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
Saboteurs, by Accident or by Intention
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

VDare carried the previous post containing some reactions to the 2018 congressional midterms, highlighting the finding that the vast majority of Democrats think it important that fewer whites and fewer men be elected to public office:

An NPC, putatively sympathetic to VDare’s mission, immediately and publicly cried foul:

He was of course blatantly incorrect. The exit poll contains the question. Rather than apologize and exit stage left with his tail between his legs after being corrected on his sloppy ignorance, he spouted more ignorance:

The exit poll shows party vote distribution by answer to the question. I simply flipped this to show the answer distribution by party vote. To get the 75.1% figure, the first blue column in the chart, I took .41*.87*18778, finding 6,698 respondents to have been Democrat voters who say whites are favored over minorities in the US. Then I took .19*.12*18778 to get 428 Democrat voters who say minorities are favored and .33*.29*18778 to get 1,797 Democrat voters saying neither are favored. Finally, I divided 6,698 by the total Democrat voter exit poll sample, 6698+428+1797, to get .751 or 75.1%.

Having settled this, another ostensible ally revealed himself to be a charlatan by continuing with the public concern troll sabotaging. Though he did so in a series of tweets, he subsequently turned it into a convenient little post of his own, gathering it into one place to be refuted:

1. The chart has no source.

2. The author falsely claimed that he always gives sources. Actually he had to be asked the source on Twitter because he hadn’t given it. The source is these CNN exit polls.

3. To get the chart, the author did math on the CNN exit poll data. He did not show his work.

4. I checked what math he did by asking him on Twitter, since he didn’t document it. His math was wrong. Where he got 75.1%, the correct answer was 75%. He added an extra significant figure to exaggerate how good his data was. He admitted I was right, but thought the matter deserved the comment “lol” rather than saying e.g. “My mistake, I will fix it.”

1. and 2.: It’s provided in the body of the post. In the interest of readers’ time, I don’t link to the same source multiple times in the course of a single post since I know there are some readers who click on all the hyperlinks provided. I’ve been doing this for awhile and have a well-deserved reputation for being meticulous with my source data. The color commentary may be crap, but the presentation of the data is not.

3. Vanishingly few people want to see the presented results worked out step-by-step from the raw source data. It’s a blog post, not a formal paper being submitted for academic publication (though most people who read such papers skip over the parts where authors show their work, too!).

4. Edison captures responses. CNN presents them as rounded percentages for ease of consumption. Probable absolute numbers are not difficult to work out.

Sticking to the first blue bar in the graph, the 75.1% figure, the number of Democrat voters who said whites are favored is more likely 6,698 people, as my percentages indicate, than the 6,698.1126 people he’d prefer I imply. Having worked backwards to obtain actual number of respondents, I then created a graph where the absolute numbers of responses are rounded to the nearest tenth of a percentage.

Technically we may be off a response or two with a sample size in the tens of thousands. But I find 10.4%, the first red bar presented for example, which would more precisely represented as something like 10.3%-10.5%, to generally be more useful than simply 10%. The 10% implies it could be as low as 9.5% when we can get closer to the actual figure than that. I could start putting error bars on the percentages–that’d make it really fun to read!

I laughed because of how characteristically spergy this self-proclaimed fan of Ayn Rand is. To make a big deal over 75.1% being presented instead of the 75% he’d prefer is risible. Validating stereotypes!

Intentional saboteurs won’t care about any of this. But if they’re generally on our side–and I suspect both of them are–there’s a takeaway from this extended exchange that sullied VDare’s twatter account: Good faith questions about the data should first be attempted privately. Both people could’ve easily DMed me or VDare to be forwarded to me.

There are organizations like the $PLC and the ADL who like nothing more than useful idiots like this who blow a bunch of smoke for them. They use it to create the vague perception that VDare and other dissident sites like them cannot be trusted when they in fact can be.

(Republished from The Audacious Epigone by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 59 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. A request for you to do some work….;)
    I've tried to find this info at the CNN site, but can't.
    Can you?

    What percentage of votes that were cast for Republicans were cast by Whites?

    In 2012, 90% of Romney voters were White.
    In 2016 87% of Trump voters were White.

    2018?

    PS Thanks for this great site.

  2. LOL

    https://twitter.com/MiekeBush/status/1061243275208679426

    AE,

    Didn't you estimate that Euro immigrants are 50-50?

  3. > I laughed because of how characteristically spergy this self-proclaimed fan of Ayn Rand is. To make a big deal over 75.1% being presented instead of the 75% he'd prefer is risible. Validating stereotypes!

    It's kind of funny how libertarianism has self-destructed in the era of Trump. It seems like all of the brain power and energy went to the alt right/dissident right, leaving behind bitter #NeverTrump losers, paid shills, and the dude weed lmao set who only care about their vices being legalized and destigmatized.

  4. Hell if I can find it again, but on Sailer's blog someone made the great point that GOP still goes out of it's way to appeal to the converted, to the Reaganite true believers , while the Dems are much more flexible, as we see with the current SJW climate and the visibility of the Dem. "Socialists" of America off-shoot. The Right-wing equivalent would be called fascists of America.

    He said that the core GOP base will likely not vote for a Dem anyway, so why not experiment with a different message, one of more economic populism, to appeal to more people? That is of course what Trump did. Romney ran the conventional platform in 2012, got the core red states of the South and Western interior (with Indiana being literally his only victory in the Northeast or Midwest), and limped to a defeat.

    The infamous "autopsy" claimed that due to demographic changes, pandering to minorities was necessary to solve the problems that the Romney campaign failed to deal with. Of course, this "consultation" was performed by those who want to keep shoving the ideology of the 80's and 90's down everyone's throat. Just how blacks and Hispanics were going to be any more accepting of this than urban and lower class suburban whites of the Northeast, Midwest, and West Coast is unclear.

    Reaganism worked reasonably well when Silent and Boomer voters dominated the electorate. But in areas of the country that are economically depressed, or are not dominated by the military or resource extraction (farming, energy, logging, mining), such as the Eastern Midwest, the Great Lakes Midwest, the Northeast, and the West Coast, we've seen Gen X-ers and Millennials (of all races) thoroughly reject the party of Reagan and Bush.

    Focusing on race is a convenient way to hide the fact that the whitest generations (Silents and Boomers) are now in danger of allowing the GOP to slide into irrelevance in most of America's densely populated regions, because of their devotion to a dying ideology, while Senators and governors of increasingly marginalized red states continue to paralyze the country by refusing to listen to the post-Boomer generations of major population centers.

    And arrogantly declaring that people in Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Seattle, Minneapolis, and so forth are stupid and clueless about how we should run our country isn't going to work.

    As for this ethno-state non-sense, the Reaganite regions of the South and West have benefited handsomely from the last 40 years, while many parts of the Northeast and Midwest can feel in their bones that something went terribly wrong during that time. Do you think plant workers in Buffalo give a fuck about demographic issues per se? White leadership and white culture of the 80's and 90's fucked them over. Telling them to be afraid of demographic rape probably isn't as frightening as the economic rape that whites have perpetrated to their co-ethnics over the last 40 years. And part of the rape is heightened immigration levels, of course, which the GOP were the biggest boosters of in the 70's and 80's.

  5. For the record, many Dems still suck, suck more than ever, as a matter of fact. But that just further proves that Silent and Boomer leadership has no idea what the fuck they are doing, unless they are trying to appeal to the most elite of the elite. Said appeal comes from promising the rich that their goodies will never be taken away from them.

    So far, it still looks like the Dems and GOP are playing chicken with each other, driving on the road in dubious vehicles. For the Dems, it's fixating on bizarro race and gender issues that alienate well over 50% of the population. For the GOP, it's sucking up to the Pentagon and physical resource lords while promoting the social Darwinism that has made most people under 45 either broke or damn near broke (older generations had the good fortune to start careers before pay was so lousy and living expenses were…Expensive).

    For the fascist type people out there, do you realize that younger generations feel effectively alienated from their home countries, and feel no investment in saving them? What younger generations really want is a world free of Boomerisms, and shallow cynicism. Telling people to be scared of non-whites? Good luck with that. It's not 1980 or 1990 anymore. We no longer consider the biggest threat to be street criminals or welfare recipients.

    Until we get real reform from either party, it's going to be pass the pop corn time as the Me Generation and the younger people they've groomed continue to set us down a path of an even greater calamity, from which we might never fully recover.

  6. Feryl,

    The country only has <13 million workers in manufacturing, it has 20 million in healthcare, 16 million in leisure/hospitality, 12 million in restaurants and another 16 million in retail. Not a surprise that minimum wage hikes always pass on the ballot, or that Idaho and Utah just voted for Medicaid expansion.

    Mining, including oil/gas, only employs 700,000 people directly.

    The all time high in manufacturing jobs was 19 million in the 1970s. If a second Trump term sees the total rise to 14 million, many will call it a miracle. I think Germany is the only OECD country to show a net gain in manufacturing jobs since 2000, and that destroyed the manufacturing base of Southern Europe.

    I do think it is worthwhile that we engineer a divorce of this country on urban/rural/ethnic/religious lines. Perhaps by redrawing state boundaries, and devolving powers such as immigration down to the states. That's not an arrogant stance, what is arrogant is demographic subversion.

    Manufacturing is important, mainly from a geopolitical perspective than employment alone. But it would be helpful if the urbanite elite were taken to the woodshed and told to start spreading tech jobs into rural America and to cease the hostility to right-wing values. Why exactly does Amazon need a big taxpayer-funded incentive for those HQ2 50K jobs, could not many of them be done remotely from home or from a decentralized set of offices?

  7. "The country only has <13 million workers in manufacturing, it has 20 million in healthcare, 16 million in leisure/hospitality, 12 million in restaurants and another 16 million in retail. Not a surprise that minimum wage hikes always pass on the ballot, or that Idaho and Utah just voted for Medicaid expansion."

    The "service economy" has jobs that for the most part are pretty lousy in pay/benefits, at least in terms of the mid-lower level employees. Most of the current malaise among Gen X-ers and Millennials can be traced to the 1990's, when globalization soared to the delight of older generations (who of course came of age during a time of localism, and felt confident enough about tax cuts/de-regulation/off-shoring etc., to just plow on ahead and get further away from the New Deal) and the phrase "service economy" began to be directly invoked.

    "Mining, including oil/gas, only employs 700,000 people directly."

    But it's a powerful force in some of the rural areas that the GOP panders to. In addition, a state like Texas has historically had much of it's culture be informed by the energy industry. That being said, Agnostic has noted that the recent influxes of American whites into Texas could change the state a lot, on account of them working in high-tech/info-tech fields not related to the military. As a matter of fact, a podcast I listen to has two liberal guys from New Jersey, and one of them, who does IT for a living, just moved to Texas.

    Maybe I'm misreading what you're getting at, but if it's true that tangible resource occupations (farming, mining etc.) employ not that many people (and in farming, fewer Americans still), than that just proves my point that the GOP is idiotically bleeding out support by not wanting to deal with the other sectors of America who are deemed to be sinful and beyond redemption. But then, the Dems were the dominant party in the 1930's-1960's, to the point that the GOP relented in a desperate effort to remain relevant. The GOP has been dominant in the 1980's-2010's (as can be discerned from Reagan's landslide victories, the 1994 "Republican Revolution", Clinton winning on a neo-liberal platform (and leaving office with extremely high approval ratings), Bush winning two terms, and by Trump being vilified by GOP elites for not being a "real" conservative (when Eisenhower and Nixon were more liberal than Trump could ever dream of being, since pragmatic "Rockefeller" Republicans are despised by the Republicans who's ideology was shaped in the 70's-90's).

    There's a generational component here, too: GI voters powerfully kept conservatism at bay in the 1930's-60's. Silent voters got their revenge in the 70's and especially 80's and 90's, and in turn the Boomers largely joined with the Silents in the (conservative) effort to undermine unions, undercut wages, off-shore jobs, lower taxes on the wealthy, etc. Right now, increasingly important Gen X and Millennial cohorts are either alienated from politics altogether, or are annoyingly stirring the partisan pot. The former is bigger than the latter, and as the Silents and Boomers fade out, our political culture will have to reflect the will of the majority of X-ers and Millennials who want leaders who act like grown ups. Furthermore, similar to how past younger generations tried to correct the percieved excesses created by one party/ideology being in power for too long due to a generation being attached to that culture, I don't see why post-Boomers can't or won't attempt to over-throw the neo-liberal regime favored by 60, 70, and 80/90 year old fat cats.

  8. Once again, the white nationalist dipsticks need a reality check: The white-bread GI Generation was unbelievably hostile towards the GOP, as they associated the GOP with the very corrupt era of about 1880-1920. A similar dynamic is at play with Millennials, who absolutely abhor the Reaganite GOP that completely took over the party in the 1990's (most moderate Republicans retired or switched parties in the later 1990's, because they couldn't stomach guys like Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh calling them stupid and worthless).

    Later X-ers and Millennials like Richard Spencer are preaching to a very small minority of people who can't get over the meme that racial demographics supercede everything else (reality check: America in 1978 was substantially whiter than it is now, but it was also……4-5X more dangerous than it is now). Being in an all-white country, as a sign of virtue and good fortune, would also come as a surprise to the numerous white tribes and civilizations who saw their societies crumble under the weight of pointless infighting, corruption, and arrogance.

    Which isn't to say that more diversity is a benefit, either. But it is to say that autistically focusing on racial statistics and demographic make-up is to miss out on a lot of things that matter…..

  9. To be fair to guys like Paul Kersey, his disdain for Reaganism is so strong that he would likely be a Democrat if the Democrats would shut up for 5 seconds about hating white men. Kersey regularly point out the folly of the GOP repeating the Tax Cut mantra, as if that's all that mattered. Come to think of it, there's a growing number of Millennials who have gained in interest in the GOP while supporting little to none of the anarchy and greed that was sown by the Reaganites.

    Stop supporting future immigrants (we can accept supporting the ones already here in exchange for no future arrivals), and shut up with the PC, and the Dems can gain a lot more Millennial white support.

  10. Feryl,

    "Maybe I'm misreading what you're getting at, but if it's true that tangible resource occupations (farming, mining etc.) employ not that many people (and in farming, fewer Americans still), than that just proves my point that the GOP is idiotically bleeding out support by not wanting to deal with the other sectors of America who are deemed to be sinful and beyond redemption."

    Heh, that's ironically some victim blaming. Not a single R1 university (not even BYU) in this country has a majority of GOP voting academics. While we can point to clueless evangelicals bashing evolution and global warming as the cause, I'll be frank in wanting an authoritarian solution that makes them "look like America". Academics appear just as polarized in other Western countries where evangelicals are only known through hostile media coverage.

    When the gatekeepers of your culture are entirely stacked onto one side of the political ledger, it can't be called a fair fight. I agree with you that the GOP is a fish out of water in relation to a non-resource extraction economy. GOP pols in Ohio love running ads touting "vocational education", but they've never actually implemented an affirmative action ban despite having the votes in the legislature. Much of the economy is now tied in with credentialism, which carries the diversity agenda with it.

    Aside from the obvious human costs, its not as if there wouldn't be salutary effects if the GOP destroyed the economy again, and the country was split up. If Gorbachev had his way, the USSR would have remained intact with a Muslim majority from the excised Central Asian "stans".

  11. Feryl,

    Is Millenial disgust for the GOP linked to Reagan? I've always seen it as linked to the fiasco of Iraq, which was followed by recession. Implicitly there was criticism that Bush's tax cuts were the cause of the recession, but even the left doesn't seem to make this claim anymore.

    As with Vietnam, it was initially the youth that were the most gung-ho on Iraq. The GOP did and does itself no favors with continuing belligerence towards Iran.

    It would be very hard to square the changes desired by the younger generations with the GOP base. Wiping out student loan debt, while enormously popular, smacks as rewarding "freeloaders". Cutting military spending angers the veterans and MIC employees in the base. Not even Trump could persuade them into accepting single-payer with sumptuary laws.

    All that as it is, I find the prospect of a perma-left government morally unacceptable. And that's the attitude that the GOP should have. Stop trying to tie this empire together, and push for the self-determination of its base. Even if it takes undemocratic means to achieve.

  12. "Is Millenial disgust for the GOP linked to Reagan? I've always seen it as linked to the fiasco of Iraq, which was followed by recession. Implicitly there was criticism that Bush's tax cuts were the cause of the recession, but even the left doesn't seem to make this claim anymore."

    It's more that effective anti-Republican memes almost always start with Reagan, because he re-wrote the playbook for effective marketing and ideology in the 80's (Boomers often can't help but dump on poor Nixon, but that doesn't work for people under 40, who understand that the 1960's and 70's were liberal periods, and partisan Boomers are too stupid to realize that Nixon was a more progressive Republican, the only kind who could get elected to president in the 1930's-1970's).

    Bush is Reagan on steroids, but I think that in hindsight, Bush was a sad-sack ideological also-ran, the kind that a dominant party produces when it's competitive muscles start to atrophy because so much of the population is no longer putting you on notice (whereas in the 1930's and 40's, Americans were anxious to get away from the social Darwinism of conservatism). Millennials initially felt alright with Bush, in keeping with the tone of the era, but then his foreign policy was such a fiasco that he turned into the new LBJ: a president from the dominant paradigm whose personality and judgement nonetheless alienated him from popular support. Bush left office before the 2008 crash really sank in, and besides, Obama's failure to rectify the crash means that the whole BS involving the bank bailouts and so forth has become Obama's legacy. Not repairing the damage is worse than causing it in the first place. And besides, the neo-liberals in the Dem ranks were also big housing bubble inflators, as the 1990's "boom" economy was a joke anyway, seeing as how it relied on irresponsible FIRE practices.

  13. "As with Vietnam, it was initially the youth that were the most gung-ho on Iraq. The GOP did and does itself no favors with continuing belligerence towards Iran."

    I don't think younger people understand the gravity of war. Furthermore, the after-math of WW2, for America, resulted in a culture that glorified war. Because we won WW2. Older people realized how terrible it still was, but couldn't really convey that to younger people. America is much more tolerant of violent pop culture than Western Europe, which saw a lot of it's cities get destroyed in WW2.

    It's also true, however, that younger generations quickly realized what a quagmire Vietnam and Iraq turned into. Superpowers are supposed to know what they are doing, and when their follies become clear, younger people are embarrassed and look for someone to blame and villify. We saw both dove Boomers and hawk Boomers have differing explanations for why Vietnam stunk: doves said that we should never have gone that far in the first place, hawks said that timid leaders and PC/squeamishness among the media and doveish public caused the troops and firepower to be used poorly, thereby preventing us from winning.

  14. "It would be very hard to square the changes desired by the younger generations with the GOP base. Wiping out student loan debt, while enormously popular, smacks as rewarding "freeloaders". Cutting military spending angers the veterans and MIC employees in the base. Not even Trump could persuade them into accepting single-payer with sumptuary laws. "

    Well, as they start to reach the stage where they are pooping their diapers, why do we need to keep listening to them? A substantial chunk of the Me-Gen bought into neo-liberalism, and adoration of the wealthy, in the 80's and 90's. But there's no reason to expect that to continue to the same excessive degree. At the end of the day, people can piss and moan about culture war crap and racial demographics, but it's not as if there's much reason to believe that Boomer yuppie culture and rootlessness (and high divorce rates, high domestic violence rates, high rates of drinking and drug use, high rates of cheating others, etc.) is going to somehow, in the face of all reasonable expectations, be duplicated by the next two or three generations.

    For example, Gen X-ers have assumed political power much more slowly than Boomers. Is that bad? Not really, because it means that X-ers don't covet power and influence like older generations did. And it certainly is indicative of them not wanting have, BAMN, that which Boomers scratched and clawed to get. The win at all costs mentality, and having no respect for your opponents, is why so much as been so corroded over the last 40 years.

  15. DrAndroSF,

    Sure, tracking that since 2000 alongside a decline in self-described "moderates" sounds like an interesting post idea. Will do.

    216,

    We're not up to the one million mark yet? Are you sure? You had to have missed a few hundred thousand other examples along the way.

    Yeah, close to split. They lean modestly Democrat according to GSS data.

    Random Dude,

    Over the last couple of years I've met a lot of like-minded people IRL through gatherings, conferences and the like. It's standard practice for me to ask people where they come from intellectually and how they became red-pilled. The majority–which is way, way, way out of proportion to their numbers in broader society–are former libertarians. Jeff Deist of the Mises Institute–who is an astute guy who–realized this all the way back in 2015. As right-libertarians have exited the movement, the big-L Libertarian party/movement has moved further and further to the left, to the point now that they're leftists who want lower taxes and fewer wars.

    216,

    I do think it is worthwhile that we engineer a divorce of this country on urban/rural/ethnic/religious lines.

    Encouraging to see you write that. If we don't engineer an amicable divorce, we're going to end up with a bitter and quite possibly violent one.

    Feryl,

    Where do you get the sense that millennials mostly want adults in positions of leadership? They're obsessed with the culture wars, enforcing PC, taking insanity seriously and even reverently. The generation following them, while taking all the gender bender stuff as a given, at least is irreverent about it. I'm encouraged to hear "faggot" making a comeback as an all-purpose insult, for instance.

  16. Not a single R1 university (not even BYU) in this country has a majority of GOP voting academics. While we can point to clueless evangelicals bashing evolution and global warming as the cause, I'll be frank in wanting an authoritarian solution that makes them "look like America". Academics appear just as polarized in other Western countries where evangelicals are only known through hostile media coverage.

    This is actually a fascinating subject that it would take someone with quantitative research skills outside of academia (because of the career implications) to properly tackle (hint hint?)

    Why is academia so skewed left? Basically there are a set of potential causes, all of which probably contribute to some degree in varying proportions. Ranked from least malicious to most malicious, they are:

    – For some fields, like economics, engineering, business, and some of the sciences,
    people have a choice between academia and the corporate world for their career. Those who would prefer to make huge money working 80 hours a week chose the corporate world, while those who would prefer to make ok money and only working 45 hours a week choose academia. That is a major personality selector at work that is not inherently malicious.

    – Some fields are basically an automatic filter on eccentricity. To want to spend your career translating 16th century Basque poetry, that requires a certain non-mainstream personality. Again, a personality selector.

    – People who take science and study seriously are repulsed by the "mah granddaddy wasn't no dern monkey" (not entirely inaccurate) caricature of the political right and bounce left.

    – Some fields are an obvious filter on ideology, like all of the grievance studies.

    – Political pressure from university administration, colleagues, and national societies prevents people with a non-leftist bent from doing the research that interests them, thus they leave the academy at various stages of PhD, postdoc, etc.

    – Those who are known to be non-leftists are simply discriminated against in hiring, mentoring, and other stages.

  17. "Where do you get the sense that millennials mostly want adults in positions of leadership? They're obsessed with the culture wars, enforcing PC, taking insanity seriously and even reverently. The generation following them, while taking all the gender bender stuff as a given, at least is irreverent about it. I'm encouraged to hear "faggot" making a comeback as an all-purpose insult, for instance."

    But the media-sphere/academia, corporate board rooms etc. give all the oxygen to strivers, of all generations, including Millennials. And there's been a massive shift since the mid-90's, among the well-educated (e.g., the important power players), toward cultural liberalism to the point that economic issues are almost completely cast out. Unless it's the subject of racial spoils, of course. Starting with Boomers, and intensifying with each subsequent generation, there's a massive split between well-educated affluent people and lower class people in terms of which issues are prioritized. How are older generations reacting to this? Silents and Boomers are the most spoiled and privileged generations of all time. As can be discerned by them being taller generations, while Millennials are smaller and Gen Z will probably be even smaller given the coming economic crash. Where have people not gotten shorter? The Nordic countries. Silents and Boomers can talk a good game on cultural issues, but when the rubber meets the road WRT taxes, regulations, trade, health care. etc., they reveal themselves for the sociopaths that they are. They are doing their damndest to deny the generations born in the 70's, 80's, 90's, and 2000's what those who born earlier could take for granted. I dare say that later Gen X and Millennial leaders could stage a revolt against neo-liberalism once The Crash happens, and we demand that older generations sober up to what younger people have known all along.

  18. The height issue is adjusted for race, BTW, so it's not as if Mexicans and Asians are making white people shorter.

  19. Jig,

    Two academics wrote a book on the subject, Passing on the Right. The most significant part of the story is that the vast majority of the people they interviewed were already tenured. The also only managed to find 150 people out of presumably tens of thousands of academics to interview.

    https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/03/30/new-book-details-realities-being-conservative-professor-humanities-and-social

  20. Over the last couple of years I've met a lot of like-minded people IRL through gatherings, conferences and the like. It's standard practice for me to ask people where they come from intellectually and how they became red-pilled. The majority–which is way, way, way out of proportion to their numbers in broader society–are former libertarians. Jeff Deist of the Mises Institute–who is an astute guy who–realized this all the way back in 2015. As right-libertarians have exited the movement, the big-L Libertarian party/movement has moved further and further to the left, to the point now that they're leftists who want lower taxes and fewer wars."

    In other words, one niche is being traded for another. And glorifying fascist Dbags in the current era is about as appetizing to normie young people as glorifying Edmund Burke and Gordon Gekko was in the 80's-2000's.

    America doesn't take to cartoon fascism (where individualism is at it's lowest ebb) any better than it takes to a libertarian utopia (where individualism soars). These are destructive and reactionary ideologies, that ultimately give us big winners and many big losers. You can't expect Millennials (or a large majority of older generations) to hop on board.

  21. Feryl,

    "In other words, one niche is being traded for another. And glorifying fascist Dbags in the current era is about as appetizing to normie young people as glorifying Edmund Burke and Gordon Gekko was in the 80's-2000's.

    America doesn't take to cartoon fascism"

    Quite right, the pre-collapse Alt-Right made a major mistake of presuming its ideas were far more popular than they really were. What was happening was that center-left Gamergaters were propagating their memes, and talented GenX grifters like Posobiec and Cernovich were amplifying this to the normie audience.

    The Pinochet memes are cringeworthy, an artifact of the old libertarian thinking, but the average American probably can't identify him. The use of any fascist imagery is self-defeating, along with Confederate imagery. If you really want to do some trolling, appropriating the EU Flag is probably more effective if you call yourself "Evropa".

  22. "GenX grifters like Posobiec and Cernovich were amplifying this to the normie audience."

    Cernovich did a great job during the 2016 campaign. But a lot of his sources during that time were drummed out of the administration by the summer of 2017, and he changed his tune to be more conciliatory toward the establishment, perhaps to cultivate new sources and not alienate the remaining original sources. If you recall, he started #McMaster facts and so forth, and this evidently enraged the neo-con element in the admin., who then moved to purge the "Alt-Right" types working on Trump's foreign policy team. Part of this purge included not just X-ers like Rich Higgins, but even some Reagan era officials in the Trump Admin deemed to be insufficiently deferential to Israel and the Muslim Brotherhood, and insufficiently hostile towards the Eastern Bloc.

    When Cernovich started doing PR for the usual modern GOP BS, I gave up and never went back. I don't think I've checked his Twitter in at least 6 months.

    I think we should distinguish between the sensible moderation that the popular Alt-Right pushed for on wars, immigration, and trade, versus the neo-fascist crap and autistic focus on racial demographics that post Charlotsville are the only thing that people now remember it for. For example, Steve Bannon once said that Breitbart was a vehicle for the Alt-Right; he obviously wasn't talking about neo-Nazis when he said that.

  23. Feryl,

    It's remarkable in the distance, but the importance of the Gamergate movement can't be understated in the impact of 2016. The politicization of chan culture and gamer culture, groups largely that were anti-Bush and neutral at best on Romney, was producing large amounts of messaging (for free) that the official GOP was incapable of. The problem now is that these gamers have realigned from center-left to center-right. Perhaps an acceleration of the tendency for conservatism to increase with age. So they aren't very useful anymore in generating content, as they now drink from a right-wing well, and in many cases were cut off from the left.

    Trump is still bleating on the "corruption in journalism", which in poll after poll only resonates with 25% of the people. When the average person says they "distrust the media" they mean they distrust profit-seeking media executives, and they distrust the cable news partisans. Some one like Jim Acosta appears as just a functionary who is being bullied by an Administration with something to hide. Trump could turn a new leaf by attacking Murdoch, Roberts and Iger. While I doubt he does this, he really should try to tone it down, letting the new Dem Congressmen suck the oxygen out of the room. Think of what happened to Cory Booker, he used to be seen as "young and hip", now he's seen even by the left as too emotional.

    I agree with you on de-emphasizing race, and shifting to an "implicit model". Any form of white identity politics will be implicit at best, or ideally based on regionalism. I actually think Charlie Kirk is onto something with his pandering to non-whites. While anyone serious should avoid his organization like the plague, his donor class patron Friess was willing to back Santorum's pseudo-populist campaign in 2012. Kirk comes from a non-Ivy background and is actually a dropout, which remains unusual in a movement that claims to be non-elitist.

    Despite its dumb lolbertarian origins, his movement has a positive future awaiting it if they understand the desire for right-wing students to join an "affinity group" that isn't "all politics all the time". That said, these kind of organizations have a history of collapsing due to financial shenanigans. That's the story of Roger Stone's life, a guy that was a leader in the unraveling of any organization he got power over.

  24. 216 –

    It would be beyond idiotic to attack Murdoch, the man who puts Tucker Carlson on television an hour each weeknight.

  25. Jig,

    That's a pretty thorough list. I'm not sure I have much to add. Maybe lolbertarian and hypothesize that the lack of any sort of real feedback mechanism is something leftists like.

    Feryl,

    Maybe you're right, but one huge advantage we have is that there is no getting the red pill out of the bloodstream once it's been ingested. From libertarianism to something else happens all the time. From HBD realism to some version of conventional blank slatism? Not often.

    216,

    The alt right had been around on the internet for a decade before exploding in popularity in 2015. All kinds of people, an eclectic mix of opportunists, grifters, and converts glommed on. It got way too big for its britches too fast. But the associated ideas of the alt right are on the ascent.

  26. AE –

    From HBD realism to some version of conventional blank slatism? Not often.

    There's William Saletan. Andrew Sullivan will be compelled to recant sometime soon, and Charles Murray sometime shortly after.

  27. Also, if you look at Steve Sailer posts from 5+ years ago most of the regulars will have stopped commenting at some point. Either they switched pseudonyms, lost interest, died or converted to some other ideology. I'd guess around 25% of each.

  28. AE,

    Are they?

    https://twitter.com/SeanTrende/status/1060652576989962243

    It at least appears to me that, with the elimination of some of our more talented people, and the doxxing of many others, that we are far less effective than we were even one year ago. Among "white college" the GOP was blown out, and the Dems now own the healthcare issue again.

    Very few of us here can ever go public with our beliefs, and we are increasingly consigned to vulnerable alternative platforms. The chilling effect is real, as is the ability to instill feelings of guilt. I think there are serious doubts that we can get the level of tribalism necessary for our favored political strategy to work.

  29. 216 –

    He's probably not too popular a figure around these parts, but I'd say the terminal decline started when Milo got purged. That pretty much instantly killed off the younger, funnier, more normie-friendly side of the movement, leaving only the self-defeating, normie-repellent Charlottesville types.

  30. Snorlax,

    The movements have a serious lack of humility about them, as if we have taken Trump's worst personal characteristics and consider them laudable. By contrast, no one seems to favor Trump's pragmatism or his willingness to cooperate with outgroups. The use of "respectability politics" and "community building" also seem to be foreign concepts. Running around promoting collective achievement, but not collective guilt, is also questionable.

    I read your link to Qutb on America. Perhaps a surprising result, but I felt he was right about a lot of things. He saw the hollowness of society that would eventually erupt into decadence. That part about putting salt on fruit, is that a joke?

  31. The left-right political spectrum is a useful model, but in some ways is inaccurate. There definitely is a center-left and a center-right, whose political positions fall along a continuum. But to the far-left is a rejection of capitalism as an economic system, and the American "far-right" is defined less by shared political beliefs than a rejection of the establishment. Oddly enough, an Ayn Randian libertarian, a pagan fascist, and a Christian theocrat are all "far-right" despite their sharing almost nothing in common philosophically.

    This is one reason why it's easy for those of us in the dissident right to evolve from libertarianism to the alt-right, and now to another evolution of our thought process. I can't help but think every dissident rightist has been a libertarian at some point – I know I had my phase of it in high school.

    I largely agree with commenters who state the alt-right, as a political movement, is moribund. It rose to great heights in 2015 and 2016, but ultimately has buckled under the weight of intensifying censorship.

    Furthermore, I myself have to admit that monomaniacal devotion to immigration restriction just isn't enough. It's enough for me, but not the general voting population.

    With the midterms over, we're at an interesting intersection. The NeverTrumpers were hit disproportionately hard by the midterms. The old corporate shilling won't do again. But Kris Kobach and David Brat also lost, signalling that focusing almost solely on immigration isn't sufficient.

    Even so, short of Room 101-style coercion, it's nearly impossible to stop being red pilled on race once one has become so. You can be made to stay quiet, but the great challenge is becoming red pilled rather than staying so. Accordingly, the dissident right over the coming months will reconstruct itself and become potent again.

    A couple of issues which, in addition to race and immigration, we can stand on and win big:

    1. A strong, disgust-based opposition to the poz. San Francisco and other blue cities are now becoming notorious for the homeless camps, the used heroin needles in the streets, and the lack of basic public hygiene.

    A lot of left-wing liberals have an impaired sense of disgust. They don't understand how repellent their ideas are on a basic human level, so that gives us a lot of room to strike from angles unseen.

    2. Taking on rhetoric and ideas of "strengthening" the middle class, and the median voter economically. Focus less on ideological rigidity, more on practical results aimed at making the common man more powerful. "It doesn't matter if it's a yellow cat or a black cat, so long as the cat catches mice."

  32. 216 –

    The movements have a serious lack of humility about them, as if we have taken Trump's worst personal characteristics and consider them laudable. By contrast, no one seems to favor Trump's pragmatism or his willingness to cooperate with outgroups. The use of "respectability politics" and "community building" also seem to be foreign concepts. Running around promoting collective achievement, but not collective guilt, is also questionable.

    Agreed on all counts.

    I read your link to Qutb on America. Perhaps a surprising result, but I felt he was right about a lot of things. He saw the hollowness of society that would eventually erupt into decadence.

    He had some interesting insights, but I'm less sympathetic than I otherwise would be because his conclusion (articulated in other writings) was that Muslims must wage jihad to destroy America.

    That part about putting salt on fruit, is that a joke?

    Must've been the custom in Greeley, Colorado in the late 40s.

  33. Sid –

    Furthermore, I myself have to admit that monomaniacal devotion to immigration restriction just isn't enough. It's enough for me, but not the general voting population.

    We've been gaslighting ourselves on this point, but the fact is that immigration restriction, however urgently needed, is unpopular. Particularly so when actually implemented. The liberal open-borders position isn't popular either, but their motte and bailey "Nuh-uh! We aren't for open borders." denials are good enough for most normies. Meanwhile the "Why do you want to deport this doe-eyed little brown baby who just wants to seek a better life?" attacks do serious damage to us.

    A lot of left-wing liberals have an impaired sense of disgust.

    True, but the converse is that righties tend to have an overexaggerated sense of disgust, which is equally offputting to normies. Like when Trump says that Bowe Bergdahl or Edward Snowden should be shot, or encourages his crowds to beat up hecklers (thankfully he's stopped doing that).

  34. https://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-will-run-again-1541963599

    "Get ready for Hillary Clinton 4.0."

    An "ex" Clinton aide wrote an oped on Wall Street Journal about Hillary running again. I can't believe it's happening but there it is.

  35. But Kris Kobach and David Brat also lost, signalling that focusing almost solely on immigration isn't sufficient.

    Was Dave Brat focused on immigration? I thought he was a "lower mer taxes!!1!!" obsessive.

  36. Snorlax,

    Wrt restriction being unpopular. The admin faced tremendous pushback for the family separation policy, but faced minimal (popular) pushback for its decision to not grant additional H-2B visas, cut the number of refugees, and harass companies asking for H-1B. It is correct that restriction is unpopular in the sense of moralism, recall the Pew Europe poll that showed only Hungary has net negative attitudes on immigration. (A significant number of Fidesz voters are voting for Orban because of his economic record, not his cultural stances)

    Deportations and walls attract protests, but visa curbs are dangerous to politicians only in that they anger the donor class. Worth remembering that it has been leftist governments across the Anglo Four that imposed "foreign buyer taxes", which is still heretical in the US.

  37. Jig –

    He was one of the more conservative members of the caucus in general (not unlike Kobach), but his main focus was immigration. He famously (and shockingly) defeated Majority Leader Eric Cantor in the 2014 primary, which he framed as a referendum on amnesty, and which more or less killed any desire on the part of House Republican leadership to pursue amnesty (lest they too be primaried).

  38. 216 –

    The admin faced tremendous pushback for the family separation policy, but faced minimal (popular) pushback for its decision to not grant additional H-2B visas, cut the number of refugees, and harass companies asking for H-1B.

    While they're bad policy that hurt the working and middle classes, H-1/2B visas are only a tiny fraction of the problem in the grand scheme of things. The vast majority leave when their term expires, and even the ones whose green card applications are approved aren't particularly problematic in terms of crime or social services. Refugees tend to be very problematic in those respects, but are likewise only a small fraction of legal immigration.

    Worth remembering that it has been leftist governments across the Anglo Four that imposed "foreign buyer taxes", which is still heretical in the US.

    The foreign buyers taxes in Britain and British Columbia were imposed by conservative governments. (Despite the name, the BC Liberals are right-wing and unaffiliated with the national party). The Sydney FBT was imposed by a centrist independent mayor, and the New Zealand tax by a coalition of the left-wing Labour Party and the "far-right" immigration restrictionist NZ First party. Only the Ontario FBT was imposed by an unambiguously left-wing government, and that was as a pivot to the center ahead of an election.

  39. Snorlax,

    I understand there were FBTs imposed by Labor governments at the state level in AUS, and my inferrence was that the UK tax was imposed to triangulate Labour's pressuring for a "mansion tax".

    Leftist city governments in the US have imposed "vacancy taxes", while not ideal, are certainly a step towards restraining the power of FIRE. Another good idea is taxing college endowments to finance student debt repayments.

    http://www.governing.com/topics/urban/gov-cities-blight-taxes-lc.html

  40. 216 –

    The "mansion tax" (actually first proposed by the center-left Liberal Democrats) was one of their standard-issue attempts to stoke class resentment, little or nothing to do with foreigners. It ended up backfiring hard—it turns out many, many middle-class Londoners, who bought before the bubble, live in "mansions" (houses or apartments valued over £2mm)—and they haven't brought it back under Corbyn. The Tories introduced the FBT years after Labour dropped the mansion tax.

    The New South Wales FBT was introduced by a conservative government, and the Queensland FBT by a left-wing government but ahead of an election.

    Leftist city governments in the US have imposed "vacancy taxes", while not ideal, are certainly a step towards restraining the power of FIRE.

    A better idea would be to get rid of the insanely pro-tenant laws in big cities (it's almost impossible to evict someone, nor even shut off their utilities, in SF or most big cities, even if they've never once paid rent, trash the place, keep animals, play loud music all night, etc), which massively increases rents for non-problem tenants, encourages landlords to convert apartments into condos, and discourages subletting.

    Another good idea is taxing college endowments to finance student debt repayments.

    The Ryan/Trump tax cut bill actually did introduce a college endowment tax, although not nearly as high as I would've liked, and the colleges successfully lobbied to reduce it even further.

  41. Another good idea is taxing college endowments to finance student debt repayments.

    No, that's a bad idea. Subsidized student loans are a huge, probably the single largest, contributor to the higher ed bubble and all of the follow-on effects. The government taking on the current student debt burden, even if just as a pass-thru from university endowments, would just be a further, massive, subsidization.

  42. https://twitter.com/SeanTrende/status/1060652576989962243

    He says that the GOP is screwed if suburban Southern voters start taking after the rest of the country.

    I like this guy, but I don't think he's ever analyzed the party patronage aspect of voting patterns and regions. For reasons I don't understand, the MSM (even the more woke reporters) rarely touches on occupational sectors and voting allegiances. "Rural" vs "Urban" is an ok proxy for this subject, but doesn't explain it all because decidedly non-rural parts of the South still roll w/ the GOP.

    The GOP has patrons in the energy, agriculture, and military sectors. The Dems have the media/entertainment industry, high-ed, and high-tech sectors. Both parties have patrons in Wall Street, but Wall Street does tend to butt heads with the Pentagon from time to time, because contrary to popular belief, war is actually bad for the long-term prospects of FIRE (you can't maintain trade and investments in a country that's being alienated from you or smashed apart, for example Wall Street supported Obama's softening Iran stance because of hope that it would stabilize trade relations and open up investment opportunities. This goes back to the merchant class of New Amsterdam typically being doveish, including supporting the South's slave trade, out of a desire to maintain stable financial relationships rather than regions or countries being split apart economically as a prelude to greater war.

    Part of the rush to hate Russia is because both the Pentagon and Wall Street hate Putin. The Pentagon always wants to crack more nuts, to justify it's existence, while Wall Street is bitter that Putin put a stop to the 1990's free for all.

  43. Back to patronage, the military and agribusiness dominate The Plains and the South. However, in places like Virginia and Atlanta there's been a major growth in the population of strivers and transplants who either work in, or have been influenced by, media, high-ed, and high-tech.

    So long as the GOP is so obnoxiously dedicated to ADM and the Pentagon, it's going to alienate anyone who isn't deeply invested in these GOP patrons (or is deeply invested in the ideology that Dem sectors are sinful and not worthy of any government support whatsoever, while we shovel trillions into "defense"). The "foundry" region of the US that's Dovish (Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Chicagoland) has Dem dominated metro areas because of Neo-Connery and Pentagon pork. Ohio and Indiana are more Scots-Irish, more bellicose, and Ohio has a fairly notable base (Wright-Patterson), so the GOP generally does better there.

    While one could complain about a lot of things the Dem sectors do, they certainly haven't been anywhere near as invested in our overseas blunders. The Pentagon literally has blood on their hands, and the vast funds they procure are soaked with blood. WRT to financial and career gain, career military/intelligence personnel prosper (as do veterans who certainly are more entitled to goodies than most working class people outside of the service), and a rather limited number of defense contractors make lots of dough. As I hinted at before, the lion's share of investors in other companies often avoid tacit or open support of war, lest if jeopardize trade relations and investments with other countries.

    Blaming "greed" for warmongering is trendy but short-sighted, because the military regions of America and the countless people who serve the military or naively support high defense expenditures for ostensible "security" are a huge problem. Since the 1970's the GOP has developed a major patronage relationship with the Pentagon and the extremely high number of those who have served. So the GOP thinks it's doing it's clients a favor by supporting defense spending that invariably leads to more wars, coups, and death squads. If every part of the US had the demographics and culture of Minnesota, are military would drastically shrink and we'd only become more aggressive only if it was absolutely necessary (Micheal Barone said that opposition to post-WW2 wars tends to be strongest in the Upper Midwest and Northwest coast).

    I hate to be a non-populist, but I think it's accurate to blame the military-belt for placing their career and ideological interests ahead of the general well-being of this country. If Rust-belt manufacturing still had the clout that it once did, would it cause our national debt to balloon to crazy levels, or cause the pointless destruction of civilization?

    Here's to hoping that the Pentagon sector keeps driving up the crazy, to the point that only Pentagon elites still want anything to do with the GOP, which would finally cause the GOP to lose more support in the South and Lower Midwest

  44. Far from being a "menace", liberal transplants to Texas and Georgia (two major seats of GOP power since the 1970's) could finally help knock the Pentagon off it's perch, as the GOP would have to figure out a way to appeal to those who aren't invested in the military. This would be horrible for TrueCons, but a breath of fresh air to those tired of the warmongering on behalf of Israel and the Saudis.

    Blaming racial change of these areas is a red herring, because the increase in non-whites has paralleled the increase in transplant whites and Southern whites in trendy areas acclimating to the growth in media, entertainment, and high-tech in these regions. You could shove 1 million Mexicans into Mississippi, and it wouldn't make any difference if the state's white population and economic base stayed the same.

    Understanding patronage theory is essential to understanding our elections. While occupational patronage means less to minorities (who go for outright racial patronage offered by the Dems), it does explain most white voting patterns. Trump, for example, convinced the Upper Midwest that manufacturing and organized labor would become GOP patrons, for the first time ever, but he failed to make that reality, and as such the Upper Midwest is reverting back to the Dems. The Upper Midwest had a fling with the GOP, didn't find them to be exciting in bed or a solid long-term provider, and has renewed it's vows to the Dems.

  45. The "white nationalist" goof balls need to realize that it's not 1980 anymore. In the 1980's, Americans were on the whole prosperous enough to be most concerned about drugs and street crime. Obviously this had a de facto "racist" implication, because most voters were white and blacks committed more crime. This led to the "Reagan Democrat" wave, where cultural security superseded economic populism. Obviously, in the ensuing decades the notion that Reaganism protected almost anything seems laughable, aside from the "duh" reality of heavily armed police and mass incarceration making middle class people feel safer and more confident.

    But you can't turn back the clock. Younger generations of voters are are up against an economic wall, which will only amplify the importance of patronage networks. Patronage affiliation was weaker during the low cost of living 1930's-1980's (a study found that in the 1970's, there were 5 conservatives for every 1 liberal in the military; by the 1990's, the ratio had changed to 25-1). Nowadays, patronage networks that only encompass those who live in the middle of nowhere, who work in logging or the fossil fuel industry, or who have served in the military, are going to end up being routed by the patronage networks encompassing massive metro areas in the Northeast, Midwest, and West Coast (w/Colorado and Virginia going increasingly blue, and growing metro areas in North Carolina, Georgia, and Texas becoming bluer.

    If the Dems run a savvy candidate, who doesn't squall like a retard about white men, they could very well win in 2020 and certainly beyond that.

    It's worth remembering that the 1970's-2000's were an era of growing GOP dominance, but their patronage networks are proving to be worthless at providing greater prosperity. More and more people have no investment in the low income taxes and high pork for farms and military bases era. Why the hell would they? And don't tell me, EVER, that the GOP should be forgiven for gladly accepting massive waves of immigration for the purpose of dismantling organized labor and freeing employers from the burden of workers confident enough to speak out against their employers. Playing the blame game against the Dems hardly makes much sense, given that they had to adjust to the parameters set by the GOP in the 70's-90's.

  46. Boomers are contemptuous of organized labor, while Millennials don't remember an era where private sector unions made any difference at all. X-ers are somewhere between the two.

    Eventually, after 40+years of relentlessly attacking the notion that lower class workers deserved the support that comes from management and labor leaders getting along well via agreeing to the humane treatment of workers, more people will start to wake up to the depressing realities of the New Guilded Age.. The Deep South and West might resent the decline in individualism, but the rest of us can agree that worker dignity is more important that cutting rich people's taxes.

  47. From https://historyunfolding.blogspot.com/2018/11/krugman-vs-brooks.html

    " In an earlier analysis of the 2016 presidential election, I noted that turnout for both presidential candidates was quite low, and that Hillary Clinton lost because her turnout in critical states was even lower. In my discussion of Doug Jones's victory in Alabama I showed quite conclusively that high Democratic turnout did not elect him–he sits in the Senate because such a gratifying number of Alabama Republicans would not vote for Roy Moore. Low turnout did not however decide any key races this year. Turnout was virtually record breaking in many states."

    In our current era of partisan idiocy and excess, the lion's share of normies won't turn out for someone known to be, or reputed to be, a crook or a clown. Hilary was a bigger crook than Trump was a clown; plus Trump earned more support with his unusual reform promises. In the Alabama race, Roy Moore was a major clown who did not stand out much from stale GOP ideology. Promising to expand patronage networks to younger voters, moderates, and those alienated from politics will pay off. In the 1980's and 1990's, the lion's share of Americans wanted to encourage materialism, the dismantling of organized labor, and the building of prisons. But that's not going sell to Millennials or moderates anymore (of course, Millennials were children and teenagers during this time and have shaped their ideology in opposition to that period).

    "The increased turnout, moreover, does not seem to have increased the influence of younger generations. More of them voted, but more of their elders did too. According to the national CNN exit polls in 2014 and 2018, the percentage of voters in the 18-39 age group was almost identical in those two years."

    Later X-ers and Millennials are still relatively disinterested in voting, because neither party will consistently run candidates who promise to combat the scourge of neo-liberalism. Team Blue and Team Red (E.g., Boomers) still want to score political touchdowns and spike the ball in the face of the opponent, but those born since the mid-70's find Boomer political culture to be distasteful.

    "The gender gap in red states was quite small. We remain two Americas, and both sides are quite confident in their values and beliefs. "

    Nah, later generations are much more flexible and pragmatic. But what do you expect from Boomers, most of whom have never seriously given consideration to other generations?

  48. "this widespread notion of immigrant criminality is almost entirely false. All available evidence indicates that immigrants, legal or illegal, Hispanic or otherwise, have crime rates not all that much different from native-born white Americans of the same age and gender, and often somewhat lower. I demonstrated this important result almost a decade ago, and all the subsequent information has confirmed this finding. This reality is hardly difficult to notice in our daily lives. When I first moved to Palo Alto a quarter century ago, neighboring East Palo Alto had the highest per capita murder rate in America, but after a vast wave of immigrant Hispanics transformed its demographics, the homicide rate fell by some 97%.

    Unz goes onto list many other horrible things roiling California from the mid-1960's-1990's. Unz talks about racial demographics and crime stats disproving the sentiment among generally older and conservative whites that changing demographics invariable lead to greater violence and unrest.

    He doesn't talk about generations….Though he should. The heavily white and black cohorts born in the 1940's, 1950's, and 1960's largely were responsible for a dramatic rise in robbery, rape, murder, rioting, to list the most spectacular pathologies beyond the trivial infractions of general rudeness, vulgarity, littering, vandalism, and disrespect towards authority that marked the lives of those generations. All of these pathologies rose from the late 1950's-very early 1980's, declined slightly in the mid-late 80's, rose to very high levels in the early 90's, and have been declining since the late 90's. Those born since the early-mid 1970's have been much better behaved, with each successive generation being better behaved than the last; interestingly, crime declines in recent time periods are most pronounced among the youngest generations. In other words, today's 60 year old is only somewhat better behaved than a 60 year old in 2005 would've been, while today's 30 year old is substantially better behaved than a 30 year old in 2005 would've been. This indicates a major cohort effect in behavior and personality.

  49. O/T

    Curious, perhaps NIMBYism.

    https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/11/12/national/despite-depopulation-14-6-japan-feel-local-communities-accept-foreign-workers-survey/#.W-oqLPZFyUk

    The Japanese government, despite the praise for it here, is trying to nudge its people into accepting immigration (and possibly replacement). Labor quotas used as an inducement of trade/foreign policy to build an anti-China alliance. Germany did the same thing at the US behest in the postwar era. Other polls show support, but this one may indicate the opposite, at least at the perspective from ruralites not wanting the big city coming to them.

  50. snorlax,

    Yes, William Saletan is a solid counterexample. I've never been impressed with Andrew Sullivan but I'll take your word for it. Charles Murray, though, if you read between the lines, is doubling down. He's said now on multiple occasions that he thinks in the next few years all the blank slatist nonsense is going to come crashing down and that it will be embarrassing to have believed any of it. For some reason I don't want to attribute to status preservation, he doesn't seem to want to connect any of the bright, blinking dots regarding immigration. And he spends time with John Derbyshire on a regular basis!

    Regarding immigration, as someone who has watched–and in a very, very modest way, helped–it move from something no one talked about to one of the top political issues has been one of the most encouraging things I've seen happen over the last decade. If demographic replacement continues or accelerates, all other politics is a waste of time. If you're successful and white, it's libertarianism and/or the Peter Schiff option–leave the US altogether.

    Hah, you think 25% of those who drifted away from Sailer's comments died in the last five years?! Are they that old a bunch?

    216,

    I meant on the number of reasons that female suffrage was a mistake (ie more than just 900k!).

    Sid,

    Agreed. I think the optimal political position on immigration is to be good with NumbersUSA and unequivocal on the official platform but not to have the candidate himself talk that much about it.

    Feryl,

    You could shove 1 million Mexicans into Mississippi, and it wouldn't make any difference if the state's white population and economic base stayed the same.

    Maybe, though that's just about exactly what has happened to Georgia over the last twenty years. It is an election cycle or two away from going Democrat as a consequence.

  51. Anonymous[] • Disclaimer says:

    "Bad Scholarship" because of a tenth of a percentage point in a fucking poll. Just lol. With friends like these…

    This faggot's six sigma sperginess and his being an "objectivist" "philosopher" are not unrelated. Philosophy is where failed math and physics majors go to salvage their self-image as intellectuals.

  52. I've never been impressed with Andrew Sullivan but I'll take your word for it.

    While there's not much else to like about him, he's the most "mainstream" openly HBD-aware figure, and (by putting The Bell Curve on the cover of TNR) is the reason there is (or at least was) any mainstream engagement with HBD at all.

    Charles Murray, though, if you read between the lines, is doubling down.

    Regardless, I expect that pretty soon there will be a SJW campaign against AEI's donors, and he'll be presented with an ultimatum to either recant or be fired. His books will likewise be taken out of print.

    For some reason I don't want to attribute to status preservation, he doesn't seem to want to connect any of the bright, blinking dots regarding immigration.

    He's a spergy "muh GDP! muh deadweight loss!" libertarian, and also Trump says bad words. He doesn't appear to get the obvious, that it's either build the wall, or he'll end up against the wall.

    Hah, you think 25% of those who drifted away from Sailer's comments died in the last five years?! Are they that old a bunch?

    They're a pretty old bunch, and fringe politics also attracts a lot of mentally ill people, who have dramatically shorter life expectancy for various reasons. What's your alternative hypothesis?

  53. Anon,

    Philosophy is where failed math and physics majors go to salvage their self-image as intellectuals.

    Ha!

  54. snorlax,

    I don't have one I've given much thought to. Maybe you are correct. Very well could be.

  55. Anonymous[] • Disclaimer says:

    The brown wave subsisting on gubmint cheese stolen from Whites says they want more "diversity" or less White people. They demand a world that looks more like the LANDS THEY CAME FROM, WITH DISEASE, HUNGER AND TYRANTS BEING A FEATURE AND NOT A BUG.

    ABC News, other media and many experts want this too.

    This is what you call: JIM JONES SUICIDE CULT.

    Race is NOT a social construct.
    Society is a Racial Construct.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS