Wednesday, March 29, 2017

Strumpets unlocking the gate

Over the course of the last month, Reuters-Ipsos has polled Americans (n = 9,397) on whether they approve or disapprove of Trump's handling of immigration. Discounting the "don't know" responses shows a slight majority, 52%-48%, approving to some degree.

That top line nearly even split disguises significant demographic differences. Whites approve 59%-41% overall. It will come as little surprise that most non-whites do not. They disapprove of Trump's immigration approach 69%-31%.

Among whites, there is a now familiar marital and gender dynamic at play. The following graph shows the percentages who disapprove subtracted from the percentages who approve among married and unmarried white men and women and among all non-whites:


With regards to whites we must once again ask which of these things is not like the others?

The distribution for single white women is 34% approve, 66% disapprove, about the same as for non-whites. Among married white men and women and single white men, it is 65% approve, 35% disapprove.

The woman featuring here disapproves. Her unfortunate son, in contrast--if he survives to adulthood--will approve with a zeal so intense it would make the Spartans at Thermopylae blush.

Z-Man's recent observation seems applicable:
She really meant every word of the nonsense she was saying. That or she was sexually aroused by it. Who knows, maybe the thought of being slaughtered by Muslim savages is arousing to these people. It’s not entirely out of the question, given the state of men these days.
If you haven't already, see Heartiste's characteristically trenchant discussion of white America's major fault line. His rhetorical krav maga is something those who crave #MAGA need more of.

9 comments:

chris said...

Is the difference among married and single white women a product of selection?

i.e. Marriage is a traditional/conservative institution and so what man is going to marry loony leftist women?

Random Dude on the Internet said...

IMO it is all about thinking forward vs. living right now. Go talk to a single white woman about the future. I'm sure she will tell you about the family she wants, the promotions she thinks she's sure to get, the places she wants to travel to, etc. Then ask her for any concrete details. Odds are she will have nothing. Single white women talk about things they're going to do but they live in the here and now. How many of these girls have a budget? How many actually put something into their 401k (even with employer matching)? How many of these girls have "careers" but Mommy and Daddy still pay for her cell phone or car insurance bill for her Honda Fit? How many of these girls have enough in their checking account after they pay next month's rent? And so on. The answers you get will tell you why they think the way they do. They just exist in the moment because other people (government, parents, boyfriend, etc.) will cover for her if she can't.

Feryl said...

It is I suppose kind of a chicken or egg thing, but I remember some sites (maybe this one?) pointing out that porn actresses seem very masculine looking. There will always be a certain minority of high-T women who enjoy competition/careerism/bossing people around (including men esp. in a decadent era). But it's disastrous for these exceptions to be exalted as the ideal on which striving is based.

Many of the people born the last 50-60 years seem very anxious and unhealthy, and it's probably from increasing amounts of propaganda that all people are interchangable units. We went through these stages:

1950's and 60's: Racial differences in values and potential does not exist
1970's and 80's: Women are no different than men (then why were they ever treated differently?)
1990's and beyond: Various weirdos up including but not limited to gays and trannies ought to be treated the same as everyone else. Conservatives have an easier time making fun of this strain of liberation because we're dealing with a small number of weirdos. We don't have to worry about them burning cities to the ground, unlike blacks, and we don't have to worry about them rejecting us or throwing allegations of rape and misogyny at us, unlike women.

As traditionalists sustained greater losses they either cowardly begin to adopt liberal propaganda, or they basically went into a bunker and gave up on the idea that they'd ever get the upper hand again. Thus why we've seen increasing emphasis on the after life and also apocalyptic rhetoric over the last 30-40 years.

Far from being anywhere near a utopia, race and gender relations have steadily worsened as society accepts the new "normal". It seems like an initial generation may enjoy the opportunities opened up by "liberation" but future generations are miserable. Yet some of us naive enough to identify the problem as a LACK of adherence to modern liberal norms. It's this misdiagnosis that really afflicts us, and it's effects are harder on younger generations as Boomer ideology becomes more irrelevant the later a person was born.

Eras of racial strain seem to coincide with economic hardship, as fewer resources and opportunities translate to greater territoriality and bickering. Boomers and preceding generations sincerely felt as though they had some kind of obligation to give back to "historically disadvantaged" groups. But later born people have been brainwashed into believing the BS pushed by ealier generations. Since younger people don't feel it sincerely, they're living a lie basically and fooling themselves, which hurts their mental and emotional well-being.

Racial/sexual/gender liberation were battles fought by Silents and Boomers. They can fight this stuff still if they wish, but we need to either sit it out and wait for these things to die along with older generations or fight them back and tell them to go back to the 60's and 70's and leave us alone.

Enquiring Mind said...

In the litigation world, plaintiffs may have to post a performance bond or similar demonstration of economic involvement in the matter at hand. That prevents gadfly suits by people with no skin in the game from harming other parties with major involvement. Think of a guy in a basement suing to stop some $1B project, and then the judge asks, what do you have in the game? Nothing, then you can't expect to sue given what your action could do to another party. In the single white woman world, just showing up gives you carte blanche to sue, obstruct and otherwise undermine the world based on your feelz. That is a recipe for disaster in the courts, except in the court of public opinion these days.

Audacious Epigone said...

Chris,

Probably to some extent, though I don't discount how women, especially single women, benefit from social conformism because it benefits them. They don't change society, they adapt to those changes. The Sabine Women didn't want their brothers and fathers to save them from their Roman kidnappers. Those captors were their future. While it shouldn't be discounted, it is mostly subconscious I think, which is why that, yours, and Random Dude's assessments can be simultaneously descriptive.

Feryl,

I think that was Agnostic's from several years ago.

Since younger people don't feel it sincerely, they're living a lie basically and fooling themselves, which hurts their mental and emotional well-being.

That's why there has to be a framework there for them when they're ready. People who call the Alt Right movement a flash in the pan are way off the mark. The labels may shift but identity and interest are the future for Euro-descended millennials if they're to have a future at all.

Enquiring Mind,

If we restricted it to married, home owning couples with children, there'd be no immigration from the seven countries. Allowing it would be political suicide.

Feryl said...

Yah, the thing about women is that it boils down to: What's in it for me? Conforming to what your husband wants is clearly in their best interest, and married men are more conservative. So married women become more conservative out of self-interest.

I strongly suspect Protestant Western Euro men represent the peak of moral development among Man, in that they act less out of naked self-interest than any other group of people. In spite of the fact that due to differences in hormones/stress regulation, they are more likely to be violent and more prone to interpersonal problems than women and Northeast Asians.

A culture that descends into mercenary decadence (aided and abetted by both founding stock naivete/complacency and the flooding of one's country with aliens) is going to create a huge class of voters who vote on the basis of their own selfish short term interest and ambitions (e.g., more gibs) rather than long-term security and well-being.

Feryl said...

That's why there has to be a framework there for them when they're ready. People who call the Alt Right movement a flash in the pan are way off the mark. The labels may shift but identity and interest are the future for Euro-descended millennials if they're to have a future at all.

I've often warned about the tendency of the brain to lock into place during adolescence. Mental rigidity grows in your mid-late twenties and grows exponentially after that. This is very important to diagnosing the mood and goals of a cohort. Most Boomers can't grasp the demographic crisis facing us because their attitudes were shaped in the 60's-early 80's, when America was mostly white. It seems to me that Boomers are primarily against the soft treatment of criminal aliens and aliens on welfare. They're not really against high levels of immigration per se. Why? They grew up when outrage was focused on coddled criminals and outrageous abuse of public generosity. But most of the people around them were born in America. In their minds and hearts, they don't see or feel an America that's demographically shifting to a point that's got nothing in common with the country they grew up in. Their brains don't have the programming to make such a thing seem possible. So they focus on personal morality rather than national/racial identity. Indeed, the main ID pre-occupation of Boomers has always been generational with sub-categories for moral/spiritual customs.

X-ers are an easier sell since they came of age in the late 70's-1990's, when it was becoming bloody obvious that previous generations of Americans had heedlessly enacted policies that enabled aliens to take over entire towns and cities.

BTW, there's a difference between grasping what's going on and being able to effectively react to it. Agnostic has picked on Sailer for his "citizenist" approach, saying that it's naive. I would agree because such an idea is the product of an idealistic Boomer that's not going to find purchase with younger generations. Hipster whites, younger blacks/Mexicans, younger prole whites, etc. actually want their own turf from which to be separated from other demos. The goal of having every demo sublimate any sense of ethnic/cultural identity into a neat package with the sharp edges sanded away is something that G.I.s/Silents/Boomers desperately strove for in prosperous times. But in lean times, such a thing seems woefully archaic and naive, a utopian boondoggle that will die with the very people who recklessly promoted it.

Feryl said...

Campus hysteria I think has been a bit characterized. It's framed by Boomers and X-ers in terms of soft crybabies not wanting their feelings hurt (Boomers and esp. X-ers grew up in an era in which you were expected to explain your position and defend yourself honorably, not just cry that you didn't get your way). I think what's really happening is youngsters these days simply do not want to associate with those unlike themselves. Boomers wanted greater engagement with diversity (the most experimental generation), while X-ers thought of themselves as passengers who boarded a ship prone to taking on water with varying levels of effort by certain groups to bail the water out. The evident flaws of certain demos became obvious and some X-ers developed an ambivalent attitude towards diversity. Ambivalence, perhaps, but not outright hostility (go back and watch stuff about teens in the 80's and 90's, kids weren't really angry about anything even though they had a right to be).

These days, later Millennials are overwhelming opposed to engaging with the "other". They simply don't believe in treating individual people as blank slates to be drawn upon for the greater good. They figure that groups of people just are different, and that's how it is. This is profoundly depressing to older people and liberals. Laments have been written recently about the growth of ideology that doesn't concern itself with individual abilities and potential. People get slotted into a group from which there's no distinguishing. The Left wing once bashed churches as bastions of bigotry, but now begrudgingly complement Christ-cuckery which told the flock to think of people as Christians or Christians-to be first, rather than members of a nation or race.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

Protestant Western Euro men represent the peak of moral development among Man

They are (were?) the ultimate WEIRDOs--Western, educated, industrialized, rich, democratic, and outbred. Humanity may never get back to that peak WEIRDO-ness in any significant population again. Northwestern Europe may already be gone. Central Europe's persistence is more probable, but--or more accurately, *because*--it is less WEIRDO.

The US, though demographically more diverse, is no longer changing anywhere nearly as rapidly as NW Europe (inside the Hajnal line being the WEIRDO core), and the US is simply much larger than NW Europe is. The northern part of the mountain and Upper Midwest is larger than Great Britain, Germany, and France combined but has a smaller population than any of those three countries--all of which fit inside of it--do.