Sunday, December 17, 2017

Big Daddy Gibs

Heartiste:
Supporting Lott’s research that found female suffrage immediately shifted American politics to the Left and enlarged the State, a recent study likewise concluded that female enfranchisement accelerated the same Leftward lurch well into the late 20th-early 21st Century, and it continues moving the country to the Left today (tradcon white knights hit hardest). Furthermore, the female compulsion to vote into existence larger and more intrusive government crosses party identification lines.
Let's recruit the GSS to pile on. The survey has a question that gets right at the heart of the growth of the state. Unfortunately it was only asked in a single year (1996) but the sample is large enough and the trend stark enough to serve our pedagogical purposes here.

It reads "If the government had a choice between reducing taxes or spending more on social programs like health care, social security, and unemployment benefits, which do you think it should do?" The following graph shows the percentages of respondents, by sex and by political orientation, who favor reducing taxes (N = 1,018):


This corroborates the results of the other research Heartiste pointed to. Women are more supportive of government spending on social programs across the political spectrum.

In fidelity to the meta-theme that everything is downstream of immigration, a few other comparisons by selected demographic characteristics:


White middle- and upper-class men are the only group the founders had in mind when they were hammering out the republic's constitutional framework. It was not designed to accommodate the political input of "the rest" and is now--rather unsurprisingly, at least in hindsight--on the brink of collapse.

GSS variables used: TAXSPEND, POLVIEWS(1-3)(4)(5-7), SEX, RACE(1)(2-3), BORN, CLASS(3-4)

70 comments:

Anonymous said...

In essence, I think this is what happens to all civilizations.

Glubb described the process but did not understand the mechanism:

http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf

Once you give women political power, things go down hill from there!

Jim Bowery said...

Emphasis on property rather than military service as the primary basis for the voting franchise is the start of what Spengler would call the rise of money power to inevitably then to fall and give way to the only greater power: blood.

In this respect, it is quite true that the US had a congenital defect that may, finally, result in the power of blood taking over.

This is a basic, and perhaps inevitable, defect of civil society.

DissidentRight said...

Sexual egalitarianism will be a greater disaster for the West than communism was for the East.

Free societies of men and class societies of men have advantages and disadvantages, but men can make either work. But the only stable social relationship between men and women is that of lord and vassal. Evaluating a woman’s status with respect to a man’s based on relative wisdom, courage, charisma, knowledge, intelligence, or skill is a recipe for disaster.

An analogy for Frame: a vassal may be wiser, more courageous, more intelligent, and generally superior to her lord in every qualitative and quantifiable trait, and their kingdom will prosper if he listens to her advice. But he is still the lord and she is still the vassal. Break that relationship, and the kingdom will descend into anarchy and ruin.

Sid said...

The worst part about women in politics, as well as in other fields such as business and academia, is how they take criticism of their ideas personally. No, what's even worse than that is how they take questioning the validity of "muh facts" personally.

For example, if you say that fewer women than men have first-rate quantitative reasoning, you will hear them shriek about how they took calculus in high school.

Granted, a large percentage of men are incapable of looking at things objectively, but with women it's all but a handful who can put their feelings aside and look at affairs without the lens of their direct, personal interests. There aren't many men who can look at, say, Tang Dynasty history in a cool, detached manner, but there are enough of them that they can make an academic field out of it. I can't say the same about women.

By way of comparison, the percentage of men who can bench more than 200 pounds (90kg) at any given moment is probably relatively small, but the number of women who could do that is almost infinitesimal in comparison.

Corvinus said...

”Supporting Lott’s research that found female suffrage immediately shifted American politics to the Left and enlarged the State, a recent study likewise concluded that female enfranchisement accelerated the same Leftward lurch well into the late 20th-early 21st Century, and it continues moving the country to the Left today (tradcon white knights hit hardest). Furthermore, the female compulsion to vote into existence larger and more intrusive government crosses party identification lines.”

Heartiste should focus on his aging Lothario posts rather than play social scientist. When one peruses through his conclusions, Lott admits that other socioeconomic variables may also account for as to changes in government revenue and spending. For example, the number of illiterate people, the number of foreign born people, the number of workers in manufacturing and farming--these groups had been subjected to significant problems and, as a result, formed groups that demanded laws which would transform American politics and expand government bureaucracy. Assuredly, as women earned the right to vote, and their husbands in these areas were experiencing hardships, naturally women would want legislation to improve their condition, and thus would support politicians who shared their concerns. Moreover, Lott neglects to examine the factors behind increases in income, business, and sale taxes in relation to expenditures to improve education, sanitation, and infrastructure. So while on the surface the inclusion of female voters certainly played a role in this change, their direct involvement may not have led to this “immediate shift”. Remember, the early 1900’s was a period of major reforms, with federal oversight now for the first time in dozens of areas, from meat inspection to workplace rules. Men and women who demanded these changes would certainly play an integral role in this acceleration of liberal policies. Regarding the Lizotte study, she stated that women are supportive of an activist government than men of the same party. She did NOT conclude that “female empowerment accelerated the same Leftword lurch well into the late 20th-early 21 Century”, that was AE. There is a pay wall here, so there is no way to properly vet the study and its conclusions to examine context here.

“Women are more supportive of government spending on social programs across the political spectrum.”

Is that breaking news? So what. In the end, it makes no difference. Women are going to vote for such spending, just like men will also support those measures. Females are not going to lose the franchise, even if there is the break-up of the United State; our society has moved WAY past this patriarchal notion of men being the exclusive rulers.

Corvinus said...

Sid...

"Granted, a large percentage of men are incapable of looking at things objectively..."

First, what is that percentage? How did you come about that statistic?

Second, where do you fall? Are you capable or incapable? Why?

"but with women it's all but a handful who can put their feelings aside and look at affairs without the lens of their direct, personal interests."

No, it's actually more than a handful.

Dissident...

"Evaluating a woman’s status with respect to a man’s based on relative wisdom, courage, charisma, knowledge, intelligence, or skill is a recipe for disaster."

You are completely out of touch with reality.

Sid said...

Hi Corvinus,

What's a literal translation? Is there one?

If there isn't a literal translation, then are there accurate translations? How can we assess what's accurate or inaccurate?

Let me pick out a random line from The Aeneid in Latin. How about Book IV, line 129?

Oceanum interea surgens Aurora reliquit.

Let me have a stab at it!

"Meanwhile the rising dawn leaves the ocean."

Is that ok? How does that stack up to,

"While this was going on, Aurora left Triton and threatened an alimony suit?"

Really, I don't know. I lack your precise, granular understanding of the world at a mechanistic level. Once you've shown me this, I will be able to give you a precise percentage of the number of men who look at the world objectively, should be able to infer your exact percentage of the number of women who can do so, and then I will tell you the likelihood I look at the world objectively with a very high p-value.

Issac said...

"Females are not going to lose the franchise, even if there is the break-up of the United State; our society has moved WAY past this patriarchal notion of men being the exclusive rulers."

Plenty of historical precedent for such a rollback exists outside of America and Western Europe. How could you be so crass and uncultured Corvinus?

DissidentRight said...

"our society has moved WAY past this patriarchal notion of men being the exclusive rulers"

So saith Corvinus, Male Feminist and White Knight extraordinaire.

Joshua Sinistar said...

The Train is Fine. Shut Up. Censorship of Hate. Hate is just wrong somehow.

This narrative sounds like PMS now. Women are about as good at political decisions as they are about mating habits. How do they mngae to always pick the wrong guy. Does it matter? They just do.

Change is impossible. Change is the only constant. One of these is wrong.

You cannot change demographics. Demographics is a one way street. Machine guns and WMDs are illegal or something. Obey the laws that only White people are expected to follow.

SO MUCH STUPID, SO FEW FUCKS GIVEN.

When you push too far, there is no going back. White Men built this place and no one else seems to care. If War breaks out, White people either hang together or hang separately. The invaders HATE America. Who will fight for Uncle Sham? NOBODY...

Sid said...

Joshua Sinistar,

Don't ever leave comments on blogs like this that sound like you're calling for white men to organize for violent purposes. Your talk of "WMDs" and "machine guns" is absolutely unacceptable in the subtext you're conveying.

Beyond being grossly immoral, talk like that is a great way to get the censors knocking on our doors.

Your post also read like an angry rant that barely related to what anyone was talking about. Wise up and think things through before you post. Don't ruin a good thing.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

Technology has the potential to change things enormously. My (over?)confidence in as much is probably why I'm able to make observations like the ones in this post without necessarily getting fatalistic about it. I extend that even to things like socialism, which may work well at some point in the future. I'm skeptical, but it's not inconceivable.

And there is no concerted blame here, either. Affluent white men allowed everyone else the franchise. If so doing sealed the fate of their descendants, then how do they escape blame?

Not that thinking in those moralistic terms is even helpful. There are our interests and obstacles preventing the achievement of those interests that must be navigated. We try to navigate what comes in the future by understanding what happened in the past, but what's done is done.

Jim,

Is rule by military preferable? That was in essence Rome from Marius onward (though who? whom? the military was changed monumentally over the following centuries).

Dissident Right,

More fundamentally, it doesn't appear to be able to even replacement-level fertility. In the places it does, it's largely a consequence of those least supportive of it outbreeding the liberals (in the general Western sense of the term).

Sid,

Right, in proportions much higher than men. There are biological reasons for this that are enormously healthy and helpful in certain contexts, but not in the atomized, post-Dunbar Current Year.

Corvinus,

Of course it's difficult to disentangle all of these variables that are shifted at the same time. This is one that we can trace over time though, quite astonishingly--women appear to have, from the time they obtained suffrage through to the present day, always supported increases in the size and power of the state more strongly than men.

Issac,

Indeed.

In 1950, people of European descent made up 25% of the world's population. Now it's about 15% depending on how it's counted, and by mid-century it'll be in the single-digits. The WEIRDO way of life--which includes gender egalitarianism in all aspects of life--is not flourishing, it's dying.

Corvinus said...

Sid...

"Really, I don't know."

Exactly. You have no idea whether or not a large percentage of men are incapable of looking at things objectively. So refrain from making those statements as if you know for certain or have a ballpark figure, with evidence to back it up.

AE...

"women appear to have, from the time they obtained suffrage through to the present day, always supported increases in the size and power of the state more strongly than men."

Depends upon the purpose of this size and power of the government and the role it will play in our society. Regardless, there isn't going to be this surge by American men to demand that the 19th Amendment be repealed, or concerted efforts to restrict the right of women to vote.

"Affluent white men allowed everyone else the franchise."

No, men fought to secure the right to vote, regardless of their social status. Men, in turn, granted the franchise to women.

"If so doing sealed the fate of their descendants, then how do they escape blame?"

What "sealing of fate"?

Random Dude on the Internet said...

> Females are not going to lose the franchise, even if there is the break-up of the United State; our society has moved WAY past this patriarchal notion of men being the exclusive rulers.

This is hilarious. As we speak, the west is importing millions of people who are far more patriarchal than any 1960s era WASP boogeyman ever presented. It seems like patriarchy is going to return. The question is whether it will be done with Whites (my personal preference), Hispanics, or Muslims.

Feminism is shaping up to be more and more of a relic than "just the way it is." Even among the left, racial issues have far surpassed women issues. You can cite #metoo but it's mostly just the left eating their own, which is hardly unique in this case. It's cleaning house to replace "white" (read: Jewish) men with white women and pee oh cees, which will eventually crowd out the white women like they have in just about every major urban area. Feminism is some wypipo shit. Our New Americans and New Europeans don't care about feminism and neither should we. It's just one of the many restraints whites willingly put on themselves to look good. This is dangerous when the demographic stakes are this high.

Sid said...

Corvinus,

It's fun to debate what constitutes rational thinking and what percentage of the population is capable of it, so I'll indulge you.

Asperger's syndrome has sometimes been defined as being especially pronounced masculine thinking, with an interest in things and ideas rather than in people and feelings.

Men evolved to hunt and make tools for hunting, as well as to fight off other tribes of people. Women evolved for other purposes.

The women I know with Asperger's syndrome tend to be impressively objective and rational in their thinking, even if they lack social facility that women tend to have. Again, pronounced masculine thinking.

According to this study, men are 1.6 to four times as likely to have Asperger's as women: https://doi.org/10.1097%2Fchi.0b013e318033ff42

I expect rational thinking, like other human traits, falls along a normal distribution, and the cut off point for any particular quality is fairly arbitrary (i.e., is someone in the bottom 5th percentile of empathy a sociopath, or is reserved for the 2nd percentile?). But I would expect that whatever the cut off point would be for being a "rational thinker," far more men would be there than would women.

For example, if 10% of women are rational thinkers, than by that standard 16-40% would meet that criteria.

I don't know if psychometricians have determined a way to measure objective thinking and how many people can be said to demonstrate high amounts of objective thinking. If they have, I'll defer to their research, but there's your ballpark number: 1.6 to 4x as many men are objective, rational thinkers than women.

Arthur Schopenhauer's "On Women" is a superb qualitative essay on this topic, though he had mommy issues and I don't, so I wouldn't be as harsh in my language in describing women as he is. Like AE, I think women's particular manner of thinking is evolutionarily useful, but not really suited for dispassionate analysis of public policy.

chris said...

What are the %'s for married men and women? A solution could be restricting the vote only to those who are married.

dc.sunsets said...

"Is that breaking news? So what. In the end, it makes no difference. Women are going to vote for such spending, just like men will also support those measures. Females are not going to lose the franchise, even if there is the break-up of the United State; our society has moved WAY past this patriarchal notion of men being the exclusive rulers."

Chaos/Hardship--->Vitality and growth--->success and ease--->complacency and sloth---chaos/Hardship.

I conclude that this split is between those who see the mechanisms of our inevitable continuation into decline (some of whom foolishly think that by such determination a break in the cycle is possible) and those who look at the disfiguring disease and exclaim, "but on me, this looks good!"

The cycles of human history don't end, because "enlightenment" is an illusion. Nock's Remnant never has and never will rise and end the cycles because that's just not how it works. Only a change to genetically determined behavior would do so, and the resultant creatures would no longer be human.

Individuals can figure things out. Aggregates of individuals cannot.

Women rise to dominate society only when ease and complacency are rampant. Prechter writes that women rise to dominate during bear markets in social mood, but I'm quite sure he's wrong on this; women rise when men grow indulgent, like letting the kids "fly" the airplane. Only in this case, the autopilot doesn't exist.

Open borders importing more people who cannot sustain the conditions to which we're accustomed.
Borrow-to-spend's creating a nation of people addicted to freeloading.
Borrow-to-spend's creating a vast labyrinth of economic activity that cannot exist without low interest rates and exponentially rising IOU's.
Feminism's daffy belief that women can be men, just with tits.
Homophilia's promotion that sexual hedonism of any stripe, perhaps the most impulsive, dopamine-addicted, high-time-preference behavior of all, is a life choice that leads to long-term happiness, creating a continent covered in people addicted to self-destructive lifestyles.

The future is a product of the past and present.

So Corrie, do you think in a decade things will be A-Okay, given current trends?

PS: The 19th Amendment isn't going anywhere, true, but is the USA not like a firm that was taken over by women and structured around all the social-hierarchy-obsessions that seem to drive a majority of females? Do you think a society is unlike a business, in that a society cannot become bankrupted by its managers' misplaced priorities?

dc.sunsets said...

All this discussion of "voting" is hilarious.

There are no political solutions to problems created by politics. (to quote Doug Casey.)

"Democracy" is a path that leads to certain collapse and chaos, sooner or later. No organization can run on a popular vote. Hell, no FAMILY can run on a popular vote (anyone with kids knows this.)

All we're debating is how to better build a Titanic even as the lifeboats are all launched and our shoes are getting wet on the Promenade Deck.

While I am thoughtful about my grandkids' health & well being, I remain confident that they'll do okay because they have the "white privilege" of bright parents and a coherent and loving family to nurture them, even if the rest of the world seems bent on seppuku.

Every person gets to live in a time of growth or decay. The Leftist folly of the last 150 years is decay, and from the profoundly anti-life rationalization of abortion-on-demand as a woman's "right to avoid inconvenience or consequences of her actions" to homophilia and promotion of misery-inducing lifestyles, what we're watching is apoptosis on a societal level.

Leftists are killing themselves (or their genetic lines) like they're programmed to do it. Such is the process of renewal; sadly, it's not painless even for the Remnant.

DissidentRight said...

More fundamentally, it doesn't appear to be able to even replacement-level fertility.

Exactly. People vote with their feet and the wallets. Women vote with their wombs as well.

All this discussion of "voting" is hilarious.

There are no political solutions to problems created by politics.


If the Privileged are on the same page regarding who should and shouldn’t vote, then when bankruptcy solves our political problems, perhaps a sustainable civil order will emerge.

Dan said...

Just had a cool thought which should make liberal heads explode decades and centuries from now.

There is a very good chance, and I am not at all joking, with the stock market going absolutely gangbusters in a way that we who KNOW realize is not supportable by the coming demographics that:

**** President Donald John Trump presides over the civilizational high water mark of all of human history. ****

Booyah! It shall be said that PDJT ruled at the top of... **ever**.

This will of course become apparent to all only in retrospect.

Some cynics will say the high water mark happened long ago, but in terms of GDP and external economic performance in human history that might just be RIGHT EFFING NOW.

There is a dark part of me (the popcorn eating part) that says PDJT should just announce the high water mark of human history in a long rambling speech full of data and then exit stage left. He can than bang Melania all day while letting history vindicate him utterly.

But the other part of me, the dad part, wants him to stay on and help our civilization not to be dashed on the rocks.


Audacious Epigone said...

Random Dude,

Self-identifying as a feminist peaked in the nineties. It's now mostly a young single white woman thing for YOLO types who are on their way to waking up and 35 and realizing the rest of their existence is a slow, steady, lonely descent towards total social invisibility.

Sid,

Yeoman's work (and patience).

Chris,

Wow, surprisingly there isn't much difference--41% for married, 38% for unmarried (for tax reduction). Surprising. Might be different today since even in the last couple of decades, marriage rates have declined markedly among under/working classes.

dc.sunsets,

Ha, indeed, the 19th amendment will collapse along with the US as a single political entity.

Parenthetically, Doug Casey thinks Africa is the next international economic engine. I want to take him seriously. Convince me I should!

Dan,

Heh that is a triggering observation. DJT, the Antoninus Pius of the American empire!

Dan said...

"DJT, the Antoninus Pius of the American empire!"

No, quite different. Regarding Antoninus from la wik: "The only intact account of his life handed down to us is that of the Augustan History, an unreliable and mostly fabricated work. "

Antoninus Pius is scarcely noted in history. Trump has more words written about him every second than Antoninus Pius had written about him ever. This is Trump's story.

If demographics and HBD are to believed, and those things seem pretty damn solid, then we could be at a high water mark not just of 'American empire' but of the history of the world. Again, while some high water marks are clearly in the past, the big one, world GDP, seems to be cresting right now.

Not to talk in hyperbole (too late for that, heh) but:

(1) The world has to have a top and GDP would be the most obvious measure. Trees don't grow to the sky. Things are looking frothy on that front, but the demographic issues are not solved.

(2) History would remember someone as the man of the era of the top. Gee I wonder who that would be? Teresa May? The premier of China? Nope. Nope. There is only one answer to the man of this era.

Okay, so I just memorialize my call for the 'top' of the history of the world on or about 12/18/2017.

Audacious Epigone said...

Dan,

Ah, I see, not just of the American Empire but of the world, ever. Yeah, that is a grand prediction.

Little is written of Trajan, either (Pliny), so that's an impossible comparison but the point's well taken.

Saint Louis said...

So liberal men are roughly equivalent to the average woman? Sounds about right.

22pp22 said...

I tried to watch the linked video but it said the account had been terminated.

DissidentRight said...

High water mark of all all of human history? Pls.

The automation and AI revolution is still in its infancy. We haven’t even begun to colonize the solar system. Earth will be dethroned by the solar array, and the solar array will launch us to the stars.

Diversity will remain earthbound. Only particular nations can survive the hostility of space, and our evolutionary lead is measured in millennial. The hour is far too late to play catchup. Once the civilizational downturn burns off the xenos and fatty cucks, the final frontier is the next stop.

Trump will definitely be the most famous man of our time, but nationalism isn’t exactly groundbreaking. I tend to think Trump will occupy roughly the same status as a Julius Caesar. If you want to live forever you need to found a religion. Of the three notable religions, one actively cripples its own long-term prospects, and the other is the civilizational equivalent of cancer. The third presided over the rise of the West. If Christianity survives the coming crucible, then we can assume Jesus will be proclaimed on Alpha Centuari.

redan said...

Contradiction in terms: "Conservative Women"

dc.sunsets said...

Audacious, I need not remind you to avoid following Doug Casey. My first brush with him was in 1993, and on that path I learned a lot about myself, about markets and about "gurus."

It was an expensive education.

I once really enjoyed Casey's political philosophy, too. AFAIC, he's the ultimate "sounds plausible/doesn't work/don't listen to him" kind of guy.

Dan said...

"High water mark of all all of human history? Pls."

You call yourself Dissident Right? Pls.

John Derbyshire, who has long called himself a dissident, wrote
"We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism"

Does a real Derbyshire-style dissident believe that that AI will save us all? I mean if you think that, what's to worry about?

The 'We are doomed' style, dark conservative would say that the space age already ended some time ago...

"Forget colonizing space. The West will be lucky to come out of The Great Endumbening with functional indoor plumbing. "

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2017/12/peak-humanity.html

Corvinus said...

dc sunsets...

"The cycles of human history don't end, because "enlightenment" is an illusion."

You are correct, the cycles do not end, but it is about how they are caused, or the period of transition from one to the next. "Enlightenment" is the result of people experiencing those cycles, who proceed to offer reasons how to facilitate the its beginning or ending, of courses of actions that were taken to ease its burdens or to sustain its .

"Individuals can figure things out. Aggregates of individuals cannot."

Patently false. The creation of the Bible was a collection of writings by early Christians who were trying to make sense of their world and of their God.

"Women rise to dominate society only when ease and complacency are rampant."

Corrected for accuracy --> Women have risen to prominent positions in society as structures and power have changed as a result of ease and complacency by authority figures.

""Democracy" is a path that leads to certain collapse and chaos, sooner or later."

ANY government, from representative democracy to despotism to absolute monarchy, that is perpetually abusive in its reign, or is constantly enduring civil strife, or is repeatedly engaged in class warfare, will collapse.


AE...

"Ha, indeed, the 19th amendment will collapse along with the US as a single political entity."

Extremely unlikely that is going to happen (regarding the collapse of the 19th Amendment).


dissident right...

"Trump will definitely be the most famous man of our time, but nationalism isn’t exactly groundbreaking. I tend to think Trump will occupy roughly the same status as a Julius Caesar."

Don't think too hard, Chief.

Feryl said...

"Self-identifying as a feminist peaked in the nineties. It's now mostly a young single white woman thing for YOLO types who are on their way to waking up and 35 and realizing the rest of their existence is a slow, steady, lonely descent towards total social invisibility."

There was Boomer backlash towards PC in the 90's, that was motivated in part by disdain for how Gen X-ers in the late 80's and early 90's managed to come off as bummed out, alienated, and preachy all at the same time. Young people are more impressionable, and the Left solidified it's grip on Academia and elite culture in the 1980's.... They managed to turn a lot of young X-ers into humorless scolds (and what is a feminist but that?) at the tail end of the Reagan era and continuing into Bush 1 era. A lot of Boomers were getting cranky too, but they were more personable and witty than the Gen X spoil sports marching to "Take Back the Night" (never mind that Boomer women were dealt the brunt of sexual harassment and assaults, whereas many X-er women were act liking aloof cat ladies in the late 80's and sparing themselves any danger). And as the Boomers would be the first to point out, they marched against things that mattered to a lot of people circa 1970, and they kicked ass while doing so. X-ers circa 1990 were competing to see who could be the biggest PC pansy.

Reminds me also of X-ers being enthusiastically pro-abortion in the early 90's.

Feryl said...

"Feminism is shaping up to be more and more of a relic than "just the way it is." Even among the left, racial issues have far surpassed women issues. You can cite #metoo but it's mostly just the left eating their own, which is hardly unique in this case. It's cleaning house to replace "white" (read: Jewish) men with white women and pee oh cees, which will eventually crowd out the white women like they have in just about every major urban area. Feminism is some wypipo shit. Our New Americans and New Europeans don't care about feminism and neither should we. It's just one of the many restraints whites willingly put on themselves to look good. This is dangerous when the demographic stakes are this high."

Feminism is a boutique issue for the comfortable set. The push for women's rights/activism in the 60's was only made possible by Silent and early Boomer women growing up in a time of unprecedented prosperity. Those of us born over the last 50-60 years worked because we had to, not because we wanted to. This was true for both genders. In the 1940's-1960's, the average man did well enough to easily support a woman who had a part time job or no job at all, and they could easily raise a family. The privileged Silents/early Boomers ended up producing a lot of women who said that being a careerist unburdened with the tasks of finding a good man and starting a family at a young age was a defiant political choice. Whereas among women born after the early 50's, working more hours and delayed family formation came about because it was getting more difficult to find a man who earned a good living.

Nowadays, the last vestiges of conscious feminist thought and activism are primarily seen among twentysomething girls from wealthy and genteel families. These girls can delay milestones of adulthood (up to and including getting a real job) because they've got daddy's money to back them up. Also, they often have well-connected families who can get their daughter into fashionable industries (media, publishing, etc.), in which being a Nasty Woman is trendy. Less privileged women eke out a meager life working downscale jobs and they usually have a boyfriend or husband with whom they hope to eventually carve out some kind of reasonably secure life (but being that men born over the last 60 years are often hard-up for income, short-lived relationships are quite common). Being some kind of Feminist avenger, and really, being into politics to any degree at all, is a waste of time; women are more practicial, they need and they seek certainty and security. Dawdling with boutique activist issues is for girls with a lot of privilege and not much grasp of what creates long-term well-being.

Feryl said...

I just thought up a useful short-hand for generation privilege: Things that you want to do, and things that you have to do.

Those born in the 1920's-1940's did a lot of things because they wanted to do them. Those born in the 70's-90's are doing things because they have to do them. People born in the 50's and 60's fall between the two camps.

I believe this is what accounts for anomie, alienation, and cynicism becoming stronger with each cohort. There's a loss of pride, a loss of optimism, a loss of idealism, a loss of confidence, etc. when you feel as though you aren't in control of your destiny. What's more, the lucky ones born in the 20's-40's are still exerting influence on everyone, long after they've proven that they can't be trusted to steer the ship away from the biggest icebergs.

Feryl said...

As a matter of personal and economic autonomy, it's difficult to conceive of a more blessed generation than those who started careers and/or families in the 1940's-1960's. But seldom do you appreciate what comes so easily to you. Those born over the last 45-50 years practically have grown up in not just in a different civilization, but in a different universe. And claiming that I'm talking about "culture" (e.g. moral values) is how shall we say....Facile. It was the prosperity of the 40's-60's which made cultural changes possible. And the privileged generations oversaw, and approved of, these changes. Later generations are inhabiting a forbidding world that they never asked for, never consented to. With the declining fortunes of younger generations, the ability of us to fight back, to get our way, has diminished. Later Boomers already could sense with good reason that society was short changing them after said society took good care of rising generations in the late 30's-60's. And even younger generations feel even more bitter. What guys like Jim Bowery are trying to convey, I believe, is that what Millennials are now bitching about is not all that different than what late Boomers were saying way back in the 70's. At some point in the 70's, older generations began hoarding their money, power, and privilege, and this hit younger Boomers first, before hitting later generations even harder.

With money comes power; ergo, we ought to apply more accountability as you go backwards through the generations.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

In today's news, Eminem accidentally outs himself by admitting he uses Grindr, TJ Miller gets #metoo'd, and so does Linda Sarsour.

The Trump curse is real.

DissidentRight said...

Dan,

1) My use of the handle predates the Alt-Right. Yes, it comes from Derbyshire. No, I’m not going to use a different one just because my views of changed.

2) What I said: “Once the civilizational downturn burns off the xenos and fatty cucks, the final frontier is the next stop.” Nothing, least of all AI, is going to stop the downturn. But the whites who come out the other side will go to space.

That quote from Vox is melodramatic. If a substantial portion of the low-IQ world was already intermixed with Western populations and actively miscegenating with us, I’d be very worried (see South Africa). But they are *over there*. The act of *importing* them makes our people want to kill them more. Even in America, which is 1/3 xeno, the Diverse populations are heavily concentrated and miscegenation, while rising, is still low, and mudsharks are far less likely than average to produce useful citizens.

Current trends will not continue, and the civilizational downturn will cull the xenos and cucks and uncuck the Right.

thekrustykurmudgeon said...

I'm a huge skeptic of Lott as his most famous study is completely hbd illiterate.

I'm likewise skeptical that women immediately caused the government to expand. The new deal was going to happen whether or not men or women got the right to vote. In any event, men and women voted the same (and women sometimes voted more gop) largely until the 80s.

Passer by said...

Corvinus

"Females are not going to lose the franchise, even if there is the break-up of the United State; our society has moved WAY past this patriarchal notion of men being the exclusive rulers."


----------------------
Its possible.
Huge changes in human societies are possible, look at the communist take overs for example. A brake up of the US followed by a white nationalist dictatorship in the white part implementing Hitlers views on women - and those were to largely put women back into the kitchen. If you look at various nationalist groups, the idea that women do not belong in politics is very, very popular among their members. If these people ever take power, well..


Moreover, you can have heavy patriarchy even with a voting system, if only the elite de facto rules, and voting largely does not matter. Thats the case in many countries around the world, including muslim ones. Yes, the people "vote" there, but the real elite stays, and since it supports patriarchy, the patriarchy stays too. So you can get such a system after a US brake up too.


“Women are more supportive of government spending on social programs across the political spectrum.

Is that breaking news? So what. In the end, it makes no difference. Women are going to vote for such spending, just like men will also support those measures. "

------------------------------------
Oh, this is actually very, very important. If women are for some reason more supportive of bigger government, higher taxes, more welfare, etc. this means that increasing women's influence will gradually move society to the left. Its not simply about voting. As women move into the labour force, politics, academia, positions of power etc. they increase their influence and thus push society to the left from the various positions of influence they hold. That could explain the gradual move of western societies towards liberalism/bigger state - as women continue to move into more positions of influence, they push society further to the left.

Also this means that feminised countries will become great targets for leeches - as we know from various surveys that non-whites are also more supportive of big government, welfare state and the left, compated to whites. In other words -> more women -> more minorities. This could even mean that feminised societies will die due to dysgenic foreign take over, because feminised societies are great for the spread of low IQ migrants who seek to parasitise on society.

dc.sunsets said...

Feryl, your insights are thought-provoking. So much depended on conditions when one hit adulthood.

If conditions were fat (e.g., 1947-1964) your trajectory was steeply positive. If you were tail end Charlie during the lulls (1964-82/83) you struggled with layoffs or gross underemployment, putting you on a long-term lower trajectory.

The amplitude of booms & busts, and the unevenness of ease & hardship appeared to me to rise dramatically as the monetary system turned abstract. This abstract condition enabled con artistry on a massive scale, and the whole usa turned into the con artists vs the marks.

You can't cheat an honest man. The masses of men took the easy way whenever it was dangled in front of them, and here we are.

Passer by said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Passer by said...

thekrustykurmudgeon

"In any event, men and women voted the same (and women sometimes voted more gop) largely until the 80s."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, that does not mean anything. Women could push BOTH parties to the left, especially on social issues. The Dem is not the same party as the one from before 100 years and the GOP isn't the same party as the one from before 100 years. Quite possibly women changed them too.

Various surveys show that women within parties are more left wing than men within the same parties, thus women push both parties to the left. Since women are the majority of voters, any party will have to take what they want into account.

Example: no party could win elections in the US today if they promise to ban abortion. Simply aint going to happen. Nada. And no party will be able to win election if they try to ban no fault divorce.

I'm sure that in the past the GOP and even the Dems were against legalising abortion and no fault divorce. But they are no longer now. They all moved to the left on social issues. So what changed? Women. As their influence gradually increased, they forced society to the left, especially on social issues. This is one of the reasons our society today is very different from the one from before 100 years. Women's influence.

Audacious Epigone said...

22pp22,

Looks like that account was disabled. I've updated the link with another. Worth watching. Gowdy does a huge public service in it.

Feryl,

Wrt to being a career woman, I get the sense that it went from aspirational virtue-signaling--"like a fish needs a bicycle!"--to reflexive ego-procteting (because now it's a necessity for a lot of people).

Random Dude,

Hah! It really is beautiful to behold, isn't it?

Krusty,

Where are you getting the assertion that women voted more GOP in the past? Here are 1968 and 1972, with women trending more Dem than men, for example (I didn't check any others).

Agree wrt Lott, though that's applicable to 95% of the professional pundit/scholarly class.

Corvinus said...

Passer by…

“Its possible.”

No, it is highly improbable when it comes to women losing the franchise.

“Yes, the people "vote" there, but the real elite stays, and since it supports patriarchy, the patriarchy stays too.”

You really need to pay closer attention to the day's talking points. Today’s elite actually OPPOSES patriarchy. Perhaps the stacked blonde secretary had obscured your vision.

“Oh, this is actually very, very important. If women are for some reason more supportive of bigger government, higher taxes, more welfare, etc. this means that increasing women's influence will gradually move society to the left. Its not simply about voting.”

If women as a collective bloc have such a dramatic effect. You are forgetting minorities and Jews in the equation here.

“This could even mean that feminised societies will die due to dysgenic foreign take over…”

Assuming that the men who tend to support “lefty" causes are “feminized”.


Feryl…

“There was Boomer backlash towards PC in the 90's, that was motivated in part by disdain for how Gen X-ers in the late 80's and early 90's managed to come off as bummed out, alienated, and preachy all at the same time.”



No, Gen X-ers were not “bummed out, alienated, and preachy”. Rather, they were excited about the prospects of their future and sought to discuss their points of view rather than merely virtue signal.

“Young people are more impressionable, and the Left solidified it's grip on Academia and elite culture in the 1980’s…”



Or perhaps it’s just increasing numbers of people bought in, on their own accord, to the ideas brought forth at university.

“but they were more personable and witty than the Gen X spoil sports marching to "Take Back the Night”…

The rallying cry for Gen X-ers was “Smells Like Teen Spirit”.

“whereas many X-er women were act liking aloof cat ladies in the late 80's and sparing themselves any danger.”

Are you really that clueless? Gen Xer women were singing “Living On A Prayer” while passionately kissing their boyfriends and enjoying the fruits of their labor. Man, you really know how to fling bullshit.

“The privileged Silents/early Boomers ended up producing a lot of women who said that being a careerist unburdened with the tasks of finding a good man and starting a family at a young age was a defiant political choice.”

No, women at this time were saying they sought the liberty to have a career, to find a good man, and to start a family with him without being shackled and shamed by the political and economic system.

“Nowadays, the last vestiges of conscious feminist thought and activism are primarily seen among twentysomething girls from wealthy and genteel families.”

No, “grrrll powr” is a potent force among young and older women regardless of social-economic background.

“Those born in the 70's-90's are doing things because they have to do them.”

Actually, those born in this time frame do things and did things because 1) they were raised that way, 2) they wanted to, for their own reasons, and/or 3) they had to, in order to have a lifestyle their desired.

“Later generations are inhabiting a forbidding world that they never asked for, never consented to.”

Actually, Gen Xer’s and Millennials have been integral parts of developing this world. They didn’t just consent, they forged the path!

Passer by said...

Corvinus...

“Its possible.”

"No, it is highly improbable when it comes to women losing the franchise."

------------------------
Its possible as there is nothing new in huge societal changes. The way for this to happen in the US will be a break up of the country and a take over of the white part by white nationalist dictatorship, following NS Germany's ideology (Hitler banned women from politics). Most people on the far right do not want women in politics, and this is what they intend to do if they take power. I'm sure that people believed that communists could never take power too, but it happened in many countries, so a white fascist take over could happen too, after a US break up.

“Yes, the people "vote" there, but the real elite stays, and since it supports patriarchy, the patriarchy stays too.”

"You really need to pay closer attention to the day's talking points. Today’s elite actually OPPOSES patriarchy. Perhaps the stacked blonde secretary had obscured your vision."

-----------------------------------
Thank you very much, but i wrote that this will be a possible option *after* a US break up and a new white nationalist elite take over of the white part.

“Oh, this is actually very, very important. If women are for some reason more supportive of bigger government, higher taxes, more welfare, etc. this means that increasing women's influence will gradually move society to the left. Its not simply about voting.”

If women as a collective bloc have such a dramatic effect. You are forgetting minorities and Jews in the equation here.

---------------------------------------
Yes, they (minorities and Jews) do have an effect, but i believe that women could have a dramatic effect. Case in point - Scandinavia. Non white immigration is a recent thing for most of them and they have far fewer jews per capita compared to the US, yet they are the most liberal countries in the world, with large welfare states. What caused this? Women's influence. Because they also have the highest women's influence in the world as well. They became extremely liberal and egalitarian way before any third world immigration. They have the highest level of female influence, hence the highest level of liberalism and egalitarianism, welfare state, etc.

“This could even mean that feminised societies will die due to dysgenic foreign take over…”

Assuming that the men who tend to support “lefty" causes are “feminized”.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, i just call "feminized countries" those with the highest level of female influence in society.

Feryl said...

"No, Gen X-ers were not “bummed out, alienated, and preachy”. Rather, they were excited about the prospects of their future and sought to discuss their points of view rather than merely virtue signal."

Adults in the late 80's and early 90's perceived young X-ers to be aloof, impassive, opaque, etc. Doesn't matter how you or I feel about it, that was the reality. A common Boomer criticism about teenagers in the 80's was that "they just don't seem to care about anything".

Excited about the future? That's a strange notion, since the early 90's were a time of economic depression and cynicism about a lot of things. Searching the NY Times for "nihilism" or "nihilist" reveals that usage peaks in the 1970's and about from about 1992-1996. By contrast, the 1980's were certainly a time of fear and anxiety in some ways, but people tended to be upbeat and unpretentious especially earlier in the decade, and they supported traditional notions of morality and taboos (homos were reviled, drugs were considered a scourge, most people agreed that America was a better nation than most others, and society begin to protect children after neglecting them in the 1970's). The later 1970's and "grunge"1990's (1992-1996) were low points in American's (and perhaps Westerners in general) sense of purpose, well-being, and moral clarity. Self-reported homophobia began declining around 1993.

- but they were more personable and witty than the Gen X spoil sports marching to "Take Back the Night”…

"The rallying cry for Gen X-ers was “Smells Like Teen Spirit”.

Okey dokey, using the most iconic grunge song to "prove" that early 90's Gen X-ers were fun, personable, and motivated. Ironically, you already mentioned a much better and more wholesome song (Living on a Prayer) from a more exciting and charming time period (the mid-80's). And Bon Jovi are all Boomers.

And from an objective standpoint, Nirvana (mostly) stunk. Kurt couldn't play or sing worth a damn, though he could fashion an okay melody two or three times an album. The Boomers have a right to be proud of their creative accomplishments; their 70's and 80's music absolutely demolishes the Gen X artists of the 90's and 2000's. Grunge wise, Pearl Jam (mostly Boomer) were better musicians than Nirvana and slightly better song writers. Soundgarden (all Boomer) likewise. Alice In Chains (all Gen X) were, like Nirvana, capable of producing two or three listenable songs an album. But AIC were the most nihilistic of the grunge bands, and that's saying something.

Objectively speaking, the arena rock/prog rock/heavy metal/disco/New Wave/R&B etc. of the 70's and 80's has more sophisticated playing, melodies, song writing (distinct intro/verse/chorus/bridge usually w/solo/outro) and greater vocal range than what you see with 1990's (or later) music. Unless you're deaf or something, you probably remember the endless plague of flat, bored sounding singers of the 1990's (a trend for which Kurt go-bang deserves partial blame).

Hit song sophistication had two peaks: 1976, and 1983. The early 1980's were also a boom period for hits being written by the recording artist, rather than being covers or written by song-writers.

Feryl said...

Correction: *rather than being covers or written by 3rd party song-writers instead of the performing artist.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

An episode during the Simpsons golden age has Homer being shot out of a cannon at a grunge music festival. One of the spectators says in a mildly sarcastic tone something to the effect of, "Oh look, it's that cannonball guy. He's cool." The guy next to him responds with, "Are you being sarcastic?" To which the first guy says, "I don't even know anymore."

Corvinus said...

Passer by...

"The way for this to happen in the US will be a break up of the country and a take over of the white part by white nationalist dictatorship"

Which, given our nation's history, I can safely say with 100% certainity is NOT going to happen.

"Non white immigration is a recent thing for most of them and they have far fewer jews per capita compared to the US, yet they are the most liberal countries in the world, with large welfare states. What caused this? Women's influence."

You mean one of many factors which led to this phenomenon.


Feryl...

"And from an objective standpoint, Nirvana (mostly) stunk."

You mean from your personal standpoint. This group was a cultural trendsetter. It would have been interesting had Cobain not blown his brains out as far as their direction, as Dave Grohl had expressed a desire to reinvent itself every album. His own work has been solid IMHO.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/music/what-to-listen-to/nevermind-at-25-how-nirvanas-1991-album-changed-the-cultural-lan/

"Objectively speaking, the arena rock/prog rock/heavy metal/disco/New Wave/R&B etc. of the 70's and 80's has more sophisticated playing, melodies, song writing (distinct intro/verse/chorus/bridge usually w/solo/outro) and greater vocal range than what you see with 1990's (or later) music."

Music is a matter of taste. While I lean towards 70's/80's music, I wouldn't characterize it as "demolishing" 1990's artists and songs.

"Excited about the future? That's a strange notion, since the early 90's were a time of economic depression and cynicism about a lot of things."

Not a strange notion at all. In 1992, the nonprofit Families and Work Institute reported 80 percent of people under 23 wanted to one day have a job with greater responsibility. Why? In large part because of their positivity to make a different in their own lives. In 1990, Time published an article "Living: Proceeding With Caution" which described Gen Xer's aimless and unfocused; however, in 1997, it came back with "Generation X Reconsidered", retracting their previously discussed negative stereotypes and noting their ambition and drive, especially in areas of technology. According to the General Social Survey, researchers in the early 1990's noted that Gen Xers ages 18-29 had exhibited higher levels of cynicism and disaffection than past cohorts; YET, the researchers found that these attitudes had increased among all age groups surveyed over time, making it a period, not a group, effect.

Passer by said...

Corvinus said...

"The way for this to happen in the US will be a break up of the country and a take over of the white part by white nationalist dictatorship"

Which, given our nation's history, I can safely say with 100% certainity is NOT going to happen.

-------------------------------------------------

How do you know that? In the beginning of the 19th century for example no one knew that after 100 years there will be communism in various countries, no one even knew what communism is (and i'm sure that some of them knew history, yet had no idea what will happen). Yet it happened. History teaches that huge social changes could happen, including things that almost no one expected.


"Non white immigration is a recent thing for most of them and they have far fewer jews per capita compared to the US, yet they are the most liberal countries in the world, with large welfare states. What caused this? Women's influence."

You mean one of many factors which led to this phenomenon

-------------------------------------------

Who are those factors? I established that it is not third world immigration and quite possibly not jews. You must say what exactly caused Scandinavia to be more liberal and egalitarian than all the other countries. What is it that Scandinavia has more than all other countries? Could it be female influence? Because it is also the region with the highest level of female influence.

Various studies show that women are more egalitarian and more supportive of equality than men. Ergo more women's influence - more liberalism and egalitarianism.

What i found is that there is almost perfect correlation between the level of liberalism of society and level of female influence in society. The most feminised countries are also the most liberal ones. Now, correlation is not necessarily causation, yet the correlation is almost 100 percent. The most illiberal countries are the muslim ones, with the lowest level of female influence, while the most liberal countries are the scandinavian ones, with the highest level of female influence.

So what do you think about it? Is it strongly caused by female influence? Is it the most important factor?

1:
Studies say women are more egalitarian than men.


2:
Scandinavia: Highest level of female influence --> highest level of liberalism and egalitarianism.

Muslim World: Lowest level of female influence --> lowest level of liberalism and egalitarianism.

3:
West 1900 Low level of female influence --> low level of liberalism and egalitarianism.
West 2000 High level of female influence --> high level of low level of liberalism and egalitarianism.

Corvinus said...

“History teaches that huge social changes could happen, including things that almost no one expected.”

Except Americans today are generally educated about the “evils” of communism, Nazism, and white nationalism. And since we are a nation of mutts, who leans center right, the rise of a totalitarian regime managed by white nationalists is beyond the pale.

The genie has left the bottle. American men and women are not going to "turn back the clock" to embrace strict patriarchal rule by benevolent dictators.

“Various studies show that women are more egalitarian and more supportive of equality than men. Ergo more women's influence - more liberalism and egalitarianism.”

Again, one part of the equation. You also have men who embrace egalitarianism who may be in positions of authority, who may have the charisma and clout to ensure that liberal ideals are at the forefront. But what was once considered radical—gay marriage, women’s suffrage, integration of whites-blacks—is mainstream. It is part of our national consciousness. Some would call it “normal”.

“What i found is that there is almost perfect correlation between the level of liberalism of society and level of female influence in society.”

Correlation is not causation. Remember, modern liberalism is not completely collectivist; nor is it completely individualistic. It has elements of both doctrines.


“Scandinavia: Highest level of female influence --> highest level of liberalism and egalitarianism. Muslim World: Lowest level of female influence --> lowest level of liberalism and egalitarianism.”

The Muslim World is heavily non-secular compared to Scandinavia. However, there is an interesting phenomenon occurring with Middle Eastern women.

https://www.thenation.com/article/rise-islamic-feminists

Feryl said...

"According to the General Social Survey, researchers in the early 1990's noted that Gen Xers ages 18-29 had exhibited higher levels of cynicism and disaffection than past cohorts; YET, the researchers found that these attitudes had increased among all age groups surveyed over time, making it a period, not a group, effect."

Sure, but trends hit teenagers/college kids harder than they do older people. A lot of Boomers also felt shitty in the early 90's, but they tended to perceive (accurately) that teens and college kids seemed A LOT more bummed out than they did in the 80's. And BTW, what you experience in your teens/early 20's will affect you your whole life. People born in the early 60's tend to be quite a bit more friendly and cheerful than people born in the late 60's/early 70's. Why? Coming of age in the earlier 80's makes you predisposed to having a fun personality, whereas coming of age in the earlier 90's was a drag.

"in 1997, it came back with "Generation X Reconsidered", retracting their previously discussed negative stereotypes and noting their ambition and drive, especially in areas of technology. "

The late 90's (when I was entering adolescence) were a (relatively) care free and unpretentious phase. The media largely lost interest in Gen X-ers in the late 90's, mainly because we'd left the dour zeitgeist of the earlier 90's. The media (inanely) thought that the 1990's early Gen X zeitgeist was here to stay until a more upbeat generation came along, until about 1997 when everybody seemed to lighten up (though some early X-ers were bitter that the bright spirit of the goddam 80's seemed to be coming back after early X-ers spent 1992-1996 doing everything possible to slam the 80's as shallow, boring, cheap, and tasteless).

BTW, early X-er here means 1965-1975. Later X-ers (1976-1984) don't have the same kind of conceit about "man, we made everything better after some god forsaken wastleland of a decade. The attitude of early X-ers in 1992-1996 was not unlike the attitude of early Boomers in 1967-1972. Blinding hatred for one decade (the 50's and then 80's) and then pedastalizing the subsequent decade (the 60's and the 90's).

Feryl said...

"This group was a cultural trendsetter. It would have been interesting had Cobain not blown his brains out as far as their direction, as Dave Grohl had expressed a desire to reinvent itself every album. His own work has been solid IMHO.:

Cobain was making every album progressively lighter and slower; given that truly heavy rock music was mostly dead(artistically and commercially) by 1995 (after being on life support from 1992-1994) who could blame him? That being said all kinds of music was getting progressively worse as the 90's went on. 70's music was more complex and had more warmth, and 80's music was more complex and had a better sense of drama and a lot more energy than 90's music.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/music/what-to-listen-to/nevermind-at-25-how-nirvanas-1991-album-changed-the-cultural-lan/

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. The joke is on the dweebs who think rock music "improved" after the cultural 80's(1982-1991) . Hard hitting rock music is dead. Stick a fork in it. The last truly great series of hard rock albums came out in 1991:

- Ten, Pearl Jam
- Nevermind, Nirvana
- Use your Illusion, Guns and Roses
- S/T Metallica

Soundgarden had a good album, too, and Red Hot Chili Peppers (sorta heavy, at times) did. As a matter of personal taste, I've never cared for more than a couple songs off of Nevermind, but who am I to disagree with cultural Marxists who prefer a dour zeitgeist? The general public didn't agree with the Jews, either, as the much less nihilistic Pearl Jam had a better selling record. Metallica's album sold better, also. Life affirming Pearl Jam and passionately edgy Metallica made better music than "I wished I was gay" emo headcase Cobain.

The zeitgeist of 1992-1996 was going to happen no matter what. Nirvana were the beneficiaries of good timing, as Nevermind climbed the charts higher and higher as 1992 went on. And Cobain's suicide prolonged the popularity of In Utero's hits, as many people felt that much of the album was a peek into the psyche of a rare artist who doesn't live long enough to see his cultural relevance and charisma fade.

Rock since 1992 has gotten feeble, boring, and minimalist, with occasional periods where artists wake up and remember to be entertaining. Mainly the early 2000's. The public and the artists lost interest in creative and entertaining music after 1991.

Anonymous said...

Women no doubt have a negative effect overall on politics, but the bottom line, the iron law of history, is if you won't fight you're going to get f***ed. If you have something someone wants they're going to take it from you if you won't physically prevent them, and it really doesn't matter all that much if the takers are domestic or foreign. Either one means to strip you bare and leave you to die in the gutter. This is not a nation, it is an internal empire, with a hostile colonial government who thinks of the (white) people as enemies. Start looking at the government in its correct light, as an occupational government where democracy, justice, and fairness are just fig leaves to cover brutal exploitation and expropriation, where the mass importation of a new population has disenfranchised you. Don't blame the ladies if you won't fight.

Passer by said...

Corvinus..

“History teaches that huge social changes could happen, including things that almost no one expected.”

Except Americans today are generally educated about the “evils” of communism, Nazism, and white nationalism. And since we are a nation of mutts, who leans center right, the rise of a totalitarian regime managed by white nationalists is beyond the pale.

------------------------------------------------------
Yes, but all types of surveys show that political polarisation of US society is growing and it is at an all time high.

https://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2016/3/24/11298808/american-politics-peak-polarization

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-03/americas-extreme-social-fragmentation-exposed-3-simple-charts

And generation Z white people are the most pro-republican white people of all times - there is extreme level of polarisation among young US people, based on race lines.

http://anepigone.blogspot.bg/2017/08/generation-zyklons-white-guys-favored.html

The way i see it, the more white people are becoming a minority, the more they are radicalizing and moving to the right. Imagine the level of polarisation when white people become 50 percent of the US population. It will be huge. If those trends continue it could lead to break up of the US. After a US break up, all bets are off. If white nationalists take power of the white part of the US, they will institute something similar to NS Germany's culture policies, including no women in politics, at least thats what most of them say.



“Various studies show that women are more egalitarian and more supportive of equality than men. Ergo more women's influence - more liberalism and egalitarianism.”

Again, one part of the equation. You also have men who embrace egalitarianism who may be in positions of authority, who may have the charisma and clout to ensure that liberal ideals are at the forefront.


------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, it is one part, but it is the key part. If women are more liberal and egalitarian than men, then you will simply have this:

More female influence in society = more liberalism and egalitarianism.

More male influence in society = less liberalism and egalitarianism.

You can also socially engineer society this way, by increasing/decreasing male influence or female influence. And i think jews are aware of this.




“What i found is that there is almost perfect correlation between the level of liberalism of society and level of female influence in society.”

Correlation is not causation.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, but this sounds quite logical. If more women = more liberalism and egalitarianism, then feminised country = more liberal and egalitarian country. And this is precisely what we observe. The scandinavian countries are the most liberal ones of all, and well as the most feminised countries of all.

“Scandinavia: Highest level of female influence --> highest level of liberalism and egalitarianism. Muslim World: Lowest level of female influence --> lowest level of liberalism and egalitarianism.”

Passer by said...

Corvinus.. 2

The Muslim World is heavily non-secular compared to Scandinavia.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think that this is simply secularism based. There are many secular countries that are not as liberal and egalitarian as Scandinavia.

For example Japan is one of the most secular countries in the world, but it is also less liberal, less egalitarian, more traditional, more xenophobic, and way more patriarchal than Scandinavia. Since Japan lacks the feminization of the Scandinavian countries, it is not as liberal and egalitarian as they are. Same for China.



However, there is an interesting phenomenon occurring with Middle Eastern women.

https://www.thenation.com/article/rise-islamic-feminists

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, i think this is mostly people dreaming to see what they want to see. Actually if you study the Islamic world you will find that it became more radicalized and more Islamist during the last 30 years. Turkey became more islamic, Libya became more islamic, Iraq became more islamic, Tunisia became more islamic, Egypt became more islamic, Taliban are gaining ground in Afghanistan, etc. In the 80s, things were a lot more secular in the Islamic world. Various surveys find that second generation muslim migrants are more radicalized and more islamic than first generation migrants in the West.

For more info -

4 Jarring Signs of Turkey's Growing Islamization

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/05/4-jarring-signs-of-turkeys-growing-islamization/276425/

How the Veil Conquered Cairo University

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/48901/how-veil-conquered-cairo-university-jamie-glazov

Islamization of Afghanistan

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/f5/90/10/f59010bc2606e590ce21232d0c2c78c7--sharia-law-scary.jpg

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/02/02/afghan-government-controls-just-57-percent-of-its-territory-says-u-s-watchdog/?utm_term=.44c803ad74b7

Second generation muslims more radical than first generation
http://10news.dk/research-second-generation-muslim-immigrant-more-radical-than-first-generation/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1540895/Young-British-Muslims-getting-more-radical.html

Audacious Epigone said...

Corvinus,

Link us to where you predicted a Trump victory, preferably sometime in 2015 or early 2016.

Corvinus said...

AE...

"Corvinus, Link us to where you predicted a Trump victory, preferably sometime in 2015 or early 2016."

Very few people predicted Trump would win. But as he gained momentum in late 2015 and secured the nomination in 2016, given that Hillary was a historically weak candidate, and that Trump is essentially a showman with elitist, globalist, and pro-Jewish ties, it became clear to me that the election would be close, despite all of the polls and prognosticators. Exactly why polling is a joke because it has become, like everything else in the last decade, overtly politicized--one can massage the data in their own desired direction.

Feryl...

"That being said all kinds of music was getting progressively worse as the 90's went on. 70's music was more complex and had more warmth, and 80's music was more complex and had a better sense of drama and a lot more energy than 90's music."

While I am partial to 70's/80's/early 90's music, I understand that it is my opinion on the matter. Likewise, you have your own take on music. It does not mean that it is objectively true. Each generation has an affinity for the music they were raised with. Take into account your own confirmation bias here.

"Sure, but trends hit teenagers/college kids harder than they do older people."

Older people are just as affected by these trends, as they may openly question why they are occurring or outright resist them.

"A lot of Boomers also felt shitty in the early 90's, but they tended to perceive (accurately) that teens and college kids seemed A LOT more bummed out than they did in the 80's."

In the late 1980's and early 1990's, Gen Xer's generally felt invigorated and alive. Perhaps it is YOUR experience, but that does not mean your generalization is apt.

"People born in the early 60's tend to be quite a bit more friendly and cheerful than people born in the late 60's/early 70's."

Data points here to offer proof of your assertion?

"The late 90's (when I was entering adolescence) were a (relatively) care free and unpretentious phase."

As was the late 1980's and early 1990's for Gen Xers.

"The media largely lost interest in Gen X-ers in the late 90's..."

Hardly. Programming continued to reflect their muscle.

"BTW, early X-er here means 1965-1975. Later X-ers (1976-1984) don't have the same kind of conceit about "man, we made everything better after some god forsaken wastleland of a decade."

Generally speaking, early and late Gen Xers clearly share the same sentiments.

"The public and the artists lost interest in creative and entertaining music after 1991."

From YOUR perspective.

Passer by...

"Yes, but all types of surveys show that political polarisation of US society is growing and it is at an all time high."

That does not mean that white people will buy in to white nationalism in droves.

"And generation Z white people are the most pro-republican white people of all times - there is extreme level of polarisation among young US people, based on race lines."

No, Generation Z are fiscal conservatives and social liberals. This notion that Generation Z is "Zyklon B" is truly laughable.
They are more diverse than any generation, more liberal in areas like marijuana legalization, and transgender issues, generally support same sex marriage, and are decidedly concerned about global warming.

"The way i see it, the more white people are becoming a minority, the more they are radicalizing and moving to the right."

Here's to wishful thinking (l'chaim ching ching cheers).




Passer by said...

Corvinus..

"Yes, but all types of surveys show that political polarisation of US society is growing and it is at an all time high."

That does not mean that white people will buy in to white nationalism in droves.



---------------------------------------------------
Big cultural changes could happen after a collapse. Case in point - Soviet Union --> Russia Today Communist Poland --> Modern Poland.

After the Soviet Union Collapsed, people lost faith in the old system. People stopped believing in leftism and started to think that it does not work, and moved towards traditionalism. As a result, in Russia now you have anti-gay, anti-feminist, pro-religion, pro tradition elite ruling the country (that does not care too much about voting or elections, because they control most of the media and have most of the power). After the fall of communism, Poland banned abortion, while religion and nationalism are triving.

In other words, a huge cultural change is possible if the old system collapses and people no longer believe in it.

So if the US collapses, the white part becomes disappointed in the old system, it blames it for the collapse, and returns towards traditionalism/conservatism.

Possible scenario for US break up:

Year 2035 China is the world's largest economy. It dwarfs the US. Whites are becoming a minority in the US and the IQ of the US population is dropping. The US dollar loses the position of the world's reserve currency. Massive inflation follows. US debts are astronomical. World shuns the US. The EU collapses under the weight of its debts and very old population. Japanese economy collapses due to extremely old population and very high debt levels. US economy implodes and collapses (it was already very close to collapse in 2008). The old liberal system is discredited. Red states combine to create a white nationalist entity. The leaders of the new entity (mostly military) follow Putin's way of establishing a nationalist, conservative, traditionalist elite, and country. They blame liberalism, jews and non-whites for the collapse of the US.


"And generation Z white people are the most pro-republican white people of all times - there is extreme level of polarisation among young US people, based on race lines."

No, Generation Z are fiscal conservatives and social liberals. This notion that Generation Z is "Zyklon B" is truly laughable.
They are more diverse than any generation, more liberal in areas like marijuana legalization, and transgender issues, generally support same sex marriage, and are decidedly concerned about global warming.


---------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, they are the most diverse generation, but i'm talking about whites from Gen Z, not the whole Gen Z. Whites. The voting polarisation is on racial lines between whites and non-whites, with extremely high levels of young whites saying they would vote for Trump, and extremely high levels of non-whites backing Dems. I have never seen such high levels of white support for republicans. Btw Trump is anti-global warming. How do you know that Gen Z whites are more supportive of LGBT issues and fighting Global Warming compared to let's say millenials? Its quite possible that they are not. I'm not talking about the whole Gen Z, but about the white portion of it.

From what i have seen in /pol/ - Politically Incorrect - 4chan, young white people are anti-gay, not into Global Warming stuff, quite racist, and quite sexist/antifeminist. It would be good if you have some data/surveys of white Gen Z on social issues.

Feryl said...

"Generally speaking, early and late Gen Xers clearly share the same sentiments."

Nah, there's a continuum in every generation. People born at the beginning of a generation over-lap with the previous generation, people born at the end of a generation over-lap with the subsequent generation.

Trying to ID generations by linking them to very specific events (Woodstock or whatever) or trends leads to contentious debates about what these things really meant to those who experienced them, and to me it becomes a way to rather arrogantly police generational boundaries. We can avoid this by acknowledging that every generation lasts approx. 20 years, and those born at different points in that span experienced varying events and trends, or experienced the same things but at different ages. Those born in 1970 have different feelings and memories than those born in 1980 (and a 20 yr old in 1990 is going to have a much different opinion about something than a 10 yr old in 1990 would). Split the difference of how the early and later born people feel, think, and act, and we can arrive at an general sense of that generation's identity.

The most consistent and black and white way to ID generations, to me, is to always set them at a concrete age range governed by experience in a particular series of decades. For example, if you don't remember the 60's virtually at all but remember the 80's, you're a Gen X-er. AKA being born from 1965 (but no earlier) thru perhaps the first 5 or 6 months of 1985. As I said above, there's overlap. So people born in 1960-1965 will share traits of Boomers and X-ers, while people born from 1980-1985 will have Gen X and Millennial traits. The key transition point between generations seems to be about a 3 year period every 20 years. People born from 1963-1965 are tough to pin down, as are people born from '83-'85, or people born form 1943-1945. I was born in early 1985, and I often find true Gen X-ers (those born from 1966-1982) to be a bit calloused and intimidating (more so the earlier X-ers who have the street smarts of late Boomers but are much less amiable than late Boomers), while on the other hand I don't strongly identify with the Harry Potter reading nerdy Millennials born after 1985.

Feryl said...

"Red states combine to create a white nationalist entity. "

"Red" states are mostly in the lightly populated and/or rootless Mountain and Plains states. The Deep South has states that are roughly 50-70% white in population, with traditionally large populations of blacks and other ethnic groups are beginning to make inroads as well (there are yuppies in the South who need their Mexican nannies and garderners, and restaurants that need Mexican dishwashers. The biggest impediment to ethnic nationalism in America is America's elites not allowing more than 40-50 years to go by before yet another wave of cheap labor.

Back in the colonial days, various British Isle whites had enough "diversity" to cause friction, and as more of America was settled each group laid claim to a different part of America, and this legacy has lived on ever since, with various white "ethnics" (Jews, Italians, whatever) and arguably even later generation Hispanics eventually taking on the characteristics of the 4 ethno-regions of America. Which are listed below:

Feryl said...

East Anglia to Massachusetts

" The Exodus of the English Puritans (Pilgrims and Puritans influenced the Northeastern United States' corporate and educational culture)[3]"
My take: Morally vain, emotionally and aesthetically austere......But really damn productive and intellectual. Pompous, though not always without good reason. Midlanders half-begrudgingly accept these Yankees as business partners (and perhaps, intellectual superiors and moral equals). Meanwhile, the Scots-Irish begrudgingly accept some of the traits of Midlanders, but relations between Puritans and Scots-Irish remain strained at best (Puritans are distressed by the indulgence of the Scots-Irish, while Scots-Irish know from day one that a typical Northeastern Yankee is born with a giant steel rod up his ass

The South of England to Virginia

"The Cavaliers and Indentured Servants (Gentry influenced the Southern United States' plantation culture)[4]"

My take: I wish I had more to say, but this is the smallest and least appreciated of the 4 groups. Most people intuitively sense that Virginia (even 20 or 30 years ago) has a....Different kind of Southerner than what you found in Alabama.

Feryl said...

North Midlands to the Delaware Valley

"The Friends' Migration (Quakers influenced the Middle Atlantic and Midwestern United States' industrial culture)[5]"

My take: this is my region. Unpretentiously hard working, hearty, laid-back, but decidedly timid....And rather lacking in ambition. The English Midlanders and the Teuton sub-groups, Nords, and Slavs for for whom they have an affinity tend to excel at team-work, fairness, and camaraderie but have a mixed track record of producing glorious individuals of accomplishment and charisma.

Borderlands to the Backcountry

The Flight from North Britain (Scotch-Irish and border English influenced the Western United States' ranch culture and the Southern United States' common agrarian culture)[6]

My take: Irascible and excitable, clannish and tough. They excel as shock troops against the enemy, whether it's Indians in the past or against whatever foreign nation we happen to be at war with since. The source of much "redneck" culture and antipathy towards civics. While puritans and Midlanders made the Northeast and Midwest a fabulous source of wealth and development (via trade, agriculture, manufacturing, and entrepreneurship) , the Scots Irish were drawn to physically forbidding and often difficult to develop or even navigate areas. The Appalaichan mountains, the bayous and lousy soils of the South, and the many mountains and deserts of the West. Post WW2 wealth brought unprecedented levels of investment and economic activity to the Southern and Western US, for which many Southerners and Westerners remain uneasy; if they wanted to be cogs in the capitalist machine, they'd have settled in the Northeast or Midwest. What's truly notable is that other ethnic groups (including other white groups) have only very gradually and tentatively set foot in the South, with a lot of hesitation and anxiety, over the last 70 years. And at that, they tend to stick to a handful of large metro areas. Many people raised in the South and Out West seem to burn bright.....Then flicker out. Of the four main grunge bands, 3 out 4 of their singers are now dead...The only one still alive, Eddie Vedder, was raised partially in the Midwest, while the dead ones were firmly products of the American West (a region still known for it's anomie). Emotional and/or physical problems seem to plague the regions of America that took century after century to tame, and those who did the taming (the Scots-Irish/Borderers) left a culture that often gets the best of people.

The Western and the Southern Gothic are venerable genres, in which violence and tragedy are features, not bugs, while on the other hand it's difficult to find bloody drama in the lives of Puritans or Midlanders, with the exception of the often dark skinned and immigrant under class of these regions; The lighter skinned natives who've had roots in the NE quarter of America for many generations are a pretty stable and peaceful bunch.

Nominal white nationalism will have to overcome the considerable degree of regional and ethnic diversity in America, and like I indicated above, outside of blacks (and perhaps Arabs), Americans of every ethnicity eventually assimilates to the characteristics of one of the culturally and historically distinct three main regions of America: Puritan New England, Midlander Midwest, and the Scots-Irish South/West. The Mid-Atlantic is a the transition zone between Puritan land to the Northeast, Midland land to the West (abruptly ending at the Rocky Mountains), and Scots-Irish land to the South.

Audacious Epigone said...

Corvinus,

They are more diverse than any generation, more liberal in areas like marijuana legalization, and transgender issues, generally support same sex marriage, and are decidedly concerned about global warming.

In Alabama, whites aged 18-24 went considerably stronger for Moore than 20-29 and 30-39 yo whites did. Given that Moore was about as socially conservative as it gets--opposition to same-sex marriage, tranny 'rights', etc--it's not obvious to me that such an assertion is correct. Time will tell.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

My paternal ancestors are mentioned in Albion's Seed--my surname is unique--as members of the small artisanal middle class in cavalier Virginia. The least egalitarian of the four waves might be part of the reason it garners the least collective mental space for most people.

Feryl said...

Late X-ers and Millennials are at this point tired of culture warrior dipshits, esp. if they've been around for several decades. They don't mind lovably goofy Boomer schtick, but they sure as hell hope that Boomers leave the "values" nonsense back in the 80's and 90's where it belongs. Those of us who were kids back then got tired of it back then; why would we want to hear it now? People born over the last 40-45 years want the culture to move on. Perhaps Gen Z (who generally had one or two Gen X parents and didn't experience the vaunted "culture" war) just don't feel the urge to boot the ass of a Boomer blowhard like people born in the 70's and 80's do.

Let's face it, Bernie didn't win over younger voters by citing religion or morality. He stuck to, wait for it......Pre-1970 standard Leftist schtick about the material conditions of the underclass and young people. Moore was a pitifully antiquated candidate, and his defeat ought to be the death knell for moralistic candidates (BTW, how did Hilary's moralizing work on the campaign trail? Be careful with a weapon that's prone to injure the user). As long as we're on the subject, Bernie managed to even win over some middle aged white proles with his message of economic justice, not one of moral judgement and retribution (take that ya GOP charlatans whining about "personal responsibility" and encouraging people to become ascetics indifferent to the suffering of so many)

Feryl said...

Most non-Americans often don't even acknowledge more than one of the 4 folkway groups, and think of the US as being a wild (e.g, Scots-Irish) place. This probably comes down to two things:

- America's vast cultural output (especially film), has historically preferred Western and Southern settings over the more developed and stable Northeast and Midwest (obvious exceptions: a handful of big cities, mainly NYC and Chicago, which are full of criminals and transplants and thus don't necessarily reflect accurately on the mores of the entire region).

- Foreigners in the Old World often seem totally ignorant of small town and even suburban life in the Northeast and Midwest; for that matter, even Americans from the Northeast and West coast often conflate the more rurals areas of the West, South, and Midwest. The reality is that rural life in each region still reflect's the overall character of the region. Yankee puritan bumpkins squint at you and size up your moral virtue, Midwestern rubes are warm and won't take it personally if you don't return the bonhomie (they'll just shrug their shoulders and let you be in the future), while Southerners might shoot your ass off if you didn't seek permission to be on their property and you're not family or a close friend. It's the whole fly over thing; foreigners and coastal Americans often lump together huge stretches of America.

Agnostic has done some good stuff over the years pointing out that there's a shocking amount of ignorance regarding America. And Americans, btw, don't presume to understand the history or culture of say, Germany or Russia. Americans have fun with national stereotypes, just like anyone else does, but we don't actually totally believe them or use them as evidence of the often complex character and history of a country. Part of this might actually derive from, gasp, foreigners coming here and also being too familiar with our pop culture! They generally stick to the big cities, and think of outlying areas as being redolent of scenes from Unforgiven and Silence of the Lambs (didn't the killer live in Ohio?). Americans travel relatively little and consume very little foreign media, so thus, most foreign countries remain opaque and inscrutable to us. When so many of us have so little contact with foreign culture, we therefore remain modest about our lack of knowledge.

Also of note is what culture foreigners become familiar with. It might seem odd, but news of famous criminals travels surprisingly slow outside a country. Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer are household names here, but not so much in say, Germany. It becomes a lot easier to think of a country as being full of violent hot-headed maniacs when you don't realize that America has opprobrium for such lunatics.

Feryl said...

Foreigners who think Americans would know more if they visited Europe or wherever need to get a clue. Occasionally partaking in foreign culture can actually give a person a false sense of knowledge and expertise. Visiting Berlin 5 or 6 times won't make you an expert on German history and culture. Visiting L.A., NYC, and even Chicago won't teach you a damn thing about Yankee virtue, Midwestern openness, or Southern excess.

I heard an American Boomer once talk about how he lived in Scotland for 3 or 4 years. He said he basically liked the people, but they still weren't his people. Neither was the weather his, nor the buildings, nor the food, etc. He didn't put down Scottish people or pretend to be an authority on the place; he just said that, well, they're different and it's not the place for me. Compare that to how continental Europeans are so quick to claim that Americans are crazy, corrupt, and stupid.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

Compare that to how continental Europeans are so quick to claim that Americans are crazy, corrupt, and stupid.

There's a broad tendency in the West to publicly celebrate ethnicity/history/heritage the less objectively said ethnicity, etc is. It's interracial--black pride is cooler than Japanese pride, Japanese pride is cooler than white pride--and also intra-racially--being Irish is cool, being English or German is not.

Corvinus said...

"In Alabama, whites aged 18-24 went considerably stronger for Moore than 20-29 and 30-39 yo whites did."

Do you have a source for those numbers regarding whites 18-24? Thanks.

Audacious Epigone said...

Corivnus,

Discussed here.

Not specifically broken out by race, but would be inexplicable if the white share of 30-39 and 20-29 yos in Alabama were less white than the 18-24 yos.