Thursday, October 11, 2018

It's true, folks. It's true

37 comments:

Anonymous said...

Heh, try a google image search for that image.

https://imgur.com/a/LFKVrE1

Duke Norfolk said...

Hear, hear. Amazing how many people have had their lives torpedoed over making the OK sign; or appearing to maybe be making it.

I'd love to see this take off even more. If half the country is flashing this sign that would be epic. I don't really know how that would go, at least in the short term. There may be some casualties as virtue signaling companies take out a few people. But if we backed those folks up with financial help we could really help white people start to assert themselves.

Aeoli Pera said...

Buhlieve me.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

Ha, wtf?! I haven't used imgur much--is it standard for it to be that off? It's funny if it's par for the course and hysterical if it's an aberration.

Duke,

Agree emphatically. I wear my t-shirt when I'm out and about, walking the dog, etc and I get a lot of bemused looks and some smiles and more than a few Gen Zers and young millennials joking about needing one. I've never once had anyone give me serious grief about it. I've had a few people intentional look off into the distance after recognizing what it is but that's all. A little audacity goes a long way. The hand sign is a perfect complement. I've been waiting for literally more than a year now for someone to flip out so I can give them the double hand sign in response but it still hasn't happened!

Aeoli Pera,

I love the whites. Great, great people. And let me tell you, the whites love me. Yes, great, great people.

Aeoli said...

A very smart guy was just telling me the other day and, brilliant, let me tell you, this guy is absolutely brilliant, and he's saying these people are the best people and he can't believe it. He can't believe it! He's so smart and so great and he's telling me, Listen, Donald, for all my years being so smart and so brilliant I've never seen people so great. It's incredible, it really is. And I tell him you're absolutely right, they're the best, and you can believe me when I say every one of them is going to win...BIGLY.

Audacious Epigone said...

Aeoli,

Ha, very well done.

From the beginning I heard "big-league", though, not "bigly". The former was a common phrase my dad used when I was growing up. It's a generational thing, I think, like "Pall Mall" cigarettes, which were originally pronounced as "pell mell".

Corvinus said...

AE, it really depends upon the type of white a white person is if it is OK to be white. Confusing, n'est-ce pas? Thankfully, there is a handy dandy guide to separate "Good Whites" from "Bad Whites".

BAD
Trouble maker white –> Middle Eastern and Jewish

We feel sorry for you because you are not white –> blacks, Asians, indigenous

Fake white –> SJW, leftist, and/or feminist designation

PROBABLY BAD
Inferior white –> white + black or Asian or indigenous or mutt

You may be white, but probably not –> those who are wiggers or embrace black culture

Wannabe whites –> those who lighten their skin to pass as white

Nazi white –> those who are in the KKK, or those who love Hitler, or those who are the Fake Right**

PROBABLY GOOD
White, but not white –> those who oppose the Alt Right but are not leftists or feminists

Simply white –> whites who prefer not to be labeled as white…receive the label

GOOD
True white –> Alt Right designation

Exceptional white –> Alt Right designation + trace ancestors directly from 13 colonies

**Your buddy Vox Day has particularly lambasted this group, specifically Andrew Anglin and Richard Spencer. Are they not white men? Although, VD refers to himself as a "person of color", a man who has Injun and Mexican blood. So maybe he has to be in a category by himself when it comes to whiteness.

Furthermore, Vox Day reveals that he is not a fan of certain (white) European ethnic groups--"The Italians and the Irish were the original problem. They could have, and should have, been handled like the Chinese were. But they laid the groundwork for the Jews, the Germans, and the Scandinavians, who made things even worse. And they paved the way for the Mexicans, the Africans, and the Muslims. At this point, the USA probably can’t get back to 1986, let alone 1965."

Interesting. Basically, a specific group of whites, in this case European, who were deemed undesirable, which then opened up the floodgates to other “alien” Europeans to invade our shores. Not that today's modern American whites, if presented his sentiments, would even care about his race treason, especially if that white person was of Italian, Irish, German, or Scandanavian descent. They would rather be watching sports ball.

I guess we all have to go back.

Audacious Epigone said...

Corvinus,

I'm not Vox Day. Take your beef up with him there.

He expects political dissolution because the successive waves of immigration into the US made it inevitable, the post-1965 wave being the most destabilizing of all. I tend to think we could've absorbed the others. He doesn't. We're speculating on counterfactuals at that point. But we will both be proven right when the US stops being a single unified political entity, which will happen in the lifetimes of most people reading this.

Corvinus said...

AE...

So, where do you fit in with the handy dandy guide?

"I'm not Vox Day. Take your beef up with him there."

He has a fragile ego, contrary to his pee-cocking. Anyone who dares to cross him gets the ban hammer. At least you have tougher skin.

And it's not my beef, it's the Alt Right's beef. I know, I know, no punching to the right.

"But we will both be proven right when the US stops being a single unified political entity, which will happen in the lifetimes of most people reading this."

MAY happen. It is highly unlikely in the next 40 to 60 years the United States experiences a break-up. Too many people believe in what our nation stands for. And you are going to have to convince the normies, aka the "mushy middle", as well as Generation Z, as well as the "gimmedat" minorities, as well as frumpy women, as well as "hooknose" bankers and entertainers, as well as consumer grifters, as well as...

Do you have the funds and time to build a super-duper propaganda machine for that endeavor?

Mr. Rational said...

Too many people believe in what our nation stands for.

You don't know what a preference cascade is... yet.  Not less than 61 million voting-age Americans believe that that vision and the American dream has been sold out to corrupt elites and the Washington swamp.  The pressure is building for a switch from "wait it out" to "this won't work, time to act" and it will happen in weeks, months at most.

Audacious Epigone said...

Corvinus,

A lot of things will suddenly look at lot more tenable when the next downturn comes. No more dollar reserve means massive defaults means people running away from holding the bag. Economic expediency is about the only thing left holding the country together. When that goes, what's left? Pat Buchanan is openly talking about secession. Tucker Carlson is groping towards it. And there are a lot of ethnic activists on the left who want it. 40-60 years is a long time.

Feryl said...

I've heard Neil Howe say that presidential fortunes have a lot to do with timing. Reagan came into office during a recession, and used it as an opportunity to revamp America toward neo-liberalism which resulted nearly constant growth from 1983-2007, with only 1990-1991 and 2001-2002 being periods of slight recession. Of course since 2008 we've come to find out just how illusory and toxic those "booms" were, but Reagan himself benefited from such good timing that he was able to masquerade as our lord and savior.

Trump, on the other hand, inherited a (relatively) good economy....By 'good' I mean not in an active recession. I certainly don't think it's a good economy, since basic indicators of good individual economic health (such as generous distribution of good working class jobs, high savings levels, pensions etc.) have been declining for 40 years.

Should the current bubble pop under Trump, he could end up being the most hated president since Hoover. Doomsday scenario for Trump: the bubble pops in 2019, just in time for the 2020 campaign. Trump would not have the time, the goodwill, or the political network to implement long over due corrective measures to restore our economy, and this would be after Trump took full ownership of the neo-liberal bubble for months on end prior to the bubble popping. And that's assuming that Trump and his advisors (many of whom hail from the Reaganite camp) would be willing to over-throw the neo-liberal era to begin with. It's possible that if the bubble had popped in 2016. 2017 or early 2018, Trump and his advisors would've been too gutless or stupid to rein in neo-liberalism.

In hindsight Trump, like Reagan, would've benefited from inheriting a bad economy. Why? It becomes a springboard for major changes.....For good or for ill. In the case Reagan, he and his biggest supporters/advisors jettisoned as much New Dealism/Keynesianism as they could get away with in the 80's. In the case of Trump, a sustained mid-2010's recession economy could've allowed him to keep the neo-liberals at bay as he got cracking on pushing society back towards heavy government control of the sectors of society prone to speculative excess.

Feryl said...

"You don't know what a preference cascade is... yet. Not less than 61 million voting-age Americans believe that that vision and the American dream has been sold out to corrupt elites and the Washington swamp. The pressure is building for a switch from "wait it out" to "this won't work, time to act" and it will happen in weeks, months at most."

Dude, don't be a partisan dip stick.

The further one is born after 1964, the more likely one is to be fed up with neo-liberalism, endless colonial wars, greed, etc. Older generations are more partisan and more likely to believe that if only MY party had more power, and endless dominion of the White House, then we'd all live in paradise. The General Social Survey reveals that Gen X-ers and Millennials (the white males ones included) are more likely to favor government efforts to level the playing field. It's primarily Silents and Boomers who've cheered on the most reckless policies of union busting, de-regulation, reactionary punishment of the lower classes via higher housing costs, defunding of mental health programs, mass incarceration, minimal protections for consumers and workers, and so on.

The GSS also shows that later Gen X-ers as well as Millennials have a weaker attachment to either party compared to older generations.

Don't buy into the BoomerCon(job) hype that society isn't hard enough for lazy people, the poor, criminals, and so forth. Are you fucking kidding me? We're living in the midst of this country's second Guilded Age. Also don't buy (not that you would....) into the Lefty Boomer horseshit that minority business owner contracts and high-ed for women somehow absolves the modern Left of it's complicity in today's mess, what with Clinton and even Obama being further to the Right than Reagan (!) on some economic issues.

Leftists on many measures are still more likely than today's middle-aged/elderly conservatives to promote programs that would restore economic and mental health for today's poor, working class, and young people. I don't really feel as if Millennial Leftists will somehow destroy whatever chance we have. Be real: it's Silents and Boomers who fucked everything up. From a standpoint of basic social fairness and good will, we're as close as we've been to rock bottom since the late 19th century's Civil War aftermath. And much as how history passed a harsh judgement on that era's Boomers for sending this country into a pit, so too will history not look kindly on the Boomers for having done so little after having started out with so much. Today's 30-something population now self-IDs as "working" or "lower" class at a much higher rate than 30-something Silents and Boomers did back in the 60's, 70's, 80's ,and 90's. Millennials scarcely even have the power or status to be blamed for the current mess we're in. Whereas, in the 70's and beyond society has carefully tended to the egos and feelings of Boomers at phases of life, even though the Boomers had absolutely no respect for the achievements of their ancestors.

Corvinus said...

Mr. Rational...

"Not less than 61 million voting-age Americans believe that that vision and the American dream has been sold out to corrupt elites and the Washington swamp."

Yet, how many of them are willing to go full-Civil War and separate? Do you even comprehend the magnitude of such a change?

"The pressure is building for a switch from "wait it out" to "this won't work, time to act" and it will happen in weeks, months at most."

When? In the near future?

Feryl...

If only you could refrain from the "Boomers did everything wrong" mantra in your post, your argument would be even stronger.

"We're living in the midst of this country's second Guilded Age."

Indeed!

AE...

"A lot of things will suddenly look at lot more tenable when the next downturn comes."

Assuming this downturn is one that makes the Great Depression look like a drop in the bucket. But do not be surprised if the "elites" have "in case of emergency, break glass" contingency plans.

"Economic expediency is about the only thing left holding the country together."

Maybe. Then again, perhaps not.

When that goes, what's left? Pat Buchanan is openly talking about secession. Tucker Carlson is groping towards it."

All they are doing is jibber jabbering.

"And there are a lot of ethnic activists on the left who want it."

Not as many as you think.

Mr. Rational said...

Don't buy into the BoomerCon(job) hype that society isn't hard enough for lazy people, the poor, criminals, and so forth.

It's definitely not hard enough for Blacks and illegal immigrants.  Both groups get massive handouts that the people paying for it all are frozen out of by the anti-white bureaucracies (which are staffed mostly by minorities).

When things WERE hard for Blacks, they had far lower rates of problems like illegitimacy.  Now look at them.  Agreeing with Daniel Patrick Moynihan on that issue is about as "far left" as I get.

Feryl said...

"It's definitely not hard enough for Blacks and illegal immigrants. Both groups get massive handouts that the people paying for it all are frozen out of by the anti-white bureaucracies (which are staffed mostly by minorities).

When things WERE hard for Blacks, they had far lower rates of problems like illegitimacy. Now look at them. Agreeing with Daniel Patrick Moynihan on that issue is about as "far left" as I get."

Before de-segration and higher immigration levels, black elites tended to the black community as best they could. As the 60's and 70's lurched forth, black elites were "allowed" to flee the wretched underclass of blacks, and Asians and Mexicans began to displace blacks from prole occupations. By the early 1980's, there was essentially nothing left to protect most blacks. And this occured just before the era of mass incarceration began in the late 80's. Gee, how on Earth would most blacks cling to the Dems? It's not as if the GOP spearheaded immigration surges from Latin America and Asia; It's not as if the GOP claimed that it was morally acceptable to began throwing away the lives of countless innocent people and lower-level offenders , and destroying their families and communities, in a never-ending "war" against crime (not unlike the never-ending "war" against terror). I get, BTW: Boomer blacks would've destroyed their communities in the absence of government negligence. But it's not the 70's or 80's anymore. Boomers, and the younger people who listen to them, need a reality check: we don't need to keep repeating the policies that were both a cause of and a response to what Silents and Boomers were doing at the time. We don't need union busting and high immigration levels to thwart the "problem" of complaining American born workers. We don't need further de-regulation to keep the gubmint at bay. We don't need greater tax cuts for the wealthy that enables them to acquire and hoard more goodies(which in effect, is what "tax cuts" invariably lead to, in a econ. conservative paradigm)

WRT handouts, that is the most tired crap imaginable from the Boomer Right. Welfare benefits peaked in the 60's and 70's, and have been gradually diminishing since the Reagan era. And Earth to the Reaganites: People of all races use welfare and unemployment, and it's not that big of a deal. In the 70's and esp. 80's, the Silents and Boomers began to morally judge (assail, really) anyone who dared sit on their butt and collect money from the government. "Gawd, anyone who wants it bad enough, who works hard enough, can make it on this world. Those who can't are worthless pieces of shit who deserve to be spit on. Fuck 'em"

Feryl said...

What's destroyed the underclass in America (which happens to be quite, but not entirely, black) is elite indifference to worker well being via excessive elite compensation, high immigration levels, de-industrialization, and union busting. Indifference might be generous; vindictiveness and cruelty is more appropriate for how many elites and even middle class people felt in some cases towards the underclass.

I heard a Boomer talk show host discuss what many menial jobs pay these days, and he sounded shocked. When he started working in the 1970's, many lower level jobs paid reasonably well. He joked that today's working stiffs might as well try to make a living by stealing car radios if "real" work paid so horribly.

And gee, those wetback Mexicans sure live large, don't they? Give me a break. The main winners, overall, in the current neo-liberal era have been the rich and the managerial elite. And that's partly due to the degree to which they've exploited immigrants and starved native proles. Elites in a corrupt era are very much dependent on encouraging all kinds of conflict between various groups, as long as......Elites themselves are not pitted against the lower classes. They want nothing more than native born people to stew about how the damn Mexicans are invading and cheating me, as if immigrants just magically show up of their own accord, with no higher hands guiding them (in reality, Republicans in the 1970's and 80's started to resent underclass whites and blacks, and wanted docile Mestizos and Asians to start doing a lot of the farming, nannying, gardening, lawn mowing, roofing, etc.). By the 1990's, even that pretense was dropped and it became obvious that lots of immigrants were supposed to come to America simply because they aspired to achieve higher status, and what's wrong with pitting them against natives in a Darwinian struggle for resources?

Since the 1990's we've also seen a pretty notable rise in the number of immigrants working in medicine, technology, and so on. The idea that America (or Canada, or wherever) can't produce enough doctors or tech. workers is laughable, but Western elites in many countries have totally given up on the idea that native priorities WRT good jobs ought to come first. First it was abandoning concern over prole level jobs (what loser wants to do that stuff, anyway?) in the 70's and 80's, then it was higher level jobs afterwards.

Feryl said...

Silents and Boomers have consistently said the most demeaning things about down on their luck natives, with the level of abuse hurled getting more agressive with each passing decade, while generally going VERY easy on the affluent. It's reactionary and corrosive to any society in the long run. Social Darwinism is cruel and toxic.

Mr. Rational said...

People of all races use welfare and unemployment, and it's not that big of a deal.

Look at the per-capita rates of use by NAMs and immigrants from many points of origin, and say that again.  Some people use a hand when they're down, some create a culture of parasitism.

the Silents and Boomers began to morally judge (assail, really) anyone who dared sit on their butt and collect money from the government.

That doesn't work on people who are actively oppositional to that culture, and have the backing of a bureaucracy staffed by their own co-racialists.  (Needless to say, most of those bureaucrats need to be fired, and the rest de-diversified.)

And gee, those wetback Mexicans sure live large, don't they?

Compared to what their own nations can manage they do, and any extra cash they can send home goes a lot farther there.  But all that does is cram down US wages at the bottom end, which benefits the managerial overclass as you note.  Further, their anchor babies are immediately eligible for welfare.  There is no solution that works for them; we have to send them home, which works for us.

Feryl said...

"Look at the per-capita rates of use by NAMs and immigrants from many points of origin, and say that again. Some people use a hand when they're down, some create a culture of parasitism."

Yeah, I know that. My main point though, is that the neo-liberal class creates or exacerbates problems like a desperate underclass. Since the Reagan era, we've been told that we have to accept a certain level of dysfunction in society esp. WRT the underclass. In this mindset it's the underclass' own fault fore being stupid, lazy, and criminal. It's not society's job to ask elites to look out of those beneath them. Everybody is own their own. No matter how crappy wages are, no matter how many jobs have taken by immigrants, no matter how expensive housing gets, no matter how overzealous police and prosecutors harass and needlessly damage people's lives, it's up to you to figure out how to navigate the mess.

Instead of promoting the Horatio Alger legend, perhaps we ought to ask ourselves, and everyone around us, "is X or Y good for society in the long run"? "Will making big short term gains for me come at the long-term expense of others?

Of course the Reaganites focused laser-like on how every. single. attempt. by the government to fix something supposedly made it worse. I mean, Christ, who doesn't remember how excessive government meddling and regulation made it possible for elites to inflict vast misery on America and England in the first Guilded Age? That was me being sarcastic. But I think some Reaganites would actually believe, in all seriousness, that every problem of every era was created or worsened by government intervention and oversight.

Feryl said...

We can't help many people, we can't fix the now vast shortcomings of many industries corrupted by Get Rich Quick Boomers, by insisting that profit-driven "market solutions" and unfettered "market control" remain dominant. And of course, the free market apologists will insist that what we have now is a government corrupted form of crony capitalism, not the real McCoy. Get a clue. Absent government pressure to treat workers and consumers with greater dignity, the titans of industry will invariably use and abuse a compliant government to gain a "competitive" advantage and seek out greater mergers and acquisitions. This is how monopolies develop. The Trump regime's neoliberals will not stand for, say, the government blocking Fox and Disney merging. This in spite of the fact that Disney own's many platforms which spew hatred against Trump. And the current neo-liberal paradigm doesn't give a damn about Disney, for the last 40 years, continuously arguing for, and winning, copyright length increases that should they continue in the future, essentially allow Disney's shareholders and managers to make money off the same set of characters forever. Which will allow Disney to remain artificially "competitive" and also discourage the creation of new characters and settings. Did you know that movie sequels were much less common before the late 1970's? I have a hunch that Disney's copyright "innovations", combined with a growing social trend to emphasize corporate "growth opportunities" while avoiding "risk" (e.g., new ideas), have pushed studios to favor pre-existing ideas and characters.

Interestingly, it actually appears that Congress basically acted of it's own accord in altering copyright so as to insure that Mickey Mouse the character didn't fall into the public domain. This makes sense, because Disney in the late 70's and early 80's was on the verge of bankruptcy, and scarcely had the funds to go through court battles. So this would appear to be a case of the government, for reasons I can't begin to fathom, trying to keep a movie studio alive even after that studio had put itself into a hole. But as usual, the late 70's were the beginning of the new neo-liberal era. A time of growing cronyism and corruption, and a lot things that, well, just didn't make a whole lot of sense. "Mickey Mouse" as a character wasn't going to die off; but rather, the studio that owned him was set to lose the key aspect of it's identity.

216 said...

Feryl,

Unemployment trust funds (state) were emptied during the last recession, and many states haven't even rebuilt the nominal pre-recession balance, let alone adjusted for inflation and raised to an extent to actually survive a recession.

During the pit of the recession, the US imported 45K H-2B visas in '09 and '10, and these visas could be renewed unlike now. The year before saw 95K of these visas issued. Roughly 300K of the similar J visas were issued annually around this time. That would have amounted to a notable fiscal impact on unemployment funding, before we get to the fact that more illegals left voluntarily than were deported during the Obama first term, when he could have followed the example of Ike and deported several million.

While it is politically toxic to say this today, the 2007-09 hikes in the minimum wage probably lengthened the recession. A price floor is a poor redistributionist mechanism (the reason why the left supports a higher min wage) when there is no enforcement against both illegal migrants and the gig economy. The decision by Congress to lengthen unemployment benefits over and over also probably delayed recovery.

Lee Kuan Yew actually said once in an interview that the reason Singapore has high immigration is to make sure the natives don't get lazy. Part of the unspoken reason is to swamp otherwise higher Malay Muslim birth rates. From the other hand, the Singapore government has tried to encourage High IQ graduate degree holders to assortative mate.

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

Mr. Rational,

The real question will emerge, I predict, during the Crisis of the 2020s, as automation wreaks havoc on low skilled jobs. The economic underpinning of both mass immigration and the sustaining of Third World populations in the First World will vanish. Think of a world where migrants are no longer driving taxis, flipping burgers, picking crops, or wiping the rear end of geriatrics. Not to forget that several large Third World countries whose economy is in essence a sewing machine will be drifting aimlessly.

The proper thing to do is to redistribute oligarch wealth as an inducement for the Third World to stay put and reproduce responsibly, and to induce the emigration of undesirable Third World and leftist populations in the West. Barring a seismic political shift, we will instead use this wealth to subsidize more invasion, and the deportation of recalcitrant whites to several "caves in the Caucusus".

Feryl said...

That doesn't work on people who are actively oppositional to that culture, and have the backing of a bureaucracy "staffed by their own co-racialists. (Needless to say, most of those bureaucrats need to be fired, and the rest de-diversified.)"

?

According to the GSS, Silents are the greatest enemies of government attempts to legislate fairness and economic equality. Boomers are the 2nd biggest enemies. GIs and Gen X-ers are fairly similar in their stance (less against gov. intervention than Silents and Boomers). Millennials are the biggest proponents of gov. intervention. This is all limited to white males, BTW.

Like it or not, younger generations have inherited a rotten system. And many of them realize that older generations threw away equality and security in favor of (an ever aging) group of people benefiting at the unfair expense of others. While Silents and Boomers were jerking each other (and society) around with nonsense about the government morally degrading society and each new generation being more worthless than the last, they were doing jack shit to instill a sense of noblesse oblige in their generation's leaders. To them, life is only as fair as you make it for yourself. If you can't keep up, well, tough shit. Don't cry to us.

If you're going to continue with this tired, straight outta 1980 attitude that our primary problem is welfare kings and queens, then you're going to be disappointed. There won't be another Reagan Revolution. Eventually politicians, to survive, will have to start appealing to people born after 1970. Who, on the whole, don't want to hear the greatest political hits of the Silents and Boomers. We've seen our political, financial, and mental health get thoroughly debauched by several generations of politicians who must appeal to the myopia and sociopathy of the two generations (Silents and Boomers) who annihilated our former middle class paradise, and did so while their pockets were over-stuffed with money.

Feryl said...

"Unemployment trust funds (state) were emptied during the last recession, and many states haven't even rebuilt the nominal pre-recession balance, let alone adjusted for inflation and raised to an extent to actually survive a recession."

I know from "voodoo" economics, and James Howard Kunstler, that America has been debauching it's finances, on a national, local, and personal level, in earnest since the early 80's. We've invested less and less in, produced less and less of, genuinely valuable research and products. Instead we've funneled more and more money into (bank and wealthy investor friendly) financial "products", as well as encouraged speculative bubbles in dubious industries, companies, and products. Each substantial problematic event or outcome of this is treated as merely inconvenient, and we've tended to double down again and again on this way of life after encountering a bump in the road. Silent and Boomer "leaders" are effectively incapable of saying "No" to their generation's tendency to be reckless vultures, and agreeing to reform our system to no longer resemble what the Silents and Boomers wanted in the 80's and 90's. Basically we're asking them to admit that they had things wrong all along, but their egos won't permit them to have a collective, widely shared "awakening" that would give them remorse about what they did to society.

"During the pit of the recession, the US imported 45K H-2B visas in '09 and '10, and these visas could be renewed unlike now. The year before saw 95K of these visas issued. Roughly 300K of the similar J visas were issued annually around this time. That would have amounted to a notable fiscal impact on unemployment funding, before we get to the fact that more illegals left voluntarily than were deported during the Obama first term, when he could have followed the example of Ike and deported several million".

People in the 1950's really, REALLY wanted a middle class paradise where even lowliest ditch digger could feel upbeat.

216 said...

Feryl,

Even presuming another copyright extension isn't passed, the Disney corporation will just use trademark law in its place. Copies of the old cartoon will be permitted, but any attempt to make "Feryl Mouse" would still trigger a lawsuit. The feature length princess films won't go out of copyright until the 2040s with current law, and 2040 lawyers will claim that only the 35mm film version is out of copyright. It wouldn't surprise me if the old princess films are branded as "patriarchal", Disney has started making newer "woke" princess films after a two-decade pause.

The copyright extension battle is one of the few examples I can think of where the corporations didn't take the "short-termist" view. It's not merely a US-only issue, the effort to wrest longer copyright terms has been a major struggle of international trade negotiations.

Trump did nothing to oppose Disney-Fox because Murdoch promised that Fox News would be spun off into a company along with the Fox Regional Sports Networks and Fox Broadcast. One thing that many conservatives, among all generations, ignore is that cable news is a niche market. It's not an accident that Murdoch never profaned Fox Broadcast with a right-wing Fox Nightly News, or started a Fox News International. The 3 legacy networks with a left-wing nightly news still draw about 10 times what the highest rated show on Fox News does.

Fox News is a great connection to the GOP's Boomer base, but anytime you have the displeasure of watching the channel you get lots of reverse mortgage ads instead of BM/WF subversion ads. For someone that won the election using social media, he should know better and focus on livestreams rather than Fox and Friends.

216 said...

Feryl,

It's hard to see the economy re-oriented, even if it the power of FIRE was curbed. Even with mass immigration, the population is still aging, we are far more obese and far less homogenous. The social conditions that presided during the mid-20th century are also a product of geographic providence that allowed the US to escape damage in WW2 while all of its competitors were destroyed and then forcibly integrated into the same financial system.

I think Karlin has speculated about linguistic reasons as to why China is not producing as many discoveries, but the absence of Western Political Correctness should mean a more inventive China in this century.

The only GOPer with an economic populist streak I know of besides Trump is Hawley of Missouri. Interesting to note that he's on the exact barrier that divides GenX and Millenials.

Mr. Rational said...

Feryl:

My main point though, is that the neo-liberal class creates or exacerbates problems like a desperate underclass.

And what's been their favorite tactic for doing this?  Using (especially illegal) immigrant labor to undercut underclass White workers (while using welfare subsidies for Blacks and "citizen" anchor babies of illegals to subsidize their lifestyles while leaving family formation unaffordable for native Whites).

The destruction of middle-class unionized meat-packing jobs and their replacement by minimum-wage work in the hinterlands would have been impossible without illegal alien labor.

In this mindset it's the underclass' own fault fore [sic] being stupid, lazy, and criminal.

This comes back in large part to race, which you don't mention.  The Black underclass has always been stupid, lazy and criminal.  Johnson's Great Society did nothing to change that, and the civil rights movement brought riots rather than renaissance.  By 1980 the first generation of Blacks who had had their entire K-12 education under "civil rights" had come out, and they were worse in many ways than the ones who grew up under segregation.  Elites took notice.

In my experience, the image of West Virginians isn't that they're lazy or criminal.  A bit dull, maybe, but that's because anyone with the ability to get a job elsewhere has fled the dying coal country.  People willing to work dirty, dangerous coal-mining jobs are anything but lazy.  They can't help it if there aren't any available and they can't afford to go gadding about for other work.

It's not society's job to ask elites to look out of those beneath them.

To some extent this has to be laid at the feet of Blacks and their militancy.  Everything elites did for the Blacks only got them called racist oppressors.  I'd say "eff that" too.  Blacks had their chance and decided to give the rest of America a raging case of Negro Fatigue.  I'm done.

Everybody is own their own. No matter how crappy wages are, no matter how many jobs have taken by immigrants, no matter how expensive housing gets, no matter how overzealous police and prosecutors harass and needlessly damage people's lives, it's up to you to figure out how to navigate the mess.

Notice how much of this comes back to immigration?  If anything, replacing illegals with rapefugees has made it worse.

216:

The real question will emerge, I predict, during the Crisis of the 2020s, as automation wreaks havoc on low skilled jobs.

As VDARE says all the time, automation makes immigration obsolete.  I'm watching this in real time.  Farmers are removing Honeycrisp apple trees because they don't all mature at once so they need to be selectively picked several times.  What happens when the robot pickers can judge ripeness better than a human and can work 24 hours a day?  Honeycrisp gets as cheap to produce as Granny Smith or Red Delicious.  When the patent comes off it's gonna go wild.

The proper thing to do is to redistribute oligarch wealth as an inducement for the Third World to stay put and reproduce responsibly

Oligarch wealth will have no effect on people who won't value a better lifestyle over the traditional 6+ children.  The only solution for them is undernutrition so that they CAN'T reproduce over replacement.  Those whose brainpower is insufficient to produce anything other than grinding poverty are rightfully left in it.

The way to get rid of turd-world populations in the West is to cut them off from welfare and jobs but pay their way back home, with some cash to help them get going.  That's cheaper than paying their food and housing in the West.  The oligarchs will pay through higher wages and lower rents.  Of course, those oligarchs who conspired to violate the law to import those turd-world hordes need to be fined treble the damages caused, but that money needs to go to Western victims.

Mr. Rational said...

Feryl:  A friend of mine related a tale of going to the local welfare office for help when she was going through a tough spot.  She's White; the worker she faced was Black.  She was dismissed out of hand.  Mexicans coming through got the red carpet.

If you're going to continue with this tired, straight outta 1980 attitude that our primary problem is welfare kings and queens

Never said that.  The problem is that welfare is used to subsidize a huge supply of below-market labor, especially turd-world labor for whom a meager US lifestyle is a big step up.  The solution is to cut that population off from welfare and send it all back.  Reagan's only fault in that matter was signing the 1986 shamnesty without demanding an enforcement bill on his desk to sign at the same time... and then maybe vetoing the shamnesty.  Reagan rightfully rued that as his biggest mistake.

Note that "weighing anchor" and returning most of the turd-world hordes will immediately reverse a good deal of "the browning of America".

People in the 1950's really, REALLY wanted a middle class paradise where even lowliest ditch digger could feel upbeat.

And then came the hydraulic backhoe.

Feryl said...

"It's hard to see the economy re-oriented, even if it the power of FIRE was curbed. Even with mass immigration, the population is still aging, we are far more obese and far less homogenous. The social conditions that presided during the mid-20th century are also a product of geographic providence that allowed the US to escape damage in WW2 while all of its competitors were destroyed and then forcibly integrated into the same financial system."

But American elites were taking steps in the 1910's, 20's, and 30's to promote a better society in the absence of knowledge that America would be the big winner of WW2. All this talk about poor HR and tech changes overlooks the fact that America in particular has been subjected to spikes of both elitism and populism throughout the country's history, regardless of whatever else is going on in society.

"This comes back in large part to race, which you don't mention. The Black underclass has always been stupid, lazy and criminal. Johnson's Great Society did nothing to change that, and the civil rights movement brought riots rather than renaissance. By 1980 the first generation of Blacks who had had their entire K-12 education under "civil rights" had come out, and they were worse in many ways than the ones who grew up under segregation. Elites took notice."

No matter how much you deny it, you're buying into the conservative Boomer orthodoxy that blacks were almost singlehandedly responsible for the worst aspects of the 60's and 70's, and beyond (but some Boomers use euphemisms to hide the racial angle. But Boomers of all races have been arrogant, destructive, and corrupt. And also, this white nationalist bullshit about lily white countries being paradise by virtue of demographics. Do you know what the demographics of Boomers and early Gen X-ers look like? Something on the order of 80-85% white. But that is the demographic that behaved so abysmally throughout it's life-span. Lots of thieves, liars, vandals, killers, rapists, drug addicts, and so forth. That blacks were more likely to do bad stuff doesn't change the fact that whites of these generations were a lousy lot to a big degree.

"The way to get rid of turd-world populations in the West is to cut them off from welfare and jobs but pay their way back home, with some cash to help them get going.

In the first Guilded Age, public welfare benefits were substantially smaller than they are know, because elites back then openly stated that elites were genetically superior and that the underclass was a natural fixture of life. At best, elites could discourage the breeding of the underclass. But asking the higher classes to be soaked for this sub-human trash? Forget about it. This also allowed for elites of that time to often be openly racist....Including towards whites! WASP and Cavalier elites often claimed that Celtic, Mediterranean, and Slavic people were of a lesser tier, and needed to be kept away from Anglo-Teutonic peoples. On the grounds that they poisoned the blood, not on the grounds that they undermined wages and took jobs. The econ first approach wouldn't really begin to take off until the 20th century, when FDR et al were able to inspire Americans to create a better society without resorting to the invocation of ethnic superiority/purity memes (and we saw what happened to Japan, Germany, Italy, and Spain when those countries kept fascist cartoon characters in power for too long).

We really need to simply halt future arrivals of immigrants, while quietly doing things to encourage them to leave, most of which you covered. But at the end of the day, trying to expel too many too fast could backfire.It could put us down the road to becoming a fascist cartoon country if we go too far. It could also bring about a Civil War type atmosphere, due to how many Leftist and cuck elites have become sponsors of large immigrant,ethnic minority populations.

Audacious Epigone said...

216,

The 3 legacy networks with a left-wing nightly news still draw about 10 times what the highest rated show on Fox News does.

Huh? The three nightly news shows, combined, draw about 3 million viewers. That's a bit more than Rachel Maddow or Sean Hannity, who are around 2.5 million. But both Maddow and Hannity beat anything on any of the three legacy networks.

Audacious Epigone said...

Digging around a little more I see single-night Hannity figures at over 3 million.

I've not watched anything on TV for over a decade but my general impression is that Hannity and Maddow are the two biggest cable news draws, and that each of them get about the same viewership that three nightly news shows combined get.

Mr. Rational said...

Feryl:

you're buying into the conservative Boomer orthodoxy that blacks were almost singlehandedly responsible for the worst aspects of the 60's and 70's, and beyond

Have you even seen post-civil rights Detroit?  Gary?  Up close?  I have, and there is no question that Blacks WERE single-handedly responsible for that devastation.  No question whatsoever.  No other degenerative force was present in those places in anything like the numbers required.

Now, you want to talk about destruction of the middle-class meatpacking jobs, Blacks are off the hook.  They weren't involved.  That goes to illegals from south of the border (mostly Mexican), who are being replaced with rapefugees as it becomes harder to keep them.

Who was behind all that?  THERE you get to the cosmopolitan elites.  There's blame to go around, but without Blacks and illegals the elites wouldn't have had the hammers to wield.  I know some Boomers and Silents and none of them particularly care for illegals, though Blacks are objects of (grossly excessive and unwarranted) sympathy.

Do I need to mention that race relations were one of the weapons that KGB declared it intended to use against the USA back in the 1920's?  The USSR is gone, but its memetic weapons march on.

216 said...

AE,

https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/evening-news-ratings-week-of-oct-1-2/380331

21.45 mln views on the legacy three combined, so only 7 times the top rated Fox show. I had been of the incorrect assumption that each of the legacy 3 got an average of 10 million each. Generational eclipse

Apparently the vast majority of the audience is Boomer and Silents. Can't imagine many Zeds are watching.

216 said...

Mr. Rational,

I speak only for myself here, but there was something called "deindustrialization" that ravaged the urban black social structure. Shorn of the well-paying jobs in unionized heavy industry, and incentivized by the Great Society, there was colossal family breakdown.

Big 3 management moved its factories out of Detroit into the suburbs, beginning in the 1950s, and colluded with the UAW to destroy their remaining domestic competitors. That bit them in the ass upon the 1970s oil crisis and the end of Vietnam war contracts. Presumably that had knock on effects on US Steel dominated Gary, IN. This doesn't excuse black dysfunction, but it doesn't absolve us of responsibility for wrecking the basis of their social capital.

Illegals tend not to work in manufacturing outside of food processing. The main damage they caused is in construction, which otherwise would have been employing larger numbers of unskilled blacks, probably reducing recidivism. But at the cost of greater discrimination lawsuits and union activity.

And as is my hobbyhorse, it was a largely white customer base buying/using drugs from a largely black base of street dealers.

Feryl said...

" 21.45 mln views on the legacy three combined, so only 7 times the top rated Fox show. I had been of the incorrect assumption that each of the legacy 3 got an average of 10 million each. Generational eclipse

Apparently the vast majority of the audience is Boomer and Silents. Can't imagine many Zeds are watching."


Most of the leadership/upper management of the legacy media is still comprised of Silents and Boomers. Most of them can't even comprehend the tastes and personalities of Gen X-ers (who grew up with cable, home video, and video games), let alone subsequent generations. Remember that in a time of high corruption, those who attain higher status tend to become very possessive of it. But you still see a similar possessiveness at lower castes; Gen X has complained for decades that Boomers clog things up to an unprecedented degree, because they typically didn't have a very hard time climbing the ladder in the 70's and 80's, but then due to modern medicine and an environment of increasing corruption (and the inability of Boomers to save any damn money), aging Boomers won't get out of the way and let X-ers and Millennials have a seat at the adult's table. This accounts for why so many Gen X-ers and early Millennials feel utterly alienated from the rat race culture pursued by Silents and Boomers. If you consistently slam doors in people's faces, you can't expect them to feel enthusiastic and inspired like older generations did about careerism. And it's obvious that while Silents and Boomers often relished making big stacks of money (often by dubious means), later generations just want enough to get by....Since they and their peers became so disgusted by how greedy older generations were and still are.

In the mid-late 19th century, I wonder how sclerotic and off-putting "mainstream" culture was becoming to that period's non-elderly generations. You get an arrogant and domineering generation that once it sinks it's jaws into something, it refuses to let go, which annoys the crap out of younger generations who are tired of being ignored.

Feryl said...

The internet is a godsend for post-Boomers, since we get to call our own shots and we don't have to pass everything through 60-70 yr old gatekeepers.

BTW, Silents and Boomers have spearheaded mass media consolidation, which is a huge reason why pop culture and mass media has become so damn boring over the last 30 years. We went from having thousands of smaller companies owning TV stations, radio stations, newspapers, movie studios, record labels, etc., in the 1970's, to having far fewer companies in subsequent decades. Younger generations don't have much of a choice but to turn to the internet for info and entertainment, because mass media for the last 20-30 years mostly reflects the tastes and mores of Silents and Boomers.

Audacious Epigone said...

216,

But that's for weekly viewers. The cable numbers are for nightly views. Do the nightlies get the same credit if someone just watches on Monday as they do if he watches M-F?