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
Ellis Island Idealism
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

The sentimental touchstone that causes non-British Americans whose ancestors came over in the 19th and early 20th centuries, right? Huddled masses, the poem, the search for a better life–the promise of America.

Though these non-British European immigrants of the past–especially Italians and the Irish–often serve as rhetorical ploys in the service of arguing for open borders in the present and indefinite future, the descendants of the original gentile settlers and the descendants of subsequent waves of gentile immigrants all feel the same way about contemporary immigration into America–they want less of it.

Those of German descent have the excuse of being significantly rural and thus significantly deplorable. Plus, they’re German by heritage, and we know what that means. But big city Italians wanting to slam the door hardest? Freaking fredos!

Members of the third group often invoked alongside Italians and the Irish in efforts to open US immigration policy as wide as possible are immigration romantics, however:

This is an observation gentiles are discouraged from making. But look at the masthead. This is his webzine, not mine, so go pound sand!

Speaking of Mr. Unz, he is often uncharitably referred to as a “self-hating Jew”, a phrase obviously intended as an insult. Would those same people refer to an ethnomasochistic white person as a “self-hating white”, and if so, would it be intended as an insult–or as a laud?

GSS variables used: LETIN1A(1-2)(3)(4-5), ETHNIC(7-9,11,14,15,19,21,24,26), RELIG(1-2,4-13)(3), YEAR(2012-2018)

 
• Category: Culture/Society • Tags: Europe, GSS, Immigration, Jews 
Hide 98 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. If the dissident right is going to be a lasting movement, it needs to begin by deconstructing the intellectual trends between 1880 – 1920. These were the years that Jewish intellectuals basically rewrote the American ethos, from one centered on Anglo-NW European outlook to a cosmopolitan one, agnostic to heritage and tradition.

    It would be unrealistic to entirely abandon everything post-1920. But simply chronicling the intellectual changes during these years into a digestible framework would be a massive first step, a dissident right wiki-Common Sense, if you will.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency

    It would be unrealistic to entirely abandon everything post-1920. But simply chronicling the intellectual changes during these years into a digestible framework would be a massive first step, a dissident right wiki-Common Sense, if you will.
     
    Search Youtube.com for "Hicks Postmodernism". Search Amazon for "Hicks Postmodernism".
    Bloom, "Closing of the American Mind" covers the parts Hicks misses.

    Granted, these are historical studies rather than philosophies. They tell what has happened in the past, but say nothing about the future. Closest you'll come to an alternate philosophical system today is Jordan Peterson, who at least tries to present a system of thought that isn't lethal to its practitioners. His "life is tragic" realization may be just what's needed to get through the next few decades, but "life is tragic" isn't a complete political philosophy. It's the start of a complete political philosophy, but isn't one yet.

    Constructing a philosophical system takes time and talent, and usually several contributors over several decades. The contemporary university, and contemporary political thought, won't tolerate the sort of person who is capable of constructing a philosophical school (Charlton & Dutton, _The Genius Famine_, Amazon.com).

    This implies that the current project has, of necessity, to destroy the barriers to philosophical system construction before a replacement philosophical system can be constructed. That's what the French did in the French Revolution: burn everything down to the bare brick, kill the opposition and a large fraction of the non-opposition young men on, then start again. Didn't really work all that well, but it did destroy the previous system. OTH, the English Revolution seems to have composed its supporting philosophy after it was complete, and the English subsequently did rather well as such things go. In both cases the affair was very messy and very bloody.

    Counterinsurgency
  2. If the data represented in this graph are correct, then how can one explain the continuing flood of immigrants into the United States without resort to “anti-semitic tropes”?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Jews on the whole are more sentimentally pro-immigration than even non-Jewish white Democrats are. That is pretty remarkable.
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    It can be explained without the anti-semitic tropes, though they are not really wrong, but just by explaining how a people lose control of their government. Come on, readers, just look at A.E.'s graphs. If all these peoples are against immigration, how come all branches of our government don't give a rat's ass about that?

    What you don't do is let your governments get out of control to where they don't have to care what you think about their policies. Our Founders knew this and did their very best, but over the last 5 decades our idiot Socialists have created the Feral Beast we have now. Nice going, assholes!
  3. Left/liberal Jews are at least consistent — they want open borders everywhere.

    Right-wing Zionist Jews want closed borders for Israel, open borders for everyone else.

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
    Biste meschugge?! Doch net inn AIGENEN Land!

    (ancient inside joke about "building socialism" :P )
  4. With some of the much smaller “meme ethnicities” like yugoslav-americans or somalis it’d probably be down even further tbh

  5. The internet WASPs here aren’t going to like this.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    Why?
  6. Italians are very based, bro.

    They are the most redpilled people in Canada.

    Lou Barletta and Matteo Salvini are amazing people.

    I find it embarrassing when Italians are doing more to preserve their adopted country than the founding stock WASPS are.

    Wake up!

    (I would also like to see French included on this graph; many in Maine and Louisiana).

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    The French sample size is only 75 over the time period in question, that's why I didn't include it.
    , @LondonBob
    The contrast between Irish and Italians in America fascinate me. Even though Italian Americans retain much of their culture this isn't done in opposition to Anglo-American culture, my theory is that Italian identity is a very positive one, they have the Romans, the Renaissance and their cuisine.
  7. IMO, Ron Unz is not a “self-hating Jew,” but a fair man who believes that people have a right to speak to their minds even if he disagrees with what they say. The old, “I don’t agree with what you say, but will defend to death your right to say it.” At one time, liberals liked to quote that line.

    Liberals used to oppose conservative attempt to censor, which tended to involve obscenity. Now, they want to censor “hate speech” — speech that they hate. Smut and bad language are fine.

    Self-hating Whites? Liberal guilt? Ha ha ha! Loud-mouthed Liberal Whites don’t feel guilty about anything because they’re amoral. Moral peacocks parading their superior pseudo-morality, ranting about “bigotry.”

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Emphatically agree about Ron. He is the living embodiment of free expression and open inquiry. I don't think he hates anyone, and if he does, he's too gracious to let it be known.
  8. Weren’t you just scolding someone for seeing a “Jew around every corner?”

    The above graph means nothing anyway. I’ve been told right here that whites are the sole cause of all their own problems, and could never be the victims despite a massive, century + old disinformation campaign, facilitated by a group of elites disproportionately represented by the same group of people that strangely pop up on the right side of that graph.

    I mean, when you think of the top 10-15 people currently alive in the world who use their power and influence in way that are detrimental to the West, what do their last names look like? Smith, Kelly, Giovanni and Schneider? Not so much.

    But no no goy, it’s never the Jews!

    Further, Sailer just had a post theorizing about the real meaning behind that poem at the feet of Liberty. It’s almost like Jewish ethnocentrism is a real thing and they work harder than most to promote their own interests, at the expense of pretty much everyone and anything else.

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/the-emma-lazarus-poem-was-little-known-until-wwii/

    • Replies: @L Woods
    Jews didn’t invent the social cycle; they just gave it a vigorous spin. An accelerationist might thank them.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Bezos, Slim, Brin, Page, Soros, Zuckerberg, Koch--yeah, disproportionately Jewish.

    I was just teasing Rosie. I'm not sure accusing someone of being Jewish is helpful, that's all.

    , @Counterinsurgency
    Yelling out the Jewish establishment until its teeth fall out isn't an effective tactic.

    What is? Same thing that took out the USSR: containment. The Jewish establishment is very bad at long term strategy, and they've painted themselves into a corner: destroyed the cities that are the only place the Jewish establishment can live.

    The problem now is to have something in place that can replace the Jewish establishment when it falls under attack from the very POC imported as its saviors, which will happen much more seriously as the cities deteriorate yet further [1]. If nothing consistent with retaining industry and some kind of market is in place, well, _somebody_ is going to "restore order", and the order will probably be a fairly harsh one.

    Counterinsurgency


    1] See the various urban health crises cased by the _brilliant_ idea of supplementing city funding with externally supplied tax money "needed to support the homeless population", the CATO4321 people, and simultaneously cutting costs by reducing trash collection.
    _If_ the forecasts of "another 2008" in the next year or so come true, external tax funding will be even harder to acquire than it is now, which would (if it happened) increase the rate of urban deterioration. Even the urban unemployables aren't going to put up with that. At the very least, they'll want POC in all the patronage jobs and be motivated enough to have their wants realized.
    When that doesn't help, they'll start fighting each other.
  9. @MikeatMikedotMike
    Weren't you just scolding someone for seeing a "Jew around every corner?"

    The above graph means nothing anyway. I've been told right here that whites are the sole cause of all their own problems, and could never be the victims despite a massive, century + old disinformation campaign, facilitated by a group of elites disproportionately represented by the same group of people that strangely pop up on the right side of that graph.

    I mean, when you think of the top 10-15 people currently alive in the world who use their power and influence in way that are detrimental to the West, what do their last names look like? Smith, Kelly, Giovanni and Schneider? Not so much.

    But no no goy, it's never the Jews!

    Further, Sailer just had a post theorizing about the real meaning behind that poem at the feet of Liberty. It's almost like Jewish ethnocentrism is a real thing and they work harder than most to promote their own interests, at the expense of pretty much everyone and anything else.

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/the-emma-lazarus-poem-was-little-known-until-wwii/

    Jews didn’t invent the social cycle; they just gave it a vigorous spin. An accelerationist might thank them.

  10. @MikeatMikedotMike
    Weren't you just scolding someone for seeing a "Jew around every corner?"

    The above graph means nothing anyway. I've been told right here that whites are the sole cause of all their own problems, and could never be the victims despite a massive, century + old disinformation campaign, facilitated by a group of elites disproportionately represented by the same group of people that strangely pop up on the right side of that graph.

    I mean, when you think of the top 10-15 people currently alive in the world who use their power and influence in way that are detrimental to the West, what do their last names look like? Smith, Kelly, Giovanni and Schneider? Not so much.

    But no no goy, it's never the Jews!

    Further, Sailer just had a post theorizing about the real meaning behind that poem at the feet of Liberty. It's almost like Jewish ethnocentrism is a real thing and they work harder than most to promote their own interests, at the expense of pretty much everyone and anything else.

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/the-emma-lazarus-poem-was-little-known-until-wwii/

    Bezos, Slim, Brin, Page, Soros, Zuckerberg, Koch–yeah, disproportionately Jewish.

    I was just teasing Rosie. I’m not sure accusing someone of being Jewish is helpful, that’s all.

  11. @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    IMO, Ron Unz is not a "self-hating Jew," but a fair man who believes that people have a right to speak to their minds even if he disagrees with what they say. The old, "I don't agree with what you say, but will defend to death your right to say it." At one time, liberals liked to quote that line.

    Liberals used to oppose conservative attempt to censor, which tended to involve obscenity. Now, they want to censor "hate speech" -- speech that they hate. Smut and bad language are fine.

    Self-hating Whites? Liberal guilt? Ha ha ha! Loud-mouthed Liberal Whites don't feel guilty about anything because they're amoral. Moral peacocks parading their superior pseudo-morality, ranting about "bigotry."

    Emphatically agree about Ron. He is the living embodiment of free expression and open inquiry. I don’t think he hates anyone, and if he does, he’s too gracious to let it be known.

  12. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Italians are very based, bro.

    They are the most redpilled people in Canada.

    Lou Barletta and Matteo Salvini are amazing people.

    I find it embarrassing when Italians are doing more to preserve their adopted country than the founding stock WASPS are.

    Wake up!

    (I would also like to see French included on this graph; many in Maine and Louisiana).

    The French sample size is only 75 over the time period in question, that’s why I didn’t include it.

  13. @Tono Bungay
    If the data represented in this graph are correct, then how can one explain the continuing flood of immigrants into the United States without resort to "anti-semitic tropes"?

    Jews on the whole are more sentimentally pro-immigration than even non-Jewish white Democrats are. That is pretty remarkable.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    There is a colossal amount of baggage regarding historical European antisemitism carried around by Ashkenazi Jews. This in practice translates to never-ending campaigns to de-whiten formerly white countries.

    And using the GSS, Jews, no matter how they self-ID or where they grew up (North, South, East, West, Country, Suburbs, Big City) are always consistently more liberal on abortion and homosexuality than gentiles of any race. I remember being surprised to find that small town Jews self-ID'd as more liberal than urban secular white gentiles.

    Jews want cultural libertarianism, which they, as the upper class, do not find to be overly threatening or destabilizing. On the other hand, gentiles are more likely to be middle to lower class and do not want to live in Sodom. It should be noted, however, that upper class white gentiles are less libertarian than Upper class Jews. So it's fair to say that a lack of noblesse oblige is not evenly distributed.

    I think I'll run some stuff and put it on my blog.
  14. Italians and the Jews are the most clannish of the listed groups, but while Italians perceive further waves of aliens to be a threat to their community and posterity, Jews figure that anything that adds to multi-culturalism will further dilute the “host” nation and diminish the likelihood of mass nativism. Interesting to see that while Italians feel as if they are protecting their investment in America, Jews on the other hand, as usual, do not feel the same sort of patriotism; indeed, they consider it their duty to further alter and transform America to make it more to their liking, before they will fully march alongside other white Americans. This is the sort of attitude, as you can imagine, that fueled centuries of European distaste for Jews. The “Host” is obligated to absorb the culture of Jews, not the other way around.

    And yeah, the “Ellis Island” sentimental memes, for all intents and purposes, means “Jewish”. We all know who entered East and West Coast journalism in large numbers in the 20th century. They usually didn’t have surnames like Hanrahan (unless the newspaper was based in Boston) or Feretti. As a matter of fact, the (((MSM))) now regularly employs all kinds of post-1965 immigrant stock people. It’s pretty conspicuous that after the Jewish diaspora was established in the US by circa 1900, they nursed a variety of grudges against various Euro folkways (Anglo-Dutch founding stock, Germanic folk who mostly arrived after circa 1850, and then their fellow Ellis Islanders, the Slavs, Irish-Catholics, and Italians*) but have been substantially more welcoming of post-1965 non-white arrivals.

    *It’s clear from post-Ellis Island narratives in Hollywood that Italians may have been the culturally weakest group to arrive before the late 60’s. No other ethnic group has been so consistently vilified or mocked. In hindsight, it looks like (((Hollywood))) may have been projecting their own flaws onto Italians, the ethnic Diaspora in America who are the most genetically and temperamentally similar to Jews. Imagine if Jews had gotten this unflattering treatment; we wouldn’t hear the end of complaints that the public was being primed for another anti-Jewish campaign.

    It’s not a “conspiracy” to point out that since 1945, no “white” ethnic group in America is permitted to argue for it’s own interests if this raises the possibility of Jews being displeased by such activity. Italians may complain that they haven’t been treated fairly, however if this reveals Jewish culpability for the unfairness, or becomes a “nativist” campaign to rid America of unwanted alien peoples and influence, then it’s not ok to question the (((narrative))) of the last 74 years, which was already being devised in the 19th and early 20th century but would not gain acceptance in the West until 1945.

    • Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    Here in NJ, Italian-Americans were typically the last White ethnicity to leave a neighborhood when it started Blacking. The Italians are more aggressive, clannish and, ahem, the boys will keep the crime down for a while.
    , @iffen
    Italians and the Jews are the most clannish of the listed groups

    Yeah, sure, Feryl, but which generation are you talking about?
  15. @Audacious Epigone
    Jews on the whole are more sentimentally pro-immigration than even non-Jewish white Democrats are. That is pretty remarkable.

    There is a colossal amount of baggage regarding historical European antisemitism carried around by Ashkenazi Jews. This in practice translates to never-ending campaigns to de-whiten formerly white countries.

    And using the GSS, Jews, no matter how they self-ID or where they grew up (North, South, East, West, Country, Suburbs, Big City) are always consistently more liberal on abortion and homosexuality than gentiles of any race. I remember being surprised to find that small town Jews self-ID’d as more liberal than urban secular white gentiles.

    Jews want cultural libertarianism, which they, as the upper class, do not find to be overly threatening or destabilizing. On the other hand, gentiles are more likely to be middle to lower class and do not want to live in Sodom. It should be noted, however, that upper class white gentiles are less libertarian than Upper class Jews. So it’s fair to say that a lack of noblesse oblige is not evenly distributed.

    I think I’ll run some stuff and put it on my blog.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Yes, Jewish sentiments on immigration and abortion really are radically to the left of the rest of the US population. It's remarkable.
  16. Jews in the USA overwhelmingly push and support nation-wrecking mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration.

    Trump is a complete and total politician whore for Jew billionaire Shelly Adelson.

    Republican Party donor and Trump donor Shelly Adelson has forked over hundreds of millions of dollars to the Republican Party and issue advocacy groups associated with the Republican Party.

    Shelly Adelson pushes mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration.

    Shelly Adelson wants to continue to flood mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration into the USA.

    Shelly Adelson is strongly against flooding Israel with mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration.

    Shelly Adelson and the Republican Party CHEAP LABOR FACTION both agree that mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration must be allowed to flood into the USA.

    Shelly Adelson wants to continue to use the US military to fight wars on behalf of Israel.

    The corporate propaganda apparatus goes on and on about the Koch boys but ignores the loot that Shelly Adelson showers on the Republican Party. Why is that?

    If it is true that certain Jews have disproportionate power in the corporate media, is it fair to say that Jew billionaire Shelly Adelson is being ignored in the corporate media because it would shine too much light on the power that Jew donors have over the Republican Party?

    At a globalizer Jew meeting in New York City in 2014 featuring Israeli Prime Minister Benny Netty-Yahoo and sponsored and paid for by Shelly Adelson, Netty-Yahoo said this in regards to Israeli immigration policy: “We don’t have to open our doors to be swamped by the way other people run their economies.”

    The Immigration Question And The Jew Question Are Inextricably Connected

    Tweets from 2014:

    • Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    I once remarked to a Jewish friend that IMO one of the reasons why Jews tend to be liberal is because Jews tend to be affluent and so can escape the consequences of their purported idealism. She agreed with me.

    A wise Frenchman, Louis Veuillot, once observed in the 19th Century: When I am the weaker, I ask your for my freedom because that is your principle; when I am the stronger, I will take away your freedom because that is my principle.

    Many groups that are liberal in the West aren't so liberal in their homeland. Moslems are the biggest hypocrites -- favoring religious freedom and equality in the West, while typically favoring the opposite situation in their homelands. In Moslem lands, public rejection of Islam might be punishable by death.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Netanyahu has lent moral support for American immigration restrictionism on multiple occasions. UR commentariat aside, Americans who want a clamp down on immigration are the same ones who support Israel (and wars for Israel). The part I can't make sense of is why American Jewish zionists want to dilute the white gentile population in America. How does that help them either here or in Israel?
  17. anyone know what happened to Steve Sailer’s blog?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    ?
    , @LondonBob
    The quality of commentators has really declined, I have a hard time thinking there at that many morons or that the folks at the ADL are out sabotaging.
  18. @Feryl
    Italians and the Jews are the most clannish of the listed groups, but while Italians perceive further waves of aliens to be a threat to their community and posterity, Jews figure that anything that adds to multi-culturalism will further dilute the "host" nation and diminish the likelihood of mass nativism. Interesting to see that while Italians feel as if they are protecting their investment in America, Jews on the other hand, as usual, do not feel the same sort of patriotism; indeed, they consider it their duty to further alter and transform America to make it more to their liking, before they will fully march alongside other white Americans. This is the sort of attitude, as you can imagine, that fueled centuries of European distaste for Jews. The "Host" is obligated to absorb the culture of Jews, not the other way around.

    And yeah, the "Ellis Island" sentimental memes, for all intents and purposes, means "Jewish". We all know who entered East and West Coast journalism in large numbers in the 20th century. They usually didn't have surnames like Hanrahan (unless the newspaper was based in Boston) or Feretti. As a matter of fact, the (((MSM))) now regularly employs all kinds of post-1965 immigrant stock people. It's pretty conspicuous that after the Jewish diaspora was established in the US by circa 1900, they nursed a variety of grudges against various Euro folkways (Anglo-Dutch founding stock, Germanic folk who mostly arrived after circa 1850, and then their fellow Ellis Islanders, the Slavs, Irish-Catholics, and Italians*) but have been substantially more welcoming of post-1965 non-white arrivals.

    *It's clear from post-Ellis Island narratives in Hollywood that Italians may have been the culturally weakest group to arrive before the late 60's. No other ethnic group has been so consistently vilified or mocked. In hindsight, it looks like (((Hollywood))) may have been projecting their own flaws onto Italians, the ethnic Diaspora in America who are the most genetically and temperamentally similar to Jews. Imagine if Jews had gotten this unflattering treatment; we wouldn't hear the end of complaints that the public was being primed for another anti-Jewish campaign.

    It's not a "conspiracy" to point out that since 1945, no "white" ethnic group in America is permitted to argue for it's own interests if this raises the possibility of Jews being displeased by such activity. Italians may complain that they haven't been treated fairly, however if this reveals Jewish culpability for the unfairness, or becomes a "nativist" campaign to rid America of unwanted alien peoples and influence, then it's not ok to question the (((narrative))) of the last 74 years, which was already being devised in the 19th and early 20th century but would not gain acceptance in the West until 1945.

    Here in NJ, Italian-Americans were typically the last White ethnicity to leave a neighborhood when it started Blacking. The Italians are more aggressive, clannish and, ahem, the boys will keep the crime down for a while.

    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    Ris_Eruwaedhiel:

    In NYC the Jews* likewise have the reputation of being the first to flee from the marauders while the Italians are renown for being the last to depart.

    *One exception being the Ultra-Orthodox who are self-contained and very resistant and/or oblivious to attack. You could set them down in the middle of the Gobi desert and they would just dig in.

  19. First in reference to jews. Most jews are white as Mr. Bill Mahr is white. Being a jew is a cultural distinction not one of color and any claim to unique biology — well, let’s just being scattered to the four winds as well as inter breeding before that renders most of that a moot issue.

    Second, What matters to my stead is whether US citizens support US citizenship. And all of the replacement theorists get know traction and shouldn’t be given any despite their skin color wealth connect or power.

    If the constitution we have is to have any lasting meaning and value —- then we had better put the breaks on immigration. And say that despite the 12 year old childish responses of name calling and the ridiculous claims that I am not heterosexual ——- tiresome as it is.

    It should come as no surprise that the groups you reference oppose more immigration. They readily understood the benefit of barring black citizens from having to compete for labor – that they would oppose more makes perfect sense.

  20. @Charles Pewitt
    Jews in the USA overwhelmingly push and support nation-wrecking mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration.

    Trump is a complete and total politician whore for Jew billionaire Shelly Adelson.

    Republican Party donor and Trump donor Shelly Adelson has forked over hundreds of millions of dollars to the Republican Party and issue advocacy groups associated with the Republican Party.

    Shelly Adelson pushes mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration.

    Shelly Adelson wants to continue to flood mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration into the USA.

    Shelly Adelson is strongly against flooding Israel with mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration.

    Shelly Adelson and the Republican Party CHEAP LABOR FACTION both agree that mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration must be allowed to flood into the USA.

    Shelly Adelson wants to continue to use the US military to fight wars on behalf of Israel.

    The corporate propaganda apparatus goes on and on about the Koch boys but ignores the loot that Shelly Adelson showers on the Republican Party. Why is that?

    If it is true that certain Jews have disproportionate power in the corporate media, is it fair to say that Jew billionaire Shelly Adelson is being ignored in the corporate media because it would shine too much light on the power that Jew donors have over the Republican Party?

    At a globalizer Jew meeting in New York City in 2014 featuring Israeli Prime Minister Benny Netty-Yahoo and sponsored and paid for by Shelly Adelson, Netty-Yahoo said this in regards to Israeli immigration policy: “We don’t have to open our doors to be swamped by the way other people run their economies."

    The Immigration Question And The Jew Question Are Inextricably Connected

    Tweets from 2014:

    https://twitter.com/CharlesPewitt/status/519498268523249665?s=20

    https://twitter.com/CharlesPewitt/status/519503646154031105?s=20

    I once remarked to a Jewish friend that IMO one of the reasons why Jews tend to be liberal is because Jews tend to be affluent and so can escape the consequences of their purported idealism. She agreed with me.

    A wise Frenchman, Louis Veuillot, once observed in the 19th Century: When I am the weaker, I ask your for my freedom because that is your principle; when I am the stronger, I will take away your freedom because that is my principle.

    Many groups that are liberal in the West aren’t so liberal in their homeland. Moslems are the biggest hypocrites — favoring religious freedom and equality in the West, while typically favoring the opposite situation in their homelands. In Moslem lands, public rejection of Islam might be punishable by death.

    • Replies: @Feryl

    Many groups that are liberal in the West aren’t so liberal in their homeland. Moslems are the biggest hypocrites — favoring religious freedom and equality in the West, while typically favoring the opposite situation in their homelands. In Moslem lands, public rejection of Islam might be punishable by death.
     
    When these groups are the majority, as they are in the MENA, they act like ethno-nationalists. When they are in the minority in other countries, they play the victim and pretend to be noble multi-culturalists.

    This actually isn't all that offensive, because, after all, they are doing what they perceive to be in their interests. What is offensive is when these groups complain about others doing the exact same things that they themselves do. Hypocrisy and double standards.
    , @SFG
    I think you have a really good point about the affluence. I grew up in pre-Giuliani NYC and that always shaped my views on this stuff. The few right-leaning Jews I know had similar experiences.
  21. @Nodwink
    Left/liberal Jews are at least consistent -- they want open borders everywhere.

    Right-wing Zionist Jews want closed borders for Israel, open borders for everyone else.

    Biste meschugge?! Doch net inn AIGENEN Land!

    (ancient inside joke about “building socialism” 😛 )

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    The Jews couldn’t even spell the borrowed German words correctly. Sad.
  22. @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    I once remarked to a Jewish friend that IMO one of the reasons why Jews tend to be liberal is because Jews tend to be affluent and so can escape the consequences of their purported idealism. She agreed with me.

    A wise Frenchman, Louis Veuillot, once observed in the 19th Century: When I am the weaker, I ask your for my freedom because that is your principle; when I am the stronger, I will take away your freedom because that is my principle.

    Many groups that are liberal in the West aren't so liberal in their homeland. Moslems are the biggest hypocrites -- favoring religious freedom and equality in the West, while typically favoring the opposite situation in their homelands. In Moslem lands, public rejection of Islam might be punishable by death.

    Many groups that are liberal in the West aren’t so liberal in their homeland. Moslems are the biggest hypocrites — favoring religious freedom and equality in the West, while typically favoring the opposite situation in their homelands. In Moslem lands, public rejection of Islam might be punishable by death.

    When these groups are the majority, as they are in the MENA, they act like ethno-nationalists. When they are in the minority in other countries, they play the victim and pretend to be noble multi-culturalists.

    This actually isn’t all that offensive, because, after all, they are doing what they perceive to be in their interests. What is offensive is when these groups complain about others doing the exact same things that they themselves do. Hypocrisy and double standards.

    • Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    You are correct. It's only "bigotry" when you are the victim, not when you yourself do the same thing. That's different.

    A breakup of the US into Bluestan and Redstan would probably lead to the further breakup of Bluestan. The different groups would tear each other apart, fighting for dominance. Redstan would be overwhelmingly White and Christian. Like the America of the much-maligned 1950s.
  23. national power is ultimately based upon REAL military prowess and the full cycle of research/development/manufacturing that facilitates said military prowess.

    it is obscenely evident that this thesis is correct.

    simply look at the once great powers that are no more: england, france, germany, sweden, spain, portugal even poland if you go back far enough.

    all are now second rate powers at best and more likely lower than that. forget car making. on this planet real power is military at its core with the industry to support it.

    on this basis american real military is VERY fast ebbing. the pentagons obstensible omnipotence is being for the moment only kept alive by BS war porn from hollywood and clever media manipulations that make us military prowess appear more robust than it in fact is. this is why you do not see any washington blustering taken to the point of actual attack……..whether it be russia, iran, china or venezuela.

    washington simply can not afford to show the world how badly and how fast the pentagon can be damaged in a real fight with a real foe.

    so forget israel, aipac and the jewish billionaires that control the us congress. israel in real military terms can not even beat hezbollah right now without suffering massive casualties while seeing all its northern cities down to tel aviv smashed by a barrage of unstoppable missiles and the pentagon would be irreparably hurt trying to save them……ergo no war on the horizon despite all the bloviating from washington and tel aviv.

    israel will be lucky indeed to make it through the 21rst century intact. forget jewish power, it is peaking right here and now and for that group the trend is down as eurasia assumes the mantle of global leadership…. a land where jews are insignificant with no prospects of improving that position and as an added benefit to humanity eurasia is immune from the holocaust guilt shakedowns that have crippled the west for decades.

    • Replies: @Ash Williams
    I find it ironic in the extreme that the very subversion the Special Religious People engaged in to take the reins of power in the USA has also caused the erosion (and eventual destruction) of the USA's ability to project that power.

    Talk about ignoring second-order effects...
  24. @Tono Bungay
    If the data represented in this graph are correct, then how can one explain the continuing flood of immigrants into the United States without resort to "anti-semitic tropes"?

    It can be explained without the anti-semitic tropes, though they are not really wrong, but just by explaining how a people lose control of their government. Come on, readers, just look at A.E.’s graphs. If all these peoples are against immigration, how come all branches of our government don’t give a rat’s ass about that?

    What you don’t do is let your governments get out of control to where they don’t have to care what you think about their policies. Our Founders knew this and did their very best, but over the last 5 decades our idiot Socialists have created the Feral Beast we have now. Nice going, assholes!

    • Replies: @Ash Williams
    It's arguable the republic began it's decline with crushing the Whiskey Rebellion. It really accelerated with the Civil War. The war against The West has been going on for many centuries, likely since the Roman Empire.

    Ultimately, it will be self-defeating, as the Chinese are in the process of moving some hundred millions into Africa, effectively colonizing it. Within several generations, they'll be knocking on Israel's eastern border.

    Well done, Special Religious People...
    , @paraglider
    the simplest solution resolve the purchase of our government legislators by monied interests is to limit all congressmen to one term with no exceptions.

    it is the entrenched power of corrupt legislators that aggravates everything that big government touches. they are bought and paid for thus pass laws which favor those who do the buying.
    regrettably america has passed the point of no return, that is not ability to reform itself until our economy and social system hits the wall of promises made but unfunded.


    after that, we get to choose if we want a return to our founding principles or to select a caesar and go the totalitarian route for a while.

    look around now at the under 30 year old crowd and suppose which way that tree will fall.
  25. @paraglider
    national power is ultimately based upon REAL military prowess and the full cycle of research/development/manufacturing that facilitates said military prowess.

    it is obscenely evident that this thesis is correct.

    simply look at the once great powers that are no more: england, france, germany, sweden, spain, portugal even poland if you go back far enough.

    all are now second rate powers at best and more likely lower than that. forget car making. on this planet real power is military at its core with the industry to support it.

    on this basis american real military is VERY fast ebbing. the pentagons obstensible omnipotence is being for the moment only kept alive by BS war porn from hollywood and clever media manipulations that make us military prowess appear more robust than it in fact is. this is why you do not see any washington blustering taken to the point of actual attack........whether it be russia, iran, china or venezuela.

    washington simply can not afford to show the world how badly and how fast the pentagon can be damaged in a real fight with a real foe.

    so forget israel, aipac and the jewish billionaires that control the us congress. israel in real military terms can not even beat hezbollah right now without suffering massive casualties while seeing all its northern cities down to tel aviv smashed by a barrage of unstoppable missiles and the pentagon would be irreparably hurt trying to save them......ergo no war on the horizon despite all the bloviating from washington and tel aviv.

    israel will be lucky indeed to make it through the 21rst century intact. forget jewish power, it is peaking right here and now and for that group the trend is down as eurasia assumes the mantle of global leadership.... a land where jews are insignificant with no prospects of improving that position and as an added benefit to humanity eurasia is immune from the holocaust guilt shakedowns that have crippled the west for decades.

    I find it ironic in the extreme that the very subversion the Special Religious People engaged in to take the reins of power in the USA has also caused the erosion (and eventual destruction) of the USA’s ability to project that power.

    Talk about ignoring second-order effects…

  26. @Achmed E. Newman
    It can be explained without the anti-semitic tropes, though they are not really wrong, but just by explaining how a people lose control of their government. Come on, readers, just look at A.E.'s graphs. If all these peoples are against immigration, how come all branches of our government don't give a rat's ass about that?

    What you don't do is let your governments get out of control to where they don't have to care what you think about their policies. Our Founders knew this and did their very best, but over the last 5 decades our idiot Socialists have created the Feral Beast we have now. Nice going, assholes!

    It’s arguable the republic began it’s decline with crushing the Whiskey Rebellion. It really accelerated with the Civil War. The war against The West has been going on for many centuries, likely since the Roman Empire.

    Ultimately, it will be self-defeating, as the Chinese are in the process of moving some hundred millions into Africa, effectively colonizing it. Within several generations, they’ll be knocking on Israel’s eastern border.

    Well done, Special Religious People…

  27. @Achmed E. Newman
    It can be explained without the anti-semitic tropes, though they are not really wrong, but just by explaining how a people lose control of their government. Come on, readers, just look at A.E.'s graphs. If all these peoples are against immigration, how come all branches of our government don't give a rat's ass about that?

    What you don't do is let your governments get out of control to where they don't have to care what you think about their policies. Our Founders knew this and did their very best, but over the last 5 decades our idiot Socialists have created the Feral Beast we have now. Nice going, assholes!

    the simplest solution resolve the purchase of our government legislators by monied interests is to limit all congressmen to one term with no exceptions.

    it is the entrenched power of corrupt legislators that aggravates everything that big government touches. they are bought and paid for thus pass laws which favor those who do the buying.
    regrettably america has passed the point of no return, that is not ability to reform itself until our economy and social system hits the wall of promises made but unfunded.

    after that, we get to choose if we want a return to our founding principles or to select a caesar and go the totalitarian route for a while.

    look around now at the under 30 year old crowd and suppose which way that tree will fall.

  28. @Feryl
    There is a colossal amount of baggage regarding historical European antisemitism carried around by Ashkenazi Jews. This in practice translates to never-ending campaigns to de-whiten formerly white countries.

    And using the GSS, Jews, no matter how they self-ID or where they grew up (North, South, East, West, Country, Suburbs, Big City) are always consistently more liberal on abortion and homosexuality than gentiles of any race. I remember being surprised to find that small town Jews self-ID'd as more liberal than urban secular white gentiles.

    Jews want cultural libertarianism, which they, as the upper class, do not find to be overly threatening or destabilizing. On the other hand, gentiles are more likely to be middle to lower class and do not want to live in Sodom. It should be noted, however, that upper class white gentiles are less libertarian than Upper class Jews. So it's fair to say that a lack of noblesse oblige is not evenly distributed.

    I think I'll run some stuff and put it on my blog.

    Yes, Jewish sentiments on immigration and abortion really are radically to the left of the rest of the US population. It’s remarkable.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Yeah, I went and updated my blog with the RELIG16 (household religion when you were 16) results. Since "are you Jewish" (OTHJEW) has only been asked a handful of occasions, that basically leaves RELIG (present religion) and RELIG16. Unfortunately, RELIG includes a lot of lapsed people and presumably, some Jews reject a religious ID while obviously still having an ethnic ID. So RELIG16 is probably the best way to discern Jewish ethnicity with the GSS.

    From the 70's-90's, RELIG16 shows that Christians and "not raised in a religious household" are much more conservative than people raised in Jewish households. After 2000, the non-religious household people start to draw closer to Jews in terms of GSS responses to moral questions. So either a lot of modern atheists were raised by Jews who imparted no Jewish identity to their kids, or, more likely, over the last 20 years Jews and gentile atheists have converged to some degree and become very hostile toward heartland Christians.
    , @Feryl
    In the 80's, Jews were only 6% less likely to support pot legalization then they were in the 70's. Jews were the quickest to abandon New Deal norms of caution, there's no question. In the 70's, just 21% of white Protestants wanted to legalize pot, while 48% of Jews did. That's basically 2 1/2 times more libertarian.

    It's true that the Boomer revolution in values reached all Western countries, but as someone else hinted at, it's not hard to figure out who the "accelerationists" tended to be drawn from; moreover, the "generation gap" was strongest with gentiles, while much of the New Left rhetoric was inspired by older generations of Jewish rabble rousers; minoritarianism, sexual degeneracy, hostility toward the military, and so forth were all things that Jewish "thinkers" had been cooking up since the 19th century*, but had to wait until the 1960's, when many young naive gentiles were gullible enough to believe anything, to get the full revolution going.

    The end result of radical "youth" culture (often cynically steered by older gurus) has been to annihilate the foundations of stable and responsible society.

    *Ashknenazi Jews, by the 19th century, resented gentile white society and began to show less and less qualms about undermining it, perhaps as retribution for what had been done to them. But, asking people to hate themselves is not easy, so it was not until after WW2 that gentiles could be guilt-tripped into letting go of certain traditions and norms. And Western Boomers, who came to believe that "whites" were uniquely sinful and sanctimonious, were hoodwinked into betraying their ancestors, destroying the family, and bankrupting their countries.
    , @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Lol

    2 days ago you were saying that I'm a caricature for talking about the Jews.

    Now you're posting as if you're some kind of visionary.

    Jews hate you.
  29. @Charles Pewitt
    Jews in the USA overwhelmingly push and support nation-wrecking mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration.

    Trump is a complete and total politician whore for Jew billionaire Shelly Adelson.

    Republican Party donor and Trump donor Shelly Adelson has forked over hundreds of millions of dollars to the Republican Party and issue advocacy groups associated with the Republican Party.

    Shelly Adelson pushes mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration.

    Shelly Adelson wants to continue to flood mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration into the USA.

    Shelly Adelson is strongly against flooding Israel with mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration.

    Shelly Adelson and the Republican Party CHEAP LABOR FACTION both agree that mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration must be allowed to flood into the USA.

    Shelly Adelson wants to continue to use the US military to fight wars on behalf of Israel.

    The corporate propaganda apparatus goes on and on about the Koch boys but ignores the loot that Shelly Adelson showers on the Republican Party. Why is that?

    If it is true that certain Jews have disproportionate power in the corporate media, is it fair to say that Jew billionaire Shelly Adelson is being ignored in the corporate media because it would shine too much light on the power that Jew donors have over the Republican Party?

    At a globalizer Jew meeting in New York City in 2014 featuring Israeli Prime Minister Benny Netty-Yahoo and sponsored and paid for by Shelly Adelson, Netty-Yahoo said this in regards to Israeli immigration policy: “We don’t have to open our doors to be swamped by the way other people run their economies."

    The Immigration Question And The Jew Question Are Inextricably Connected

    Tweets from 2014:

    https://twitter.com/CharlesPewitt/status/519498268523249665?s=20

    https://twitter.com/CharlesPewitt/status/519503646154031105?s=20

    Netanyahu has lent moral support for American immigration restrictionism on multiple occasions. UR commentariat aside, Americans who want a clamp down on immigration are the same ones who support Israel (and wars for Israel). The part I can’t make sense of is why American Jewish zionists want to dilute the white gentile population in America. How does that help them either here or in Israel?

    • Replies: @95Theses
    Indeed, it is a perplexing conundrum. Lawrence Auster covered this many times, as in this discussion from over ten years ago.

    Do Liberals Think They Won’t Be Harmed by National Suicide?
    2007, October 03 | Lawrence Auster

    ... This is one of the great mysteries, which we’ve discussed a lot: what is the left actually thinking? While I can’t put my hand on any previous posts on this subject at the moment (if anyone can, please point me to it), the short answer is that people on the left, including many “conservatives”, define society AS openness and tolerance, and place no value on the historic society as a society. As a result, they cannot even conceptualize the idea that excessive diversity can harm society ...

    http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/008925.html
     
    , @Feryl
    It starts to make more sense when we realize that part and parcel of strong ethno-centrism is living by one standard and then asking another group to live by a different standard. If elite level American patriots began to demand the same security that Israel enforces, that would probably bother Jews who might start to feel that Americans care more about themselves than they do anyone else. And before you know it, we might start to withdraw our unconditional support of Israel that's existed for 50 years. In other words, Ashkenazi Jews (AKA the Jews who dominate the West) whether they realize it or not care more about their tribe and it's homeland (Israel) then they do about America.

    We are to blame for this to a large extent, because giving out "blank" checks to those for whom dual loyalty might be a a teensy bit of a problem has been a disaster. The American Right especially has a huge blind spot about devotion to Israel and it's tribe. The Anglo-Right has been forced to renounce many populist and socially conservative outfits because they get on the nerves of Israel firsters and elite Jewish "conservatives" who are cultural libertarians but want tax cuts for the rich and pork for Israel*.

    *The lack of interest in protecting most cultural conservatism that we see among the Right elite isn't hard to figure out; big donors and trend setters in the modern elite Right never really cared that much about social conservatism. Since the 70's, Market de-regulation and Pentagon pork have always been the most important items on the agenda. Back in the New Deal era, kids saw educational movies in school that warned them about gay predators. It's not just that conservatives have failed to continue that sort of conservatism, it's that most of them never even tried after circa 1970. They often make excuses about law suits, losing your job, etc. Well, ya know, if enough people started doing something than it would be hard to stop, right?
    , @dfordoom

    The part I can’t make sense of is why American Jewish zionists want to dilute the white gentile population in America. How does that help them either here or in Israel?
     
    Maybe the key is that American Jewish Zionists have no desire to live in Israel. They're strongly in favour of Zionism as long as they can stay in Manhattan. They support a Jewish homeland, for other Jews but not for them. There's a pretty major fundamental contradiction there.

    Maybe what they really want is some absolute guarantee that Manhattan will always remain a Jewish homeland.

    It's also quite likely that they really sincerely believe that they're in mortal danger from white supremacists. Part of it is just what happens to people who live their entire lives in the richer sections of big cities. They end up being terrified of everybody who isn't a wealthy urban dweller. The gentile elites who live their whole lives in the rich parts of big cities are also terrified of non-wealthy non-urban people.
    , @Michael S
    You can't make sense of it because it doesn't exist. Fallacy of division: the typical individual in a group is not necessarily like the group average. It depends on how you select your population, and "Jews" are a heterogeneous category.

    What you have is increasing polarization: secular liberal Jews, who overwhelmingly support increased immigration and have lukewarm to negative support for Israel; Orthodox or fairly religious Zionists, who overwhelmingly support Israel and have lukewarm to negative support for immigration, and a group of moderates who tend to be similar to political moderates in other groups.

    For example, from a study [1] comparing Israeli to American Jews:

    While ..."39% of the total Israeli sample say Israel should be willing to dismantle all or some of the settlements in a peace deal... the figures for the religious subgroups [in Israel] show deep differences: 59% of the secular (exactly matching the percentage of the whole American sample), 39% of the not-that-religious traditional, 29% of the religious-traditional, 14% of the religious Zionists, and 12% of the haredim would dismantle settlements."
     
    Really what the original graph shows is that Jews are 2/3 or maybe 3/4 secular/liberal/progressive, compared to only 30-40% of white ethnicities. Everything else follows from that. Ben Shapiro is a phoney and the people who believe what he claims to believe (that America should increase immigration and Israel should restrict it) are few and far between.

    Trump occasionally panders to the religious/zionist group, and from that some people conclude that he is pandering to the progressive Jews, but they are in fact separate groups, and the polarization strategy seems to be working.

    [1]: https://www.jewishdatabank.org/databank/search-results/study/1028
  30. @Meretricious
    anyone know what happened to Steve Sailer's blog?

    ?

  31. @Feryl

    Many groups that are liberal in the West aren’t so liberal in their homeland. Moslems are the biggest hypocrites — favoring religious freedom and equality in the West, while typically favoring the opposite situation in their homelands. In Moslem lands, public rejection of Islam might be punishable by death.
     
    When these groups are the majority, as they are in the MENA, they act like ethno-nationalists. When they are in the minority in other countries, they play the victim and pretend to be noble multi-culturalists.

    This actually isn't all that offensive, because, after all, they are doing what they perceive to be in their interests. What is offensive is when these groups complain about others doing the exact same things that they themselves do. Hypocrisy and double standards.

    You are correct. It’s only “bigotry” when you are the victim, not when you yourself do the same thing. That’s different.

    A breakup of the US into Bluestan and Redstan would probably lead to the further breakup of Bluestan. The different groups would tear each other apart, fighting for dominance. Redstan would be overwhelmingly White and Christian. Like the America of the much-maligned 1950s.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Redstan would be overwhelmingly White and Christian
     
    I think it's a bit foolish to put so much faith in the idea of Redstan as a Christian state. Christianity is in decline throughout the West. Even in the United States. And most modern Christians are extremely Woke. As soon as Redstan declares its independence you're going to have Redstan Christians putting up Refugees Welcome signs. Lesbian Episcopalian bishops will be in the forefront.

    As a means of resisting the Poz and resisting immigration Christianity has been an abject failure.

    White Christians, on the whole, are most definitely not going to support your goals.
  32. @Audacious Epigone
    Yes, Jewish sentiments on immigration and abortion really are radically to the left of the rest of the US population. It's remarkable.

    Yeah, I went and updated my blog with the RELIG16 (household religion when you were 16) results. Since “are you Jewish” (OTHJEW) has only been asked a handful of occasions, that basically leaves RELIG (present religion) and RELIG16. Unfortunately, RELIG includes a lot of lapsed people and presumably, some Jews reject a religious ID while obviously still having an ethnic ID. So RELIG16 is probably the best way to discern Jewish ethnicity with the GSS.

    From the 70’s-90’s, RELIG16 shows that Christians and “not raised in a religious household” are much more conservative than people raised in Jewish households. After 2000, the non-religious household people start to draw closer to Jews in terms of GSS responses to moral questions. So either a lot of modern atheists were raised by Jews who imparted no Jewish identity to their kids, or, more likely, over the last 20 years Jews and gentile atheists have converged to some degree and become very hostile toward heartland Christians.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Present the link for the rest of the room!
  33. @Audacious Epigone
    Netanyahu has lent moral support for American immigration restrictionism on multiple occasions. UR commentariat aside, Americans who want a clamp down on immigration are the same ones who support Israel (and wars for Israel). The part I can't make sense of is why American Jewish zionists want to dilute the white gentile population in America. How does that help them either here or in Israel?

    Indeed, it is a perplexing conundrum. Lawrence Auster covered this many times, as in this discussion from over ten years ago.

    Do Liberals Think They Won’t Be Harmed by National Suicide?
    2007, October 03 | Lawrence Auster

    … This is one of the great mysteries, which we’ve discussed a lot: what is the left actually thinking? While I can’t put my hand on any previous posts on this subject at the moment (if anyone can, please point me to it), the short answer is that people on the left, including many “conservatives”, define society AS openness and tolerance, and place no value on the historic society as a society. As a result, they cannot even conceptualize the idea that excessive diversity can harm society …

    http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/008925.html

    • Replies: @Feryl
    I would argue that most young liberals tend to believe that they are righting historical wrongs*, it's just that what is "history" and what is "wrong" are always changing. But that gives liberals an advantage, everything is very slippery. Without necessarily realizing it, they make things up as they go on.

    Whereas "conservatives" tend to be prone to arguing with each other about what set of traditions and "values" we should stick with. Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, and the Bushes all had their own "take" on what was best about the past and what present things ought to be continued.

    So liberals tend to agree with each other on the latest fads, while conservatism fragments into tons of sub-groups whose goals and temperament don't always align neatly**.

    If conservatives actually would quite fighting each other on often frivolous and pedantic grounds, they'd succeed at defending what they had to start out with...But which they easily piss away because they fail to make a good case for why we should save something. I mean, they can't even get along well with each other, much less their opponents.

    *Sometimes they do have a point, but sometimes it's just unnecessary whining and agitation.

    **Ask 10 conservatives about what the government should do about two men having sex in a private home; you might get any of the following answers:

    1)It's not the government's business to legislate sex partners
    2) If nobody gets hurt, fine. But if the activity is harmful, then we should do something.
    3) We should never let that happen. The authorities need to stop it.

    Well, say the government does stop the two men. Then what? Tell 'em to go their seperate ways, and leave it that? Arrest them? If so, what then? Fine them? Put 'em in jail for a couple days? Sentence them to prison? Kill them?

    Conservatives won't be able to coherently talk sense to to liberals if "conservatives" can't make up their own damned mind about these issues. Like Agnostic pointed out, a "conservative" judge in the late 70's basically admitted that abortion morally offended him, yet he also couldn't stomach giving the government greater power to regulate our personal affairs. Make up yer damned mind already.
  34. @Audacious Epigone
    Yes, Jewish sentiments on immigration and abortion really are radically to the left of the rest of the US population. It's remarkable.

    In the 80’s, Jews were only 6% less likely to support pot legalization then they were in the 70’s. Jews were the quickest to abandon New Deal norms of caution, there’s no question. In the 70’s, just 21% of white Protestants wanted to legalize pot, while 48% of Jews did. That’s basically 2 1/2 times more libertarian.

    It’s true that the Boomer revolution in values reached all Western countries, but as someone else hinted at, it’s not hard to figure out who the “accelerationists” tended to be drawn from; moreover, the “generation gap” was strongest with gentiles, while much of the New Left rhetoric was inspired by older generations of Jewish rabble rousers; minoritarianism, sexual degeneracy, hostility toward the military, and so forth were all things that Jewish “thinkers” had been cooking up since the 19th century*, but had to wait until the 1960’s, when many young naive gentiles were gullible enough to believe anything, to get the full revolution going.

    The end result of radical “youth” culture (often cynically steered by older gurus) has been to annihilate the foundations of stable and responsible society.

    *Ashknenazi Jews, by the 19th century, resented gentile white society and began to show less and less qualms about undermining it, perhaps as retribution for what had been done to them. But, asking people to hate themselves is not easy, so it was not until after WW2 that gentiles could be guilt-tripped into letting go of certain traditions and norms. And Western Boomers, who came to believe that “whites” were uniquely sinful and sanctimonious, were hoodwinked into betraying their ancestors, destroying the family, and bankrupting their countries.

    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
    "*Ashknenazi Jews, by the 19th century, resented gentile white society and began to show less and less qualms about undermining it, perhaps as retribution for what had been done to them."

    Really? What was done to them by the populace of the USA, anyway? For that matter, what was done to them anywhere? How could undermining a society that welcomed them and allowed them to become citizens and to do business be justified by something unstated that had to have been done to them before they immigrated.

    "And Western Boomers, who came to believe that “whites” were uniquely sinful and sanctimonious, were hoodwinked into betraying their ancestors, destroying the family, and bankrupting their countries."

    And when did the evil boomers do this? When has that generation been in charge of government? Government has bankrupted the country and the "greatest generation" has had a grip on government power that is just now beginning to slacken.

    Is this the kind of nonsense you post on your blog?
  35. @95Theses
    Indeed, it is a perplexing conundrum. Lawrence Auster covered this many times, as in this discussion from over ten years ago.

    Do Liberals Think They Won’t Be Harmed by National Suicide?
    2007, October 03 | Lawrence Auster

    ... This is one of the great mysteries, which we’ve discussed a lot: what is the left actually thinking? While I can’t put my hand on any previous posts on this subject at the moment (if anyone can, please point me to it), the short answer is that people on the left, including many “conservatives”, define society AS openness and tolerance, and place no value on the historic society as a society. As a result, they cannot even conceptualize the idea that excessive diversity can harm society ...

    http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/008925.html
     

    I would argue that most young liberals tend to believe that they are righting historical wrongs*, it’s just that what is “history” and what is “wrong” are always changing. But that gives liberals an advantage, everything is very slippery. Without necessarily realizing it, they make things up as they go on.

    Whereas “conservatives” tend to be prone to arguing with each other about what set of traditions and “values” we should stick with. Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, and the Bushes all had their own “take” on what was best about the past and what present things ought to be continued.

    So liberals tend to agree with each other on the latest fads, while conservatism fragments into tons of sub-groups whose goals and temperament don’t always align neatly**.

    If conservatives actually would quite fighting each other on often frivolous and pedantic grounds, they’d succeed at defending what they had to start out with…But which they easily piss away because they fail to make a good case for why we should save something. I mean, they can’t even get along well with each other, much less their opponents.

    *Sometimes they do have a point, but sometimes it’s just unnecessary whining and agitation.

    **Ask 10 conservatives about what the government should do about two men having sex in a private home; you might get any of the following answers:

    1)It’s not the government’s business to legislate sex partners
    2) If nobody gets hurt, fine. But if the activity is harmful, then we should do something.
    3) We should never let that happen. The authorities need to stop it.

    Well, say the government does stop the two men. Then what? Tell ’em to go their seperate ways, and leave it that? Arrest them? If so, what then? Fine them? Put ’em in jail for a couple days? Sentence them to prison? Kill them?

    Conservatives won’t be able to coherently talk sense to to liberals if “conservatives” can’t make up their own damned mind about these issues. Like Agnostic pointed out, a “conservative” judge in the late 70’s basically admitted that abortion morally offended him, yet he also couldn’t stomach giving the government greater power to regulate our personal affairs. Make up yer damned mind already.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    I would argue that most young liberals tend to believe that they are righting historical wrongs
     
    Well you can't blame them. After all back in the 1950s lynchings of black people were an everyday occurrence. Husbands would beat their wives if dinner wasn't on the table when they got home from work. Women were not permitted to work outside the home. Girls were not allowed to go to school. Church attendance was compulsory. Blacks had to address all white people as Master. Jews were not allowed to play golf (that one's a nod to iSteve readers). These things didn't start to change until Bill Clinton got rid of the Jim Crow laws and gave women the vote.

    One thing you have to give them, Millennials and Gen Z-ers know their history.
  36. @Hopscotch
    If the dissident right is going to be a lasting movement, it needs to begin by deconstructing the intellectual trends between 1880 - 1920. These were the years that Jewish intellectuals basically rewrote the American ethos, from one centered on Anglo-NW European outlook to a cosmopolitan one, agnostic to heritage and tradition.

    It would be unrealistic to entirely abandon everything post-1920. But simply chronicling the intellectual changes during these years into a digestible framework would be a massive first step, a dissident right wiki-Common Sense, if you will.

    It would be unrealistic to entirely abandon everything post-1920. But simply chronicling the intellectual changes during these years into a digestible framework would be a massive first step, a dissident right wiki-Common Sense, if you will.

    Search Youtube.com for “Hicks Postmodernism”. Search Amazon for “Hicks Postmodernism”.
    Bloom, “Closing of the American Mind” covers the parts Hicks misses.

    Granted, these are historical studies rather than philosophies. They tell what has happened in the past, but say nothing about the future. Closest you’ll come to an alternate philosophical system today is Jordan Peterson, who at least tries to present a system of thought that isn’t lethal to its practitioners. His “life is tragic” realization may be just what’s needed to get through the next few decades, but “life is tragic” isn’t a complete political philosophy. It’s the start of a complete political philosophy, but isn’t one yet.

    Constructing a philosophical system takes time and talent, and usually several contributors over several decades. The contemporary university, and contemporary political thought, won’t tolerate the sort of person who is capable of constructing a philosophical school (Charlton & Dutton, _The Genius Famine_, Amazon.com).

    This implies that the current project has, of necessity, to destroy the barriers to philosophical system construction before a replacement philosophical system can be constructed. That’s what the French did in the French Revolution: burn everything down to the bare brick, kill the opposition and a large fraction of the non-opposition young men on, then start again. Didn’t really work all that well, but it did destroy the previous system. OTH, the English Revolution seems to have composed its supporting philosophy after it was complete, and the English subsequently did rather well as such things go. In both cases the affair was very messy and very bloody.

    Counterinsurgency

  37. @MikeatMikedotMike
    Weren't you just scolding someone for seeing a "Jew around every corner?"

    The above graph means nothing anyway. I've been told right here that whites are the sole cause of all their own problems, and could never be the victims despite a massive, century + old disinformation campaign, facilitated by a group of elites disproportionately represented by the same group of people that strangely pop up on the right side of that graph.

    I mean, when you think of the top 10-15 people currently alive in the world who use their power and influence in way that are detrimental to the West, what do their last names look like? Smith, Kelly, Giovanni and Schneider? Not so much.

    But no no goy, it's never the Jews!

    Further, Sailer just had a post theorizing about the real meaning behind that poem at the feet of Liberty. It's almost like Jewish ethnocentrism is a real thing and they work harder than most to promote their own interests, at the expense of pretty much everyone and anything else.

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/the-emma-lazarus-poem-was-little-known-until-wwii/

    Yelling out the Jewish establishment until its teeth fall out isn’t an effective tactic.

    What is? Same thing that took out the USSR: containment. The Jewish establishment is very bad at long term strategy, and they’ve painted themselves into a corner: destroyed the cities that are the only place the Jewish establishment can live.

    The problem now is to have something in place that can replace the Jewish establishment when it falls under attack from the very POC imported as its saviors, which will happen much more seriously as the cities deteriorate yet further [1]. If nothing consistent with retaining industry and some kind of market is in place, well, _somebody_ is going to “restore order”, and the order will probably be a fairly harsh one.

    Counterinsurgency

    1] See the various urban health crises cased by the _brilliant_ idea of supplementing city funding with externally supplied tax money “needed to support the homeless population”, the CATO4321 people, and simultaneously cutting costs by reducing trash collection.
    _If_ the forecasts of “another 2008” in the next year or so come true, external tax funding will be even harder to acquire than it is now, which would (if it happened) increase the rate of urban deterioration. Even the urban unemployables aren’t going to put up with that. At the very least, they’ll want POC in all the patronage jobs and be motivated enough to have their wants realized.
    When that doesn’t help, they’ll start fighting each other.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    Good comment.

    Just to clarify context, I'm not really a frothing Jew basher, (every group has accountability in this mess we call current year) but there is a tendency in this part of TUR to dismiss subversive Jewish influence entirely. My comment was mostly meant to address that particular tendency.
  38. @Audacious Epigone
    Netanyahu has lent moral support for American immigration restrictionism on multiple occasions. UR commentariat aside, Americans who want a clamp down on immigration are the same ones who support Israel (and wars for Israel). The part I can't make sense of is why American Jewish zionists want to dilute the white gentile population in America. How does that help them either here or in Israel?

    It starts to make more sense when we realize that part and parcel of strong ethno-centrism is living by one standard and then asking another group to live by a different standard. If elite level American patriots began to demand the same security that Israel enforces, that would probably bother Jews who might start to feel that Americans care more about themselves than they do anyone else. And before you know it, we might start to withdraw our unconditional support of Israel that’s existed for 50 years. In other words, Ashkenazi Jews (AKA the Jews who dominate the West) whether they realize it or not care more about their tribe and it’s homeland (Israel) then they do about America.

    We are to blame for this to a large extent, because giving out “blank” checks to those for whom dual loyalty might be a a teensy bit of a problem has been a disaster. The American Right especially has a huge blind spot about devotion to Israel and it’s tribe. The Anglo-Right has been forced to renounce many populist and socially conservative outfits because they get on the nerves of Israel firsters and elite Jewish “conservatives” who are cultural libertarians but want tax cuts for the rich and pork for Israel*.

    *The lack of interest in protecting most cultural conservatism that we see among the Right elite isn’t hard to figure out; big donors and trend setters in the modern elite Right never really cared that much about social conservatism. Since the 70’s, Market de-regulation and Pentagon pork have always been the most important items on the agenda. Back in the New Deal era, kids saw educational movies in school that warned them about gay predators. It’s not just that conservatives have failed to continue that sort of conservatism, it’s that most of them never even tried after circa 1970. They often make excuses about law suits, losing your job, etc. Well, ya know, if enough people started doing something than it would be hard to stop, right?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    If elite level American patriots began to demand the same security that Israel enforces, that would probably bother Jews who might start to feel that Americans care more about themselves than they do anyone else.

    There are now Democrat congresswomen asserting that Israel is neither a democracy nor a US ally, elected representatives who are more hostile to Israel than any congress critter with an (R) next to the name in at least a generation. America First and Israel Second may be the much better of two imperfect options for pro-Israel Jewish elites in the US. If Jews are intelligent and insightful enough to have steered the US for the last sixty years, they're surely intelligent and insightful enough to pivot in the future if the situation requires it.
  39. @Feryl
    In the 80's, Jews were only 6% less likely to support pot legalization then they were in the 70's. Jews were the quickest to abandon New Deal norms of caution, there's no question. In the 70's, just 21% of white Protestants wanted to legalize pot, while 48% of Jews did. That's basically 2 1/2 times more libertarian.

    It's true that the Boomer revolution in values reached all Western countries, but as someone else hinted at, it's not hard to figure out who the "accelerationists" tended to be drawn from; moreover, the "generation gap" was strongest with gentiles, while much of the New Left rhetoric was inspired by older generations of Jewish rabble rousers; minoritarianism, sexual degeneracy, hostility toward the military, and so forth were all things that Jewish "thinkers" had been cooking up since the 19th century*, but had to wait until the 1960's, when many young naive gentiles were gullible enough to believe anything, to get the full revolution going.

    The end result of radical "youth" culture (often cynically steered by older gurus) has been to annihilate the foundations of stable and responsible society.

    *Ashknenazi Jews, by the 19th century, resented gentile white society and began to show less and less qualms about undermining it, perhaps as retribution for what had been done to them. But, asking people to hate themselves is not easy, so it was not until after WW2 that gentiles could be guilt-tripped into letting go of certain traditions and norms. And Western Boomers, who came to believe that "whites" were uniquely sinful and sanctimonious, were hoodwinked into betraying their ancestors, destroying the family, and bankrupting their countries.

    “*Ashknenazi Jews, by the 19th century, resented gentile white society and began to show less and less qualms about undermining it, perhaps as retribution for what had been done to them.”

    Really? What was done to them by the populace of the USA, anyway? For that matter, what was done to them anywhere? How could undermining a society that welcomed them and allowed them to become citizens and to do business be justified by something unstated that had to have been done to them before they immigrated.

    “And Western Boomers, who came to believe that “whites” were uniquely sinful and sanctimonious, were hoodwinked into betraying their ancestors, destroying the family, and bankrupting their countries.”

    And when did the evil boomers do this? When has that generation been in charge of government? Government has bankrupted the country and the “greatest generation” has had a grip on government power that is just now beginning to slacken.

    Is this the kind of nonsense you post on your blog?

    • Replies: @Feryl

    And when did the evil boomers do this? When has that generation been in charge of government? Government has bankrupted the country and the “greatest generation” has had a grip on government power that is just now beginning to slacken.
     
    Greatest Generation is a term coined by Tom Brokaw in the 1990's. Brokaw is a Silent. Before the late 90's, the term "World War Two generation" was generally used to describe people born in the 1910's and 1920's. Neil Howe and Strauss use the term "GI Generation". Stop with the derisive use of Greatest Generation. Boomers have now been making fun of Brokaw's coinage for 20 years, and the joke has gotten stale.

    And why do you Boomers act so butt-hurt about things? The oldest Boomers are now about 74 years old. When is your generation going to accept responsibility for anything? You did unprecedented levels of drugs in the 70's, fought to destroy unions and market regulation in the 80's and 90's, removed taboos regarding homosexuality, got divorced at higher rates than other generations, and so forth. Maybe not every single Boomer was on board with these things, but that didn't seem to make any difference.

    By 1980, many members of the world war 2 generation were either dead or retired. So what's happened since then can be attributed mostly to the Silent, Boomer, and X-er generations.

    People born in 1910 would now be 109 years old. They aren't in charge.

    Lost Generation: 1885-1900
    GI Generation: 1901-1924
    Silent Generation: 1925-1944
    Boomer Generation: 1945-1960
    Gen X: 1961-1980
    Millennial: 1981-1996
    Gen Z: 1997-?

    The Warren court of the 1960's was actually comprised mostly of Losts. Some (but not all) of the bad changes of the 60's and 70's can be attributed to Losts and GIs, but after 1980 it was up to Silents and later generations to run society as they saw fit.

    , @Feryl
    Are you suggesting that I'm sympathizing with the Jews of the late 19th century? Uh, Hell no I'm not. I was describing their possible attitude, not supporting it.

    And my blog is denofinquiry2.blogspot.com/. It has lots of GSS data, I don't just make stuff up.
  40. @Feryl
    Italians and the Jews are the most clannish of the listed groups, but while Italians perceive further waves of aliens to be a threat to their community and posterity, Jews figure that anything that adds to multi-culturalism will further dilute the "host" nation and diminish the likelihood of mass nativism. Interesting to see that while Italians feel as if they are protecting their investment in America, Jews on the other hand, as usual, do not feel the same sort of patriotism; indeed, they consider it their duty to further alter and transform America to make it more to their liking, before they will fully march alongside other white Americans. This is the sort of attitude, as you can imagine, that fueled centuries of European distaste for Jews. The "Host" is obligated to absorb the culture of Jews, not the other way around.

    And yeah, the "Ellis Island" sentimental memes, for all intents and purposes, means "Jewish". We all know who entered East and West Coast journalism in large numbers in the 20th century. They usually didn't have surnames like Hanrahan (unless the newspaper was based in Boston) or Feretti. As a matter of fact, the (((MSM))) now regularly employs all kinds of post-1965 immigrant stock people. It's pretty conspicuous that after the Jewish diaspora was established in the US by circa 1900, they nursed a variety of grudges against various Euro folkways (Anglo-Dutch founding stock, Germanic folk who mostly arrived after circa 1850, and then their fellow Ellis Islanders, the Slavs, Irish-Catholics, and Italians*) but have been substantially more welcoming of post-1965 non-white arrivals.

    *It's clear from post-Ellis Island narratives in Hollywood that Italians may have been the culturally weakest group to arrive before the late 60's. No other ethnic group has been so consistently vilified or mocked. In hindsight, it looks like (((Hollywood))) may have been projecting their own flaws onto Italians, the ethnic Diaspora in America who are the most genetically and temperamentally similar to Jews. Imagine if Jews had gotten this unflattering treatment; we wouldn't hear the end of complaints that the public was being primed for another anti-Jewish campaign.

    It's not a "conspiracy" to point out that since 1945, no "white" ethnic group in America is permitted to argue for it's own interests if this raises the possibility of Jews being displeased by such activity. Italians may complain that they haven't been treated fairly, however if this reveals Jewish culpability for the unfairness, or becomes a "nativist" campaign to rid America of unwanted alien peoples and influence, then it's not ok to question the (((narrative))) of the last 74 years, which was already being devised in the 19th and early 20th century but would not gain acceptance in the West until 1945.

    Italians and the Jews are the most clannish of the listed groups

    Yeah, sure, Feryl, but which generation are you talking about?

  41. @Twodees Partain
    "*Ashknenazi Jews, by the 19th century, resented gentile white society and began to show less and less qualms about undermining it, perhaps as retribution for what had been done to them."

    Really? What was done to them by the populace of the USA, anyway? For that matter, what was done to them anywhere? How could undermining a society that welcomed them and allowed them to become citizens and to do business be justified by something unstated that had to have been done to them before they immigrated.

    "And Western Boomers, who came to believe that “whites” were uniquely sinful and sanctimonious, were hoodwinked into betraying their ancestors, destroying the family, and bankrupting their countries."

    And when did the evil boomers do this? When has that generation been in charge of government? Government has bankrupted the country and the "greatest generation" has had a grip on government power that is just now beginning to slacken.

    Is this the kind of nonsense you post on your blog?

    And when did the evil boomers do this? When has that generation been in charge of government? Government has bankrupted the country and the “greatest generation” has had a grip on government power that is just now beginning to slacken.

    Greatest Generation is a term coined by Tom Brokaw in the 1990’s. Brokaw is a Silent. Before the late 90’s, the term “World War Two generation” was generally used to describe people born in the 1910’s and 1920’s. Neil Howe and Strauss use the term “GI Generation”. Stop with the derisive use of Greatest Generation. Boomers have now been making fun of Brokaw’s coinage for 20 years, and the joke has gotten stale.

    And why do you Boomers act so butt-hurt about things? The oldest Boomers are now about 74 years old. When is your generation going to accept responsibility for anything? You did unprecedented levels of drugs in the 70’s, fought to destroy unions and market regulation in the 80’s and 90’s, removed taboos regarding homosexuality, got divorced at higher rates than other generations, and so forth. Maybe not every single Boomer was on board with these things, but that didn’t seem to make any difference.

    By 1980, many members of the world war 2 generation were either dead or retired. So what’s happened since then can be attributed mostly to the Silent, Boomer, and X-er generations.

    People born in 1910 would now be 109 years old. They aren’t in charge.

    Lost Generation: 1885-1900
    GI Generation: 1901-1924
    Silent Generation: 1925-1944
    Boomer Generation: 1945-1960
    Gen X: 1961-1980
    Millennial: 1981-1996
    Gen Z: 1997-?

    The Warren court of the 1960’s was actually comprised mostly of Losts. Some (but not all) of the bad changes of the 60’s and 70’s can be attributed to Losts and GIs, but after 1980 it was up to Silents and later generations to run society as they saw fit.

  42. @Twodees Partain
    "*Ashknenazi Jews, by the 19th century, resented gentile white society and began to show less and less qualms about undermining it, perhaps as retribution for what had been done to them."

    Really? What was done to them by the populace of the USA, anyway? For that matter, what was done to them anywhere? How could undermining a society that welcomed them and allowed them to become citizens and to do business be justified by something unstated that had to have been done to them before they immigrated.

    "And Western Boomers, who came to believe that “whites” were uniquely sinful and sanctimonious, were hoodwinked into betraying their ancestors, destroying the family, and bankrupting their countries."

    And when did the evil boomers do this? When has that generation been in charge of government? Government has bankrupted the country and the "greatest generation" has had a grip on government power that is just now beginning to slacken.

    Is this the kind of nonsense you post on your blog?

    Are you suggesting that I’m sympathizing with the Jews of the late 19th century? Uh, Hell no I’m not. I was describing their possible attitude, not supporting it.

    And my blog is denofinquiry2.blogspot.com/. It has lots of GSS data, I don’t just make stuff up.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    The stupidity of Socialism does not interest me, Feryl. However, just to be helpful here, why don't you put a link to your blog home page in the 3rd textarea that Mr. Unz has provided (to the right of your handle)? If I hadn't read yet read your idiotic insistence on Socialism as the answer to our problems, rather than a big part of the problem, over and over again here, I'd click on that to go there. I'll let T.P. try to talk sense into you this round.
    , @Twodees Partain
    I asked you a question and insinuated nothing. I'll just assume that you have no answer. If you usually answer questions with accusations of insinuation, then I'm not interested in viewing your blog. Socialists don't really interest me. There are simply too many of you infesting every comments section everywhere to make any of you worthy of notice.
  43. @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    Here in NJ, Italian-Americans were typically the last White ethnicity to leave a neighborhood when it started Blacking. The Italians are more aggressive, clannish and, ahem, the boys will keep the crime down for a while.

    Ris_Eruwaedhiel:

    In NYC the Jews* likewise have the reputation of being the first to flee from the marauders while the Italians are renown for being the last to depart.

    *One exception being the Ultra-Orthodox who are self-contained and very resistant and/or oblivious to attack. You could set them down in the middle of the Gobi desert and they would just dig in.

    • Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    I didn't know that about the Jews, but it makes sense. For the most part, they are affluent so can afford to flee and let's face it, American Jews aren't known for their personal courage.

    The ultra-Orthodox exist as parasites in both the US and Israel. If they were dumped in the middle of the Gobi Desert they would have to work and they don't want to do that. The men would rather attend yeshiva, arguing about the Jewish equivalent of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and live off their wives and welfare.
  44. @Audacious Epigone
    Netanyahu has lent moral support for American immigration restrictionism on multiple occasions. UR commentariat aside, Americans who want a clamp down on immigration are the same ones who support Israel (and wars for Israel). The part I can't make sense of is why American Jewish zionists want to dilute the white gentile population in America. How does that help them either here or in Israel?

    The part I can’t make sense of is why American Jewish zionists want to dilute the white gentile population in America. How does that help them either here or in Israel?

    Maybe the key is that American Jewish Zionists have no desire to live in Israel. They’re strongly in favour of Zionism as long as they can stay in Manhattan. They support a Jewish homeland, for other Jews but not for them. There’s a pretty major fundamental contradiction there.

    Maybe what they really want is some absolute guarantee that Manhattan will always remain a Jewish homeland.

    It’s also quite likely that they really sincerely believe that they’re in mortal danger from white supremacists. Part of it is just what happens to people who live their entire lives in the richer sections of big cities. They end up being terrified of everybody who isn’t a wealthy urban dweller. The gentile elites who live their whole lives in the rich parts of big cities are also terrified of non-wealthy non-urban people.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    It's so bizarre that they'd be more afraid of rural midwestern niceness than they'd be of the people who are out on the streets at night in neighboring boroughs.
  45. @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    You are correct. It's only "bigotry" when you are the victim, not when you yourself do the same thing. That's different.

    A breakup of the US into Bluestan and Redstan would probably lead to the further breakup of Bluestan. The different groups would tear each other apart, fighting for dominance. Redstan would be overwhelmingly White and Christian. Like the America of the much-maligned 1950s.

    Redstan would be overwhelmingly White and Christian

    I think it’s a bit foolish to put so much faith in the idea of Redstan as a Christian state. Christianity is in decline throughout the West. Even in the United States. And most modern Christians are extremely Woke. As soon as Redstan declares its independence you’re going to have Redstan Christians putting up Refugees Welcome signs. Lesbian Episcopalian bishops will be in the forefront.

    As a means of resisting the Poz and resisting immigration Christianity has been an abject failure.

    White Christians, on the whole, are most definitely not going to support your goals.

    • Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    The Christianity might be a superficial cultural Christianity.

    In the aftermath of a civil war, liberalism won't have a home in Redstan. Liberals will reside in Bluestan until they flee from persecution by non-Whites and civil war within Bluestan.
  46. @Feryl
    I would argue that most young liberals tend to believe that they are righting historical wrongs*, it's just that what is "history" and what is "wrong" are always changing. But that gives liberals an advantage, everything is very slippery. Without necessarily realizing it, they make things up as they go on.

    Whereas "conservatives" tend to be prone to arguing with each other about what set of traditions and "values" we should stick with. Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, and the Bushes all had their own "take" on what was best about the past and what present things ought to be continued.

    So liberals tend to agree with each other on the latest fads, while conservatism fragments into tons of sub-groups whose goals and temperament don't always align neatly**.

    If conservatives actually would quite fighting each other on often frivolous and pedantic grounds, they'd succeed at defending what they had to start out with...But which they easily piss away because they fail to make a good case for why we should save something. I mean, they can't even get along well with each other, much less their opponents.

    *Sometimes they do have a point, but sometimes it's just unnecessary whining and agitation.

    **Ask 10 conservatives about what the government should do about two men having sex in a private home; you might get any of the following answers:

    1)It's not the government's business to legislate sex partners
    2) If nobody gets hurt, fine. But if the activity is harmful, then we should do something.
    3) We should never let that happen. The authorities need to stop it.

    Well, say the government does stop the two men. Then what? Tell 'em to go their seperate ways, and leave it that? Arrest them? If so, what then? Fine them? Put 'em in jail for a couple days? Sentence them to prison? Kill them?

    Conservatives won't be able to coherently talk sense to to liberals if "conservatives" can't make up their own damned mind about these issues. Like Agnostic pointed out, a "conservative" judge in the late 70's basically admitted that abortion morally offended him, yet he also couldn't stomach giving the government greater power to regulate our personal affairs. Make up yer damned mind already.

    I would argue that most young liberals tend to believe that they are righting historical wrongs

    Well you can’t blame them. After all back in the 1950s lynchings of black people were an everyday occurrence. Husbands would beat their wives if dinner wasn’t on the table when they got home from work. Women were not permitted to work outside the home. Girls were not allowed to go to school. Church attendance was compulsory. Blacks had to address all white people as Master. Jews were not allowed to play golf (that one’s a nod to iSteve readers). These things didn’t start to change until Bill Clinton got rid of the Jim Crow laws and gave women the vote.

    One thing you have to give them, Millennials and Gen Z-ers know their history.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    The liberal-sphere of the West now has "leaders" from the Boomer and X-er generations who now regularly repeat the most laughable non-sense about how "scary" the mid-20th century was. Yes, it was so scary to have less crime, fewer divorces, less sex and violence in pop culture, and a strong middle class.

    Millennials and Gen Z are focused primarily on the neo-lib era and it's short-comings. They might, by rote, repeat the typical New Left slander of the New Deal era (which was popularized by Silents and Boomers, BTW), but since the younger generations have no personal memory of the New Deal or Great Society era, they really don't care all that much about pre-1980 history. Just like how Boomers generally don't have that much attached to the early 20th century Progressive age.
  47. @Audacious Epigone
    Yes, Jewish sentiments on immigration and abortion really are radically to the left of the rest of the US population. It's remarkable.

    Lol

    2 days ago you were saying that I’m a caricature for talking about the Jews.

    Now you’re posting as if you’re some kind of visionary.

    Jews hate you.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    "for talking about the Jews"

    C'mon, it was for a lot more than that.
  48. @Feryl
    Are you suggesting that I'm sympathizing with the Jews of the late 19th century? Uh, Hell no I'm not. I was describing their possible attitude, not supporting it.

    And my blog is denofinquiry2.blogspot.com/. It has lots of GSS data, I don't just make stuff up.

    The stupidity of Socialism does not interest me, Feryl. However, just to be helpful here, why don’t you put a link to your blog home page in the 3rd textarea that Mr. Unz has provided (to the right of your handle)? If I hadn’t read yet read your idiotic insistence on Socialism as the answer to our problems, rather than a big part of the problem, over and over again here, I’d click on that to go there. I’ll let T.P. try to talk sense into you this round.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Thanks for the tip, for some reason I got into the habit of overlooking the right-hand side of the comment box.

    BTW, I don't generally write posts on my blog but rather just post data from the GSS. The GSS speaks for itself.

    And, for the umpteenth time, if you want to call financial market regulation that reduces irresponsible speculation "socialism", then yes I am a socialist. But back in the 1930's-1970's, both leadership and the masses were in agreement that it was fine and dandy to not be struck by massive booms and busts derived from FIRE for 5 decades; the much less regulated markets of the early 20th century and post-1980 era gave us much more Wall Street excess.

  49. @Cagey Beast
    The internet WASPs here aren't going to like this.

    Why?

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    Because quite a few of the self-described WASPs in the comments section of this site like to blame other Whites for the US's current immigration policies.
  50. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Italians are very based, bro.

    They are the most redpilled people in Canada.

    Lou Barletta and Matteo Salvini are amazing people.

    I find it embarrassing when Italians are doing more to preserve their adopted country than the founding stock WASPS are.

    Wake up!

    (I would also like to see French included on this graph; many in Maine and Louisiana).

    The contrast between Irish and Italians in America fascinate me. Even though Italian Americans retain much of their culture this isn’t done in opposition to Anglo-American culture, my theory is that Italian identity is a very positive one, they have the Romans, the Renaissance and their cuisine.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  51. @Meretricious
    anyone know what happened to Steve Sailer's blog?

    The quality of commentators has really declined, I have a hard time thinking there at that many morons or that the folks at the ADL are out sabotaging.

  52. @Achmed E. Newman
    The stupidity of Socialism does not interest me, Feryl. However, just to be helpful here, why don't you put a link to your blog home page in the 3rd textarea that Mr. Unz has provided (to the right of your handle)? If I hadn't read yet read your idiotic insistence on Socialism as the answer to our problems, rather than a big part of the problem, over and over again here, I'd click on that to go there. I'll let T.P. try to talk sense into you this round.

    Thanks for the tip, for some reason I got into the habit of overlooking the right-hand side of the comment box.

    BTW, I don’t generally write posts on my blog but rather just post data from the GSS. The GSS speaks for itself.

    And, for the umpteenth time, if you want to call financial market regulation that reduces irresponsible speculation “socialism”, then yes I am a socialist. But back in the 1930’s-1970’s, both leadership and the masses were in agreement that it was fine and dandy to not be struck by massive booms and busts derived from FIRE for 5 decades; the much less regulated markets of the early 20th century and post-1980 era gave us much more Wall Street excess.

  53. @dfordoom

    I would argue that most young liberals tend to believe that they are righting historical wrongs
     
    Well you can't blame them. After all back in the 1950s lynchings of black people were an everyday occurrence. Husbands would beat their wives if dinner wasn't on the table when they got home from work. Women were not permitted to work outside the home. Girls were not allowed to go to school. Church attendance was compulsory. Blacks had to address all white people as Master. Jews were not allowed to play golf (that one's a nod to iSteve readers). These things didn't start to change until Bill Clinton got rid of the Jim Crow laws and gave women the vote.

    One thing you have to give them, Millennials and Gen Z-ers know their history.

    The liberal-sphere of the West now has “leaders” from the Boomer and X-er generations who now regularly repeat the most laughable non-sense about how “scary” the mid-20th century was. Yes, it was so scary to have less crime, fewer divorces, less sex and violence in pop culture, and a strong middle class.

    Millennials and Gen Z are focused primarily on the neo-lib era and it’s short-comings. They might, by rote, repeat the typical New Left slander of the New Deal era (which was popularized by Silents and Boomers, BTW), but since the younger generations have no personal memory of the New Deal or Great Society era, they really don’t care all that much about pre-1980 history. Just like how Boomers generally don’t have that much attached to the early 20th century Progressive age.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    The liberal-sphere of the West now has “leaders” from the Boomer and X-er generations who now regularly repeat the most laughable non-sense about how “scary” the mid-20th century was. Yes, it was so scary to have less crime, fewer divorces, less sex and violence in pop culture, and a strong middle class.
     
    Political leaders almost never reflect the views of the people they're leading.
  54. @nokangaroos
    Biste meschugge?! Doch net inn AIGENEN Land!

    (ancient inside joke about "building socialism" :P )

    The Jews couldn’t even spell the borrowed German words correctly. Sad.

  55. @Feryl
    Are you suggesting that I'm sympathizing with the Jews of the late 19th century? Uh, Hell no I'm not. I was describing their possible attitude, not supporting it.

    And my blog is denofinquiry2.blogspot.com/. It has lots of GSS data, I don't just make stuff up.

    I asked you a question and insinuated nothing. I’ll just assume that you have no answer. If you usually answer questions with accusations of insinuation, then I’m not interested in viewing your blog. Socialists don’t really interest me. There are simply too many of you infesting every comments section everywhere to make any of you worthy of notice.

  56. @Dan Hayes
    Ris_Eruwaedhiel:

    In NYC the Jews* likewise have the reputation of being the first to flee from the marauders while the Italians are renown for being the last to depart.

    *One exception being the Ultra-Orthodox who are self-contained and very resistant and/or oblivious to attack. You could set them down in the middle of the Gobi desert and they would just dig in.

    I didn’t know that about the Jews, but it makes sense. For the most part, they are affluent so can afford to flee and let’s face it, American Jews aren’t known for their personal courage.

    The ultra-Orthodox exist as parasites in both the US and Israel. If they were dumped in the middle of the Gobi Desert they would have to work and they don’t want to do that. The men would rather attend yeshiva, arguing about the Jewish equivalent of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and live off their wives and welfare.

  57. @dfordoom

    Redstan would be overwhelmingly White and Christian
     
    I think it's a bit foolish to put so much faith in the idea of Redstan as a Christian state. Christianity is in decline throughout the West. Even in the United States. And most modern Christians are extremely Woke. As soon as Redstan declares its independence you're going to have Redstan Christians putting up Refugees Welcome signs. Lesbian Episcopalian bishops will be in the forefront.

    As a means of resisting the Poz and resisting immigration Christianity has been an abject failure.

    White Christians, on the whole, are most definitely not going to support your goals.

    The Christianity might be a superficial cultural Christianity.

    In the aftermath of a civil war, liberalism won’t have a home in Redstan. Liberals will reside in Bluestan until they flee from persecution by non-Whites and civil war within Bluestan.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    In the aftermath of a civil war, liberalism won’t have a home in Redstan.
     
    How exactly do you intend to achieve that?

    Liberals will reside in Bluestan until they flee from persecution
     
    The liberals fleeing from Bluestan will combine with the liberals within Redstan to turn Redstan liberal. The only way to stop that would be to deport every single liberal from Redstan. And not only close the borders but cut off all cultural contacts with Bluestan (which would mean rigid anti-liberal censorship of the internet in Redstan).

    It's basically the North Korea option. Complete cultural, economic and political isolation with zero tolerance for dissent. Ruthless crackdowns to enforce ideological conformity. You'd need regular purges as well. So imagine a right-wing North Korea.
  58. @Audacious Epigone
    Netanyahu has lent moral support for American immigration restrictionism on multiple occasions. UR commentariat aside, Americans who want a clamp down on immigration are the same ones who support Israel (and wars for Israel). The part I can't make sense of is why American Jewish zionists want to dilute the white gentile population in America. How does that help them either here or in Israel?

    You can’t make sense of it because it doesn’t exist. Fallacy of division: the typical individual in a group is not necessarily like the group average. It depends on how you select your population, and “Jews” are a heterogeneous category.

    What you have is increasing polarization: secular liberal Jews, who overwhelmingly support increased immigration and have lukewarm to negative support for Israel; Orthodox or fairly religious Zionists, who overwhelmingly support Israel and have lukewarm to negative support for immigration, and a group of moderates who tend to be similar to political moderates in other groups.

    For example, from a study [1] comparing Israeli to American Jews:

    While …”39% of the total Israeli sample say Israel should be willing to dismantle all or some of the settlements in a peace deal… the figures for the religious subgroups [in Israel] show deep differences: 59% of the secular (exactly matching the percentage of the whole American sample), 39% of the not-that-religious traditional, 29% of the religious-traditional, 14% of the religious Zionists, and 12% of the haredim would dismantle settlements.”

    Really what the original graph shows is that Jews are 2/3 or maybe 3/4 secular/liberal/progressive, compared to only 30-40% of white ethnicities. Everything else follows from that. Ben Shapiro is a phoney and the people who believe what he claims to believe (that America should increase immigration and Israel should restrict it) are few and far between.

    Trump occasionally panders to the religious/zionist group, and from that some people conclude that he is pandering to the progressive Jews, but they are in fact separate groups, and the polarization strategy seems to be working.

    [1]: https://www.jewishdatabank.org/databank/search-results/study/1028

    • Replies: @iffen
    Really what the original graph shows is that Jews are 2/3 or maybe 3/4 secular/liberal/progressive, compared to only 30-40% of white ethnicities. Everything else follows from that.

    Thanks. This is good, nothing has changed.

    Jews are secular/liberal/progressive at a higher % than gentiles and have been for some time.
    , @SFG
    BTW, I've been looking for 'Ben Shapiro immigration' on both Google and duckduckgo, and he seems to support restriction and be critical of open borders.

    He doesn't like pro-White people, but then they keep sending him death threats...

    , @Twodees Partain
    Michael, I once came up with a genius theory, that there are two kinds of jews. There are evil jews and regular jews. It sounds more convincing when an old jewish guy with an import house in the millinery district says it because he would pronounce it "eevul joos and regyoulah joos".

    Anyway, both of the old bead import houses on W. 37th St. are gone now, thanks to that eevul joo, Bloomberg, and I no longer have the old import guys to talk to anymore. My theory still seems sound to me, but everybody else thinks it's nuts.
    , @SFG
    That's true, particularly as activists on both sides (it explains Michelle Goldberg and Breitbart), but there's a sort of moderate who actually does weakly hold the views most claim; i.e. pro-immigration for America, pro-support for Israel. I doubt they hold strong opinions on Israeli immigration and would probably look uncomfortable if you pointed out the inconsistency to them (as Spencer did to a rabbi a while ago).
    , @Audacious Epigone
    So then "wars for Israel" is an illusion? What influence do the orthodox have at the highest levels of the US establishment?
    , @Feryl
    According to the GSS, American Jews are overwhelmingly liberal (compared to white gentiles) on immigration, drug legalization, and abortion. They've been so since the 70's. It is fair to say that "true" conservatives (who don't want to live in Sodom) have every right to be wary of giving too much power to Jews, since Jews have done virtually nothing to stop the tide of cultural decadence that's been hitting us for 50 years. In fact, we would have been better off being governed by atheist gentiles, given that from the 70's-90's atheist gentiles were more conservative than Jews.
  59. @Michael S
    You can't make sense of it because it doesn't exist. Fallacy of division: the typical individual in a group is not necessarily like the group average. It depends on how you select your population, and "Jews" are a heterogeneous category.

    What you have is increasing polarization: secular liberal Jews, who overwhelmingly support increased immigration and have lukewarm to negative support for Israel; Orthodox or fairly religious Zionists, who overwhelmingly support Israel and have lukewarm to negative support for immigration, and a group of moderates who tend to be similar to political moderates in other groups.

    For example, from a study [1] comparing Israeli to American Jews:

    While ..."39% of the total Israeli sample say Israel should be willing to dismantle all or some of the settlements in a peace deal... the figures for the religious subgroups [in Israel] show deep differences: 59% of the secular (exactly matching the percentage of the whole American sample), 39% of the not-that-religious traditional, 29% of the religious-traditional, 14% of the religious Zionists, and 12% of the haredim would dismantle settlements."
     
    Really what the original graph shows is that Jews are 2/3 or maybe 3/4 secular/liberal/progressive, compared to only 30-40% of white ethnicities. Everything else follows from that. Ben Shapiro is a phoney and the people who believe what he claims to believe (that America should increase immigration and Israel should restrict it) are few and far between.

    Trump occasionally panders to the religious/zionist group, and from that some people conclude that he is pandering to the progressive Jews, but they are in fact separate groups, and the polarization strategy seems to be working.

    [1]: https://www.jewishdatabank.org/databank/search-results/study/1028

    Really what the original graph shows is that Jews are 2/3 or maybe 3/4 secular/liberal/progressive, compared to only 30-40% of white ethnicities. Everything else follows from that.

    Thanks. This is good, nothing has changed.

    Jews are secular/liberal/progressive at a higher % than gentiles and have been for some time.

  60. @Michael S
    You can't make sense of it because it doesn't exist. Fallacy of division: the typical individual in a group is not necessarily like the group average. It depends on how you select your population, and "Jews" are a heterogeneous category.

    What you have is increasing polarization: secular liberal Jews, who overwhelmingly support increased immigration and have lukewarm to negative support for Israel; Orthodox or fairly religious Zionists, who overwhelmingly support Israel and have lukewarm to negative support for immigration, and a group of moderates who tend to be similar to political moderates in other groups.

    For example, from a study [1] comparing Israeli to American Jews:

    While ..."39% of the total Israeli sample say Israel should be willing to dismantle all or some of the settlements in a peace deal... the figures for the religious subgroups [in Israel] show deep differences: 59% of the secular (exactly matching the percentage of the whole American sample), 39% of the not-that-religious traditional, 29% of the religious-traditional, 14% of the religious Zionists, and 12% of the haredim would dismantle settlements."
     
    Really what the original graph shows is that Jews are 2/3 or maybe 3/4 secular/liberal/progressive, compared to only 30-40% of white ethnicities. Everything else follows from that. Ben Shapiro is a phoney and the people who believe what he claims to believe (that America should increase immigration and Israel should restrict it) are few and far between.

    Trump occasionally panders to the religious/zionist group, and from that some people conclude that he is pandering to the progressive Jews, but they are in fact separate groups, and the polarization strategy seems to be working.

    [1]: https://www.jewishdatabank.org/databank/search-results/study/1028

    BTW, I’ve been looking for ‘Ben Shapiro immigration’ on both Google and duckduckgo, and he seems to support restriction and be critical of open borders.

    He doesn’t like pro-White people, but then they keep sending him death threats…

    • Replies: @L Woods
    They aren’t sending him death threats out of the blue
  61. @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    I once remarked to a Jewish friend that IMO one of the reasons why Jews tend to be liberal is because Jews tend to be affluent and so can escape the consequences of their purported idealism. She agreed with me.

    A wise Frenchman, Louis Veuillot, once observed in the 19th Century: When I am the weaker, I ask your for my freedom because that is your principle; when I am the stronger, I will take away your freedom because that is my principle.

    Many groups that are liberal in the West aren't so liberal in their homeland. Moslems are the biggest hypocrites -- favoring religious freedom and equality in the West, while typically favoring the opposite situation in their homelands. In Moslem lands, public rejection of Islam might be punishable by death.

    I think you have a really good point about the affluence. I grew up in pre-Giuliani NYC and that always shaped my views on this stuff. The few right-leaning Jews I know had similar experiences.

  62. @Michael S
    You can't make sense of it because it doesn't exist. Fallacy of division: the typical individual in a group is not necessarily like the group average. It depends on how you select your population, and "Jews" are a heterogeneous category.

    What you have is increasing polarization: secular liberal Jews, who overwhelmingly support increased immigration and have lukewarm to negative support for Israel; Orthodox or fairly religious Zionists, who overwhelmingly support Israel and have lukewarm to negative support for immigration, and a group of moderates who tend to be similar to political moderates in other groups.

    For example, from a study [1] comparing Israeli to American Jews:

    While ..."39% of the total Israeli sample say Israel should be willing to dismantle all or some of the settlements in a peace deal... the figures for the religious subgroups [in Israel] show deep differences: 59% of the secular (exactly matching the percentage of the whole American sample), 39% of the not-that-religious traditional, 29% of the religious-traditional, 14% of the religious Zionists, and 12% of the haredim would dismantle settlements."
     
    Really what the original graph shows is that Jews are 2/3 or maybe 3/4 secular/liberal/progressive, compared to only 30-40% of white ethnicities. Everything else follows from that. Ben Shapiro is a phoney and the people who believe what he claims to believe (that America should increase immigration and Israel should restrict it) are few and far between.

    Trump occasionally panders to the religious/zionist group, and from that some people conclude that he is pandering to the progressive Jews, but they are in fact separate groups, and the polarization strategy seems to be working.

    [1]: https://www.jewishdatabank.org/databank/search-results/study/1028

    Michael, I once came up with a genius theory, that there are two kinds of jews. There are evil jews and regular jews. It sounds more convincing when an old jewish guy with an import house in the millinery district says it because he would pronounce it “eevul joos and regyoulah joos”.

    Anyway, both of the old bead import houses on W. 37th St. are gone now, thanks to that eevul joo, Bloomberg, and I no longer have the old import guys to talk to anymore. My theory still seems sound to me, but everybody else thinks it’s nuts.

  63. @Michael S
    You can't make sense of it because it doesn't exist. Fallacy of division: the typical individual in a group is not necessarily like the group average. It depends on how you select your population, and "Jews" are a heterogeneous category.

    What you have is increasing polarization: secular liberal Jews, who overwhelmingly support increased immigration and have lukewarm to negative support for Israel; Orthodox or fairly religious Zionists, who overwhelmingly support Israel and have lukewarm to negative support for immigration, and a group of moderates who tend to be similar to political moderates in other groups.

    For example, from a study [1] comparing Israeli to American Jews:

    While ..."39% of the total Israeli sample say Israel should be willing to dismantle all or some of the settlements in a peace deal... the figures for the religious subgroups [in Israel] show deep differences: 59% of the secular (exactly matching the percentage of the whole American sample), 39% of the not-that-religious traditional, 29% of the religious-traditional, 14% of the religious Zionists, and 12% of the haredim would dismantle settlements."
     
    Really what the original graph shows is that Jews are 2/3 or maybe 3/4 secular/liberal/progressive, compared to only 30-40% of white ethnicities. Everything else follows from that. Ben Shapiro is a phoney and the people who believe what he claims to believe (that America should increase immigration and Israel should restrict it) are few and far between.

    Trump occasionally panders to the religious/zionist group, and from that some people conclude that he is pandering to the progressive Jews, but they are in fact separate groups, and the polarization strategy seems to be working.

    [1]: https://www.jewishdatabank.org/databank/search-results/study/1028

    That’s true, particularly as activists on both sides (it explains Michelle Goldberg and Breitbart), but there’s a sort of moderate who actually does weakly hold the views most claim; i.e. pro-immigration for America, pro-support for Israel. I doubt they hold strong opinions on Israeli immigration and would probably look uncomfortable if you pointed out the inconsistency to them (as Spencer did to a rabbi a while ago).

  64. @SFG
    BTW, I've been looking for 'Ben Shapiro immigration' on both Google and duckduckgo, and he seems to support restriction and be critical of open borders.

    He doesn't like pro-White people, but then they keep sending him death threats...

    They aren’t sending him death threats out of the blue

  65. @Counterinsurgency
    Yelling out the Jewish establishment until its teeth fall out isn't an effective tactic.

    What is? Same thing that took out the USSR: containment. The Jewish establishment is very bad at long term strategy, and they've painted themselves into a corner: destroyed the cities that are the only place the Jewish establishment can live.

    The problem now is to have something in place that can replace the Jewish establishment when it falls under attack from the very POC imported as its saviors, which will happen much more seriously as the cities deteriorate yet further [1]. If nothing consistent with retaining industry and some kind of market is in place, well, _somebody_ is going to "restore order", and the order will probably be a fairly harsh one.

    Counterinsurgency


    1] See the various urban health crises cased by the _brilliant_ idea of supplementing city funding with externally supplied tax money "needed to support the homeless population", the CATO4321 people, and simultaneously cutting costs by reducing trash collection.
    _If_ the forecasts of "another 2008" in the next year or so come true, external tax funding will be even harder to acquire than it is now, which would (if it happened) increase the rate of urban deterioration. Even the urban unemployables aren't going to put up with that. At the very least, they'll want POC in all the patronage jobs and be motivated enough to have their wants realized.
    When that doesn't help, they'll start fighting each other.

    Good comment.

    Just to clarify context, I’m not really a frothing Jew basher, (every group has accountability in this mess we call current year) but there is a tendency in this part of TUR to dismiss subversive Jewish influence entirely. My comment was mostly meant to address that particular tendency.

  66. @Feryl
    The liberal-sphere of the West now has "leaders" from the Boomer and X-er generations who now regularly repeat the most laughable non-sense about how "scary" the mid-20th century was. Yes, it was so scary to have less crime, fewer divorces, less sex and violence in pop culture, and a strong middle class.

    Millennials and Gen Z are focused primarily on the neo-lib era and it's short-comings. They might, by rote, repeat the typical New Left slander of the New Deal era (which was popularized by Silents and Boomers, BTW), but since the younger generations have no personal memory of the New Deal or Great Society era, they really don't care all that much about pre-1980 history. Just like how Boomers generally don't have that much attached to the early 20th century Progressive age.

    The liberal-sphere of the West now has “leaders” from the Boomer and X-er generations who now regularly repeat the most laughable non-sense about how “scary” the mid-20th century was. Yes, it was so scary to have less crime, fewer divorces, less sex and violence in pop culture, and a strong middle class.

    Political leaders almost never reflect the views of the people they’re leading.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    The Upper Middle Class gets what it wants. If the UMC isn't being a bunch of bastards, then we get good policies. If they're in it for themselves and want to crap on everyone else, then we get bad policies. Affluent people do most of the voting, donating, and lobbying.

    Where I diverge from many people is that I don't think the lower classes ever make any difference per se, but rather, are reliant on noblesse oblige carrying the day.
  67. @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    The Christianity might be a superficial cultural Christianity.

    In the aftermath of a civil war, liberalism won't have a home in Redstan. Liberals will reside in Bluestan until they flee from persecution by non-Whites and civil war within Bluestan.

    In the aftermath of a civil war, liberalism won’t have a home in Redstan.

    How exactly do you intend to achieve that?

    Liberals will reside in Bluestan until they flee from persecution

    The liberals fleeing from Bluestan will combine with the liberals within Redstan to turn Redstan liberal. The only way to stop that would be to deport every single liberal from Redstan. And not only close the borders but cut off all cultural contacts with Bluestan (which would mean rigid anti-liberal censorship of the internet in Redstan).

    It’s basically the North Korea option. Complete cultural, economic and political isolation with zero tolerance for dissent. Ruthless crackdowns to enforce ideological conformity. You’d need regular purges as well. So imagine a right-wing North Korea.

    • Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    More authoritarian society in many ways. Libs will be kicked out or, as Mr. Rational down below writes, executed.

    Liberals imagine that even in a predominately non-White society, that, somehow, they'll remain on top. That won't happen. First, the Republicans will be voted out and then the White Democrats. People typically prefer to be ruled by their own kind.
  68. @LondonBob
    Why?

    Because quite a few of the self-described WASPs in the comments section of this site like to blame other Whites for the US’s current immigration policies.

  69. @dfordoom

    In the aftermath of a civil war, liberalism won’t have a home in Redstan.
     
    How exactly do you intend to achieve that?

    Liberals will reside in Bluestan until they flee from persecution
     
    The liberals fleeing from Bluestan will combine with the liberals within Redstan to turn Redstan liberal. The only way to stop that would be to deport every single liberal from Redstan. And not only close the borders but cut off all cultural contacts with Bluestan (which would mean rigid anti-liberal censorship of the internet in Redstan).

    It's basically the North Korea option. Complete cultural, economic and political isolation with zero tolerance for dissent. Ruthless crackdowns to enforce ideological conformity. You'd need regular purges as well. So imagine a right-wing North Korea.

    More authoritarian society in many ways. Libs will be kicked out or, as Mr. Rational down below writes, executed.

    Liberals imagine that even in a predominately non-White society, that, somehow, they’ll remain on top. That won’t happen. First, the Republicans will be voted out and then the White Democrats. People typically prefer to be ruled by their own kind.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    People typically prefer to be ruled by their own kind.
     
    But what matters is how they define "their own kind" which is not necessarily the way we'd like them to so and it's not necessarily neat and tidy. One's own kind can be defined by race, by culture, by religion or by social class, or even by whether they're urban-dwellers or rural-dwellers. These days lots of people define it as "people who share my sexual tastes" while others define it as "people who share my political views" - I would imagine that libertarians would very strongly prefer to be ruled by other libertarians.

    I think it's fair to say that many city people would be terrified by the thought of being ruled by rural folks, and that many if not most rural folks are fed up being ruled by city people. Most people are unquestionably getting tired of being ruled by bankers and I don't think most white people would feel better about it if all the bankers were white. Upper-class people experience stark terror at the prospect of being ruled by working-class people. Atheists are terrified at the thought of being ruled by Christians. Vegans would probably prefer to be ruled by fellow vegans.

    Liberals want to be ruled by liberals, but what does liberal mean? Most Republican office-holders are liberals. If you asked them then most conservatives might say they'd prefer to be ruled by conservatives but what the hell is a conservative? Is it someone who believes in the free market? Is it someone who believes in conservative social values? Are libertarians conservatives? Are the Koch brothers conservatives?
    , @dfordoom

    People typically prefer to be ruled by their own kind.
     
    The other problem with trying to create states based on the idea of being ruled by your own kind and expelling those who don't qualify is - who gets to decides which people are going to be expelled? Do you set up a kind of Spanish Inquisition to identify the heretics who have to be kicked out? Do you set up a political police organisation to identify the ideological heretics? Do you have a panel of scientists to decide which people qualify as white?

    How much ideological dissent do you tolerate? Is Redstan going to expel people whose children denounce them to the secret police?
  70. @Feryl
    Yeah, I went and updated my blog with the RELIG16 (household religion when you were 16) results. Since "are you Jewish" (OTHJEW) has only been asked a handful of occasions, that basically leaves RELIG (present religion) and RELIG16. Unfortunately, RELIG includes a lot of lapsed people and presumably, some Jews reject a religious ID while obviously still having an ethnic ID. So RELIG16 is probably the best way to discern Jewish ethnicity with the GSS.

    From the 70's-90's, RELIG16 shows that Christians and "not raised in a religious household" are much more conservative than people raised in Jewish households. After 2000, the non-religious household people start to draw closer to Jews in terms of GSS responses to moral questions. So either a lot of modern atheists were raised by Jews who imparted no Jewish identity to their kids, or, more likely, over the last 20 years Jews and gentile atheists have converged to some degree and become very hostile toward heartland Christians.

    Present the link for the rest of the room!

    • Replies: @Feryl
    I guess it's not saving, so I'll have to try and remember to put my website in the box everytime I post. Wish it would be there automatically.

    https://denofinquiry2.blogspot.com/, the recent posts dealing with religion are on the first couple pages.
  71. @Feryl
    It starts to make more sense when we realize that part and parcel of strong ethno-centrism is living by one standard and then asking another group to live by a different standard. If elite level American patriots began to demand the same security that Israel enforces, that would probably bother Jews who might start to feel that Americans care more about themselves than they do anyone else. And before you know it, we might start to withdraw our unconditional support of Israel that's existed for 50 years. In other words, Ashkenazi Jews (AKA the Jews who dominate the West) whether they realize it or not care more about their tribe and it's homeland (Israel) then they do about America.

    We are to blame for this to a large extent, because giving out "blank" checks to those for whom dual loyalty might be a a teensy bit of a problem has been a disaster. The American Right especially has a huge blind spot about devotion to Israel and it's tribe. The Anglo-Right has been forced to renounce many populist and socially conservative outfits because they get on the nerves of Israel firsters and elite Jewish "conservatives" who are cultural libertarians but want tax cuts for the rich and pork for Israel*.

    *The lack of interest in protecting most cultural conservatism that we see among the Right elite isn't hard to figure out; big donors and trend setters in the modern elite Right never really cared that much about social conservatism. Since the 70's, Market de-regulation and Pentagon pork have always been the most important items on the agenda. Back in the New Deal era, kids saw educational movies in school that warned them about gay predators. It's not just that conservatives have failed to continue that sort of conservatism, it's that most of them never even tried after circa 1970. They often make excuses about law suits, losing your job, etc. Well, ya know, if enough people started doing something than it would be hard to stop, right?

    If elite level American patriots began to demand the same security that Israel enforces, that would probably bother Jews who might start to feel that Americans care more about themselves than they do anyone else.

    There are now Democrat congresswomen asserting that Israel is neither a democracy nor a US ally, elected representatives who are more hostile to Israel than any congress critter with an (R) next to the name in at least a generation. America First and Israel Second may be the much better of two imperfect options for pro-Israel Jewish elites in the US. If Jews are intelligent and insightful enough to have steered the US for the last sixty years, they’re surely intelligent and insightful enough to pivot in the future if the situation requires it.

  72. @dfordoom

    The part I can’t make sense of is why American Jewish zionists want to dilute the white gentile population in America. How does that help them either here or in Israel?
     
    Maybe the key is that American Jewish Zionists have no desire to live in Israel. They're strongly in favour of Zionism as long as they can stay in Manhattan. They support a Jewish homeland, for other Jews but not for them. There's a pretty major fundamental contradiction there.

    Maybe what they really want is some absolute guarantee that Manhattan will always remain a Jewish homeland.

    It's also quite likely that they really sincerely believe that they're in mortal danger from white supremacists. Part of it is just what happens to people who live their entire lives in the richer sections of big cities. They end up being terrified of everybody who isn't a wealthy urban dweller. The gentile elites who live their whole lives in the rich parts of big cities are also terrified of non-wealthy non-urban people.

    It’s so bizarre that they’d be more afraid of rural midwestern niceness than they’d be of the people who are out on the streets at night in neighboring boroughs.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    It’s so bizarre that they’d be more afraid of rural midwestern niceness than they’d be of the people who are out on the streets at night in neighboring boroughs.
     
    Most city folks don't believe that there's such a thing as rural midwestern niceness. Those rural midwesterners are actual knuckle-dragging rednecks who lynch blacks and who persecute innocent city dwellers who foolishly venture outside the safety of the big cities. You drive through a small rural town and the corrupt sheriff will arrest you for a minor traffic offence and the corrupt local judge will sentence you to five years on the chain gang.

    City folks know this is true because they're seen it in hundreds of episodes of popular TV series over the past half century.
  73. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Lol

    2 days ago you were saying that I'm a caricature for talking about the Jews.

    Now you're posting as if you're some kind of visionary.

    Jews hate you.

    “for talking about the Jews”

    C’mon, it was for a lot more than that.

  74. @Michael S
    You can't make sense of it because it doesn't exist. Fallacy of division: the typical individual in a group is not necessarily like the group average. It depends on how you select your population, and "Jews" are a heterogeneous category.

    What you have is increasing polarization: secular liberal Jews, who overwhelmingly support increased immigration and have lukewarm to negative support for Israel; Orthodox or fairly religious Zionists, who overwhelmingly support Israel and have lukewarm to negative support for immigration, and a group of moderates who tend to be similar to political moderates in other groups.

    For example, from a study [1] comparing Israeli to American Jews:

    While ..."39% of the total Israeli sample say Israel should be willing to dismantle all or some of the settlements in a peace deal... the figures for the religious subgroups [in Israel] show deep differences: 59% of the secular (exactly matching the percentage of the whole American sample), 39% of the not-that-religious traditional, 29% of the religious-traditional, 14% of the religious Zionists, and 12% of the haredim would dismantle settlements."
     
    Really what the original graph shows is that Jews are 2/3 or maybe 3/4 secular/liberal/progressive, compared to only 30-40% of white ethnicities. Everything else follows from that. Ben Shapiro is a phoney and the people who believe what he claims to believe (that America should increase immigration and Israel should restrict it) are few and far between.

    Trump occasionally panders to the religious/zionist group, and from that some people conclude that he is pandering to the progressive Jews, but they are in fact separate groups, and the polarization strategy seems to be working.

    [1]: https://www.jewishdatabank.org/databank/search-results/study/1028

    So then “wars for Israel” is an illusion? What influence do the orthodox have at the highest levels of the US establishment?

  75. @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    More authoritarian society in many ways. Libs will be kicked out or, as Mr. Rational down below writes, executed.

    Liberals imagine that even in a predominately non-White society, that, somehow, they'll remain on top. That won't happen. First, the Republicans will be voted out and then the White Democrats. People typically prefer to be ruled by their own kind.

    People typically prefer to be ruled by their own kind.

    But what matters is how they define “their own kind” which is not necessarily the way we’d like them to so and it’s not necessarily neat and tidy. One’s own kind can be defined by race, by culture, by religion or by social class, or even by whether they’re urban-dwellers or rural-dwellers. These days lots of people define it as “people who share my sexual tastes” while others define it as “people who share my political views” – I would imagine that libertarians would very strongly prefer to be ruled by other libertarians.

    I think it’s fair to say that many city people would be terrified by the thought of being ruled by rural folks, and that many if not most rural folks are fed up being ruled by city people. Most people are unquestionably getting tired of being ruled by bankers and I don’t think most white people would feel better about it if all the bankers were white. Upper-class people experience stark terror at the prospect of being ruled by working-class people. Atheists are terrified at the thought of being ruled by Christians. Vegans would probably prefer to be ruled by fellow vegans.

    Liberals want to be ruled by liberals, but what does liberal mean? Most Republican office-holders are liberals. If you asked them then most conservatives might say they’d prefer to be ruled by conservatives but what the hell is a conservative? Is it someone who believes in the free market? Is it someone who believes in conservative social values? Are libertarians conservatives? Are the Koch brothers conservatives?

  76. @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    More authoritarian society in many ways. Libs will be kicked out or, as Mr. Rational down below writes, executed.

    Liberals imagine that even in a predominately non-White society, that, somehow, they'll remain on top. That won't happen. First, the Republicans will be voted out and then the White Democrats. People typically prefer to be ruled by their own kind.

    People typically prefer to be ruled by their own kind.

    The other problem with trying to create states based on the idea of being ruled by your own kind and expelling those who don’t qualify is – who gets to decides which people are going to be expelled? Do you set up a kind of Spanish Inquisition to identify the heretics who have to be kicked out? Do you set up a political police organisation to identify the ideological heretics? Do you have a panel of scientists to decide which people qualify as white?

    How much ideological dissent do you tolerate? Is Redstan going to expel people whose children denounce them to the secret police?

  77. @Audacious Epigone
    It's so bizarre that they'd be more afraid of rural midwestern niceness than they'd be of the people who are out on the streets at night in neighboring boroughs.

    It’s so bizarre that they’d be more afraid of rural midwestern niceness than they’d be of the people who are out on the streets at night in neighboring boroughs.

    Most city folks don’t believe that there’s such a thing as rural midwestern niceness. Those rural midwesterners are actual knuckle-dragging rednecks who lynch blacks and who persecute innocent city dwellers who foolishly venture outside the safety of the big cities. You drive through a small rural town and the corrupt sheriff will arrest you for a minor traffic offence and the corrupt local judge will sentence you to five years on the chain gang.

    City folks know this is true because they’re seen it in hundreds of episodes of popular TV series over the past half century.

  78. @Mr. Rational

    The liberals fleeing from Bluestan will combine with the liberals within Redstan to turn Redstan liberal. The only way to stop that would be to deport every single liberal from Redstan.
     
    The liberals should already be under sentence of death in Redstan.  Let them deal with the hell they've created in Bluestan.  When Bluestan collapses, Redstan will sweep out the remaining "holy brown people" trash in the usual Cambodia/Rwanda fashion.

    Where they go and how they go there does not matter.  What matters is gone.

    i tried, but i can’t find any fault with your comments here…

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    And now it's gone.
  79. @dfordoom

    The liberal-sphere of the West now has “leaders” from the Boomer and X-er generations who now regularly repeat the most laughable non-sense about how “scary” the mid-20th century was. Yes, it was so scary to have less crime, fewer divorces, less sex and violence in pop culture, and a strong middle class.
     
    Political leaders almost never reflect the views of the people they're leading.

    The Upper Middle Class gets what it wants. If the UMC isn’t being a bunch of bastards, then we get good policies. If they’re in it for themselves and want to crap on everyone else, then we get bad policies. Affluent people do most of the voting, donating, and lobbying.

    Where I diverge from many people is that I don’t think the lower classes ever make any difference per se, but rather, are reliant on noblesse oblige carrying the day.

    • Replies: @iffen
    I don’t think the lower classes ever make any difference per se

    Yeah, terror in the streets falls from the sky.

    , @dfordoom

    The Upper Middle Class gets what it wants. If the UMC isn’t being a bunch of bastards, then we get good policies. If they’re in it for themselves and want to crap on everyone else, then we get bad policies.
     
    The ruling classes are always a bunch of bastards. That's how they get to be the ruling class. The best you can hope for is that they'll be cautious bastards who won't take the risk of screwing over the rest of us too severely for fear of causing troubles for themselves.

    The ruling classes from the 1920s to the early 1960s were cautious because they were afraid. They had seen actual instances of ruling class bastards being lined up against walls and shot. The UMC lived in terror of getting the kulak treatment.

    Fear is a stronger motivator than generosity.

    Where I diverge from many people is that I don’t think the lower classes ever make any difference per se, but rather, are reliant on noblesse oblige carrying the day.
     
    The lower classes have on occasion been useful foot soldiers for other classes. Kings have been known to use them as allies against troublesome aristocracies and landed aristocracies have been known to use them as allies against the rising middle class. In the modern world however the lower classes do seem to be effectively powerless - the ruling classes have very sophisticated means of surveillance and social control at their disposal these days.

    Any power that the lower classes had was reliant on their willingness to take to the streets and man the barricades. That's why democracy was invented - to neuter the lower classes. To give them the illusion that voting would give them more power than manning the barricades. If you'll forgive me for getting all Marxist for a moment democracy was essential in creating a false consciousness in the lower classes.
  80. @Audacious Epigone
    Present the link for the rest of the room!

    I guess it’s not saving, so I’ll have to try and remember to put my website in the box everytime I post. Wish it would be there automatically.

    https://denofinquiry2.blogspot.com/, the recent posts dealing with religion are on the first couple pages.

  81. @Michael S
    You can't make sense of it because it doesn't exist. Fallacy of division: the typical individual in a group is not necessarily like the group average. It depends on how you select your population, and "Jews" are a heterogeneous category.

    What you have is increasing polarization: secular liberal Jews, who overwhelmingly support increased immigration and have lukewarm to negative support for Israel; Orthodox or fairly religious Zionists, who overwhelmingly support Israel and have lukewarm to negative support for immigration, and a group of moderates who tend to be similar to political moderates in other groups.

    For example, from a study [1] comparing Israeli to American Jews:

    While ..."39% of the total Israeli sample say Israel should be willing to dismantle all or some of the settlements in a peace deal... the figures for the religious subgroups [in Israel] show deep differences: 59% of the secular (exactly matching the percentage of the whole American sample), 39% of the not-that-religious traditional, 29% of the religious-traditional, 14% of the religious Zionists, and 12% of the haredim would dismantle settlements."
     
    Really what the original graph shows is that Jews are 2/3 or maybe 3/4 secular/liberal/progressive, compared to only 30-40% of white ethnicities. Everything else follows from that. Ben Shapiro is a phoney and the people who believe what he claims to believe (that America should increase immigration and Israel should restrict it) are few and far between.

    Trump occasionally panders to the religious/zionist group, and from that some people conclude that he is pandering to the progressive Jews, but they are in fact separate groups, and the polarization strategy seems to be working.

    [1]: https://www.jewishdatabank.org/databank/search-results/study/1028

    According to the GSS, American Jews are overwhelmingly liberal (compared to white gentiles) on immigration, drug legalization, and abortion. They’ve been so since the 70’s. It is fair to say that “true” conservatives (who don’t want to live in Sodom) have every right to be wary of giving too much power to Jews, since Jews have done virtually nothing to stop the tide of cultural decadence that’s been hitting us for 50 years. In fact, we would have been better off being governed by atheist gentiles, given that from the 70’s-90’s atheist gentiles were more conservative than Jews.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    we would have been better off being governed by atheist gentiles, given that from the 70’s-90’s atheist gentiles were more conservative than Jews.
     
    And more sensible to boot.  We would have asked you to justify your concerns in secular terms, rather than dismissing them out of hand.  Rationality has its uses.

    No-fault divorce would probably have been rejected on the merits; penalizing innocent people is not something that either rationalists or atheists like.  Abortion is another matter.  First you have to demonstrate that there is a person at risk involved, and when you are declaring that a single cell is a person you are well into the realm of the ridiculous.
  82. @Feryl
    The Upper Middle Class gets what it wants. If the UMC isn't being a bunch of bastards, then we get good policies. If they're in it for themselves and want to crap on everyone else, then we get bad policies. Affluent people do most of the voting, donating, and lobbying.

    Where I diverge from many people is that I don't think the lower classes ever make any difference per se, but rather, are reliant on noblesse oblige carrying the day.

    I don’t think the lower classes ever make any difference per se

    Yeah, terror in the streets falls from the sky.

  83. @Feryl
    The Upper Middle Class gets what it wants. If the UMC isn't being a bunch of bastards, then we get good policies. If they're in it for themselves and want to crap on everyone else, then we get bad policies. Affluent people do most of the voting, donating, and lobbying.

    Where I diverge from many people is that I don't think the lower classes ever make any difference per se, but rather, are reliant on noblesse oblige carrying the day.

    The Upper Middle Class gets what it wants. If the UMC isn’t being a bunch of bastards, then we get good policies. If they’re in it for themselves and want to crap on everyone else, then we get bad policies.

    The ruling classes are always a bunch of bastards. That’s how they get to be the ruling class. The best you can hope for is that they’ll be cautious bastards who won’t take the risk of screwing over the rest of us too severely for fear of causing troubles for themselves.

    The ruling classes from the 1920s to the early 1960s were cautious because they were afraid. They had seen actual instances of ruling class bastards being lined up against walls and shot. The UMC lived in terror of getting the kulak treatment.

    Fear is a stronger motivator than generosity.

    Where I diverge from many people is that I don’t think the lower classes ever make any difference per se, but rather, are reliant on noblesse oblige carrying the day.

    The lower classes have on occasion been useful foot soldiers for other classes. Kings have been known to use them as allies against troublesome aristocracies and landed aristocracies have been known to use them as allies against the rising middle class. In the modern world however the lower classes do seem to be effectively powerless – the ruling classes have very sophisticated means of surveillance and social control at their disposal these days.

    Any power that the lower classes had was reliant on their willingness to take to the streets and man the barricades. That’s why democracy was invented – to neuter the lower classes. To give them the illusion that voting would give them more power than manning the barricades. If you’ll forgive me for getting all Marxist for a moment democracy was essential in creating a false consciousness in the lower classes.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    The ruling classes from the 1920s to the early 1960s were cautious because they were afraid. They had seen actual instances of ruling class bastards being lined up against walls and shot. The UMC lived in terror of getting the kulak treatment.

    You can't ascribe the same characteristics to the same demographic from one era to another. Teddy Roosevelt personally enjoyed trust-busting. That the public approved of it was icing on the cake. Elites in the early 20th century bought into eugenics because they did not want mankind descending to a bestial level. Elites in the Progressive and New Deal era wanted to help people out of a sense of sincere noblesse oblige.

    Elites these days clearly are afraid of the public, which is why there's been a move toward gun control and massive surveillance since the 80's. Yet this fear hasn't translated to populist policies.

    The UMC lived in terror of getting the kulak treatment.

    Peter Turchin says that leadership attending to the well-being of Americans began to increase around 1900, well before the Russian Revolution or Great Depression. In terms of generational theory, the Missionary generation spearheaded the Progressive era, who then over-saw the beginning of the New Deal era which Lost and GI generation elites continued. Then the libertarian generations arrived: the Silents and the Boomers, both of whom have consistently produced corruption prone, arrogant, and elitist leaders (relative to the Missionary, Lost, and GI gen). Generation X has been so disgusted by the performance of Silent and Boomer leaders that Gen X has consistently been disinterested in getting more involved with politics (Gen X has attained political leadership more slowly than any previous generation).
  84. @Feryl
    According to the GSS, American Jews are overwhelmingly liberal (compared to white gentiles) on immigration, drug legalization, and abortion. They've been so since the 70's. It is fair to say that "true" conservatives (who don't want to live in Sodom) have every right to be wary of giving too much power to Jews, since Jews have done virtually nothing to stop the tide of cultural decadence that's been hitting us for 50 years. In fact, we would have been better off being governed by atheist gentiles, given that from the 70's-90's atheist gentiles were more conservative than Jews.

    we would have been better off being governed by atheist gentiles, given that from the 70’s-90’s atheist gentiles were more conservative than Jews.

    And more sensible to boot.  We would have asked you to justify your concerns in secular terms, rather than dismissing them out of hand.  Rationality has its uses.

    No-fault divorce would probably have been rejected on the merits; penalizing innocent people is not something that either rationalists or atheists like.  Abortion is another matter.  First you have to demonstrate that there is a person at risk involved, and when you are declaring that a single cell is a person you are well into the realm of the ridiculous.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    First you have to demonstrate that there is a person at risk involved, and when you are declaring that a single cell is a person you are well into the realm of the ridiculous.
     
    Straw man argument. How many abortions are carried out at a point when it's just a single cell involved?

    At what point can you say it's a person rather than just a collection of cells? Justify your answer using logical rational arguments.
  85. @Mr. Rational

    we would have been better off being governed by atheist gentiles, given that from the 70’s-90’s atheist gentiles were more conservative than Jews.
     
    And more sensible to boot.  We would have asked you to justify your concerns in secular terms, rather than dismissing them out of hand.  Rationality has its uses.

    No-fault divorce would probably have been rejected on the merits; penalizing innocent people is not something that either rationalists or atheists like.  Abortion is another matter.  First you have to demonstrate that there is a person at risk involved, and when you are declaring that a single cell is a person you are well into the realm of the ridiculous.

    First you have to demonstrate that there is a person at risk involved, and when you are declaring that a single cell is a person you are well into the realm of the ridiculous.

    Straw man argument. How many abortions are carried out at a point when it’s just a single cell involved?

    At what point can you say it’s a person rather than just a collection of cells? Justify your answer using logical rational arguments.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    How many abortions are carried out at a point when it’s just a single cell involved?
     
    By the definition of "pro-life", many uses of Plan B and every single use of IUDs or oral birth control which act by preventing implantation.

    This is just one of the ways that the anti-abortion side has gone off into the intellectual weeds and can't find their way back out.  They call discarding unused IVF blastocysts "abortion" as well, despite nobody ever being pregnant.  But the natural loss of as many as 2/3 of fertilized ova in the early stages of pregnancy is a non-event to them.

    At what point can you say it’s a person rather than just a collection of cells?
     
    At the earliest, when it's verifiably conscious.  This is at about 30 weeks.
  86. @dfordoom

    The Upper Middle Class gets what it wants. If the UMC isn’t being a bunch of bastards, then we get good policies. If they’re in it for themselves and want to crap on everyone else, then we get bad policies.
     
    The ruling classes are always a bunch of bastards. That's how they get to be the ruling class. The best you can hope for is that they'll be cautious bastards who won't take the risk of screwing over the rest of us too severely for fear of causing troubles for themselves.

    The ruling classes from the 1920s to the early 1960s were cautious because they were afraid. They had seen actual instances of ruling class bastards being lined up against walls and shot. The UMC lived in terror of getting the kulak treatment.

    Fear is a stronger motivator than generosity.

    Where I diverge from many people is that I don’t think the lower classes ever make any difference per se, but rather, are reliant on noblesse oblige carrying the day.
     
    The lower classes have on occasion been useful foot soldiers for other classes. Kings have been known to use them as allies against troublesome aristocracies and landed aristocracies have been known to use them as allies against the rising middle class. In the modern world however the lower classes do seem to be effectively powerless - the ruling classes have very sophisticated means of surveillance and social control at their disposal these days.

    Any power that the lower classes had was reliant on their willingness to take to the streets and man the barricades. That's why democracy was invented - to neuter the lower classes. To give them the illusion that voting would give them more power than manning the barricades. If you'll forgive me for getting all Marxist for a moment democracy was essential in creating a false consciousness in the lower classes.

    The ruling classes from the 1920s to the early 1960s were cautious because they were afraid. They had seen actual instances of ruling class bastards being lined up against walls and shot. The UMC lived in terror of getting the kulak treatment.

    You can’t ascribe the same characteristics to the same demographic from one era to another. Teddy Roosevelt personally enjoyed trust-busting. That the public approved of it was icing on the cake. Elites in the early 20th century bought into eugenics because they did not want mankind descending to a bestial level. Elites in the Progressive and New Deal era wanted to help people out of a sense of sincere noblesse oblige.

    Elites these days clearly are afraid of the public, which is why there’s been a move toward gun control and massive surveillance since the 80’s. Yet this fear hasn’t translated to populist policies.

    The UMC lived in terror of getting the kulak treatment.

    Peter Turchin says that leadership attending to the well-being of Americans began to increase around 1900, well before the Russian Revolution or Great Depression. In terms of generational theory, the Missionary generation spearheaded the Progressive era, who then over-saw the beginning of the New Deal era which Lost and GI generation elites continued. Then the libertarian generations arrived: the Silents and the Boomers, both of whom have consistently produced corruption prone, arrogant, and elitist leaders (relative to the Missionary, Lost, and GI gen). Generation X has been so disgusted by the performance of Silent and Boomer leaders that Gen X has consistently been disinterested in getting more involved with politics (Gen X has attained political leadership more slowly than any previous generation).

    • Replies: @iffen
    You can’t ascribe the same characteristics to the same demographic from one era to another.

    The hell you can't. What's that supposed to be? Some sort of Feryl's Law #203?

    the Missionary generation

    Can we get a handy guide card listing these generations and the relevant time span?
    , @dfordoom

    Generation X has been so disgusted by the performance of Silent and Boomer leaders that Gen X has consistently been disinterested in getting more involved with politics (Gen X has attained political leadership more slowly than any previous generation).
     
    That's a U.S. phenomenon. The U.S. is a gerontocracy. No other nation on Earth would seriously consider guys in their late 70s as possible future leaders.

    If Boris Johnson is a Boomer then he's a very very late Boomer. He was born in '64 so to many people he's Gen-X. Australia has a Gen-X prime minister. France has a Gen-X president. Spain has a Gen-X prime minister. Canada has a Gen-X prime minister. So does Poland. So does New Zealand. So does Denmark. So does the Netherlands. Italy's prime minister is like Boris Johnson - by some measures he's Gen-X.

    But Americans like their politicians to be really really old. It's not a generation thing. It's an America thing.
  87. @Feryl
    The ruling classes from the 1920s to the early 1960s were cautious because they were afraid. They had seen actual instances of ruling class bastards being lined up against walls and shot. The UMC lived in terror of getting the kulak treatment.

    You can't ascribe the same characteristics to the same demographic from one era to another. Teddy Roosevelt personally enjoyed trust-busting. That the public approved of it was icing on the cake. Elites in the early 20th century bought into eugenics because they did not want mankind descending to a bestial level. Elites in the Progressive and New Deal era wanted to help people out of a sense of sincere noblesse oblige.

    Elites these days clearly are afraid of the public, which is why there's been a move toward gun control and massive surveillance since the 80's. Yet this fear hasn't translated to populist policies.

    The UMC lived in terror of getting the kulak treatment.

    Peter Turchin says that leadership attending to the well-being of Americans began to increase around 1900, well before the Russian Revolution or Great Depression. In terms of generational theory, the Missionary generation spearheaded the Progressive era, who then over-saw the beginning of the New Deal era which Lost and GI generation elites continued. Then the libertarian generations arrived: the Silents and the Boomers, both of whom have consistently produced corruption prone, arrogant, and elitist leaders (relative to the Missionary, Lost, and GI gen). Generation X has been so disgusted by the performance of Silent and Boomer leaders that Gen X has consistently been disinterested in getting more involved with politics (Gen X has attained political leadership more slowly than any previous generation).

    You can’t ascribe the same characteristics to the same demographic from one era to another.

    The hell you can’t. What’s that supposed to be? Some sort of Feryl’s Law #203?

    the Missionary generation

    Can we get a handy guide card listing these generations and the relevant time span?

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Uh, to put it simply, with era of birth listed first:

    Mid-19th century: Missionary generation

    Late 19th century: Lost

    Early 20th century: GI

    1925-1944 (Great Depression and WW2): Silent

    1945-1960 (Post-War stability): Boomer

    1961-1980 (The Age of Aquarius): Gen X

    1981-1996 (Reagan and Clinton start a police state): Millennial

    1997-? (America loses it's mind): Gen Z

    So basically, each generation has no first-hand experience with the distinctive era preceding it's birth, while being greatly affected by the phase it's born into. Silents learned to be cautious in the 30's and 40's. Boomers could afford to be narcissistic and mouthy in the 50's and 60's. Generation X were put through hell in the 70's. Millennials came of age when Americans were rapidly losing their freedom. And so on.

  88. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    i tried, but i can't find any fault with your comments here...

    And now it’s gone.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Yes, in light of the Maryland man getting arrested by the FBI for allegedly threatening a race war (albeit on facebook), I thought it prudent to remove favorable references to African genocides.
  89. @dfordoom

    First you have to demonstrate that there is a person at risk involved, and when you are declaring that a single cell is a person you are well into the realm of the ridiculous.
     
    Straw man argument. How many abortions are carried out at a point when it's just a single cell involved?

    At what point can you say it's a person rather than just a collection of cells? Justify your answer using logical rational arguments.

    How many abortions are carried out at a point when it’s just a single cell involved?

    By the definition of “pro-life”, many uses of Plan B and every single use of IUDs or oral birth control which act by preventing implantation.

    This is just one of the ways that the anti-abortion side has gone off into the intellectual weeds and can’t find their way back out.  They call discarding unused IVF blastocysts “abortion” as well, despite nobody ever being pregnant.  But the natural loss of as many as 2/3 of fertilized ova in the early stages of pregnancy is a non-event to them.

    At what point can you say it’s a person rather than just a collection of cells?

    At the earliest, when it’s verifiably conscious.  This is at about 30 weeks.

  90. @iffen
    You can’t ascribe the same characteristics to the same demographic from one era to another.

    The hell you can't. What's that supposed to be? Some sort of Feryl's Law #203?

    the Missionary generation

    Can we get a handy guide card listing these generations and the relevant time span?

    Uh, to put it simply, with era of birth listed first:

    Mid-19th century: Missionary generation

    Late 19th century: Lost

    Early 20th century: GI

    1925-1944 (Great Depression and WW2): Silent

    1945-1960 (Post-War stability): Boomer

    1961-1980 (The Age of Aquarius): Gen X

    1981-1996 (Reagan and Clinton start a police state): Millennial

    1997-? (America loses it’s mind): Gen Z

    So basically, each generation has no first-hand experience with the distinctive era preceding it’s birth, while being greatly affected by the phase it’s born into. Silents learned to be cautious in the 30’s and 40’s. Boomers could afford to be narcissistic and mouthy in the 50’s and 60’s. Generation X were put through hell in the 70’s. Millennials came of age when Americans were rapidly losing their freedom. And so on.

  91. @Mr. Rational
    And now it's gone.

    Yes, in light of the Maryland man getting arrested by the FBI for allegedly threatening a race war (albeit on facebook), I thought it prudent to remove favorable references to African genocides.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    References are not threats, AE.  Giving someone a cheering section is not conspiracy or any sort of crime.

    Next you'll say that it's off-limits to cheer on the Libyans who are blowing up the trans-Sahara rest and resupply depots used by the hordes of sub-Saharans wishing to invade Europe.  I support the right of EVERYONE ELSE ON EARTH to be free of sub-Saharans if they so choose.  That includes Libyans and includes every act in furtherance of that goal, because forcing sub-Saharans on anyone is an act of war, if not genocide.
  92. @Feryl
    The ruling classes from the 1920s to the early 1960s were cautious because they were afraid. They had seen actual instances of ruling class bastards being lined up against walls and shot. The UMC lived in terror of getting the kulak treatment.

    You can't ascribe the same characteristics to the same demographic from one era to another. Teddy Roosevelt personally enjoyed trust-busting. That the public approved of it was icing on the cake. Elites in the early 20th century bought into eugenics because they did not want mankind descending to a bestial level. Elites in the Progressive and New Deal era wanted to help people out of a sense of sincere noblesse oblige.

    Elites these days clearly are afraid of the public, which is why there's been a move toward gun control and massive surveillance since the 80's. Yet this fear hasn't translated to populist policies.

    The UMC lived in terror of getting the kulak treatment.

    Peter Turchin says that leadership attending to the well-being of Americans began to increase around 1900, well before the Russian Revolution or Great Depression. In terms of generational theory, the Missionary generation spearheaded the Progressive era, who then over-saw the beginning of the New Deal era which Lost and GI generation elites continued. Then the libertarian generations arrived: the Silents and the Boomers, both of whom have consistently produced corruption prone, arrogant, and elitist leaders (relative to the Missionary, Lost, and GI gen). Generation X has been so disgusted by the performance of Silent and Boomer leaders that Gen X has consistently been disinterested in getting more involved with politics (Gen X has attained political leadership more slowly than any previous generation).

    Generation X has been so disgusted by the performance of Silent and Boomer leaders that Gen X has consistently been disinterested in getting more involved with politics (Gen X has attained political leadership more slowly than any previous generation).

    That’s a U.S. phenomenon. The U.S. is a gerontocracy. No other nation on Earth would seriously consider guys in their late 70s as possible future leaders.

    If Boris Johnson is a Boomer then he’s a very very late Boomer. He was born in ’64 so to many people he’s Gen-X. Australia has a Gen-X prime minister. France has a Gen-X president. Spain has a Gen-X prime minister. Canada has a Gen-X prime minister. So does Poland. So does New Zealand. So does Denmark. So does the Netherlands. Italy’s prime minister is like Boris Johnson – by some measures he’s Gen-X.

    But Americans like their politicians to be really really old. It’s not a generation thing. It’s an America thing.

    • Replies: @Feryl

    If Boris Johnson is a Boomer then he’s a very very late Boomer. He was born in ’64 so to many people he’s Gen-X. Australia has a Gen-X prime minister. France has a Gen-X president. Spain has a Gen-X prime minister. Canada has a Gen-X prime minister. So does Poland. So does New Zealand. So does Denmark. So does the Netherlands. Italy’s prime minister is like Boris Johnson – by some measures he’s Gen-X.
     
    I'm not just talking about presidents/PMs, though. I'm talking about the generational make-up of mid-upper management in our institutions. I've seen the data for American Gen X-ers. While the Senate being old is nothing new, The House of Reps has grayed a lot since the 1990's. Young Silents and Boomers entered The House in droves in the 1960's-1980's. X-ers, on the other hand, have entered the House much more slowly and often by the time they did so they were relatively old. And if you eliminate 1961-1964 births from Gen X, then these trends are even more pronounced.

    I can't speak to European trends, and besides, I don't really care anyway what's going on over there. America is the dominant country, after all. That being said, across the West we saw Gen X being very disengaged from politics and civics in the 80's and 90's, something which really hasn't changed all that much since. Silents and Boomers were responsible for the libertarian turn of the 70's and 80's, a big reason why X-ers never felt that motivated to get more involved. Note also that the turn toward high inequality/empire collapse in America is obviously a big factor in American generational dynamics. X-ers are substantially worse off than middle aged GIs, Silents, and Boomers were. X-ers do n0t have the cultural, political, or economic clout that those generations enjoyed. For the post-Boomer generations, a lot of what we get is contingent on the older generations dying off. That's the sense of nihilism and fatalism that younger generations have.

    All this talk, for eons, about Boomer this and Boomer that, while the following generation may as well not even exist, given how completely indifferent Western (and especially American) society has been toward Gen X.
  93. @Audacious Epigone
    Yes, in light of the Maryland man getting arrested by the FBI for allegedly threatening a race war (albeit on facebook), I thought it prudent to remove favorable references to African genocides.

    References are not threats, AE.  Giving someone a cheering section is not conspiracy or any sort of crime.

    Next you’ll say that it’s off-limits to cheer on the Libyans who are blowing up the trans-Sahara rest and resupply depots used by the hordes of sub-Saharans wishing to invade Europe.  I support the right of EVERYONE ELSE ON EARTH to be free of sub-Saharans if they so choose.  That includes Libyans and includes every act in furtherance of that goal, because forcing sub-Saharans on anyone is an act of war, if not genocide.

  94. @dfordoom

    Generation X has been so disgusted by the performance of Silent and Boomer leaders that Gen X has consistently been disinterested in getting more involved with politics (Gen X has attained political leadership more slowly than any previous generation).
     
    That's a U.S. phenomenon. The U.S. is a gerontocracy. No other nation on Earth would seriously consider guys in their late 70s as possible future leaders.

    If Boris Johnson is a Boomer then he's a very very late Boomer. He was born in '64 so to many people he's Gen-X. Australia has a Gen-X prime minister. France has a Gen-X president. Spain has a Gen-X prime minister. Canada has a Gen-X prime minister. So does Poland. So does New Zealand. So does Denmark. So does the Netherlands. Italy's prime minister is like Boris Johnson - by some measures he's Gen-X.

    But Americans like their politicians to be really really old. It's not a generation thing. It's an America thing.

    If Boris Johnson is a Boomer then he’s a very very late Boomer. He was born in ’64 so to many people he’s Gen-X. Australia has a Gen-X prime minister. France has a Gen-X president. Spain has a Gen-X prime minister. Canada has a Gen-X prime minister. So does Poland. So does New Zealand. So does Denmark. So does the Netherlands. Italy’s prime minister is like Boris Johnson – by some measures he’s Gen-X.

    I’m not just talking about presidents/PMs, though. I’m talking about the generational make-up of mid-upper management in our institutions. I’ve seen the data for American Gen X-ers. While the Senate being old is nothing new, The House of Reps has grayed a lot since the 1990’s. Young Silents and Boomers entered The House in droves in the 1960’s-1980’s. X-ers, on the other hand, have entered the House much more slowly and often by the time they did so they were relatively old. And if you eliminate 1961-1964 births from Gen X, then these trends are even more pronounced.

    I can’t speak to European trends, and besides, I don’t really care anyway what’s going on over there. America is the dominant country, after all. That being said, across the West we saw Gen X being very disengaged from politics and civics in the 80’s and 90’s, something which really hasn’t changed all that much since. Silents and Boomers were responsible for the libertarian turn of the 70’s and 80’s, a big reason why X-ers never felt that motivated to get more involved. Note also that the turn toward high inequality/empire collapse in America is obviously a big factor in American generational dynamics. X-ers are substantially worse off than middle aged GIs, Silents, and Boomers were. X-ers do n0t have the cultural, political, or economic clout that those generations enjoyed. For the post-Boomer generations, a lot of what we get is contingent on the older generations dying off. That’s the sense of nihilism and fatalism that younger generations have.

    All this talk, for eons, about Boomer this and Boomer that, while the following generation may as well not even exist, given how completely indifferent Western (and especially American) society has been toward Gen X.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    I’m not just talking about presidents/PMs, though. I’m talking about the generational make-up of mid-upper management in our institutions.
     
    It really is just an American thing. You need to figure out why it's happened in your country and not anywhere else. It can't be a generational thing because it hasn't happened outside the United States. It might be disillusionment but it has to be a peculiarly American disillusionment.

    It might be a collapse in educational standards in the '70s that didn't happen to the same extent in other countries. It might be that the U.S. has already achieved full-blown decadence and that it hasn't yet succeeded in imposing that decadence on the rest of the world to the same extent. American popular culture went right down the toilet in the '70s. That had nothing to do with some bizarre generational conspiracy. Popular culture was deliberately re-engineered to advance a degenerate agenda. It's called capitalism, baby. The U.S. reached the stage of massively corrupt decadent late capitalism before anyone else.

    It might have been the Vietnam War, for which Americans (quite rightly) felt massive guilt and shame.

    In this particular instance I'm pretty sure you're barking up the wrong tree seeing it as a Boomer conspiracy. Not everything is a Boomer conspiracy.
  95. @Feryl

    If Boris Johnson is a Boomer then he’s a very very late Boomer. He was born in ’64 so to many people he’s Gen-X. Australia has a Gen-X prime minister. France has a Gen-X president. Spain has a Gen-X prime minister. Canada has a Gen-X prime minister. So does Poland. So does New Zealand. So does Denmark. So does the Netherlands. Italy’s prime minister is like Boris Johnson – by some measures he’s Gen-X.
     
    I'm not just talking about presidents/PMs, though. I'm talking about the generational make-up of mid-upper management in our institutions. I've seen the data for American Gen X-ers. While the Senate being old is nothing new, The House of Reps has grayed a lot since the 1990's. Young Silents and Boomers entered The House in droves in the 1960's-1980's. X-ers, on the other hand, have entered the House much more slowly and often by the time they did so they were relatively old. And if you eliminate 1961-1964 births from Gen X, then these trends are even more pronounced.

    I can't speak to European trends, and besides, I don't really care anyway what's going on over there. America is the dominant country, after all. That being said, across the West we saw Gen X being very disengaged from politics and civics in the 80's and 90's, something which really hasn't changed all that much since. Silents and Boomers were responsible for the libertarian turn of the 70's and 80's, a big reason why X-ers never felt that motivated to get more involved. Note also that the turn toward high inequality/empire collapse in America is obviously a big factor in American generational dynamics. X-ers are substantially worse off than middle aged GIs, Silents, and Boomers were. X-ers do n0t have the cultural, political, or economic clout that those generations enjoyed. For the post-Boomer generations, a lot of what we get is contingent on the older generations dying off. That's the sense of nihilism and fatalism that younger generations have.

    All this talk, for eons, about Boomer this and Boomer that, while the following generation may as well not even exist, given how completely indifferent Western (and especially American) society has been toward Gen X.

    I’m not just talking about presidents/PMs, though. I’m talking about the generational make-up of mid-upper management in our institutions.

    It really is just an American thing. You need to figure out why it’s happened in your country and not anywhere else. It can’t be a generational thing because it hasn’t happened outside the United States. It might be disillusionment but it has to be a peculiarly American disillusionment.

    It might be a collapse in educational standards in the ’70s that didn’t happen to the same extent in other countries. It might be that the U.S. has already achieved full-blown decadence and that it hasn’t yet succeeded in imposing that decadence on the rest of the world to the same extent. American popular culture went right down the toilet in the ’70s. That had nothing to do with some bizarre generational conspiracy. Popular culture was deliberately re-engineered to advance a degenerate agenda. It’s called capitalism, baby. The U.S. reached the stage of massively corrupt decadent late capitalism before anyone else.

    It might have been the Vietnam War, for which Americans (quite rightly) felt massive guilt and shame.

    In this particular instance I’m pretty sure you’re barking up the wrong tree seeing it as a Boomer conspiracy. Not everything is a Boomer conspiracy.

    • Replies: @Feryl

    It really is just an American thing. You need to figure out why it’s happened in your country and not anywhere else. It can’t be a generational thing because it hasn’t happened outside the United States. It might be disillusionment but it has to be a peculiarly American disillusionment.
     
    Strauss and Howe liked to point out that the Fall of the Berlin Wall was celebrated by GIs, Silents, and to a lesser degree Boomers. Whereas the Gen X youth of both the West and the East had a much more muted reaction (for good reason, as it turns out). I think the reason America is turning toward gerontocracy is because it's a quickly fading empire. Older generations can more easily delude themselves that America is still "the good guy", and attempt to perform civic duties and leadership roles (although Boomers are much worse at these things than Silents and GIs). On the other hand, X-ers and later generations tend to be more concerned pragmatically with tending to their own lives and families (whereas Silents and especially Boomers often flagrantly neglected domestic and family duties in order to focus on career and public image.) You may have noticed in that today's workplace environment, today's younger generations are often looking to get as much time off as possible. The upper class mostly doesn't do this (because after all, it would jeopardize their status), but for the lower to middle class the culture is a lot different now than it was in say, the 1980's (when Boomer workaholism became notorious). Charles Murray said that in 2010, the average white male aged 30-50 was both working less, and not seeking more work, compared to what Silents and Boomers were doing in the 1940's-1980's. It would seem that coming of age in the neo-lib era is depressing and demoralizing to many people, something that older generations don't really understand.
  96. @dfordoom

    I’m not just talking about presidents/PMs, though. I’m talking about the generational make-up of mid-upper management in our institutions.
     
    It really is just an American thing. You need to figure out why it's happened in your country and not anywhere else. It can't be a generational thing because it hasn't happened outside the United States. It might be disillusionment but it has to be a peculiarly American disillusionment.

    It might be a collapse in educational standards in the '70s that didn't happen to the same extent in other countries. It might be that the U.S. has already achieved full-blown decadence and that it hasn't yet succeeded in imposing that decadence on the rest of the world to the same extent. American popular culture went right down the toilet in the '70s. That had nothing to do with some bizarre generational conspiracy. Popular culture was deliberately re-engineered to advance a degenerate agenda. It's called capitalism, baby. The U.S. reached the stage of massively corrupt decadent late capitalism before anyone else.

    It might have been the Vietnam War, for which Americans (quite rightly) felt massive guilt and shame.

    In this particular instance I'm pretty sure you're barking up the wrong tree seeing it as a Boomer conspiracy. Not everything is a Boomer conspiracy.

    It really is just an American thing. You need to figure out why it’s happened in your country and not anywhere else. It can’t be a generational thing because it hasn’t happened outside the United States. It might be disillusionment but it has to be a peculiarly American disillusionment.

    Strauss and Howe liked to point out that the Fall of the Berlin Wall was celebrated by GIs, Silents, and to a lesser degree Boomers. Whereas the Gen X youth of both the West and the East had a much more muted reaction (for good reason, as it turns out). I think the reason America is turning toward gerontocracy is because it’s a quickly fading empire. Older generations can more easily delude themselves that America is still “the good guy”, and attempt to perform civic duties and leadership roles (although Boomers are much worse at these things than Silents and GIs). On the other hand, X-ers and later generations tend to be more concerned pragmatically with tending to their own lives and families (whereas Silents and especially Boomers often flagrantly neglected domestic and family duties in order to focus on career and public image.) You may have noticed in that today’s workplace environment, today’s younger generations are often looking to get as much time off as possible. The upper class mostly doesn’t do this (because after all, it would jeopardize their status), but for the lower to middle class the culture is a lot different now than it was in say, the 1980’s (when Boomer workaholism became notorious). Charles Murray said that in 2010, the average white male aged 30-50 was both working less, and not seeking more work, compared to what Silents and Boomers were doing in the 1940’s-1980’s. It would seem that coming of age in the neo-lib era is depressing and demoralizing to many people, something that older generations don’t really understand.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS