10 QB’s in 2018, 8 are white and 2 are black. Of the ones ranked from 10-20, 6 are white and 4 are black.

    Cam Newton, hyped as MVP material a couple seasons ago, was ranked 20. Warren Moon and Russel Wilson are notable for being possibly the only black QBs to ever sustain good to great performance beyond 4-5 seasons. If anyone has any other examples, please add them. Marcus Mariota has failed to impress in his first several seasons. Dak Prescott has benefited from a good running game and/or defense in his early seasons, but has failed to do a whole lot given the strength of his team.

  134. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    White Women who fail to reproduce will inevitably be condemned to a lifetime of misery, loneliness, and discomfort (at the end).

    This is their punishment for buying into the propaganda, and failing to further the White race.

    Even if they reproduce (and most do) growing old isn’t necessarily fun and can be lonely. I know a woman who moved out of state to be near her grandchildren. They mostly ignore her or ask for money. She is long divorced, has no man in her life and complains she is lonely. She has 3 kids, several grandkids but will still end up getting cats for companionship.

  135. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    White Women who fail to reproduce will inevitably be condemned to a lifetime of misery, loneliness, and discomfort (at the end).

    This is their punishment for buying into the propaganda, and failing to further the White race.

    This is their punishment for buying into the propaganda, and failing to further the White race.

    Maybe they can shack up with fat, balding, dirty old men who went their own way.

    • Replies: @216
    Mgtow tend to be either Millennials/Zeds at one end of the Pareto principle, or of the founding group of Gen X divorced men that aren't remarrying. Boomers had high divorce rates, but also remarried at high rates. Millennial aversion to marriage is in part rooted in often being the product of divorced parents.

    The number of "self-aware" participants in Mgtow is probably dwarfed by an order of magnitude by ordinary single people that aren't acting on a quasi-political agenda.

    Given that working class couples are less stable than middle/UMC/wealthy couples, it makes sense for working class men to avoid marriage, given that the divorces tend to be more acrimonious and less favorable for custody results when men can't afford legal counsel. Avoiding women altogether is also not a bad option for working class men that don't live in a countercultural religious community.

    You might have a better tack with your "pro-single moms" argument if you were in favor of polygamy. That's a logical solution to what you are incentivizing, but you risk the wrath of incel.
  136. @Mr. Rational

    The wrong move was in encouraging a boycott, which most people are too weak-willed to perform.
     
    You must have missed all the outrage with fans burning their team-branded gear and boycotting games.  This year's Superbowl was the worst-rated in history, and as cord-cutting proceeds apace the monthly revenues for ESPN continue to fall.

    When (not if) ESPN goes bankrupt, the NFL TV contract becomes an issue for the court.  NFL revenues will take a serious hit.  The owners are going notice that, no matter what else they have ignored thus far.

    Millennials and Gen Z don’t follow sports as closely as older generations do. There’s a big trend in head coaching selection, possibly due to the success of Ram’s coach Sean McVay, to shitcan Boomer coaches and replace them with coaches under 45 (or at least under 50). In Minnesota, the Twins, the Timberwolves, and the Gopher’s men’s basketball team (all high-profile teams) are now coached by people born in the mid-70’s or later. Many owners and college administrators now feel as if Boomer coaches can’t reach Gen Z athletes (keep in mind that Gen Z mostly has Gen X parents). We let Silent coaches coach Gen X-ers and early Millennials for a long time, but then again, Silents do not wear on people’s nerves like Boomers do. Case in point: beloved Silent Chuck Noll being replaced by foaming at the mouth Boomer Bill Cowher (who consistently treated his black players with more respect).

    WRT Superbowl ratings, The Rams don’t have a massive fan base , and many people have Patriots fatigue and didn’t want to watch another New England team win. There was no storyline to tell, really (the Rams and Patriots have both won superbowls, there hasn’t been any major “tragedy” in LA or Boston recently). Compare that to the Chiefs, Browns, or Vikings making the Superbowl; all teams have large fan bases but no Superbowl victories (in fact, none of these teams has made the Superbowl for over 40 years).

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

    Superbowl ratings are far higher now than they were in the 70’s. Sports were relatively niche viewing back then. The league started doing high-profile half-time shows in the 1990’s to boost casual viewer interest. Furthermore, the salary cap has been a roaring success at building fan and casual viewer interest. When the league consisted of the Raiders, Dolphins, and Steelers battering a bunch of crappy teams in the 70’s, hardly anyone cared. Interest was boosted in the 1980’s by the success of “fun” teams like the 49’ers, Bears, and NY Giants (all of which had large fan bases, I might add), and rule changes to favor passing. The addition of high-profile half-time shows moderately boosted ratings in the 90’s (when the game itself was often terribly lop-sided and poorly played). The parity era of the 2000’s and 2010’s has seen the best ratings ever (the Patriots being the exception that proves the rule).

  137. @Feryl
    And the problem with Reaganism/Thatcherism is that it's premised on off-shoring lots of high paying unionized jobs, bringing in foreign laborers to do much of the remaining domestic work, and running up ginormous deficits by increasing military spending while cutting taxes on the wealthy. I realize that a lot of middle aged Reaganites just can't bring themselves to admit that they were conned, but the sooner we get over this phobia about giving our income to the government the better. And besides, those of us born over the last 40 or so years never had a crack at the prosperity that Boomers and Gen-Xers took for granted (yeah, I said it: Gen X-ers need to stop whining that they got a raw deal, since they've been on easy street compared to anyone who entered the workforce after 2000). We've relied on cheap labor, bubbles, "credit", and low interest rates for 35 years. Enough is enough.

    How much of your income do you give the government?

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Instead of promoting air-head "conservative" fantasies about a land in which taxes are low, government is hands-off and spends little money , and people feel confident and happy (which can't exist in the modern world, which most people would understand to have begun once the Great Depression ended), I instead acknowledge that we all have to contribute; it's just that I believe that the bulk of the contributions need to be made by those in the top 20-30% of the income bracket, just like how we did things in the 1940's-1970's.

    We slashed taxes on the wealthy in the early 80's, and the subsequent 40 years have seen a massive rise in the fortunes of the wealthy.....And a fall in the fortunes of the middle and lower class. When Democrats set the agenda, for the most part, in the 1930's-1970's, we had a generally well-run government and fairly sound budgets (with allowances made for the unavoidable debt incurred by WW2). Reagan and the Sun-belt Republicans did little to actually reduce spending (in fact, if memory serves federal spending went up because of the MIC) in the 80's. Bill Clinton was able to vanquish the New Deal Dems by slashing welfare, and got back at the Pentagon by slashing MIC excess. Post 9/11, the Pentagon has parked it's fat ass at the front of the pork line, and no-one after Clinton has been able to push down MIC subsidies.

    The evidence is overwhelming that the Post-Reagan GOP has neither the inclination nor apparent ability to stop throwing trillions away on bogus military hardware and pointless attempts to occupy the world. Meanwhile, they never ask the wealthy to share most of the burden relative to what Dem populists ask for in a wholesome era. End result? The Dems may be the tax and spend party, but the GOP is retarded enough to be the don't tax AND spend anyway party.
  138. Correction: viewer share of the Superbowl actually was best in the 2010’s….And the 70’s (with a couple 80’s superbowls also present). But given how few viewing options there were in the 70’s, is it really that impressive to command that large a share back then? What were the alternatives?

    My suspicion about the dull nature of the Superbowls of the 90’s was validated, since they mostly had a lackluster share (almost always the game featured one clearly superior team, typically from the NFC and often the Cowboys, battering a crappy opponent). Granted, that may have also been derived from people already getting sick of the usually lop-sided nature of the mid-late 80’s Superbowls. The perception that the “wealthy” Niners and Cowboys were buying Superbowls in the 80’s and 90’s led to the introduction of the salary cap, which has prevented star studded teams from dominating eras like we saw in the 80’s and early-mid 90’s.

  139. @Mark G.
    How much of your income do you give the government?

    Instead of promoting air-head “conservative” fantasies about a land in which taxes are low, government is hands-off and spends little money , and people feel confident and happy (which can’t exist in the modern world, which most people would understand to have begun once the Great Depression ended), I instead acknowledge that we all have to contribute; it’s just that I believe that the bulk of the contributions need to be made by those in the top 20-30% of the income bracket, just like how we did things in the 1940’s-1970’s.

    We slashed taxes on the wealthy in the early 80’s, and the subsequent 40 years have seen a massive rise in the fortunes of the wealthy…..And a fall in the fortunes of the middle and lower class. When Democrats set the agenda, for the most part, in the 1930’s-1970’s, we had a generally well-run government and fairly sound budgets (with allowances made for the unavoidable debt incurred by WW2). Reagan and the Sun-belt Republicans did little to actually reduce spending (in fact, if memory serves federal spending went up because of the MIC) in the 80’s. Bill Clinton was able to vanquish the New Deal Dems by slashing welfare, and got back at the Pentagon by slashing MIC excess. Post 9/11, the Pentagon has parked it’s fat ass at the front of the pork line, and no-one after Clinton has been able to push down MIC subsidies.

    The evidence is overwhelming that the Post-Reagan GOP has neither the inclination nor apparent ability to stop throwing trillions away on bogus military hardware and pointless attempts to occupy the world. Meanwhile, they never ask the wealthy to share most of the burden relative to what Dem populists ask for in a wholesome era. End result? The Dems may be the tax and spend party, but the GOP is retarded enough to be the don’t tax AND spend anyway party.

    • Replies: @Mark G.
    Whatever you make, unless you are unemployed and homeless, I'm sure there is someone who has less than you do. So I think you should start turning over more of your income to the government. I believe you are allowed to do that. They take donations. If you are reluctant to do that, I think you need to get over that phobia you have about giving money to the government. After all, if you think the government should take money from wealthier people and give it to poorer people and there are poorer people than you then you should give your money to the government so it can give it to them. Right?
  140. @Rosie

    This is their punishment for buying into the propaganda, and failing to further the White race.
     
    Maybe they can shack up with fat, balding, dirty old men who went their own way.

    Mgtow tend to be either Millennials/Zeds at one end of the Pareto principle, or of the founding group of Gen X divorced men that aren’t remarrying. Boomers had high divorce rates, but also remarried at high rates. Millennial aversion to marriage is in part rooted in often being the product of divorced parents.

    The number of “self-aware” participants in Mgtow is probably dwarfed by an order of magnitude by ordinary single people that aren’t acting on a quasi-political agenda.

    Given that working class couples are less stable than middle/UMC/wealthy couples, it makes sense for working class men to avoid marriage, given that the divorces tend to be more acrimonious and less favorable for custody results when men can’t afford legal counsel. Avoiding women altogether is also not a bad option for working class men that don’t live in a countercultural religious community.

    You might have a better tack with your “pro-single moms” argument if you were in favor of polygamy. That’s a logical solution to what you are incentivizing, but you risk the wrath of incel.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    You might have a better tack with your “pro-single moms” argument if you were in favor of polygamy.
     
    Polygamy is retarded. It incentivizes rapacious wealth acquisition by dominant men in order to monopolize access to mates.

    My sense is that a great deal of the hatred of single moms around here is driven by a sense of entitlement among men who believe that a good job gives you the right to your pick of women. They (you) are bitter about the fact that we are not for sale.
  141. @Feryl
    Instead of promoting air-head "conservative" fantasies about a land in which taxes are low, government is hands-off and spends little money , and people feel confident and happy (which can't exist in the modern world, which most people would understand to have begun once the Great Depression ended), I instead acknowledge that we all have to contribute; it's just that I believe that the bulk of the contributions need to be made by those in the top 20-30% of the income bracket, just like how we did things in the 1940's-1970's.

    We slashed taxes on the wealthy in the early 80's, and the subsequent 40 years have seen a massive rise in the fortunes of the wealthy.....And a fall in the fortunes of the middle and lower class. When Democrats set the agenda, for the most part, in the 1930's-1970's, we had a generally well-run government and fairly sound budgets (with allowances made for the unavoidable debt incurred by WW2). Reagan and the Sun-belt Republicans did little to actually reduce spending (in fact, if memory serves federal spending went up because of the MIC) in the 80's. Bill Clinton was able to vanquish the New Deal Dems by slashing welfare, and got back at the Pentagon by slashing MIC excess. Post 9/11, the Pentagon has parked it's fat ass at the front of the pork line, and no-one after Clinton has been able to push down MIC subsidies.

    The evidence is overwhelming that the Post-Reagan GOP has neither the inclination nor apparent ability to stop throwing trillions away on bogus military hardware and pointless attempts to occupy the world. Meanwhile, they never ask the wealthy to share most of the burden relative to what Dem populists ask for in a wholesome era. End result? The Dems may be the tax and spend party, but the GOP is retarded enough to be the don't tax AND spend anyway party.

    Whatever you make, unless you are unemployed and homeless, I’m sure there is someone who has less than you do. So I think you should start turning over more of your income to the government. I believe you are allowed to do that. They take donations. If you are reluctant to do that, I think you need to get over that phobia you have about giving money to the government. After all, if you think the government should take money from wealthier people and give it to poorer people and there are poorer people than you then you should give your money to the government so it can give it to them. Right?

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
  142. @216
    Mgtow tend to be either Millennials/Zeds at one end of the Pareto principle, or of the founding group of Gen X divorced men that aren't remarrying. Boomers had high divorce rates, but also remarried at high rates. Millennial aversion to marriage is in part rooted in often being the product of divorced parents.

    The number of "self-aware" participants in Mgtow is probably dwarfed by an order of magnitude by ordinary single people that aren't acting on a quasi-political agenda.

    Given that working class couples are less stable than middle/UMC/wealthy couples, it makes sense for working class men to avoid marriage, given that the divorces tend to be more acrimonious and less favorable for custody results when men can't afford legal counsel. Avoiding women altogether is also not a bad option for working class men that don't live in a countercultural religious community.

    You might have a better tack with your "pro-single moms" argument if you were in favor of polygamy. That's a logical solution to what you are incentivizing, but you risk the wrath of incel.

    You might have a better tack with your “pro-single moms” argument if you were in favor of polygamy.

    Polygamy is retarded. It incentivizes rapacious wealth acquisition by dominant men in order to monopolize access to mates.

    My sense is that a great deal of the hatred of single moms around here is driven by a sense of entitlement among men who believe that a good job gives you the right to your pick of women. They (you) are bitter about the fact that we are not for sale.

  143. @216

    You must have missed all the outrage with fans burning their team-branded gear and boycotting games.
     
    NFL ratings were up in '18 vs. '17

    https://www.thewrap.com/what-drove-the-nfls-tv-ratings-increase-in-2018/

    Burning items is symbolic, and was virulently mocked by blacks whenever Boomercons do it. They already have your money, the more consequential action is to give them items away, which substitutes for sales of new gear. It also opens up the charge of hypocrisy by signalling that the real reason is racial (which most are too cowardly to admit) rather than about "muh veterans".

    Perhaps cord-cutting will doom ESPN, but there is no sustained evidence that large numbers of White Male NFL fans acquired a identitarian mindset and quit the sport.

    The contracts run through 2022, so hopefully the audience will continue its slow decline, and pain will set in there. But the NFL could get new stars to take over the role of Brady/Manning. I'm rather hesitant that the advertisers will shy away from the still largest single audience remaining on the withering medium of broadcast TV. We can't engage in wish fulfillment here.

    http://www.sportspromedia.com/news/abc-nfl-tv-rights-espn

    The black pill is that Kapernick won this round. He's got runway to head to a far worse stadium, Congress.

    The contracts run through 2022

    Bankruptcy makes the contracts moot.  Can’t you understand that?

    With cords being cut left and right no other network is going to be able to make enough revenue to meet the expectations of the NFL either.  That means ESPNs bankruptcy is going to be a serious shock to the system.

  144. @Feryl
    Lastly, there's the utter cynicism of UBI being a bribery program to calm the restive masses. As I see it, the humiliation of being on UBI (trust me, contrary to what Reaganism would have you believe nobody likes being poor enough to go on the dole) is one sorry substitute for the pride of doing meaningful and compensated work. This is why the Rust-Belt and Appalaicha, and an ever increasing degree of downscale white America, have huge drug use and suicide levels. The most motivated and intelligent people leave to upscale parts of the country, the remaining dregs feel abandoned and hopeless, and can no longer count on the dignity and camaraderie of being in an appreciated and well-compensated work-force.

    Other ethnic groups at least feel as if they are still part of something, whether it seem to really add up or not (e.g., blacks being "brothers"). I've heard that white elites use to feel obligation to white proles, but over the last 50 years that's been increasingly pathologized as "racist", and white elites now pour all of their acrimony onto underclass whites (whereas in the 40's or 50's, they could've and sometimes did go after foreigners, sexual deviants, blasphemers, and yes, "minorities").

    With UBI, though, every additional dollar earned has no (non-tax) marginal cost associated with it. A man of modest intelligence can work as a shift lead at a fast food restaurant and afford a family (if the family lives modestly). The $1000 a month isn’t really being on “the dole” since everyone is getting it.

    • Agree: iffen, ben tillman
    • Replies: @Feryl
    That still doesn't address the negligence and corruption of business owners who won't provide better wages and benefits. The whole UBI bullshit must've been concocted by global capitalism, since normal welfare state Leftism is premised on rendering aid to the vulnerable, who for whatever reason can't find gainful employment. It's not premised on the government paying most or nearly all workers because businesses are too cheap to provide better wages and benefits.

    UBI would create a corporate welfare state, and the nightmare scenarios envisioned by some of the dystopian SF of the last 45 years would finally have materialized. Corporations really do run everything, with government doing nothing to stop private sector greed.

    The Right Wing used to complain that welfare discouraged honest work; now global capital evidently feels that's in the interest of share holders and investors to hire very few well paid workers in the first place; in fact, let's have the government bribe citizens into not noticing that business owners have been ripping apart the social contract for at least 30 years by now.
  145. @Jay Fink
    During the cold war another widespread myth was that Russian women were ugly and masculine. In reality most are pretty and feminine. If anything modern American women have become our former stereotype of Russian women.

    A lot about America has become our former stereotypes about the Soviet Union!

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    Not surprising, because it's the same (((people))) running us now.
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    AGREED!

    I hate to invoke Godwin so early in the morning, but one could say the same about Nazi Germany. I remember 15 years or so ago reading Vin Suprymowicz (I'm sure that spelling is wrong - what's the chances?) who was a Lost Wages Review Journal editorial writer, remembering that Americans used to boo and hiss the Nazis in the movies (why not Soviets? Hmmmm?) when they'd hear the authoritative "Papers, please!" We were way better than that, then (non-sarcastically). Now, we have illuminati (my friend's term) REAL ID.

    Not only are people quite used to "let me see your documents" at the airport - hell, just about when buying a pizza anymore - but they are just fine with people rummanging through their suitcases of used underwear (on the return trip, of course).

    Then people on here will diss the Libertarians.

    Ahaaa, found my posts: "Papiere, Bitte!" - Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.

  146. @Audacious Epigone
    With UBI, though, every additional dollar earned has no (non-tax) marginal cost associated with it. A man of modest intelligence can work as a shift lead at a fast food restaurant and afford a family (if the family lives modestly). The $1000 a month isn't really being on "the dole" since everyone is getting it.

    That still doesn’t address the negligence and corruption of business owners who won’t provide better wages and benefits. The whole UBI bullshit must’ve been concocted by global capitalism, since normal welfare state Leftism is premised on rendering aid to the vulnerable, who for whatever reason can’t find gainful employment. It’s not premised on the government paying most or nearly all workers because businesses are too cheap to provide better wages and benefits.

    UBI would create a corporate welfare state, and the nightmare scenarios envisioned by some of the dystopian SF of the last 45 years would finally have materialized. Corporations really do run everything, with government doing nothing to stop private sector greed.

    The Right Wing used to complain that welfare discouraged honest work; now global capital evidently feels that’s in the interest of share holders and investors to hire very few well paid workers in the first place; in fact, let’s have the government bribe citizens into not noticing that business owners have been ripping apart the social contract for at least 30 years by now.

    • Replies: @216

    The Right Wing used to complain that welfare discouraged honest work; now global capital evidently feels that’s in the interest of share holders and investors to hire very few well paid workers in the first place
     
    The Right can't say this as much now because so much of the right-wing base is made up of retirees. Could a lot of retirees work until 67? 70?

    Quite possibly they could, and there's certainly a lot of neoliberals that would like to see that happen.
  147. @Audacious Epigone
    A lot about America has become our former stereotypes about the Soviet Union!

    Not surprising, because it’s the same (((people))) running us now.

  148. anon[254] • Disclaimer says:

    “It’s remarkable how institutionalized this generation is. There is almost no recognition that self-reliance is possible let alone that it should be required…. No matter what the problem may be, the answer is always more government – the very thing responsible for the problem in the first place.”

    This generation is institutionalized largely because your generation sent the best jobs overseas, deindustrialized huge swaths of the country for short-term gains in your portfolio, and inflated tuition costs by dumping in tens of millions of foreign competitors – among a very long list of things. Honestly, I can’t escape the feeling that this “self-reliance” dogma espoused by Boomers is motivated merely by naked self-interest: you just don’t want to pay taxes. These people outsourced the economy and their solution to the myriad problems they created is to be “self-reliant”, despite stagnant wage growth and soaring education costs associated with their policies of mass immigration and credentialism. My solution: make them pay for the country they helped create. Your generation wanted cheap labor, so you should have to pay for the associated social costs. And as for the “big gubment” mantra, both the Japanese and the Taiwanese have national healthcare systems that are far superior to the American “free market” system: costs are lower on both the individual and the government and infant mortality is comparatively lower.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    ... your generation sent the best jobs overseas, deindustrialized huge swaths of the country for short-term gains in your portfolio, and inflated tuition costs by dumping in tens of millions of foreign competitors – among a very long list of things.
     
    Yes, because Bill Clinton (winner of 42% of the vote), the Bushes, Øb☭ma, and a few thousand elite Big-Biz crony-Cap executives are a whole generation, right? Don't blame all your problems on the innocents, and I won't write anymore about the average millenial not knowing a damn thing that's not written on his iphone.
    , @Feryl
    On other blogs, including the orginal version of this one, I've made that point several times: Silents and Boomers lucked into prosperity, and have smugly been ignoring what they inflicted on younger generations ever since. Since these generations got to establish themselves when "hard work" paid well, they came to think that the only thing that really matters is "hard work". You're not supposed to question any of this.

    When X-ers and Millennials point out that high immigration levels, living costs, education costs, off-shoring, and obscene compensation "packages" for elites have made it very difficult for younger generations to establish a reasonable standard of living, they are ridiculed as sore losers and bums who haven't "worked hard enough". Many mid-upper level Boomers have no idea just how rough things are for people under 50. Back in the 60's and 70's, many low skilled and entry level jobs paid 3-5 times more than the modern equivalent, once you adjust for inflation. And living costs were lower back then, to boot. Older generation need to be really careful that they don't provoke another guillotine revolution, since almost everyone who is really rich was born in the 30's, 40's, and 50's.

    It's moronic to complain about "big government", when Big Business has gotten it's way for the last 35 years. We have a bunch of decadent and spoiled rich assholes lecturing impoverished youth that they need to shut up.
  149. @Twinkie

    Half? I don’t think it’s that high, is it?
     
    He's making that up to buttress his argument.

    There are roughly 15 million Asians in America (per 2010 Census). The big ones are:

    Chinese 3.5 million
    Indian 3 million* (50% Indian, 18% Christian, and 10% Muslim per Pew)
    Filipino 2.6 million (a tiny insignificant minority Muslim)
    Vietnamese 1.6 million
    Korean 1.5 million
    Japanese 0.8 million

    That's roughly 13 million (minus 0.3 million Indian Muslims) out of 15 million total.

    Those who are identifiably from Muslim countries are:

    Bangladeshi 0.14 million
    Indonesian 0.06 million
    Malaysian 0.02 million
    Pakistani 0.38 million

    That's only 0.6 million out of 15 million (and that's assuming the Indonesians and Malaysians are not ethnic Chinese who are likely disproportionately represented among immigrants). Add the 0.3 million Indian Muslims, we have 0.9 million Muslims among Asians in America, about 6% of the total.

    "Tyrion 2" is a juvenile troll who also uses at least one duplicate/sock puppet account ("career") and likely uses others as well. Don't pay attention to him.

    Some additional information:

    MENA people are not classified as Asians for Census purposes in the United States, but even if they were…

    1. Arabs number rough 1.7 million per the 2010 Census. Of those the Lebanese are the plurality at 0.5 million. In terms religion, 63% of those 1.7 million are Christians while 24% Muslims.

    2. Iranians are about 0.5 million as of the 2011 American Community Survey. Per the 2012 national sampling, only 31% were Muslims (the Iranian immigrants in the U.S. are disproportionately non-Muslims and non-ethnic Persians).

    3. Afghans are roughly 0.1 million per the 2016 ACS.

    So even if we were to add these numbers, Muslims are a very small fraction (less than 6%) of Asians in America.

  150. @ThreeCranes
    It occurred to me that although America has ample facilities to handle the takeoffs, my proposed Afrotopia would probably lack facilities for landing them all. I mean, our airports are dispersed over 50 states, those receiving would be densely concentrated in a mere 1600 square miles. Hmmm. Won't work.

    Well, what about parachuting them in? Nothing malicious intended here. None need get hurt. If Bernanke could propose parachuting billions of dollars all over the countryside, then surely we could parachute people into Africa. Why not? It's not like they would be a burden to the receiving nations. After all, we are told by every human resource department; we hear on every commercial on television that it's people who matter; it's customers and workers who make the difference. People, we are told, are our greatest asset. Let's spread the wealth. This is even more great-hearted than dropping planeloads of one hundred dollar bills.

    Dang, it feels good to be magnanimous.

    3-C, I’d thought you meant 200 departure airports just to better serve those with the complaints against white society (though, once you get up to A-380 size, you are very limited – may have to borrow military runways). Either way, you could do this out of 10 airports.

    On the other end, quite to the contrary, you could get away with 1 2-runway airport, though 2 or 3 of these might be better. The heavies coming in could be separated by 3 or 4 minutes, allowing easily 200 arrivals per day on one runway, and take-offs on the other. The limits would be taxiways and ramp space, as, at that rate, with, say a reasonable 1-hour turn-around time (no boarding time needed on the flip-side, right?), you’d need space for 20 25 of these monsters.

    During the Berlin Airlift, they were landing at a rate of 1 per minute during good weather in little old Templehof Airport (completely gone now). General Clay (?) didn’t plan on this in the summer, but by winter, these DC-3’s and DC-4’s were flying in enough coal to heat the city of 2 million people! – West Berlin, that was. A DC-4, though, is about 5% or so of the weight of one of those A-380’s.

  151. @anon
    "It’s remarkable how institutionalized this generation is. There is almost no recognition that self-reliance is possible let alone that it should be required.... No matter what the problem may be, the answer is always more government – the very thing responsible for the problem in the first place."

    This generation is institutionalized largely because your generation sent the best jobs overseas, deindustrialized huge swaths of the country for short-term gains in your portfolio, and inflated tuition costs by dumping in tens of millions of foreign competitors - among a very long list of things. Honestly, I can't escape the feeling that this "self-reliance" dogma espoused by Boomers is motivated merely by naked self-interest: you just don't want to pay taxes. These people outsourced the economy and their solution to the myriad problems they created is to be "self-reliant", despite stagnant wage growth and soaring education costs associated with their policies of mass immigration and credentialism. My solution: make them pay for the country they helped create. Your generation wanted cheap labor, so you should have to pay for the associated social costs. And as for the "big gubment" mantra, both the Japanese and the Taiwanese have national healthcare systems that are far superior to the American "free market" system: costs are lower on both the individual and the government and infant mortality is comparatively lower.

    … your generation sent the best jobs overseas, deindustrialized huge swaths of the country for short-term gains in your portfolio, and inflated tuition costs by dumping in tens of millions of foreign competitors – among a very long list of things.

    Yes, because Bill Clinton (winner of 42% of the vote), the Bushes, Øb☭ma, and a few thousand elite Big-Biz crony-Cap executives are a whole generation, right? Don’t blame all your problems on the innocents, and I won’t write anymore about the average millenial not knowing a damn thing that’s not written on his iphone.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Silents and Boomers gave Reagan a landslide victory in 1984 (the youngest GIs would've been 60 years old by then); Clinton's spotty reputation and (at the time) unprecedented cultural liberalism meant that many Silents and Boomers didn't trust him, although Clinton was actually more conservative than Reagan on some economic issues (e.g., more bold about de-regulation and off-shoring).

    Affluent Silents and Boomers have never seriously tried to stop neo-liberalism, though they certainly could have. Lower income people generally don't have enough power to really change much.

    Silents and Boomers hated Jimmy Carter when Carter told them to turn their thermostats down (no, you can't "have it all", you narcissists). They hated George HW Bush when he (responsibly) raised taxes, even though it was politically radioactive (when was the last time a president did something that was responsible but fairly unpopular to both party elites and the voters?).

    Many Boomers reached mid-high level positions while in their 30's and 40's, in both business and in politics (e.g., Boomer Larry Summers dominated Clinton's econ. policy in the early 90's).

    David Stockman reached the Michigan congress in 1977, then became an important figure in the Reagan white house in the early 80's; he was in his 30's during this time.

    According to Strauss and Howe, Gen X-ers are the slowest generation to rise to political power in American history. Considerable (but low key) acrimony has always existed between X-ers and Boomers. Boomers entered the workforce during the middle class paradise; X-ers entered when entry level wages were falling, off-shoring had begun, and union protections and pensions vanishing.

    The military draft was abolished due to the complaints of Boomers (and their GI and Silent parents). Mental illness, violence, and crime all soared in the 1970's, when every Boomer cohort had was old enough to reveal these tendencies. But punishment of crime and drug use didn't escalate until the late 80's, when Gen X-ers were coming of age.

    Boomers complained about Gen X-ers being stupid and trashy, and this after Boomers bought into "rock and roll" and every flaky New Age fad to come down the pike in the 70's.

    Gen X-ers were the most openly detested and abused children in this country's history, as birth rates plummeted in the 70's while child abuse rates soared. Teenagers began running away and committing suicide at very high levels in the late 70's and 80's, as they often came from horrendously tough domestic environments (divorce being common, parents often being absent or drunk).

    You Boomers have no idea how narcissistic and conceited you can be when you talk down to newer generations. As for "Millennials", a lot of us actually have a more favorable opinion of Boomers than X-ers who are now 50 or 45 years old. Nobody (least of all Boomers) likes to acknowledge the presence of X-ers, but they are going to be calling the shots pretty soon. How Boomers fare will be heavily predicated on the actions of X-ers, so my advice is to start listening to people aged 38-55 a little bit more these days.
  152. @Feryl
    As is now well-established, Russians actually did worse after the Soviet Union dissolved, and before Putin laid down the law. Crony capitalists, at the behest of decadent Western elites, were given the green light to raid Soviet assets. The ascension of crony capitalism throughout the West, over the last 30 years, has been much more psychologically and culturally harmful than the socialism-lite economic model which was practiced to some degree in the West from the 1930's-1980's.

    BTW, "crony" capitalism is in fact the default mode of any capitalist society. Absent reliable government over-sight, greedy assholes will create monopolies and bribe crooked authorities. The mania to cut taxes on the assets and income of the wealthy, which is most apparent in the US, does not in the least lead to "trickle-down" growth for the lower classes. Wages and benefits have stagnated while living costs have soared since the mid-80's. To the extent that this economy worked in the late 80's, 90's, and mid-2000's, a lot of it was illusory; e.g., the 90's economic "boom" being premised on financial wizardy and de-industrialization rather than developing a solid "back-stop" of high wages and pensions for most workers.

    BTW, “crony” capitalism is in fact the default mode of any capitalist society. Absent reliable government over-sight, greedy assholes will create monopolies and bribe crooked authorities.

    That is just so completely ass-backwards, I can’t even … wait, I can. Look Feryl, how are those greedy assholes going to bribe the authorities to hurt their competitors when THERE ARE NO AUTHORITES?! That’s the point – the more rules you make, with the necessary bureaus and power involved to enforce them, the easier it is for a Bezos or Soros to make sure the rules get made in their favor.

    I’ve been through the Uber thing before already – so as not to repeat the whole thing – why, Feryl, is it the case that Uber can contract out to millions of illegal taxis, when you will get in big trouble for operation your own “illegal taxi” — meaning one without big-fee (about a million bucks in NYC) government approval?

    Can you even imagine a non-government-regulated school for kids, Feryl? Do you know how cheap and easy it would be to run a 20 kid/classroom little school out of a small butler building or strip mall, with say, a couple of retired engineers to teach math and science, that aspiring writer cat-lady to teach English, and a board of 20 parents who get the books and web-sites taken care of? Most would rightly understand that you will be shut down 9 ways from Sunday before you’ve diagramed your first sentence! That’s what we live under. What’s worse, is that there are people like you (too many, as Stan wrote) who not only see this as being impossible due to the hand of government, but can’t even imagine it’d be possible without government.

    Do you need a babysitter, you Socialists? I mean, if that’s all you’re longing for, maybe without paying so much in taxes, we could get you all some babysitters. GEEZE!

    • Replies: @216
    The unstable multikult empire we live in makes an interventionist government mandatory. And the empire contains too much economic opportunity for people to pass it up, even if they could be freer.

    Not much is stopping lolbertarians from just buying a house in the state of New Hampshire. But only a few thousand appear to have done so, and these rugged individualists can't seem to grok the idea of offering interest-free loans to help fellow cult-members buy a house.

    Afrikaners are under a far worse living situation than any of us are, even benighted UK readers. But yet they don't leave the comfortable live in the suburbs in favor of living in far less dangerous, but far less prosperous Argentina. And unlike American lolbertarians, the Boer actually set up a functioning community known as Orania.

    The US is the least-regulated and least-taxed OECD country. It is not likely to ever return to pre-Progressive era levels of government. I love griping about how Kasich promised to junk the income tax when he ran for Governor in 2010, and then never did it. Certainly you can fund a reasonable level of services in our state without an income tax, but the public went nuts over modest rollbacks in public sector union bargaining power.

    The people don't want the small gov't nonsense. Their revealed preferences show it.

    ---

    Arrest Page, Brin and Schmidt. Seize their company.

    The controlling shares will pass to the Treasury, other private shareholders will not be affected.

    Copy and paste the above plan until every Silicon monopoly is under public control, with the hundreds of billions in annual profit helping to stabilize the budget deficit, rather than be stored away in tax havens.

    It's time for the Yukos Solution.
  153. @Audacious Epigone
    A lot about America has become our former stereotypes about the Soviet Union!

    AGREED!

    I hate to invoke Godwin so early in the morning, but one could say the same about Nazi Germany. I remember 15 years or so ago reading Vin Suprymowicz (I’m sure that spelling is wrong – what’s the chances?) who was a Lost Wages Review Journal editorial writer, remembering that Americans used to boo and hiss the Nazis in the movies (why not Soviets? Hmmmm?) when they’d hear the authoritative “Papers, please!” We were way better than that, then (non-sarcastically). Now, we have illuminati (my friend’s term) REAL ID.

    Not only are people quite used to “let me see your documents” at the airport – hell, just about when buying a pizza anymore – but they are just fine with people rummanging through their suitcases of used underwear (on the return trip, of course).

    Then people on here will diss the Libertarians.

    Ahaaa, found my posts: “Papiere, Bitte!”Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.

  154. @anon
    Perhaps blacks fear that once the Mexicans have been deported, they'll be next. It'll be Liberia all over again!

    In my extensive experience with Afficans, most of them lack the ability or willingness to think it through that much. It really is difficult for people of average white or North/east-Asian intelligence to grasp the stupidity of the average nonimmigrant African in the USA, especially if they haven’t dealt extensively with them (lucky them).

  155. @Tyrion 2
    Since half of Asians in the US are Muslim and Muslims are 40% approval, I think we can guess that East Asians are about 80% approval.

    Almost none of the Chinese, Korean, Filipino, or Japanese immigrants to the USA have been or are Muslim. No way are half of Asians in the us muslim, even counting Indians as Asians.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    You're forgetting Central and Western Asians, nevermind your "even" for South Asians. Maybe it is a UK thing but Asian here basically means Muslim...
  156. @RadicalCenter
    Almost none of the Chinese, Korean, Filipino, or Japanese immigrants to the USA have been or are Muslim. No way are half of Asians in the us muslim, even counting Indians as Asians.

    You’re forgetting Central and Western Asians, nevermind your “even” for South Asians. Maybe it is a UK thing but Asian here basically means Muslim…

  157. @Achmed E. Newman

    ... your generation sent the best jobs overseas, deindustrialized huge swaths of the country for short-term gains in your portfolio, and inflated tuition costs by dumping in tens of millions of foreign competitors – among a very long list of things.
     
    Yes, because Bill Clinton (winner of 42% of the vote), the Bushes, Øb☭ma, and a few thousand elite Big-Biz crony-Cap executives are a whole generation, right? Don't blame all your problems on the innocents, and I won't write anymore about the average millenial not knowing a damn thing that's not written on his iphone.

    Silents and Boomers gave Reagan a landslide victory in 1984 (the youngest GIs would’ve been 60 years old by then); Clinton’s spotty reputation and (at the time) unprecedented cultural liberalism meant that many Silents and Boomers didn’t trust him, although Clinton was actually more conservative than Reagan on some economic issues (e.g., more bold about de-regulation and off-shoring).

    Affluent Silents and Boomers have never seriously tried to stop neo-liberalism, though they certainly could have. Lower income people generally don’t have enough power to really change much.

    Silents and Boomers hated Jimmy Carter when Carter told them to turn their thermostats down (no, you can’t “have it all”, you narcissists). They hated George HW Bush when he (responsibly) raised taxes, even though it was politically radioactive (when was the last time a president did something that was responsible but fairly unpopular to both party elites and the voters?).

    Many Boomers reached mid-high level positions while in their 30’s and 40’s, in both business and in politics (e.g., Boomer Larry Summers dominated Clinton’s econ. policy in the early 90’s).

    David Stockman reached the Michigan congress in 1977, then became an important figure in the Reagan white house in the early 80’s; he was in his 30’s during this time.

    According to Strauss and Howe, Gen X-ers are the slowest generation to rise to political power in American history. Considerable (but low key) acrimony has always existed between X-ers and Boomers. Boomers entered the workforce during the middle class paradise; X-ers entered when entry level wages were falling, off-shoring had begun, and union protections and pensions vanishing.

    The military draft was abolished due to the complaints of Boomers (and their GI and Silent parents). Mental illness, violence, and crime all soared in the 1970’s, when every Boomer cohort had was old enough to reveal these tendencies. But punishment of crime and drug use didn’t escalate until the late 80’s, when Gen X-ers were coming of age.

    Boomers complained about Gen X-ers being stupid and trashy, and this after Boomers bought into “rock and roll” and every flaky New Age fad to come down the pike in the 70’s.

    Gen X-ers were the most openly detested and abused children in this country’s history, as birth rates plummeted in the 70’s while child abuse rates soared. Teenagers began running away and committing suicide at very high levels in the late 70’s and 80’s, as they often came from horrendously tough domestic environments (divorce being common, parents often being absent or drunk).

    You Boomers have no idea how narcissistic and conceited you can be when you talk down to newer generations. As for “Millennials”, a lot of us actually have a more favorable opinion of Boomers than X-ers who are now 50 or 45 years old. Nobody (least of all Boomers) likes to acknowledge the presence of X-ers, but they are going to be calling the shots pretty soon. How Boomers fare will be heavily predicated on the actions of X-ers, so my advice is to start listening to people aged 38-55 a little bit more these days.

  158. @anon
    "It’s remarkable how institutionalized this generation is. There is almost no recognition that self-reliance is possible let alone that it should be required.... No matter what the problem may be, the answer is always more government – the very thing responsible for the problem in the first place."

    This generation is institutionalized largely because your generation sent the best jobs overseas, deindustrialized huge swaths of the country for short-term gains in your portfolio, and inflated tuition costs by dumping in tens of millions of foreign competitors - among a very long list of things. Honestly, I can't escape the feeling that this "self-reliance" dogma espoused by Boomers is motivated merely by naked self-interest: you just don't want to pay taxes. These people outsourced the economy and their solution to the myriad problems they created is to be "self-reliant", despite stagnant wage growth and soaring education costs associated with their policies of mass immigration and credentialism. My solution: make them pay for the country they helped create. Your generation wanted cheap labor, so you should have to pay for the associated social costs. And as for the "big gubment" mantra, both the Japanese and the Taiwanese have national healthcare systems that are far superior to the American "free market" system: costs are lower on both the individual and the government and infant mortality is comparatively lower.

    On other blogs, including the orginal version of this one, I’ve made that point several times: Silents and Boomers lucked into prosperity, and have smugly been ignoring what they inflicted on younger generations ever since. Since these generations got to establish themselves when “hard work” paid well, they came to think that the only thing that really matters is “hard work”. You’re not supposed to question any of this.

    When X-ers and Millennials point out that high immigration levels, living costs, education costs, off-shoring, and obscene compensation “packages” for elites have made it very difficult for younger generations to establish a reasonable standard of living, they are ridiculed as sore losers and bums who haven’t “worked hard enough”. Many mid-upper level Boomers have no idea just how rough things are for people under 50. Back in the 60’s and 70’s, many low skilled and entry level jobs paid 3-5 times more than the modern equivalent, once you adjust for inflation. And living costs were lower back then, to boot. Older generation need to be really careful that they don’t provoke another guillotine revolution, since almost everyone who is really rich was born in the 30’s, 40’s, and 50’s.

    It’s moronic to complain about “big government”, when Big Business has gotten it’s way for the last 35 years. We have a bunch of decadent and spoiled rich assholes lecturing impoverished youth that they need to shut up.

    • Replies: @216

    nd obscene compensation “packages” for elites have made it very difficult for younger generations to establish a reasonable standard of living
     
    How many total "C-Suite" employees exist in the entire U.S. ?

    If MegaCorp CEO is paid 200 mil of stock options, for a company that has revenue in the hundreds of billions, and profits in the tens of billions. Only a couple hundred corporations are of that size. And IIRC, only two corporations (Walmart and Mcdonalds) employ seven figures of employees. The latter of course employs through franchises.

    The impact so much may not be executive pay, it is what the executives are doing to earn that pay. The CEO is simply visible, while the outsourcing is largely invisible, and wage stagnation even moreso.

    Since most Americans don't own stock, they don't benefit from this. If CEO gets free stock, the rank-and-file should also get free stock.
    , @Mr. Rational

    When X-ers and Millennials point out that high immigration levels, living costs, education costs, off-shoring, and obscene compensation “packages” for elites have made it very difficult for younger generations to establish a reasonable standard of living
     
    ... they are absolutely correct.  But Boomers didn't "luck into" good times; good times were built by the Silents and Greatests.  What Boomers didn't learn was how to pass the gifts down; they thought they were a fact of nature.

    The Silents and Greatests also created much of the disaster that followed.  They were the ones in power who gave us "civil rights".  The youngest Boomers were not even born when the 1964 CRA was enacted; none of them were voting at the time.

    It’s moronic to complain about “big government”
     
    It IS big government behind much of the problem.  The entire rapefugee influx is a big government creation.  Affirmative Action and Disparate Impact are the result of judges legislating from the bench (exercise of government power without accountability).  And the increase in education costs is driven as much by the bureaucracies and paperwork filings required to stay in compliance with Title X and the EEOC as it is by the (big government-created) flow of guaranteed student loan money driving demand-pull inflation.

    If you only got rid of AA and diversity requirements and the "protected classes" in education and the workplace, the hiring picture for straight White males would literally jump overnight.  It wouldn't be so good for the AA classes, though; they'd be RIFfed quickly as deadwood once they weren't required to keep diversicrats at bay.
    , @ben tillman

    It’s moronic to complain about “big government”, when Big Business has gotten it’s way for the last 35 years.
     
    They are the same thing.
  159. @Feryl
    That still doesn't address the negligence and corruption of business owners who won't provide better wages and benefits. The whole UBI bullshit must've been concocted by global capitalism, since normal welfare state Leftism is premised on rendering aid to the vulnerable, who for whatever reason can't find gainful employment. It's not premised on the government paying most or nearly all workers because businesses are too cheap to provide better wages and benefits.

    UBI would create a corporate welfare state, and the nightmare scenarios envisioned by some of the dystopian SF of the last 45 years would finally have materialized. Corporations really do run everything, with government doing nothing to stop private sector greed.

    The Right Wing used to complain that welfare discouraged honest work; now global capital evidently feels that's in the interest of share holders and investors to hire very few well paid workers in the first place; in fact, let's have the government bribe citizens into not noticing that business owners have been ripping apart the social contract for at least 30 years by now.

    The Right Wing used to complain that welfare discouraged honest work; now global capital evidently feels that’s in the interest of share holders and investors to hire very few well paid workers in the first place

    The Right can’t say this as much now because so much of the right-wing base is made up of retirees. Could a lot of retirees work until 67? 70?

    Quite possibly they could, and there’s certainly a lot of neoliberals that would like to see that happen.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    It's hard to grasp for younger people, but back in the 1970's-early 90's, Silents and Boomers absolutely hated "welfare bums". But it was much easier to find good work back then, so maybe the sentiment wasn't off-base. Now that off-shoring and high immigration levels have "locked out" so many people from reasonable work, you don't hear bitching about welfare kings and queens as much anymore. It's like a tacit understanding that elites (global capital) have shredded the job prospects for many people, so whose surprised that social services are soaked to the degree that they are by modern proles? Also, nobody buys into the idea anymore that "only" black people go on welfare. SSI use, by underclass whites, is pretty well-known at this point.

    Also WRT striving, the initial uptick in striving that occured in the 1970's and 80's caused people to start grousing about "welfare bums". This fueled pro-management sentiment (many Americans in the 70's and 80's were fed up with unions and regulations). But then business management acted like a kid breaking into the candy store in the 1990's, so since the early 2000's most people intuitively aren't going to side with management like they did in the Carter or Reagan era. A few derps still blame unions for de-industrialization, but most of us aren't that naive.
  160. @Feryl
    On other blogs, including the orginal version of this one, I've made that point several times: Silents and Boomers lucked into prosperity, and have smugly been ignoring what they inflicted on younger generations ever since. Since these generations got to establish themselves when "hard work" paid well, they came to think that the only thing that really matters is "hard work". You're not supposed to question any of this.

    When X-ers and Millennials point out that high immigration levels, living costs, education costs, off-shoring, and obscene compensation "packages" for elites have made it very difficult for younger generations to establish a reasonable standard of living, they are ridiculed as sore losers and bums who haven't "worked hard enough". Many mid-upper level Boomers have no idea just how rough things are for people under 50. Back in the 60's and 70's, many low skilled and entry level jobs paid 3-5 times more than the modern equivalent, once you adjust for inflation. And living costs were lower back then, to boot. Older generation need to be really careful that they don't provoke another guillotine revolution, since almost everyone who is really rich was born in the 30's, 40's, and 50's.

    It's moronic to complain about "big government", when Big Business has gotten it's way for the last 35 years. We have a bunch of decadent and spoiled rich assholes lecturing impoverished youth that they need to shut up.

    nd obscene compensation “packages” for elites have made it very difficult for younger generations to establish a reasonable standard of living

    How many total “C-Suite” employees exist in the entire U.S. ?

    If MegaCorp CEO is paid 200 mil of stock options, for a company that has revenue in the hundreds of billions, and profits in the tens of billions. Only a couple hundred corporations are of that size. And IIRC, only two corporations (Walmart and Mcdonalds) employ seven figures of employees. The latter of course employs through franchises.

    The impact so much may not be executive pay, it is what the executives are doing to earn that pay. The CEO is simply visible, while the outsourcing is largely invisible, and wage stagnation even moreso.

    Since most Americans don’t own stock, they don’t benefit from this. If CEO gets free stock, the rank-and-file should also get free stock.

  161. @Achmed E. Newman

    BTW, “crony” capitalism is in fact the default mode of any capitalist society. Absent reliable government over-sight, greedy assholes will create monopolies and bribe crooked authorities.
     
    That is just so completely ass-backwards, I can't even ... wait, I can. Look Feryl, how are those greedy assholes going to bribe the authorities to hurt their competitors when THERE ARE NO AUTHORITES?! That's the point - the more rules you make, with the necessary bureaus and power involved to enforce them, the easier it is for a Bezos or Soros to make sure the rules get made in their favor.

    I've been through the Uber thing before already - so as not to repeat the whole thing - why, Feryl, is it the case that Uber can contract out to millions of illegal taxis, when you will get in big trouble for operation your own "illegal taxi" -- meaning one without big-fee (about a million bucks in NYC) government approval?

    Can you even imagine a non-government-regulated school for kids, Feryl? Do you know how cheap and easy it would be to run a 20 kid/classroom little school out of a small butler building or strip mall, with say, a couple of retired engineers to teach math and science, that aspiring writer cat-lady to teach English, and a board of 20 parents who get the books and web-sites taken care of? Most would rightly understand that you will be shut down 9 ways from Sunday before you've diagramed your first sentence! That's what we live under. What's worse, is that there are people like you (too many, as Stan wrote) who not only see this as being impossible due to the hand of government, but can't even imagine it'd be possible without government.

    Do you need a babysitter, you Socialists? I mean, if that's all you're longing for, maybe without paying so much in taxes, we could get you all some babysitters. GEEZE!

    The unstable multikult empire we live in makes an interventionist government mandatory. And the empire contains too much economic opportunity for people to pass it up, even if they could be freer.

    Not much is stopping lolbertarians from just buying a house in the state of New Hampshire. But only a few thousand appear to have done so, and these rugged individualists can’t seem to grok the idea of offering interest-free loans to help fellow cult-members buy a house.

    Afrikaners are under a far worse living situation than any of us are, even benighted UK readers. But yet they don’t leave the comfortable live in the suburbs in favor of living in far less dangerous, but far less prosperous Argentina. And unlike American lolbertarians, the Boer actually set up a functioning community known as Orania.

    The US is the least-regulated and least-taxed OECD country. It is not likely to ever return to pre-Progressive era levels of government. I love griping about how Kasich promised to junk the income tax when he ran for Governor in 2010, and then never did it. Certainly you can fund a reasonable level of services in our state without an income tax, but the public went nuts over modest rollbacks in public sector union bargaining power.

    The people don’t want the small gov’t nonsense. Their revealed preferences show it.

    Arrest Page, Brin and Schmidt. Seize their company.

    The controlling shares will pass to the Treasury, other private shareholders will not be affected.

    Copy and paste the above plan until every Silicon monopoly is under public control, with the hundreds of billions in annual profit helping to stabilize the budget deficit, rather than be stored away in tax havens.

    It’s time for the Yukos Solution.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Feryl
    "The US is the least-regulated and least-taxed OECD country. It is not likely to ever return to pre-Progressive era levels of government. I love griping about how Kasich promised to junk the income tax when he ran for Governor in 2010, and then never did it. Certainly you can fund a reasonable level of services in our state without an income tax, but the public went nuts over modest rollbacks in public sector union bargaining power."

    Well, just like how true believer communists say that the real thing has still not been tried, so let's keep trying, the true believer Reaganites/libertarians say that we still haven't had the proper level of de-regulation, so let's keep de-regulating 'til we get it right.

    It's interesting that New Dealism is constantly attacked as a poor system by the Reaganites. Most Americans were (relatively) optimistic and confident from the late 1930's-early 1980's. As soon as the initial wave of Reaganism played out by the late 80's, our politics, our popular and civic culture, began to darken. Mass murders became more common. Mergers and acquisitions experienced a manic episode. Big Box retail put many mom and pop stores out of business in the late 80's and 90's. Political gridlock grew worse. Stable, well-paid, and unionized private sector jobs were hemorrhaged (did it ever occur to the Reaganites that government employeees grew more entitled under their watch preciscely because the private sector devastated it's own sector's labor movement?). Prior to the 80's, public employees felt as if they could retreat to a decent private sector job if things didn't work out. Once union busting commenced, public employees went on high alert (plus, it's not like you can off-shore the public sector, right?).
  162. @216

    The Right Wing used to complain that welfare discouraged honest work; now global capital evidently feels that’s in the interest of share holders and investors to hire very few well paid workers in the first place
     
    The Right can't say this as much now because so much of the right-wing base is made up of retirees. Could a lot of retirees work until 67? 70?

    Quite possibly they could, and there's certainly a lot of neoliberals that would like to see that happen.

    It’s hard to grasp for younger people, but back in the 1970’s-early 90’s, Silents and Boomers absolutely hated “welfare bums”. But it was much easier to find good work back then, so maybe the sentiment wasn’t off-base. Now that off-shoring and high immigration levels have “locked out” so many people from reasonable work, you don’t hear bitching about welfare kings and queens as much anymore. It’s like a tacit understanding that elites (global capital) have shredded the job prospects for many people, so whose surprised that social services are soaked to the degree that they are by modern proles? Also, nobody buys into the idea anymore that “only” black people go on welfare. SSI use, by underclass whites, is pretty well-known at this point.

    Also WRT striving, the initial uptick in striving that occured in the 1970’s and 80’s caused people to start grousing about “welfare bums”. This fueled pro-management sentiment (many Americans in the 70’s and 80’s were fed up with unions and regulations). But then business management acted like a kid breaking into the candy store in the 1990’s, so since the early 2000’s most people intuitively aren’t going to side with management like they did in the Carter or Reagan era. A few derps still blame unions for de-industrialization, but most of us aren’t that naive.

    • Replies: @216

    It’s hard to grasp for younger people, but back in the 1970’s-early 90’s, Silents and Boomers absolutely hated “welfare bums”. But it was much easier to find good work back then, so maybe the sentiment wasn’t off-base.
     
    IIRC, the Clinton welfare reforms defused a lot of this anger, combined with the dot-com bubble.

    In Cuck Inc. publications, the rise in disabilty claims was used to indicate that the "Obama recovery" wasn't there. But its true there wasn't as much moral shaming of benefit claimants as one might expect.

    There was major backlash to the unions during the Auto bailout, but it subsided when the people found better villians on Wall Street. Auto executives were strangely unskewered in the aftermath, and managerial culture doesn't seem to have changed much 10 years on. They are still dependent on trucks for profitability, and can't make a small car at a profit. The UAW passed up on the ability to outright own the companies.

    The GOP had a golden opportunity in 2010 to crush the unions for good, had they combined anger at the unions with anger at Wall Street. It really amazes me that no one had the bright idea that TARP stock in the banks should have been retained, even Dems wanted to dump the stock.
    , @Mr. Rational

    Now that off-shoring and high immigration levels have “locked out” so many people from reasonable work, you don’t hear bitching about welfare kings and queens as much anymore.
     
    I suspect that a lot of the pushback against Trump for his trumpeting of record-low Black unemployment is coming from SJWs who call those who complain about welfare parasites "racist" and don't want to lose that bit of moral superiority.

    A few derps still blame unions for de-industrialization
     
    Say what you will, but the overhead of dealing with union shenanigans was one of the cost drivers of the off-shoring movement.  Getting away from the EEOC and Title X was another.
  163. @216
    The unstable multikult empire we live in makes an interventionist government mandatory. And the empire contains too much economic opportunity for people to pass it up, even if they could be freer.

    Not much is stopping lolbertarians from just buying a house in the state of New Hampshire. But only a few thousand appear to have done so, and these rugged individualists can't seem to grok the idea of offering interest-free loans to help fellow cult-members buy a house.

    Afrikaners are under a far worse living situation than any of us are, even benighted UK readers. But yet they don't leave the comfortable live in the suburbs in favor of living in far less dangerous, but far less prosperous Argentina. And unlike American lolbertarians, the Boer actually set up a functioning community known as Orania.

    The US is the least-regulated and least-taxed OECD country. It is not likely to ever return to pre-Progressive era levels of government. I love griping about how Kasich promised to junk the income tax when he ran for Governor in 2010, and then never did it. Certainly you can fund a reasonable level of services in our state without an income tax, but the public went nuts over modest rollbacks in public sector union bargaining power.

    The people don't want the small gov't nonsense. Their revealed preferences show it.

    ---

    Arrest Page, Brin and Schmidt. Seize their company.

    The controlling shares will pass to the Treasury, other private shareholders will not be affected.

    Copy and paste the above plan until every Silicon monopoly is under public control, with the hundreds of billions in annual profit helping to stabilize the budget deficit, rather than be stored away in tax havens.

    It's time for the Yukos Solution.

    “The US is the least-regulated and least-taxed OECD country. It is not likely to ever return to pre-Progressive era levels of government. I love griping about how Kasich promised to junk the income tax when he ran for Governor in 2010, and then never did it. Certainly you can fund a reasonable level of services in our state without an income tax, but the public went nuts over modest rollbacks in public sector union bargaining power.”

    Well, just like how true believer communists say that the real thing has still not been tried, so let’s keep trying, the true believer Reaganites/libertarians say that we still haven’t had the proper level of de-regulation, so let’s keep de-regulating ’til we get it right.

    It’s interesting that New Dealism is constantly attacked as a poor system by the Reaganites. Most Americans were (relatively) optimistic and confident from the late 1930’s-early 1980’s. As soon as the initial wave of Reaganism played out by the late 80’s, our politics, our popular and civic culture, began to darken. Mass murders became more common. Mergers and acquisitions experienced a manic episode. Big Box retail put many mom and pop stores out of business in the late 80’s and 90’s. Political gridlock grew worse. Stable, well-paid, and unionized private sector jobs were hemorrhaged (did it ever occur to the Reaganites that government employeees grew more entitled under their watch preciscely because the private sector devastated it’s own sector’s labor movement?). Prior to the 80’s, public employees felt as if they could retreat to a decent private sector job if things didn’t work out. Once union busting commenced, public employees went on high alert (plus, it’s not like you can off-shore the public sector, right?).

    • Replies: @216
    The thing that conservatives don't want to admit about Reagan is that his Presidency achieved an economic/employment revival thanks to a decline in real wages, along with an energy glut. Reaganomics did nothing to reverse the economic necessity of dual-earner households, the root cause of most marital instability and subsequent secularism.

    I'll give the paycheck cons one credit, they've never credited the tech industry's existence to SDI. Or maybe they did once but were so embarassed they never tried again.

    IIRC, long-tenured gov't employees that started in the 70s/80s came in under the presumption that lower-pay in the public sector was balanced with pensions, an earlier retirement and reduced possibility of layoff. The gov't also gives hiring preference to veterans that otherwise may have faced skepticism in the private sector.
  164. @Feryl
    It's hard to grasp for younger people, but back in the 1970's-early 90's, Silents and Boomers absolutely hated "welfare bums". But it was much easier to find good work back then, so maybe the sentiment wasn't off-base. Now that off-shoring and high immigration levels have "locked out" so many people from reasonable work, you don't hear bitching about welfare kings and queens as much anymore. It's like a tacit understanding that elites (global capital) have shredded the job prospects for many people, so whose surprised that social services are soaked to the degree that they are by modern proles? Also, nobody buys into the idea anymore that "only" black people go on welfare. SSI use, by underclass whites, is pretty well-known at this point.

    Also WRT striving, the initial uptick in striving that occured in the 1970's and 80's caused people to start grousing about "welfare bums". This fueled pro-management sentiment (many Americans in the 70's and 80's were fed up with unions and regulations). But then business management acted like a kid breaking into the candy store in the 1990's, so since the early 2000's most people intuitively aren't going to side with management like they did in the Carter or Reagan era. A few derps still blame unions for de-industrialization, but most of us aren't that naive.

    It’s hard to grasp for younger people, but back in the 1970’s-early 90’s, Silents and Boomers absolutely hated “welfare bums”. But it was much easier to find good work back then, so maybe the sentiment wasn’t off-base.

    IIRC, the Clinton welfare reforms defused a lot of this anger, combined with the dot-com bubble.

    In Cuck Inc. publications, the rise in disabilty claims was used to indicate that the “Obama recovery” wasn’t there. But its true there wasn’t as much moral shaming of benefit claimants as one might expect.

    There was major backlash to the unions during the Auto bailout, but it subsided when the people found better villians on Wall Street. Auto executives were strangely unskewered in the aftermath, and managerial culture doesn’t seem to have changed much 10 years on. They are still dependent on trucks for profitability, and can’t make a small car at a profit. The UAW passed up on the ability to outright own the companies.

    The GOP had a golden opportunity in 2010 to crush the unions for good, had they combined anger at the unions with anger at Wall Street. It really amazes me that no one had the bright idea that TARP stock in the banks should have been retained, even Dems wanted to dump the stock.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Yes, I nearly brought up the Clinton reform.

    In the 60's-early 90's, so many people went on welfare while doing no work at all that it justifiably angered many people. After the reform, a lot of people still are getting benefits technically, but they also work too. It's become common for low-income workers to get subsidies for childcare, housing, healthcare etc.

    I don't think SSI pays anywhere near the equivalent of what basic welfare paid (adj. for inflation) in the 60's or 70's.
  165. 216 says:
    @Feryl
    "The US is the least-regulated and least-taxed OECD country. It is not likely to ever return to pre-Progressive era levels of government. I love griping about how Kasich promised to junk the income tax when he ran for Governor in 2010, and then never did it. Certainly you can fund a reasonable level of services in our state without an income tax, but the public went nuts over modest rollbacks in public sector union bargaining power."

    Well, just like how true believer communists say that the real thing has still not been tried, so let's keep trying, the true believer Reaganites/libertarians say that we still haven't had the proper level of de-regulation, so let's keep de-regulating 'til we get it right.

    It's interesting that New Dealism is constantly attacked as a poor system by the Reaganites. Most Americans were (relatively) optimistic and confident from the late 1930's-early 1980's. As soon as the initial wave of Reaganism played out by the late 80's, our politics, our popular and civic culture, began to darken. Mass murders became more common. Mergers and acquisitions experienced a manic episode. Big Box retail put many mom and pop stores out of business in the late 80's and 90's. Political gridlock grew worse. Stable, well-paid, and unionized private sector jobs were hemorrhaged (did it ever occur to the Reaganites that government employeees grew more entitled under their watch preciscely because the private sector devastated it's own sector's labor movement?). Prior to the 80's, public employees felt as if they could retreat to a decent private sector job if things didn't work out. Once union busting commenced, public employees went on high alert (plus, it's not like you can off-shore the public sector, right?).

    The thing that conservatives don’t want to admit about Reagan is that his Presidency achieved an economic/employment revival thanks to a decline in real wages, along with an energy glut. Reaganomics did nothing to reverse the economic necessity of dual-earner households, the root cause of most marital instability and subsequent secularism.

    I’ll give the paycheck cons one credit, they’ve never credited the tech industry’s existence to SDI. Or maybe they did once but were so embarassed they never tried again.

    IIRC, long-tenured gov’t employees that started in the 70s/80s came in under the presumption that lower-pay in the public sector was balanced with pensions, an earlier retirement and reduced possibility of layoff. The gov’t also gives hiring preference to veterans that otherwise may have faced skepticism in the private sector.

  166. @Feryl
    On other blogs, including the orginal version of this one, I've made that point several times: Silents and Boomers lucked into prosperity, and have smugly been ignoring what they inflicted on younger generations ever since. Since these generations got to establish themselves when "hard work" paid well, they came to think that the only thing that really matters is "hard work". You're not supposed to question any of this.

    When X-ers and Millennials point out that high immigration levels, living costs, education costs, off-shoring, and obscene compensation "packages" for elites have made it very difficult for younger generations to establish a reasonable standard of living, they are ridiculed as sore losers and bums who haven't "worked hard enough". Many mid-upper level Boomers have no idea just how rough things are for people under 50. Back in the 60's and 70's, many low skilled and entry level jobs paid 3-5 times more than the modern equivalent, once you adjust for inflation. And living costs were lower back then, to boot. Older generation need to be really careful that they don't provoke another guillotine revolution, since almost everyone who is really rich was born in the 30's, 40's, and 50's.

    It's moronic to complain about "big government", when Big Business has gotten it's way for the last 35 years. We have a bunch of decadent and spoiled rich assholes lecturing impoverished youth that they need to shut up.

    When X-ers and Millennials point out that high immigration levels, living costs, education costs, off-shoring, and obscene compensation “packages” for elites have made it very difficult for younger generations to establish a reasonable standard of living

    … they are absolutely correct.  But Boomers didn’t “luck into” good times; good times were built by the Silents and Greatests.  What Boomers didn’t learn was how to pass the gifts down; they thought they were a fact of nature.

    The Silents and Greatests also created much of the disaster that followed.  They were the ones in power who gave us “civil rights”.  The youngest Boomers were not even born when the 1964 CRA was enacted; none of them were voting at the time.

    It’s moronic to complain about “big government”

    It IS big government behind much of the problem.  The entire rapefugee influx is a big government creation.  Affirmative Action and Disparate Impact are the result of judges legislating from the bench (exercise of government power without accountability).  And the increase in education costs is driven as much by the bureaucracies and paperwork filings required to stay in compliance with Title X and the EEOC as it is by the (big government-created) flow of guaranteed student loan money driving demand-pull inflation.

    If you only got rid of AA and diversity requirements and the “protected classes” in education and the workplace, the hiring picture for straight White males would literally jump overnight.  It wouldn’t be so good for the AA classes, though; they’d be RIFfed quickly as deadwood once they weren’t required to keep diversicrats at bay.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    "It IS big government behind much of the problem. The entire rapefugee influx is a big government creation. Affirmative Action and Disparate Impact are the result of judges legislating from the bench (exercise of government power without accountability). And the increase in education costs is driven as much by the bureaucracies and paperwork filings required to stay in compliance with Title X and the EEOC as it is by the (big government-created) flow of guaranteed student loan money driving demand-pull inflation."

    There's an academic who wrote a book called "who rules America".

    https://whorulesamerica.ucsc.edu/power/continuing_corporate_dominance.html

    The private sector did little to push back against Civil Rights or Affirmative Action. Whereas they despised the labor and environmental safety regulations, and pro-union policies, which became stronger from the 1930's-1960's. Nixon and Ford did little to change the tenets of New Deal America, then Carter came along and tried to talk the Dems into adopting neo-liberalism, for which the Dems and the working class hated him. Reagan winning in a landslide was taken as the green light to began, in earnest, off-shoring, high immigration levels, de-regulation, and union busting.

    Corporate America doesn't mind being "woke" on race and gender issues, as long as unions remain moribund, monopolies aren't broken up, and wages remain pitiful.

    Immigration has gone in stages; it was once lots of black slaves, then it was Catholics, Jews, and Slavs in the Ellis Island era. Elites in the 1920's put cultural stability above profits, and slammed the door (mostly) shut; a moderate number of people still actually came in during the late 20's, before the Great Depression killed both the demand for immigrants and the attractiveness of the US as an immigrant destination.

    During the "seeding" of neo-liberalism that took place in the mid-late 70's, immigration levels went up moderately. Reagan, and the suddenly thirsty for cheap labor business and rich person class, pushed the levels up even further in the 80's. You can't blame 1960's legislation on this; the authorities can accept or reject whoever they want in terms of permitting entry to America. In 1980 we established a new-fangled "refugee" bureau to deal with the newfound demand for higher immigration levels. Under the "refugee" guise, tons of Central American and Asian immigrants arrived in the late 70's and 80's. By the late 80's, we'd begun to accept people from the MENA (the first Mosque in Minnesota was built around 1989). This wasn't enough whoring for the GOP, so George Bush spearheaded the insane and laughable 1990 immigration act, which was written specifically to attack skilled American workers (The H1-B Visa was then quickly abused), while also establishing a "Visa lottery" and making "chain-migration" easier. The neo-liberal GOP, and most certainly not the Democrats or New Dealers, is responsible for the worst piece of immigration legislation in this country's history. Since the GOP has always been more responsive than the Dems to the labor needs of businesses which employ large workforces, it therefore stands to reason that they ought to be blamed for caving in to the greed of treasonous business men and lobbyists.

    Recent studies of immigrants reveal that most of them arrived in the wake of Reagan's amnesty and the implementation of Bush's immigration act. The GOP, after the ascent of Reaganism, thought that no 60's or 70's regime went far enough in promoting and tolerating high immigration levels (in the 80's and 90's, it was never conservative elites or intellectuals who complained about immigration being high, aside from a few isolated paleo-cons who were drummed out of mainstream conservatism by the late 90's). David Finkelhor, who studies child abuse, has said that researchers only focused on white and black kids in the 70's and 80's, because that's what America looked like back then. Ted Kennedy, LBJ, the Warren Court, etc. are not responsible for Arabs, Dot-Indians, Guatemalans, Somalis, or Chinese swamping this country after circa 1987. Neither is Nixon.

    Nobody buys that liberal big government brought in the hordes. Immigration levels have been rising ever since this country's economic and intellectual elite began whining about "big government" in the mid-70's. Who's gonna stop the hordes? Jeff Bezos? The Kock Bros? We need to harness the government's power to effectively restore order and punish greed.
    , @Feryl
    "… they are absolutely correct. But Boomers didn’t “luck into” good times; good times were built by the Silents and Greatests. What Boomers didn’t learn was how to pass the gifts down; they thought they were a fact of nature."

    I mean that Boomers had the luck to inherit something they didn't build, and then have proceeded to badly squander the advantages they started out with. This applies to the Silents to some degree as well, although since Silents weren't the ones doing bong hits and crashing their cars, they haven't been as physically destructive as the Boomers, but from ideological perspective Silents are in some ways the worst generation ever (never has a generation gained so much while not being able or willing to give future generations the same opportunities).

    "The Silents and Greatests also created much of the disaster that followed. They were the ones in power who gave us “civil rights”. The youngest Boomers were not even born when the 1964 CRA was enacted; none of them were voting at the time."

    The economic prosperity of the 50's and 60's was going to, eventually, in some way, lead to some foolish ideas. But Americans, on average, were in much better shape back then than they are now (the middle class was stronger, obesity was lower, politics were less partisan, etc.) adjusted for changes in science and tech. making modern life easier in some ways.

    Civil Rights in the 60's were premised on helping out blacks, we had to figure out a way to atone for what had been done to them for so long. Remember that in the 1930's-1960's, Americans came to increasingly believe in love thy (native-born) neighbor. We're all in this together, let's do the best we can to find a way of life that gives everyone the best outcome. It wasn't until the 70's and esp. the 80's, that cynicism about "progress" went mainstream, and people began to develop a paranoid and mercenary mentality about everything, including sweeping government/social efforts to level the playing field. Much of this arose, naturally, from Boomers wreaking havoc everywhere. Though society listened to the Boomers in the 60's and esp. the 70's, older generations found them hard to love, and within the Boomer generation there was a lot finger pointing also.

    Boomers may not have been voting all that much in the 60's or early 70's, but they certainly were taking advantage of their parent's and the legal system's generosity. By 1970 they were smashing through all kinds of boundaries governing society's behavioral and cultural norms. By the late 80's, many Boomers had kids and they then began to narcissisticly pass judgement on criminals and wierdos, as mass incarceration was off and running (conveniently occurring after many youthful Boomer offenders never got seriously punished for their misdeeds).
  167. @Feryl
    It's hard to grasp for younger people, but back in the 1970's-early 90's, Silents and Boomers absolutely hated "welfare bums". But it was much easier to find good work back then, so maybe the sentiment wasn't off-base. Now that off-shoring and high immigration levels have "locked out" so many people from reasonable work, you don't hear bitching about welfare kings and queens as much anymore. It's like a tacit understanding that elites (global capital) have shredded the job prospects for many people, so whose surprised that social services are soaked to the degree that they are by modern proles? Also, nobody buys into the idea anymore that "only" black people go on welfare. SSI use, by underclass whites, is pretty well-known at this point.

    Also WRT striving, the initial uptick in striving that occured in the 1970's and 80's caused people to start grousing about "welfare bums". This fueled pro-management sentiment (many Americans in the 70's and 80's were fed up with unions and regulations). But then business management acted like a kid breaking into the candy store in the 1990's, so since the early 2000's most people intuitively aren't going to side with management like they did in the Carter or Reagan era. A few derps still blame unions for de-industrialization, but most of us aren't that naive.

    Now that off-shoring and high immigration levels have “locked out” so many people from reasonable work, you don’t hear bitching about welfare kings and queens as much anymore.

    I suspect that a lot of the pushback against Trump for his trumpeting of record-low Black unemployment is coming from SJWs who call those who complain about welfare parasites “racist” and don’t want to lose that bit of moral superiority.

    A few derps still blame unions for de-industrialization

    Say what you will, but the overhead of dealing with union shenanigans was one of the cost drivers of the off-shoring movement.  Getting away from the EEOC and Title X was another.

  168. @216

    It’s hard to grasp for younger people, but back in the 1970’s-early 90’s, Silents and Boomers absolutely hated “welfare bums”. But it was much easier to find good work back then, so maybe the sentiment wasn’t off-base.
     
    IIRC, the Clinton welfare reforms defused a lot of this anger, combined with the dot-com bubble.

    In Cuck Inc. publications, the rise in disabilty claims was used to indicate that the "Obama recovery" wasn't there. But its true there wasn't as much moral shaming of benefit claimants as one might expect.

    There was major backlash to the unions during the Auto bailout, but it subsided when the people found better villians on Wall Street. Auto executives were strangely unskewered in the aftermath, and managerial culture doesn't seem to have changed much 10 years on. They are still dependent on trucks for profitability, and can't make a small car at a profit. The UAW passed up on the ability to outright own the companies.

    The GOP had a golden opportunity in 2010 to crush the unions for good, had they combined anger at the unions with anger at Wall Street. It really amazes me that no one had the bright idea that TARP stock in the banks should have been retained, even Dems wanted to dump the stock.

    Yes, I nearly brought up the Clinton reform.

    In the 60’s-early 90’s, so many people went on welfare while doing no work at all that it justifiably angered many people. After the reform, a lot of people still are getting benefits technically, but they also work too. It’s become common for low-income workers to get subsidies for childcare, housing, healthcare etc.

    I don’t think SSI pays anywhere near the equivalent of what basic welfare paid (adj. for inflation) in the 60’s or 70’s.

  169. @Mr. Rational

    When X-ers and Millennials point out that high immigration levels, living costs, education costs, off-shoring, and obscene compensation “packages” for elites have made it very difficult for younger generations to establish a reasonable standard of living
     
    ... they are absolutely correct.  But Boomers didn't "luck into" good times; good times were built by the Silents and Greatests.  What Boomers didn't learn was how to pass the gifts down; they thought they were a fact of nature.

    The Silents and Greatests also created much of the disaster that followed.  They were the ones in power who gave us "civil rights".  The youngest Boomers were not even born when the 1964 CRA was enacted; none of them were voting at the time.

    It’s moronic to complain about “big government”
     
    It IS big government behind much of the problem.  The entire rapefugee influx is a big government creation.  Affirmative Action and Disparate Impact are the result of judges legislating from the bench (exercise of government power without accountability).  And the increase in education costs is driven as much by the bureaucracies and paperwork filings required to stay in compliance with Title X and the EEOC as it is by the (big government-created) flow of guaranteed student loan money driving demand-pull inflation.

    If you only got rid of AA and diversity requirements and the "protected classes" in education and the workplace, the hiring picture for straight White males would literally jump overnight.  It wouldn't be so good for the AA classes, though; they'd be RIFfed quickly as deadwood once they weren't required to keep diversicrats at bay.

    “It IS big government behind much of the problem. The entire rapefugee influx is a big government creation. Affirmative Action and Disparate Impact are the result of judges legislating from the bench (exercise of government power without accountability). And the increase in education costs is driven as much by the bureaucracies and paperwork filings required to stay in compliance with Title X and the EEOC as it is by the (big government-created) flow of guaranteed student loan money driving demand-pull inflation.”

    There’s an academic who wrote a book called “who rules America”.

    https://whorulesamerica.ucsc.edu/power/continuing_corporate_dominance.html

    The private sector did little to push back against Civil Rights or Affirmative Action. Whereas they despised the labor and environmental safety regulations, and pro-union policies, which became stronger from the 1930’s-1960’s. Nixon and Ford did little to change the tenets of New Deal America, then Carter came along and tried to talk the Dems into adopting neo-liberalism, for which the Dems and the working class hated him. Reagan winning in a landslide was taken as the green light to began, in earnest, off-shoring, high immigration levels, de-regulation, and union busting.

    Corporate America doesn’t mind being “woke” on race and gender issues, as long as unions remain moribund, monopolies aren’t broken up, and wages remain pitiful.

    Immigration has gone in stages; it was once lots of black slaves, then it was Catholics, Jews, and Slavs in the Ellis Island era. Elites in the 1920’s put cultural stability above profits, and slammed the door (mostly) shut; a moderate number of people still actually came in during the late 20’s, before the Great Depression killed both the demand for immigrants and the attractiveness of the US as an immigrant destination.

    During the “seeding” of neo-liberalism that took place in the mid-late 70’s, immigration levels went up moderately. Reagan, and the suddenly thirsty for cheap labor business and rich person class, pushed the levels up even further in the 80’s. You can’t blame 1960’s legislation on this; the authorities can accept or reject whoever they want in terms of permitting entry to America. In 1980 we established a new-fangled “refugee” bureau to deal with the newfound demand for higher immigration levels. Under the “refugee” guise, tons of Central American and Asian immigrants arrived in the late 70’s and 80’s. By the late 80’s, we’d begun to accept people from the MENA (the first Mosque in Minnesota was built around 1989). This wasn’t enough whoring for the GOP, so George Bush spearheaded the insane and laughable 1990 immigration act, which was written specifically to attack skilled American workers (The H1-B Visa was then quickly abused), while also establishing a “Visa lottery” and making “chain-migration” easier. The neo-liberal GOP, and most certainly not the Democrats or New Dealers, is responsible for the worst piece of immigration legislation in this country’s history. Since the GOP has always been more responsive than the Dems to the labor needs of businesses which employ large workforces, it therefore stands to reason that they ought to be blamed for caving in to the greed of treasonous business men and lobbyists.

    Recent studies of immigrants reveal that most of them arrived in the wake of Reagan’s amnesty and the implementation of Bush’s immigration act. The GOP, after the ascent of Reaganism, thought that no 60’s or 70’s regime went far enough in promoting and tolerating high immigration levels (in the 80’s and 90’s, it was never conservative elites or intellectuals who complained about immigration being high, aside from a few isolated paleo-cons who were drummed out of mainstream conservatism by the late 90’s). David Finkelhor, who studies child abuse, has said that researchers only focused on white and black kids in the 70’s and 80’s, because that’s what America looked like back then. Ted Kennedy, LBJ, the Warren Court, etc. are not responsible for Arabs, Dot-Indians, Guatemalans, Somalis, or Chinese swamping this country after circa 1987. Neither is Nixon.

    Nobody buys that liberal big government brought in the hordes. Immigration levels have been rising ever since this country’s economic and intellectual elite began whining about “big government” in the mid-70’s. Who’s gonna stop the hordes? Jeff Bezos? The Kock Bros? We need to harness the government’s power to effectively restore order and punish greed.

    • Replies: @ben tillman

    Nobody buys that liberal big government brought in the hordes.
     
    Don't be ridiculous. "Big government" is 100% responsible for post-1965 immigration.
  170. @Mr. Rational

    When X-ers and Millennials point out that high immigration levels, living costs, education costs, off-shoring, and obscene compensation “packages” for elites have made it very difficult for younger generations to establish a reasonable standard of living
     
    ... they are absolutely correct.  But Boomers didn't "luck into" good times; good times were built by the Silents and Greatests.  What Boomers didn't learn was how to pass the gifts down; they thought they were a fact of nature.

    The Silents and Greatests also created much of the disaster that followed.  They were the ones in power who gave us "civil rights".  The youngest Boomers were not even born when the 1964 CRA was enacted; none of them were voting at the time.

    It’s moronic to complain about “big government”
     
    It IS big government behind much of the problem.  The entire rapefugee influx is a big government creation.  Affirmative Action and Disparate Impact are the result of judges legislating from the bench (exercise of government power without accountability).  And the increase in education costs is driven as much by the bureaucracies and paperwork filings required to stay in compliance with Title X and the EEOC as it is by the (big government-created) flow of guaranteed student loan money driving demand-pull inflation.

    If you only got rid of AA and diversity requirements and the "protected classes" in education and the workplace, the hiring picture for straight White males would literally jump overnight.  It wouldn't be so good for the AA classes, though; they'd be RIFfed quickly as deadwood once they weren't required to keep diversicrats at bay.

    “… they are absolutely correct. But Boomers didn’t “luck into” good times; good times were built by the Silents and Greatests. What Boomers didn’t learn was how to pass the gifts down; they thought they were a fact of nature.”

    I mean that Boomers had the luck to inherit something they didn’t build, and then have proceeded to badly squander the advantages they started out with. This applies to the Silents to some degree as well, although since Silents weren’t the ones doing bong hits and crashing their cars, they haven’t been as physically destructive as the Boomers, but from ideological perspective Silents are in some ways the worst generation ever (never has a generation gained so much while not being able or willing to give future generations the same opportunities).

    “The Silents and Greatests also created much of the disaster that followed. They were the ones in power who gave us “civil rights”. The youngest Boomers were not even born when the 1964 CRA was enacted; none of them were voting at the time.”

    The economic prosperity of the 50’s and 60’s was going to, eventually, in some way, lead to some foolish ideas. But Americans, on average, were in much better shape back then than they are now (the middle class was stronger, obesity was lower, politics were less partisan, etc.) adjusted for changes in science and tech. making modern life easier in some ways.

    Civil Rights in the 60’s were premised on helping out blacks, we had to figure out a way to atone for what had been done to them for so long. Remember that in the 1930’s-1960’s, Americans came to increasingly believe in love thy (native-born) neighbor. We’re all in this together, let’s do the best we can to find a way of life that gives everyone the best outcome. It wasn’t until the 70’s and esp. the 80’s, that cynicism about “progress” went mainstream, and people began to develop a paranoid and mercenary mentality about everything, including sweeping government/social efforts to level the playing field. Much of this arose, naturally, from Boomers wreaking havoc everywhere. Though society listened to the Boomers in the 60’s and esp. the 70’s, older generations found them hard to love, and within the Boomer generation there was a lot finger pointing also.

    Boomers may not have been voting all that much in the 60’s or early 70’s, but they certainly were taking advantage of their parent’s and the legal system’s generosity. By 1970 they were smashing through all kinds of boundaries governing society’s behavioral and cultural norms. By the late 80’s, many Boomers had kids and they then began to narcissisticly pass judgement on criminals and wierdos, as mass incarceration was off and running (conveniently occurring after many youthful Boomer offenders never got seriously punished for their misdeeds).

  171. @Endgame Napoleon
    The “single women” gap is caused by age and lack of life experience. More single women are young, and they have not yet faced the realities of the welfare-rigged labor market, wherein it is perfectly okay for groups of minorites to discriminate openly.

    They have not faced it, directly, with the consequences of the gap between their racism / sexism / xenophobia ideals and what life really dishes out at ground level putting their ability to keep an independent roof over their head in jeopardy.

    At that point, they have not faced much of anything without their parents’ piggy bank backing them up.

    They are also less likely to have encountered dangerous situations, like working in unsafe settings. Those young, illegal-alien-embracing, single women are also far less likely to show up on voting day with or without a pink hat.

    This does explain why the Republican Party completely disgards the economic interests of single, childless women in its policy agenda, but I think they are miscalculating, not taking into consideration the fact that many single women have been married and the way that progressive programs for single moms undercut single, childless women and single moms with kids over 18 in the labor market.

    Older and middle-aged single women rely on earned-only income, and we are in the age group that is far more likely to vote. You can ask a young, single woman anything, but that does not increase the likelihood that she will act on it by voting.

    Many, many of those young, married women that Republicans cater to with non-refundable child tax credits—like their unmarried, refundable child tax credit-cashing welfare-mom counterparts—are not even registered to vote. A greater percentage of the middle-aged and older single women are.

    This does explain why the Republican Party completely disgards the economic interests of single, childless women in its policy agenda, but I think they are miscalculating, not taking into consideration the fact that many single women have been married . . . .

    By definition, a single woman has never been married.

  172. @Feryl
    "It IS big government behind much of the problem. The entire rapefugee influx is a big government creation. Affirmative Action and Disparate Impact are the result of judges legislating from the bench (exercise of government power without accountability). And the increase in education costs is driven as much by the bureaucracies and paperwork filings required to stay in compliance with Title X and the EEOC as it is by the (big government-created) flow of guaranteed student loan money driving demand-pull inflation."

    There's an academic who wrote a book called "who rules America".

    https://whorulesamerica.ucsc.edu/power/continuing_corporate_dominance.html

    The private sector did little to push back against Civil Rights or Affirmative Action. Whereas they despised the labor and environmental safety regulations, and pro-union policies, which became stronger from the 1930's-1960's. Nixon and Ford did little to change the tenets of New Deal America, then Carter came along and tried to talk the Dems into adopting neo-liberalism, for which the Dems and the working class hated him. Reagan winning in a landslide was taken as the green light to began, in earnest, off-shoring, high immigration levels, de-regulation, and union busting.

    Corporate America doesn't mind being "woke" on race and gender issues, as long as unions remain moribund, monopolies aren't broken up, and wages remain pitiful.

    Immigration has gone in stages; it was once lots of black slaves, then it was Catholics, Jews, and Slavs in the Ellis Island era. Elites in the 1920's put cultural stability above profits, and slammed the door (mostly) shut; a moderate number of people still actually came in during the late 20's, before the Great Depression killed both the demand for immigrants and the attractiveness of the US as an immigrant destination.

    During the "seeding" of neo-liberalism that took place in the mid-late 70's, immigration levels went up moderately. Reagan, and the suddenly thirsty for cheap labor business and rich person class, pushed the levels up even further in the 80's. You can't blame 1960's legislation on this; the authorities can accept or reject whoever they want in terms of permitting entry to America. In 1980 we established a new-fangled "refugee" bureau to deal with the newfound demand for higher immigration levels. Under the "refugee" guise, tons of Central American and Asian immigrants arrived in the late 70's and 80's. By the late 80's, we'd begun to accept people from the MENA (the first Mosque in Minnesota was built around 1989). This wasn't enough whoring for the GOP, so George Bush spearheaded the insane and laughable 1990 immigration act, which was written specifically to attack skilled American workers (The H1-B Visa was then quickly abused), while also establishing a "Visa lottery" and making "chain-migration" easier. The neo-liberal GOP, and most certainly not the Democrats or New Dealers, is responsible for the worst piece of immigration legislation in this country's history. Since the GOP has always been more responsive than the Dems to the labor needs of businesses which employ large workforces, it therefore stands to reason that they ought to be blamed for caving in to the greed of treasonous business men and lobbyists.

    Recent studies of immigrants reveal that most of them arrived in the wake of Reagan's amnesty and the implementation of Bush's immigration act. The GOP, after the ascent of Reaganism, thought that no 60's or 70's regime went far enough in promoting and tolerating high immigration levels (in the 80's and 90's, it was never conservative elites or intellectuals who complained about immigration being high, aside from a few isolated paleo-cons who were drummed out of mainstream conservatism by the late 90's). David Finkelhor, who studies child abuse, has said that researchers only focused on white and black kids in the 70's and 80's, because that's what America looked like back then. Ted Kennedy, LBJ, the Warren Court, etc. are not responsible for Arabs, Dot-Indians, Guatemalans, Somalis, or Chinese swamping this country after circa 1987. Neither is Nixon.

    Nobody buys that liberal big government brought in the hordes. Immigration levels have been rising ever since this country's economic and intellectual elite began whining about "big government" in the mid-70's. Who's gonna stop the hordes? Jeff Bezos? The Kock Bros? We need to harness the government's power to effectively restore order and punish greed.

    Nobody buys that liberal big government brought in the hordes.

    Don’t be ridiculous. “Big government” is 100% responsible for post-1965 immigration.

  173. @Feryl
    On other blogs, including the orginal version of this one, I've made that point several times: Silents and Boomers lucked into prosperity, and have smugly been ignoring what they inflicted on younger generations ever since. Since these generations got to establish themselves when "hard work" paid well, they came to think that the only thing that really matters is "hard work". You're not supposed to question any of this.

    When X-ers and Millennials point out that high immigration levels, living costs, education costs, off-shoring, and obscene compensation "packages" for elites have made it very difficult for younger generations to establish a reasonable standard of living, they are ridiculed as sore losers and bums who haven't "worked hard enough". Many mid-upper level Boomers have no idea just how rough things are for people under 50. Back in the 60's and 70's, many low skilled and entry level jobs paid 3-5 times more than the modern equivalent, once you adjust for inflation. And living costs were lower back then, to boot. Older generation need to be really careful that they don't provoke another guillotine revolution, since almost everyone who is really rich was born in the 30's, 40's, and 50's.

    It's moronic to complain about "big government", when Big Business has gotten it's way for the last 35 years. We have a bunch of decadent and spoiled rich assholes lecturing impoverished youth that they need to shut up.

    It’s moronic to complain about “big government”, when Big Business has gotten it’s way for the last 35 years.

    They are the same thing.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS