Sunday, December 03, 2017

Eager Ashkenazi, coy Goy

They're thinking about it:
A lot of sexual harassment stuff in the news of late. I couldn't help but notice a very disturbing pattern emerging, which is that many of the predators--not all, but many of them--are Jews.
So Vox Day is justified in doing the same:
What a surprise that someone named (((Israel Horowitz))) should turn out to be a sex criminal. I am, of course, absolutely shocked that yet another illustrious member of the (((immigrant community))) that created America practically from nothing and has lots and lots of Nobel Prizes and is selflessly devoted to healing the world should turn out to be yet another pervy freakshow.
The GSS has (at least) five questions that potentially provide some insight into why Jews appear to be heavily overrepresented among the sexually overambitious. The questions don't get into the sort of criminal harassment and abuse that some of the "predators" are alleged to have engaged in--people are understandably reluctant to legally indict themselves in surveys!--but they are suggestive.

The following graph shows attitudes in sexual permissiveness (and in the case of purchased sex, behavior) among Jews and Gentiles. Sample sizes for Gentiles are in the tens of thousands and for Jews in the several hundreds except for the question on premarital sex, which was only asked in four iterations of the survey. For it, the Jewish sample is just 89:


As Steve Sailer notes, it's important to keep supply and demand in mind. In industries where there are a lot of women around--especially young, nubile ones--they are easier to sexually exploit because there's always plenty more where that came from.

Movie and television actresses are famous mostly because at one point they were given the vanishingly rare opportunity to become famous. Pass on that rare opportunity, and there are thousands of others eager to take advantage of what the one passed up.

High-end female computer programmers, on the other hand, are hard to find, so when an organization is able to snap one up, it doesn't want to let her go because it will be hell to find someone to replace her.

GSS variables used: XMARSEX, HOMOSEX, PREMARS1, TEENSEX(1), EVPAIDSX, RELIG(1-2,4-13)(3), YEAR(1990-2016)

32 comments:

Crew said...

Pity they didn't ask about goat ducking. The Semitic genes might stand out better.

Anonymous said...

How much of this is also due to class and living in big cities though?

I presumed that the issue was more of a lack of outgroup empathy tied with a deeply unattractive appearance (And behaviour, so many of them came from the same generation that was so famous for it's loathing of the gentile but lusting for the shiksa) than having liberal sexual mores.

It's also not divided by sex, one would expect Jewish women with all the ra-ra feminism they exude to be more sexually liberal and that the biggest difference in sexual liberalism would be between the women of two groups. So Jewish men might not be quite so different from gentile men in this respect.

Desdichado said...

I think this also can't be separated from the alleles for both neuroticism and psychopathy in the Jews, as well as their cultural "beta-ness"."

https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2017/06/19/ashkepathy/

Audacious Epigone said...

Crew,

Not familiar with that term. Not able to become so with a duck duck go search, either. Suspect I probably don't want to know.

Anon,

I'll look at the same restricted only to men.

Paying for sex modestly tilts towards lower class so it's interesting.

Acceptance of the others all tilt upper class, though the class divides aren't as wide as the goy/gentile divides are.

The GSS is surprisingly not very good on community type, which it has only asked about in three iterations of the survey. It does always ask where people lived at the age of 16, though. Jews are more urban, urban more permissive, though the differences by community type are even more modest than those by class are.

Descihado,

Heh, I'd forgotten about the title of that post. There's no competing. We try, but we can't.

Jim Bowery said...

"...it's important to keep supply and demand in mind. In industries where there are a lot of women around--especially young, nubile ones--they are easier to sexually exploit because there's always plenty more where that came from."

In this same regard, it is also important to keep in mind a few other things:

1) Conquest usually takes the form of invading males taking the fertile females on the territory.
2) The genetic data suggest that this is exactly what founded the Ashkenazi in northern Europe -- the mtDNA is indigenous and the Y-Chromosome is foreign.

Let this kind of thing evolve in a "civil" setting long enough and you can see why, "the theater" (probably going back to the Greeks but in more recent times including opera) would be a strategic technology with which to mine the indigenous population of the highest value women. This explains another "mystery":

Within a few decades of Edison inventing the motion picture projector, Ashkenazi had moved from a relatively small radius in Eastern Europe to Hollywood and captured technology.

Then there is the "mystery" of why Edison's heirs became the founders of Holocaust Revisionism.

I could go on but I've more important things to do.

DissidentRight said...

I wonder if Jews would think differently if they were the majority population.

Feryl said...

Oldie but a goodie:

Abortion for any reason, Yes or no

ABANY, RES16, CLASS(1-4)
Lower Class -
Country, not farm - 27.2 Yes
72.8 No

Farm - 25.4 Yes
74.6 No

Town Less 50,000 27.1 Yes
72.9 No

Town 50,000-250,000 37.2 Yes
62.8 No

City Suburb 50.4 Yes
49.6 No

Big City 46.8 yes
53.2 No
Working Class -
Country, not farm 32.8 Yes
67.2 No

Farm 23.9 Yes
76.1 No

Town less 50,000 37.1 Yes
62.9 No

Town 50,000-250,000 42.1 Yes
57.9 No

City suburb 48.2 Yes
51.8 No

Big City 45.9 Yes
54.1 No

Middle Class
Country, not farm 38.6 Yes
61.4 No

Farm 32.4 Yes
67.6 No

Town less 50,000 42.7 Yes
57.3 No

Town 50,000-250,000 47.8 Yes
52.2 No

City suburb 57.1 Yes
42.9 No

Big City 50.8 Yes
49.2 No

Upper Class
Country, not farm 47.3 Yes
52.7 No

Farm 25.7 Yes
74.3 No

Town less 50,000 46.7 Yes
53.3 No

Town 50,000-250,000 58.4 Yes
41.6 No

City suburb 72.2 Yes
27.8 No

Big City 65.0 Yes
35.0 No

Dan said...

AE -- Your finding of the correlation between IQ and free speech was included in an article by Sailer and then retweeted by Coulter. How come only seven comments and not 700?

It is most interesting that support for Free Speech is tightly correlated with IQ.

But then, I wonder if that is just a relic of high IQ people knowing that free speech is the 'right answer'.

Every time a high profile conservative tries to speak at a university now, they face an attempted shutdown, which is successful a high percentage of the time. Universities are not condemning the students but siding with them. Police are the ones upholding free speech rights.

Therefore, when these high IQ types say they believe in free speech I think the correct understanding is that many of them are lying utterly. SJWs and all.

Anonymous said...

High IQ people are simply less intimidated by conflicting ideas and feel less afraid of being taken advantage of by some slick talker I suspect.

They're also likely more intrigued by and likely to hold controversial/taboo ideas, if not in the present than in the past when they may have been controversial.

Dan said...

I had a strong argument with a nerdy coworker who likes to consider himself a hardcore free speech guy. He agreed with the Milo twitter ban. I explained to him that he is anti free speech and that he should stop being such a vigorous opponent of free speech. This upset him greatly because his holy conception of himself included both a belief that he is a free speech warrior and that he stands up to hate. Me politely pointing out that he hates free speech, free speech being the thing which is opposed to, really was a nuclear bomb on his psyche.

Audacious Epigone said...

Jim,

The shiksa sorting--the shoe fits.

Dissident Right,

We need an Israeli-GSS!

Dan,

The post has received 5,000 unique hits, and that doesn't count people who see it on the 'homepage'--only those who do through the permalink for the specific post. It's funny how that goes--the correlation between comment quantity and views isn't very strong (just from eyeballing it). Maybe I'll quantify it. Self-indulgent, heh, but it could be interesting.

The students who are making the biggest ruckus are not the sharpest students on campus. Without any hard data, just observation, I'd bet my house on it. The administrators are intimidated. The professors leading the charge are doofuses like this, not top engineering or chemistry profs.

Anon,

Agree.

Feryl said...

That data I posted is from an old comment of mine, and to reiterate what I said back then, upper class people are much better at getting away with vices in every way possible. Legally, socially, physically, etc. Upper class people, no matter what they may be dabbling in, are better at living longer, staying out of prison, not catching a disease and so forth.

Lower class people are much more morally disapproving of poor behavior since they are more likely to know people who got sick, hurt, imprisoned, killed, etc. from sex, drugs, crime, and violence. As noblesse oblige has withered away over the last couple decades, elites seem to be remarkable disinterested in shining a light on how flippant and libertine attitudes are disastrous for the lower classes. Some of this is also generational; GIs, Silents, and conservative Boomers regretted the hedonism of the 70's and tried to warn society away from it. Liberal Boomers don't really care, and most X-ers aren't' good for much since they grew up in a rising striving/falling noblesse oblige period and as such tend to be dismissive of "losers", whereas GIs, Silents, and yes, even many Boomers are at least superficially empathetic to "unfortunates" who wrecked their lives and they also see such failures as an indictment of a sick society. X-ers and so far it as it seems, Millennials spent their whole lives in dog-eat-dog culture in which people are expected to not complain when they get left behind in the great rat race. Now granted, being indifferent to the idea of trying to clean-up our culture's values (as X-ers and Millennials usually are) is not the same thing as being a bad person. After all, very few white X-ers or Millennials appear to be serial killers. It would seem that the white generations who came of age in the 60's and 70's (e.g. Silents and Boomers) had many people who couldn't resist the awful programming of those decades and ended up being the most morally damaged. Reformed and/or conservative Silents and Boomers were horrified by the excesses of their hedonistic brethren, and set about trying to teach better values in the 80's and beyond.

Feryl said...

Since most X-ers and Millennials got cynicism programming in the 80's-present day, rather than hedonism programming, X-ers and Millennials are more or less indifferent to the idea of moral value campaigns, being that these generations have a rather paradoxical mindset of mercenary callousness and behavioral restraint. But truthfully, enough X-ers have ruined their lives at this point with bad decisions that it would be refreshing if more X-ers tried to shame bad actors, rather than acting like moral campaigns are a useless and annoying Reagan relic. BTW, it looks like there's a mercenary/narcissism/poor behavior gradient in X-ers, with 60's and early 70's born X-ers being the more indifferent to team-work, empathy and respect for one's fellow man, and so forth, while late X-ers start to have more Millennial traits of being more respectful of authority, parents, etc. and more interested in maintaining cohesive groups. Early X-ers also come close to late Boomers in overall levels of poor behavior and frankly, crass ignorance. WADR to early X-ers, they don't exactly come out lookin' sharp. They have neither the wit or warmth of late Boomers, nor are they as conscientious as late X-ers and (as far as I can tell) Millennials. But I'll give early X-ers this: they aren't as depraved as Boomers, so there is that. Politically, early X-ers thus far a major disappointment, as the ones who are more politically active tend to suck up to the dumbest and most archaic ideas pushed by the establishment of the Left and Right (e.g., guys like Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio still act like the Reagan Revolution of their mid 1980's youth never ended). But on the other hand, most X-ers (in keeping with the cynicism of their upbringing) just aren't as politically engaged as older generations, what with Boomers constantly hogging the spotlight and the fact that after 1980 people esp. younger people gave on their political dreams.

One of the reasons people are so bummed out right now is that X-ers and Millennials don't have same bonhomie that GIs, Silents, and even Boomers took for granted. X-ers and Millennials are colder, not as friendly, and not as witty previous generations were, even during tough times. It's rather similar to the early 1900's, when two middle-aged and cranky generations (Missionaries and Losts) were beginning to realize that they'd inherited a big mess from joyful but irresponsible elders, and eventually they commenced a clean up that was successful enough to imprint a lot of optimism and communal spirit among the youngest generations (GIs and Silents) who were born in the early-mid 20th century. Vocal and visible noblesse oblige won't come easy to X-ers and Millennials (and due to diversity, it may never fully manifest), but it will have to happen in order to right the ship. We can't make light of sick people and bad choices forever, no matter how often we turned a blind eye or a disgusted look towards "losers" in the cruel atmosphere we grew up in.

Corvinus said...

Actually, most Gen-Xers and Millennials are more reality-based due to a healthy dose of realizing that cynicism and hedonism are destructive elements. Millennials, compared to Gen-Xers, are more inclined to favor moral value campaigns befitting of bridging racial, ethnic, and gender gaps. Some Gen-Xers have taken a turn for the worse with their life decisions, in particular those manospherists who are now in their 40's and bitterly complain they lack the prospects to marry and sire offspring. There is little difference between early and late Gen-Xers when it comes to teamwork, empathy, and respect for their brethren--it depends upon the purpose and context of their careers and personal relationships. As far as a comparison to early Gen-Xers and late Boomers when it comes to "crass ignorance", this sentiment is more or less an overblown generalization, no doubt clouded by confirmation bias. Regarding depravity, each generation have their depraved and their deprived--Gen-Xers and Boomers get raked over the coals for apparent continued episodes of malfeasance.
Politically, there is some validity as to the vapidness of early Gen-Xer politicians, in particular Ryan and Rubio, although it is not necessarily due to "archaic ideas", but rather constitutional principles and Christian ideals. Furthermore, Gen-Xers and Millennials are actually politically engaged, outvoting Boomers and older generations in the 2016 Election. X-ers and Milennials generally have light-hearted, cheery, and witty demeanors, although are easy to cross, especially when their own members downplay their positivity and their increasing willingness to help people, as evident by how Crowdfunding and peer-to-peer fundraising are gaining traction among these two groups.

Dan said...

"The post has received 5,000 unique hits, and that doesn't count people who see it on the 'homepage'--only those who do through the permalink for the specific post. "

I wouldn't have guessed! If that's true I guess 99.9% are lurkers who don't comment, even though it is very easy to comment.

Does that mean that Heartiste gets hundreds of thousands of hits per post or more?

Audacious Epigone said...

Furthermore, Gen-Xers and Millennials are actually politically engaged, outvoting Boomers and older generations in the 2016 Election.

Is this correct?

Dan,

See--or listen, more precisely--to Z-Man's bonus track on gab this week. Based on Alexa (shaky, I know--it doesn't count non-US blogspot visits, for example), I'd guess Heartiste gets around 150,000 unique monthly visits.

Audacious Epigone said...

Dan,

Wrt to comments, definitely fewer than 1% of readers comment, probably closer to--very roughly--0.1%. That's clear from the numbers on the back end.

At AmRen I was pleasantly surprised to have several people tell me they read the blog--and not just politely, we talked about particular posts, etc--but not a single one was anything close to a regular commenter here (save for Z-Man).

Feryl said...

Agnostic sez that Boomers peaked as a proportion of the electorate in the early 90's; don't remember if that counts those who actually voted as opposed to those eligible to vote. Since younger people don't vote, and since with each passing generation voting rates seem to decline, Boomers are still extremely important in elections. Moreover, voting rates are correlated to higher class, and X-ers and esp. Millennials have struggled to reach milestones that earlier generations reached with ease.

"Regarding depravity, each generation have their depraved and their deprived--Gen-Xers and Boomers get raked over the coals for apparent continued episodes of malfeasance."

Nah, very few serial killers were born in the early 1900's. Then, starting with those born in the late 20's (e.g., the Korean war generation) serial killers become much more common. Among white people, a lot of serial killers were born in the late 20's-mid 60's. Over the last 20 or so years, a lot of black Gen X serial killers have been caught, but very few whites have and I suspect it's because white Gen X-ers are not as perverted as white Boomers were (in the 70's and 80's, many thirty-forty something Boomer killers got busted). Some of this could also be put down to slackerdom; Gen X whites got into a lot of fights, did some drugs, got laid when they were 14 or 15, etc. but they never developed and fulfilled a desire to commit an elaborate series of murders, because, well, they were too damn lazy and detached to go that far. X-ers and Millennials struggle with motivation and enthusiasm because they came of age at a time of broken promises and dreams. Boomers are wired to live life to the fullest, whether they put that energy and drive into good things or bad things is up to each individual Boomer. Also, keep in mind that many X-ers and Millennials came of age at a time of growing anxiety and caution (the 80's, 90's, etc.), when hitchhiking fell out of fashion and child molesters lurked everywhere. Most X-ers and Millennials grew up detesting the sleazy and decadent behavior they associated with those who were young to middle-aged adults in the 70's. X-ers and Millennials are comparatively taciturn, skeptical, and distant; it's too bad so many ostensibly warm and funny Boomers turned out to be sick fucks who grope, molest, rape, and kill for gratification, but at least that turned off younger generations from being as naive and "experimental". Not all generations can be simultaneously charming and wholesome (G.I.s); most generations are too varying degrees either emotionally disagreeable and/or corrupt

It's Boomers who are doing the most lamenting about the current sexual harassment crisis changing workplace habits, being that they learned at an impressionable age that only "squares" practice taming their libido out of respect for others who probably don't want your tongue, your leers, or your dick.

Feryl said...

. X-ers and Milennials generally have light-hearted, cheery, and witty demeanors

Bullying, mental neuroses, PTSD, hyper-competitiveness, and so forth all accelerated in the late 70's. These are signs of a culture that was descending into dog-eat-dog amoral corruption. Boomers were affected first, but to a large extent they chose this culture and have pretty much owned it ever since. Boomers are still more cheerful and optimistic, being that they got to live at least 10 years of their life in a more equitable culture; they they chose to leave this culture behind is besides the point. X-ers inherited shitty post-mid 70's civic/career culture, and as such they are quite cranky and distant (when did X-ers ever feel as though society cared about them? Answer: Never). X-ers are terrible bullies; middle and High Schools became Lord of the Flies-esque in the 80's and 90's during the era of X-er adolescence, and some of them have only somewhat mellowed with age. X-ers and even some early Millennials seem to be checking out, anxious to block out an outside world that's always been an ominous place. Older generations have always looked down on the demeanor and outlook of people born after the mid-60's, without placing into context what the post-mid 70's climate would do to youngsters for whom there is little to no memory of any Western country having a culture that encourages fairness, modesty, and kindness.

Corvinus said...

"Furthermore, Gen-Xers and Millennials are actually politically engaged, outvoting Boomers and older generations in the 2016 Election. Is this correct?"

Yes. And Millennials are becoming engaged in politics.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/07/31/millennials-and-gen-xers-outvoted-boomers-and-older-generations-in-2016-election/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/brand-connect/from-slack-to-act-how-millennials-are-redefining-political-movements/

"Since younger people don't vote, and since with each passing generation voting rates seem to decline..."

Not accurate. See links above.

"Nah, very few serial killers were born in the early 1900's."

The process of serial killer profiling developed in the 1970's, so it is difficult to make these comparisons given that we now have the tools to identify patterns and trends.

"Most X-ers and Millennials grew up detesting the sleazy and decadent behavior they associated with those who were young to middle-aged adults in the 70's."

Actually, Gen X-ers and Millennials engage in the same sleazy and decadent behavior of their parents, considering they are gregarious, inquisitive, and comforting.

"It's Boomers who are doing the most lamenting about the current sexual harassment crisis changing workplace habits..."

No, it's in reality all across the generation spectrum that we have seen people demand action be taken against the Weinsteins and Lauers of the world.

"Bullying, mental neuroses, PTSD, hyper-competitiveness, and so forth all accelerated in the late 70's."

By the mid to late 1980's.

"X-ers inherited shitty post-mid 70's civic/career culture, and as such they are quite cranky and distant (when did X-ers ever feel as though society cared about them? Answer: Never)."

Here you are really speaking for yourself and your friends. Gen Xers transformed the 1980's and dominated the 1990's. They generally believed society was there for them, because they were there for society.


Audacious Epigone said...

Corvinus,

Oh, in absolute numbers. But not in terms of eligibility--boomers are still king there (72% of eligible voters aged 65-74 voted in 2016, the highest of any age range, compared to just 48% of those aged 18-24).

Feryl said...

"Gen Xers transformed the 1980's and dominated the 1990's."

Teenagers follow movements, they don't lead them. GIs set the tone of the self effacing and heroic 40's and 50's, Silents set the experimental and naive tone for the 60's and 70's (they started movements popularly associated with Boomers and mentored younger activists), Boomers set the cynical and judgemental tone for the 80's and 90's, and X-ers have set the depressive and cautious tone of the the 2000's-present day.

Middle aged GIs were productive and stable, middle aged Silents were neurotic and quietly concerned that society was failing too many people, middle aged Boomers vocally wanted to shield children from the perceived chaos and darkness engulfiing society by the 80's (which they blamed on "the wrong" kind of Boomers and all Gen X-ers), and these days middle-aged X-ers are exhausted and preparing to take the heat so that Millennials and Gen Z can eventually live in a better place. X-ers are going to make the sacrifices that Boomers often would only go halfway to make; we've lived beyond our means too long.

Feryl said...


"The process of serial killer profiling developed in the 1970's, so it is difficult to make these comparisons given that we now have the tools to identify patterns and trends."

Profiling and analysis became more sophisticated in response to greatly increased levels of violent crime. It stands to reason that when little crime was happening in the 40's and 50's, voila, very little serial killing was happening. Observations on juvenile deliquency from the mid 1900's reveal that concern about troubled youth was growing in the 40's and 50's, because teen Silents were more poorly behaved than teen GIs. By the time you get to teen Boomers in the late 60's, youth crime was exploding (as was crime committed by young Silent adults). Don't insult my (or any one else's) intelligence by claiming that a large wave of GI criminals somehow escaped notice in the 1940's-1980's. And don't claim that the authorities are lying about crime stats; memories of the generations who lived thru the 40's-70's reveal that robberies, vandalism, murder, rape, etc. got progressively worse as the 60's and 70's went on, which is what the stats bear out.

Feryl said...

By the mid to late 1980's.

NFL Lineman began getting noticeably bigger in 1976, and got bigger with every passing year after that. Before the late 70's, NFL lineman weight was fairly stable. As competition heated up in the late 70's, more players started gaining lots of weight and taking lots of PEDs so as to stay "competitive". Doping in track was rampant by the late 70's (Canada hired a new track coach for their '76 Olympic team, who got rid of all the shorter distance white runners and brought in a bunch of blacks who were more willing to be guinea pigs for the coach and his doctors).

Jimmy Carter was the first president in a long time to be pretty open about being on the side of management, not labor (check out his regime's stance on regulations and unions; FDR was rolling over in his grave). Most of the things Reagan is hated (or praised) for were foreshadowed by the Carter era, anyway.

Immigration levels accelerated in the later 70's. Immigration was quite minimal in the entirety of the 1960's, then began rising as the 70's went on. The mid-70's-early 80's were a dry run for the mercenary era of the late 80's-2000's.

Corvinus said...

"Teenagers follow movements, they don't lead them."

Not anymore.

"Silents set the experimental and naive tone for the 60's and 70's (they started movements popularly associated with Boomers and mentored younger activists)"

The 1960's and 1970's were hardly naive; people became woke.

"Boomers set the cynical and judgemental tone for the 80's and 90's..."

Actually, the 1980's were more cynical and judgmental; the 1990's were much more jovial and even keel.

"and X-ers have set the depressive and cautious tone of the the 2000's-present day."

In reality, it is the Coalition of the Fringe Right and the Coalition of the Fringe Left which have set this tone of divisiveness and combativeness.

"Middle aged GIs were productive and stable..."

OK. Now the rest of your analysis is purely conjecture on your part.

"Profiling and analysis became more sophisticated in response to greatly increased levels of violent crime. It stands to reason that when little crime was happening in the 40's and 50's, voila, very little serial killing was happening."

No, it is just that the definition of serial killing and the profiling of serial killing was not noticed until the standards and procedures were put in place.

"Observations on juvenile deliquency from the mid 1900's reveal that concern about troubled youth was growing in the 40's and 50's..."

Actually, it was the 1920's. The Children’s Bureau was established in 1912 to investigate and report on matters pertaining to childhood in America. Among these concerns were maternity care, infant mortality, the conditions of working mothers, juvenile delinquency, desertion of children, child health, and state and local administration of child welfare laws. Now a part of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, the Children’s Bureau, at the time the following survey was created, was under the control by the Department of Labor. During the 1920’s, the Children’s Bureau began to take an interest in social movements in the United States concerned with morality and social behavior. In 1924, its publication Child Welfare Summary News carried an article on crime and the punishment of criminals

"because teen Silents were more poorly behaved than teen GIs."

Debatable.

"Don't insult my (or any one else's) intelligence by claiming that a large wave of GI criminals somehow escaped notice in the 1940's-1980's."

I never made that claim directly or indirectly.

"And don't claim that the authorities are lying about crime stats; memories of the generations who lived thru the 40's-70's reveal that robberies, vandalism, murder, rape, etc. got progressively worse as the 60's and 70's went on, which is what the stats bear out."

Memories are subject to confirmation bias. And what stats are you referring to?

"NFL Lineman began getting noticeably bigger in 1976..."

It was the 1980's. The weight for OL rose to an average of 270, then to 299 by 1996.

Feryl said...

http://akinokure.blogspot.com/2014/10/nfl-players-got-bigger-once.html

The linked chart isn't active anymore, but according to the post it was the 70's when players started getting bigger.

"The 1960's and 1970's were hardly naive; people became woke."

So I suppose conservative people of older generations are utterly delusional about people being much more wholesome and responsible in the 1940's and 50's?

The late 60's and 70's were about opposing authority, for any reason or no good reason at all. I use "naive" in the sense that (well-founded) taboos were destroyed by 1970 primarily for the sake of people having greater individual freedom (which by the 80's almost everyone agreed had inflicted lots of damage on safety, order, productivity, and collective security and well-being). In 1984 Western society reached a consensus that the era of experimentation was over; free wheeling hedonism and idealism was out; careerism and aggressive public safety campaigns were back in (the Boomers who were responsible for record high road fatalities in the 70's were now having kids and attacking anything believed to be a threat to kids)

"Actually, the 1980's were more cynical and judgmental; the 1990's were much more jovial and even keel."

A 1997 survey revealed that people thought the 90's were the worst era in post-WW2 history. I dunno what your age is, by I grew up in the 90's and trust me, adults at that time were extremely self-righteous and arrogant; society shed a lot of it's camaraderie and cohesion in the 70's and 80's, and by the time you get to the 90's there's virtually no intact social fabric left (unless you grew up in a Midwestern small town, or something). Trust in all institutions began plummeting (banks, media, the police, etc.). After the Soviet Union dissolved, we seemed to turn all of our angst against each other with no common foe left. There was an uptick of camaraderie from about 2002-2004, when it seemed like radical Islam was the threat that would unite us. But our moronic foreign policy and invade the world/invite the world caused the public mood to turn sour again in the later 2000's. When elites bumble and more and more diversity is shoved down our throats, people will not be able to meld their interests and goals together. To put things in perspective, from the 50's-80's there was consensus among elites that communism was a terrible thing; what they disagreed on was how aggressive we needed to be against the commies. Nowadays our elites cannot reach a consensus on the threat posed by Islam, let alone agree on the nature of our response to Islam. A liberal high level German politician recently threatened to re-write the EU constitution to try and coerce more Eastern countries into accepting refugees. Madness.

Western elites have been gripped tighter and tighter by blank slate BS since the end of WW2. Aging elites refuse to acknowledge that they went too far; something has to give. Countries such as America and Germany, which were able to achieve great things with a primarily Teutonic demographic base, will eventually crack apart and the East will rise higher, what with NAMs achieving higher and higher pop. levels (and political/cultural representation) in Western countries with each passing generation.

Corvinus said...

"So I suppose conservative people of older generations are utterly delusional about people being much more wholesome and responsible in the 1940's and 50's?"

Nostalgia is a mother. I would say that the 1940's and 1950's are portrayed as being "wholesome and responsible" at the surface level, but in looking deeper, a man's or woman's depravity and debauchery was exhibited, but just not openly advertised. My grandmother who spoke fluent Polish would go out in the morning and late afternoon, water her lawn, and speak to her friends in her native tongue. When I asked her what she was saying, she would tell me "We're talking about the weather". Later on I found out that it was code for "all of the neighborhood gossip about two-timing, or about divorcing, and or about bastard children. A number of my friends shared similar experiences.

"I use "naive" in the sense that (well-founded) taboos were destroyed by 1970 primarily for the sake of people having greater individual freedom (which by the 80's almost everyone agreed had inflicted lots of damage on safety, order, productivity, and collective security and well-being)."

What "well founded taboos" were "destroyed"? How do you know for certain that "almost everyone agreed" that it inflicted "lots of damage"?

"In 1984 Western society reached a consensus that the era of experimentation was over..."

According to who? Because clearly experimentation with crack cocaine, homosexuality, and threesomes continued well into the 1990's.

"A 1997 survey revealed that people thought the 90's were the worst era in post-WW2 history."

What survey from 1997? Who conducted it? What is the sample size? What questions were posed?

"I dunno what your age is, by I grew up in the 90's and trust me, adults at that time were extremely self-righteous and arrogant..."

I was in my 20's in that decade, and adults were other than "self-righteous and arrogant". On the contrary, they were giving and supportive.

"When elites bumble and more and more diversity is shoved down our throats, people will not be able to meld their interests and goals together."

It is clear diversity is one of the defining attributes of Gen-Z. In the past decade alone, there has been a rise of multiracial marriages, and the Census Bureau is predicting "that over half of kids in America will belong to a minority race or ethnic group [by 2020], so diversity in the traditional sense of the word has actually become the norm.”

"Nowadays our elites cannot reach a consensus on the threat posed by Islam, let alone agree on the nature of our response to Islam."

There is a consensus about radical Islam.

"Western elites have been gripped tighter and tighter by blank slate BS since the end of WW2."

I would say that nature and nurture both play a role in a person's intellectual and emotional development. Neither one is dominant.

"Countries such as America and Germany, which were able to achieve great things with a primarily Teutonic demographic base..."

Through an "invade the world, invite the world" lens.

Feryl said...

"There is a consensus about radical Islam."

No way, Jose. Saudi Arabists infect the Pentagon as we speak. We've picked fights with secularist strong men of the MENA, to utterly disastrous results in Iraq and Libya. At some point in the 1960's, if not earlier, it was decided that the US would hitch it's wagon to the Saudis first and foremost, not matter how depraved the Saudis are. Somehow, someway, the bulk of the US's wrath and scorn is targeted at historical enemies of the Pentagon, even when said putative enemies pose no great threat to the US's well-being (like Iran) while we look the other way at countries that subsidize the most maniacal dune coons (like Pakistan).

The single biggest reason Trump alarmed elites was his stance that we needed to rip up decades of foreign policy, and re-evaluate who are real allies were and are. He also said that it was in the US's best interest to ally with Christian Eastern Europe (which has been at war with Islam basically non-stop for thousands of years) to fight Islamic enemies of the US.

Meanwhile, most Western elites respond to Muslim terrorism on our shores by telling us not to jump to conclusions or be xenophobic. They also refuse to heavily enforce immigration/travel restrictions from Islamic regions know for radicalism .To use another historical comparison, if Russian nationals emigrated to America and set bombs off, in 1985, there would be an immediate investigation as to who they were, how they got here, their connections to groups/governments/ideologies known to be hostile to the US, and so forth. The public (and the not yet retarded) media of the 1980's would demand accountability from those deemed responsible for permitting the entry of violent subversives into America. In the Islamic terrorism era of the last 15 or so years, it's commonplace for US officials and media to rush to gloss over just what the hell these people are doing here, and their not infrequent connections to foreign groups and governments which destabilize the US with impunity. They cover their asses and then congratulate themselves on not ruining the diversity racket.

Western countries are negligent in their immigration policies to a degree that's not been seen since the early 1900's (when America was flooded with tons of immigrants not all of whom respected America and her native born subjects).

Feryl said...

One of the greatest unanswered questions still is: Why the hell were the 9/11 hi-jackers (most of 'em Saudis) allowed to be here in the first place? What purpose does it serve to have third world barbarians here?

In the 1920's-1980's, it was imperative that elites be seen as protecting the security of their subjects. After the Soviet Union dissolved, so too did any wariness regarding diversity. We went from mere accusations of communist leanings being powerful stuff in the pre-1990's, to openly subsidizing cult Marxist bilge after circa 1990 which openly castigated Western tradition and made distance from Western norms desirable. White Christian communists in the 80's? The Horror. These days, bloodthirsty dune coons stuck in 900 AD? Yay, what's not to love?

Feryl said...

It is clear diversity is one of the defining attributes of Gen-Z. In the past decade alone, there has been a rise of multiracial marriages, and the Census Bureau is predicting "that over half of kids in America will belong to a minority race or ethnic group [by 2020], so diversity in the traditional sense of the word has actually become the norm.”

Millennials have a lot of white and black Boomer parents, so in that sense Millennials may be the last generation for the foreseeable future who have any link whatsoever to traditional American culture. X-ers are too diverse, non-theistic, and lacking in the spirit that you saw regularly in Silents and Boomers. So X-ers aren't impressing any remnant of Normal America onto their Gen Z kids. The fraying that accelerated in the 90's created a mercenary attitude among X-ers and Millennials, and unless we dramatically reshape the culture for the better, we're going to eventually have an America in which all generations have no link whatsoever to the America of the past.

Anonymous said...

"I had a strong argument with a nerdy coworker who likes to consider himself a hardcore free speech guy. He agreed with the Milo twitter ban. I explained to him that he is anti free speech and that he should stop being such a vigorous opponent of free speech. This upset him greatly because his holy conception of himself included both a belief that he is a free speech warrior and that he stands up to hate."

I agree with this.
A glance at Twitter and other avenues for the slutterati (© Heartiste) shows they are ever so vain -> thus addicted to the feeling of being right -> thus prone to never side with anything but the dominant stereotype/cultural diktat of the day/week/month/year/decade.

"Being for free speech" is yet one more embellishment they don't want to deny to their self-image, and in no way a real disposition of theirs.

Corvinus said...

"No way, Jose. Saudi Arabists infect the Pentagon as we speak."

Along with Jews and those pesky Russians. I blame Trump.

"At some point in the 1960's, if not earlier, it was decided that the US would hitch it's wagon to the Saudis first and foremost, not matter how depraved the Saudis are."

Depends upon how one defines "depravity". And just look in our own backyard. The Alt Right, the radical leftists...one could argue they are depraved.

"The single biggest reason Trump alarmed elites was his stance that we needed to rip up decades of foreign policy..."

Just stop right there. His advisors were at the forefront of his foreign policy agenda, not him.

"He also said that it was in the US's best interest to ally with Christian Eastern Europe (which has been at war with Islam basically non-stop for thousands of years) to fight Islamic enemies of the US."

Pandering to his base. Besides, in late June, Trump suggested "It wouldn't bother me, it wouldn't bother me," when asked whether he would allow a Scottish Muslim into the U.S. under his policy.

“Meanwhile, most Western elites respond to Muslim terrorism on our shores by telling us not to jump to conclusions or be xenophobic.”


There hasn’t been monthly instances of Muslim terrorism, with body bags galore, on our shores. Again, Radical Islam is the issue.

“Western countries are negligent in their immigration policies to a degree that's not been seen since the early 1900's (when America was flooded with tons of immigrants not all of whom respected America and her native born subjects).”



Then they all have to go back.

“One of the greatest unanswered questions still is: Why the hell were the 9/11 hi-jackers (most of 'em Saudis) allowed to be here in the first place? What purpose does it serve to have third world barbarians here?”

At various points in our history, the same sentiment was exhibited toward the Irish/Germans (1840’s-1850’s), the Italians/Slavs/Poles (1890’s), the Mexicans of the 1920’s, the Vietnamese of the 1970’s, etc. Perhaps it is nativists who are the barbarians here.

“These days, bloodthirsty dune coons stuck in 900 AD?”



That would be a wild generalization on your part.

“Millennials have a lot of white and black Boomer parents, so in that sense Millennials may be the last generation for the foreseeable future who have any link whatsoever to traditional American culture.”


Traditional American culture died off when the Irish/Germans emigrated here. A new culture arose. Then, with the infusion of the Italians/Slavs/Poles, more changes to our cultures. That is the process here.


“So X-ers aren't impressing any remnant of Normal America onto their Gen Z kids.”

“Normal America” is relative. It’s based on the current context.

“The fraying that accelerated in the 90's created a mercenary attitude among X-ers and Millennials”.

What do you mean by “mercenary attitude”?