Wednesday, April 11, 2018

Prole patrol

Steve Sailer draws attention to the BBC complaining that the Gun Control Movement (which is Good) is too white (which is Bad) and too rich (which is Bad insofar as it proxies for whiteness). Setting aside the parenthetical connotations of white and rich, it is worth pointing out that white proles want to keep their guns while white burghers are more keen on taking them away. A similar pattern, shifted to the left, is apparent among non-whites (N = 3,887):


The BBC's opening sentence reads:
Is the new movement against gun violence that is sweeping America too white and too rich?
A humbly offered addendum, so that it will more accurately read:
Is the long-running movement against gun ownership that is riding the carcasses of American high school shooting victims too rich, too (((white))), and too non-white?
Opinions will vary.

Outside the realm of opinion is a recognition of gun rights as an American thing. More immigration means less support for the right to bear arms. The percentage of US-born American residents who oppose laws requiring would-be gun buyers to obtain permits before purchasing their firearms, 24.5%, is nearly twice that among foreign-born residents, at 13.9% (N = 32,971).

GSS variables used: GUNLAW, BORN

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

The phrase "American Exceptionalism", so beloved by our hawkish neocons, cannot survive in the globalist neoliberal system they created. Mexico's constitution has a right to keep and bear arms, but it has been neutered.

The vast majority of Americans paid no heed to the Patriot Act, and the vast majority don't care if firearms ownership becomes a privilege decided by a hostile bureaucracy, or possibly even a Zuck AI.

When the average modern speaks of rights, it refers to the Sexual Revolution, the Welfare State and Mindless Consumerism. Anonymous urban living, as the campus writ large, demands a police state while simultaneously despising the police. But that is a Singaporean Exceptionalism.

Jonathan Centauri said...

After telling White Americans that they need to die and be replaced by brown people, lets try and take their MILLIONS OF GUNS.
"Brilliant"!

Civil War II is INEVITABLE.

Sean F. said...

@Anonymous: neocons only invoke American exceptionalism when it suits their agenda, while loathing many of the elements that make America exceptional, eg the outsized Scots-Irish element of our heritage.

As with every signficant idea, movement and event in Western civ for >200 years, without the clarifying lens of the JQ, it just appears a mass of contradictions.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

Maybe through a slow strangle, one measured in generations, will Americans be disarmed (through restrictions on purchases--and that's dubious, too). But they're not giving up their guns.

Jonathan,

I hope "inevitable" is too strong a word choice. That's certainly the intention, though.

Anonymous said...

AE,

I'm only a quarter century on, but I can remember a time when you could oppose gay marriage without social stigma.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSa368X1Z2w

Gun ownership is far from common amongst our cultural elite in the bicoastal metropoli. California and New York have been in defiance of the Constitution for almost a generation. People in prior generations could look at our higher living standards and decide that socialism wasn't worth it. Nowadays few argue that the other developed nations don't provide a higher living standard for most of their working class. The Right has been unpersuasive in claiming that EU/Asian Tiger welfare states are subsidized by US military spending. We send millions of indebted college students on "study abroads" and they come back speaking like Sorkin's Newsroom rant.

Social shaming is powerful, even amongst our most defiant and individualist Appalachians.

The NRA head was attacking "socialism" at CPAC, but without white male brocialists (which I am not) the US will see the social acceptability and legal rights of firearms vanish as they did in every developed country save for CH, CZ and EE.

And if the people don't turn their guns against a government that bans them, and instead hide them, it would be as if they had just turned them in anyways.

Dan said...

"And if the people don't turn their guns against a government that bans them, and instead hide them, it would be as if they had just turned them in anyways."

I disagree. Guns are still valuable even without the government approval. Hidden guns no doubt protect many of South African whites now that their government has abandoned them.

Also, as I have said before, the lack of big problems lets the left dabble with our rights and the good times give them cover.

If the economy craters, if the bond market fails, or if unemployment gets out of control then the erosion of our rights kind of goes on the back burner in my view, because things revert to fire-fighting mode for the government.

Feryl said...

"Nowadays few argue that the other developed nations don't provide a higher living standard for most of their working class"

Yeah, the emperor has no clothes. People born after the mid 70's grew up hearing Republicans in the 80's, 90's, and 2000's talk about how great America is, yet the former wasn't seeing or hearing much to get excited about.. But this is essentially a case of a certain generation of people calling the shots, and financially and/or emotionally getting satisfaction from the shots they've called....Even if they've disregarded the long-term effects of their selfish and arrogant behavior.

Older people on the Left lived to see taboos regarding drugs, sex, religion, and so forth get shredded; Older people on the Right lived to see taxes get slashed, welfare reduced, de-regulation installed, and so forth. It's the worst of both worlds, yet aging partisans refuse to be held accountable for the damage they've done, instead preferring to say that it's the other side who screwed up. The result has been that the moral and cultural trend setters on the Left get away with promoting "lifestyle" choices that are unhealthy and anti-social, while the economic trend setters on the Right get away with saying that whatever money or power you've gotten is yours (or maybe your immediate family's) and you've got no financial responsibility to take care of society.

Getting government back in the bedroom and the boardroom is imperative, but that kind of thing is going to be obstructed by the "don't tell me what to do" generations. It's common for older people to criticize the 1950's for different reasons; the Leftists complain about gay bars being shut down, while the Right complains that the New Deal inhibited private enterprise and freedom so as to make people more dependent on unions and the government. But on matter what kind of lofty and sophisticated reasoning you hear about making the dam gubmint smaller, it just really comes down to self-absorbed people not wanting anyone or anything telling them what to do.

It seems as if younger people will gravitate towards the Dems because younger people are so offended by the GOP rationalizing the economic excesses of the last 40 years. Older and higher income people benefited a great deal, and that just seems well....Unfair. The Dems might've promoted behavioral nihilism, but in a sense we've all got a choice to do drugs or whatever. Whereas the GOP flavored econ ideology of the last 40 years kicks so many people in the teeth by default. Older people were comfortable with unrestrained capitalist excess because enough of them benefited, not necessarily financially but certainly in the emotional sense that at least the stupidfuckinggovernment and the stupidfuckinguions aren't getting in the way anymore.

The GOP is trying desperately to sell us on the fantasy of making it like the Koch bros, but younger people feel guilty over the idea that such a system produces so many sad, defeated, penniless losers. Seeing the depths to which a winner takes all society sinks is disheartening to the children of Boomers and X-ers, and of course, us younger people grew up around adults complaining that the bills were getting too high.

Anonymous said...

Feryl,

"young people feel guilty", I'd say that there's a large smattering of middle class white female college students that feel that way, but I think most of muh fellow kids have only anger at the elites and the boomers. We aren't any less consumerist than prior generations, and few people say they regret going to college even if they are indebted. The leading voices telling the youth to avoid college are Mike Rowe, Aaron Clarey and Peter Thiel. None of them has any traditionalist leanings whatsoever. Most of those on "study abroad" that I referenced are females seeking "enrichment" from swarthy foreign men.

Far larger is the support for making state universities tuition free. Of course that can be easily afforded by shutting down the F-35, B-21, SSN(X), Ford Class, and an arms control treaty with China. SNAP could also be dismantled since we have an excess of overweight poor people. But the likelier outcome is a Federal VAT at 20% that also pays for Medicare for all.

The main reason the youth vote Dem is race, the second factor is that you don't care about tax rates when you don't pay tax. The marginal increase in black support noticed in 2016, along with low turnout, is gone. The Drug War will have to be ended to regain support, and the state should just distribute confiscated drugs for free to registered addicts. I've suggested before that alcohol and prescription drug advertising should be banned outright.

The self-absorbed attitude by wealthier conservative Boomers and Xers is quite common on the firearms forums I frequent. Thousands spent on guns and ammo, but suggest protests or boycotts and people get quite agitated. Not unusual to see posts lauding how immigrants work harder, and a definite refusal to reject cheaper imported products. It doesn't register that the left has successfully got Big Corps to subsidize environmentalism and gay pride; only a few "three percenters" ever engage in similar street theater.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

Gun grabbing has the *least* support among younger cohorts, both white and non-whites. It's a galvanizing issue that riles up a lot of apolitical types.

As social trust continues to decline, so will support for gun grabbing.

Anonymous said...

AE,

I'm unsure, as California has gone over to the left whole Hogg, the tendency has been to reduce criminal penalties while increasing the harassment of gun owners. Los Angeles is our lowest trust metro, but crime is on the decrease thanks to Hispanics chasing out blacks, and gentrification chasing out Hispanics. Asian infiltrators are the least likely to own guns, the civicuck right's delusions about roof Koreans. No blue state has ever had its gun bans overturned by a federal court, or repealed by the legislature.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=1236204

An interesting data point is that in the high-trust 50s, concealed carry was unheard of outside of Vermont, Nixon actually wanted handguns banned. You can definitely link the rise of CCW to black crime caused by crack, and the resulting decline in trust.


snorlax said...

You can definitely link the rise of CCW to black crime caused by crack, and the resulting decline in trust.

The crack epidemic started in 1985, while the clearest starting point for the rise of CCW is probably the movie Death Wish (1974). Bernie Goetz was 1984, so just before crack.

Black crime was already extremely high starting from the 60's SCOTUS rulings like Miranda (1966), crack was just a second bump.

Feryl said...

Trust levels are highly generational, with Boomers who grew up in The Sixties, man.....Showing higher levels of trust than those born before the 40's and those born after 1970. Boomers grew up in an era where the middle class was massive, nearly everyone in your neighborhood and at your school was white and/or black, and American born, and people felt very optimistic about a lot of things.

In was in the 80's that people became concerned about higher crime levels, and the population began to age also. Gen X-ers whose first strong memories are from the Reagan/Carter era are much more cynical, as the late 70's/early 80's is when the campaign to open the borders, kill unions, off-shore good jobs, and let elites run amok started in earnest.

I would attribute high trust levels to growing up in an era of homogeneity, opportunity, and idealism. As these three factors began to heavily decline around circa 1980, we find that those born in the 70's and especially 80's are much more misanthropic.

These 80's trends mostly got worse in the 90's, so most younger people have varying degrees of cynicism about the Clinton and Bush era, with Obama getting a pass from some libs because he's black and because he's not Trump.

Feryl said...

The crack epidemic started in 1985, while the clearest starting point for the rise of CCW is probably the movie Death Wish (1974). Bernie Goetz was 1984, so just before crack.

The mid-late 70's is when conservatives really started to promote the idea that being a vigilante was preferable to using the government (or the church, or any institution) to find solutions that addressed the root causes of crime and juvenile delinquency. Some of this is generational, there were so many young Boomers who were out of control in the late 60's and 70's that older generations believed there wasn't much to be done about these troubled kids besides locking em up and shooting em. That attitude really took over in the late 70's (1975 is when the incarceration rate really started to go up, relative to the actual crime level).

Point of fact, the biggest cause of crime going up in the 60's was the fact that the population's average age fell dramatically as the 60's progressed, as crime started to rise around 1965 or so and got progressively higher as more Boomers entered adolescence. The vast majority of Boomers were white, btw. Crime slightly declined in the early 80's, as the earliest cohort of Boomers (as well as the generations before them) had reached an age where they wanted greater stability. Crime then started to hit higher levels in the later 80's due to crack, which obviously affected blacks much more than whites (for example, most serial killers born in the 30's-50's are white, whereas the killers born in the 60's and 70's tend to be black). The running joke among aging Boomers, and X-ers and Millennials about virtually 95% of criminals being black can be attributed to blacks being much more resistant to social programming about the massively high incarceration rate and the fact that ghettos invariably produce a lot of criminals, although the horrendous ghettos of the 70's-90's caused Gen X blacks to be worse behaved than Black boomers and black millennials.

White Boomers grew up in better conditions than later generations of whites, yet white Boomers were more likely to be criminals. If anything it would seem that the combination of being coddled at a young age and the cultural changes of the 60's built a lot of narcissism in Boomers which then expressed itself at times as violence and crime. Early Gen X whites are marginally better behaved, then as per usual the whites born in the mid-70's-present day seem to be doing a whole better, to the extent that with every passing year the stereotype of the white conformist and the black thug/rebel gets stronger. But in defense of Boomers, being surrounded by massive numbers of your peers and being conditioned to disrespect the boundaries set by older adults probably contributed to how poorly behaved they were.

Feryl said...

The self-absorbed attitude by wealthier conservative Boomers and Xers is quite common on the firearms forums I frequent. Thousands spent on guns and ammo, but suggest protests or boycotts and people get quite agitated. Not unusual to see posts lauding how immigrants work harder, and a definite refusal to reject cheaper imported products. It doesn't register that the left has successfully got Big Corps to subsidize environmentalism and gay pride; only a few "three percenters" ever engage in similar street theater."

This is a niche audience, thankfully. Normies don't see any reason to spend valuable resources on stockpiling an arsenal. And these fanatic survivalist types are, even more so than usual older conservative standards, conditioned to reject the idea of mass movements and team work in favor of Mad Max do-it-all-on-my-own LARPing.

As for the delusion that corporate America is our friend, I would blame that on the 1980's and 1990's tendency to blame societal shortcomings on poor moral character, big government, and unions, as opposed to understanding that private sector elites in cooperation with the elites in government and academia have failed us. There's also the Ayn Rand type hagiography of people who "made it" in the private sector, who are idealized as winners and role models battling against the arrogant and meddling public sector. Also, look at how wide open our borders were in the 80's; if ever we needed to support big government for a worthy cause, it was during that time. But nope, wide layers of the population looked the other way about legions of cheap labor being imported. That's a big reason Reagan won in the '84 landslide, which elites interpreted as an endorsement of corporate and ethnic globalism and even greater numbers of foreigners would enter in the late 80's.

Of course, big tech and media (and the Chamber of Commerce!) have become so blatantly against populist conservatism that the dated ideas of the past are becoming harder to sustain. That's why so many Republicans are now furious with Paul Ryan, and the Koch Bros, etc. As time goes by younger people in particular are gaining an appreciation for the idea of knocking elites off their pedestal, and even if such elites happen to in the private sector, so what?

Anonymous said...

Feryl,

It will still be some time before even a majority of the Right decides to use antitrust against Big Tech, let alone the nationalization option against Facebook-CIA. CPAC is literally a Google sponsored event.

Don Jr and Eric Trump are blissfully unaware of the massive hypocrisy they show by having their company still applying for H-2B workers. There were a considerable number of union members that made hay about Ivanka's crap being made in China. Even the symbolic loss of a few million by moving production to the US seems nothing to the same people who gleefully sold the franchise via EB-5.

My late Boomer congressman, who made tens of millions in auto dealerships and nursing homes, wants a promotion to the Senate. He successfully shilled for a increase in H-2B visas, because Ohio somehow doesn't have a large number of workers displaced by deindustrialization and addiction that should be mowing lawns instead of Mexicans. This attitude isn't going to rack up massive margins in Appalachia and Northeast Ohio needed to overwhelm the neoliberal and invader votes in Columbus. The D incumbent has been NAFTA's biggest opponent for 30 years.

Saint Louis said...

How much is the difference among income groups and how much is just a rural/urban split reflected in the fact that cities have higher incomes?

Jonathan Centauri said...

Social Trust means zippity do dah to the invaders. They don't have it at home. Living with a whole family in one cheap flophouse is STILL BETTER than they get back in Shitholistan. They want a "Better Life".
This better life story is probably 70 cents a day. Compete with that.
This System is now FUBAR. Clusterfuck, USA is no longer a society in any real sense of the term. No man is an island, but no man has a place to actually call his own in Freedonia. Property Rights are a Sick Joke. Taxes are one thing, but nowadays you RENT your property from Robber Baron LLC. You no pay the rent, they STEAL your house, car, and whatever else.
Shakedowns, takedowns and stuff nobody saw. No knock raids at Midnight. It was a "terrorist" they'll say. Lose your guns, and your knives too. Its for SAFETY, JUST NOT FOR YOU...