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
Race, Gender, and Marital Support for 2018 Congressional Mid-Terms
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

Expounding on the marriage and gender (forgiveness please, vok3) gaps, it’s pair-bonded huwhite men and women against the world, with unmarried white men on the fence:

The male-female gaps, by race:

White gentiles exhibiting the greatest amount of gender parity–who woulda thunk it?!

Parenthetically is why the gender gap is played up relentlessly in the media while the marriage gap goes nearly unremarked upon. No, I’m not parenthetically asking a question, I’m making an assertion.

The married-unmarried female gaps, by race:

Ring or no ring, I’s a strongly-worded, dependent black woman!

(Republished from The Audacious Epigone by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 42 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Basically:

    -Liberalism in the US is about taking things from the "privileged whites" and giving them to not whites.

    -Married white people tend to care more about their future and the future of their children

    -Non-whites are more or less united in a front to wrestle the control of the US away from the white (for now) majority

    -Blacks are the most proactive in the fight against the white majority, regardless of marital status

    -Jewish women are the second most proactive anti-white fighters, probably because in the US they're overwhelmingly liberal and often single. Jewish American Princesses want to smash White Supremacy.

    -The other non-white groups are all on board with the anti-white program, but not as enthusiastic about it as blacks and Jewish women, likely mostly because they get less benefits than blacks and aren't as ideological as Jewish women.

    -In general non-married women tend to be more significantly more liberal than married women. The marriage effect is present in men.

    It's Tyrone and Shaneeqa on welfare and Gender Studies Prof. Rebecca Finklestein against Whitey, while everyone else goes with the flow.

  2. I would again caution: other polls show way bigger gender gaps, in line with the 2016 election differences or bigger.

    Btw the Senate Reuters poll shows white women prefering Dems and white men prefering
    Reps.

    http://polling.reuters.com/#!response/TM1445Y18/type/oneshot/filters/LIKELY:1,SEX:2,SC_RACE:1/dates/20180901-20181023/collapsed/true

    Let's wait for the November election to make conclusions about it.

  3. Asians in the US are in a difficult position. On one hand they're not Evil Whites so they're Oppressed Victims, on the other the "wokes" either ignore them or subtly undermines them (as we've seen in the case of Harvard admissions).

    I predict that in the future Asians will become more and more apathetic and indifferent towards politics, unless they're unmarried Asian women with college educations.

    What could be interesting is to see where the Latinos fit within the system. They're going to become a major force in the Democratic Party, and try to bring forth more Democratic Socialism, but I don't see them being incredibly happy with having to share power with the blacks and the white/Jewish wokes, especially since those two groups will be the more visible and louder ones.

    A viable strategy for the Republican Party would be not to pander, but to divide and conquer. Appeal more to disenfranchised and single white men and women, but throw wrenches into the Coalition of the Fringes, like in the case of the Harvard lawsuit. Not so much to try and get non-white people to vote Republican in droves (which isn't going to happen) but to get Asians and perhaps even some Latinos to stay home even more than they're doing it now.

    In this respect the "wokes" can be unwitting allies. The growing craziness over the Evil Beckys might be useful to lower the support of white women for the Democratic Party, while the primacy of Black Oppression and Reparations might get Asians and Latinos to be less gung-ho about going to the urns.

    I used to think that triggering the libs online was fun but ultimately not really useful, but perhaps it can be done well enough to get the "wokes" to shoot themselves in the foot.

    Perhaps there can some method to the 4chan madness.

  4. https://www.amren.com/news/2018/10/in-florida-white-voters-siding-with-republicans-keep-a-surge-of-young-and-minority-voters-at-bay/

    "Everywhere Donna Wilkenfeld looks in this lush suburban Orlando neighborhood, the 56-year-old transplant from Tennessee sees neighbors who she suspects share her passion for the Republican Party, especially its stance against illegal immigration and the party’s unflinching support for President Trump."

    It's really common for BoomerCons to hallucinate their world view onto "most" people; this is really true for later Boomers who are very Republican, less true for the early Boomers who came to loath "the war party" due to Vietnam.

    "It’s a struggle that increasingly pits older white voters, including transplants with hopes of retirement, against the state’s rapidly diversifying youth in a demographic battle that presents challenges for both parties in a state gaining nearly 1,000 new residents a day."

    Per John Xenakis, the greatest way to provoke conflict is via ramping up population density and competition for resources.

    According to census estimates, 40 percent of Florida’s 20 million residents are now over the age of 50, and slightly more than two-thirds of them are white. Those residents have formed the backbone of recent Republican victories here.

    "In the 2016 presidential contest, Trump carried Florida by 113,000 votes after 64 percent of white voters supported him, according to exit polls. But 57 percent of Florida residents under the age of 30 now identify as a minority — a percentage that leaps above 70 percent in Miami-Dade and Broward counties, the state’s two most populated. Roughly 7 in 10 of those nonwhite Florida voters supported Democrat Hillary Clinton in 2016, according to exit polls."

    What in God's name do elderly and middle aged whites think about the GOP doing effectively nothing in the 80's, 90's, and 2000's to stop the displacement of America's founding population? For that matter, they could've at least lead campaigns to celebrate British heritage (it's astonishing how many American whites fail to cite British ancestry, even when history and DNA testing proves that it's dominant in many of us) which would've guarded us from being too sentimental about immigration. Let's be frank, here:the lingering residue of the (white on white) ethnic squabbles of the Ellis Island era has been terrible, because….Anglo Brits are unique, and have a culture and personality worth protecting from jealous outsiders and greedy elites. Every Single Time that the meme of "Mexicans are the new Irish" got repeated, our legacy and inheritance was undermined, being that Ellis Island people's (and their apologists) ought to not have the right or audacity to continue to insult and tear down the very country whose cultural DNA is thoroughly British.

    Being that whites have been conditioned to be ignorant about their own heritage, what chance do we have? I shouldn't have to argue with Midwestern whites that they are overlooking their English and Scottish heritage, but go figure, that's what happens when several generations are brainwashed to think that up is down and left is right.

    Guns, God, abortion, and low taxes. Fuck off. If we were stupid enough to buy into the idea that *anyone* could be a Brit gentleman, then we deserve to be wiped out. One of the Amren commenters pointed out that the root of many "conservative" voters since the 1980's is the desire to make, and hang onto, muh money. Was it all worth it? Did walling off yourself from social caretaking of everyone besides your immediate family pay off, in the long run?

  5. #Lori Low Taxes, Steve Slash Taxes, Jerry Jesus Freak, Gary Gun Lover. Janet Jew Lover, Don Derugulator.

    Gee, the solution to everything is "get the gubmint out of the way" (unless it's abortion, then the government can step in and boss people around).

  6. Dealg,

    There's a notable split in how Asian-Americans approach politics. The Hispanic Heritage survey found that Gen Z Asian males actually preferred Trump over Hillary.

    On the other hand, Asian-American women have generally become SJWized over the last decade. Before Obama, Asian-American women generally came across as indifferent to politics, but now they're trying to find anything they can to feel aggrieved.

    East Asian men are perhaps the biggest winners of a principled stance against miscegenation and have a lot of reasons to like HBD findings. As such, I definitely think it's possible to find common ground and shared interests with them.

    South Asians, however, are a different story. I don't know if there's any common ground we can find between us and them.

  7. According to census estimates, 40 percent of Florida’s 20 million residents are now over the age of 50, and slightly more than two-thirds of them are white. Those residents have formed the backbone of recent Republican victories here.

    There's an argument to be made in favor of the progressive position in such cases. If they don't have children and wouldn't leave inheritances in any case, what right do they have to govern the state's future? They have no skin in the game. Rather, in NRx terms, they are mobile bandits in the most logically extreme sense.

  8. Press F for the GOP and the Constitution

  9. @ Dealg, etc.
    The married vs. single gap is clearly solid, and vital.
    However, I must continue to emphasize, that too much is made of the gaps between "whites" and various (urban) non-black groups, e.g. Asians, Jews, and Hispanics.
    The focus should instead be on the broad gap between (almost all White) *rurals*, and non-black urbans: *whites*, Asians, Jews, and Hispanics, all voting more-or-less like each other.

    It's a shame, that this recent Reuters poll failed to have a rural-urban breakdown, when prior polls showed this breakdown to be so very salient.
    In 2016, Reuters found that the voting showed a "33%" (!!) gap between rural and urban:
    "Trump beat Clinton by *26* percentage points among voters who live in *non-metropolitan* areas, while Clinton bested Trump by about 7 percentage points in urban areas."
    (See https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-rural/in-rural-urban-divide-u-s-voters-are-WORLDS-Apart-idUSKBN13625Q .)

    My view is that, rural (esp. political) culture is comparatively wholesome, and urban culture is comparatively degenerate, and that the gap between the two has sharpened in
    recent years, as the MSM has recently (esp. in Obama's 2nd term) been careening off the deep end.
    Once Obama got reelected, the demons, within the MSM and the colleges, really burst out. The more he "ni**ered it up", the more they felt free to follow suit.

  10. Ananymouse,

    This one here sums up the message of "liberal cultural supremacy" that moves our elite.

    https://twitter.com/keithboykin/status/1056222461715513344

    The arrogance they have towards anyone (white) right-wing that wants an ethno-religious homogenous society is galling. Some of us don't want to live in liberalism.

  11. Today Unz has a Sailer post about the big change in 2013, see https://www.unz.com/isteve/why-did-democrats-go-nuts-in-2013-django-unchained/ .
    There, a few readers' comments stand out.
    One notes that "The elites (sic) got radicalized on campus in the early 2000s, because the SJWs were right about Iraq, and gained undue *credibility* therefrom."

    Another, from Ron himself, says:
    "Well, our national elites are heavily concentrated in DC, NYC, and LA, and… they’d been working very hard for many years to gradually push out the blacks, and by the 2010s this policy had largely succeeded…. Once dangerous blacks were no longer around ,… they could more freely indulge their liberal tendencies to glorify them, partly to assuage their guilt in having driven them away…."
    Didn't much the same thing happen in the SF area?

  12. @ 216:
    Yeah, this Boykin is quite good at "ni**ering it up".
    Alas, he's not an exception proving some rule.
    Rather, his kind grow like weeds, spurred on by Coates, Dyson, etc.

  13. aNanyMouse…

    "Today Unz has a Sailer post about the big change in 2013, see https://www.unz.com/isteve/why-did-democrats-go-nuts-in-2013-django-unchained"

    Sailer is tripling down. He said “Evidence keeps accumulating that the liberal half of America took a sudden swerve into political extremism and psychological problems around 2013.” Of course he is simply doing it for his fan bois and fan girlz. He had stated in a previous post “Warning: don’t take any single psychological finding as Gospel” in reference to Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff in their book citing a research study about “America seems to be going through a nervous breakdown”.

    Speaking of psychological research…

    how conservatives are less likely to compromise and tend to view the world as a more threatening place because their brains predispose them to being fearful.

    https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(11)00289-2

    -and-

    how conservatives are significantly more likely to be swayed by politicians’ alarmist claims.

    http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0956797617692108

    Perhaps these two studies offer insight as to why since 2012 there has been a conservative mental health breakdown in the American political scene, with a link to the meteoric rise of the Alt Right and its own peddling of victimization.

    Sailer's post demonstrates his third rule of journalism in action–Always quickly follow up an initial post with another post to ensure the lede from the first post is further buried and to solidify a premise that will be used as Alt Right fodder.

  14. @ Delag

    Re: South Asians: I would not be surprisd if Hindu and/or Sikh South Asians as a group voted majority or close to it for the orange man. Because of obvious history they are -based- on the Islam issue. Plus the downscale ones often begin their American experience in certain neighborhoods that might affect one's political outlook. AE, any data on the voting patterns of South Asians by religion?

  15. "Well, our national elites are heavily concentrated in DC, NYC, and LA, and… they’d been working very hard for many years to gradually push out the blacks, and by the 2010s this policy had largely succeeded…. Once dangerous blacks were no longer around ,… they could more freely indulge their liberal tendencies to glorify them, partly to assuage their guilt in having driven them away…."

    It's not so much that blacks were pushed out, it's that Millennials of all races have made gentrification possible. Only a moderate area of urban America, largely in the Northeast, was viable territory for gentrification in the 80's and early 90's. That's because a substantial number of Boomers and young Gen X-ers were so dangerous back then. Boomers try to push this meme that blacks of all types were almost single-handedly responsible for much of America going to hell in the 70's and 80's, but that conveniently ignores cross-racial trends within each generation (BTW, England, which was over 85% white in the 1970's, also saw it's urban areas go to hell at that time). And BTW, incarceration rates have been surpassing crime rates since the late 90's. There just aren't enough dangerous Millennials to justify running the prison industrial complex, or justify perpetuating myths that massive urban territories in modern America remain no-go zones (all indices of violent crime had two peaks: 1979, and 1991, which far surpass the crime rates of the last 20 year).

    "Today Unz has a Sailer post about the big change in 2013, see https://www.unz.com/isteve/why-did-democrats-go-nuts-in-2013-django-unchained"

    We're in a civ. wide crisis phase; that's the kicker. I'm afraid, though, that neither side has it's shit together.

  16. Jig Bohnson,

    Good point regarding the Sikhs.

    Generally speaking, South Asians in North America are similar to liberal Jews. They do extraordinarily well economically, feel insecure in their minority status, and their "home countries" (Israel and India) started off left-wing after independence from Britain in the 1940s but have since emerged as right-wing juggernauts.

    As such, they have a lot of cash and high verbal abilities to throw around, but are uncomfortable being surrounded by whites/Gentiles (which on some level they regard as ethnic opponents, due to Jews having an overall bitter history with Gentiles in Europe, and British rule in India).

    As they're minorities, they often feel uncomfortable with becoming right-wing, as being right-wing in North America on some level means averring that white American culture is good and they ought to assimilate to it. As such, being left-wing means upholding their identity.

    At the same time, Israel and India are right-wing as all hell right now, to the point that it's embarrassing for left-wing Jews and Indians. Similarly, but ethnic groups have deep insecurities with their own ethnic identities. (We all know about the stereotype of the self-hating Jew, but Indians also have a schizophrenic view of white European culture).

    As such, they both often become about as SJW as you can get, being aggressively and acerbically left-wing as a way to resolve the contradictions and tensions within their ethnic identities and how they relate to the world.

    Funnily enough, I have moderately positive views of how the US can learn from Israel in regards to border walls and ethnic identity, and similarly sanguine views of where the Indo-American relationship could potentially reach, while being deeply frustrated with liberal blue-checkmark Jews and South Asians in North America.

    But my own views on the matter can be changed if statistics showing otherwise are shown to me.

    That said, I'm more optimistic that Jews in America will one day wise up and be part of the team. I'm less optimistic about South Asians, but if they wind up being more like Razib Khan and less like Sundar Pichai, then I'll gladly eat my words.

    aNanyMouse,

    My own view on the progs going crazy in 2013 is that they felt they had established permanent executive control of the USA in the 2012 election.

    By mid-2011, it was clear Obama was a dud president. Mitt Romney was not the candidate we needed in 2012, but he could've easily won when the white American majority was higher and more secure.

    Still, Obama ran on the War on Women, Trayvon Martin, gay marriage, and every other pozzed Coalition of the Fringes issue. He won solidly. Many, many people were convinced the Republicans would never win the presidency again.

    Not having to worry about alienating Core America any longer, the progs removed all self-restraint and quickly became a parody of themselves. Of course, once Trump won it was evident that their foolishness was shooting them in the foot, but it's a lot easier to remove the limitations you place on yourself than to establish said barriers, so they're still bonkers.

  17. "There's an argument to be made in favor of the progressive position in such cases. If they don't have children and wouldn't leave inheritances in any case, what right do they have to govern the state's future? They have no skin in the game. Rather, in NRx terms, they are mobile bandits in the most logically extreme sense."

    Well, Silents and Boomers (who still dictate how each side is run) have developed an increasingly gerontacratic Western society over the last 20-30 years. From the time of the GI Gen retiring (gracefully) in the 70's and 80's, to Gen X-ers being denied cultural, political, and economic agency from the 80's-present day, we're looking at the last 40+ years (and the foreseeable future) being the almost exclusive domain of Silents and Boomers. Generational Ageless is a book written in 2007, and the authors say that the nature of the economy weighs heavily on the personality of a generation. They say that Gen X-ers and esp. Millennials have a far more pessimistic and self-critical attitude than Boomers, who lucked into a lot prosperity and opportunities, which they self-servingly claim they earned (true, Boomers worked hard, but part of their work ethic was derived from older generations paying them well and giving them advancement opportunities; X-ers and Millennials have a poorer work ethic, and are more sullen and withdrawn, because Silents and Boomers kept slamming doors in their faces).

    Anyway, the point is that Silents and Boomers have done a lot of disservices to younger generations, and society in general, by always orienting society towards their egos, insecurities, and lack of gratitude for what trad. Western civilization is and should be. That's why things have been so badly derailed. I think that in the long-run, Millennials will buy into underclass champions (and on the Alt-right, the cultural underclass is white men under 50) who'll probably, at some point along the line, deliver a massive "fuck you" to older generations by restoring anti-trust regulations, progressive taxes, infrastructure spending, and domestic manufacturing. We can't let Reaganite and Clintonite yuppies boss us around forever.

  18. "As such, they have a lot of cash and high verbal abilities to throw around, but are uncomfortable being surrounded by whites/Gentiles (which on some level they regard as ethnic opponents, due to Jews having an overall bitter history with Gentiles in Europe, and British rule in India)."

    When (((communism))) became an obvious failure in the 1970's and 80's, while Western Jews elevated their economic fortunes, we saw a lot of Jews began to make heavy inroads into the GOP. Consequently, the party became less openly ethnic chauvinist in comparison to the days when New England WASPs were celebrated, and elite level Republicans had to soften their stance on cultural issues because "conservative" Jews invariably are more culturally liberal than gentiles. The new class of "conservative" Jews, who adamantly pushed for financial de-regulation and low taxes, while also often being very hawkish usually on behalf of Isreal, helped destroy the Buchananite/Nixonite/Eisenhowerite, which was much more doveish, protectionist, and pro-regulation of Wall Street. True, the Reaganites talked a good game about cultural conservatism, but in practice (((donors))) generally cared less about abortion than they did Israel and low taxes.

    It should be noted that prior to the late 1970's. it was the Dems who were more hawkish and ambitious in foreign policy, the result of a strange alliance between Southern soldiers and (((Ellis Island))) Northerners who both stood to benefit from more war (whereas Northeastern and Midwestern gentiles, esp. the Nords and WASPs, generally had a cautionary attitude towards war).

  19. Dealg,

    Blacks pushing the culture from below and Jewish women pushing it from below is a useful framework for understanding America in the Current Year.

    Agree re: "wokes" being allies. Kamala Harris will be a much better D candidate–for us–than Joe Biden could have ever been.

    Steve Sailer has suggested that the right do all it can to portray the Democrats as the party of blacks rather than the party of non-whites. Per usual, they're not paying any attention.

    Passer by,

    I present data I find interesting and then discuss it and invite others to do the same. There will be a gender gap but there will be a larger marriage gap, and the marriage gap will be more pronounced among women than among men–that's my prediction.

    Feryl,

    Gregory Cochran has remarked on how being English has really gone out of fashion over the last several decades in the US, with those self-iDing as English/Welsh dropping substantially over that period of time, much faster than the white share of the population in general. Even being German is less shameful than being English, and Irish is of course the only European ethnicity people are allowed to celebrate at all. Even then, the 'celebration' is of all the worst traits of the Irish–brawlers, drunkards, etc.

    Sid,

    The Arctic Alliance, as Derb calls it, is probably more tenable between countries than within them.

    IHTG,

    If democratic political solutions don't work, people will find other ways. Shooting up a synagogue, though? The Jews found there are not the ones we need to be worried about.

    aNanyMouse,

    Agree that the lack of any sort of "community type" filter is the biggest drawback to R-I's interactive polling site, which is very useful overall.

    216,

    A lot of these blue metropolises should secede. Leave America for we far-white types. If that's really what he likes so much, why not go our separate ways politically since we already do culturally, economically, linguistically, etc.

    Jig,

    Not from any of my usual sources. The sample sizes just aren't large enough for them to register. I'm not even sure I recall Pew including Sikhs in the religious landscapes survey from several years ago.

    Sid,

    Funnily enough, I have moderately positive views of how the US can learn from Israel in regards to border walls and ethnic identity, and similarly sanguine views of where the Indo-American relationship could potentially reach, while being deeply frustrated with liberal blue-checkmark Jews and South Asians in North America.

    Strongly second that. Very well put.

  20. @ Sid;
    Your reply rings true enough.
    Lefties had been counting on the ability of Conservativism, Inc., to keep whites asleep forever.
    However, when NR cucked to the SJWs, by canning the Derb for his non-black version of The Talk (Apr. 2012), waves of revulsion swept thru well-read parts of the White Community.
    And, in ensuing months, the Zimmerman trial Discovery process showed evidence contradicting the SJW-MSM narrative about Trayvon, etc.
    This was all too late to effect Romney's winning of the GOP nod, but helped set the stage for subsequent events.

  21. Feryl: You should know better than to espouse such a revisionist history. I've noticed that the dissident right finds it convenient to erase the historic liberal Rockefeller Republican wing of the GOP so they can assign blame for ideological and cultural squishiness in the party purely to Jewish interlopers or whatnot.

    It's really more accurate to describe the paleocons and neocons as two new movements that struggled to inherit a party that was historically different from both of them, in the aftermath of the Reagan era.

  22. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1056270246141681664

    A curious use of "Jewish Americans", and an error in not referring to the attack as "domestic terrorism".

  23. AE,

    I'm idiosyncratic insofar that I consider Japanese, Chinese, and other Asians whose ancestors were here in the 19th century to be fellow Legacy Americans.

    That said, I don't really want anymore Asians migrating to the US and making our tech industry even less of a national asset and ever more a globalist bludgeon. As such I readily agree that it'll be far less straightforward to unite politically with East Asians within the country than working with them in their own countries towards common ends.

    Glad you would second my statement!

    aNanyMouse,

    Romney was the exact wrong person to handle the social crises of 2012. He was a white male plutocrat and thus elicited the anti-white male animus of the left, but was too much of a cuck to ever fight back. He was exactly the wrong person to rally blue-collar whites because he saw them as expendable embarrassments, part of the 47% he loathed. It says everything that he became even more of a cuck after the left did everything it could to savage him. It's just disgusting. If I had been as genteel to Obama as Romney had, only to get the kind of enmity and derision Romney got, I would swear the remainder of my life to obliterating Obama, his legacy, and the margins which upheld his rule.

    Trump did just that because Obama mocked him at the White House dinner in May 2011, and he wasn't touched compared to what Romney got!

    But Romney's take away was that he needed to seal the fates of all prole whites because he internalized the charge he was a big bad white man and he needed to make way for a Brown America.

    In 2011 it looked like economics would be the great concern of the 2012 election, which made Romney the better candidate. Obama flipped it to social and racial issues, on which matter Romney simply stood still and let his opponents paint a target between his eyes. Also sadly, there really wasn't a satisfactory alternative to Romney in that race. Ann Coulter concluded then that Romney was legitimately the better choice on immigration over Gingrich, Santorum, etc.

    Romney would almost surely have pulled on a Merkel on immigration, though, so good riddance. It's just a shame he will almost surely be the Senator from Utah before too long.

  24. IHTG,

    The paleocons were not much of a movement among elected politicians, the conflict occurred almost entirely among a small class of intellectual publications. The only other politician I can call a "paleocon" besides Buchanan is Jesse Helms, and possibly Walter B. Jones from the same state. If we want to be humorous we could say that Jim Traficant of Ohio was a paleocon.

    The generational predecessors to the Northeast Rockefeller wing were those that passed the immigration restrictions in 1924, while the voting record shows a significant number of Midwestern GOP votes against it. The voting record of the 1980 Refugee Act and the 1986 Amnesty shows dissent from Upstate New York, while every member from Iowa voted for both bills.

    The 2006 "enforcement-only" bill received several GOP No votes in the Midwest including Boehner(!), while only one vote against from the Northeast, even the embattled CT GOP reps voted for it, from a state that voted against the 1924 act.

    http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll661.xml

  25. Sid,

    We don't really know what Romney would have done on immigration, as he has no clear principles on it. We do know that Paul Ryan would have been shilling for an amnesty, but as VP he would be in a strange position having less influence than he does now as Speaker. On racial matters it does appear that Mitt was scarred by his father receiving riots in return even though he was a staunch civil rights supporter as MI Governor.

    The GOP majority in the alternate timeline would likely have been narrow, and an alt-timeline "resistance" would have sprung up. So while DACA might have been rescinded before it was unable to "vest" enough people, the ACA also might have been replaced with something like the failed bill from last year.

    On a foreign policy basis, Putin would not have attacked Ukraine with Romney in the White House, even the trade negotiations with Ukraine that sparked the coup would have gone differently. If no Ukraine attack is in the offing, Russia might have also backed off in Syria, leading to a stronger Turkish presence and no incentive for Erdogan to send refugees into Europe, but instead back to Syria.

    What is probably certain on a foreign policy basis is that a President Romney would have attacked Iran. The IRI had the benefit of negotiation with Obama in his second term, which arguably backfired on them when the economic benefits didn't materialize. That's how Trump is getting away with harsher Iran sanctions, the IRI public has lost confidence in governance so they aren't responding with nationalistic fervor.

  26. Again,

    They use "hate crime", and not "terrorism" and this is the ADL no less. The angle is to push for more censorship and increased police informants in the various dissident groups. But I can't understand why they aren't waving the banner of "terrorism".

    https://twitter.com/rooshv/status/1056267011582500865

  27. "The generational predecessors to the Northeast Rockefeller wing were those that passed the immigration restrictions in 1924, while the voting record shows a significant number of Midwestern GOP votes against it. The voting record of the 1980 Refugee Act and the 1986 Amnesty shows dissent from Upstate New York, while every member from Iowa voted for both bills. "

    The impression I get is that Northeastern WASPs were influential in passing immigration restriction, because the Mid-Atlantic and Southern New England by the 1910's were over-run by Ellis Islanders. It's possible that the Teutons and less elite WASPs of the Midwest, who in any event are of a slightly different flavor (more drawn from the Brit Midlands) than the ones in the Northeast, simply had a more welcoming attitude towards immigrants. Also, the Midwest at that point was much less developed than the East Coast. Remember: higher pop. density=more conflict. Iowa is a very rural state, so I wouldn't dwell too much on it. Recently, the Midwest appears to be increasing in anti-immigrant sentiment; but the region has developed a great deal compared to what it was 100 years ago.

    "The paleocons were not much of a movement among elected politicians, the conflict occurred almost entirely among a small class of intellectual publications. The only other politician I can call a "paleocon" besides Buchanan is Jesse Helms, and possibly Walter B. Jones from the same state. If we want to be humorous we could say that Jim Traficant of Ohio was a paleocon."

    The paleocon thing came about when people who opposed some aspects of Reaganism found that they increasingly were being marginalized as "soft" on foreign policy, and as bigoted dinosaurs who made (((some))) people very nervous. Instead of characterizing paleocons as the weirdos, we ought to remember that before the 1980's it was the Reaganites who were the weirdos. What's truly "weird" is wanting to fully de-regulate financial markets, having a monopoly on military force w/ a gargantuan sense of entitlement about "imposing your will" on all others, off-shoring most of your domestic manufacturing, and "compensating" for declining birth rates via massive levels of immigration. This is not the GOP of the Rockefeller wing.

  28. Feryl: You should know better than to espouse such a revisionist history. I've noticed that the dissident right finds it convenient to erase the historic liberal Rockefeller Republican wing of the GOP so they can assign blame for ideological and cultural squishiness in the party purely to Jewish interlopers or whatnot.

    Revisionism? As 216 indicates, it's really the (((Reaganites))) and Christian fundamentalists who are the real revisionists. Southern and Western conservatives (and urban Jews who'd lost faith in communism and picked up neo-conservatism instead) began to dominate the GOP in the 1980's, and they did their damndest to spread the propaganda that "soft" and "liberal" Northeastern Republicans were responsible for our military being "weak" and not doing enough to shrink the size of government and slash taxes. When Barry Goldwater ran on Reaganism in the 1960's, he was a laughing stock. Americans back then didn't reflexively think that the government caused every problem, nor did they want corrupt rich people to acquire and sit on vast mountains of wealth.

    The "squshiness" (cuckness) is caused by ceding too much influence to fags, women, betas, and decadent rich people. If they got off their damn high horse and actually started listening to regular people again, then immigration would be halted and markets would be as regulated as they were in the 1930's-1970's. The perverts, sociopaths, and wealthy donors who've gained more control of each party over the last 40 years, have no investment in the sentiment of the masses. And that's why good ideas aren't allowed to gain traction.

    Most 'tard TrueCons don't even realize that the Solidly Democratic South of the pre-mid 1960's was responsible for making the Democrats very hawkish relative to Republicans.

    TrueCons (e.g., the Me Generation and the Gen X-ers naive enough to believe them) have absolutely no fucking clue that it was, who else, the godam liebruls of the populist stripe, who actually made America great once upon a time. America, in it's best form, is not based on military bubbles, financial market bubbles, high immigration levels, a laizze faire approach to perversion (e.g., the Reagan and Bush regimes during a public health crisis not quarantining AIDs victims, not threatening municipalities which failed to shut down gay bars and bathouses, and not removing from power higher level homosexuals who deliberately sabotaged investigation and research into AIDS).

    The Reaganite New Deal of no longer monitoring the integrity of those who run the financial markets and the military, not insuring that these things are run in the best interest of the public, is also an arrangement that produced a "hands-off" approach to immigration, casino gambling, dangerous dog ownership, dangerous weapon ownership, violent sports (such as MMA), and sexual degeneracy. Some of these things didn't take hold right away (like Ultimate fighting not debuting until 1993), but it was the rising Me Generation of "conservatives" who drew the blueprints in the 70's and 80's.

  29. Feryl,

    The voting record from 1924 shows that the representatives from Rhode Island and Connecticut all voted against restriction, presumably due to fear of backlash from Italian voters. There was only one vote against from the entire South, from a Congressman representing Charleston.

    https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/68-1/h90

    In the Senate, both North Dakota Senators (socialist) voted No. Both Rhode Island Senators voted no, no other states had both senators voting No. David Walsh of MA voted no, a real oddball who was a homosexual isolationist Irish Catholic. The Wisconsin socialists were recorded as absent. One of the Senators from Oklahoma voted No, not sure as of why, the wiki biography only notes that he was of Indian ancestry and a blatant internationalist. Two other farm state senators voted no.

    https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/68-1/s126

  30. Shrinking government? Are you kidding? Nothing says small government like building up the military to massive levels (while failing to adjust revenue intake to pay for it), and then using that military to smote "our" enemies as we get to be the bitch of Saudi Arabia and Israel. Gee, perhaps if we hadn't run off those pesky "liberal" Rockefellers, we'd have put more than 5 seconds of thought into the notion that we are entitled to get enmeshed in foreign conflicts because we've got cool fighter jets and I'm sure that our military and intelligence leaders must know what they are doing.

    Man, in those "dreaded" 1960's, to think that Americans on average (esp. older generations) were horrified about their boys dying in some feverish Asian swamp for reasons not entirely clear. But…..We beat up on Hilter, right? So, you know, it's cool if we take out "dictators" because, ya know, they're bad guys. It's not like we do anything bad, ever, right?

  31. Feryl,

    Wrt to Reagan and the Rockefeller wing keeping the military "weak". It earnestly surprises me that many of the Boomer generation will still defend the B-1 Bomber and other Reagan foibles. It even showed up in a 2004 Bush attack ad against Kerry. Trump is also guilty of this, as he should have offered to scuttle the new bomber design in exchange for Russia/China/India coughing up their newer ICBMs.

    The B-1 for all intents and purposes was a vanity project that we never needed, we purchased this electioneering at the cost of 100 more B-2s.

    The Northeast in particular has fewer military bases, as the expansion of bases in the South was eagerly welcomed during the World Wars. This more than anything, even the migration of blacks to the urban North, is what undermined segregation. This is not to say that the Northeast is not a hawkish region, its arguably just as hawkish as the South. But it lacks the military tradition where it is expected that many upper-class sons should become officers that you see in the South. The Northeast expresses its hawkishness in the form of defense contractors and human rights agitation.

    When I was viewing the voting record on these immigration bills, I was surprised to see the number of immigration-related laws that specifically were the backwash of our imperialist wars. Even the Northern triangle countries that the left claims we must allow to dump their surplus population on us due to the backing of anti-communist 80s death squads, got relief from Congress.

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

  32. Feryl,

    I say this with some hesitation, but there are valid reasons why we are stuck in alignment with the Saudis. The vast majority of oil is on the Saudi/Qatar/UAE/Kuwait side of the Persian Gulf. Ditching the Saudis risks the emergence of a Salafist state that evicts all of the Gulf Monarchies.

    The size of the US economy almost ensures some entanglement with the major energy producing regions. If the Saudis are decoupled, and barred from arms purchases, the Russians will eagerly fill the gap, assuming that without the NSA they could somehow keep a handle on their Salafists.

    The existence of the Oil Arabs also acts as a relief valve for immigration. The tens of millions of guest workers might be otherwise knocking on the door of the West.

    Our power isn't anywhere near where it once was, so we have to rely on multilateralism (yuck), preservation of the balance of power, and the reduction of military spending and its re-direction to fertility subsidies in the West and fertility-reducing educational attainment levels in the Third World.

  33. "Wrt to Reagan and the Rockefeller wing keeping the military "weak". It earnestly surprises me that many of the Boomer generation will still defend the B-1 Bomber and other Reagan foibles. It even showed up in a 2004 Bush attack ad against Kerry. Trump is also guilty of this, as he should have offered to scuttle the new bomber design in exchange for Russia/China/India coughing up their newer ICBMs."

    Well, it's mainly Boomers (and late Silents) who spread the urban legend that "we" weren't "allowed" to win Vietnam because our hands were tied by timid leaders. Of course, we can "win" anything if victory is defined as beating and terrorizing a populace into submission, and you've got the means to do so.

    My own synthesis of the whole neurotic but hawkish approach to war and the military that the Boomers evince is that they are fixated on being the good guy via the expression of military force. Yet in their lifetimes, the US has had:

    1) One worthy adversary (the Soviet Union), who failed to act in such a way as to make GI and most Silent leaders willing to entertain a massive frontal assault upon the Soviets or an ally thereof. And there's that whole nuke thing, too.

    2) No clear enemy at all (post-Soviets), with the resulting foreign policy and military (mis)adventures, generally geared to what Boomers want, being an incoherent series of expensive flops.

    The Boomers are dying to to have a truly large and righteously motivated war, just like their parents and/or grandparents had with World War 2. But that hasn't happened, and as David Kaiser has pointed out, it is precisely the rampant individualism, and chaotic approach to ideology, of the Boomers,that has made it so damn difficult for any nation in the world to recreate HItler's Germany or Stalin's Russia. Boomers can't agree on anything, because each of them puts so much importance on their own ego, feelings, and overall life experience, which alienates them from achieving anything on a collective level (in fact, the changes that Boomers have made to society are based on the individualistic "freedom" of each person to do as he wishes no matter the damage it inflicts on others, and no matter how it alienates them from others). Kaiser says that each "takedown" of a dictator, that has happened on the watch of each Boomer president, is generally painted in quite childish and naive terms by the president (or president advisor, e.g. Hilary in Obama's regime), although he says that Obama (a more reflective late Boomer) had the most reservations, while in Clinton's era (the 90's) there were still enough GIs and early Silent leaders left to keep our military use in check).

    We're the good guys, the head of state that's being knocked off is a bad guy, ergo, there's no reason to hold back, no reason to think that such an action could prove to be more harmful than good in the long run. It's this impulsiveness and crude moralism that's given the Boomers a reputation for being wrong-headed charlatans as "leaders".

    The overall effect of such childish and idiosyncratic leadership is that the world no longer functions on the basis of perceptive leaders acting with a view toward the perceived benefit of his nation, which would at least give us a coherent and distinctive set of nations and leaders. We're in a ideological and social morass that drowns any attempt to fashion a strong and consistent sense of ideology and tribal awareness. At the end of the day, nothing seems to really make any sense, to have any shelf life, to be worth adopting as something in which to take pride. The incorrigible desire of Boomers to stubbornly remain true to themselves, to remain themselves, and do whatever makes them feel good, stifles the necessity of lessening individualism in a time of crisis.

  34. Feryl,

    Where do you draw the generational lines, I tend to score Obama as a Gen Xer? The theory suggests that some of the Boomers have to break away when the Crisis era comes to a close in the 2020s.

    Xi and Putin are also Boomers, and share a characteristic of not wanting to share power and a thinking that they alone have the solutions. Nevertheless, at their ages they are in no position to command the high affairs of state at a time of mental decline. GenXer Medvedev proved himself unworthy, but Putin seems uninterested in designating a successor which risks a coup or a US inspired color revolution.

    Bolsonaro could be the Boomer that, having broken off from the elites, can re-orient Brazil into a stable path.

  35. "I say this with some hesitation, but there are valid reasons why we are stuck in alignment with the Saudis. The vast majority of oil is on the Saudi/Qatar/UAE/Kuwait side of the Persian Gulf. Ditching the Saudis risks the emergence of a Salafist state that evicts all of the Gulf Monarchies."

    But the US has propped up a decadent regime, who've dragged us down with them, morally and politically. It may be a marriage under duress, and a marriage of convenience. but it's one that's soured over time, and we may be over-due for a divorce (if the Saudi Monarchy is the best that we can do, then fuck, just put us out of our misery.)

    "The size of the US economy almost ensures some entanglement with the major energy producing regions. If the Saudis are decoupled, and barred from arms purchases, the Russians will eagerly fill the gap, assuming that without the NSA they could somehow keep a handle on their Salafists."

    As Agnostic brilliantly pointed out in his take-down of Reaganomics, divesting the US government of R&D involvement actually resulted in far fewer tech innovations starting in the 1980's. Why? The private sector chooses the easy way out to ease the minds of powerful shareholders. When things are run more on the terms of the public sector, projects can have more time to develop, and there's less pressure to rely on the tried and true to make money easily and quickly. What does this have to do with foreign policy? Simple; energy dependency, and vulnerabilities therein. Our government into the 1980's should've been wracking it's brain trying to wean us off oil, and certainly, the least that could've been done was upping the gas tax and taxing high consumption vehicles and industries. But no way was the 1980's GOP going to allow that to happen. Furthermore, the Reagan retards endless mantra that government never did anything good was pretty much 100% taken for granted by Silents and Boomers, who starting in the 1980's began to shovel wads of dough into their pockets instead of actually do anything worth a damn. And that was made possible by evicting the government as much as possible from having any oversight or power to steer things in the direction of public interest and security. The GIs, and Silents under the tutelage of GIs, were responsible for numerous innovations in the New Deal and Great Society era. From the innovation of the GIs we descended into the cynicism and deceit of the Boomers.

    Bezos and Zuckerburg? Really? "Innovations" in the ability of people to gossip to each other, and recording and selling their data, and innovations in monopolistic and greedy business practices. In the era of Boomer leadership, this the kind of titans we get.

  36. Feryl,

    It also helps to recall that the US Big 3 can't make a profit on anything other than SUVs and Trucks. Ford literally just quit making small cars.

    I've considered it regrettable that the US should have retained its TARP stock in the banks, rather than sell it at a "profit" (not a profit considering the QE trillions). But I've never seen anything that could have been gained by keeping the Big 3 under public ownership, or having their production "guided" by the Department of Energy. The GM Volt car went nowhere, while Ford literally scuttled its electric car research.

    It's hard for me to think there were alternatives to Reaganomics, even France is now adopting the principles belatedly under Macron. Globalists are fond of saying that the homogenous nation-state is unsustainable in a time of massive migrations and transnational corporations. On the same token, how sustainable is a system of labor union militancy and a vast public sector?

    In one sense, there are benefits to telling the Israelis/Arabs to fuck off when it comes to arms sales. Stronger Russian arms exports would boost the Russian economy, allowing the return of the propaganda that was boosting euronat movements. Lesser chances could mean the rise of an EU military-industrial complex independent of the US, the use of Chinese debt trap diplomacy to gain control of the oil reserves, and worst of all but least likely a Pan-Arab military industrial complex emerging.

  37. "Where do you draw the generational lines, I tend to score Obama as a Gen Xer? The theory suggests that some of the Boomers have to break away when the Crisis era comes to a close in the 2020s."

    People born from the mid-1940's-early 1960's were endlessly fussed over as a marketing demographic, as a group worth a lot of attention and sacrifice, and encouraged boldly in the 1950's and 60's to be creative and self-assured. Their defining characteristic is that they lived through the 1960's as impressionable youngsters, in terms of a shared experience. I don't use exact years, because tweeners born at the very beginning and very end of a generation usually don't have a strong attachment to a generation (with the exception of early Boomers, who were told by the media from a very young age that they were part of a unique group).

    X-ers were born from the late 60's-the nadir of the Awakening that occurred circa 1980. They were children and/or teenagers during the death of New Dealism and the rise of Reaganism, which has made most of them feel apathetic to depressed about the ability of people to do the right thing on a collective level. Gen X was taught to be accustomed to feeling lonely, misunderstood, and underappreciated. As youngsters they validated many of the fears of Silents and Boomers, who saw a present (in the 80's and 90's) of culturally withdrawn and unpredictably expressive kids, and inspired older generations to envision a future of warring gangs and crumbling cities….Which never came to pass as X-ers settled down and Millennials did as much they could've to ward off the "street kid" reputation that Gen X reveled in.

    Millennials were born from the earlier 80's-thru late 90's. Unlike X-ers, who saw cultural wars between Boomers and older generations that the X-ers were to young or too bored of to participate in, Millennials came of age assuming that the Boomers always had their way. Because that's exactly where society was in the mid-late 80's, the period when the early Millennials were in kindergarten.

    Gen Z is too young to have been a witness to the full extent of the Silent and Boomer fueled Awakening and Boomer owned Unraveling. Older generations have desperately tried to spare them from the experimentation of the Awakening, and the harshly abrasive tone of the Unraveling. They will be expected to be diligently focused on minding their manners, and leaving adults alone, during the Crisis phase, for which they won't receive much praise at the time or in future decades. This will be the catalyst for them becoming neurotic, insecure, and uneasy with tradition and the powers that be, which will provoke the next great awakening that the next gen. of Boomers will boldly take command of, even as Gen Z tries to mentor them.

    "Xi and Putin are also Boomers, and share a characteristic of not wanting to share power and a thinking that they alone have the solutions. Nevertheless, at their ages they are in no position to command the high affairs of state at a time of mental decline. GenXer Medvedev proved himself unworthy, but Putin seems uninterested in designating a successor which risks a coup or a US inspired color revolution."

    Putin is no real contender to revive the collective excesses and/or triumphs of the early-mid 20th century. He's not a very big dreamer, or an idealist who aims to go to great lengths to restore his nation's unique culture and demographics (if on the right) or bring about greater equality (if on the Left). The maximum individualists who still run Western culture constantly exaggerate the negative characteristics of Putin and Trump (and Berlusconi), as the Modern Left and cuck Right fears that these men will morph into the next Hitler. So far, they aren't reporting on reality as much as they are revealing what these men are presumed to be capable of, even if they haven't actually done anything.

  38. "It's hard for me to think there were alternatives to Reaganomics, even France is now adopting the principles belatedly under Macron. Globalists are fond of saying that the homogenous nation-state is unsustainable in a time of massive migrations and transnational corporations. On the same token, how sustainable is a system of labor union militancy and a vast public sector?"

    If you view everything thru the lens of Boomer cynicism, where everyone (but you) is presumed to be corrupt, lazy, bloated, etc., it becomes easier to buy into the idea that "we had no way out" by the early 80's. But perhaps the most corrupt generation in living memory (Boomers) was simply sick and tired of the notion that their paycheck was going to the Union, to Uncle Sam, etc. Damn it, I want my money. Who gives a fuck about maintaining bridges, or housing the poor? It's my money. Let me spend it on cocaine, or an entirely superfluous sports car. It's my money. Let me build the biggest house in the city. It's my money.

    You can't let this generation brainwash you into a version of history, and ethics, that most people rejected as fundamentally inhumane, debased, and narcissistic from circa 1900-1980.

  39. Feryl,

    The only two Millennials on the head of government stage right now are Kim Jong Un and Sebastian Kurz. Both came in shaking up the old cadre of Boomers/Silents, and running rings around their older adversaries. Kurz has played the junion partner nationalist FPO leaders like a fiddle, and they suffered in the polls as a result. The FPO had the option to go with the decrepit socialists, which they should have taken. Jong Un is doing quite well for a government that starves and tortures people while building WMD.

    This small example bodes ill for the GOP, presuming that AOC and waifu Julia turn out to defy Boomer stereotypes of our generation once taking office.

    Trump's Cabinet appointees also have this problem, the vast majority are past their prime and lack the energy for what they are doing. Presumably the real decisions are being made by their deputy GenX corporate hacks. It says a lot that the youngest cabinet member is Nielsen at DHS, who if anything got where she was by carrying on an affair with her Boomer boss.

  40. "The only two Millennials on the head of government stage right now are Kim Jong Un and Sebastian Kurz. Both came in shaking up the old cadre of Boomers/Silents, and running rings around their older adversaries. Kurz has played the junion partner nationalist FPO leaders like a fiddle, and they suffered in the polls as a result. The FPO had the option to go with the decrepit socialists, which they should have taken. Jong Un is doing quite well for a government that starves and tortures people while building WMD."

    There's an electoral bounty awaiting anyone who actually gives "people" (X-ers and Millennials) what they want. They wonder why younger generations have relatively poor voting records, and remain detached from the ideological infrastructure of each party's elites. Furthermore, accentuating coverage of freakazoid/partisan idiot X-er and Millennials (me-too Boomers) is what gives credibility to the meme, pushed by older generations and partisans, that younger generations are dangerous, which further bolsters attempts by Silents and Boomers to remain epoxied to the driver's seat. Early Gen X elites have thus far been a major disappointment, with two explanations: older generations selected the worst people they could find from Gen X, or: Early Gen X suffers from Stockholm syndrome due to having dealt with Boomer bosses, friends, family members etc. for too long. I think it's probably both.

    "This small example bodes ill for the GOP, presuming that AOC and waifu Julia turn out to defy Boomer stereotypes of our generation once taking office."

    I think there's a lot of bad faith, from the pre-eminent status whore generation, against younger generations. Boomers were permitted to gain a lot of influence and power, from literally the day they were born (their mothers, in addition to investing many resources into their kids, also encouraged little Boomers to think for themselves and speak their minds, which created an attitude of entitlement, arrogance, and disinterest in finding and building common ground within a group setting). Gen X and Millennials, on the other hand, ran headfirst into a climate of very territorial and unhelpful Boomers, who would not extend respect or opportunities to younger generations, the kind which the Boomers themselves once received.

  41. "Trump's Cabinet appointees also have this problem, the vast majority are past their prime and lack the energy for what they are doing. Presumably the real decisions are being made by their deputy GenX corporate hacks. It says a lot that the youngest cabinet member is Nielsen at DHS, who if anything got where she was by carrying on an affair with her Boomer boss. "

    This day and age, aging people certainly have the means and ability to put forth more effort; if anything, most Boomers work too hard for the sensibilities of many X-ers and most Millennials (Neil Howe says that Silents and Boomers, who brought forth the notorious "workaholic" culture that was evident by society beginning to place career over family in the 1970's, have divorce rates that to this day remain higher than younger generations….Even though the youngest Silents in the early 2010's are in their mid-60's!). That being said, amongst our decadent elites, it's no surprise that they are probably pawning off a lot of work onto unappreciated younger adults.

    WRT to "young" cabinet members, it's crazy how possessive and prideful Boomers have flat out refused to accept retirements/demotions/lesser paid mentor type roles. They can't stand the idea of a loss in pay/status. In the 1970's and 80's, the GI Generation gradually stepped aside, and we saw thirty and 40 something people rapidly climbing the institutional ladder. As Silents and especially Boomers have poured oil down the ladder, suddenly it's a big accomplishment for a 52 year old (!) to be rubbing elbows with Botoxed Silent and Boomer leaders. And as much as I like Lighthizer, keep in mind that he had stature in the Reagan Admin over 30 years ago. Whenever I read about the politics of the 80's and early 90's, it's remarkable how many of the players from back then are still kicking around. This would be ok if they'd have allowed Gen X and early Millennials to have a seat at the table over the last 20-30 years, but that hasn't happened. What we've developed is an unhealthy gerontocracy, in comparison to the generational diversity that was present amongst our leadership during the New Deal, The Great Society, and the initial Reaganite era of the late 70's-early 90's. Most of the horrible decisions since around the time of NAFTA being passed in 1993 can be traced to the bimodal generational model of leadership (Silents and Boomers) that we've had for 25 years, although recently some early X-ers have sponsored some horrible crap too.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS