Tuesday, July 10, 2018

Open border blacks

Z-Man devotes another full-length show to a single topic. As he concedes, an hour isn't enough to cover everything, but this is an invaluable primer for alt lite guys who are becoming restless with the captain of the Washington Generals and lessons from the dragon in Solzhenitsyn. Charon ferrying people across the river:



The phrase "identity politics" really entered the public lexicon in the mid-eighties:


Ngrams only goes through completed year 2007, but the phrase got a second wind on account of the Trump phenomenon:


As Z points out, lamentations about the rise in identity politics are coming from cuckservatives who hate how politically successful Trump has been.

Little Bennie Shapiro's appearance with Bill Maher is a great example of this. I'm #SometimesTrump, there is violence and threats on both sides, collectivism is a problem on the left and on the right, blah blah blah blah blah. Members of the Respectable Right--well, individuals who happen to share the same principles, that is, as the only thing we're member to is our own sacred individualism!--are supposed to hang separately, not band together to win.

I'll take issue with one assertion Z makes:
Blacks have never been fond of immigration because it dilutes their share.
It's an assertion heard frequently. After all, it should logically be the case that blacks oppose open borders, especially low-skilled immigration, because it dilutes their political power and reduces their economic opportunities.

But surveys and polling never seem to bear it out. Blacks favor of open borders--or at least they say they do and vote for people who do. Percentages who approve of the way Trump has handled immigration, by selected demographic characteristics ("don't know"s excluded; N = 146,021--yeah, massive!):


Percentages who identify immigration as the top issue when deciding on how to vote (N = 9,898):


The relatively high Hispanic numbers are plausibly attributable to their support for open borders, and there is some of that going on. But in the case of non-whites, those who voted for Trump are considerably more likely to put immigration at the top of the heap than those who voted for Clinton are, suggesting that concern about immigration is for most voters concern about too much immigration rather than concern about too little.

Maybe another subject Z addresses--negative identity--accounts for blacks waving the invaders in. The invasion hurts white Americans. Supporting it is a thing worth doing. Like the scorpion stings, black America resents white America.

35 comments:

Anonymous said...

Just like the Rhodesian blacks that chased away the White farmers, only to face starvation. Kipling described blacks as half-child, half-devil. That seems to be a pretty good description for such behavior.

Dekker said...

One thing that it's very important to remember is that the average black IQ is very low AND delayed gratification is a concept many blacks struggle with.

Black hear SWPL shitlibs and the "brown socialists" promising them free stuff, while they see the Evil Whites as potentially taking away some of their free stuff, so they side with them against the Evil Whites, and most of them don't think about long-term consequences.

They think that since the Evil Racist Whites are hostile or at least critical to both them and the "browns" then they're natural allies (the obvious "enemy of my enemy" simplistic logic).

Furthermore the Cultural Marxist/Post-Modern ideology has lumped together all nativism or even just immigration restrictions within the narrative of "white supremacy", which for the blacks means slavery and lynching. It's a very succesful rhetoric trick, especially for those who are more governed by emotions than by logic.

The media routinely compare Trump to Hitler or to the KKK, so many blacks (especially black single mothers, who tend to also worry about losing the "gibs") see him as The Devil who is going to put them in chains or kill them all. Of course they're not going to vote for him in huge numbers.

Recently at least "some" blacks have gone off the Democratic reservations, but it's usually already successful blacks, who see themselves as the targets of new requisitions through taxes to support the South American invaders. But it's only few and far between.

There's no love lost between blacks and "browns", but the Dems/shitlibs have convinced them to hate Whitey more, and that a world of plenty and success for all the non-whites is just round the corner once the Evil Rich Racist White Men will be dealt with.

Of course that's a lie, but it's a lie many believe, including possibly many of those who utter it for political gain (idealistic shitlibs heartily welcome the end of "White Supremacy"). The dream of taking free stuff from the Whites with the help of the Browns is too strong for most Blacks.

The bottom line is that while black support for border restrictions would be fine, I wouldn't bet on it happening in massive numbers. Whites have to organize themselves, come out to vote, capture the disaffected white males even more, and possibly find a way to appeal to single white women.

Sid said...

AE,

At this point in time, blacks have (correctly) assessed that a less white America means one that's more inclined to hand out the gibs to them. Brown immigrants will get their gibs too, but blacks get theirs first and foremost. More brown voters means more votes for the gibs, which always comes at wypipo's expense.

What I envision doing is telling blacks and browns that there will only be a fixed number of gibs a year. It can be absurdly high - maybe $100 billion gibs a year - but blacks and their brown allies will all have to split it amongst themselves. English language programs will have to come at the expense of inner city school programs, more healthcare for illegals means more expensive Medicaid, etc. Anything that gets the point across that the gibs will have to be shared among those coming for them.

When that happens, black opinions will become a lot more nativist. One thing that pre-red-pilled me in high school was seeing black people complaining about how we were building a democracy in Iraq when we needed to spend the money on "helfcair and edyewkayshun" here. Granted, that's a position I've come to respect, but the sheer callousness was eye-opening. When I said we needed to stay in Iraq until the security situation was stabilized, I was amazed to hear black students say we should leave the Iraqis to the wolves because Bush wasn't giving them enough stuff. "Wow, these really aren't nice people!" They're not going to say nice things about Central American migrants when their housing subsidies go to the newcomers.

wrt negative identity and the scorpion, I'd say that around 20% of blacks I've encountered have an "integrative" mindset. They're willing to work with whites, find mutually beneficial solutions, and so forth. Around 80% of blacks have a "distributive" mindset, where they see white people as scheming bastards who are sitting on a huge pile of money, and anything said or done which moves that money to black wallets is justified. This is generally true regardless of IQ: I've seen both ghetto blacks in my high school and Talented Tenth blacks in my grad school have a similar mentality, though of course the Talented Tenth were far more polished and thoughtful.

Of course, the 80-20 percentages I've given are from my intuitions based on my experience.

Dekker,

At this point, I think that Republican outreach to blacks and browns is less effective at winning those demographics than they are at telling conservatives, who haven't taken the red pill yet, that Trumpist policies won't harm black and brown citizens. My Boomercon dad hated Trump, but conceded that he was less worried about him once Trump made some outreach to blacks. "What do you have to lose?" The example he gave was Reagan: blacks hated him, but Reagan never pursued anything against blacks.

In the long run, it'll be necessary to red-pill whites as quickly as possible. One point I sometimes make to people I trust is, "Was the oppression blacks faced all that bad? Slavery was harsh, but was roughly on par with Russian serfdom, rather than something apocalyptic like the Holocaust or the Stalinist famines. If blacks are struggling because of past discrimination, then why are the Chinese plowing ahead when blacks don't get anywhere? Jim Crow laws were a joke compared to the Qing Dynasty collapse, Japanese invasion, Great Leap Forward, and Cultural Revolution."

That argument won't work on blacks, but SWPLs who identify themselves as erudite universalists feel flustered when hearing that.

Anonymous said...

What is interesting to me is what the coalitions will look like going into the future. The Democratic Party is an unstable coalition and I have to believe that one or more parts will break off, especially if the Democratic Party is seen as being dominated by blacks who will not share power. Blacks assume that immigrants will agree with them on whites, while in my experience it is the opposite: immigrants agree with whites about blacks. This is why I think immigration, though it is destroying white America, is ultimately going to destroy black America as well. My guess is that Asians will eventually realize that the Republican Party is more in their interest, and ice people, whites and Asians, as the Derb would characterize them, will form a coalition against blacks, Hispanics and Muslims.

Feryl said...

"wrt negative identity and the scorpion, I'd say that around 20% of blacks I've encountered have an "integrative" mindset. They're willing to work with whites, find mutually beneficial solutions, and so forth. Around 80% of blacks have a "distributive" mindset, where they see white people as scheming bastards who are sitting on a huge pile of money, and anything said or done which moves that money to black wallets is justified. This is generally true regardless of IQ: I've seen both ghetto blacks in my high school and Talented Tenth blacks in my grad school have a similar mentality, though of course the Talented Tenth were far more polished and thoughtful."

The scary thing here is that in a place that is not majority white and has affirmative action (South Africa), whites are still held to be unreasonably privileged and hostile towards non-whites. Can you imagine how American blacks, who often make up just 4-10% of the population in most American states, feel? Unless a small minority group possesses the wealth and connections of Ashkenazi Jews, it just isn't possible under any conditions for them to hold that many positions in many sectors of life, esp. the upper class ones. One thing for example that gets tiring are the calls to hire more non-white cops. In a state such as Minnesota (5% black), there are very few blacks around from which to draw, since we're talking a small population that already has a lower IQ as well as serious impulse control problems. The last two "controversial" cop shooting incidents in Minnesota involved a mystery meat male cop with a Spanish surname, and a Somali cop. Both cops reacted with extremely poor judgement to perceived threats, and the Hispanic guy audibly freaks out during and after the shoooting, apparently unable to contain his stress at having shot someone.

An obvious reason for black corruption and incompetence is that we are so desperate to uplift blacks that any one of them who shows the least bit of intelligence and social skills is fast tracked into the middle class from which gaining elite status via becoming a diversity mascot is pretty easy. But remember, we're talking about a talent pool so small that it's easy for blacks of mulatto and recent immigrant heritage (e.g., not typical ghetto blacks) to take advantage of white sympathy and AA programs.

Feryl said...

*elite black corruption and incompetence*

IHTG said...

Worth noting - the point of "pandering to blacks" isn't just to gain their votes. Since they're such a politically lopsided population, it's statistically more important for a Republican to get blacks to "chillax" so that they don't vote at all.

The Z Blog said...

I think you are right about blacks and immigration. It's one of those things where they vote one way and live another. In the meat space, blacks try hard to keep the Spanish and Asians out of their areas. They see Hispanics as a direct threat. In the voting booth they go along with whatever the Democrats are peddling, mostly because they see it as anti-white.

DissidentRight said...

The problem with blacks on immigration (and any issue) is they are not a monolith.

The black members of the political class are 100% sellouts to the Progressive-Left. That is how they got into the political class, by selling out. They will follow the institution off a cliff.

The black upper and middle class are wholly devoted to the Progressive-Left because of affirmative action and disparate impact policies. That is how the vast majority of them (minus the ones who are genuinely talented, of course) got into the upper and middle class in the first place. And even the genuinely talented ones can benefit from affirmative action if they're high on grievance and/or low on morality. They will never rebel any more than white upper/middle class conservatives will attack Social Security, no matter how self-destructive the policies of the Progressive-Left. As pointed out, they are far too deep down the rabbit hole of identity politics.

Ghetto-class blacks get the short end of the stick on everything (especially immigration), but they will follow upper/middle class blacks off a cliff.

I laugh when conservatives babble about how our policies will help blacks. Yes, because the "average" black is pretty close to the level of a ghetto-class black. But blacks are not a monolith. Conservative policies are actively harmful to the black upper/middle class and the black political class. And upper/middle/political class of blacks are the ones with 100% of the power.

The plantation may be owned by white and (((white))) democrats, but the slave-drivers and slave-catchers are other blacks. Reason #13845384 why color-blind conservatism is dead. I would like to hear a white conservative convince an upper/middle class black Democrat that affirmative action needs to be destroyed.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

You've probably seen this. Point well taken.

Dekker,

The bottom line is that while black support for border restrictions would be fine, I wouldn't bet on it happening in massive numbers. Whites have to organize themselves, come out to vote, capture the disaffected white males even more, and possibly find a way to appeal to single white women.

Well put.

Sid,

There is a sense of first-among-unequals for blacks in the PoC ascendancy. As long as the resources seem infinite and they get first dibs on the gibs (and the putative oppression), it's viable. Dekker's takeaway is important. If some based blacks want to get on board, great, but trying to appeal to them on this, like so much else, is degrading and counterproductive.

Wrt blacks in the US, they are about the only population of slaves in history who consistently enjoyed population growth through natural increase. Black slaves in the US represent fewer than 1-in-100 of all slaves who have ever been and enjoyed among the best living conditions of any slaves ever. The global 1%!

Anon,

An ice people alliance in the US would seem sensible enough, too, but I'm skeptical. Asians split their vote in the mid-1990s between Rs and Ds, but have since become increasingly reliably D. The Californian Asian may be the Asian of the future.

Feryl,

Like affirmative action in all forms, it causes those who commit the crime of Noticing to expect members of groups that are uplifted to be less competent than their occupational/status peers. And they're correct, of course.

IHTG,

Yeah, it's about motivating blacks to vote, because the way they'll vote is a foregone conclusion.

Z,

Hell, SWPLs do the same thing in terms of how they vote and how they live. Maybe sticking it to whitey is one of the more abstract of black motivations for doing what it is that they do. Such high ideals!

DissidentRight,

They are effectively monolithic in how they vote, though, because they so predictably fall in line as described.

Joe Suber said...

I'm late to the party, and everyone already had such good comments.

Only thing left for me to contribute is a Jewtube-proof Murdoch Murdoch archive:

All the episodes in order

Dekker said...

Maybe sticking it to whitey is one of the more abstract of black motivations for doing what it is that they do. Such high ideals!

Indeed. And actually it's not an abstract motivation, it's pure tribalism. Blacks in Africa frequently blame the blacks of another tribe for all of their problems. In the US the Evil Tribe are the Evil Whites.

For many blacks, especially ghetto blacks, less white people mean less White Devils who Keep Them Down by jailing them when they "dindu nuffin'", by enjoying all the riches obviously produced by black slaves, by treating them badly so they have "no choice" but to stay poor, because the Evil Whites always from poor blacks like they stole jazz and rock.

All those who actually try or even worse manage to improve themselves and rise above their status are accused "acting white", to be traitors, so they must show their "solidarity" by sticking it to Whitey, too.

It's hard to break out of peer pressure, especially as a member of racial minority. Blacks LOATHE black conservatives, and based blacks even more so.

And anyway it's in the blacks' own economic interest to ask for more "gibs" paid by tax payers. If they're white it's a bonus.

Ultimately it's not an abstract ideal, it's a very concrete form of solidarity/peer pressure. White people have it too: just visit any small white-majority town and see how they behave differently between people who live in the city and those "not from 'round here".

It's a natural instinct for humans to form groups of peers, of people who look like you, think like you, act and speak like you, and agree with you. Group betrayal in the name of an abstract egalitarianism or even worse of "justice and reperations" is a product of education, fallacious as its justifications might be.

Liberals need university and education in general and media indoctrination to see themselves as the Good Whites fighting against the Evil Whites to Make Things Right for the People of Color.

I'm not surprised that blacks want to "stick it to the whites". What should be surprising (if one doesn't know American universities) is that a non-insignificant number of whites (even excluding the Jews) agrees with them. But if you ever read the curriculum of any "cultural studies" in any university, or simply any part of any educational approach to racial issues in the US at any level of learning, this isn't surprising.

Hours and hours are dedicated to show the students how much whites suck, how they're greedy, evil, imperialistic, capitalistic, and also sexist, racist, homophobic, hateful, spiteful, petty, morally disgusting, especially so if they're the conservatives.

You need A LOT of teaching of abstract concepts like "social justice to formulate excuses for anti-white behavior in whites. Anti-white behavior in blacks, on the other hand, is simply hatred for the more successful tribe, which is not very abstract.

Feryl said...

"Like affirmative action in all forms, it causes those who commit the crime of Noticing to expect members of groups that are uplifted to be less competent than their occupational/status peers. And they're correct, of course."

What I was trying to get at is that AA is very, very galling in a place with few non-whites. AA makes no distinction between different areas, even though racial demographics are dramatically different from one area to another. This causes, for example, a workplace in a city that's 70-80% white to hire the few employable blacks they can find in the area. Blacks who have the means to escape the ghetto have it made, because they'll find that workplaces in white areas often are desperate to hire non-whites. Where I work, every time I see a new group of employees taking a tour there are usually several blacks, some of whom are immigrants.

Right now is sucks to work for a larger company in a major metro areas, because invariably blacks and FOBs will end up working there even if the building is in a decent/mostly white area.

You can put metro areas into three categories:

1)Heavily black, so therefore it's difficult to complain too much about AA
2)Pockets of blacks here and there, just enough to allow companies to fill their AA quotas
3)Very few blacks at all so AA is a non-issue.

Most of America (outside the Deep South), before the 1980's, used to fall into category 2 or 3. Minnesota in the 1970's for example was so incredibly white that many companies probably didn't even use AA programs. Where would you find the blacks? Vermont and New Hampshire are two of the last bastions of the Great White North where ethnic spoils are irrelevant. It's interesting that in de-Christianized New England you can still find states that resist refugee dumping, and moreover upper New England never had large industrialized metro areas that attracted blacks during the migrations North that happened in the early-mid 20the century. Meanwhile, Catholic and Lutheran charities have dumped tons of African and Asian boat people into the Midwest, with even the fairly Scots-Irish state of Ohio having a city that's gone down the road of Milwaukee and MPLS. Also worth nothing that blacks settling in Detroit, Milwaukee, MPLS, Cleveland, etc. in the 1940's-1970's was a prelude to boat people arriving in these places in the 80's and 90's.

One could certainly make the argument that puritan, non-Catholic and non-Lutheran New England never bought into sentiment about America being a "nation of immigrants" (e.g., a dumping ground). In the Northeast and South, it's primarily been Irish-Catholics and Jews (and probably blacks), and the culture they created in the Northeast and then have brought with them as Yankee transplants in the South, who've done the least to resist greater and greater waves of New Americans in the Northeast and South. And the non-Scots Irish evangelicals, and Lutherans, of the Midwest and Plains states have also done little to resist recent immigration waves. Upper New England (and the Scots-Irish of the South and Appalachia) has the least amount of attachment to Xtian and Jewish flim-flam about immigration. It's fair to say that the immigration wave of the 1880's-1910's was the first major blow to the power of colonial Americans (British Protestants, with a decent number of Dutch thrown in along with a smattering of Germans and French) and the post-1970 waves of non-whites dealing a blow that we may never recover from. Certainly we will never again reflect the values of British Protestants like we once did. Not when Catholics, Jews, and Nordic Lutherans feel obliged to "share" America with the whole world.

216 said...

Wrt to blacks, this graph tells an interesting story.

https://cis.org/Report/2018-Shaping-Be-Another-Bad-Summer-Teen-Employment

Black youth labor participation is now higher than Hispanics, and employment rates will probably exceed them in the next two years assuming current trends. YT is stagnant in terms of participation rates.


On one hand this might look to be an endorsement of conservative policies against raising minimum wages. I don't see anything as to which states had the higher participation, so it is possible the opposite could be inferred, that raising the min wage increases the participation rate.


Even if the conservative claim could be proven, it would never be accepted by blacks. Should Trump even manage to get black unemployment level with whites for the first time since WW2, it won't do much as blacks will still have lower incomes and be resentful.

216 said...

Feryl, wrt to rural New England. That area of the country has the highest energy costs, making it unfriendly to business. While there is some resistance to refugee resettlement, they are hostile to invasion in the same way that leftist Scotland is (not at all). Invaders simply find the area unattractive economically.

The same WASP class in the PNW was gung-ho on the mass immigration into the tech industry that put those states permanently into the leftist column.

The refugee invasion into Columbus, Ohio isn't a Scots-Irish doing. Columbus, despite being next door to Appalachia, was mostly settled by Irish/German Catholics and WASPs. There's also the legacy of the antebellum free blacks that have been overrepresented among GOP politicians.

216 said...

Contd,

Contrary to some on the Right, I think it is good for Trump to promote decreasing rates of black and Hispanic unemployment. While unlikely to gain a significant number of NAM votes, it does have the advantage of reducing the impetus for turnout. More importantly, it assuages the social fears of "white college" that Trump is a racist, these are the Gary(John B. Anderson) voters needed to swing to the GOP column this year and in 2020.

In the 100 year term the US should be devolved into a confederal model on ethno-religious lines, but in the interim we have to harness the identity politics of all races. Conservatism Inc failed at shaming non-whites into abandoning identity themes, I haven't seen anything from the Dissident Right that would discourage these sentiments apart from inducing fear.

Things will have to get a lot worse for most of YT to accept open invoking of identitarianism. Even about half of SA whites are still latched on to liberalism under far worse conditions. We could probably get an immigration moratorium faster by appealing to environmentalism.

Feryl said...

"Feryl, wrt to rural New England. That area of the country has the highest energy costs, making it unfriendly to business. While there is some resistance to refugee resettlement, they are hostile to invasion in the same way that leftist Scotland is (not at all). Invaders simply find the area unattractive economically."

There might be an element of logistics at work here, but all the same the New Englander's mostly don't give a shit about the religious gloss put on refugee dumping. Contrast that with the Mid-Atlantic and Midwest where Ellis Island affiliations with Catholicism and Lutheranism remain strong, and indeed equal or succeed affiliation to British Protestant culture. Indeed from the beginning of America's history New Amsterdam and Pennsylvania tended to be more Cosmopolitan and bohemian than the severe Puritans in New England or the genteel Southerners. NYC became the gate thru which New Americans entered, and many eventually reached the urban centers of New England or sought opportunity in the Midwest and Far West. In times of rising striving, the Ellis Island peoples of the Northeast/Midwest, as well as the Germanic settlers of the Mid-Atlantic and Midwest, tend to arrogantly dismiss the colonial roots culture of New England and the South.

There are millennial long disputes between Europeans which still play out in America and Canada to this day.

"The same WASP class in the PNW was gung-ho on the mass immigration into the tech industry that put those states permanently into the leftist column."

The PNW is the least ethnically conscious region in America, with most of the Mountain West not being much better. California was the earliest state of the West to be heavily settled and developed; outside of that region, not many people can trace their roots back too far into the past in the American West. Since most of the West basically doesn't have an ethno-cultural past beyond whatever the Indian tribes have in their history and lore.

"The refugee invasion into Columbus, Ohio isn't a Scots-Irish doing. Columbus, despite being next door to Appalachia, was mostly settled by Irish/German Catholics and WASPs. There's also the legacy of the antebellum free blacks that have been overrepresented among GOP politicians."

Yeah, I guess I didn't do enough to point out that Teutonic-American settlers and Ellis Island peoples absolutely hate Scots-Irish people. To the point that in a fractious and corrupt period, they would go as far as to import alien armies and have them serve in forward operating bases with which to threaten Appalachia (the region of America most resistant to ethnic displacement).

216 said...

Feryl,

Not sure if I'd describe the 1990s as a fractious period, agree on corrupt. US society before the 2008 recession was much more united than it is now. The Dems had retaken Congress in 2006 on an agenda of single-payer, culture war truce, minimum wage hikes, and anti-war momentum.

Liberals and Socons tend to see the refugee invasion as a demonstration of their personal generosity, and an important source of their identity. There is a quality of apotheosis involved. Divide and conquer was not on the agenda of an elite that thought anti-globalization sentiments were melting away in the face of the dotcom boom. The refugee industry here lost a lot of goodwill due to AQ members that slipped through, leading to the present-day curbs.

I've never seen Italians and Slavs to romanticize the immigrant as much as the Irish do. There's no history of tribal loyalty to the Kennedys. The PNW does have Basques, but they haven't been conservative for a long time. Northern New England also has some Quebecer ancestry, that might be relevant in discussing lack of sympathy to the invasion. Southern New England is pratically overrun by the Third World, only limited by the aggressive zoning rules and cost of living. The Free Staters made a mistake in picking NH, too rooted. Wyoming would have been better for their rootless nature, as no one has the intellectual honesty of considering Somalia or a Hong Kong tiny apartment.

Feryl said...

I understand that the PNW has about the most self-hating whites in the country, given that white "men" in this region were about the least likely to support Trump (granted, New Englanders were a poor showing on this count, too, but after all Trump represents everything that is gaudy and obnoxious about Mid-Atlantic and Ellis Island culture).

Tech companies didn't destroy the West Coast; being home to a culture that hasn't produced ethnically conscious white people and/or has driven out most of the white people who ever were conscious of such is why the West Coast stinks now. What about all the neo Nazi dickheads in the upper Western US? Sorry dude, but these are white trash losers who don't represent the normies of the region. Whites in the Eastern US are more aware of their heritage and traditional culture, yet are also less likely to become involved in retarded skin head crap than the flakes Out West. For example, in the late 70's Orange County was notorious for it's "nazi punks", but that says more about how goofy the region is than it does how wholesome and traditionalist people are. In addition, many Western "conservatives" have long been more motivated by animosity towards the gubmint than they are concern for the well being of their tribe. And thus I think we can understand how over the last 50 years the Rust belt and Appalachia take so much abuse while the Western US is celebrated (in fact, before the 1990's many Republicans had a more favorable view of the West Coast than they did the Midwest or Appalachia, two regions known for their labor activism).

216 said...

Feryl,

The PNW is the origin of the IWW, arguably the most left-wing union that ever existed in the US. Seattle was the origin point of the "socialist moment"(Kashama) in US politics that presaged the Bernie campaign. Seattle was also big during the Red Scare in 1920. The average Boeing worker is voting way more Dem than a Midwest auto worker, but the average AMZN/MSFT worker is even more leftist.

The tech industry is the reason why so many Asians moved to the PNW instead of becoming for example, petroleum engineers in the Gulf states. If the Tech Boom had emerged in the old IBM/Bell Labs culture of the Mid-Atlantic, the intensity of migration would have been higher there, as it later in fact did with the spread of high tech.

Alaska is also culturally PNW, and without a major surge of oil field activity will trend just as leftist as Oregon is. Their anti-government hypocrisy is astounding when you consider the state would collapse without the military spending. I say this without a hint of irony given my support for moving naval facilities out of either Kitsap/San Diego to Anchorage. SD could use the real estate for affordable family formation, Anchorage will never be attractive until the railroad logistics gap with the lower 48 is completed.

Agree wrt to the Nazi "punks", they are quite similar to the NRM of Sweden. Both regions have never faced racial conflicts, a profound sense of religious indifference and social liberalism (even some Nordics in the PNW).

https://www.amren.com/features/2018/02/what-future-for-sweden-democrats-election/

On the plus side, kmgvictoria is from neighboring British Columbia, (China East).

Feryl said...

"Not sure if I'd describe the 1990s as a fractious period, agree on corrupt. US society before the 2008 recession was much more united than it is now. The Dems had retaken Congress in 2006 on an agenda of single-payer, culture war truce, minimum wage hikes, and anti-war momentum."

The 1990's were surveyed to be the least popular decade (in 1997, at any rate; it's likely that the upshift in the national mood that happened from about 2002-2006 would've spared the 2000's from the same hostility). I would agree that there was a middle class consensus to some degree; a bad consensus but a consensus all the same (lower taxes on rich people, deregulate, bust unions, throw people in prison for stealing a Snickers bar etc.). But that consensus pointed toward the degradation of working class people; in other words, the foundation for the current crisis was laid in the neo-liberal surge of the 1990's. Moreover, on cultural matters in the early 90's people were launching verbal warheads at their enemies, and we saw the beginning of the "sorting" process that several decades later has been revealed to be a tragic mistake (far more than in the 1950's, or even 1980's, do so many people deliberately refuse to interact with people from a different socio-economic class). What began as 1990's arguments over the presence of Christian icons, or the point at which a fetus becomes worth protecting, has now degenerated into squalling over the proper role of ICE. Losing friends and being shunned are now consequences of expressing things that are not congenial to those listening.

Anyway, it's clear that immigrants began to be used in the 70's and 80's as a cudgel against "uppity" natives and their unions, and their demands for better conditions and higher wages. As the culture war upshifted in the 1990's, it became increasingly clear that elites were beginning to morally judge the natives as being not deserving of the land and culture they inherited by birth. Initially the GOP in the late 70's-90's judged American natives (read: workers) to be spoiled, whiny, fat, lazy, etc. Then Slick Willie in the 90's, at the behest of working class friendly Dems, pushed immigration levels down (Clinton was also mindful to not go too far on certain matters, esp. if they intersected with GOP sectors interests, e.g. agribusiness and the Pentagon). Over the last 10 years it's become clear that the Dems now disdain working class whites, not for reasons related to the workplace (as the GOP did) but rather for white opposition towards cultural liberalism and cosmopolitan values. With the GOP applying an economic squeeze first, and then the Dems moving to impose alien cultures on a hostile native population, what are white proles supposed to do?

Feryl said...

Agree wrt to the Nazi "punks", they are quite similar to the NRM of Sweden. Both regions have never faced racial conflicts, a profound sense of religious indifference and social liberalism (even some Nordics in the PNW).

There was hysteria over neo-Nazis in the late 80's and 90's. By the late 1980's, most cultural elites had gone all-in on PC muti-culturalism with a corresponding decrease in attacking the tenets of Western capitalism.

Basically, the world was supposed to turn into a neo-liberal rainbow hued utopia. How else were Boomers gonna be happy and rich?

It may be REALLLLLLYYYYYY hard for Millennials to understand, but during the "consciousness revolution" of the 1960's-early 1980's (when horror movies were scary), there was virtually no movement (least of all among Boomers) to squelch "offensive" speech or ideas regarding race, religion, gender, and sex. Not until approximately 1985 did the lion's share of Boomers grasp that "offensive" speech could threaten the economic underpinnings that Boomers were beginning to count on (remember that there was a recession in the early 1980's, which continued the general sense of not having anything to count on which was how many people felt in the late 60's and 70's).

Thus PC is basically the creation of market cucks and extreme cultural Leftists. We mustn't offend any consumer or investor out there by using certain words and ideas that might make them close their wallet or walk out of a business meeting. This of course dove tails perfectly with the drivel coming out of 1980's humanities departments, about how "minorities" are so fragile that the utterance of one unkind word perpetuates their low status and low self esteem. This has fuck all to do with the actual spirit of the 60's and much of the 70's, in which the free exchange of ideas was welcomed.

216 said...

Feryl,

The "model minority" trope worked well in the case of Cubans/Asians during the Cold War years. Serving two ends, assuaging whites of any noblesse oblige to blacks, and shaming the WWC into working harder. None of these elites seem to have ever met Puerto Ricans, which would have dulled any sense of overachievers.

Interesting that the 90s were not viewed as popular in contemporary terms, but in retrospective appear like a golden age. The 1950s were similar, as can be witnessed in the GOP shellacking of '58. The Big 3 would have loved docile immigrants rather than the militant WWC and blacks it had. The beginning of outsourcing, starting with parts, can be traced to this time.

Any transition of the GOP to working class has to be matched in deeds not words. Even if every illegal invader was deported, the likely outcome would be replacement by a new H-2 type visa that holds wages in escrow until the worker returns home. Promoting the evidence that E-Verify raises the wages of Hispanics is helpful.

The working class of today is not found in manufacturing as much anymore, it is the precariat of the service industry. A problem for us can be seen in the example of Starbucks. I love to hate on them for their leftist virtue signaling, but the company provides tuition reimbursement, higher wages than its competitors and stock options to its low ranking employees. While it would be nice to see Trump voting soccer moms no longer drinking their coffee, the likely replacement is not Black Rifle Coffee brewed at home, it's probably the less worker-friendly Dunkin.

216 said...

Feryl,

1985 would have been around the time that Boomers were getting married and having children, my parents married in 1984. Not surprising that they would be regretting their hedonistic youth (thanks for snorting all that cocaine, and wrecking LatAm).

Boomer fear of street crime dovetailed with "stranger danger" towards children. The decrease in crime after '91 wasn't noticed outside of landslide successes like NYC until the mid-2000s when the FBI was running out of excuses as to why it wasn't catching terrorists.

Trump's concern about crime is very much an anachronism in a country that has basically bought into the "warehousing blacks" conspiracy theory. The so-called "church lady" base in the GOP doesn't even explain the reluctance to decriminalize drugs and have regulated cannabis sales. All polling indicates the population is converged wrt drugs. Assuming Sessions doesn't catch wind, "safe injection sites" will be nationwide by 2024 (Not in favor, I want torch bearing mobs at Purdue Pharma HQ and parcel screening for imported drugs).

Feryl said...

"Interesting that the 90s were not viewed as popular in contemporary terms, but in retrospective appear like a golden age."

Again, I don't see that. People were checking out...Of just about everything. Most of the pop culture from about 1988-1996 seems to suggest a culture and people who not only were no longer occupying the same territory, but couldn't and perhaps didn't want to go back.

The record high levels of crime, juvenile delinquency, child abuse, teen pregnancy, etc. all suggested a complete loss of respect for norms of civility and basic responsibility. And whereas young Boomers in the 60's and 70's at least pretended to be fighting for something beyond their ego (whether they meant it or not I'll leave up to the reader), the culture of young Gen X-ers was often openly nihilistic. Much of the hostility towards the 90's (during that time) came from Silents and Boomers who felt like we were letting each other down. The emphasis on money in the 80's was bad enough, but by the 90's we no longer even could agree on that pursuit. So what did we agree on? That relations within families, and between strangers, between classes, between political factions, between races, etc. were being strained nearly to the point of breaking....

The late 80's-early 2000's were basically an "unraveling" period where people become alienated and worn out. Not experimental and passionate as they were in the late 60's-early 80's, or happy and conformist like they were in the 1940's-early 1960's. Nobody likes feeling tired, beaten down, and with no reliable guide which will lead us to a better place. Neil Howe says that Unraveling periods are almost always considered to be inferior to other eras, because nobody seems to take care of anything anymore and everything seems to be collapsing in front of our eyes.

Feryl said...

"Boomer fear of street crime dovetailed with "stranger danger" towards children. The decrease in crime after '91 wasn't noticed outside of landslide successes like NYC until the mid-2000s when the FBI was running out of excuses as to why it wasn't catching terrorists. "

Trump tried to play that card in his campaign and it really fell flat for most normie voters. Crime isn't what it used to be.

Most measures of violent crime didn't start to drop heavily until around 1995 or '96. At that, the changes were locally variable (for example, MPLS recorded record high murder rates around 1995). NYC experienced declining crime and urban decay starting around 1990, but Midwestern big cities weren't so fortunate (gentrification or lack thereof must've been important.

The GSS shows concern for crime ranging from high to very high from the mid-70's thru mid 90's. There's a moderate decrease from 1997-2001, then in 2003 concern for crime starts to decline to a low level, which would continue in future polls.

Feryl said...

"The PNW is the origin of the IWW, arguably the most left-wing union that ever existed in the US. Seattle was the origin point of the "socialist moment"(Kashama) in US politics that presaged the Bernie campaign. Seattle was also big during the Red Scare in 1920. The average Boeing worker is voting way more Dem than a Midwest auto worker, but the average AMZN/MSFT worker is even more leftist."

Point taken, but I was talking primarily about post-WW2 politics. From the late 40's-early 80's, the big surge in Pentagon activity on the West Coast, as well as Silent Generation "take your hands off my money" conservatism, put a great deal of the West Coast into Republican hands. AFF was also much better back then.

The growing distaste for the Cold War by the late 80's, which then ceased to exist in the early 90's, +the region becoming much more developed and expensive, spelled the end of the GOP in most major West Coast population centers.

Then there's the bible thumping contingent of the GOP going berserk in the 80's and 90's, which alienated first the Pacific states (the least religious part of America), then Southern New England and the Mid-Atlantic, and eventually Northern/inland New England.

Feryl said...

"I've never seen Italians and Slavs to romanticize the immigrant as much as the Irish do. There's no history of tribal loyalty to the Kennedys. The PNW does have Basques, but they haven't been conservative for a long time. Northern New England also has some Quebecer ancestry, that might be relevant in discussing lack of sympathy to the invasion. Southern New England is pratically overrun by the Third World, only limited by the aggressive zoning rules and cost of living. The Free Staters made a mistake in picking NH, too rooted. Wyoming would have been better for their rootless nature, as no one has the intellectual honesty of considering Somalia or a Hong Kong tiny apartment."

Southern New England, just like the Mid-Atlanic and Midwest, had urban centers that took on lots of Ellis Island peoples from 1880-1920. Eventually as more waves arrived and reproduced descendants, they began to move into outer suburbs and even small towns to some extent. In the Plains states and Upper Midwest, much of the countryside hadn't been developed thus allowing Germanic Lutherans and Slavs and Irish to commence large farming projects. That's why places like Rhineland Wisconsin exist; Colonial Americans weren't present in large enough numbers in the 18th or 19th century to have really developed a lot of the Northern and Western Midwest.

In the case of Southern New England and the Mid-Atlantic, the colonial stock settlers, and 2nd wave Americans (German/Dutch/French Protestants) who built the region up were simply overwhelmed by non-Protestant Americans during the Ellis Island days.

All of this is to say that we should never have expected the Midwest, the Mid-Atlantic, and Southern New England to have been that capable of resisting immigration surges in a highly corrupt era. Not when there's often arrogant refusal to recognize America's Anglo Protestant roots.

Agnostic says that Irish-Catholics, Jews, and Greeks tend to be the most gooey and sentimental about immigrants. On the other hand, Lutheran Americans often feel so blessed and privileged that they ought to share things with others.

Aeoli said...

Members of the Respectable Right--well, individuals who happen to share the same principles, that is, as the only thing we're member to is our own sacred individualism!--are supposed to hang separately, not band together to win.

The phrasing is a little sloppy but there's a great meme hiding in there.

Audacious Epigone said...

216,

We could probably get an immigration moratorium faster by appealing to environmentalism.

It's going to take a combination of selling points. A total moratorium is probably a necessity (as opposed to severe restrictions) because it appeals to the left's sense of fairness.

Feryl,

Oregon has some Scots Irish east of the Cascades, a bit of Appalachia in the NW.

216 said...

AE,

Recalling KMac on how the neocons operated, they always made sure to get a few non-Jews into visible positions (Moynihan, Kirkpatrick). They had the benefit of co-ethics in high culture, so the same trick would be harder for us to pull off, and is open to mockery as "based blacks". Neocons were also on the upswing, while we appear to be headed for the exits.

One thing that the Commonwealth parliamentary systems can do is for the party leadership to control the nomination for each district. That's why so many Tory MPs are non-white/gay. The RNC would love to do this here, but the existence of primary elections complicates it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LGBT_politicians_in_the_United_Kingdom

allahu akbar said...

Black people are self destructive suicide bombers.

They want whatever harms their "enemies," even if it wrecks them.

That's why they support immigration.

Anonymous said...

@audacious

You should have used the color green for Muslims.

216 said...

Off topic:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44807271

Remove this from your narratives, find something else to hit the UK on.

Would be interesting to see the levels of other crimes in London/NYC, but that basically is comparing the UK's worst city with the best police state in the US juiced by tons of DHS money.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

Yeah, I've thought about it but since I sometimes do Protestant/Catholic splits, green is already taken for the latter.