The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Married White Millennial Men the Ultimate Trumpians
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

After it was all said and done, the partisan swapping of working-class whites for college-educated whites was the only remarkable electoral demographic realignment revealed in the 2016 presidential election. A couple of years into Trump’s first term, another realignment appears to be occurring, and it is occurring among all non-Hispanics.

That seminal realignment is occurring among men, and it is generational. Trump is doing better with young men than with older ones. In the case of Jews and blacks, he is doing so in an absolute sense. Among whites (and Asians–though not Hispanics), boomers are no more likely to support him than millennials are, something unthinkable when Dubya, Romney, or McCain were the parties’ standard-bearers.

There is no similar conversion among young white women. The observation that there will never be a winner in the war of the sexes due to too much fraternizing with the enemy is becoming increasingly dated. From Reuters-Ipsos:

The Marriage Gap is more pronounced among young whites than it is among older whites:

Notice that across all age cohorts, married women are more supportive of Trump than are single men.

Something I intend to visit it in greater detail in the near future is the tendency for young men to support Trump more than they identify with the Republican party, a pattern that reverses among older men. Trumpism must be the GOP’s future if it is going to be electorally competitive in said future. The current socialist overshooting may make the boomercon conservatism president Trump has increasingly embraced at the expense of what got campaign Trump elected pay off in the short-term, but its expiration date is approaching.

 
Hide 84 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. OT

    It appears to me that “our” Manchu Kamala has run into some major problems on the shoals of being “black enough.” Privy to any data or polling that indicate that she may have problems turning out the base?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    The R-I poll runs through the end of January and has her at 66% approval among blacks. I suspect many remain unfamiliar. She is dominating among Hispanics in polling. That could be an artifact of California's demographics influencing national polls, though.
    , @follyofwar
    I recently viewed an hilarious video by a black man who seemed to be a comedian (I didn't get his name). He said that blacks will never support Kamala once they find out she is married to a white man (a Jew at that). Blacks of either sex don't go for race traitors. He mentioned that Obama was smart to think ahead on his choice of a marital partner. The Dems cannot win without an overwhelming black vote. Something for the donkeys to think about.
  2. “…..unthinkable when Dubya, Romney, or McCain were the parties’ standard-bearers.”

    I am not now nor have I ever been a Republican. I am a Deplorable. A Nationalist. I’m curious. How many Deplorables are registered Republicans? For me, the beauty of Trump’s electoral victory is that he defeated both parties. Is the GOP a Nationalist Party? I think not. If it was I would sign up.

    I much prefer Candidate Trump to President Trump but I prefer President Trump to his enemies, many of whom are Republicans. I am a native born white American working class male. Born 1944.

    Welcome to The Unz Review. I read your contributions with interest.

    • Agree: WHAT
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    That's a good way to put it, W.C. Trump was running against both parties. As President he's been working against both parties. However, that doesn't excuse some of his utter stupidity, such as his disastrous picks for his employees.

    BTW, I never voted for any of those R's mentioned either. I'd voted L and Constitutional Party since my man Ronnie and up until Donnie here. That brings up the fact that Ronnie Reagan was also a non-standard GOPe candidate. The party did not like him, but the people did, and Mr. Reagan communicated well with the American people, as Trump does, but with a whole lot more dignity and complete freakin' sentences!

    Matter of fact, here are posts on Donnie vs. Ronnie, due to the fact that Donnie brought the comparison up a few months back: Intro., Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Conclusion.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    I'm registered as a Republican for the purpose of presidential primaries, which require party registration to participate. And thank you.
    , @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    I'm not a registered Republican, but I'm paleocon enough to consider shaking hands with Pat Buchanan one of my life's proudest moments.
    , @follyofwar
    I remain a registered Democrat for one reason only: the GOP is owned lock, stock, and barrel by AIPAC. Marco Rubio's disastrous and unconstitutional anti-DBS resolution demonstrated that in no uncertain terms. I saw some of the GOP House members, in session last night, speaking in glowing support of that bill, and it almost made me physically sick - just as it made me sick when they gave Netanyahu 29 standing ovations when they allowed him to speak in the people's house. How much longer can the GOP get away with this and still remain a viable party?

    Even though I would probably disagree with her on nearly everything, I applaud Rep. Omar for having the courage to speak Truth to Power. No Republican would ever go there.

  3. @WorkingClass
    ".....unthinkable when Dubya, Romney, or McCain were the parties’ standard-bearers."

    I am not now nor have I ever been a Republican. I am a Deplorable. A Nationalist. I'm curious. How many Deplorables are registered Republicans? For me, the beauty of Trump's electoral victory is that he defeated both parties. Is the GOP a Nationalist Party? I think not. If it was I would sign up.

    I much prefer Candidate Trump to President Trump but I prefer President Trump to his enemies, many of whom are Republicans. I am a native born white American working class male. Born 1944.

    Welcome to The Unz Review. I read your contributions with interest.

    That’s a good way to put it, W.C. Trump was running against both parties. As President he’s been working against both parties. However, that doesn’t excuse some of his utter stupidity, such as his disastrous picks for his employees.

    BTW, I never voted for any of those R’s mentioned either. I’d voted L and Constitutional Party since my man Ronnie and up until Donnie here. That brings up the fact that Ronnie Reagan was also a non-standard GOPe candidate. The party did not like him, but the people did, and Mr. Reagan communicated well with the American people, as Trump does, but with a whole lot more dignity and complete freakin’ sentences!

    Matter of fact, here are posts on Donnie vs. Ronnie, due to the fact that Donnie brought the comparison up a few months back: Intro., Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Conclusion.

    • Replies: @Tom Verso
    “his [Trump] utter stupidity, such as his disastrous picks for his employees”

    This is a common comment made in political commentary. However, it assumes that picking an “employee” for a White House ‘job’ is akin to picking one in a corporation, where resumes are reviewed and interviews considered and an ‘objective’ decision is made about who is the ‘best’ candidate.

    Rather, political employment is just that ‘political’. The various power brokers influence who gets what job. For example, the recent hiring of Elliot Abrams for the Venezuela job was not based on best resume. He is representative of powerful Venezuelan interests.

    As noted “he’s [Trump] been working against both parties”. Accordingly, he has to make concessions to both. The people whom he hires has to meet the criterion of one if not both parties.
    , @WorkingClass
    My big problem with Trump is that he campaigned on "America First" but his foreign policy is Israel First. And I hold him responsible for war crimes in Yemen, ongoing coup attempt in Venezuela and reigniting the Cold War with Russia. I seldom criticize Trump because I have no answer if you ask me which candidate do I prefer. Until something better comes along I will remain Deplorable. If I have the opportunity I will vote for Gabbard in the Dem Primary. But I can't imagine voting blue in the general election.

    Trump is no Regan and Regan is no Goldwater. A third of me is Libertarian. But the other two thirds is old fashioned Capital vs. Labor lefty. Also peacenik and anti imperialist. I served under Johnson and voted for McGovern. I supported Nader and Kucinich. I voted for Johnson, and Perot. I Admired Buchannan's retail politics but before the right lost the culture war I was on the other side. I thought the left would stop at abortion and gay marriage. I was wrong.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Personnel is policy, as they say. Trump clearly isn't ideological or philosophically studious. It's understandable that he had little idea as to who his enemies (nearly all Ds and many Rs), frenemies (most Rs), and genuine friends were as he assumed office. What he should've done is pulled someone in who would've been able to put together a great roster for him. The most obvious person for this role would've been Pat Buchanan. It's really a shame Trump didn't reach out to him in November or December of 2016.
  4. As to the last sentence, A.E. I agree, and will add that I never expected Mr. Trump to be any kind of conservative, other than on the BIG issue of immigration. I was pleased that he was (and still is) somewhat of a believer in the 2nd Amendment. I write “somewhat” due to the fact that this guy doesn’t have any real principles on ideology, IMO. I didn’t expect that out of him, though.

    We need a guy like Barry Goldwater again. There was a REAL Conservative and Libertarian. I think he’d do much better this time around.

    Oh, on the rest of this post, that seems like a very straightforward survey question compared to others you’ve presented. I’ve got no nits to pick. How ’boutchall?

  5. @Achmed E. Newman
    That's a good way to put it, W.C. Trump was running against both parties. As President he's been working against both parties. However, that doesn't excuse some of his utter stupidity, such as his disastrous picks for his employees.

    BTW, I never voted for any of those R's mentioned either. I'd voted L and Constitutional Party since my man Ronnie and up until Donnie here. That brings up the fact that Ronnie Reagan was also a non-standard GOPe candidate. The party did not like him, but the people did, and Mr. Reagan communicated well with the American people, as Trump does, but with a whole lot more dignity and complete freakin' sentences!

    Matter of fact, here are posts on Donnie vs. Ronnie, due to the fact that Donnie brought the comparison up a few months back: Intro., Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Conclusion.

    “his [Trump] utter stupidity, such as his disastrous picks for his employees”

    This is a common comment made in political commentary. However, it assumes that picking an “employee” for a White House ‘job’ is akin to picking one in a corporation, where resumes are reviewed and interviews considered and an ‘objective’ decision is made about who is the ‘best’ candidate.

    Rather, political employment is just that ‘political’. The various power brokers influence who gets what job. For example, the recent hiring of Elliot Abrams for the Venezuela job was not based on best resume. He is representative of powerful Venezuelan interests.

    As noted “he’s [Trump] been working against both parties”. Accordingly, he has to make concessions to both. The people whom he hires has to meet the criterion of one if not both parties.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    I screwed up - #6 comment is a reply to you. Sorry about that.
  6. I don’t mean just cabinet appointments and Secretary of the UN, Mr. Verso. There are advisors and (what used to be called) czars of this and that, and lawyer to help fend off all the Russia crap, etc. All those people could have been ANYONE Trump wanted them to be.

    As to the politics of appointments, I could understand if that was all part of some deal-making. I have yet to see ONE good side of any deal that may have been made.

    Listen, please don’t think that I don’t like the guy. He is just floundering is all, and not much has really been accomplished on the core existential issue of immigration. If you don’t fix that, well, I don’t care what else you do, as it won’t be my country anymore anyway, pretty soon.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  7. as a member of the sample size in question….yep, checks out.

    i vividly remember watching one of the first Republican primary debates with another Married Millennial Man (MMM?)…originally, we had tuned in for the prospect of a car crash. neither of us would ever have DREAMED of supporting a Republican, because for our entire lives the Republican party has been unequivocally the party for dumb people (it’s tough to describe how damaging the W years were for the Republican brand in the minds of any millennial with half a brain, and i’m from the South).

    and then…..Trump started dunking on everybody. all the bullshit that we hated about Republican ideology–being pro-War, and anti-healthcare–Trump had the balls to stand up and say “yeah, that sounds pretty dumb to me”. it was fucking awesome. watching him call out Iraq for the miserable failure it was in front of Jeb’s little bitchass was probably the first time i’ve ever genuinely “rooted” for a politician as much as i’d root for one of my own teams.

    dude had the audacity to question the Uniparty to their face. his governing….well, he doesn’t seem super politically capable, putting it charitably. but goddamn, if Trump is the one it took to show people that things don’t have to be this way just because Uniparty Elites say so, this country owes him bigly.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @ATBOTL

    (it’s tough to describe how damaging the W years were for the Republican brand in the minds of any millennial with half a brain, and i’m from the South).
     
    Exactly. Dubya style conservatism was real life idiocracy. The fake hick accents, the pro-war Jesus, the cheap labor patriotism, the cholo family values.

    It permanently destroyed conservatism as a brand. Thank God.
  8. This also speaks to the importance of reducing the incidence of divorce.

    • Agree: Talha
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Indeed. I didn't include divorcees but they fell in between married and singles.
  9. I mean… you have to be completely braindead to be a young white guy in Ontario and not be some kind of nationalist. (There are many stupid whites).

    I only know one guy who’s getting married, but he’s a rock solid Christian conservative (not a Zionist Christian cuck).

    Now that cultural and material fulfillment is being ripped away from White men, I hope they wake up and realize that the trio of marriage, family and God is the true path. It’s either that or suicide (literal or spiritual). As I’ve said before, I’m optimistic on the subject. Many white guys are looking for relationships, while the brown masses are increasingly blinded by materialism and “clout”.

    I am more worried about the current crop of high schoolers, though, who were raised in the degeneracy of rap music and the first group to really be forced to integrate with non-whites in schools. There is a BIG difference between 1990-2000 kids and then 2000 onwards.

    But then again, it’s not like the 2000s kids are the only generation to take part in teenage degeneracy. Fingers crossed.

    • Replies: @Marty T
    Rap seemed bigger in the 90s when I was in high school.
    , @Feryl
    Many of those child molesters and serial killers of the 70's and 80's were born in the 30's and 40's, so they had no exposure to graphically violent or sexualized pop culture when they were teens.

    I wouldn't lose sleep over what the kids are up to these days. What the older generations allow on the TV or radio has minimal effect on socialization; peer groups are the primary influence on people. The GI Generation's wholesome culture ended up just bouncing off Silents and Boomers, just like how the Silent Generation's sappy 60's and 70's culture ended up bouncing off late Boomers and Gen X-ers. The nihilistic culture preferred by Gen X-ers in the 90's and 2000's has had minimal influence on Millennials.
    , @Feryl
    Jon Haidt and several others say that those born after 1995 appear to be substantially different than older generations. "Gen Z" is much politically correct, neurotic, inexperienced with sex and violence, and uncomfortable with "normal" social interaction (face to face communication) than previous generations. Haidt says that the girls in particular are a psychological mess because they've grown up with social media during their entire adolescence.

    Stan D and others need to take note that many of the derogatory things said about Millennials have only been popularized in the last 5 or so years. Why? Because Gen Z began going to college during this time. In other words, stop criticizing Millennials who are not the whiny pansy generation born after 1995. I was born in 1985; when my generation was going to college in the mid-2000's, I don't remember any controversies about trigger warnings (in fact, when I was teenager it was well understood that the early 90's were the period when everyone acted like a PC pansy, what with Kurt Cobain "wishing" that he were gay and all the 80's rock stars being shamed as overly macho poon hounds. Furthermore, people born in the 80's were the last generation to be significantly exposed to second hand smoke, domestic violence, sky high levels of street crime, and so forth. Of course, once people born in the 80's grew up they defiantly rejected the danger and nihilism created by young Boomers and X-ers. People born in the 80's and early 90's are reasonably good natured and well-adjusted. Lay off us.
  10. A bit of extension on my last point.

    I’ve done some calculations, and the weighted fertility rate in Ontario counties that are more than 85% White is 1.62. The fertility rate for counties between 85 and 51% is 1.42, and the rate for Toronto, Peel and York (under 51% white) is 1.32.

    The White county rate has also risen by about 0.2 children per woman in the past decade (still rising), while the urban and non-white counties has plummeted by around 0.3 (still plummeting).

    Obviously 1.62 is too low, but 0.3 is still a significant different, especially as one is going up and one is going down. The Whites are holding their own rurally, but immigrants are swamping Toronto, drastically outpacing any small white growth.

    Shitskins + white liberals + socialists = not reproducing

    Rural white conservatives = producing, less than optimally but not bad.

    Also the abortion rate in Toronto and Peel is about 33% of pregnancies. In the rural counties it’s about 8%. That makes a huge difference.

    • Replies: @Talha

    while the urban and non-white counties has plummeted...The Whites are holding their own rurally
     
    Urban centers are death for a population - avoid them if you can:
    https://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/640-width/images/print-edition/20170923_CNM954.png

    Jeopardy Hint:
    Tianjin and Beijing

    Contestant: "What are two shining examples of Chinese ingenuity and technology."

    Trebeck: "Oooh sorry, the correct answer is; what are two shiny graveyards where Chinese go to work and die."

    Peace.

    , @Audacious Epigone
    You have Canadian TFRs at the county level? Would you mind sharing the link?
  11. @Achmed E. Newman
    That's a good way to put it, W.C. Trump was running against both parties. As President he's been working against both parties. However, that doesn't excuse some of his utter stupidity, such as his disastrous picks for his employees.

    BTW, I never voted for any of those R's mentioned either. I'd voted L and Constitutional Party since my man Ronnie and up until Donnie here. That brings up the fact that Ronnie Reagan was also a non-standard GOPe candidate. The party did not like him, but the people did, and Mr. Reagan communicated well with the American people, as Trump does, but with a whole lot more dignity and complete freakin' sentences!

    Matter of fact, here are posts on Donnie vs. Ronnie, due to the fact that Donnie brought the comparison up a few months back: Intro., Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Conclusion.

    My big problem with Trump is that he campaigned on “America First” but his foreign policy is Israel First. And I hold him responsible for war crimes in Yemen, ongoing coup attempt in Venezuela and reigniting the Cold War with Russia. I seldom criticize Trump because I have no answer if you ask me which candidate do I prefer. Until something better comes along I will remain Deplorable. If I have the opportunity I will vote for Gabbard in the Dem Primary. But I can’t imagine voting blue in the general election.

    Trump is no Regan and Regan is no Goldwater. A third of me is Libertarian. But the other two thirds is old fashioned Capital vs. Labor lefty. Also peacenik and anti imperialist. I served under Johnson and voted for McGovern. I supported Nader and Kucinich. I voted for Johnson, and Perot. I Admired Buchannan’s retail politics but before the right lost the culture war I was on the other side. I thought the left would stop at abortion and gay marriage. I was wrong.

    • Replies: @Pericles
    Well, Trump has defused North Korea and Syria. Terrorism in Europe seems down quite a bit since the swinging Obama/Clinton days. I'll give him that. The Deep State permitting, he would probably normalize the Russian situation too.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Harsh but fair, though I probably cut him more slack vis-a-vis Russia than you do. With a president Hillary Clinton, at the least the US is in a hot proxy war with Russia right now.
    , @Marty T
    The left NEVER stops.
  12. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    A bit of extension on my last point.

    I've done some calculations, and the weighted fertility rate in Ontario counties that are more than 85% White is 1.62. The fertility rate for counties between 85 and 51% is 1.42, and the rate for Toronto, Peel and York (under 51% white) is 1.32.

    The White county rate has also risen by about 0.2 children per woman in the past decade (still rising), while the urban and non-white counties has plummeted by around 0.3 (still plummeting).

    Obviously 1.62 is too low, but 0.3 is still a significant different, especially as one is going up and one is going down. The Whites are holding their own rurally, but immigrants are swamping Toronto, drastically outpacing any small white growth.

    Shitskins + white liberals + socialists = not reproducing

    Rural white conservatives = producing, less than optimally but not bad.

    Also the abortion rate in Toronto and Peel is about 33% of pregnancies. In the rural counties it's about 8%. That makes a huge difference.

    while the urban and non-white counties has plummeted…The Whites are holding their own rurally

    Urban centers are death for a population – avoid them if you can:
    Jeopardy Hint:
    Tianjin and Beijing

    Contestant: “What are two shining examples of Chinese ingenuity and technology.”

    Trebeck: “Oooh sorry, the correct answer is; what are two shiny graveyards where Chinese go to work and die.”

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Great map, Talha! I am familiar with China but have not seen those numbers. I can't blame them up in Manchuria (those 3 northeastern provinces) - they are cold as hell, and I don't know why anyone would want to live up there - OTOH, lots of cold days and night to hang inside making babies.

    China has its minorities too, though, except for the Tibetans and the Moslems up in Xinjang, one could not tell them apart from Han Chinese (even a Han Chinese can't, without their costumes). Look at Guizhou - it has a larger percentage of minority Meow (spelling?) people and such. I am not sure about Guangxi on that, but it's probably also the case.

    It looks to me that it's the same familiar story - the minorities are the fertile ones. They get special breaks too, on all the rules, though I do realize that the 1-child policy is history.

    BTW, I liked your Alex Trebeck routine!
    , @Audacious Epigone
    For as long as there has been recorded history this has been the case.
  13. @Talha

    while the urban and non-white counties has plummeted...The Whites are holding their own rurally
     
    Urban centers are death for a population - avoid them if you can:
    https://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/640-width/images/print-edition/20170923_CNM954.png

    Jeopardy Hint:
    Tianjin and Beijing

    Contestant: "What are two shining examples of Chinese ingenuity and technology."

    Trebeck: "Oooh sorry, the correct answer is; what are two shiny graveyards where Chinese go to work and die."

    Peace.

    Great map, Talha! I am familiar with China but have not seen those numbers. I can’t blame them up in Manchuria (those 3 northeastern provinces) – they are cold as hell, and I don’t know why anyone would want to live up there – OTOH, lots of cold days and night to hang inside making babies.

    China has its minorities too, though, except for the Tibetans and the Moslems up in Xinjang, one could not tell them apart from Han Chinese (even a Han Chinese can’t, without their costumes). Look at Guizhou – it has a larger percentage of minority Meow (spelling?) people and such. I am not sure about Guangxi on that, but it’s probably also the case.

    It looks to me that it’s the same familiar story – the minorities are the fertile ones. They get special breaks too, on all the rules, though I do realize that the 1-child policy is history.

    BTW, I liked your Alex Trebeck routine!

    • Replies: @Talha

    OTOH, lots of cold days and night to hang inside making babies.
     
    You would think.

    I do realize that the 1-child policy is history.
     
    True, but now they are paying the bill. I honestly think this issue has more potential to really screw up China more than anything else like US attempts at destabilization, economic ups and downs, etc.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SboNzluN6Nc

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqtMKGw3dig

    Peace.
  14. @Tom Verso
    “his [Trump] utter stupidity, such as his disastrous picks for his employees”

    This is a common comment made in political commentary. However, it assumes that picking an “employee” for a White House ‘job’ is akin to picking one in a corporation, where resumes are reviewed and interviews considered and an ‘objective’ decision is made about who is the ‘best’ candidate.

    Rather, political employment is just that ‘political’. The various power brokers influence who gets what job. For example, the recent hiring of Elliot Abrams for the Venezuela job was not based on best resume. He is representative of powerful Venezuelan interests.

    As noted “he’s [Trump] been working against both parties”. Accordingly, he has to make concessions to both. The people whom he hires has to meet the criterion of one if not both parties.

    I screwed up – #6 comment is a reply to you. Sorry about that.

  15. Trump is doing better with young men than with older ones…There is no similar conversion among young white women.

    Women aren’t as socially brave as men are, generally speaking.

    Notice that across all age cohorts, married women are more supportive of Trump than are single men.

    The left is all about pandering to personal irresponsibility, and youthfulness and singleness in our current culture is all about personal irresponsibility, at least for a huge number of young people.

    • Replies: @216
    The logistics of the A/A spoils system require at least some white (asian) women to benefit from it, otherwise it would lose its support. So even South Africa gave a small amount of preference to white women up until 2011.

    As black women are double beneficiaries, its not surprising that they are so virulently Democrat.

    I'd slow down with the irresponsibility gambit among normies. Millions of people were told "Yale or Jail" for 13 years, and cannot be reasonably expected to have understood that their degrees would be worthless.

    Feryl can explain this better than I can, but Millennials display less anti-social behavior than the previous two cohorts.
    , @Thinking
    Another thing that I've noticed is that women who are largely apathetic to politics will just go along with whatever their husbands support, and since white married men are overwhelmingly republican...
    , @Rosie

    Women aren’t as socially brave as men are, generally speaking.
     
    True, though I would also point out that women, by virtue of what we study in college, get more propaganda than men, all else brainwashing wears off eventually, but it takes time.
  16. @J1234

    Trump is doing better with young men than with older ones...There is no similar conversion among young white women.
     
    Women aren't as socially brave as men are, generally speaking.

    Notice that across all age cohorts, married women are more supportive of Trump than are single men.
     
    The left is all about pandering to personal irresponsibility, and youthfulness and singleness in our current culture is all about personal irresponsibility, at least for a huge number of young people.

    The logistics of the A/A spoils system require at least some white (asian) women to benefit from it, otherwise it would lose its support. So even South Africa gave a small amount of preference to white women up until 2011.

    As black women are double beneficiaries, its not surprising that they are so virulently Democrat.

    I’d slow down with the irresponsibility gambit among normies. Millions of people were told “Yale or Jail” for 13 years, and cannot be reasonably expected to have understood that their degrees would be worthless.

    Feryl can explain this better than I can, but Millennials display less anti-social behavior than the previous two cohorts.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Don't listen to Charles Murray, or any other aging and clueless moralist or "critic" of modern "liberal" culture. Since the Great Depression, there have been two major spikes in poor behavior: the first happened from about 1967-1980, the second from about 1987-1995. And this "maps" onto generational factors; the first boom in hedonism was caused largely by Boomers, the second boom by Boomers and X-ers.

    The GSS's FEAR variable shows that the 1970's and early 1990's were marked by a palpable fear of criminals.

    Car crash fatalities were extremely high in the 1970's. The AIDS epidemic was a product of the 70's (but the full onset of infection symptoms didn't happen for most until the early 80's). Child abuse and molesting spiked in the mid-late 70's, then continued to be at a high level into the 80's and 90's, according to researcher David Finkelhor (it's been declining, usually year over year, since 1993). Likely that the most frequent abusers were late Silents and Boomers, with Gen X-ers and early Millennials the primary victims.

    Boomers have reduced life-spans compared to GIs and Silents. The Lost Generation, which proceeded the GIs, also were a train wreck. It's too early to judge Gen X-ers, but drinking and drug use has been declining since 1981, with the only real exception to this being the late 90's for all drugs, and recently pot use has been going up. Gen X-ers had more sex while under-age than any other generation, but once X-ers got older they've actually been less promiscuous than Boomers have been during the older stages of life.*

    Silents and Boomers, adjusted for marriage levels, get divorced more frequently than X-ers and Millennials do. While Boomers talk a good game about wanting to put their best foot forward after the 70's, it's actually non-preachy X-ers who've done better at cleaning up their act.

    *Silents: 1925-1942
    Boomers: 1943-1962
    Gen X: 1963-1980
    Millennials: 1981-1995

    These are rough estimates; there's no "gold standard" for defining generations, and people born near the border of a generation might be more allied with a neighboring generation. The Late Boomer/Early Gen X region is particularly difficult, though I've come to pegging '63 and '64ers as X-ers based on the first wave of extreme heavy metal/grungier alternative rock acts being the product of those born from 1963-1967 (Slayer, Metallica, Venom, Tool, Nirvana, Soundgarden, etc.). Also, parents born in 63 and 64 strike me as being very protective of their kids, and very invested in them, whereas parents born before 1963 tend to be a bit more loose with their parenting. Lastly, many people born in the mid- late 60's had Boomer siblings and friends, so inevitably there's a lot of over-lap with late Boomers (whereas X-ers born in the 1970's feel much more distinct from Boomers, just like how people born in the late 90's feel much different from Millennials born in the 80's).
  17. @Achmed E. Newman
    Great map, Talha! I am familiar with China but have not seen those numbers. I can't blame them up in Manchuria (those 3 northeastern provinces) - they are cold as hell, and I don't know why anyone would want to live up there - OTOH, lots of cold days and night to hang inside making babies.

    China has its minorities too, though, except for the Tibetans and the Moslems up in Xinjang, one could not tell them apart from Han Chinese (even a Han Chinese can't, without their costumes). Look at Guizhou - it has a larger percentage of minority Meow (spelling?) people and such. I am not sure about Guangxi on that, but it's probably also the case.

    It looks to me that it's the same familiar story - the minorities are the fertile ones. They get special breaks too, on all the rules, though I do realize that the 1-child policy is history.

    BTW, I liked your Alex Trebeck routine!

    OTOH, lots of cold days and night to hang inside making babies.

    You would think.

    I do realize that the 1-child policy is history.

    True, but now they are paying the bill. I honestly think this issue has more potential to really screw up China more than anything else like US attempts at destabilization, economic ups and downs, etc.

    Peace.

  18. @WorkingClass
    My big problem with Trump is that he campaigned on "America First" but his foreign policy is Israel First. And I hold him responsible for war crimes in Yemen, ongoing coup attempt in Venezuela and reigniting the Cold War with Russia. I seldom criticize Trump because I have no answer if you ask me which candidate do I prefer. Until something better comes along I will remain Deplorable. If I have the opportunity I will vote for Gabbard in the Dem Primary. But I can't imagine voting blue in the general election.

    Trump is no Regan and Regan is no Goldwater. A third of me is Libertarian. But the other two thirds is old fashioned Capital vs. Labor lefty. Also peacenik and anti imperialist. I served under Johnson and voted for McGovern. I supported Nader and Kucinich. I voted for Johnson, and Perot. I Admired Buchannan's retail politics but before the right lost the culture war I was on the other side. I thought the left would stop at abortion and gay marriage. I was wrong.

    Well, Trump has defused North Korea and Syria. Terrorism in Europe seems down quite a bit since the swinging Obama/Clinton days. I’ll give him that. The Deep State permitting, he would probably normalize the Russian situation too.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  19. @J1234

    Trump is doing better with young men than with older ones...There is no similar conversion among young white women.
     
    Women aren't as socially brave as men are, generally speaking.

    Notice that across all age cohorts, married women are more supportive of Trump than are single men.
     
    The left is all about pandering to personal irresponsibility, and youthfulness and singleness in our current culture is all about personal irresponsibility, at least for a huge number of young people.

    Another thing that I’ve noticed is that women who are largely apathetic to politics will just go along with whatever their husbands support, and since white married men are overwhelmingly republican…

    • Agree: Tyrion 2
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Indeed. That's the Epigone household. My wife makes most of the decisions inside the house (interior decorating, fixtures, etc) and I make decisions for outside the house. Harmony ensues.
    , @Rosie

    Another thing that I’ve noticed is that women who are largely apathetic to politics will just go along with whatever their husbands support, and since white married men are overwhelmingly republican…
     
    My own view is that married women correctly perceive that Democrat policies are bad for their families.

    https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-trump-married-women-voters-20180427-story.html
    , @Twinkie

    Another thing that I’ve noticed is that women who are largely apathetic to politics will just go along with whatever their husbands support
     
    True. But there is a flip side of that coin. Wives tend to moderate abstract obsessions and fixations of their husbands with pragmatism (“Will this be helpful to my household finances and children’s schooling?”).
  20. @iffen
    OT

    It appears to me that "our" Manchu Kamala has run into some major problems on the shoals of being "black enough." Privy to any data or polling that indicate that she may have problems turning out the base?

    The R-I poll runs through the end of January and has her at 66% approval among blacks. I suspect many remain unfamiliar. She is dominating among Hispanics in polling. That could be an artifact of California’s demographics influencing national polls, though.

  21. @WorkingClass
    ".....unthinkable when Dubya, Romney, or McCain were the parties’ standard-bearers."

    I am not now nor have I ever been a Republican. I am a Deplorable. A Nationalist. I'm curious. How many Deplorables are registered Republicans? For me, the beauty of Trump's electoral victory is that he defeated both parties. Is the GOP a Nationalist Party? I think not. If it was I would sign up.

    I much prefer Candidate Trump to President Trump but I prefer President Trump to his enemies, many of whom are Republicans. I am a native born white American working class male. Born 1944.

    Welcome to The Unz Review. I read your contributions with interest.

    I’m registered as a Republican for the purpose of presidential primaries, which require party registration to participate. And thank you.

  22. @Achmed E. Newman
    That's a good way to put it, W.C. Trump was running against both parties. As President he's been working against both parties. However, that doesn't excuse some of his utter stupidity, such as his disastrous picks for his employees.

    BTW, I never voted for any of those R's mentioned either. I'd voted L and Constitutional Party since my man Ronnie and up until Donnie here. That brings up the fact that Ronnie Reagan was also a non-standard GOPe candidate. The party did not like him, but the people did, and Mr. Reagan communicated well with the American people, as Trump does, but with a whole lot more dignity and complete freakin' sentences!

    Matter of fact, here are posts on Donnie vs. Ronnie, due to the fact that Donnie brought the comparison up a few months back: Intro., Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Conclusion.

    Personnel is policy, as they say. Trump clearly isn’t ideological or philosophically studious. It’s understandable that he had little idea as to who his enemies (nearly all Ds and many Rs), frenemies (most Rs), and genuine friends were as he assumed office. What he should’ve done is pulled someone in who would’ve been able to put together a great roster for him. The most obvious person for this role would’ve been Pat Buchanan. It’s really a shame Trump didn’t reach out to him in November or December of 2016.

    • Agree: Jay Fink
    • Replies: @Feryl
    The Pentagon proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, to be the key player in the post-1981 GOP by installing a massive "firewall" of generals in Trump's cabinet (by some estimates, it's the most military dominated cabinet of all time). Remember that in the 1950's-1970's, the military was much less partisan and indeed Southern Democrats were often vehement anti-communists, with Texan LBJ being a much more reliable "fighter of communism" than JFK ever could be (JFK came from the Northern ethnic urban wing of the New Deal Dems, not the Scots-Irish Southern warrior wing). From this standpoint, Buchanan as featured player would've provoked a massive revolt from the now monolithically pro-GOP Pentagon. If Buchanan had somehow remained, and he and Trump made good on isolationism, then the Pentagon may have made a massive realignment toward the Dems.

    But since the Pentagon has proven to be as bad as, or worse then, any other institution of the last 37 years, it's really no great loss for a party to be rid of the Pentagon. America did just fine in the 1950's-1970's, when Eisenhower warned of giving the "defense" industry too much clout, and Nixon earned high approval for scaling down the Vietnam fiasco. Beginning with Reagan, the Pentagon has gained higher and higher budgets with less and less accountability (though the remaining Democrats of sound mind were able, in the 1990's, to get revenge on the Pentagon for having supported Reagan, which they did by slashing the Pentagon's budget).
  23. @216
    This also speaks to the importance of reducing the incidence of divorce.

    Indeed. I didn’t include divorcees but they fell in between married and singles.

  24. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    A bit of extension on my last point.

    I've done some calculations, and the weighted fertility rate in Ontario counties that are more than 85% White is 1.62. The fertility rate for counties between 85 and 51% is 1.42, and the rate for Toronto, Peel and York (under 51% white) is 1.32.

    The White county rate has also risen by about 0.2 children per woman in the past decade (still rising), while the urban and non-white counties has plummeted by around 0.3 (still plummeting).

    Obviously 1.62 is too low, but 0.3 is still a significant different, especially as one is going up and one is going down. The Whites are holding their own rurally, but immigrants are swamping Toronto, drastically outpacing any small white growth.

    Shitskins + white liberals + socialists = not reproducing

    Rural white conservatives = producing, less than optimally but not bad.

    Also the abortion rate in Toronto and Peel is about 33% of pregnancies. In the rural counties it's about 8%. That makes a huge difference.

    You have Canadian TFRs at the county level? Would you mind sharing the link?

    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    I found the Ontario age-specific fertility rates by health region, which basically overlaps with counties. TFR = (Σ ASFR ) * 5, you can calculate it in Excel fairly easily.

    ASFR information: https://www.publichealthontario.ca/en/DataAndAnalytics/Snapshots/Pages/Reproductive-health.aspx

    To calculate the white %, you have to go on the Census and subtract "visible minorities" and "First Nations" from the total population.

    Quebec gives you the TFR by region (in French). There are actually some fantastic demographic pieces in their reports - immigrant's country of origin, inter and intra-provincial migration, TFR, broken down by county. Quebec had a strong TFR "dans les régions" (in the country), unfortunately it has dropped recently province-wide. Keep an eye on Quebec as they are the only ethno-nationalist province in Canada. In the fall they elected a Premier who is cutting immigration by 20%

    QC TFR: http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/statistiques/population-demographie/bulletins/coupdoeil-no65.pdf
    Detailed QC information: http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/statistiques/population-demographie/bilan2018.pdf
    All from here: http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/statistiques/population-demographie/naissance-fecondite/index.html

    Dunno about the rest of Canada - I'm sure the pieces are floating out there somewhere.

    Picture of the Ontario results below:



    https://i.imgur.com/Sxt95x9.jpg
  25. @WorkingClass
    My big problem with Trump is that he campaigned on "America First" but his foreign policy is Israel First. And I hold him responsible for war crimes in Yemen, ongoing coup attempt in Venezuela and reigniting the Cold War with Russia. I seldom criticize Trump because I have no answer if you ask me which candidate do I prefer. Until something better comes along I will remain Deplorable. If I have the opportunity I will vote for Gabbard in the Dem Primary. But I can't imagine voting blue in the general election.

    Trump is no Regan and Regan is no Goldwater. A third of me is Libertarian. But the other two thirds is old fashioned Capital vs. Labor lefty. Also peacenik and anti imperialist. I served under Johnson and voted for McGovern. I supported Nader and Kucinich. I voted for Johnson, and Perot. I Admired Buchannan's retail politics but before the right lost the culture war I was on the other side. I thought the left would stop at abortion and gay marriage. I was wrong.

    Harsh but fair, though I probably cut him more slack vis-a-vis Russia than you do. With a president Hillary Clinton, at the least the US is in a hot proxy war with Russia right now.

  26. @Talha

    while the urban and non-white counties has plummeted...The Whites are holding their own rurally
     
    Urban centers are death for a population - avoid them if you can:
    https://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/640-width/images/print-edition/20170923_CNM954.png

    Jeopardy Hint:
    Tianjin and Beijing

    Contestant: "What are two shining examples of Chinese ingenuity and technology."

    Trebeck: "Oooh sorry, the correct answer is; what are two shiny graveyards where Chinese go to work and die."

    Peace.

    For as long as there has been recorded history this has been the case.

    • Replies: @Talha
    This is true, but humanity crossed a historic marker some time earlier in this century; some human somewhere moved into an urban environment from a farm or other outlying space and - for the first time in the history of our species - tipped the scales such that there are more human beings living in an urban environment rather than a rural one. This is unprecedented.

    “Today, 54 per cent of the world’s population lives in urban areas, a proportion that is expected to increase to 66 per cent by 2050.”
    http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/population/world-urbanization-prospects-2014.html

    Peace.
  27. @Thinking
    Another thing that I've noticed is that women who are largely apathetic to politics will just go along with whatever their husbands support, and since white married men are overwhelmingly republican...

    Indeed. That’s the Epigone household. My wife makes most of the decisions inside the house (interior decorating, fixtures, etc) and I make decisions for outside the house. Harmony ensues.

    • Agree: Talha, Twinkie
  28. @WorkingClass
    ".....unthinkable when Dubya, Romney, or McCain were the parties’ standard-bearers."

    I am not now nor have I ever been a Republican. I am a Deplorable. A Nationalist. I'm curious. How many Deplorables are registered Republicans? For me, the beauty of Trump's electoral victory is that he defeated both parties. Is the GOP a Nationalist Party? I think not. If it was I would sign up.

    I much prefer Candidate Trump to President Trump but I prefer President Trump to his enemies, many of whom are Republicans. I am a native born white American working class male. Born 1944.

    Welcome to The Unz Review. I read your contributions with interest.

    I’m not a registered Republican, but I’m paleocon enough to consider shaking hands with Pat Buchanan one of my life’s proudest moments.

  29. @Thinking
    Another thing that I've noticed is that women who are largely apathetic to politics will just go along with whatever their husbands support, and since white married men are overwhelmingly republican...

    Another thing that I’ve noticed is that women who are largely apathetic to politics will just go along with whatever their husbands support, and since white married men are overwhelmingly republican…

    My own view is that married women correctly perceive that Democrat policies are bad for their families.

    https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-trump-married-women-voters-20180427-story.html

  30. @J1234

    Trump is doing better with young men than with older ones...There is no similar conversion among young white women.
     
    Women aren't as socially brave as men are, generally speaking.

    Notice that across all age cohorts, married women are more supportive of Trump than are single men.
     
    The left is all about pandering to personal irresponsibility, and youthfulness and singleness in our current culture is all about personal irresponsibility, at least for a huge number of young people.

    Women aren’t as socially brave as men are, generally speaking.

    True, though I would also point out that women, by virtue of what we study in college, get more propaganda than men, all else brainwashing wears off eventually, but it takes time.

    • Replies: @J1234

    True, though I would also point out that women, by virtue of what we study in college, get more propaganda than men, all else brainwashing wears off eventually, but it takes time.
     
    I believe you are correct. I worry about my daughter, who will be in college in a couple of years. I see her as being, in some ways, more susceptible to such propaganda, which it seems is dispersed as much socially on campuses as academically. As someone who has experienced this, do you have any suggestions on how this might be countered?
  31. @Audacious Epigone
    For as long as there has been recorded history this has been the case.

    This is true, but humanity crossed a historic marker some time earlier in this century; some human somewhere moved into an urban environment from a farm or other outlying space and – for the first time in the history of our species – tipped the scales such that there are more human beings living in an urban environment rather than a rural one. This is unprecedented.

    “Today, 54 per cent of the world’s population lives in urban areas, a proportion that is expected to increase to 66 per cent by 2050.”
    http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/population/world-urbanization-prospects-2014.html

    Peace.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Twinkie
    Even when ancient Rome grew from a small town to the capital of a world-historical empire, it was a demographic sink. It grew by sucking populations from the countryside and other regions. In other words, cities are population vampires.

    Back then, it wasn’t just that the cost of living was higher in urban areas. It was that public health in urban areas was atrocious with rampant diseases, poor sanitation, and malnutrition/poor quality of food. That’s also why even cities with huge populations were poor recruiting grounds for soldiery - the people there were typically in bad shape to be warriors, aside from lacking the requisite skills. People were fed better and were in better health in farming areas, and those in border marches and highlands were more robust and tougher, and these were the prime recruiting areas for armies.

    In terms of health and militarily-useful robustness, it’s always been pastoralists>farmers>urban proletariat. In terms of fertility, probably farmers>pastoralists>urban dwellers.
  32. @Audacious Epigone
    You have Canadian TFRs at the county level? Would you mind sharing the link?

    I found the Ontario age-specific fertility rates by health region, which basically overlaps with counties. TFR = (Σ ASFR ) * 5, you can calculate it in Excel fairly easily.

    ASFR information: https://www.publichealthontario.ca/en/DataAndAnalytics/Snapshots/Pages/Reproductive-health.aspx

    To calculate the white %, you have to go on the Census and subtract “visible minorities” and “First Nations” from the total population.

    Quebec gives you the TFR by region (in French). There are actually some fantastic demographic pieces in their reports – immigrant’s country of origin, inter and intra-provincial migration, TFR, broken down by county. Quebec had a strong TFR “dans les régions” (in the country), unfortunately it has dropped recently province-wide. Keep an eye on Quebec as they are the only ethno-nationalist province in Canada. In the fall they elected a Premier who is cutting immigration by 20%

    QC TFR: http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/statistiques/population-demographie/bulletins/coupdoeil-no65.pdf
    Detailed QC information: http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/statistiques/population-demographie/bilan2018.pdf
    All from here: http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/statistiques/population-demographie/naissance-fecondite/index.html

    Dunno about the rest of Canada – I’m sure the pieces are floating out there somewhere.

    Picture of the Ontario results below:

    [MORE]

  33. The uniparty or establishment or globalists, take your pick, have doomed both parties for white men and many other men of substandard grievance status.

    The (R) and (D) have both taken up fronts in the war against western civilization. More specifically the war on the men who build and maintain it. They only differ in tactics.

    Much like their positions on immigration; theatrics of conflict project an illusion of opposing sides, while the Progress continues unabated.

    Trump was the first candidate to neither prostrate and apologize (D) or punch down and shame (R).

    The (R) party and their ‘conservative’ or ‘family values’ core focus on men only insofar as upholding traditional male responsibility in the service of the gynocentric prog culture, ie shut up and pay your taxes, ie we need to conserve the future tax cattle and beta draft horses to pull the wagon.

    This is the core of the “cuckservative” or “tradcon” pajorative. And its well earned.

    The (D) party and their increasingly open hostility toward white men and by extension white tradition, marriage, family formation (we are all poly!), and christianity have by design or dumb momentum alienated white men entirely.

    At least the men smart enough to see it. Which is not many, but growing lockstep with the increasingly fringe coalition driving the party.

    A growing number of young white men have seen their youthful idealism crushed by the totem of identity politics and the feminist-marxist hammer and anvil that drives the left.

    And they have found no allies in their “old white” republican representatives, who claim to be the custodians of their culture, but instead only slow the rot down to extract moar profit.

    The only fight is over who gets control of the treasure aka debt levers. Millennials are the first gen to get a small part of the bill for the greatest pump and dump in history, eg college debt and disappearing middle class careers.

    The (R) party seemed fit to ignore the truth and instead treat their symptoms with conversion therapy. Preaching the old set of books while ignoring that the market values none that; chest thumping about their own greatness; and shaming them into submission (man up and marry that slut) while leaving the evil elephant in the room to do its thing.

    For a long while now, arguably the entire lives of the millennials, hating white men – including all they have touched throughout (revisionist) history, has been a pro-status position in our progressive gynocentric culture.

    Progress, ushered in by both parties has left young men behind. The broken families, cultural disenfranchisement, atomizing and alienating social and economic costs of affirmative action and other codified demonization of men has produced too many ill effects to list. So we get to choose: take a knee and pay tribute for our toxic masculinity (D); or take up the dusty traditions, become an incel who gets stuck with the bill.

    Trump is a lame ass new york liberal scumbag developer and egomaniac celebrity who came of age in one of the greatest periods of exonomic expansion in history. But he spoke unapologetically and with enough zfg and truthspeak and simple ackowledgement that unbridled immigration is maybe not so great.

    Maga worked for me; reminded me a bit of Reagan era when I was a wee lad. But appeal to nostalgia doesnt really stick for millennials. The indoctrination was too much; the USA was never great in their memory. Obama was their guy.

    For me, trump was least likely to want me dead or enslaved on his watch and he was the ONLY one that could slow the white genocide.

    So he got my vote. Most men still don’t get it though. The war has already started. You go to war with the army you have not the one you want. Until democracy dies, this pile of shit is my general.

    As for women, the prog status wins the day until they meet a man with the stones to knock her off her high horse. Hating men and all that we touch is in vogue. Trump is too much man for the single birds. And their daddies are mostly either ponytails or cucks. The fact that trump is too gritty smarmy alpha for them shows just how rare masculinity at-large is at this point. Sad.

    As for other men who hope for a socialist trap door (bernie) or that doing more chores and wearing their ‘this is what feminism looks like’ t shirt will get them pussy, well good luck with that. See you down range faggots.

    • Agree: Stan d Mute
    • Replies: @Big Dick Bandit
    this is probably the best comment left at Unz or Heartiste or Ace in the last 5 years.
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    I absolutely abhor agreeing with the Socialist Dick Bandit, but that was indeed a great comment, Screwtape. However, this "general we have" is losing all the important battles and should be replaced by a Nathan Bedford Forrest, or a Swamp Fox.
    , @UrbaneFrancoOntarian

    Until democracy dies, this pile of shit is my general.
     
    So true. He's ourguy - just not very good at it.
    , @Feryl
    "Trump is a lame ass new york liberal scumbag developer and egomaniac celebrity who came of age in one of the greatest periods of exonomic expansion in history. But he spoke unapologetically and with enough zfg and truthspeak and simple ackowledgement that unbridled immigration is maybe not so great."

    Trump never cared about inane cultural issues, one way or the other (he'd accept abortion, or gay rights, or whatever, in the name of going along to get along). In the 1990's-2015, Trump criticized our foreign policy on pragmatic grounds (let's top subsidizing all this middle Eastern horseshit). He also criticized our financial policies for benefiting the Wall Street stockmarket at the expense of good fundamentals (which he himself understood in the sense that he never put too much into stock market plays himself). Not that many people cared about immigration in the 80's or 90's, and neither did Trump until he started listening to talk radio in the 2010's (Trump, as per his business background, was researching what pitch would resonate with GOP voters, and unlike a standard corrupt era politician he wasn't going to be nervous about blaspheming the orthodoxy of either party).

    So what happened to Trump? Simple. Politics is about coalitions of aligned interests reaching a consensus position on an issue. Since Trump never had any extensive involvement in government affairs prior to reaching office, he had no clout and no real political network. Being supported by 1/2 the population is enough to stop you from being disowned and impeached by your party, but it's of little use when it comes to the process of being a member in good standing of a given coalition. Since the modern military lobby, agribusiness, the timber industry, the oil industry etc. have no use for Trump's unusually progressive stances on trade, immigration, war, etc. it therefore follows that Trump would find himself an outsider with no ability to bend these powerful coalitions towards policy positions that would benefit commoners. Trump could either remain an outsider, like proto-neoliberal Carter, and be frozen out like Carter was by the New Deal Democrats in the 70's and very early 80's. Or Trump could downplay his irreverent policies in order to conform to the prevailing orthodoxy preferred by his party's Reaganite coalition. And that's what Trump has largely done, although he still pisses off GOP elites from time to time, mainly on the foreign policy front (naturally, the single worst thing about the post-New Deal GOP, military over-reach, is also the thing that the GOP is most protective of). So too did Carter manage to "over-rule" old-school Democrats by successfully championing a few bits of anti-labor legislation, like the de-regulation of the trucking and airline industry. Carter was destined to be an divisive and ineffective president, and Trump is as well. One big difference, though, is that in 1980 America was sufficiently egalitarian that both Democrats and Republicans could freely express frustration with Carter, and neither side felt particularly inspired to take a bullet for any politician or party. Compare that to 2015-2019, when a lot of liberals stand by Obama against any sense of integrity or ethical judgement, while lots of conservatives insist on standing by Trump when Trump has done little to earn this loyalty. Most surreal of all is to see war criminal and deficit grower GW Bush get praised by "liberals" recently. In eras of fairly low corruption (like the 1940's-1980's), people tend to not believe in obnoxious fervor.

    "Maga worked for me; reminded me a bit of Reagan era when I was a wee lad. But appeal to nostalgia doesnt really stick for millennials. The indoctrination was too much; the USA was never great in their memory. Obama was their guy. "

    Millennials find "their guy", get disappointed, then start looking again. Gen X-ers tend to not even bother. Boomers tend to have a strongly partisan identity, and only very recently have some of them started to change their sense of loyalty, because both parties now evidently suck so much.

    I would argue that Reagan nostalgia is strongest for Silents, and for early Gen X-ers who saw Red Dawn when they were in Junior or Senior high school. None of the Boomer presidents thus far have inspired respect from the Left and the Right, anywhere on the generational spectrum. The 1990's and following decades have all given rise to the sentiment that we no longer have adults in charge anymore. It's easy to feel good about the 80's, because that was the last decade where most of our leaders were pre-Boomers, and the last decade where most Americans felt any sense of kinship with each other (I would argue that increased immigration, and the individualism of Boomers, badly corroded our communities and institutions)
  34. @Screwtape
    The uniparty or establishment or globalists, take your pick, have doomed both parties for white men and many other men of substandard grievance status.

    The (R) and (D) have both taken up fronts in the war against western civilization. More specifically the war on the men who build and maintain it. They only differ in tactics.

    Much like their positions on immigration; theatrics of conflict project an illusion of opposing sides, while the Progress continues unabated.

    Trump was the first candidate to neither prostrate and apologize (D) or punch down and shame (R).

    The (R) party and their ‘conservative’ or ‘family values’ core focus on men only insofar as upholding traditional male responsibility in the service of the gynocentric prog culture, ie shut up and pay your taxes, ie we need to conserve the future tax cattle and beta draft horses to pull the wagon.

    This is the core of the “cuckservative” or “tradcon” pajorative. And its well earned.

    The (D) party and their increasingly open hostility toward white men and by extension white tradition, marriage, family formation (we are all poly!), and christianity have by design or dumb momentum alienated white men entirely.

    At least the men smart enough to see it. Which is not many, but growing lockstep with the increasingly fringe coalition driving the party.

    A growing number of young white men have seen their youthful idealism crushed by the totem of identity politics and the feminist-marxist hammer and anvil that drives the left.

    And they have found no allies in their “old white” republican representatives, who claim to be the custodians of their culture, but instead only slow the rot down to extract moar profit.

    The only fight is over who gets control of the treasure aka debt levers. Millennials are the first gen to get a small part of the bill for the greatest pump and dump in history, eg college debt and disappearing middle class careers.

    The (R) party seemed fit to ignore the truth and instead treat their symptoms with conversion therapy. Preaching the old set of books while ignoring that the market values none that; chest thumping about their own greatness; and shaming them into submission (man up and marry that slut) while leaving the evil elephant in the room to do its thing.

    For a long while now, arguably the entire lives of the millennials, hating white men - including all they have touched throughout (revisionist) history, has been a pro-status position in our progressive gynocentric culture.

    Progress, ushered in by both parties has left young men behind. The broken families, cultural disenfranchisement, atomizing and alienating social and economic costs of affirmative action and other codified demonization of men has produced too many ill effects to list. So we get to choose: take a knee and pay tribute for our toxic masculinity (D); or take up the dusty traditions, become an incel who gets stuck with the bill.

    Trump is a lame ass new york liberal scumbag developer and egomaniac celebrity who came of age in one of the greatest periods of exonomic expansion in history. But he spoke unapologetically and with enough zfg and truthspeak and simple ackowledgement that unbridled immigration is maybe not so great.

    Maga worked for me; reminded me a bit of Reagan era when I was a wee lad. But appeal to nostalgia doesnt really stick for millennials. The indoctrination was too much; the USA was never great in their memory. Obama was their guy.

    For me, trump was least likely to want me dead or enslaved on his watch and he was the ONLY one that could slow the white genocide.

    So he got my vote. Most men still don’t get it though. The war has already started. You go to war with the army you have not the one you want. Until democracy dies, this pile of shit is my general.

    As for women, the prog status wins the day until they meet a man with the stones to knock her off her high horse. Hating men and all that we touch is in vogue. Trump is too much man for the single birds. And their daddies are mostly either ponytails or cucks. The fact that trump is too gritty smarmy alpha for them shows just how rare masculinity at-large is at this point. Sad.

    As for other men who hope for a socialist trap door (bernie) or that doing more chores and wearing their ‘this is what feminism looks like’ t shirt will get them pussy, well good luck with that. See you down range faggots.

    this is probably the best comment left at Unz or Heartiste or Ace in the last 5 years.

    • Replies: @Screwtape
    I am flattered and grateful that you were willing to overlook my hyperbole and crass lingo to extract the worthy.

    Single malt rants are a precarious thing.
  35. @Big Dick Bandit
    as a member of the sample size in question....yep, checks out.

    i vividly remember watching one of the first Republican primary debates with another Married Millennial Man (MMM?)...originally, we had tuned in for the prospect of a car crash. neither of us would ever have DREAMED of supporting a Republican, because for our entire lives the Republican party has been unequivocally the party for dumb people (it's tough to describe how damaging the W years were for the Republican brand in the minds of any millennial with half a brain, and i'm from the South).

    and then.....Trump started dunking on everybody. all the bullshit that we hated about Republican ideology--being pro-War, and anti-healthcare--Trump had the balls to stand up and say "yeah, that sounds pretty dumb to me". it was fucking awesome. watching him call out Iraq for the miserable failure it was in front of Jeb's little bitchass was probably the first time i've ever genuinely "rooted" for a politician as much as i'd root for one of my own teams.

    dude had the audacity to question the Uniparty to their face. his governing....well, he doesn't seem super politically capable, putting it charitably. but goddamn, if Trump is the one it took to show people that things don't have to be this way just because Uniparty Elites say so, this country owes him bigly.

    (it’s tough to describe how damaging the W years were for the Republican brand in the minds of any millennial with half a brain, and i’m from the South).

    Exactly. Dubya style conservatism was real life idiocracy. The fake hick accents, the pro-war Jesus, the cheap labor patriotism, the cholo family values.

    It permanently destroyed conservatism as a brand. Thank God.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone, Gordo
    • Replies: @Feryl
    That's the second term of Bush for ya. Preceding 9/11, Millennials didn't really care about politics. From 9/12/01 to 2004, late Gen X-ers and Millennials were much more pro-war than older generations. But Bush squandered all this gung-ho sentiment by letting the neo-cons run wild, then he also continued his father's terrible immigration habits. It didn't have to be this way. Of course, Silents and Boomers derping about muh family values, muh constitution, muh free market principles etc. were going to kill the GOP's "brand value" in the eyes of younger people regardless, since younger generations hate GOP cliches.
  36. What is the translation of 56.6% into additional votes for Trump in MN, MI, WI and PA in 2020?

  37. @Screwtape
    The uniparty or establishment or globalists, take your pick, have doomed both parties for white men and many other men of substandard grievance status.

    The (R) and (D) have both taken up fronts in the war against western civilization. More specifically the war on the men who build and maintain it. They only differ in tactics.

    Much like their positions on immigration; theatrics of conflict project an illusion of opposing sides, while the Progress continues unabated.

    Trump was the first candidate to neither prostrate and apologize (D) or punch down and shame (R).

    The (R) party and their ‘conservative’ or ‘family values’ core focus on men only insofar as upholding traditional male responsibility in the service of the gynocentric prog culture, ie shut up and pay your taxes, ie we need to conserve the future tax cattle and beta draft horses to pull the wagon.

    This is the core of the “cuckservative” or “tradcon” pajorative. And its well earned.

    The (D) party and their increasingly open hostility toward white men and by extension white tradition, marriage, family formation (we are all poly!), and christianity have by design or dumb momentum alienated white men entirely.

    At least the men smart enough to see it. Which is not many, but growing lockstep with the increasingly fringe coalition driving the party.

    A growing number of young white men have seen their youthful idealism crushed by the totem of identity politics and the feminist-marxist hammer and anvil that drives the left.

    And they have found no allies in their “old white” republican representatives, who claim to be the custodians of their culture, but instead only slow the rot down to extract moar profit.

    The only fight is over who gets control of the treasure aka debt levers. Millennials are the first gen to get a small part of the bill for the greatest pump and dump in history, eg college debt and disappearing middle class careers.

    The (R) party seemed fit to ignore the truth and instead treat their symptoms with conversion therapy. Preaching the old set of books while ignoring that the market values none that; chest thumping about their own greatness; and shaming them into submission (man up and marry that slut) while leaving the evil elephant in the room to do its thing.

    For a long while now, arguably the entire lives of the millennials, hating white men - including all they have touched throughout (revisionist) history, has been a pro-status position in our progressive gynocentric culture.

    Progress, ushered in by both parties has left young men behind. The broken families, cultural disenfranchisement, atomizing and alienating social and economic costs of affirmative action and other codified demonization of men has produced too many ill effects to list. So we get to choose: take a knee and pay tribute for our toxic masculinity (D); or take up the dusty traditions, become an incel who gets stuck with the bill.

    Trump is a lame ass new york liberal scumbag developer and egomaniac celebrity who came of age in one of the greatest periods of exonomic expansion in history. But he spoke unapologetically and with enough zfg and truthspeak and simple ackowledgement that unbridled immigration is maybe not so great.

    Maga worked for me; reminded me a bit of Reagan era when I was a wee lad. But appeal to nostalgia doesnt really stick for millennials. The indoctrination was too much; the USA was never great in their memory. Obama was their guy.

    For me, trump was least likely to want me dead or enslaved on his watch and he was the ONLY one that could slow the white genocide.

    So he got my vote. Most men still don’t get it though. The war has already started. You go to war with the army you have not the one you want. Until democracy dies, this pile of shit is my general.

    As for women, the prog status wins the day until they meet a man with the stones to knock her off her high horse. Hating men and all that we touch is in vogue. Trump is too much man for the single birds. And their daddies are mostly either ponytails or cucks. The fact that trump is too gritty smarmy alpha for them shows just how rare masculinity at-large is at this point. Sad.

    As for other men who hope for a socialist trap door (bernie) or that doing more chores and wearing their ‘this is what feminism looks like’ t shirt will get them pussy, well good luck with that. See you down range faggots.

    I absolutely abhor agreeing with the Socialist Dick Bandit, but that was indeed a great comment, Screwtape. However, this “general we have” is losing all the important battles and should be replaced by a Nathan Bedford Forrest, or a Swamp Fox.

    • Replies: @Stan d Mute

    I absolutely abhor agreeing with the Socialist Dick Bandit
     
    Did you notice that @Screwtape called him a faggot and @DickBandit agreed and praised him for it?

    As for other men who hope for a socialist trap door (bernie) or that doing more chores and wearing their ‘this is what feminism looks like’ t shirt will get them pussy, well good luck with that. See you down range faggots.
     
    , @Screwtape
    George washington lost at least theee major battles before he was able to secure a victory.

    I’m trying to grasp for a silver lining in the dark clouds over Trump, but yes, he looks to be maneuvering toward the status quo.

    The thing is, he is surrounded by enemies. He has no true side from which he can direct his forces.

    Did he underestimate the landscape? Probably. Did his base? Probably.

    He got his mandate at the ballot box and has done some good things, some mediocre thkngs, and some bad things along the way.

    But what did all of those voters do after they pulled the lever?

    How many scattered back into the shadows because “pussy grabber”?

    How many were unwilling to risk a hit to their social status as granted by the Prog death cult, so they held their tongues and let the darkness creep?

    How many are willing to step into the parent teacher conference, the church, the little league game, the boy scout troop and speak the truth? To step into the overton themselves, to drain the swamps in their own back yards?

    How many are looking for a proxy to joust for their honor in the dc swamp while they let their wives emasculate them in their own kitchens?

    The war is not just decided by a man in the DC swamp.

    We are in a culture war, one we have been losing - nay, may have already lost.

    No one general is going to take down a hundred years of rot without pitchforks and torches in every town square.

    What I hoped for was an awakening in the everyman. That Trump would embolden men to take up arms in their own homes and communities; a bottom up groundswell.

    Eh. A man can dream.

    Some think the ‘next Trump’ will actually be a literally hitler. I doubt it.

    The entropy of the left is accelerating, however, and this is a good thing i think. But I don’t see us being able to choose our next general.
  38. The guilt train only stops when you are literally dead

    Zero.Political.Power. and you are somehow still the oppressor.

  39. It looks like the Narrative here is soon to be in full collapse.

    But you won’t see our friends at the NAACP defunded by their corporate patrons for engaging in “Brown Scare” rhetoric

  40. @Screwtape
    The uniparty or establishment or globalists, take your pick, have doomed both parties for white men and many other men of substandard grievance status.

    The (R) and (D) have both taken up fronts in the war against western civilization. More specifically the war on the men who build and maintain it. They only differ in tactics.

    Much like their positions on immigration; theatrics of conflict project an illusion of opposing sides, while the Progress continues unabated.

    Trump was the first candidate to neither prostrate and apologize (D) or punch down and shame (R).

    The (R) party and their ‘conservative’ or ‘family values’ core focus on men only insofar as upholding traditional male responsibility in the service of the gynocentric prog culture, ie shut up and pay your taxes, ie we need to conserve the future tax cattle and beta draft horses to pull the wagon.

    This is the core of the “cuckservative” or “tradcon” pajorative. And its well earned.

    The (D) party and their increasingly open hostility toward white men and by extension white tradition, marriage, family formation (we are all poly!), and christianity have by design or dumb momentum alienated white men entirely.

    At least the men smart enough to see it. Which is not many, but growing lockstep with the increasingly fringe coalition driving the party.

    A growing number of young white men have seen their youthful idealism crushed by the totem of identity politics and the feminist-marxist hammer and anvil that drives the left.

    And they have found no allies in their “old white” republican representatives, who claim to be the custodians of their culture, but instead only slow the rot down to extract moar profit.

    The only fight is over who gets control of the treasure aka debt levers. Millennials are the first gen to get a small part of the bill for the greatest pump and dump in history, eg college debt and disappearing middle class careers.

    The (R) party seemed fit to ignore the truth and instead treat their symptoms with conversion therapy. Preaching the old set of books while ignoring that the market values none that; chest thumping about their own greatness; and shaming them into submission (man up and marry that slut) while leaving the evil elephant in the room to do its thing.

    For a long while now, arguably the entire lives of the millennials, hating white men - including all they have touched throughout (revisionist) history, has been a pro-status position in our progressive gynocentric culture.

    Progress, ushered in by both parties has left young men behind. The broken families, cultural disenfranchisement, atomizing and alienating social and economic costs of affirmative action and other codified demonization of men has produced too many ill effects to list. So we get to choose: take a knee and pay tribute for our toxic masculinity (D); or take up the dusty traditions, become an incel who gets stuck with the bill.

    Trump is a lame ass new york liberal scumbag developer and egomaniac celebrity who came of age in one of the greatest periods of exonomic expansion in history. But he spoke unapologetically and with enough zfg and truthspeak and simple ackowledgement that unbridled immigration is maybe not so great.

    Maga worked for me; reminded me a bit of Reagan era when I was a wee lad. But appeal to nostalgia doesnt really stick for millennials. The indoctrination was too much; the USA was never great in their memory. Obama was their guy.

    For me, trump was least likely to want me dead or enslaved on his watch and he was the ONLY one that could slow the white genocide.

    So he got my vote. Most men still don’t get it though. The war has already started. You go to war with the army you have not the one you want. Until democracy dies, this pile of shit is my general.

    As for women, the prog status wins the day until they meet a man with the stones to knock her off her high horse. Hating men and all that we touch is in vogue. Trump is too much man for the single birds. And their daddies are mostly either ponytails or cucks. The fact that trump is too gritty smarmy alpha for them shows just how rare masculinity at-large is at this point. Sad.

    As for other men who hope for a socialist trap door (bernie) or that doing more chores and wearing their ‘this is what feminism looks like’ t shirt will get them pussy, well good luck with that. See you down range faggots.

    Until democracy dies, this pile of shit is my general.

    So true. He’s ourguy – just not very good at it.

  41. @Talha
    This is true, but humanity crossed a historic marker some time earlier in this century; some human somewhere moved into an urban environment from a farm or other outlying space and - for the first time in the history of our species - tipped the scales such that there are more human beings living in an urban environment rather than a rural one. This is unprecedented.

    “Today, 54 per cent of the world’s population lives in urban areas, a proportion that is expected to increase to 66 per cent by 2050.”
    http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/population/world-urbanization-prospects-2014.html

    Peace.

    Even when ancient Rome grew from a small town to the capital of a world-historical empire, it was a demographic sink. It grew by sucking populations from the countryside and other regions. In other words, cities are population vampires.

    Back then, it wasn’t just that the cost of living was higher in urban areas. It was that public health in urban areas was atrocious with rampant diseases, poor sanitation, and malnutrition/poor quality of food. That’s also why even cities with huge populations were poor recruiting grounds for soldiery – the people there were typically in bad shape to be warriors, aside from lacking the requisite skills. People were fed better and were in better health in farming areas, and those in border marches and highlands were more robust and tougher, and these were the prime recruiting areas for armies.

    In terms of health and militarily-useful robustness, it’s always been pastoralists>farmers>urban proletariat. In terms of fertility, probably farmers>pastoralists>urban dwellers.

    • Replies: @Talha
    Excellent points. When the Rashidun kicked out the Byzantines, they actually made deals with certain Christian tribes, like the Jarajima (along the Lebanese mountains), to provide military service for the frontier defense and spying on Byzantine movements in lieu of jizyah. I don't think they ever offered that deal to city-dwelling Greek bakers or cobblers though...likely because they actually wanted to win wars.

    In other words, cities are population vampires.
     
    And now that the majority of humans have become city dwellers, this may just explain the incessant fascination with vampires and zombies in our culture.

    Peace.

  42. @Thinking
    Another thing that I've noticed is that women who are largely apathetic to politics will just go along with whatever their husbands support, and since white married men are overwhelmingly republican...

    Another thing that I’ve noticed is that women who are largely apathetic to politics will just go along with whatever their husbands support

    True. But there is a flip side of that coin. Wives tend to moderate abstract obsessions and fixations of their husbands with pragmatism (“Will this be helpful to my household finances and children’s schooling?”).

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    This is like the differences in what the sexes mean when they tell each other to "grow up".

    Another interesting assymetric definition is "b*tch" as in "stop being such a b*tch". This has wonderfully different and revealing meanings when used by man to wife and woman to husband etc.

  43. @Achmed E. Newman
    I absolutely abhor agreeing with the Socialist Dick Bandit, but that was indeed a great comment, Screwtape. However, this "general we have" is losing all the important battles and should be replaced by a Nathan Bedford Forrest, or a Swamp Fox.

    I absolutely abhor agreeing with the Socialist Dick Bandit

    Did you notice that called him a faggot and @DickBandit agreed and praised him for it?

    As for other men who hope for a socialist trap door (bernie) or that doing more chores and wearing their ‘this is what feminism looks like’ t shirt will get them pussy, well good luck with that. See you down range faggots.

  44. As government has grown, wealthy whites have increasingly achieved their wealth through crony capitalism rather than by offering goods or services on the free market. This has led to calls among many non-wealthy whites for a form of socialism that transfers wealth from rich whites to poorer whites. This would be better than the current socialism that transfers wealth to minorities and single white females. Since married white women are more likely to support Trump and single white women are more likely to get married without a large welfare state, any change from the current system would be an improvement. Having a whites only socialism, though, would still have the problems inherent in socialism. If you put high taxes on the rich you would have some situations where money was being taken from someone who worked hard for it and then given to someone who didn’t work for it. This would encourage laziness and discourage productive work, not an effect we want. You would end up having half of whites wanting to not work and have the other half of whites work to support them. Then the half of whites working would stop working since they couldn’t keep what they earned and that would be the end of civilization. It would be better to deal with the problem of rich whites with unearned wealth in other ways. If they gained their wealth illegally, then elect politicians who promise to use the criminal justice system to prosecute them. If they gained their wealth through the granting of special favors by the government or various forms of rent seeking, then work to eliminate that. Don’t fall for a simplistic “rich white people bad, poor white people good” form of socialism.

  45. Open Border Blacks confirmed in real time

    https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/02/15/suny-students-get-death-threats-after-running-build-the-wall-event/

    Strangely, the university president managed to not admonish the YAF (cuckservative) students. Presumably there will be agitation that she should have delivered a harsher response and decertified the group.

    This might actually be scored as a (small) win, if they manage to get the threatening peer students expelled.

    • Replies: @216
    Also, I found this hilarious bout of jargon written in response on their FB poast.

    Ryan Aloysius Ivers I find it absurd how they're calling people who disagree, for reasons of rationality and conscience, "leftists", as if it were some kind of insult. The position of this table is based on the xenophobic misrepresentations of an administration which is the product of a long, problematic, US history of systems and attitudes of racial and cultural prejudice against refugees, immigrants, and (mostly) non-European people. The "knowledge", or evidence, which the people at this table use to support their slogan are produced in institutions and with interests that predetermine that "evidence" to align with political projects. Such projects aim to preserve an unequal society in the benefit of some classes and peoples over others.

    The position of this table is in support of those political factions who want to perpetuate systemic prejudice, accumulate wealth for so-called "dominant" classes, continue wars and american imperial ambitions, and to replace the intercultural possibilities of the United States with their reductive, monolithic, Fundamentalist view of so-called "American" culture: one that is saturated with arrogant centrism and supremacy.

    The "build the wall" slogan expresses the desire of (sadly) many Americans, and their political representatives, to undo the progress and civil resistance of the past decades and instead to return to an illusionary time when they believe America was more "familiar". More familiar because there were more brutal systems that marginalized non-white, non-eurocentric, non-patriarchal viewpoints and people from political or civic participation. Those efforts to silence others eventually failed though, and now they want to return to the silence of others. Basically this table is not expressing a thoughtful view, but instead an ideological intention based in a Nativist (xenophobic) american mythology that has unfortunately been given the disguise of democratic legitimacy by the election of the current administration and from the institutions with stake in its political agendas.

    This table is distorted, based on ego and disdain, and is strategically designed to make students who feel the weight of historical marginalization more uncomfortable with their surroundings. The members of Oswego YAF need more compassion, and they need to do some reading that is not so thoughtlessly biased.
     
    Straight White Gentile Male leftists are the most dangerous kind of leftist, as they pay no costs for their naked treason and bring the highest degree of competence.
  46. @216
    Open Border Blacks confirmed in real time

    https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/02/15/suny-students-get-death-threats-after-running-build-the-wall-event/

    Strangely, the university president managed to not admonish the YAF (cuckservative) students. Presumably there will be agitation that she should have delivered a harsher response and decertified the group.

    This might actually be scored as a (small) win, if they manage to get the threatening peer students expelled.

    Also, I found this hilarious bout of jargon written in response on their FB poast.

    Ryan Aloysius Ivers I find it absurd how they’re calling people who disagree, for reasons of rationality and conscience, “leftists”, as if it were some kind of insult. The position of this table is based on the xenophobic misrepresentations of an administration which is the product of a long, problematic, US history of systems and attitudes of racial and cultural prejudice against refugees, immigrants, and (mostly) non-European people. The “knowledge”, or evidence, which the people at this table use to support their slogan are produced in institutions and with interests that predetermine that “evidence” to align with political projects. Such projects aim to preserve an unequal society in the benefit of some classes and peoples over others.

    The position of this table is in support of those political factions who want to perpetuate systemic prejudice, accumulate wealth for so-called “dominant” classes, continue wars and american imperial ambitions, and to replace the intercultural possibilities of the United States with their reductive, monolithic, Fundamentalist view of so-called “American” culture: one that is saturated with arrogant centrism and supremacy.

    The “build the wall” slogan expresses the desire of (sadly) many Americans, and their political representatives, to undo the progress and civil resistance of the past decades and instead to return to an illusionary time when they believe America was more “familiar”. More familiar because there were more brutal systems that marginalized non-white, non-eurocentric, non-patriarchal viewpoints and people from political or civic participation. Those efforts to silence others eventually failed though, and now they want to return to the silence of others. Basically this table is not expressing a thoughtful view, but instead an ideological intention based in a Nativist (xenophobic) american mythology that has unfortunately been given the disguise of democratic legitimacy by the election of the current administration and from the institutions with stake in its political agendas.

    This table is distorted, based on ego and disdain, and is strategically designed to make students who feel the weight of historical marginalization more uncomfortable with their surroundings. The members of Oswego YAF need more compassion, and they need to do some reading that is not so thoughtlessly biased.

    Straight White Gentile Male leftists are the most dangerous kind of leftist, as they pay no costs for their naked treason and bring the highest degree of competence.

  47. @Twinkie
    Even when ancient Rome grew from a small town to the capital of a world-historical empire, it was a demographic sink. It grew by sucking populations from the countryside and other regions. In other words, cities are population vampires.

    Back then, it wasn’t just that the cost of living was higher in urban areas. It was that public health in urban areas was atrocious with rampant diseases, poor sanitation, and malnutrition/poor quality of food. That’s also why even cities with huge populations were poor recruiting grounds for soldiery - the people there were typically in bad shape to be warriors, aside from lacking the requisite skills. People were fed better and were in better health in farming areas, and those in border marches and highlands were more robust and tougher, and these were the prime recruiting areas for armies.

    In terms of health and militarily-useful robustness, it’s always been pastoralists>farmers>urban proletariat. In terms of fertility, probably farmers>pastoralists>urban dwellers.

    Excellent points. When the Rashidun kicked out the Byzantines, they actually made deals with certain Christian tribes, like the Jarajima (along the Lebanese mountains), to provide military service for the frontier defense and spying on Byzantine movements in lieu of jizyah. I don’t think they ever offered that deal to city-dwelling Greek bakers or cobblers though…likely because they actually wanted to win wars.

    In other words, cities are population vampires.

    And now that the majority of humans have become city dwellers, this may just explain the incessant fascination with vampires and zombies in our culture.

    Peace.

  48. @Rosie

    Women aren’t as socially brave as men are, generally speaking.
     
    True, though I would also point out that women, by virtue of what we study in college, get more propaganda than men, all else brainwashing wears off eventually, but it takes time.

    True, though I would also point out that women, by virtue of what we study in college, get more propaganda than men, all else brainwashing wears off eventually, but it takes time.

    I believe you are correct. I worry about my daughter, who will be in college in a couple of years. I see her as being, in some ways, more susceptible to such propaganda, which it seems is dispersed as much socially on campuses as academically. As someone who has experienced this, do you have any suggestions on how this might be countered?

    • Replies: @216
    Encourage alternatives to university, or at least less partisan STEM majors.

    Show the benefits of early marriage, there's no shortage of beta male thirst.

    Cut your cable/netflix/etc subscription. Take up deer hunting.
    , @Rosie

    As someone who has experienced this, do you have any suggestions on how this might be countered?
     
    I'm afraid not. For me, it was just a matter of learning the facts, but not everyone loves truth as much as I do. You'll have to rely on your understanding of her as a person.
  49. @J1234

    True, though I would also point out that women, by virtue of what we study in college, get more propaganda than men, all else brainwashing wears off eventually, but it takes time.
     
    I believe you are correct. I worry about my daughter, who will be in college in a couple of years. I see her as being, in some ways, more susceptible to such propaganda, which it seems is dispersed as much socially on campuses as academically. As someone who has experienced this, do you have any suggestions on how this might be countered?

    Encourage alternatives to university, or at least less partisan STEM majors.

    Show the benefits of early marriage, there’s no shortage of beta male thirst.

    Cut your cable/netflix/etc subscription. Take up deer hunting.

    • Replies: @J1234
    Those are good suggestions. We've never had broadcast/cable TV viewing in our house for all the time we've had kids. Only dvd's. I've never been a hunter, but I've taken my daughter shooting a few times. Still, she seems a bit more prone to social influence than my son does. I think she'll be alright, but we need to keep an eye on her.
  50. @216
    The logistics of the A/A spoils system require at least some white (asian) women to benefit from it, otherwise it would lose its support. So even South Africa gave a small amount of preference to white women up until 2011.

    As black women are double beneficiaries, its not surprising that they are so virulently Democrat.

    I'd slow down with the irresponsibility gambit among normies. Millions of people were told "Yale or Jail" for 13 years, and cannot be reasonably expected to have understood that their degrees would be worthless.

    Feryl can explain this better than I can, but Millennials display less anti-social behavior than the previous two cohorts.

    Don’t listen to Charles Murray, or any other aging and clueless moralist or “critic” of modern “liberal” culture. Since the Great Depression, there have been two major spikes in poor behavior: the first happened from about 1967-1980, the second from about 1987-1995. And this “maps” onto generational factors; the first boom in hedonism was caused largely by Boomers, the second boom by Boomers and X-ers.

    The GSS’s FEAR variable shows that the 1970’s and early 1990’s were marked by a palpable fear of criminals.

    Car crash fatalities were extremely high in the 1970’s. The AIDS epidemic was a product of the 70’s (but the full onset of infection symptoms didn’t happen for most until the early 80’s). Child abuse and molesting spiked in the mid-late 70’s, then continued to be at a high level into the 80’s and 90’s, according to researcher David Finkelhor (it’s been declining, usually year over year, since 1993). Likely that the most frequent abusers were late Silents and Boomers, with Gen X-ers and early Millennials the primary victims.

    Boomers have reduced life-spans compared to GIs and Silents. The Lost Generation, which proceeded the GIs, also were a train wreck. It’s too early to judge Gen X-ers, but drinking and drug use has been declining since 1981, with the only real exception to this being the late 90’s for all drugs, and recently pot use has been going up. Gen X-ers had more sex while under-age than any other generation, but once X-ers got older they’ve actually been less promiscuous than Boomers have been during the older stages of life.*

    Silents and Boomers, adjusted for marriage levels, get divorced more frequently than X-ers and Millennials do. While Boomers talk a good game about wanting to put their best foot forward after the 70’s, it’s actually non-preachy X-ers who’ve done better at cleaning up their act.

    *Silents: 1925-1942
    Boomers: 1943-1962
    Gen X: 1963-1980
    Millennials: 1981-1995

    These are rough estimates; there’s no “gold standard” for defining generations, and people born near the border of a generation might be more allied with a neighboring generation. The Late Boomer/Early Gen X region is particularly difficult, though I’ve come to pegging ’63 and ’64ers as X-ers based on the first wave of extreme heavy metal/grungier alternative rock acts being the product of those born from 1963-1967 (Slayer, Metallica, Venom, Tool, Nirvana, Soundgarden, etc.). Also, parents born in 63 and 64 strike me as being very protective of their kids, and very invested in them, whereas parents born before 1963 tend to be a bit more loose with their parenting. Lastly, many people born in the mid- late 60’s had Boomer siblings and friends, so inevitably there’s a lot of over-lap with late Boomers (whereas X-ers born in the 1970’s feel much more distinct from Boomers, just like how people born in the late 90’s feel much different from Millennials born in the 80’s).

  51. @ATBOTL

    (it’s tough to describe how damaging the W years were for the Republican brand in the minds of any millennial with half a brain, and i’m from the South).
     
    Exactly. Dubya style conservatism was real life idiocracy. The fake hick accents, the pro-war Jesus, the cheap labor patriotism, the cholo family values.

    It permanently destroyed conservatism as a brand. Thank God.

    That’s the second term of Bush for ya. Preceding 9/11, Millennials didn’t really care about politics. From 9/12/01 to 2004, late Gen X-ers and Millennials were much more pro-war than older generations. But Bush squandered all this gung-ho sentiment by letting the neo-cons run wild, then he also continued his father’s terrible immigration habits. It didn’t have to be this way. Of course, Silents and Boomers derping about muh family values, muh constitution, muh free market principles etc. were going to kill the GOP’s “brand value” in the eyes of younger people regardless, since younger generations hate GOP cliches.

  52. Speaking of millennials, has there ever been anything gayer than this:

    https://www.usquidditch.org/

    • Replies: @Talha
    OK - I'm sure there are things that are gayer...but not many and I'm struggling to think of one right now.

    Peace.
    , @MikeatMikedotMike
    What do you mean??

    https://www.seattlemag.com/sites/default/files/Nomads_ChrisRothery.jpg

    https://www.dailydot.com/wp-content/uploads/54d/06/27a6304efde58c8d3f26ee407ae4dd95.jpg

    https://www.usquidditch.org/img/uploads/1014715_502472249871133_1612230140_o.jpg

    https://www.usquidditch.org/img/uploads/silicon_valley_quidditch/10298189_680565232015673_3490201508905595545_o.jpg

  53. @Screwtape
    The uniparty or establishment or globalists, take your pick, have doomed both parties for white men and many other men of substandard grievance status.

    The (R) and (D) have both taken up fronts in the war against western civilization. More specifically the war on the men who build and maintain it. They only differ in tactics.

    Much like their positions on immigration; theatrics of conflict project an illusion of opposing sides, while the Progress continues unabated.

    Trump was the first candidate to neither prostrate and apologize (D) or punch down and shame (R).

    The (R) party and their ‘conservative’ or ‘family values’ core focus on men only insofar as upholding traditional male responsibility in the service of the gynocentric prog culture, ie shut up and pay your taxes, ie we need to conserve the future tax cattle and beta draft horses to pull the wagon.

    This is the core of the “cuckservative” or “tradcon” pajorative. And its well earned.

    The (D) party and their increasingly open hostility toward white men and by extension white tradition, marriage, family formation (we are all poly!), and christianity have by design or dumb momentum alienated white men entirely.

    At least the men smart enough to see it. Which is not many, but growing lockstep with the increasingly fringe coalition driving the party.

    A growing number of young white men have seen their youthful idealism crushed by the totem of identity politics and the feminist-marxist hammer and anvil that drives the left.

    And they have found no allies in their “old white” republican representatives, who claim to be the custodians of their culture, but instead only slow the rot down to extract moar profit.

    The only fight is over who gets control of the treasure aka debt levers. Millennials are the first gen to get a small part of the bill for the greatest pump and dump in history, eg college debt and disappearing middle class careers.

    The (R) party seemed fit to ignore the truth and instead treat their symptoms with conversion therapy. Preaching the old set of books while ignoring that the market values none that; chest thumping about their own greatness; and shaming them into submission (man up and marry that slut) while leaving the evil elephant in the room to do its thing.

    For a long while now, arguably the entire lives of the millennials, hating white men - including all they have touched throughout (revisionist) history, has been a pro-status position in our progressive gynocentric culture.

    Progress, ushered in by both parties has left young men behind. The broken families, cultural disenfranchisement, atomizing and alienating social and economic costs of affirmative action and other codified demonization of men has produced too many ill effects to list. So we get to choose: take a knee and pay tribute for our toxic masculinity (D); or take up the dusty traditions, become an incel who gets stuck with the bill.

    Trump is a lame ass new york liberal scumbag developer and egomaniac celebrity who came of age in one of the greatest periods of exonomic expansion in history. But he spoke unapologetically and with enough zfg and truthspeak and simple ackowledgement that unbridled immigration is maybe not so great.

    Maga worked for me; reminded me a bit of Reagan era when I was a wee lad. But appeal to nostalgia doesnt really stick for millennials. The indoctrination was too much; the USA was never great in their memory. Obama was their guy.

    For me, trump was least likely to want me dead or enslaved on his watch and he was the ONLY one that could slow the white genocide.

    So he got my vote. Most men still don’t get it though. The war has already started. You go to war with the army you have not the one you want. Until democracy dies, this pile of shit is my general.

    As for women, the prog status wins the day until they meet a man with the stones to knock her off her high horse. Hating men and all that we touch is in vogue. Trump is too much man for the single birds. And their daddies are mostly either ponytails or cucks. The fact that trump is too gritty smarmy alpha for them shows just how rare masculinity at-large is at this point. Sad.

    As for other men who hope for a socialist trap door (bernie) or that doing more chores and wearing their ‘this is what feminism looks like’ t shirt will get them pussy, well good luck with that. See you down range faggots.

    “Trump is a lame ass new york liberal scumbag developer and egomaniac celebrity who came of age in one of the greatest periods of exonomic expansion in history. But he spoke unapologetically and with enough zfg and truthspeak and simple ackowledgement that unbridled immigration is maybe not so great.”

    Trump never cared about inane cultural issues, one way or the other (he’d accept abortion, or gay rights, or whatever, in the name of going along to get along). In the 1990’s-2015, Trump criticized our foreign policy on pragmatic grounds (let’s top subsidizing all this middle Eastern horseshit). He also criticized our financial policies for benefiting the Wall Street stockmarket at the expense of good fundamentals (which he himself understood in the sense that he never put too much into stock market plays himself). Not that many people cared about immigration in the 80’s or 90’s, and neither did Trump until he started listening to talk radio in the 2010’s (Trump, as per his business background, was researching what pitch would resonate with GOP voters, and unlike a standard corrupt era politician he wasn’t going to be nervous about blaspheming the orthodoxy of either party).

    So what happened to Trump? Simple. Politics is about coalitions of aligned interests reaching a consensus position on an issue. Since Trump never had any extensive involvement in government affairs prior to reaching office, he had no clout and no real political network. Being supported by 1/2 the population is enough to stop you from being disowned and impeached by your party, but it’s of little use when it comes to the process of being a member in good standing of a given coalition. Since the modern military lobby, agribusiness, the timber industry, the oil industry etc. have no use for Trump’s unusually progressive stances on trade, immigration, war, etc. it therefore follows that Trump would find himself an outsider with no ability to bend these powerful coalitions towards policy positions that would benefit commoners. Trump could either remain an outsider, like proto-neoliberal Carter, and be frozen out like Carter was by the New Deal Democrats in the 70’s and very early 80’s. Or Trump could downplay his irreverent policies in order to conform to the prevailing orthodoxy preferred by his party’s Reaganite coalition. And that’s what Trump has largely done, although he still pisses off GOP elites from time to time, mainly on the foreign policy front (naturally, the single worst thing about the post-New Deal GOP, military over-reach, is also the thing that the GOP is most protective of). So too did Carter manage to “over-rule” old-school Democrats by successfully championing a few bits of anti-labor legislation, like the de-regulation of the trucking and airline industry. Carter was destined to be an divisive and ineffective president, and Trump is as well. One big difference, though, is that in 1980 America was sufficiently egalitarian that both Democrats and Republicans could freely express frustration with Carter, and neither side felt particularly inspired to take a bullet for any politician or party. Compare that to 2015-2019, when a lot of liberals stand by Obama against any sense of integrity or ethical judgement, while lots of conservatives insist on standing by Trump when Trump has done little to earn this loyalty. Most surreal of all is to see war criminal and deficit grower GW Bush get praised by “liberals” recently. In eras of fairly low corruption (like the 1940’s-1980’s), people tend to not believe in obnoxious fervor.

    “Maga worked for me; reminded me a bit of Reagan era when I was a wee lad. But appeal to nostalgia doesnt really stick for millennials. The indoctrination was too much; the USA was never great in their memory. Obama was their guy. ”

    Millennials find “their guy”, get disappointed, then start looking again. Gen X-ers tend to not even bother. Boomers tend to have a strongly partisan identity, and only very recently have some of them started to change their sense of loyalty, because both parties now evidently suck so much.

    I would argue that Reagan nostalgia is strongest for Silents, and for early Gen X-ers who saw Red Dawn when they were in Junior or Senior high school. None of the Boomer presidents thus far have inspired respect from the Left and the Right, anywhere on the generational spectrum. The 1990’s and following decades have all given rise to the sentiment that we no longer have adults in charge anymore. It’s easy to feel good about the 80’s, because that was the last decade where most of our leaders were pre-Boomers, and the last decade where most Americans felt any sense of kinship with each other (I would argue that increased immigration, and the individualism of Boomers, badly corroded our communities and institutions)

    • Replies: @Screwtape
    Astute assessment. The reality of the political landscape reveals the massive headwind for maga. As well as the multitude of reasons why voting out of this is not going to happen.

    Yes, I am of the “..because we live here.” Red dawn generation. Admittedly, this means my own idealism paints me into a bit of a corner at times.

    Much of the gen x angst - and then indifference, spawns from knowing what was, and thus what was possible, and then watching what was get demonized and destroyed in the name of progress, and what was possible get killed in the crib while we were forced to watch.

    At times I envy the millennials for their ignorance of such. So I have those moments where i am tempted to ask agent Smith to plug me back in, just as long as I don’t remember anything.
  54. @Audacious Epigone
    Personnel is policy, as they say. Trump clearly isn't ideological or philosophically studious. It's understandable that he had little idea as to who his enemies (nearly all Ds and many Rs), frenemies (most Rs), and genuine friends were as he assumed office. What he should've done is pulled someone in who would've been able to put together a great roster for him. The most obvious person for this role would've been Pat Buchanan. It's really a shame Trump didn't reach out to him in November or December of 2016.

    The Pentagon proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, to be the key player in the post-1981 GOP by installing a massive “firewall” of generals in Trump’s cabinet (by some estimates, it’s the most military dominated cabinet of all time). Remember that in the 1950’s-1970’s, the military was much less partisan and indeed Southern Democrats were often vehement anti-communists, with Texan LBJ being a much more reliable “fighter of communism” than JFK ever could be (JFK came from the Northern ethnic urban wing of the New Deal Dems, not the Scots-Irish Southern warrior wing). From this standpoint, Buchanan as featured player would’ve provoked a massive revolt from the now monolithically pro-GOP Pentagon. If Buchanan had somehow remained, and he and Trump made good on isolationism, then the Pentagon may have made a massive realignment toward the Dems.

    But since the Pentagon has proven to be as bad as, or worse then, any other institution of the last 37 years, it’s really no great loss for a party to be rid of the Pentagon. America did just fine in the 1950’s-1970’s, when Eisenhower warned of giving the “defense” industry too much clout, and Nixon earned high approval for scaling down the Vietnam fiasco. Beginning with Reagan, the Pentagon has gained higher and higher budgets with less and less accountability (though the remaining Democrats of sound mind were able, in the 1990’s, to get revenge on the Pentagon for having supported Reagan, which they did by slashing the Pentagon’s budget).

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  55. more fool they,

    and most of you:

    Trump just signed the (((Pelosi))) budget. The 5 poison pills therein

    effectively legalize 30,000,000 illegals and invite in tens of millions of new ones.

    then he had the chutzpah to declare a “national emergency”

    about a border he just vaporized.

    suckers

  56. @J1234

    True, though I would also point out that women, by virtue of what we study in college, get more propaganda than men, all else brainwashing wears off eventually, but it takes time.
     
    I believe you are correct. I worry about my daughter, who will be in college in a couple of years. I see her as being, in some ways, more susceptible to such propaganda, which it seems is dispersed as much socially on campuses as academically. As someone who has experienced this, do you have any suggestions on how this might be countered?

    As someone who has experienced this, do you have any suggestions on how this might be countered?

    I’m afraid not. For me, it was just a matter of learning the facts, but not everyone loves truth as much as I do. You’ll have to rely on your understanding of her as a person.

  57. @Stan d Mute
    Speaking of millennials, has there ever been anything gayer than this:

    https://www.usquidditch.org/

    OK – I’m sure there are things that are gayer…but not many and I’m struggling to think of one right now.

    Peace.

  58. @iffen
    OT

    It appears to me that "our" Manchu Kamala has run into some major problems on the shoals of being "black enough." Privy to any data or polling that indicate that she may have problems turning out the base?

    I recently viewed an hilarious video by a black man who seemed to be a comedian (I didn’t get his name). He said that blacks will never support Kamala once they find out she is married to a white man (a Jew at that). Blacks of either sex don’t go for race traitors. He mentioned that Obama was smart to think ahead on his choice of a marital partner. The Dems cannot win without an overwhelming black vote. Something for the donkeys to think about.

    • Replies: @Talha
    Yay! And she has no kids of her own. Wow - another liberal, childless woman with less incentive to have skin in the game for the future to run another key country!

    What could possibly go wrong?

    Peace.
    , @Marty T
    The fact that three black females were living in the white house was the major factor in black women's enthusiasm for Obama.
  59. @WorkingClass
    ".....unthinkable when Dubya, Romney, or McCain were the parties’ standard-bearers."

    I am not now nor have I ever been a Republican. I am a Deplorable. A Nationalist. I'm curious. How many Deplorables are registered Republicans? For me, the beauty of Trump's electoral victory is that he defeated both parties. Is the GOP a Nationalist Party? I think not. If it was I would sign up.

    I much prefer Candidate Trump to President Trump but I prefer President Trump to his enemies, many of whom are Republicans. I am a native born white American working class male. Born 1944.

    Welcome to The Unz Review. I read your contributions with interest.

    I remain a registered Democrat for one reason only: the GOP is owned lock, stock, and barrel by AIPAC. Marco Rubio’s disastrous and unconstitutional anti-DBS resolution demonstrated that in no uncertain terms. I saw some of the GOP House members, in session last night, speaking in glowing support of that bill, and it almost made me physically sick – just as it made me sick when they gave Netanyahu 29 standing ovations when they allowed him to speak in the people’s house. How much longer can the GOP get away with this and still remain a viable party?

    Even though I would probably disagree with her on nearly everything, I applaud Rep. Omar for having the courage to speak Truth to Power. No Republican would ever go there.

  60. @Stan d Mute
    Speaking of millennials, has there ever been anything gayer than this:

    https://www.usquidditch.org/

    What do you mean??

    • Replies: @Talha
    If studies came out that running around holding a broom at your crotch could permanently damage your ability to have kids, do you think that would increase or decrease the number of participants?

    Peace.
    , @Tyrion 2
    If they need to play at wizards from a story that originally won the Smartie's Award for 5 to 8 years olds, at least they are exercising!
    , @Stan d Mute
    I’m shocked that their parents allow them to do this, a special snowflake could lose an eye to one of those crotch sticks.

    Why haven’t any of our millennials chirped in to defend their generation’s sport? (crickets...)

    Boomers had WWF wrestling. Our generation had UFC. Millennials have quidditch. Boomers had flower power and Joan Baez. Our generation had death metal and grunge. Millennials have Justin Bieber and Stitches. I’m on the verge of noticing something here..
  61. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    I mean... you have to be completely braindead to be a young white guy in Ontario and not be some kind of nationalist. (There are many stupid whites).

    I only know one guy who's getting married, but he's a rock solid Christian conservative (not a Zionist Christian cuck).

    Now that cultural and material fulfillment is being ripped away from White men, I hope they wake up and realize that the trio of marriage, family and God is the true path. It's either that or suicide (literal or spiritual). As I've said before, I'm optimistic on the subject. Many white guys are looking for relationships, while the brown masses are increasingly blinded by materialism and "clout".

    I am more worried about the current crop of high schoolers, though, who were raised in the degeneracy of rap music and the first group to really be forced to integrate with non-whites in schools. There is a BIG difference between 1990-2000 kids and then 2000 onwards.

    But then again, it's not like the 2000s kids are the only generation to take part in teenage degeneracy. Fingers crossed.

    Rap seemed bigger in the 90s when I was in high school.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    The 1990's were the peak of black culture being popularized. Baggy clothes, Rap, and the NBA were all hugely popular. In the NFL, by the mid-90's there were virtually no white receivers or tail-backs left, aside from a tiny handful of exceptions (Mike Alstott, Wayne Chrebet, Ed McCaffrey, and so forth). It's mainly Generation X that was responsible for this, not Boomers (too old) or Millennials (too young). The 80's had a taste of this too, but at least Micheal Jackson sang, and pro sports were still whiter back then.
  62. @WorkingClass
    My big problem with Trump is that he campaigned on "America First" but his foreign policy is Israel First. And I hold him responsible for war crimes in Yemen, ongoing coup attempt in Venezuela and reigniting the Cold War with Russia. I seldom criticize Trump because I have no answer if you ask me which candidate do I prefer. Until something better comes along I will remain Deplorable. If I have the opportunity I will vote for Gabbard in the Dem Primary. But I can't imagine voting blue in the general election.

    Trump is no Regan and Regan is no Goldwater. A third of me is Libertarian. But the other two thirds is old fashioned Capital vs. Labor lefty. Also peacenik and anti imperialist. I served under Johnson and voted for McGovern. I supported Nader and Kucinich. I voted for Johnson, and Perot. I Admired Buchannan's retail politics but before the right lost the culture war I was on the other side. I thought the left would stop at abortion and gay marriage. I was wrong.

    The left NEVER stops.

  63. @follyofwar
    I recently viewed an hilarious video by a black man who seemed to be a comedian (I didn't get his name). He said that blacks will never support Kamala once they find out she is married to a white man (a Jew at that). Blacks of either sex don't go for race traitors. He mentioned that Obama was smart to think ahead on his choice of a marital partner. The Dems cannot win without an overwhelming black vote. Something for the donkeys to think about.

    Yay! And she has no kids of her own. Wow – another liberal, childless woman with less incentive to have skin in the game for the future to run another key country!

    What could possibly go wrong?

    Peace.

  64. @follyofwar
    I recently viewed an hilarious video by a black man who seemed to be a comedian (I didn't get his name). He said that blacks will never support Kamala once they find out she is married to a white man (a Jew at that). Blacks of either sex don't go for race traitors. He mentioned that Obama was smart to think ahead on his choice of a marital partner. The Dems cannot win without an overwhelming black vote. Something for the donkeys to think about.

    The fact that three black females were living in the white house was the major factor in black women’s enthusiasm for Obama.

  65. @MikeatMikedotMike
    What do you mean??

    https://www.seattlemag.com/sites/default/files/Nomads_ChrisRothery.jpg

    https://www.dailydot.com/wp-content/uploads/54d/06/27a6304efde58c8d3f26ee407ae4dd95.jpg

    https://www.usquidditch.org/img/uploads/1014715_502472249871133_1612230140_o.jpg

    https://www.usquidditch.org/img/uploads/silicon_valley_quidditch/10298189_680565232015673_3490201508905595545_o.jpg

    If studies came out that running around holding a broom at your crotch could permanently damage your ability to have kids, do you think that would increase or decrease the number of participants?

    Peace.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    Well, it didn't stop people from riding bicycles.
  66. @Twinkie

    Another thing that I’ve noticed is that women who are largely apathetic to politics will just go along with whatever their husbands support
     
    True. But there is a flip side of that coin. Wives tend to moderate abstract obsessions and fixations of their husbands with pragmatism (“Will this be helpful to my household finances and children’s schooling?”).

    This is like the differences in what the sexes mean when they tell each other to “grow up”.

    Another interesting assymetric definition is “b*tch” as in “stop being such a b*tch”. This has wonderfully different and revealing meanings when used by man to wife and woman to husband etc.

  67. @MikeatMikedotMike
    What do you mean??

    https://www.seattlemag.com/sites/default/files/Nomads_ChrisRothery.jpg

    https://www.dailydot.com/wp-content/uploads/54d/06/27a6304efde58c8d3f26ee407ae4dd95.jpg

    https://www.usquidditch.org/img/uploads/1014715_502472249871133_1612230140_o.jpg

    https://www.usquidditch.org/img/uploads/silicon_valley_quidditch/10298189_680565232015673_3490201508905595545_o.jpg

    If they need to play at wizards from a story that originally won the Smartie’s Award for 5 to 8 years olds, at least they are exercising!

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    Having never read more than the first part of the first book (to give it a shot), I have a pet tinfoil theory that Harry Potter is responsible for SJWism somehow.

    It seems that all of these people read it when young, often again when older, and love it. Perhaps those much-reported-on Evangelicals who wanted to ban it for Satanism were right? Perhaps the story has such emotional pull in young minds that they become enmeshed in its logic which I assume is some sort of SJW labrynth?

    I also stopped watching the first movie after five minutes, perhaps because it was a low quality pirated copy, but it seemed awful.

    Is Harry Potter the blue pill?
  68. @Tyrion 2
    If they need to play at wizards from a story that originally won the Smartie's Award for 5 to 8 years olds, at least they are exercising!

    Having never read more than the first part of the first book (to give it a shot), I have a pet tinfoil theory that Harry Potter is responsible for SJWism somehow.

    It seems that all of these people read it when young, often again when older, and love it. Perhaps those much-reported-on Evangelicals who wanted to ban it for Satanism were right? Perhaps the story has such emotional pull in young minds that they become enmeshed in its logic which I assume is some sort of SJW labrynth?

    I also stopped watching the first movie after five minutes, perhaps because it was a low quality pirated copy, but it seemed awful.

    Is Harry Potter the blue pill?

    • Replies: @Stan d Mute

    Is Harry Potter the blue pill?
     
    Anecdotally, it’s a test of mental retardation anyway. I read all the books (and saw all the films) largely because of kids in the right age range. My brother-in-law didn’t read them but listened to them on CD. Quoting BiL, “Harry Potter was written for grownups unlike Lord of the Rings which was written for children.” BiL is a unique character, not entirely representative of but definitely adhering to the SJW theology. Actually, on second thought, he may be the SJW archetype. But Hairy Pothead didn’t make him that way, for him it was congenital.

    This segues into another pro-tip for our young Canuck friend and others in search of a mate. My BiL is, without question, the biggest piece of shit ever conceived by humanity. Given the circumstances of my birth and upbringing, the characters I’ve met along the way, that’s quite a distinction I bestow upon him. Anyway, since Mrs Mute was raised alongside such a contemptible figure, anything that I could ever do or say shines like a diamond in comparison. It also excuses me from nearly all contact with my in-laws since I would understandably beat the shitbag senseless if ever confined in the same room with him. Thus even a misanthropist (and according to Rosie a misogynist) such as myself can score and keep a hot ex-model broad with ease.
    , @MikeatMikedotMike
    The books got better, and darker, as they went. Whatshername actually developed some fairly complex sub-plots throughout the second half of the series. Characters are likable and she gets better at inserting relative situations that are humorous.

    As far as the overall theme, I think the authoress' (WTF is her name?? I can't remember) original intentions were much less social justice driven than she would ever admit now (although the major groups within the story could be classified as British Allies vs. Nazis with Jews as the unsuspecting victims caught between the struggle,) seeing as how the SJW racket co-opted her books as holy progressive scripture. For example, there is an entire sub-plot spanning several books involving the massive enslavement of a race of magical creatures who are indentured to the magic school that is the central location of the series. While the Granger character is intent on righting this perceived injustice, no other character in the books shows any concern for this arrangement and the creatures themselves seem perfectly content.

    The biggest problem with the books is that the protagonist is never required to make tough decisions, (he makes it through all books without ever killing a single person) and that diminishes his character. He's certainly not a mary sue , but he's more of a Rey than a Luke Skywalker.
    , @Rosie

    Having never read more than the first part of the first book (to give it a shot), I have a pet tinfoil theory that Harry Potter is responsible for SJWism somehow.
     
    That series started out as a promising (and charming) fantasy adventure and turned into the most shameless, ham-handed political propaganda I have ever seen.
  69. @Tyrion 2
    Having never read more than the first part of the first book (to give it a shot), I have a pet tinfoil theory that Harry Potter is responsible for SJWism somehow.

    It seems that all of these people read it when young, often again when older, and love it. Perhaps those much-reported-on Evangelicals who wanted to ban it for Satanism were right? Perhaps the story has such emotional pull in young minds that they become enmeshed in its logic which I assume is some sort of SJW labrynth?

    I also stopped watching the first movie after five minutes, perhaps because it was a low quality pirated copy, but it seemed awful.

    Is Harry Potter the blue pill?

    Is Harry Potter the blue pill?

    Anecdotally, it’s a test of mental retardation anyway. I read all the books (and saw all the films) largely because of kids in the right age range. My brother-in-law didn’t read them but listened to them on CD. Quoting BiL, “Harry Potter was written for grownups unlike Lord of the Rings which was written for children.” BiL is a unique character, not entirely representative of but definitely adhering to the SJW theology. Actually, on second thought, he may be the SJW archetype. But Hairy Pothead didn’t make him that way, for him it was congenital.

    This segues into another pro-tip for our young Canuck friend and others in search of a mate. My BiL is, without question, the biggest piece of shit ever conceived by humanity. Given the circumstances of my birth and upbringing, the characters I’ve met along the way, that’s quite a distinction I bestow upon him. Anyway, since Mrs Mute was raised alongside such a contemptible figure, anything that I could ever do or say shines like a diamond in comparison. It also excuses me from nearly all contact with my in-laws since I would understandably beat the shitbag senseless if ever confined in the same room with him. Thus even a misanthropist (and according to Rosie a misogynist) such as myself can score and keep a hot ex-model broad with ease.

  70. @MikeatMikedotMike
    What do you mean??

    https://www.seattlemag.com/sites/default/files/Nomads_ChrisRothery.jpg

    https://www.dailydot.com/wp-content/uploads/54d/06/27a6304efde58c8d3f26ee407ae4dd95.jpg

    https://www.usquidditch.org/img/uploads/1014715_502472249871133_1612230140_o.jpg

    https://www.usquidditch.org/img/uploads/silicon_valley_quidditch/10298189_680565232015673_3490201508905595545_o.jpg

    I’m shocked that their parents allow them to do this, a special snowflake could lose an eye to one of those crotch sticks.

    Why haven’t any of our millennials chirped in to defend their generation’s sport? (crickets…)

    Boomers had WWF wrestling. Our generation had UFC. Millennials have quidditch. Boomers had flower power and Joan Baez. Our generation had death metal and grunge. Millennials have Justin Bieber and Stitches. I’m on the verge of noticing something here..

  71. @Talha
    If studies came out that running around holding a broom at your crotch could permanently damage your ability to have kids, do you think that would increase or decrease the number of participants?

    Peace.

    Well, it didn’t stop people from riding bicycles.

  72. @Tyrion 2
    Having never read more than the first part of the first book (to give it a shot), I have a pet tinfoil theory that Harry Potter is responsible for SJWism somehow.

    It seems that all of these people read it when young, often again when older, and love it. Perhaps those much-reported-on Evangelicals who wanted to ban it for Satanism were right? Perhaps the story has such emotional pull in young minds that they become enmeshed in its logic which I assume is some sort of SJW labrynth?

    I also stopped watching the first movie after five minutes, perhaps because it was a low quality pirated copy, but it seemed awful.

    Is Harry Potter the blue pill?

    The books got better, and darker, as they went. Whatshername actually developed some fairly complex sub-plots throughout the second half of the series. Characters are likable and she gets better at inserting relative situations that are humorous.

    As far as the overall theme, I think the authoress’ (WTF is her name?? I can’t remember) original intentions were much less social justice driven than she would ever admit now (although the major groups within the story could be classified as British Allies vs. Nazis with Jews as the unsuspecting victims caught between the struggle,) seeing as how the SJW racket co-opted her books as holy progressive scripture. For example, there is an entire sub-plot spanning several books involving the massive enslavement of a race of magical creatures who are indentured to the magic school that is the central location of the series. While the Granger character is intent on righting this perceived injustice, no other character in the books shows any concern for this arrangement and the creatures themselves seem perfectly content.

    The biggest problem with the books is that the protagonist is never required to make tough decisions, (he makes it through all books without ever killing a single person) and that diminishes his character. He’s certainly not a mary sue , but he’s more of a Rey than a Luke Skywalker.

  73. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    I mean... you have to be completely braindead to be a young white guy in Ontario and not be some kind of nationalist. (There are many stupid whites).

    I only know one guy who's getting married, but he's a rock solid Christian conservative (not a Zionist Christian cuck).

    Now that cultural and material fulfillment is being ripped away from White men, I hope they wake up and realize that the trio of marriage, family and God is the true path. It's either that or suicide (literal or spiritual). As I've said before, I'm optimistic on the subject. Many white guys are looking for relationships, while the brown masses are increasingly blinded by materialism and "clout".

    I am more worried about the current crop of high schoolers, though, who were raised in the degeneracy of rap music and the first group to really be forced to integrate with non-whites in schools. There is a BIG difference between 1990-2000 kids and then 2000 onwards.

    But then again, it's not like the 2000s kids are the only generation to take part in teenage degeneracy. Fingers crossed.

    Many of those child molesters and serial killers of the 70’s and 80’s were born in the 30’s and 40’s, so they had no exposure to graphically violent or sexualized pop culture when they were teens.

    I wouldn’t lose sleep over what the kids are up to these days. What the older generations allow on the TV or radio has minimal effect on socialization; peer groups are the primary influence on people. The GI Generation’s wholesome culture ended up just bouncing off Silents and Boomers, just like how the Silent Generation’s sappy 60’s and 70’s culture ended up bouncing off late Boomers and Gen X-ers. The nihilistic culture preferred by Gen X-ers in the 90’s and 2000’s has had minimal influence on Millennials.

  74. @Achmed E. Newman
    I absolutely abhor agreeing with the Socialist Dick Bandit, but that was indeed a great comment, Screwtape. However, this "general we have" is losing all the important battles and should be replaced by a Nathan Bedford Forrest, or a Swamp Fox.

    George washington lost at least theee major battles before he was able to secure a victory.

    I’m trying to grasp for a silver lining in the dark clouds over Trump, but yes, he looks to be maneuvering toward the status quo.

    The thing is, he is surrounded by enemies. He has no true side from which he can direct his forces.

    Did he underestimate the landscape? Probably. Did his base? Probably.

    He got his mandate at the ballot box and has done some good things, some mediocre thkngs, and some bad things along the way.

    But what did all of those voters do after they pulled the lever?

    How many scattered back into the shadows because “pussy grabber”?

    How many were unwilling to risk a hit to their social status as granted by the Prog death cult, so they held their tongues and let the darkness creep?

    How many are willing to step into the parent teacher conference, the church, the little league game, the boy scout troop and speak the truth? To step into the overton themselves, to drain the swamps in their own back yards?

    How many are looking for a proxy to joust for their honor in the dc swamp while they let their wives emasculate them in their own kitchens?

    The war is not just decided by a man in the DC swamp.

    We are in a culture war, one we have been losing – nay, may have already lost.

    No one general is going to take down a hundred years of rot without pitchforks and torches in every town square.

    What I hoped for was an awakening in the everyman. That Trump would embolden men to take up arms in their own homes and communities; a bottom up groundswell.

    Eh. A man can dream.

    Some think the ‘next Trump’ will actually be a literally hitler. I doubt it.

    The entropy of the left is accelerating, however, and this is a good thing i think. But I don’t see us being able to choose our next general.

    • Replies: @Talha

    ‘next Trump’ will actually be a literally hitler
     
    Oh the hyperbole that the Left employs to score points.

    Nah man, if the next homie is going to be doing the necessary ritual at the wall, then that is a laughable charge (for a guy who publicly stated he doesn’t ask God for forgiveness, he seems pretty penitent in that particular context):
    https://www.jewishnews.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/IMG_0771.jpg

    Now if there is a guy elected who says; “ain’t gonna do it” - then maybe we can start the “Hitler” discussion. Otherwise...the hand on the wall, says it all.

    Peace.
  75. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    I mean... you have to be completely braindead to be a young white guy in Ontario and not be some kind of nationalist. (There are many stupid whites).

    I only know one guy who's getting married, but he's a rock solid Christian conservative (not a Zionist Christian cuck).

    Now that cultural and material fulfillment is being ripped away from White men, I hope they wake up and realize that the trio of marriage, family and God is the true path. It's either that or suicide (literal or spiritual). As I've said before, I'm optimistic on the subject. Many white guys are looking for relationships, while the brown masses are increasingly blinded by materialism and "clout".

    I am more worried about the current crop of high schoolers, though, who were raised in the degeneracy of rap music and the first group to really be forced to integrate with non-whites in schools. There is a BIG difference between 1990-2000 kids and then 2000 onwards.

    But then again, it's not like the 2000s kids are the only generation to take part in teenage degeneracy. Fingers crossed.

    Jon Haidt and several others say that those born after 1995 appear to be substantially different than older generations. “Gen Z” is much politically correct, neurotic, inexperienced with sex and violence, and uncomfortable with “normal” social interaction (face to face communication) than previous generations. Haidt says that the girls in particular are a psychological mess because they’ve grown up with social media during their entire adolescence.

    Stan D and others need to take note that many of the derogatory things said about Millennials have only been popularized in the last 5 or so years. Why? Because Gen Z began going to college during this time. In other words, stop criticizing Millennials who are not the whiny pansy generation born after 1995. I was born in 1985; when my generation was going to college in the mid-2000’s, I don’t remember any controversies about trigger warnings (in fact, when I was teenager it was well understood that the early 90’s were the period when everyone acted like a PC pansy, what with Kurt Cobain “wishing” that he were gay and all the 80’s rock stars being shamed as overly macho poon hounds. Furthermore, people born in the 80’s were the last generation to be significantly exposed to second hand smoke, domestic violence, sky high levels of street crime, and so forth. Of course, once people born in the 80’s grew up they defiantly rejected the danger and nihilism created by young Boomers and X-ers. People born in the 80’s and early 90’s are reasonably good natured and well-adjusted. Lay off us.

  76. @Big Dick Bandit
    this is probably the best comment left at Unz or Heartiste or Ace in the last 5 years.

    I am flattered and grateful that you were willing to overlook my hyperbole and crass lingo to extract the worthy.

    Single malt rants are a precarious thing.

  77. @Marty T
    Rap seemed bigger in the 90s when I was in high school.

    The 1990’s were the peak of black culture being popularized. Baggy clothes, Rap, and the NBA were all hugely popular. In the NFL, by the mid-90’s there were virtually no white receivers or tail-backs left, aside from a tiny handful of exceptions (Mike Alstott, Wayne Chrebet, Ed McCaffrey, and so forth). It’s mainly Generation X that was responsible for this, not Boomers (too old) or Millennials (too young). The 80’s had a taste of this too, but at least Micheal Jackson sang, and pro sports were still whiter back then.

  78. @Feryl
    "Trump is a lame ass new york liberal scumbag developer and egomaniac celebrity who came of age in one of the greatest periods of exonomic expansion in history. But he spoke unapologetically and with enough zfg and truthspeak and simple ackowledgement that unbridled immigration is maybe not so great."

    Trump never cared about inane cultural issues, one way or the other (he'd accept abortion, or gay rights, or whatever, in the name of going along to get along). In the 1990's-2015, Trump criticized our foreign policy on pragmatic grounds (let's top subsidizing all this middle Eastern horseshit). He also criticized our financial policies for benefiting the Wall Street stockmarket at the expense of good fundamentals (which he himself understood in the sense that he never put too much into stock market plays himself). Not that many people cared about immigration in the 80's or 90's, and neither did Trump until he started listening to talk radio in the 2010's (Trump, as per his business background, was researching what pitch would resonate with GOP voters, and unlike a standard corrupt era politician he wasn't going to be nervous about blaspheming the orthodoxy of either party).

    So what happened to Trump? Simple. Politics is about coalitions of aligned interests reaching a consensus position on an issue. Since Trump never had any extensive involvement in government affairs prior to reaching office, he had no clout and no real political network. Being supported by 1/2 the population is enough to stop you from being disowned and impeached by your party, but it's of little use when it comes to the process of being a member in good standing of a given coalition. Since the modern military lobby, agribusiness, the timber industry, the oil industry etc. have no use for Trump's unusually progressive stances on trade, immigration, war, etc. it therefore follows that Trump would find himself an outsider with no ability to bend these powerful coalitions towards policy positions that would benefit commoners. Trump could either remain an outsider, like proto-neoliberal Carter, and be frozen out like Carter was by the New Deal Democrats in the 70's and very early 80's. Or Trump could downplay his irreverent policies in order to conform to the prevailing orthodoxy preferred by his party's Reaganite coalition. And that's what Trump has largely done, although he still pisses off GOP elites from time to time, mainly on the foreign policy front (naturally, the single worst thing about the post-New Deal GOP, military over-reach, is also the thing that the GOP is most protective of). So too did Carter manage to "over-rule" old-school Democrats by successfully championing a few bits of anti-labor legislation, like the de-regulation of the trucking and airline industry. Carter was destined to be an divisive and ineffective president, and Trump is as well. One big difference, though, is that in 1980 America was sufficiently egalitarian that both Democrats and Republicans could freely express frustration with Carter, and neither side felt particularly inspired to take a bullet for any politician or party. Compare that to 2015-2019, when a lot of liberals stand by Obama against any sense of integrity or ethical judgement, while lots of conservatives insist on standing by Trump when Trump has done little to earn this loyalty. Most surreal of all is to see war criminal and deficit grower GW Bush get praised by "liberals" recently. In eras of fairly low corruption (like the 1940's-1980's), people tend to not believe in obnoxious fervor.

    "Maga worked for me; reminded me a bit of Reagan era when I was a wee lad. But appeal to nostalgia doesnt really stick for millennials. The indoctrination was too much; the USA was never great in their memory. Obama was their guy. "

    Millennials find "their guy", get disappointed, then start looking again. Gen X-ers tend to not even bother. Boomers tend to have a strongly partisan identity, and only very recently have some of them started to change their sense of loyalty, because both parties now evidently suck so much.

    I would argue that Reagan nostalgia is strongest for Silents, and for early Gen X-ers who saw Red Dawn when they were in Junior or Senior high school. None of the Boomer presidents thus far have inspired respect from the Left and the Right, anywhere on the generational spectrum. The 1990's and following decades have all given rise to the sentiment that we no longer have adults in charge anymore. It's easy to feel good about the 80's, because that was the last decade where most of our leaders were pre-Boomers, and the last decade where most Americans felt any sense of kinship with each other (I would argue that increased immigration, and the individualism of Boomers, badly corroded our communities and institutions)

    Astute assessment. The reality of the political landscape reveals the massive headwind for maga. As well as the multitude of reasons why voting out of this is not going to happen.

    Yes, I am of the “..because we live here.” Red dawn generation. Admittedly, this means my own idealism paints me into a bit of a corner at times.

    Much of the gen x angst – and then indifference, spawns from knowing what was, and thus what was possible, and then watching what was get demonized and destroyed in the name of progress, and what was possible get killed in the crib while we were forced to watch.

    At times I envy the millennials for their ignorance of such. So I have those moments where i am tempted to ask agent Smith to plug me back in, just as long as I don’t remember anything.

  79. @Screwtape
    George washington lost at least theee major battles before he was able to secure a victory.

    I’m trying to grasp for a silver lining in the dark clouds over Trump, but yes, he looks to be maneuvering toward the status quo.

    The thing is, he is surrounded by enemies. He has no true side from which he can direct his forces.

    Did he underestimate the landscape? Probably. Did his base? Probably.

    He got his mandate at the ballot box and has done some good things, some mediocre thkngs, and some bad things along the way.

    But what did all of those voters do after they pulled the lever?

    How many scattered back into the shadows because “pussy grabber”?

    How many were unwilling to risk a hit to their social status as granted by the Prog death cult, so they held their tongues and let the darkness creep?

    How many are willing to step into the parent teacher conference, the church, the little league game, the boy scout troop and speak the truth? To step into the overton themselves, to drain the swamps in their own back yards?

    How many are looking for a proxy to joust for their honor in the dc swamp while they let their wives emasculate them in their own kitchens?

    The war is not just decided by a man in the DC swamp.

    We are in a culture war, one we have been losing - nay, may have already lost.

    No one general is going to take down a hundred years of rot without pitchforks and torches in every town square.

    What I hoped for was an awakening in the everyman. That Trump would embolden men to take up arms in their own homes and communities; a bottom up groundswell.

    Eh. A man can dream.

    Some think the ‘next Trump’ will actually be a literally hitler. I doubt it.

    The entropy of the left is accelerating, however, and this is a good thing i think. But I don’t see us being able to choose our next general.

    ‘next Trump’ will actually be a literally hitler

    Oh the hyperbole that the Left employs to score points.

    Nah man, if the next homie is going to be doing the necessary ritual at the wall, then that is a laughable charge (for a guy who publicly stated he doesn’t ask God for forgiveness, he seems pretty penitent in that particular context):

    Now if there is a guy elected who says; “ain’t gonna do it” – then maybe we can start the “Hitler” discussion. Otherwise…the hand on the wall, says it all.

    Peace.

  80. i find this to be a sort of incomplete picture. It’s like saying “conservative jews are the ultimate trumpians”. Yes, that subset may be republican but you’re selectively looking at a small subset. Married millenial men on paper means something until you realize that this demographic is a smaller % of the millenial demographic than Gen Xers 20 years ago or Boomers 40 years ago.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  81. @Tyrion 2
    Having never read more than the first part of the first book (to give it a shot), I have a pet tinfoil theory that Harry Potter is responsible for SJWism somehow.

    It seems that all of these people read it when young, often again when older, and love it. Perhaps those much-reported-on Evangelicals who wanted to ban it for Satanism were right? Perhaps the story has such emotional pull in young minds that they become enmeshed in its logic which I assume is some sort of SJW labrynth?

    I also stopped watching the first movie after five minutes, perhaps because it was a low quality pirated copy, but it seemed awful.

    Is Harry Potter the blue pill?

    Having never read more than the first part of the first book (to give it a shot), I have a pet tinfoil theory that Harry Potter is responsible for SJWism somehow.

    That series started out as a promising (and charming) fantasy adventure and turned into the most shameless, ham-handed political propaganda I have ever seen.

  82. @216
    Encourage alternatives to university, or at least less partisan STEM majors.

    Show the benefits of early marriage, there's no shortage of beta male thirst.

    Cut your cable/netflix/etc subscription. Take up deer hunting.

    Those are good suggestions. We’ve never had broadcast/cable TV viewing in our house for all the time we’ve had kids. Only dvd’s. I’ve never been a hunter, but I’ve taken my daughter shooting a few times. Still, she seems a bit more prone to social influence than my son does. I think she’ll be alright, but we need to keep an eye on her.

    • Replies: @Talha
    Daughters are more easily influenced - at least from my experience. Have had to have multiple talks with my daughter about LGBTQ-Z nonsense, and I’m still not totally comfortable when she goes to college. My son took like one talk and he looks solid.

    Of course, my daughter did take theatre in high school and that just seems to attract a higher number of freaks per capita than most other activities, so I was battling all that influence - would not recommend, if you can talk them out of doing theatre, do so.

    Peace.

  83. @J1234
    Those are good suggestions. We've never had broadcast/cable TV viewing in our house for all the time we've had kids. Only dvd's. I've never been a hunter, but I've taken my daughter shooting a few times. Still, she seems a bit more prone to social influence than my son does. I think she'll be alright, but we need to keep an eye on her.

    Daughters are more easily influenced – at least from my experience. Have had to have multiple talks with my daughter about LGBTQ-Z nonsense, and I’m still not totally comfortable when she goes to college. My son took like one talk and he looks solid.

    Of course, my daughter did take theatre in high school and that just seems to attract a higher number of freaks per capita than most other activities, so I was battling all that influence – would not recommend, if you can talk them out of doing theatre, do so.

    Peace.

  84. More good comments and suggestions. Thank you!

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS