Monday, December 11, 2017

Clean up

A few things I committed to getting done without having gone through the formality of doing (until now!):

- With regards to the apparently heavy Jewish overrepresentation among the recently exposed high-profile harassers and perverts, GSS results from five questions measuring attitudes and behaviors towards sexual permissiveness for males exclusively, since that's who we're after here:


With the obvious exception of having paid for sex, the sex differences among both Jews and Gentiles are minor. The graph above looks similar to the one presented here. The percentage of white Gentile men who've paid for sex is 12.3%, meaning Jewish men are over 40% more likely to have rented fleshpots than white Gentiles are. By comparison, 19.9% of black men say they've paid for sex.

This may have some explanatory power.

- While it struck me as tedious and unlikely to reveal anything of interest, respected regular commenter DissidentRight wondered about the racial distributions of independents who lean left and lean right. Because of the way the GSS tracks race and ethnicity it's difficult to be precise when it comes racial distributions of particular traits unless Hispanics are grouped together with whites, but it is easy to look at trait distributions among particular demographic groups.

While I'm not sure if this is what DR had in mind, I'm glad I looked at it because it's more slanted than I'd have expected. The following table shows the partisan lean--Democrat, Republican, or neither--among self-identified political independents, by race (N = 8,970):

RaceNearDemNeitherNearGOP
White28.9%44.2%26.8%
Black39.3%51.2%9.5%
Hispanic26.0%62.0%12.1%
Asian28.5%55.9%15.5%

The subsequent table expresses this in a different way by showing how much more likely independents are to lean Democrat than they are to lean Republican:


When it comes to partisan affiliation, white independents can fairly be described as, well, independent. Non-whites not so much. That Trump beat Hillary among independents really is no mean feat.

- The idea that Twitter is a social media platform intended to freely facilitate the exchange of ideas has been a risible one for well over a year now. Despite the virtual proscription lists filled with names of those on the dissident right--December 18th is rumored to be the virtual night of the long knives--the platform still tends to function as such at present.

The following graph shows the unexciting percentages of respondents who support the right for various controversial speakers to share their views in public by whether or not they use Twitter:


According to Pew, 19% of the US population was on Twitter in 2016, a virtually identical result to the 18.9% found in the GSS for the same year.

Twitter users are modestly more supportive of free speech than non-users are.

The one exception is for anti-religionists.

Twitter users are more likely to be atheists and agnostics and less likely to say they "know God exists" than non-users are, yet they're less supportive of anti-religionist speech!

If it seems strange that the secular, progressive blue checkmarks would be marginally less supportive of free speech than non-users are for anti-religionists of all people, it's because you're not reading anti-religious in the same way they are. They are interpreting it as a reference to Islam.

Notice, too, that the largest variance* between Twitter users and non-users is the relatively strong support the former give to Muslims preaching hatred of the US compared to the tepid support non-users give the same.

* In terms of the gap as a percentage of total support, not in terms of the absolute size of the gap, for which free speech for militarists is the widest.

GSS variables used: SPKRAC, SPKHOMO, SPKMSLM, SPKMIL, SPKATH, TWITTER, GOD(1-2)(6), PARTYID(2-4), RACECEN1(1)(2)(4-10), HISPANIC(1)(2-50), SEX(1), XMARSEX, HOMOSEX, PREMARS1, TEENSEX(1), EVPAIDSX, RELIG(1-2,4-13)(3), YEAR(1990-2016)

30 comments:

Anonymous said...

That ever paid for sex stat. It's supposed to go down the higher the socio-economic standing of the respondent but it goes up for Jews versus gentiles!

a reader said...

About the Jews, how much of that difference disappears if you compare with high IQ gentiles? Or with atheists & agnostics?

Probably there are more percents of male nerds among Jews than among gentiles. Btw, have you heard of professor Scott Aaronson's complaint about some aspects of contemporary feminism? What do you think of it?

"But I suspect the thought that being a nerdy male might not make me “privileged”—that it might even have put me into one of society’s least privileged classes—is completely alien to your way of seeing things. To have any hope of bridging the gargantuan chasm between us, I’m going to have to reveal something about my life, and it’s going to be embarrassing.

(sigh) Here’s the thing: I spent my formative years—basically, from the age of 12 until my mid-20s—feeling not “entitled,” not “privileged,” but terrified. I was terrified that one of my female classmates would somehow find out that I sexually desired her, and that the instant she did, I would be scorned, laughed at, called a creep and a weirdo, maybe even expelled from school or sent to prison. And furthermore, that the people who did these things to me would somehow be morally right to do them—even if I couldn’t understand how.

You can call that my personal psychological problem if you want, but it was strongly reinforced by everything I picked up from my environment: to take one example, the sexual-assault prevention workshops we had to attend regularly as undergrads, with their endless lists of all the forms of human interaction that “might be” sexual harassment or assault, and their refusal, ever, to specify anything that definitely wouldn’t be sexual harassment or assault. I left each of those workshops with enough fresh paranoia and self-hatred to last me through another year. [...]

My recurring fantasy, through this period, was to have been born a woman, or a gay man, or best of all, (completely asexual, so that I could simply devote my life to math, like my hero Paul Erdös did). [...] Anything, really, other than the curse of having been born a heterosexual male, which for me, meant being consumed by desires that one couldn’t act on or even admit without running the risk of becoming an objectifier or a stalker or a harasser or some other creature of the darkness.

Of course, I was smart enough to realize that maybe this was silly, maybe I was overanalyzing things. So I scoured the feminist literature for any statement to the effect that my fears were as silly as I hoped they were. But I didn’t find any. On the contrary: I found reams of text about how even the most ordinary male/female interactions are filled with “microaggressions,” and how even the most “enlightened” males—especially the most “enlightened” males, in fact—are filled with hidden entitlement and privilege and a propensity to sexual violence that could burst forth at any moment.

Because of my fears—my fears of being “outed” as a nerdy heterosexual male, and therefore as a potential creep or sex criminal—I had constant suicidal thoughts. As Bertrand Russell wrote of his own adolescence: “I was put off from suicide only by the desire to learn more mathematics.”

At one point, I actually begged a psychiatrist to prescribe drugs that would chemically castrate me (I had researched which ones), because a life of mathematical asceticism was the only future that I could imagine for myself. The psychiatrist refused to prescribe them, but he also couldn’t suggest any alternative: my case genuinely stumped him."


source: scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2091#comment-326664

DissidentRight said...

Thanks, that’s exactly what I was looking for. My theory was partially confirmed, partially disproven. I was especially interested in white independents, because they are such a significant part of of the white vote, and I wanted to see if there was any evidence that these independents are beginning to shift Trumpward. None yet, apparently. Soon™.

My assumption is that as Democrats go increasingly anti-white, we will see more white independents start to lean red, and even more vote red. I am going to pay attention to independent voting patterns in the midterms, and in particular in 2020.

Meanwhile, the data on non-white "independents" almost seems to suggest that identity trumps ideology. Who could have predicted that?

Feryl said...

Remember how the Class variable shows a substantial middle/upper class shrinkage with each passing cohort? At that time, you wondered if it was because younger generations simply hadn't had time to catch up. Well, it looks like I found another variable that solves this problem, without just looking at how each cohort scores at a given age (which isn't very useful due to sample size issues, e.g., what if they asked the CLASS question to just fifty 35 yr old men in the year 2010?).

Check out the married variable. Using YEAR, AGE and MARRIED, and limiting it to younger respondents is pretty revealing. 25 yr old white men show a collapse in being married in 1998. 1998 minus 25=1973. People born after 1972 are much less likely to identify as middle or upper class; ergo, this prole identity forms early and persists, given that they aren't marrying much at a younger age, and young males marrying correlates with financial stability and opportunity, usually. The psycho-social explanation that later X-ers and Millennials aren't making the same domestic mistakes their parents did doesn't really add up, since those born in the 60's and very early 70's ought to have delayed marriage too.

Also telling: 1973+18=1991. Those who entered the work force after the 1980's are having a much, much tougher time of it. Early X-ers have never stopped complaining about the early 90's recession derailing them, but at least they got to start before the 90's. Hell, if you were born in 1965, you could get a job before even the immigration betrayals of the late 80's. (The GOP amnesty didn't come into full effect until '87/'88. Speaking of which, immigration rapidly increased in the late 80's, which is as good an explanation as any for why X-ers and Millennials are doing terribly.

LOLbertarian beliefs dramatically decline with people born after the early 70's. Also, as we speak a lof MUH free market 1940's-1960's births ain't doin' jack shit to rein in the excesses of the last 30 years. It figures that they got to enjoy the much greater opportunities of the pre-1990's, and subsequently, they tell later X-ers and Millennials how Saint Ronnie fixed everything even as the last 27 years have proven that the Boomers (and the older leaders and gurus they championed) royally fucked younger generations over.

Audacious Epigone said...

a reader,

For extramarital sex, it's 32% of upper class; 54% for homosex; 82% premarital; teen sex 39%; and buying a prostitute 16%.

So that gets some but not all of the gap, and I'm including upper class Jews in that upper class figure.

Wrt the post, that characterization seems to be of someone low in extroversion and high in agreeableness, neither of which are traits that do well describing Jews. Or do you just mean generally speaking?

DissidentRight,

Well, the survey data runs from 2000 to 2016 for that, so Trump is only relevant during a sliver of the time it was being collected. Will indeed be interesting to see what reveals itself in the future.

Feryl said...

Oops, forgot to add race and sex when I did the the Married at 25 question. Doing so makes the sample size much smaller, but still the general picture is the same: In the late 90's-present, family formation is being delayed big time for young white guys, as it is for all other younger people.

Feryl said...

Neil Howe sez two things:

1) There's a massive cohort of Republicans (relative to the degree of conservatism within each ethnic group) born in the 60's-1972.
2) Risk taking peaks with those born from about 1940-1970

It looks like both political liberalism and behavioral conservatism seem to predominate with those born in the mid-70's-early 90's, reversing what you saw with the previous 1 & 1/2 generations (political conservatism and reckless behavior). Verily, the evident conservatism of Boomers and early X-ers is a product of how much they hate anyone telling them what to do (which is also explains why their behavior was and often still is terrible; they don't care to follow rules or listen to advice). The GI Generation was also famously restrained in their behavior yet had a huge appetite for big government; what is government if not authority? Boomers and early X-ers could not rely on authority (which was questioned and attacked regularly in the 60's-80's), and as far as they could discern they were better off just doing whatever they felt like and not concerning themselves with any one else's opinion. The broadsides against the nanny state peaked in the 90's and 2000's, when Boomers and early X-ers had the most cultural and political clout.

The same old same old GOP playbook of attacking big gubmint loses relevance with every passing day, and in fact what fired up Trump supporters (many of whom were younger and/or cross-over Dems) was Trump's promises to strengthen the authorities to do more about the various things ailing us. It's not 1980, or '90, o 2000 anymore; the GOP elite still represents the ethos of that bygone era, in which conservatism was measured chiefly by killing taxes, programs, regulations, etc. and claiming that no negative effects whatsoever were associated with those tactics. Trump voters want action on preserving cultural continuity (an effect of which is greater economicssecurity), not Ayn Rand jerk-off fantasies At past and current rallies, Trump mentioning GOP orthodoxy on economics gets a tepid response (voters have heard that shit for 40 years, many of them never bought it and even more don't buy it now) while Big Man (and thus Big Gov) populist-nationalist ideas get big cheers. And at this point the vast majority of even conservatives don't really buy into anarchist non-sense any more; they're comfortable following the laws of at least a just local government, and I suspect that if state and Fed Gov. became all-white all over again, most conservatives would be happy to abide by the laws of these institutions again, just as the vast majority of whites did back in the 40's and 50's. Opinion of state and Fed Gov rapidly darkened in the 60's and 70's, when, yup you guessed it, governments began to hire non-whites who were too stupid, lazy, or dishonest to get hired by the private sector.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

It looks like both political liberalism and behavioral conservatism seem to predominate with those born in the mid-70's-early 90's, reversing what you saw with the previous 1 & 1/2 generations (political conservatism and reckless behavior)

Perspicacious, thanks.

Wrt to regulations, the Trump administration is cutting through a lot of them, but I watched the Pensacola rally and there's little doubt about what brings the biggest cheers. It's not tax cuts.

Anonymous said...

That's what I find annoying about the complaints from the establishment left. They disingenuously claim the tax cuts make the whole point of working class former Democratic voters voting for him moot. It doesn't, that's the point, tax rates can and will be changed and immigration was running so high that wealth redistribution wouldn't compensate for the damage.

You also have to take into account the effective taxes levied beyond the pressure on housing and wages. (And university places) When you have to pay extra to move out to live among a community of your own kind. When you have to pay extra to leave high-crime ghettos that sprung up around a formerly lower crime and high trust community. When increasing diversity leads to lower tolerance for higher taxes among higher income brackets because it is either becoming a subsidy for their ethnic displacement or going to 'lazy Americans' (Indian, Chinese, Jewish upper classes). You have to pay extra to give your child the chance to have a peer group of co-ethnics or children who just speak English in a private school.

This is the beginning of a political realignment, of course there is going to a period where the Republican party is going on libertarian pro-wealthy, pro-corporation deregulation and tax lowering, but the 'party of business' here is also the one busily crushing labour supply and deporting illegal immigrants and that those far more long term to hurt the interests of capital and provide a more egalitarian outcome than any fleeting tax rate change.

The former coal miner in Pennsylvania who voted for Trump knows this. Most of them didn't even think he'd do anything, but here he is rolling back trade deals and immigration and allowing for that position to have merit.

The Front Nationale used to be a neo-reactionary, proto-Fascist party and now it's more economically populist than almost any other party in France. Why? Because immigration became the most pressing issue for the working class in France and their support changed the priorities of the party. The same will begin to happen with the Republicans if the Democrats keep up this weird post-modernism than actual results for the working class.

What choice did they have? They saw the DNC torpedo Sanders, the Democratic party made it very clear they weren't in the business of making any policy that would anger the new oligarchy.

Dan said...

It is hard to think of what comes next on a day like today.

Roy Moore was a flawed candidate. But Alabama, c'mon. Jeff Sessions endorsed Trump but early but where has he been in 2017? Letting everything happen to Trump and not endorsing the Republican for his own Senate seat? Is someone blackmailing him?

But Alabama, which Trump won by 30?

I've said before that it feels like political victories are not how conservatives seem to win.

Instead it seems like the conservative destiny is to get crushed. Then Gnon takes a wrecking ball to society. With luck, a little learning happens and the establishment may implement helpful policies. The establishment left is so dominant that head-on wins are nearly impossible.

Maybe all that can be done is to shine a light and hope that the establishment can see.

I used the example of crime. Crime had to just get out of control. Then, it wasn't Republicans who helped solved the crime problem. It was Democrats. Bill Clinton's huge 1994 crime bill was written by Joe Biden and another Democrat. Also, Democrat mayors and Democrat electorates took their cities back from the brink.


DissidentRight said...

Friendly reminder to everyone even modestly taken aback by the surprise victory of black supremacy politics in Alabama:

1. MAGA > Enemy >>> Traitor.
2. Not even the God-Emperor can save the Yankee Imperium.

The real victory was the defeat of the GOPe candidate, Luther Strange, just as the real victory of 2016 was the defeat of Jeb, Kasich, Rubio, etc. Trump was the icing on the cake.

Yes, it would have been preferable for Mighty Moore to have won. But look what it cost the GOPe to defeat him. Every time the traitors attack and subvert us, the mask drops a little bit more. They do not represent us. They do not represent America. They represent the Globalist Uniparty. Moore was defeated by fake news, literally the same fake news promoted by the same Establishment that tried to defeat Trump. Every time a MAGA candidate is defeated by fake news, the Establishment racks up more debt on a bill they can never pay.

Either we win in the short term, or we win in the long term. How much of a difference does it really make?

Roy Moore was a flawed candidate.

He was no more flawed than Trump. He was no more flawed than any MAGA candidate. That is to say: he wasn't flawed at all. His views on state sovereignty and the First Amendment are his strongest suit. Regardless of any particular MAGA individual's particular excitement for the Religious Right, it remains that the Deep South is Jesus Land and also the land of de facto segregation, which means their version of political incorrectness is even more politically incorrect than usual. But then again, which of us wants to rule Alabama? Let the South rise again. Deus Vult.

But Alabama, which Trump won by 30?

Today's lesson on racial identity politics, boys and girls: white turnout was extremely low. Black turnout, extremely high. Whitey is a slow learner, but he will learn.

 Then, it wasn't Republicans who helped solved the crime problem. It was Democrats. Bill Clinton's huge 1994 crime bill was written by Joe Biden and another Democrat.

If the Bifactional Globalist Establishment can solve the looming central bank crisis, the looming debt crisis, the wage/immigration crisis, and the looming SJW crisis…hey, more power to them. Somehow, I don’t think that’s in the cards.

Maybe all that can be done is to shine a light and hope that the establishment can see. 

That is all that could ever be done. The Yankee Empire is structurally deficient. It cannot be fixed, it can only dissolve. The question is simply: when?

Feryl said...

"That is to say: he wasn't flawed at all. His views on state sovereignty and the First Amendment are his strongest suit"

Is that a joke? He became known nationally for his Christian fundamentalism decades ago (while in '16, the least pious candidate, Trump, dominated). The allegations of harassment hit him harder than they would a Trump-type, given that Moore has a holier than thou streak which leaves him vulnerable against accusations of immoral behavior.

Anyway, we all need to chill out. Current presidents are often a terrible burden for their party, as statewide elections become an expose on how many voters want to get back at the party in the White House. The Dems did horribly under Obama, as conservatives and many moderates wanted to get back at him. The GOP did mediocre to terrible in many state wide and some local elections in the 1980's. Now anti-Drumpfers see Senate elections as a great way to finally do something about Trump (over 70% of blacks want Trump impeached). Those comfortable with Trump, or indifferent to Trump, are just not going to be that fired up about voting in state-wide elections.

Also, over the last 30-40 years both parties have dropped one ball after another. Garbage in, garbage out. Around 20-30% of the pop. is diehard Left, another 20-30% die hard Right. In between, you've got 40-60% of moderate or apolitical people who'll declare: alrighty, I guess the GOP (or Dems) fucked up again, time to send the other party back in. The Left won't leave behind retarded crap that most people don't care about (like tranny bathrooms), while the Right still talks about Jeebus while gutting every lest remnant of the safety net (including immigration controls). A handful of people in either party have the right idea about some issues, but it's virtually impossible to find a figure in either party that's committed to restraining the Pentagon, Wall Street, Agribusiness, Silicon Valley, etc.

Lastly, the Dems have played Virginia and Alabama perfectly. They cultivate passion from SWPLs, blacks, and foreigners over Trump being an existential threat to a would-be utopia, while running clean-cut, Brit descended middle aged white men. Taken to it's conclusion, the Dems will run a wholesome middle aged white man in 2020, knowing that Bernie won't kill the youth vote again, blacks will turn out better this time, and that a fair amount of blue collar Trump voters have buyer's remorse. The Dems may have worn the stupid party hat in 2015-2016, but they've taken it off quickly and given it back to the original owner, the GOP.

Feryl said...

"Roy Moore was a flawed candidate. But Alabama, c'mon. Jeff Sessions endorsed Trump but early but where has he been in 2017? Letting everything happen to Trump and not endorsing the Republican for his own Senate seat? Is someone blackmailing him?"

On trade and court appointments, we've scored some victories. Immigration has been disappointing so far, aside from the courts upholding his travel ban. In the spring and summer, the MSM ran articles about ICE being unleashed and terrifying everyone, but that was driven by fear of what could happen, not what did happen. By late summer, it was obvious that not a whole lot was being done to drive out invaders(and Cotton's step in the right direction bill has gone nowhere, at a time when the GOP could easily do a lot more to inspire confidence in prole voters by restraining immigration), so the MSM has largely quieted down about immigration.

Foreign policy has been the biggest disaster, with Flynn being framed and ejected, and saber rattling with everyone on the Pentagon's shit list (Iran, North Korea). We're still by all appearances the bitch of the Saudis (oil) and China (debt and manufacturing); perhaps Trump's greatest campaign triumph was telling people the truth about America's relationships and how they needed fixing. That's why the establishment hated him, and it's why the Pentagon insisted on forcing BAU military elites onto Trump's regime. This establishment never saw Trump's win coming; if they had, they likely would've went further in intimidation of Trump before election day, up to and including killing Trump or someone he cares about(it's believed with good reason that JFK was killed and Nixon was framed because neither one listened enough to the Deep State).

DissidentRight said...

The allegations of harassment hit him harder than they would a Trump-type, given that Moore has a holier than thou streak which leaves him vulnerable against accusations of immoral behavior.

That’s not a Moore problem, that’s a cuckservative problem. The weakness is not with the candidate, it’s with the voters. Any Republican candidate in Jesus Land would be vulnerable to this type of attack. Now, Christians will come around, but it will take awhile. They have to overcome the bluepill mindset as documented by Darlock. Vox Day & Ilk are just way ahead of the curve.

Dan said...

The GOPe shot Moore full of lead. How much did they spend against him? Many millions. Even before that scandal broke he was only leading by 8, which is nothing in Alabama.

All told, the GOP establishment spent far more *against* their candidate than they spent for their candidate, perhaps to the tune of 100 to 1. Such as 10 million versus $100,000 or something like that.

Dan said...

The fact that none of the Republican Senators helped out Moore is messed up. Shelby bashed him on the Sunday talks before the election. I don't think Strange ever went to bat for him. Sessions, no longer Senator but whose seat it was, never put in a word.



djargo said...

i am confused - is the percentage of gentiles paid for sex 12.3, as mentioned in the text or is it 14 as shown in the graph?

Feryl said...

"Any Republican candidate in Jesus Land would be vulnerable to this type of attack."

No law sez that anyone has to do the fundie song and dance. It's not 1985 or 1995 anymore; we don't see satan worshiping teenagers behind every bush anymore. Moralistic campaigning and personae are dead; nobody cares anymore about a public figure's relationship with Jesus. BTW, this was true back in the 70's, 60's, and even 1950's. Professing piety says absolutely nothing about your ability to produce results. You people are stuck in the culture wars of the 80's and 90's; time to move ahead (or back to pre-1980, as it were). A well-functioning society doesn't require ostentatious piety. BTW, Trump dominated in Alabama though he lacked any funide credentials; since he seemed like a hard worker who cared about proles, ,many people in the Eastern US liked him and didn't focus on his moral views. Likwise, people in the Eastern US who dislike Trump do so ought of a sense that he's obnoxious and self-centered, not out of a sense that his moral views are out of whack. Worth noting is that 2016 was the first election in a long, long time in which all the major players (Bernie, Hillary, Trump) were from the Eastern US, while Westerners McMullen and Johnson were laughable trivia points, and borderline Westerner Cruz ineffectually attacked Trump's "New York values" (people these days want results, not values).

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,


The former coal miner in Pennsylvania who voted for Trump knows this. Most of them didn't even think he'd do anything, but here he is rolling back trade deals and immigration and allowing for that position to have merit


Many expected him to be transitional (myself included). And even though he played Alabama about as poorly as he could have, there are pretty encouraging results from the exit polls there wrt to Trump-v-GOPe Republicanism. Going to do a quick post about it tonight if I can squeeze it in.

Dan,

It's said Sessions is doing stuff behind the scenes, but it sure as hell doesn't seem like it from the outside looking in. He is the most powerful appointed person in the country atm, and he's nowhere to be seen. Enough with the Fabian tactics.

DissidentRight,

Well put per usual.

This will be spun as a defeat of MAGA, but the two recent losses were not of MAGA candidates. Moore fell into some of it, notably immigration, and so did Gillespie. But Trump's MAGA populism is not Moore's religious right conservatism or Gillespie's chamber of commerce cuckery.

Feryl,

the Dems will run a wholesome middle aged white man in 2020

You could be correct. I'll be joining the PoC chorus in criticizing this as vociferously and widely as possible. Someone like Harris or Booker is much better in terms of getting us to where we ultimately need to go.

Audacious Epigone said...

djargo,

The 14% in the graph is for all non-Jews. The 12.3% is just for non-Jewish whites. So the first number has blacks, Hispanics, and Asians in it.

Feryl said...

Dan - Trump was sandbagged non-stop by over 4/5 of GOP elites. Didn't make any difference in the long run, though full cooperation from the GOP likely would've allowed Trump to win Nevada and New Hampshire, and possibly Minnesota (where a lot of never-Trumpers voted for McMullen and Johnson).

Statewide elections are a much different beast than general elections. General elections inspire huge turnout from all demographics; statewide elections evoke comparative apathy, though this apathy tends to be stronger among those who support the current president. Ergo; the out of the White House faction feels stirred to mount a resistance to the president via voting for their party's candidate in Senate and other statewide races. That being said, Moore was a horrifically bad candidate (he shoulda never ran in the first place, and Bannon et al should've known he was damaged goods before the allegations, let alone afterwards.) It's not crazy to think that Moore could've astutely transitioned from elitist cultural warrior to strong-man populist, if he really wanted to ride the Trump wave, but it would've been difficult to make the jump. Aging public figures carve out a persona for decades, and rarely do they shed it. Bernie and Trump never were moralizers, after all.

And let's not live in a bubble. Most people reading niche blogs and web forums are part of a sect which is isolated from what "the other" thinks about and is concerned about. Probably the aforementioned 40-60% of moderates/apoliticals just don't think the election of either Moore or Jones makes that much of a difference to their daily life. Trump drew in a lot of these people by promising to reform the Pentagon, our trade policies, and our immigration policies. He succinctly captured popular frustration. That moment has faded away, with the power centers of each faction either not listening to the populist call (the Right) or desperately diverting such frustration towards mendacious ideas (The Left telling the faithful that Russia is the Devil, Trump is the worst president ever, Obama is cool, Wall Street and Silicon Valley elites are mighty fine people, etc.)

Feryl said...

the Dems will run a wholesome middle aged white man in 2020

"You could be correct. I'll be joining the PoC chorus in criticizing this as vociferously and widely as possible. Someone like Harris or Booker is much better in terms of getting us to where we ultimately need to go."

What hurt the Dem's in 2016 was generational factors, not racial factors. Under 40 Left-leaning voters were alienated from Hillary by Bernie being jobbed. Hillary was such a POS candidate that Boomer feminists and Middle-aged black women were the only ones enthusiastic about voting Dem. Trust me, the Dems know this. They need only run a better candidate than Hillary (this person could be any age, race, or gender) to get a lot of these voters back.

Racial bloc voting isn't strong enough in the Northern, Pacific, or Mountain states to cause whites to flee from POC candidates. The only exception here being an Islamic candidate, which would by default scare a lot of whites into the arms of the GOP candidate. Again, the Dems know this, which is why for these last two Southern elections they set out to run Brit descended whites, but outside of the South and lower Plains states, the Dems aren't really going to care that much about the ethnicity of their candidates.

Regardless of conspiracy theories about Trump supporters being neo-Nazis, most whites these days are no more racially aware than they were, say, 15 years ago. It took old-school Southern whites many generations of demographic realities to reach racial bloc voting stage, and even at that, these whites still don't go for bloc voting as much as blacks do wherever blacks are found. And declining crime isn't helping. Bill Deblasio is the most cluelessly liberal mayor NYC has had in decades; he'd have been unthinkable in the Giuliani era and immediate post-Giuliani era, but after over 20 years of declining crime New Yorkers no longer judge politicians on their ability to keep the peace (that being said, Deblasio is quite unpopular with white New Yorkers; but his incompetence doesn't sting the way it would have back in 1990 or whenever).

Feryl said...

Over the years I've chuckled a lot regarding Sailer's blog and his frequent articles about crime, white flight, and what really drove a lot of voting trends. Blacks did so much damage to the Mid-Atlantic in the 60's-90's than many whites of the region, by the 80's, were voting and thinking not unlike Deep Southern whites, though Northeastern snobbery means that they would never deign to admit the nature of these thoughts and behaviors to themselves, much less anyone else.

Now that crime is incredibly low (given all the other difficulties we deal with, economically, socially, and demographicaly), the need to repel (primarily black) criminals is much less urgent and politicians can openly sympathize with the plight of criminals; nobody back in the 80's or 90's ever thought we'd see this day ("super-predators").

DissidentRight said...

AE: And even though he played Alabama about as poorly as he could have

Yep. There will be consequences when he falls for Cuckservative games. He needs to remember: these are the same guys who sabotage me in the primary and the general. They are the enemy. Everything they want is cancer. Anytime he tries to compromise with them, there’s a significant chance it will come back to bite him. But he is a quick study, and regardless we don’t know all the backroom details.

the Dems will run a wholesome middle aged white man in 2020

You could be correct. 


If they can thread that needle, they deserve to win.

Feryl: Moralistic campaigning and personae are dead; nobody cares anymore about a public figure's relationship with Jesus. 

Aaaaaaaaannnnnd that’s why the Northern Right and the Southern Right have never been able to form a meaningful coalition. First it was civil rights, now it’s religion.

You people are stuck in the culture wars of the 80's and 90's; time to move ahead

Better idea: you support our anti-establishment candidates in our states and we’ll support your anti-establishment candidates in yours. You don’t have to like us (we don’t care!), but this is a pretty clear case of 1) Don’t Punch Right and 2) stick to your strengths.

Trump dominated in Alabama though he lacked any funide credentials

Trump made all the usual bows to evangelical sensibilities. And he was running against Hillary, in the wake of the first Fake American President. Also, how much anti-Trump campaigning did Hillary do in Alabama? Apples and oranges comparison.

Statewide elections are a much different beast than general elections. […] That being said, Moore was a horrifically bad candidate (he shoulda never ran in the first place, and Bannon et al should've known he was damaged goods before the allegations, let alone afterwards.) It's not crazy to think that Moore could've astutely transitioned from elitist cultural warrior to strong-man populist

The voting population of Alabama is not the same as the voting population of Michigan. A “bad candidate” in Nevada is not the same as a “bad candidate” in the Deep South.

Most people reading niche blogs and web forums are part of a sect which is isolated from what "the other" thinks about and is concerned about.

If you go to church (like me), you can get a pretty good idea of how blue pill Christians think. Moore would have won if Trump had done more. He would have won if the GOP Establishment had sabotaged him less. He also would have won if, like Cernovich pointed out, he had campaigned more. The Dems brought their A game and squeaked out a win, just like Trump brought his A game and squeaked out a win. Overconfidence is a slow and insidious killer. That’s all.

DissidentRight said...

AE: But Trump's MAGA populism is not Moore's religious right conservatism

That’s true, but the religious right is a core component of Southern populism.

It’s just like when I talk to papists. As papists uncuck themselves, they are returning to theological roots that are different from my German Lutheran roots; the same goes for Southern Baptists. In particular, they are returning to roots that I think are barely tolerable. Of course, the inside baseball is pretty nerdy and esoteric to secularists, and I understand that.

But it speaks to the tremendous advantage the Left has over us: inherent universalism. Every white gives up his culture and replaces it with a homogeneous paste of self-hating social justice cuckery. It looks exactly the same wherever you find it. The Right, on the other hand, takes different forms everywhere, because we are all conserving different cultures, different traditions, and (usually) different forms of religion.

And in more than a few cases, there is quite a lot of bad blood baked into these differences. Papist vs. Protestant, in particular. Secular vs. Christian, obviously. Where the Right succeeds it will succeed by overlooking these differences…at least temporarily.

Admittedly, the secular Right is going to find it difficult to seriously defend a Bible Thumping Senator. “My God, he wants to teach Young Earth Creationism in schools!” But that’s okay, because he’s not *your* senator. Leave the defense to us Christians. The point is, an FU to the Establishment is an FU regardless of who’s delivering it. And I think you have to concede that, as the primary targets of Leftist hate & condescension, nothing pisses them off more than an FU coming from us. (“Us” used loosely, I am almost the furthest thing from a Bible Thumper, and yes I do find Southern Baptists to be cringe worthy, but who asked my opinion?)

Of course, Moore would be in a better position to deliver such an FU if he’d won. And like I said, that problem is the problem of Christian cuckery. We don't yet understand the "war" part of culture & politics.

Corvinus said...

DissidentRight...

"If you go to church (like me), you can get a pretty good idea of how blue pill Christians think."

Actually, this blue pill/red pill and Christianity are a toxic mix. Real Christian men focus on Godly masculinity, not some boys social club created by wanna be cool kids.

"Yes, it would have been preferable for Mighty Moore to have won. But look what it cost the GOPe to defeat him. Every time the traitors attack and subvert us, the mask drops a little bit more. They do not represent us. They do not represent America. They represent the Globalist Uniparty. Moore was defeated by fake news, literally the same fake news promoted by the same Establishment that tried to defeat Trump."

Reality check for you--The race was based on ideology. When a politicians acts in a way of which a number of people personally disapprove of, do not be surprised when they choose to stay home. The political kill-shot for Roy Moore was one he used with precision--saying “I never met her”, then having a yearbook entry you signed strike some Christians, for example, as bearing false witness.

"It cannot be fixed, it can only dissolve. The question is simply: when?"

Why don't you pray to your idol St. Breivik. He will offer up a vision. The question is do you have the guile and gumption to carry out his plan? The answer is clearly, no, as you are impotent (thankfully). Besides, there are tens of millions of normies who will ensure that our nation is not going to "dissolve"; it is but a wet dream on your part.

"Every white gives up his culture and replaces it with a homogeneous paste of self-hating social justice cuckery."

Again, another reality--white people make their own decisions about race and culture. When you accuse them of being other than white, of being an SJW, of being a "cuck" merely because what they choose to do runs counter to your own value system, you...will...lose...every...time. "Christian cuckery" is a buzz word; it observably means nothing to the learned and to the faithful. That is the gigantic hole in your ideology--assuming that shaming white Christians or labeling them as being other than holy is going to get followers to your congregation.

Feryl said...

I remember the Satanic panic of the 80's and 90's. It was everywhere, though not suprisingly it was weakest in the Northeast (the least flaky part of America). The holier than thou style was everywhere in the 80's and 90's (a book called the Closing of the American Mind was written in the early 80's, fer crying out loud!), not just in the South or confined to Christians. The emphasis was on chest thumping about your moral superiority and how you (and only you.....) possessed the "values" (a word that was almost never used in a moral sense in the 1950's-70's) to survive in a dark world. Of course, religion (or a suitable substitute) often became window dressing for self-aggrandizing lecturing.

Without getting into the decline of actual practiced religion (which is pronounced among people born since the mid-70's), the way in which we use (and expect other people to use) religion has changed a great deal since circa 2001 (when civ. priorities shifted to national security and away from abstract moral issues). These days we're a lot closer to the pre-1980 norm of keeping our beliefs to ourselves and not judging other people for their faith (or lack thereof) and how they practice it.

Long story longer, it really doesn't matter to me what someone does in their spare time (or in their prayers or church) as long as we figure out a way to reform our economy, immigration policy, and foreign policy.

"Moore would have won if Trump had done more. "

1) Trump's presence can increase turnout among swpls and non-whites who get butt hurt over Drumpf. Even if he only showed up in friendly areas, other state residents would be aware of Trump due to the MSM and social media. This wasn't a factor in the General because in 2015 and 2016, it was primarily a smallish layer of elites who really hated Trump. Keep in mind that approval of Trump was actually quite high around his inauguration, after which hostilities against Trump were fomented to a higher level and have never dipped since. The media (and really, the Deep State) have successfully poisoned Trump's public image (much as they did to Nixon, who is never remembered for his not unimpressive list of achievements), and that's what worries me about 2020. Since 1963, picking a fight with the media and/or Deep State (but I repeat myself....) has never ended well, with 2 presidents failing to make it through their designated term (and a third, Reagan, nearly being taken out by Papa Bush who felt jobbed out of the 1980 nomination). We've got an oh so long 3 years ahead of us, and a lot can happen. Running and losing in 2020 might be the best case scenario, in all honesty.

2)Dem GOTV was stratospheric; they played their base like a fiddle, most moderates (of whom many voted for Trump) yawned and stayed home. As discussed above, the GOP has no frickin' clue how to appeal to anyone beyond the 1/5 or 1/4 of Americans who are True Conservatives. I gather that some people in the right-sphere seem to hallucinate that endless attacks against big gubmint and supporting muh 1st amendment will be effective with 50% or more of the population; put the bong down. Attacking Pentagon excess, dumb trade deals, and lousy immigration policies is what created the Trump wave which virtually no post-Trump standard bearer has even attempted to surf, let alone rode it to victory.

3)Trump doesn't have an ability to imbue his qualities onto other kinds of politicians. Guys like David Clarke, Joe Arpaio, Bobby Knight, etc. all of whom were vocal and visible supporters of Trump, were great surrogates because they have the same sincerity and tenacity that Trump does. There's a dissonance to Trump tweeting and speaking in support of cultural warriors or cucks; it's a perfunctory thing and doesn't do a whole lot to convert outsiders and

DissidentRight said...

Trump's presence can increase turnout among swpls and non-whites who get butt hurt over Drumpf. 

Blacks had fantastic turnout. The problem was white turnout, which Trump could have easily increased. Look, you play the hand you’re dealt. In Alabama, Trump was dealt white evangelicals. He folded.

Running and losing in 2020 might be the best case scenario, in all honesty.

True.

Attacking Pentagon excess, dumb trade deals, and lousy immigration policies is what created the Trump wave which virtually no post-Trump standard bearer has even attempted to surf, let alone rode it to victory.

And white evangelicals are slow to learn. It’s only been a year since Trump won. The Religious Right doesn’t turn on a dime. Doesn’t mean we won’t turn.

Feryl said...

Corvinus: Thanks for the summary.
Similarities between Moore and Trump:
- hit by late developing allegations and public appearances of accusers
- Early Boomer non-ethnic white males

Differences:
Moore:
- Religious right loudmouth
- Proven liar about at least one of the allegations
- Allegations involving younger girls (I know that we shouldn't conflate 17 yr olds with 13 yr olds, let alone children, but since 1980 we've effectively treated all people under 18 as equally immature and vulnerable)
- Never professed to living large

Trump:
- Secular loudmouth
- Accusers had shaky stories with some things that didn't add up; accusers never seemed sincere or convincing, while Trump esp. before the deep state got to him seemed sincere.
- Allegations always involved women who were definitely age 18 or older; no matter what the law or the past says, most people now assume that anything involving a youth under 18 is by default creepy and improper (or even illegal, which makes no sense since many states have an age of consent of 17 or even lower).
- Lived to excess and never pretended otherwise

Moore was going to have a much harder time living down the allegations, and frankly he'd have been better off simply not addressing them at all, or being truthful about the events that were consensual and legal at that time, rather than resorting to weak and evasive denials.

djargo said...

Audacious Epigone

thank you i get it now