Sunday, October 29, 2017

Cultural change is a Jewish thing

Joe Biden--who may be quite the degenerate deviant himself--celebrating the enormous influence Jews have had on popular culture (via Vox Day):
“I believe what affects the movements in America, what affects our attitudes in America are as much the culture and the arts as anything else,” [Biden] said. That’s why he spoke out on gay marriage “apparently a little ahead of time.”

“It wasn’t anything we legislatively did. It was ‘Will and Grace,’ it was the social media. Literally. That’s what changed peoples’ attitudes. That’s why I was so certain that the vast majority of people would embrace and rapidly embrace” gay marriage, Biden said.

“Think behind of all that, I bet you 85 percent of those changes, whether it’s in Hollywood or social media are a consequence of Jewish leaders in the industry. The influence is immense, the influence is immense.”
What is that influenced leveraged in favor of? Okay, we all know, but the blog exists for the purpose of empirically validating stereotypes, so indulge me.

The GSS has a couple of questions on homosexuality. The percentages, by religious affiliation, who say "sexual relations between two adults of the same sex" are "not wrong at all" (N = 34,713):


Jewish condoning of homosexuality outdoes even that of those without any religious affiliation. Given that some percentage of those without affiliation are ethnic Jews--or "post-Jewish atheists", as one blue checkmark puts it--that's quite remarkable since ethnic Jews without any feeling of connection to Judaism presumably condone it even more overwhelmingly than religious Jews do.

The story is a similar one with same-sex marriage. The percentages agreeing with the right for members of the same sex to marry, with "neither agree nor disagree" responses excluded (N = 9,689):


GSS variables used: MARHOMO(1-2,4-5), HOMOSEX(1-4), RELIG(1-4,9)

33 comments:

'Reality' Doug said...

What terrifies me is that, if the survey can be trusted, a 1/3 of Muslims are okay with male homosexuality. That is completely contrary to the definition of being a Muslim. Is the (((NWO}}} that effective? Will Islam succeed for (((social engineers}}} where Christianity failed? Will Islamic feminism et al. put the (((NWO}}} firmly in charge? You just presented the first evidence I have seen that at all supports the efficacy of Islamic feminism. Perhaps dummies be malleable dummies all 'round the world. I'm experiencing deep nihilistic sadness now and I need to be alone until these thoughts pass. I'm sure I'm already over it by the time you read this. :)

'Reality' Doug said...

Whoops! A 1/3 of Muslims WITH A SHARED OPINION on homosexuality. If one supposes Muslims are mostly uncooperative on the survey, then it follows that (((they}}} are less likely to master what (((they}}} have sown. Good times.

Anonymous said...

Interesting that both Protestants and Muslims having higher numbers supporting gay marriage than approving of gay sex, (Ie, gayness itself) so many real (The gay couple from Modern Family good, gay pride parades with Mr Slave lookalikes, bad) and fake (Gay marriage is sold so hard it has lost meaning, it's pure social signalling so strong the same person might be generally hostile to gay sex.) variables to take into account.

Audacious Epigone said...

Reality Doug,

Our Muslims are pretty secular and irreligious compared to Europe's Muslims. We get the boiling off (at least for now). That's probably not the case among Somalis in Minneapolis--which is more representative of what Europe is dealing with--but most of our Muslims, especially the ones who've been here for some time, are middle-class professional types.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

Moral acceptance of homosexuality is lower across the board than opposition to same-sex marriage is. One is a moral judgment, the other is a moral judgment + legal prohibitions. It's expected.

Feryl said...

God only knows where I put it on this blog, but I recall that those professing no religion were much more likely to grow up in the hinterlands than self-described Jews. Basically, a lot of gentile whites these days are non-theists; given how relatively few Jews even take the GSS in the first place, one can only assume that by default most of the (white) non-theists sampled are neither Jewish nor city kids. That being said, yeah, of course some Jews tick off the "no religion" box, but probably not that many. Given how ethnocentric Jews are, and how the GSS often doesn't ask very thouroughly about Jewish heritage, perhaps some Jews look at the religion variable as the only way to ensure that their heritage is recorded in the study.

It certainly is true that many of the most swply gentiles end up mimicking modern Jews.

Catholics being much more supportive of official imprimatur of gay unions in comparison to their moral condoning of sex is...odd, almost perplexing. I think they know nice enough gay people, find the idea of gay people in stable relationships to be reassuring. They're still grossed out by the thought of gays getting down and dirty, but don't want to be thought of as archaic bigots still bashing gays and their attempts to be normalized and mainstreamed. Perhaps they just don't like gays on some level, yet they'd still like to think if we grant gays certain concessions (like marriage), then hopefully gays will shape up a bit.

Non-theists and Jews appear to have a much weaker sense of what's clean and unclean. We maybe looking at an IQ/Class element here, as upper class/smart Jews and non-theists are less appreciate of the damage inflicted on others by hedonistic behavior. As has always been the case, it's intellectual and social elites who insist on treating society as a sandbox for their ambitious playing. Most common folk don't want to step on the needles that (most) elites insist must be present, in spite of decades of mounting evidence of the damage done. Ur typical "good neighborhood" dwellers in America ain't gonna have to live among the damage they've wrought, which they often glibly blame on "losers" not having more self-control.

Feryl said...

Perhaps if we quarantined std carriers, publically flogged drug dealers(including big pharma crooks) , stigmatized and suppressed media and cultural figures who glamorize poor behavior, and gave the working class dignified workplaces and institutions, then maybe just maybe 2/3 of American neighborhoods (white or otherwise) wouldn't resemble a society on the verge of social and physical collapse.

JH Kunstler's done a lot of good stuff about America's crumbling infrastructure, the obesity epidemic, adults born in the last 60-70 years who dress like babies, and so forth. Over the last 40 years, America's elites pretty much gave up on anyone who couldn't keep up in a hyper competitive me-first environment. The end result is that the closer you get to the bottom, the more anti-social and ugly people get. It's what happens when people get no help for decades, and feel no reason to put more effort into things.

It looks like whatever positive trends that have emerged can be attributed to proles and younger generations simply being exhausted by the behavioral and material possibilities of the last 40-50 years, which elites have dangled in front of us for so long by now. First it was the ultra privileged who embraced a libertine attitude in the 60's, then everyone else "caught up" in the 70's. We so overdid it in the 70's that just about everyone agreed that we needed to clean up our act in the 80's. But that was pretty short-lived, as by the later 90's nihilism was openly being promoted by much of the mainstream. Still, nihilism in some ways is preferable to the hippy-dippy non-sense of the 60's and 70's, where drugs and sex were supposed to hold the key to a more enriched life.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

It was fairly recently, but I can't recall what post off hand.

Wrt to Catholics, the same thing shows up with abortion, an issue the Catholic church is even more clear on. Among whites, 34% support abortion for any reason compared to 40% of Catholics.

Someone suggested the same on twitter wrt to intelligence. If we look at those born in the US with wordsum scores 8-10, acceptance goes up across the board, but Jews are still far more condoning. Percentages of high IQ respondents who say it is "not at all wrong":

Protestants - 26.6%
Catholics - 30.9%
Jews - 75.4%
No affiliation - 71.6%

Audacious Epigone said...

Among white Protestants*

Feryl said...

"Our Muslims are pretty secular and irreligious compared to Europe's Muslims. We get the boiling off (at least for now)."

Yep. It's also worth noting that Europe's sclerotic economic culture (aside from a few bright spots like Germany) just does not attract ambitious/entrepreneur types like America does. America is an extremely individualistic culture that glorifies personal glory and winners, quite different than how every European culture to varying degrees stigmatizes those that stick out to much. It may be hard for Americans to believe, but in Europe those who are seen as trying too hard to rise to something better are often considered to be disrespecting their class, their hometown, and their family. Americans of course are often stereotyped as shallow, loud, and vulgar.

Feryl said...

Catholics are more urbanly socialized than Protestants, here in the US. As we've considered, perhaps embracing hedonistic liberalism is highly correlated with urbanization, with Protestant bumpkins being by far the most conservative, city Jews the most liberal, and Catholics being in between with closer alignment to Protestants in both habitat and values. As for non-theists...well...maybe tomorrow.

And certainly, one shouldn't overlook the idea that part of Jewish self-concept is making the goys squirm by embracing things that gentiles and Christians historically looked down on.

Anonymous said...

Maybe this is just due to IQ? Higher IQ people might view homosexuality as having a biological cause rather than being a moral choice. Maybe smarter people are more likely to see sexual orientation as biological. There appears to be a positive correlation with WORDSUM and HOMOSEX. Also, being part of a religious group means you are around people with similar IQs, so you might be picking up on their attitudes. If you are Muslim, you probably hang out with lots of low I.Q. people (other Muslims). If you are Jewish, you are hanging out with out high I.Q. people (other Jews). The RELIG effect might be magnifing the WORDSUM effect.

Anonymous said...

Don't forget that Trump supported gay marriage in the past.

dc.sunsets said...

Maybe this is just due to IQ? Higher IQ people might view homosexuality as having a biological cause rather than being a moral choice.

Not sure how I fit into this: Two college degrees, IQ supposedly >140, and I do believe homosexuality has a biological cause: I literally attribute it to deleterious genetic mutations that express in the realm of human behavior, i.e., I consider it literally a non-heritable mental illness caused by damaged DNA.

Perhaps my non-support of homosexuality has something to do with one of those two degrees being in Microbiology.

[A recent post at Kakistocracy blog that pasted the real-life "inner" monologue of a M2F tranny highlights what I think would be a wonderful counterpoint to promotion of bat-guano crazy leftism these days: Just describe things as they really are, disallowing any euphemisms for the horror show. https://kakistocracyblog.wordpress.com/2017/10/21/a-painful-passcode/ ]

Call "gay sex" what it is. Describe it in detail (sights & smells.) While describing hetero sex can be a little sloppy, describing anal sex's mechanical reality, especially the medium and long-term consequences of it for both pitcher and catcher, and describing the vomit-inducing reality of serial blow jobs and glory-hole behavior without sugar-coating words would go a long way to rhetorically beating the Pozzed into the dank caves where they belong.

Audacious Epigone said...

part of Jewish self-concept is making the goys squirm by embracing things that gentiles and Christians historically looked down on

It is this reality that makes it hard for those on the dissident right who are relatively favorably inclined towards Jews to provide a firm answer on the JQ. We want to give them the benefit of the doubt, but man, Every. Single. Time. Or damned near it, anyway.

Anon,

Wrt wordsum, see the response in the comments above. Feryl pointed out the same thing. There is a positive correlation between condoning gay sex and intelligence, but it nowhere near explains the gap by religious affiliation.

Feryl said...

BTW, there's a distinction between condoning something and actually participating in it. Most Jews don't want to be in the porno industry on any level(let alone "act" in it), but most Jews instinctively gravitate towards "tolerance" of weird crap often on the grounds that WASPs historically bore a grudge against it.

Some of this is generational, but not all of it. It is safe to say that Silent Boomer elites, gentile or otherwise, failed miserably to build and defend moral, cultural, and legal boundaries that set the parameters of behavior, with the only real exceptions being drug policy (which nonetheless looked the other way regarding prescription drugs for decades) and pedophilia. And the drug part is only applicable to the US, anyway; other Western countries have gradually embraced the norming of drugs.

Jonathan Centauri said...

Nothing says fake poll numbers like that Muslims are OK with the ghey. Wow, that's some bad lying there. I figure the Jew numbers are the only accurate ones and everything else is the kind of Math you'd get from the CBO.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

> Interesting that both Protestants and Muslims having higher numbers supporting gay marriage than approving of gay sex, (Ie, gayness itself) so many real (The gay couple from Modern Family good, gay pride parades with Mr Slave lookalikes, bad) and fake (Gay marriage is sold so hard it has lost meaning, it's pure social signalling so strong the same person might be generally hostile to gay sex.) variables to take into account.

You are 100% right.

"Same sex marriage" conjures up two attractive, well groomed, affluent men (or women) who want nothing more than to get married (complete with a gorgeous wedding cake!) and adopt a baby.

"Gay sex" is two dudes having raunchy anal sex.

You can thank media conditioning for this. They spent two decades conditioning the public for same sex marriage that the public wound up disconnecting same sex marriage from what gay men like to do in their free time. That is definitely intentional.

That's what the media is doing with pedophiles now by the way. There are a lot of articles about "gold star pedophiles" who would never dare to act on their urges. Just like how Will and Grace never dealt with dudes barebacking each other and getting hepatitis and AIDS, you will never see the media cover pedophilia honestly. Fortunately I think pedophilia is still several bridges too far and you will never get society to accept pedophilia like they could with gay marriage.

Audacious Epigone said...

Jonathan,

The numbers are small and disparate (mostly), and they're boiled off from their home countries. Also, very roughly half of the US Muslim population is 'native' black.

Fortunately I think pedophilia is still several bridges too far and you will never get society to accept pedophilia like they could with gay marriage.

I think you're correct, but I have to confess that as I read that, I saw a flash in the future where I'm digging it up to excerpt for some post dealing with the normalization of 'senior-junior love' or whatever it'll be euphemized as.

Anonymous said...


imo it's more likely an effect of the tendency of Jews with 'no religion' (ie. not practising) to still check Jewish on surveys compared to other religious groups, compared to other extractions. University educated, urban people of Muslim/Catholic origins are much more likely to check the 'no religion' category

Hence the comparability of the 'no affiliation' and 'Jewish' category (since they are actually sampling the same generally more educated, urban sub-section of society)

Feryl said...

"Also, very roughly half of the US Muslim population is 'native' black. "

The "Muslim" sample is even more dubious than the Jewish one. Also, blacks, generally being from either the South or urban areas, are more gay than whites, though to what extent it's "true" gayness vs. over-sexed blacks screwing people indiscriminately isn't all that clear. See also high rates of HIV/Aids among "hetero" blacks; something just doesn't quite add up here. Opportunistic/situational gay sex among black men seems to be far more common than it is among other races. That being said, the "down-low" phenomena seems to be least common among whites from far Northern places, and said whites are rarely fully gay either. It seems that both true gayness and situational gayness often end up being conflated in populations from high pathogen environments.

IMO, fairy type blacks and trannies seem rather common, ya know, the fags who are discernible from 5 miles away.

Feryl said...

"Same sex marriage" conjures up two attractive, well groomed, affluent men (or women) who want nothing more than to get married (complete with a gorgeous wedding cake!) and adopt a baby.

"Gay sex" is two dudes having......"

Ya know, to this day there's still reluctance to even show 2 males kissing on TV and especially movies (which have an audience heavily comprised of homophobic young men). The association with male homosex and disease and decadence is very tough to shake, and for ages skinemax type stuff has shown attractive girls making out, while in the 90's and subsequent decades it became cool for frat boys to cheer on girls who made out with each other or went further, being that by the 90's guys were dorking out and girls were getting nervous around boys which also explains the surge in now aging Gen X/Millennial women who obviously drank way too much in the past and sometimes present. Young people are now so neurotic that they need to get smashed to build up the courage to be around the opposite sex.

Women without men don't have much sex, or carouse, and thus society has rarely (read: never) dealt with lesbians creating public health crises.

dc.sunsets said...

AE, wrt pedophilia being normed, as a father you can relate to the notion that while the rabbit subset of parents might consent to the notion of their teenage kids being in "loving relationships" with adults, that is a line chiseled in granite for other parents and go-along/get-along will not apply.

The leftward spin of cthulhu is visibly slowing, if not stopped.

The law cannot protect criminals who harm the children of wolves.

dc.sunsets said...

Feryl, Women without men don't have much sex, or carouse, and thus society has rarely (read: never) dealt with lesbians creating public health crises.
Simple biology explains why lesbians don't contribute to public health crises. And lesbians aren't known for bathhouse behavior so even strep throat epidemics are unlikely.

Feryl said...

To play Devil's advocate here, I don't think we should conflate people who are 17 years and 364 days old with 10 year olds.

Far from normalizing pedophilia, we've gone hysterically in the opposite direction, with even some people (primarily post-Boomers) saying that it's unacceptable to even think sexually about people under 18, even though last I checked the age of consent is below that in many places, though at has risen since the 1920's in most places.

"Even though state laws regarding the general age of consent and age gap laws differ, it is common for people in the United States to assume that sexual activity with someone under 18 is statutory rape.[5]"

Europe is even more generous with it's consent laws.

As of now, 31 states still have 16 as the age of consent. Also, many states still make a distinction between below consenting age teenagers and children

Anonymous said...

I think that the reason why people across the political spectrum tend to agree that pedophilia is bad and the age of consent needs to be high is to protect late-developing girls and boys.

Pedophilia cannot be determined by a single chronological age, because every girl and boy develops at her/his own rate. Rather, pedophilia should be considered a phenotype(?)

I say, set the age of consent to be 18 for girls and 20 for boys, then have judges and law enforcement only enforce the law if/when the girl or boy has not finished physical puberty. The average girl completes puberty at 16 but at the individual level it could be anywhere from 14-18. The average boy completes puberty at 18 but at the individual level it could be anywhere from 16-20.

For example: it is totally ok for Courtney Stodden to have married an older man when she was 16 because judging by her photos, she developed very early. When she was 12 she looked 16 and when she was 16 it was obvious that she had already completed puberty.

Meanwhile, there are some girls who are 17 and boys who are 18-19 who have not completed puberty yet. Adults should be arrested for trying to have sexual activity with those girls and boys.

Feryl said...

Modernity means that since the industrial revolution, we're continually expanding the definition of immaturity. When hardly anyone worked in an office, and most lives were brutish, nasty, and short, we didn't try to protect teenagers from themselves and "predators" the way we increasingly have in the 18th, 19th, and 20th century. It's gotten really retarded with Millennials and Gen Z, whose females have been encouraged to basically wait for Mr. Right unti they're practically 35. Women rapidly lose fertility in their 30's, so this idea that people are not developmentally "ready" until they're at least 20 is idiotic. If nature wanted things to be that way that modern man wants, then we wouldn't have sexual fantasies and body hair starting around the age of 13.

Granted, a lot of us remember our Boomer elders flitting from one partner and even marriage to another, and don't want to go down the same path. But biologically speaking, we've pretty much reached the point at which we're living in denial of reality. And as opposed to just keeping male "predators" at bay, we're denying many men (esp. young ones) biological release. Overzealous prosecutors, basically in earnest in the 80's, started charging 18-19-20-21 year old guys with statutory rape for having sex with 14-17 year old girls. It eventually spurred re-written laws protecting young adult males from stupid moralistic prosecutors trying to prove to Boomer dads that nobody, and I mean nobody, should touch your precious daughter.

The stigmatizing of teen sexuality is rather similar to the stigmatizing of racialism/tribalism. Things that were taken for granted, considered pretty ho-hum for thousands of years, are now regarded with terror.

Anonymous said...

It's not in the best interests of girls under 18 to be having sex with anybody. Even when they are over 18, they should be only having sex with a serious boyfriend, someone who might become a future fiance.

In fact, I'll take it a step further. It's not in the best interests of society for young guys to be promiscuous either. Male promiscuity still has consequences, even if a larger percentage of men are able to have casual sex without getting emotionally wrecked. Male promiscuity still spreads STDs, young men can get young women pregnant and promiscuous men make bad husbands.

Audacious Epigone said...

dc.sunsets,

Send a goddess my way telling me I can have my way with but my daughter has to suffer some pain as a consequence, and I'd much sooner gut the goddess like a fish than have my daughter suffer for a moment.

Feryl,

Somewhat surprising, there isn't much that shows up between SEXORNT and REGION. New England is the most hetero, probably as expected, but Mountain is the gayest--and even then we're talking a difference of less than 2 points. It looks like random noise, really.

Anonymous said...

Jews play a big role in cultural changes, but I doubt Kevin MacDonald is right that they're always leading the charge.

Take for example something like MRA/MGTOW; what started out as a movement to defend men's right, some completely legit like combating false rape claims, rights for father's visiting rights, alimony revision, etc has degenerated into full craziness. Some guys don't want anything to do with women anymore. They're like lesbian feminists!

In Europe many simpleminded people invited refugees by the bulk, because they simply lack any capacity of foresight. They refuse to learn muslims will never integrate, let alone assimilate. There are not that many Jews in Western Europe anymore...

The whole transgender madness and denial of sex differences is a millennial thing. It's not being driven by Jews.

My view is a bit more like this: West Europeans have a weakness for ideology or utopianism or they're vulnerable for any thing that gives them some meaning after they left Christianity behind in history.

Feryl said...

Actually, a running joke among Europeans is that some nationalities do certain things well, and other things not so much. Thus the enduring joke about in heaven, the French are the cooks etc.

Brits for a long time developed a culture of pragmatism, not idealism or sentiment. Stereotypically, it's the Germans who are feared for letting ideology run amok and being perhaps too good at stuff. WW2 era Italians and Spaniards weren't competent enough to kill as many people as the Germans did, and take as much land as the Germans did.

The main constant among West Euros is high levels of individuality and gullibility, which can make you naïve about the tendencies of other ethnic groups.

Feryl said...

"Somewhat surprising, there isn't much that shows up between SEXORNT and REGION. New England is the most hetero, probably as expected, but Mountain is the gayest--and even then we're talking a difference of less than 2 points. It looks like random noise, really."

Agnostic has often said that the Northeast (outside of DC) actually doesn't have that many gays. Minneapolis, Seattle, Atlanta, Salt Lake City(!) and of course Frisco and LA all have tons of fags. NYC actually appears to be not all that gay. Of course, most urban gays are transplants who could've been raised anywhere. There's a flakiness gradient in America, as you go further West and further South people get nuttier. And that's why gays drift away from the Northeast.

To your point, the GSS's region variable has always been slightly dubious for how it puts a lot of states together that greatly differ in geography and even culture. Geographically, the Mountain and Pacific regions encompass a huge area with wide variation in climate. Hawaii and Alaska in the same region (!), Arizona with Montana in the same region too. Culturally, the two Western regions make a decent amount of sense. But in terms of geography and climate, not so much.

Since the GSS doesn't ask people if they grew up in a cold or warm weather state, I don't think the region variable has much use for evaluating climate and sexuality, given how the GSS's Western and South Atlantic regions include a lot of variation in weather. Florida is much hotter than North Carolina.

Oh, and I'd caution against including women when judging sexuality. According to Agnostic and the GSS, Women raised in the Mountain and Pacific states are much more likely to have experimented with other girls. In keeping with what I said above:

"Looking into finer-grained regional differences without restricting to just conservatives in the current decade, it looks like the Mountain states take the lead in the explosion of bi-curiosity, although the Pacific and West South Central (AKA Greater Texas) are not far behind. However, the West North Central region (Western Midwest) is like the normal half of the country."

Basically, the well established region of America (e.g., the well-watered Eastern US in which air conditioning is not necessary for survival, so Texas and Florida please exit the stage) produces more behavioral (and thus mental) stability.

Let's stick to guys only, and straight guys can't be brainwashed into sleeping with dudes.

dc.sunsets said...

Age of Consent laws are kind of beside the point.

"Maturity" is a slippery concept. Lots of teens believe themselves "mature," especially girls who are constantly told they're "more mature than boys of the same age." What this actually means is that girls are physically closer to adult than boys, a good 5-7 years ahead.

So. What.

The issue of consent is one of agency. While a 15 year old boy may think it's cooler than ice cream to have a 25 year old (attractive) woman offer to blow him or copulate, what the FUCK is such a woman doing with a proto-child? It's a clear case of CONTROL. Ditto when a 30 year old man games a 16 year old girl.

There isn't much difference between such large-difference-in-agency couplings and when a person of normal cognition has a sexual relationship with a person of ANY age who has an IQ of 50 or 60.

If Feryl knows of anyone these days who "stigmatizes" teen sexuality, I'd like a link. Todays middle-schools are counseling kids how to do anal and oral, and even 15 years ago when my oldest son attended Freshman Orientation, we as his parents were told quite explicitly that all our sons and daughters would be sexually active on campus. I mean, why not?

Casual hedonism leads to lifelong misery. The more baggage young men and women show up with to their "Mr./Ms. Right" relationship, the more likely theirs is an unhappy marriage.

The cultural promotion of NSA sex is one of the clearest indications that our civilization is in steep decline.