Sunday, September 30, 2018

Support for Kavanaugh's confirmation by race and sex

Like many on our side who are incorrigible noticers, I noticed a lot of the most vile, acerbic attacks on Brett Kavanaugh were coming from blue-checkmarked members of the 2%:



Yes, I know Wise is only partially Jewish--that's increasingly the case for all of the non-Orthodox due to high outmarriage rates--but it's not as though we're spoiled for choice with reactions like these that are filled with figurative allusions to violence. If I were an anti-Semite, I'd say something about poop in the punch bowl and the Jew coming through, but I'm not so I won't.

Here's a sample of the yenta's piece:
As a woman, as a loving parent myself, I am angry. I’m beyond angry. As the spectacle of Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination unfolds, I find myself caught in the undertow of bad memories, stuck in a simmer of rage. My hands furl into fists. My jaw clenches. My teeth grind in the night. I send my daughters out into the world each day, with a wave and a smile, and then I come inside and want to cry out of fury and frustration, because the world has not changed fast enough. It’s one thing to say #MeToo, but if I find out it’s them, too, I can picture myself hunting down the man who hurt them and dismembering him with my fingernails and burning the whole world down.
(((They))) really, really hate Kavanaugh's Christian, heterosexual, frat goy persona. Good at sports. Loves his parents. Can be around women without trying to pervertedly pry them for sex. Is named "Brett" and a wife with named "Ashley". Are there any other Gen-Xer names more gentile-white-upper-middle class than Brett and Ashley?

It makes me want to burn the whole world and all six gorillion people living in it down, too!

Then there is this iconic photo from the hearings, hearings that came about because of information leaked from Feinstein's office:


No khaki-shorts or sockless loafer-loungers present.

The most salient are not necessarily the most representative, though. Among those who express either support or opposition, future president Kamala Harris is more archetypal:


The rates of "don't know" responses vary by race and sex, though. Asian women are the most likely group of all to express it while Jewish women are the least likely to do so (are you still wondering why 'white' male/Asian female is relatively common among the middle and upper classes while Asian male/'white' female is not?). An absolute majority of Jewish women oppose Kavanaugh's nomination:


So hey, that's what I was noticing. Now that we've quantified the noticing, we can feel assured that both the Harris' and the Feinsteins' of the country have it out for us in roughly equal measure. In the latter case, the per capita presence of hate is higher but in the latter case when it is there it is even more intense.

67 comments:

Sid said...

It is funny how the media likes to report that Kavanaugh's numbers have collapsed among "women," juxtaposing the headlines with images of his white female accusers.

Looking at the numbers... It's plenty clear that white women really aren't the problem here. Their support for Kavanaugh is somewhat less than that of white men's, but a majority still support him. Even better, fewer are opposed to his confirmation!

The median white woman isn't half as bad as the media says she is. Granted, there have been a number of Millennial harpies on my Facebook feed, but they're not the majority.

This is an example where the JAHs concept works when it comes to support for Kavanaugh, but definitely not for opposition to him.

It has been funny, in its own loathsome way, to see an Irish name like Kavanaugh be associated with the dreaded Ye Olde Waspes!

The contempt the 2% blue check marks have for WASPs will be superimposed on all other white ethnicities in time.

Anonymous said...

What do you attribute their hostility to?

216 said...

The other part of the Kavanagh narrative is that it has supposedly decreased the enthusiasm gap, as Republicans have a new motivation to vote in November. A successful confirmation is not likely to cause a collapse in Dem morale, neither Trump victory nor low unemployment did that.

A successful renegotiation of NAFTA into USMC might drop the morale among "centrists" concerned about "petulant trade wars" damaging the economy, but the economy has fallen in polling importance. Despite healthcare ranking high, the Dems seem to be ignoring it. It says a lot that the conservative intellectuals cannot produce a "right-wing single payer" that incentivizes fertility among the responsible.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1675/Most-Important-Problem.aspx

Trump's amateurism has been quite costly, moral outrage among the public is probably enough to explain both the spike in Dem enthusiasm and the shift of independents into the Dem column. But, hey, at least we weren't called cucks.



Lance E said...

>It says a lot that the conservative intellectuals cannot produce a "right-wing single payer" that incentivizes fertility among the responsible.

"It says a lot that conservatives aren't willing to destroy an essential industry by nationalizing it in a desperate gamble to increase fertility rates among the specific segment of white Americans who tend to vote straight D ticket in every election."

Yeah yeah. I know economy isn't the most important issue right now. "Muh socialism" and all that. But just because you're late for work, doesn't mean you rush into the office with no pants on.

If there are solutions to the demographic problems, then they can be effected without total retardation on economic policy; and if not, well then why should we make things worse than they need to be?

216 said...

Insurance is not an essential industry in order to have a functioning healthcare system.

Single-Payer is not the NHS, its just Medicare for the rest of us. Think back on how Vice President Paul Ryan's vouchers helped him win in 2012. And single payer would not necessarily require a total wipeout of supplemental private insurance.

We already have socialism for the poor, and Social Darwinism for the middle class. Good luck at removing the former while operating under universal suffrage. Rugged individualism is not going to bootstrap us back into a favorable demographic balance.

Tykebomb said...

What's interesting is that a plurality of Asian and Hispanic men also support Kavanaugh's confirmation. A slim majority of Asian males also voted Trump.

Maybe that Ice people coalition has something to it.

Passer by said...

There is pretty good gender gap among whites actually.

White Female
Support 28,6
Oppose 26,6
Don't know 45,7

White male
Support 45,1
Oppose 29,3
Don't know 25,7

Based on that data one could clearly say that white women are divided on Kavanaugh while white men clearly support Kavanaugh.

So the guys who say there is "no problem" with white women need a reality check.

Feryl said...

From the social security website, here's the top names for 1975:


1 Michael Jennifer
2 Jason Amy
3 Christopher Heather
4 James Melissa
5 David Angela
6 Robert Michelle
7 John Kimberly
8 Brian Lisa
9 Matthew Stephanie
10 William Nicole
11 Daniel Rebecca
12 Joseph Christina
13 Eric Jessica
14 Jeffrey Amanda
15 Kevin Elizabeth
16 Richard Kelly
17 Scott Sarah
18 Steven Julie
19 Mark Mary
20 Thomas Laura

On a hunch, I picked Jennifer as a better name than Ashley before I checked the website. I was right. I also thought Chris was a good choice for guys. Is "Mary" a Southern or Northeastern thing? I don't remember practically any women born after 1970 being named Mary in my neck of the woods.

Passer by said...

BTW if you look at the last week data (sexual accusations peak) you will notice that more white women oppose Kavanaugh than those who support him (31,1 vs 29,5 percent) while among men more white men support Kavanaugh than those who oppose him(46,8 vs 31,1 percent).

The sexual accusations caused white male support to increase and white female support to decrease.

Passer by said...

September support for Kavanaugh (sexual accusations period)

white female 28,7 support vs 28,2 oppose

white male 44,5 support vs 27,8 oppose

Ergo white females clearly divided, white males clearly supportive.
Plus white female support decreasing over time.

Feryl said...

Kavanaugh is a Reaganite douche. That doesn't make him a rapist, of course, but we've got better hills to die on. For ideological reasons I'd rather see him get tossed overboard than make it through. We can do better than Kavanaugh.....A lot better.

Kavanaugh also barely qualifies as a non Boomer....Born in early 1965. At least Gorsuch has no memories at all of the 1960's (he was born in 1967).

"A successful renegotiation of NAFTA into USMC might drop the morale among "centrists" concerned about "petulant trade wars" damaging the economy, but the economy has fallen in polling importance. Despite healthcare ranking high, the Dems seem to be ignoring it. It says a lot that the conservative intellectuals cannot produce a "right-wing single payer" that incentivizes fertility among the responsible. "

But that's because Reaganism is natalist, racially multi-cultural, pro-immigrant, and pro-growth (of all kinds, bad or good). Demographic control and structuring is primarily a paleo con and/or Progressive issue (the former wants to limit dysgenics and cultural shifts , the latter wishes to reduce urban overcrowding. disease epidemics, and eco-damage...Note that today's Left is not really Progressive at all). 80-90% of modern conservatives (at least the ones with any clout) have a firm Reaganite mindset about demographics. Now granted, the awareness is slowly dawning among elite Righties, but it remains to be seen just how far they'll go to prove that they understand we're in a crisis. Not helping matters are the Plains states which remain firmly Republican even after decades of demographic tumult (in Texas), which since the 2000's has been spreading north. Pat Buchanan on economic and demographic issues has always been at odds with the Reaganite faction, as Buchanan made the unusual choice to state a preference for the demographics and culture of the past, the real version of it, whereas the New Right/Reaganites paid lip service to the mid-century without bothering to revive the populist econ. policies and demographic stability of the 1930's-1960's. And Buchanan always said that we owed blacks more opportunities, while opposing influxes of immigrants on the grounds that a healthy society can't tolerate infusions of alien peoples and cultures. Whereas the Reaganites hated American blacks and unionized whites who voted Dem, and proved it by claiming that refugees fleeing the commies in Asia and Latin America were more deserving of sympathy.

We need to bring back the GOP of Eisenhower and Nixon, and jettison the GOP of Reagan, Gingrich, and Bush.

Feryl said...

"What's interesting is that a plurality of Asian and Hispanic men also support Kavanaugh's confirmation. A slim majority of Asian males also voted Trump."

When Asians frequently operated businesses in horrible ghettos, in the 80's and 90's, they had many terrible experiences with blacks and voted for anti-crime Republicans as pay back. Crime has fallen a lot since then, but it's possible that BLM, and hardcore pro-black rhetoric, really got on the nerves of Asians who as a group have the worst opinion of blacks and rarely sympathize with them.

Feryl said...

"The median white woman isn't half as bad as the media says she is. Granted, there have been a number of Millennial harpies on my Facebook feed, but they're not the majority."

The youngsters may be mad at Kavanaugh for "woke" reasons related to me-too, but the greatest rage at Kavanaugh seems to emanate from late Boomers and Gen X-ers being very competitive and insecure. They resent Kavanaugh over the possibility (not established fact) that he was athletic, over-sexed, academically successful etc. during the early stages of status building. They want his rep. and status to be destroyed to validate their own egos and power (if we can take him out, he's not so tough after all).

Millennials, however misguided, are genuinely caring. They don't like bullying, aggressive insults, violence, etc. With Boomers and Gen X-ers, though, there's a lot more overzealous status policing and building, that often hurts those involved. Remember too that Millennials have the "unique" gift of growing up around hothead Boomer adults who had Millennial kids who wanted the respect of adults, but didn't want to emulate the poor traits of Boomer adults. Whereas Boomers and X-ers grew up around GI and Silent adults; Boomers and X-ers never gave a damn about gaining the respect of older generations, and also weren't motivated to do better, behaviorally, then older generations (artistically, ideologically, spiritually, Boomers might've fought a decent battle, but their overall rap sheet proves that they succumbed to every possible behavioral excess and dysfunction, with X-ers being only moderately better off).

216 said...

Feryl,

There could be a prospective schism coming in the Asian bloc, between the wealthier high-IQ Chinese/Indians and the lower IQ people from India/Southeast Asia that will demand affirmative action. AA survives in part due to Asians as well as Whites getting the shaft. An AA that exclusively shafts whites would trigger revolution. Perhaps the new system will be family income based, raising interesting contrasts with the tax system.

The high risk/reward strategy is a Dem victory in 2020 that causes them to go full Evan Williams. The infamous Williams article was about CA being "20 years ahead of the country" which times us around the Davis landslide in 1998, and the narrow victory in 2002, overturned by the recall in 2003. Extrapolated nationally, that means insurrection or a coup d'├ętat by 2023-25 if Dictator-for-Life Kamala is installed.

Some data indicated an Asian shift in 2014, but there was a shift of only 2-3 points from 12/16. 2014 was also a low turnout election, and one where the GOP actually underperformed in the Upper Midwest/New England. The GOP did quite well in the Southwest excepting the re-election of the Dem Governor in Colorado. The world would be a very different place if Scott Brown had won in NH that year. The UAC surge and BLM violence made that year a layup for the GOP, one that came late in the game according to the generic ballot.

Feryl said...

Also, Kavanaugh is an Old White Man to Millennials. Frat culture of the early 1980's means almost nothing to Millennials. The furor over Kavanaugh is an opportunity for Late Boomers and early Gen X-ers to relive their party-hardy days, and the trials and tribulations of coming of age when cocaine was nearly as important as oxygen. I think a lot of the degenerates born in the 1960's are themselves deeply concerned that their own shameful past might be dragged out of the closet and thrown at them. Whereas once you get to people who graduated from high school in the late 1980's (and newer generations), these are people who grew up being taught the dangers of drugs and sex...And they were more likely to listen than the hedonists born in the 1950's and 60's.

216 said...

Feryl,

"Millennials, however misguided, are genuinely caring. They don't like bullying, aggressive insults, violence, etc."

But they'll call us cucks. "Cares about people like me" is something that is always tripping us up. Most feminist fever dreams eventually burn out, but the drip-by-drip incrementalism has moved society towards ever greater amounts of lunacy. Regardless of the facts, tens of millions of women see a society that doesn't care when powerful men are allowed to commit sexual assault with impunity. I'm not really sure what to do about it, as female economic independence is a structural trend more than a century old.

We will not succeed as the Swine Right.

216 said...

Feryl,

When you put it that way, blue hair and rampant tattoos are certainly less socially destructive than promiscuity and drugs.

https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/mixed-messages-is-cocaine-consumption-in-the-u-s-going-up-or-down/

At the same time, the decline in usage stalled out in the 2010s, unlike fertility rates which have continued to drop. STD rates are at an increase, despite the decrease of sexual activity.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/28/health/std-rates-united-states-2018-bn/index.html

Perhaps there is a Pareto effect within the promiscuous as well, in addition to the postulated Pareto of AF/BB.

--

http://www.chemistry-blog.com/2008/05/11/fail-virginity-rates-of-chemistry-undergraduates/

I'd love some NIH grant money to waste on studying this.

Feryl said...

"But they'll call us cucks."

Who cares?

Kidding. We care, maybe to a fault; Like I say, what do we have to do make a good impression, get a better "rep."? But we can't break through the fog of ethical ignorance, can't make apparent the broken ethical boundaries and the older generations who did it. Millennials didn't drive rates of sexual assault, robbery, murder, animal cruelty, pedophilia, etc. to record highs in the late 1970's-1990's. Boomers and Gen X-ers still play the blame game; it's always the "bad ones" who spoiled the fun. They don't take collective responsibility for debauching behavioral norms (in the late 60's and 1970's) and then economic and political norms (the 80's and 90's). Why would they? They're all unique, amiright? In their pretty bubble, they get the glowing amulet of moral virtue while they pass judgement on everyone else for society being shredded.

I do know that Gen X-ers are an easier sell on this, but trouble is asking them to pool their will, TOGETHER, for a common goal. Most X-ers would rather call it quits and not even bother. Society never cared for them, why care about society? And then, some Gen X-ers refuse to even be associated with a generational personality. Good luck instilling collectivism in a generation that doesn't even believe in generational bonds.

Feryl said...

"At the same time, the decline in usage stalled out in the 2010s, unlike fertility rates which have continued to drop. STD rates are at an increase, despite the decrease of sexual activity."

I've heard that gays with each new generation are often more glib than the last about AIDS, and that their decadence seems to be getting worse (after improving somewhat in the 90's and early 2000's....Seeing thousands of people rot away in the 80's and early 90's must've had some effect). Is there a breakdown for MSM?

Also, are the degenerates out there (straight or gay), to the extent that ones exist, using the internet to find other degenerates faster than they used to be able to? With gays, I don't think it matters (just go to a gay bar, instant sex). With straights, though, I think the internet is making it easier to find other pervs. Prior to the internet, some big cities had fetish or swinger circuits, but they weren't too big and how exactly did you find them? And I don't think Joe suburbanite was going to go downtown to a major city and go into some weird club. Then again, I'm not a Boomer so I don't really understand how these things worked back in the 70's or 80's (did straight pervs have hang out spots besides generic bars? Did they pass around each other's phone numbers? Or did they just accumulate STD's via tons of one night stands?)

216 said...

O/T

Implicit whiteness of teachers unions

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/27/americas-public-school-teachers-are-far-less-racially-and-ethnically-diverse-than-their-students/

Say goodbye to a nationally viable GOP that ever attacks public sector compensation levels.

Charter schools will surely induce "the blacks" into "leaving the Dem plantation", amirite?

Feryl said...

"When you put it that way, blue hair and rampant tattoos are certainly less socially destructive than promiscuity and drugs."

Yes, Boomers are full of shit. A decade's aesthetic standards have no bearing on moral character. I think X-ers and Millennials struggle a lot with alienation (which correlates to the national mood swiftly declining in the 90's), and this sort of "tribal" fashion is supposed to resonate with people becoming aloof and wary. Later X-ers and Millennials grate on the nerves of people born before 1970, but that's a generational gap based on personal affect, not differences in moral values and good behavior. Earlier born people are more upbeat and less detached, and can't understand why younger generations are such a bummer. Newsflash: we came of age in the onset of the new guilded era, and also when America was rapidly losing it's status as a paragon of virtue.

216 said...

Feryl,

Unsure of the veracity, but I understand there was considerable prostitution surrounding the US military in Vietnam, Korea and the Philippines. I'm not sure if there was a prostitution problem in the German bases and in domestic bases. A much higher portion of the male population was in military service then vs now. There were also very few women in the service then, as compared today's globohomo. So the only opportunity you had for sex was often with prostitutes when on leave. That might explain the STD rates.

Anonymous said...

My useless personal anecdotal evidence indicates that most women I know (all white) are opposed to Kavanaugh. Even if they don't believe the accusations, they think "couldn't they just find someone else?" White women are still more easily swayed by media and Democrat pressure than white men.

Anonymous said...

@Audacious

1. You inserted the topic of interracial marriage into a blog post that has nothing to do with the topic. Why did you start talking about some topic that has nothing to do with the main theme of your post?

2. Everything you say about Jews shows that you know nothing about them. Also you know nothing about upper and upper middle class northeastern Whites. Every time you talk about UC/UMC coastal Jews and Whites, you make your lack of knowledge painfully clear. I was laughing at you last year when you made a post where you basically grasped for straws to explain the behavior of high-status Whites from Vermont and surrounding areas. Most Jews have better relationships with their parents than most Whites, especially when you take into account the low IQ prole Whites who do heroin/meth, neglect their kids, get divorced, etc. Lol and Brett and Ashley are NOT UMC White names. Brett is an MMC White name and Ashley is equally common for MMC Whites and Jews.

vok3 said...

Regarding white male/asian female, that was a possibility for me a while back. Then I came across www.reddit.com/r/hapas/ and decided, better not.

It's a self-selected population of course but it was an eye-opener all the same.

vok3 said...

So the guys who say there is "no problem" with white women need a reality check

Passerby, that gap largely disappears as soon as the women get married.

There's a pretty solid argument to be made that feminism and female acting out in general is Jackie Coakley-style "PAY ATTENTION TO MEEEE" and would/will disappear in a society where marriage becomes the norm once more.

Jig Bohnson said...

In (partial) defense of the tribe, your data show that half of Jewish men are based or potentially base-able on this question, which is probably better than you are going to get with any other group that is situated similarly demographically (UMC, highly educated, concentrated in coastal metropolises, etc..) Jewish women look especially bad here, but it would be interesting to know how many these days are actually Jewish versus the Chanda Prescod-Weinsteins of the world?

More meta though, it has been pathetic this past week to see how much high school and college resentment fully grown adults, some with successful careers in the media, still have. Our culture is a joke.


Passer by said...

@vok3

Actually a gender gap exists among married men and women too (according to the Reuters polls), but its smaller.

Not only that, but a gender gap exists among republicans (or so called right wing people) with the republican women being more left wing than the republican men, thus pushing the party to the left from within.

Marriage, would, of course, somewhat fix the problem, i speculated once that countries with high marriage rate are generally more right wing/traditional than countries with low marriage rate.

Problem is that in modern societies women marry later and later in life, divorce rates are higher, this isn't the 50s, where people married at 21 and there was no such thing as no fault divorce.

So some kind of societal/cultural change is needed, where people marry younger, have few divorces, and more children. Other that religion, what other force can do that in modern times? NS Germany tried to push most women to become housewifes (for example family loans were available only for families where women did not work), banned women from various parts of the workforce, etc. By the way, SAHM are the most right wing women of all types of women.

Not surprisingly, jews preach destruction of marriage for the West while having very high marriage rates in Israel (which is quite right wing society).

216 said...

Passer by,

The statistics are also affected by the decline in marriage and the increase in cohabitation. Divorce rates have decreased due to these causes. In an economic sense, marriage is a bad deal for men, and working class men have correspondingly responded. For the upper-middle class, it is quite hard to maintain lifestyle requirements without two working parents, so there is a tendency for couples to stay together even if they don't get along. So there is also an unseen difference between "happily married" couples within the married demographic.

Affecting all of this is the macro trend of "declining female happiness". The obvious cause is the continuous rise of feminism, but women are understandably upset that men increasingly "don't care". Living a traditional lifestyle is fiscally expensive, and in some regions invites social derision if you are white. And you are doing this within mainstream society, not a cultural microclimate.

Anonymous said...

Passer by,

Sometimes I wonder what will come first - artificial wombs and realistic sex-bots, or women finally realizing the fact that they were happier as house wives.

aNanyMouse said...

Anonymous
"Most Jews have better relationships with their parents than most Whites".
While I suspect that to be true, I'd love to see data on that.
"especially when you take into account the low IQ prole Whites".
That's irrelevant, insofar as so few Jews are proles. Let's compare apples to apples.

Jig
AE has shown (back in March 2017) Reuters poll data, making clear that the issue isn't Jewish women, it's *single* Jewish women.
Somehow or another, I'll bet that there's a crucial story there.
I’d love to find data on voting of *divorced* vs. married vs. single females.

aNanyMouse said...

Passer:
You'll always have something of a gender gap, incl. among Repubs.
We'd be able to live with it OK, but for the single women who, as vok3 says, push "PAY ATTENTION TO MEEEE" at all costs, and who, as Whiskey says, vote for (black/ brown) alpha fux, and still expect beta bux.

So far, white guys' backlash vs. "alpha fux, beta bux" has been mostly timid, but revulsion at the ambush of Kavanaugh is the sort of thing, that may well turn this timidity into the sort of Terrible Resolve, to which Yamamoto supposedly referred (after his hit on Pearl missed the carriers).
If a white guys' backlash really gets going, expect many women to be quite affected by it, since so many women are so often so affected by clear social pressure.
The feminists may well end up quite isolated socially.
This Kavanaugh thing has great potential to be a Game Changer.

Lance E said...

>Rugged individualism is not going to bootstrap us back into a favorable demographic balance.

Nobody said that it was. Nor will incoherent ideas like pan-white identity or economy-bankrupting ideas like single-payer health care.

Basic-bitch liberalism will not save the West. Trump voters who voted for Obama last election need to shut up and go to the back of the line - we welcome your support, but we're not interested in your policy proposals. We need competent people running the show.

The ones badmouthing Trump for nominating Kavanaugh or failing to implement Obamacare 2.0 need to get their heads out of their asses and understand that you aren't going to get everything you want all of the time. That high-time-preference rabbit mindset is exactly what got us into this mess in the first place. Single-payer would be the death of the Republican party, and Kavanaugh is the best we're going to be able to do with SCOTUS for a long time.

Feryl said...

"The New York Times continues to spearhead the campaign, with a “news analysis” that inadvertently revealed the real agenda behind the reactionary #MeToo movement. The article concluded by quoting a female attorney saying: “The limits are about actual real power. … Unless women really do take power in the legislature, in courts, in C-suites, in every aspect of life, unless we demand and take our share, nothing will ever, ever change. They are not going to give it to us. We have to take it.”

"In other words, the issue is not what happened or did not happen to Christine Blasey Ford on an evening in 1982. That is of no real concern to the overwhelmingly upper-middle-class and privileged sexual assault warriors. Their concern is about 2018 and gaining access to positions of privilege and wealth within capitalist society. They are utterly hostile to a socialist perspective, which aims to wipe out all positions of privilege, regardless of race and gender, and establish genuine equality and democracy."

In that spirit, the Times unleashed back-to-back editorials and no fewer than eight separate commentaries by its op-ed columnists: Frank Bruni, Nicholas Kristof, Maureen Dowd, Bret Stephens, Gail Collins, Michelle Goldberg and Timothy Egan, and a guest column by New Yorker writer Rebecca Treaster. There is apparently no other issue in American life worthy of comment in the pages of the “newspaper of record.”

"The Democratic Party’s decision to focus exclusively on Kavanaugh’s alleged sexual misconduct, to the exclusion of his politics, was a deliberate political choice. It was the senior Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, Dianne Feinstein of California, who held back the allegation by Blasey Ford until after it was clear that Kavanaugh would likely be confirmed otherwise."

"The charges were then leaked to the press, undoubtedly via the Democratic Party, using journalistic mouthpieces like Ronan Farrow, the former State Department official who has become the spearhead of the #MeToo campaign in Hollywood and Washington. These leaks in turn forced Blasey Ford to come forward publicly, against her own wishes."

There's a confluence of several nasty trends here; the obvious status/greed motivations behind the attacking of an elite on reactionary, not populist, grounds. Then there's the moral panic aspect of the whole MeToo thing; anything that has something to do with the (exaggerated) prevalence and importance of sexual abuse is put front and center, and ordinary people are to believe that hundreds, maybe thousands, of adult men on a regular basis have been harming women (or gay boys) and getting away with it for years on end. The strange thing is moral panics over sex abuse in the 80's and 90's could at least be backed up with crime stats showing an increase in sexual misconduct dating back to the 60's, which went largely unnoticed by mainstream culture until the very late 1970's. But then, in the later 1980's it wasn't adult victims who were the focus of popular attention, but rather, children. Right now the focus has mostly been on younger adult women "victims".

Ronan Farrow is kind of an abuse "whisperer". In the late 80's there were several psychiatrists/social scientists who became grandstanding Van Helsing type destroyers of abusers. Well, that's what they wanted the public to believe. In reality, they exaggerated the level of abuse that was going on, planted false memories in credulous "victims", and ruined the lives of many innocent people in the quest to rid the world of child abusers. A similar quest is going on right now, but this time it's adult and older teen female victims and their abusers, rather than children.

Feryl said...

BTW, I think the 1980's abuse hysteria was fueled by genuine naivete. Whereas with Ronan Farrow, I wouldn't be surprised if certain elite elements are actually paying him to knock out other elites for careerist reasons. Remember that we've descended to an even greater level of (civic) corruption among elites recently, in comparison to the 80's.

Audacious Epigone said...

Sid,

The total inability and/or lack of interest among the POC ascendancy to distinguish between white Protestants and Catholics should be a wake up call for Jews. Jews are only given their special place as a victim class because of middle American white boomercons. Among millennials, Jews are not sacred, and among young members of the POC ascendancy, Jews are whites. Wealthy, privileged whites.

Anon,

The sound of hoofbeats.

216,

It's easy to come up with explanations after the fact. R-I has been running a generic congressional ballot since March and the support levels for Rs and Ds are virtually identical at the end of September to what they were at the beginning of March.

I do take the GOP cutting Yoder loose in KS-3 as a 'bad' sign for Republican prospects for holding the House. Yoder is a Paul Ryan clone. The party establishment loves guys like him yet they still don't think he can win in an affluent district that leans Republican against an Indian (feather) lesbian who has said she wants to abolish ICE.

Lance E,

Single-payer sounds like a disaster to me--nobody gets harder in the scheme than youngish white couples with middle-class and above incomes. We'll be paying out the nose for non-white cohorts our own age and for our boomer parents.

Would much prefer a collapse in the entire system and the ability for prescription concierge services like this one to flourish.

Tykebomb,

It shows up here but if anything drives it, it will be Ds being perceived as The Black Party. A politics based on sex is not sustainable. The gaps are always way larger by race than they ever are by sex, on just about everything.

Passer by,

We're over a week behind on polling data now. I suspect white female support for him is going to move back up in the coming days.

Feryl,

Kavanaugh is good on the 1st and 2nd amendments. He's trash on the 4th, but the 4th is a goner. There's a lot of real opposition to restriction on speech and guns--because speech has to be silenced and guns have to be confiscated. Not much opposition to the panopticon, though, because nobody feels it happening in an acute way.

We're on different wave lengths, admittedly. Disunity is accelerating. There is a desire for free stuff but there's no corresponding willingness to produce it. We're in the midst of a bust out on a national scale. To sit out an event that may be even more red-pilling than Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown would be a big tactical mistake.

Re: the names, they both peak in the 1980s rather than the 70s, so they're more accurately described as late Xer/early millennial names. Ahead of the curve because they're on the coasts, maybe. My archetypal Brett is some combination of Favre and Baier. I didn't mean to insinuate that they were the most common names at the time, just that they're characteristically white (but not Jewish) names. Brett, especially, is a very non-black name.

vok3,

If you intend children in your future, you'll want them to look like you.

Jig,

Your half-full interpretation are always welcome.

Though re: income, it runs higher = more Kavanaugh support, lower = less Kavanaugh support.

Among those earning $150k+ it's S 42%, O 36%. Among those under $50k it's 32% O, 25% S. The gap is the same when only whites are included, just shifted to the pro-Kavanaugh across the board (150k+ white is 46% S, 32% O; under $50k white is 32% S, 26% O).

Anon,

Realistic sexbots will lead them to the realization that they were happier as housewives.

Not necessarily at the age of 22. But at the age of 52, 62, 72--unquestionably so.

passer by,

So some kind of societal/cultural change is needed, where people marry younger, have few divorces, and more children.

If cultural change doesn't do it, will biological change eventually get around to doing so? Open--and serious--question.

216 said...

AE (passer by),

Cultural change may or may not be in the offering, but MGTOW fantasy technological solutions like the "artificial womb" might emerge by the 2050s. The best thing to happen for the GOP would be the invention of a life extension that would allow Boomercons to live another 50 years.

Age of marriage increases, and fertility decreases alongside urbanization in almost every culture I can think of. Even the Afro-Muslim invaders need welfare statism to maintain higher birth rates, despite maintaining higher levels of patriarchy than indigenous Europeans. One thing I've yet to grasp is why macho South Korea has lower fertility than effeminate Japan.

Sexbots will first and foremost remove low value men from the SMP, a potential salutary effect being the end of Incel. MGTOW followers tend to think that feminists fear their movement, when in reality almost all feminist discourse is about condemning rapist GOP dudebros. It is antithetical to feminism to think that women "need" men for marriage, their Platonic Ideal is some sort of polyamory. Feminists will generate all sorts of epicycles to explain away male disengagement if it was to ever concern them.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

The GSS asked a few questions about parents through 1994 but then stopped with almost everything. There is one question they asked in 2012, though--are children a financial burden to their parents. % who agree:

Protestants -- 20.5%
Catholics -- 22.5%
Jews -- 42.6%

Small sample sizes, tautological in almost all cases, hardly dispositive. That's the stereotype--that Jews have parent issues (thanks, Freud!)--though.

Anonymous said...

@audacious

42.6% of Jews believe that because they save $$$$$$$ to put their kids in the most prestigious neighborhoods, send them to private school, buy them the best cars/clothes/jewelry, and let them live at home until they marry.

Jews do have better relations with their parents, if you compare all Jews to all Whites. Obviously they don't once you control for IQ, social class, and location of residence. Because a large percentage of Whites are low IQ hillbillies who fight over the custody of their kids in divorce court, do drugs, and neglect their children.

You mentioned to another user that "If you intend children in your future, you'll want them to look like you". I thought about it, and I don't actually care if my future kids look like me. I thought about the subject of interracial marriage some more and it occurred to me that I don't care for racial purity or genetic purity at all. Or even aesthetics. There is only one reason why I refuse to date Black or Hispanic men, and it has to do with their mental characteristics. If Blacks and Hispanics all had IQs of 130, and they were all educated, employed, and had a lower rate of crime than whites, then I would want to date them. You can fix ugly but you can't fix stupid. This also explains why I have never had an aversion to the idea of dating Jewish and Asian men. I'd rather marry one of them than not marry at all.

Anonymous said...

Hispanics and whites seem to love kavanaugh, but why do blacks oppose him so much? why do blacks oppose those on the right so much? also if you want some conservative news stories, please check out my blog http://limegenocide.blogspot.com/

DaDZ said...

why do blacks oppose those on the right so much?

Anon

Are you serious? They oppose him because he represents everything they despise and can never be. He's a private school, Ivy League WASP named Brett. Every moment of the collective black consciousness that is occupied by Kavanaugh triggers their reflexive and very accurate feelings of incompetence and failure. That's why.

By the way, there's no such thing as a "black conservative" or "black liberal." Those are exclusively white concepts advanced by a people who are capable of higher order thinking. When blacks vote democrat they really don't know for whom or what they are pulling the lever other than "he gon gimme free shit."

You don't actually believe that J'won Q. Publik possesses even a limited understanding of, or the slightest concern for the politics of immigration, the economy, government spending, national security, environmental issues, etc.

Have you met a black guy?

216 said...

DaDZ,

Blacks aren't thinking in terms of "gibs", but in the sense of "What is good for blacks", it's an admirable tribalism. They understand the salient conservative positions quite well: the public sector should be reduced in size, those on welfare are lazy, and we need a crackdown on crime. They just disagree with them, and demand that more government involvement is necessary until blacks reach parity in living standards with whites.

"Free shit" is in the same tier as "DR3" and "Kapernick hates veterans".

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

That you're thinking about how your kids not looking like you will effect you is a dead giveaway that you don't have kids.

You want them to look like you for their benefit more than anything else.

Feryl said...

It shows up here but if anything drives it, it will be Ds being perceived as The Black Party. A politics based on sex is not sustainable. The gaps are always way larger by race than they ever are by sex, on just about everything."

Gender politics is almost entirely derived from elites and aspiring elites. Race stuff is the opposite; lower income and less educated people are always much more tribalist than elites. That would go a long way toward explaining why racial honesty has been increasingly suppressed over the last 40 years, while toxic gender politics are so played up these days. The more that we have to deal with the arrogance of real or aspiring elites, the more useless and irrational ID politics become.

Note that a lack of racial tribalism is mainly an elite gentile white quality (or a WEIRDO quality), whereas other ethnic groups who reach high status feel more pressure to "keep it real". But it's tough for elite non-whites to resist the call of cosmopolitanism.....And the lure of living in nice majority white upscale areas.

The constant effort to demean something as being "too" male or whatever is laughable because most women don't inherently hate and reject men. Actually it's other women who are the object of derision. The modern Left's neverending fantasy of a "sisterhood" hasn't happened and won't happened, but that doesn't stop them from babbling about it.

I dunno if they'd allow it since Trump's election, but I do seem to remember reading articles in the early 2010's, in the MSM/liberal-sphere, about how feminism is almost 100% dominated by upper class white women who narcissistically want more out of life for themselves, as opposed to being concerned about the well being of low status women who of course are more likely to be black or mestizo.

BTW, I'd like to research the GSS for stats about self-ID'd upper class people and the racial demographics of the areas they live in. You woulnd't know the diversity variables, by any chance? Or maybe you already did this kind of research.

Anonymous said...

I was at a woman's Bible Study this morning at an Episcopalian church -- I rarely go, but wanted to talk to them about Kavanaugh. To my surprise, of the 22 woman in attendance, 21 of them support Kavanaugh. One -- the leader -- was on the fence, which probably meant she supports Ford but is afraid to admit it to such a phalanx of Kav-support.

I was, and am, shocked.
Demographics:
1. 21 white women, one black woman from Nigeria.
2. The group skewed older. I'd guess that eight of the women were of child-bearing age; eight, or so, were 40s/50s/early 60s and the remaining were 60+s/70s and beyond.
3. I have no idea about their RDI and didn't dare ask. I'd guess, based on marital and socioeconomic status, that most were middle- to upper-middle class.
4. Three, that I could discern, were divorced. Three widowed. The rest appeared to be married.

Passer by said...

AE

I told you that white female support would tank. The last week Reuters poll is up, and white female support dropped further, while weekly white male support stayed the same.

As i said, now white women are against Kavanaugh. You can add that little "surprise" to the article, it deceived lots of people about the reality of the situation. Last week data:

32,7 % white women support Kavanaugh
35,7 % white women oppose Kavanaugh

And on October 1 (last day with available data) it gets worse, the trajectory does not look good either.

32,5 % white women support Kavanaugh
36,5 % white women oppose Kavanaugh


Guys, i told you to use your brains. When there are sexual assault accusations, this will obviously hit support, especially female support. It's not that hard to figure it out.

Anonymous 10/2/18, 3:10 PM

Older white women (50+) are the most right wing, younger white women are the most hostile.

AE
"If cultural change doesn't do it, will biological change eventually get around to doing so? Open--and serious--question."

Biological influence can be counteracted by environmental influences - such as laws and propaganda. As long as J are poisoning the information field in the West, i doubt that your women will be ever fixed. Things could even get worse and move into gender wars as i suspect that J are trying to revive feminism in the West in order to counter the growing populism. It is a good move - take away oxygen from the populists by denying them female support while dividing them and changing the discussion for immigration issues into men vs women issues, while also pushing for further feminisation of society, which will further push things towards liberalism/left.

I think that it could work in the US (be prepared for a female president to take revenge for the "oppressed" women and hit you hard, it will be probably anti-white male presidency with women in most posts), but it won't work in Europe (where too much focusing on sexual assault issues will obviously put the spotlight on the rapefugees)..Let's hope i'm not right for the US, but the information field (movies, media, culture, etc.) is clearly pushing US society towards feminisation of society and preparing the population for democratic female president. If they choose Kamala they will lose though, they will have to use some white woman if they want to have a chance.

Passer by said...

AE

Oh, and you can make a tweet to wake up the white knights too, i saw lots of people citing your article with stuff like "muh based white women" added to it.

Passer by said...

@Feryl

"how feminism is almost 100% dominated by upper class white women who narcissistically want more out of life for themselves"

Its not simply the upper class white women, but also the smartest white women - those with advanced degrees. They are as hostile to republicans and Trump as single women. In comparison, men with advanced degrees are pro-Republican.

When your smartest women are your enemy (professors, PhDs), that spells trouble. They turn universities/education systems into cesspools and are not easy opponents. Their brains are totally brainwashed with feminism. I doubt that nature wanted them to have a say in politics, as their extreme narcisism is causing them to become traitorous (and thus is self-defeating), one way to fix this is to have them busy having lots of kids (which will fix the dysgenics and is probably as nature intended for them).

Anonymous said...

216 said...

"Single-Payer is not the NHS, its just Medicare for the rest of us. Think back on how Vice President Paul Ryan's vouchers helped him win in 2012. And single payer would not necessarily require a total wipeout of supplemental private insurance.

We already have socialism for the poor, and Social Darwinism for the middle class"

Are you freaking kidding me? "Single-payer" is not "just Medicare for the rest of us." It is MEDICAID for the rest of us. The federal government can barely afford Medicare for seniors (who paid into it their whole working lives), and shortly will not be able to do that. Go to any county hospital in a major city, and tell me if you like what you see. That's what "single-payer" would be for everyone.

Further, the vast majority of the middle class has insurance, and did before ACA. People's complaints were not lack of insurance, but the cost of premiums and the cost of medical services. Promising them "free health insurance," which will inevitably raise their premiums/taxes, is not a winning election issue. Find a realistic form of cost control and you may have something. Until then, shut the F up with this pie in the sky Sanders garbage.


Feryl said...

"Its not simply the upper class white women, but also the smartest white women - those with advanced degrees. They are as hostile to republicans and Trump as single women. In comparison, men with advanced degrees are pro-Republican.

"When your smartest women are your enemy (professors, PhDs), that spells trouble. They turn universities/education systems into cesspools and are not easy opponents. Their brains are totally brainwashed with feminism. I doubt that nature wanted them to have a say in politics, as their extreme narcisism is causing them to become traitorous (and thus is self-defeating), one way to fix this is to have them busy having lots of kids (which will fix the dysgenics and is probably as nature intended for them)."

Semantics. I already said "the elites" and "the well-educated". And since the mid-1990's "upper class" has been synonymous with "liberal" (on cultural issues and a preference for being in or near major cities, and frequently traveling abroad). The remaining cultural conservatives are usually Xtian fundie types who are only a rung or two above middle class, when they aren't working class (in personal affect and cultural tastes, not so much in terms of their actual jobs). In the Northeast, South, and uh, Chicago, there's a lot of annoying materialistic posturing and social maneuvering, while in the Western US it's flaky lifestyle oriented crap that the elite make a big deal out of. The pages of the NY Times and WaPo represent whatever the Eastern elite happens to be pre-occupied with at the moment. And BTW, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are totally products of that environment, and being ambitious early Gen X-ers they've spent essentially their whole lives building up their elite credentials while not really being very pro-social. Corruption has been growing for the last 40 or so years. Do we really want to defend guys who were boot lickers of Reagan, Gingrich, Phil Gramm, The Bushes, etc.?

It's A-ok for a certain chunk of elites to do their thing at any given time. What's alarming is when vast numbers of people are disgusted by the idea of being lower class and will thus resort to all kinds of cynicism and ethical compromises to gain elite status. This is how a corrupt environment is created.

The cure for women being corrupted is to thwart that which corrupts everything: the desire to make it big, even if it's at the great expense of others. Back to Kavanaugh, the Right is foolishly making him out to be a gallant hero, when he's both ideologically rotten (totally pro business management, could not care less about the working class) and a smarmy liar to boot (dude, we know you partied, got wasted, got laid etc. all the time in college. Who didn't? Stop pretending you were an Eagle Scout).

BTW, I couldn't care less if a given elite was culturally conservative or not. Most of the Reaganites generally are, but that hasn't stopped this country from being economically and demographically burned to the ground. Gee, while wages in literal terms (let alone inflation adjusted) for many jobs remain below what they were in the 1970's, and while Americans of Anglo-Germanic descent continue to have the country they built get over-run by never ending waves of immigrants and their descendants, well, at least we can still hang onto our guns and Roe V Wade might get overturned. N**ga please.

Audacious Epigone said...

passer by,

Just saw the two additional weeks come in and came here to give you props.

It's not devastating, though, especially since you're including Jews among those "white women". Without Jews, the most recent numbers are 34.0% support, 34.9% oppose. So it's a little under 48%/52% instead of 54%/46% as it had averaged prior to the last couple of weeks. That's not good, admittedly, but it's not catastrophic, either.

And the Republican response has been embarrassing--had it been something other than Flake crying on an elevator like a little bitch, it could've conceivably treaded water.

Feryl said...

How's that Trumpian populism coming, anyway? Gorsuch and Kavanaugh aren't just Reaganites per se; they're BUSHITES. Do your research. At least Reagan had some loyalists who never stooped to aligning themselves with the fuckin' Bushes, who probably tried to kill Reagan in 1981. One of those loyalists, Paul Craig Roberts, regularly attacks the NWO created by the Bushes, Clinton, Tony Blair, the Chi-coms etc. Of course, Roberts naively tries to say that the 1990's were a corruption of what Thatcher and Reagan wanted, when in reality Bushism and Clintonism and Blairism is simply the logical conclusion of Western countries turning their backs on working class natives. We just never should've flirted with this corrupt mentality in the late 70's and 80's, in the first place. It was temping fate, to ever "go there" with the attacks on unions, big government, progressive taxes, and so forth.

The grip of neo-liberalism is so strong, to this day, that Trump never could've gotten away with nominating genuinely populist judges for the Supreme Court. Nope, he had to settle for nominating ideologically over-zealous defenders of the neo-liberal order. The fact that no Republican, as far as I know, questioned the choice of Gorsuch or Kavanaugh on an ideological basis ought to worry us.

Passer by said...

AE

Good call on the jewish women, but the trend is negative (decreasing support over time). Even without jews for october 1st (last day) it dropped to 35,8 oppose 33,7 support. We will see where this will go in the coming weeks.

@Feryl

"Semantics. I already said "the elites" and "the well-educated"."

Yes, you already said that, i apologise, i was just scanning your post too fast.

Zeroh Tollrants said...

Both North and South. It's a religious Christian name and that was predominant everywhere in 75.

Zeroh Tollrants said...

Millennials PRESENT THEMSELVES as being deeply caring, but it's completely untrue. They are perhaps the least truly empathetic group of narcissistic sociopaths I've ever seen. And I say that as the mother of two aunt of 5, who's long time friends I know well.
They like to virtue signal their virtue but it really goes no further. They really are the hashtag activism generation.

I shouldn't have to add the NAXALT caveat here but yes, NAMALT.

X Marks The Spot said...

Why do you say that Kavanaugh is "the best we're going to be able to do with SCOTUS for a long time"? Trump has a deep bench of solid conservative judges to choose from, should he ask Kavanaugh to step aside "for family reasons".

X Marks The Spot said...

But then, Jews are less than 2% of the population. They can't affect the results of a national survey very much.

Anonymous said...

@audacious

You haven't seen the men in my family. If I have a son, he does not benefit from looking like me at all. You would call my father and brother "low betas" based on their looks and personality. The other problem is that I can't balance this out by marrying a muscular man because I am not attracted to muscular men. It's unfortunate that I am only attracted to skinny men.

If I have a daughter, the only positive attribute she would gain from me is the ability to stay very thin without paying attention to diet or exercise.

vok3 said...

Anon @5:49

A female relative of mine was in a situation rather similar to yours. Then she took up ballroom and swing dancing. That did several things for her: it taught her the specifics of how to move in an attractive fashion, it gave her confidence in her own ability to be attractive, and it put her in an environment where there's always guys looking for girls (and vice versa). Totally changed her dating life.

I can recommend it for guys too but it's definitely easier for women to capitalize on it.

Anonymous said...

Zeroh Tollrants,

As an actual Millennial (30 years old) I've noticed this myself. It's made me a bit happy, because if liberals really don't like the old "racist" christian right wing, they're really going to be upset with the next white generation.

When republicans lose the economics argument, and they eventually will because sucking up to corporations that hate their voters isn't popular, all they'll have left is the social argument. Which will get much more extreme.

Can democrats win on a 'trannies are great and so is crime' platform? I look forward to finding out.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

Great point re: gender politics. This shows up in the Kavanaugh confirmation, with high income earners way more engaged than those with lower incomes. The disparity in engagement by income ("don't know" responses) is considerably wider for Kavanaugh than it was for Michael Brown in the R-I poll I looked at a couple of weeks ago.

In 2006 there was a module using ACQNHXXX (for WHT, BLK, etc), but it's only a single year so the sample sizes are pretty small. I also did a post on acquaintances by whether or not most were of the same or of a different race but I can't find it at the moment. Will look in more detail if you'd like.

There are also several items about preferred ethnic neighborhoods but I couldn't make much sense of it at first blush and didn't try to beyond that (NEIETH#).

Anon,

Your dad had you and your brother, right? You're high IQ. And if you go non-white, those attribute problems will still be there but there will be an obvious skin-level difference that will upset your children when people mistake you for a babysitter or a neighbor or whatever.

Kaepernick complained about this growing up, that people didn't (always) recognize that he was the (adopted--though it could just as easily be a biracial issue) child of his white parents. It's a no-win situation in social settings among strangers because it's weird to assume that two people who look like they have ancestors from different continents are related but it's also 'offensive' to be surprised that they are.

Zeroh/Anon,

Much of the time I'm doing the unthinkable for a WEIRDO and criticizing outgroups, but in this case I get to say "as a millennial, my guess is my generation will go down as the worst of the worst, the closest competition being the boomers. If generation zyklon manifests itself, this will become stunningly obvious. If Z ends up being worse than millennials, stick a fork in us, we're done.

Anonymous said...

@audacious

So you think that if I marry a Jewish guy then strangers will think my kids aren't mine? You already know that I won't even date a black or Hispanic guy, so the only non-white men I'm willing to even consider are Jewish and Asian.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

No, they will assume they are yours. I thought you've said you have the IQ-radar on full bore but that the IQ could come in any color. I'm all for diluting the 2% into the broader Euro-muttdom that is the contemporary white US. I think it'll ameliorate a lot of our problems--though a guy like Tim Wise admittedly makes me a little nervous about it!

Audacious Epigone said...

216,

The best thing to happen for the GOP would be the invention of a life extension that would allow Boomercons to live another 50 years.

In the same way the best thing to happen to a person in severe credit card debt is to be given a new card with a $100k line!

Passer by,

Because the case, such that there was one, has now fallen apart, I think I'll wipe some egg off my face but we'll know the truth.

Feryl said...

"Great point re: gender politics. This shows up in the Kavanaugh confirmation, with high income earners way more engaged than those with lower incomes. The disparity in engagement by income ("don't know" responses) is considerably wider for Kavanaugh than it was for Michael Brown in the R-I poll I looked at a couple of weeks ago."

Elites really care......A LOT about one-upping their fellow elites in the moral virtue sweepstakes. At least that's the sense I get in a corrupt period. If their posturing really amounted to anything useful, they'd be attacking their fellow elites for being ideologically corrupt, not morally corrupt. And a lot of proles see Ford V Kavanaugh as yet another useless tiff between fellow elites, who need to knock it off and get down to brass tacks for a change.

Also, the Mid-century was the hay day of popular engagement in politics. That's reflected in GIs and Silents being extremely avid voters, Boomers being moderately less committed, and Gen X-ers being much less likely to vote than older generations. Decades of corruption=alienation.

Feryl said...

"Much of the time I'm doing the unthinkable for a WEIRDO and criticizing outgroups, but in this case I get to say "as a millennial, my guess is my generation will go down as the worst of the worst, the closest competition being the boomers. If generation zyklon manifests itself, this will become stunningly obvious. If Z ends up being worse than millennials, stick a fork in us, we're done."

GenX-ers didn't stick up for themselves, and Silents and Boomers walked all over them. Let's not make the same mistake. I think post-Boomers as a whole are sick and tired of moralistic and pompous older generations taking one dump after another on society. That's reflected in post-Boomers being much less attached to ideologies and political parties than older generations. In this we should be hopeful; but the damage that's been done over the last 40 years may be so great than no-one will be able to fix it quickly or easily. But that is not the fault of Millennials or later Gen X-ers. It hasn't been later Gen X-ers or Millennials who think that they should be able to live life on their own terms, and no church, or government, or peer group, or corporate board has a right to tell me what to do with my life. Remember that the tendency of Boomers to fight, to pout, to walk away, etc. as soon as they hear opinions and facts contrary to their own narrative is a major reason why so many major problems have accumulated and gone unsolved. You put a group of 10 Boomers together, and you might get some basic agreement on a problem, but the trouble comes from trying to reach a solution. Each Boomer will have their take, and stubbornly, unrelentingly, stick to it. In fact, stubbornness ("principle") is often prized by Boomers, who'd rather walk away with no progress than compromise their ideas (and ideals). But there's usually big fireworks, heated arguing and competition, that often creates new problems along the way. The political legacy of the 1990's-present day is based on Boomer discord and stubbornness not only failing to solve initial and immediate problems, but actively making them worse and creating new problems in the process.

Then there's the tendency of many elite Boomers to sponsor and champion bold visions of economic policy, foreign policy, immigration policy etc., without bothering to think through the logistics or basic realities of human behavior. Like Larry Summers saying that tight regulation of markets is a "Luddite" idea, so let's ram through massive de-regulation programs (that would've made Reagan blush). Or any of the Pentagon asshats, Silent or Boomer, who are encouraged by the dominant generation's (Boomers) military men and foreign policy "experts" to "spread democracy" across the globe, even in such places as the Middle East. Of course, many Boomers weren't on board with this crap, but the problem is always that foolhardy and arrogant Boomers refuse to listen to differing opinions, and often don't even bother "to do the research" to see if reality is amenable to their goals and ideas. And this is why we ought judge the Boomers based on the failures of their leaders. Boomer leaders represent, in the worst way, the worst flaws of the Boomers.

Feryl said...

Many Millennials have been poisoned....But by what? As soon as academia became flooded with Boomers in the late 70's and early 80's, traditionalists and rationalists were sent down the road to extinction. Lots of stupid hocus pocus, that was never going to be promoted or taught by faculty before the 1970's, suddenly was acceptable. Why? Shit for brains 30something Boomers had no respect for the fundamental tenets of Western Civ. After all, the evil white Western man had used his culture and history to justify exploiting poor non-whites.

Highly educated Gen X-ers, in the 1980's, were the first to be fully immersed in this BS. And as older faculty retired and was replaced by Boomers, by the late 1990's there was virtually no-one left who was willing to challenge the PC/Boomer Left and it's virulent hatred of Trad. white Western culture. And recently many X-ers have been finally "allowed" to gain some power in academia, and surprise surprise, in some ways they are even worse than the Boomers, because X-ers spent most or all of their life in an environment where you aren't tosay anything complementary of white people or men. So at the moment early Gen X Leftists are making life on campus a living hell for white people who want to preserve Western Civ. Now granted, we're talking about a "selective" field here, which scares conservatives off, so these academics shouldn't be considered representative of Gen X. And I do think that a lot of X-ers and Millennials just say PC talking points to get along, not unlike how Soviets under Stalin frequently uttered BS that they knew to be untrue, but had no choice but to say it anyway.

Boomer run institutions are often a total mess, and thus far they've rewarded and encouraged too many corrupt X-ers and Millennials. I'd like to think that over the next 20-30 years, that post-Boomers can finally be allowed to run things on their own terms which will lead to a rebirth of integrity and trust.