Saturday, November 17, 2018

Not your grandfather's America

An overarching reason political dissolution seems likely is how starkly generational feelings about it are. Among Jews, for example, while just 6.8% of those aged fifty and older favor peaceful secession, 35.6% of those under fifty years old do. Those are the buckets I had to use to get statistical significant sample sizes, but the Jewish trend follows the general age trend all the way up and down the spectrum.

More than partisan affiliation, political orientation, educational attainment, income, race, sex, or geography, the best predictor for support is age. Boomers and the remaining Silents are strongly opposed, Xers less stridently so, millennials and Zs far more open to it. Support for secession strictly by age range:


Why? The short answer must be that not only is the US not working now, we've never seen it work and there are no reasons for us to believe that will change with the course we're currently on. As long as we've been cognizant of politics and current events, the story has been one of perpetual national decline and increasing disunity--with a brief reprieve for a year or two following 9/11--coupled with a continuous drop in trust in all the major institutions in society and also of social trust between individuals. Income stagnation, pointless and unwinnable wars, family breakdown, unaffordable housing and education, population replacement, and a ruling class that is at best annoyed by our existence.

Parenthetically, snorlax attributes the apparent age gap to the way the poll is worded, arguing that a lot of younger people don't know what the word "withdraw" means. It seems unlikely to me as I explained here. Building on that, support for it among those under the age of 40 with advanced degrees is a staggering 54.8%, with an actual majority supporting in absolute terms even with "don't know" responses counted. And that's a sample size of 3,323! Among those under 40 with less education, the corresponding figure is 42.7%. 

45 comments:

IHTG said...

Young people say a lot of goofy things. They also don't vote, which is they've been a disappointment to political revolutionaries of all stripes since the days of George McGovern.

That their opinions will change as they grow up is practically the axiom on which US conservatism is built on.

Feryl said...

"There's no such thing as society"
- Margaret Thatcher

Feryl said...

"That their opinions will change as they grow up is practically the axiom on which US conservatism is built on."

The problem here is that the optimal "vision" of conservatism is based on:
-Marrying young
-Having kids
-Staying married
-Making decent money

These are all things that came easy to the Silents, which is why they consistently are most congenial to what their generation mates, the Koch Bros, and the rest of Conservative Inc. wants.

Early Boomers are more liberal because they experienced the very Leftists 1960's at an impressionable age, although it should be noted that the higher income and more conservative ones have views similar to Silents.

The general pattern is that higher income is associated with opposition to re-distributive/progressive tax policies. The Hiddentribes.us study said that the two most conservative camps were generally older, higher income, and from the South (the Deep South in particular is noted for it's support of social Darwinism). The problem for the GOPe is that Gen X-ers and Millennials are getting married and having kids at a far lower rate than earlier generations (the marriage rate among twentysomethings started to collapse in the mid-1990's according to the GSS, which is basically when the the destruction of our middle class began in earnest). X-ers and Millennials have had several decades of personal and financial growth stolen from them, and it's not as if ascending to a good position in one's forties or fifties, after some Boomer finally retires, can off-set the previous decades of low income and increasing living expenses. Besides, lower level workers used to make a lot more money in the 1940's-1980's, and living expenses were lower back then, so there wasn't as much pressure to climb the ladder.

Early period X-ers (born from about 1965-1972) have done well enough to be more prepared to swallow what the Koch Bros preach. According to Neil Howe, and backed up by the GSS, income statistics, and family formation rates, X-ers born from 1973-1980 are much more inclined to be liberal in their views. To put it simply: what both the GOP and the Dems in the neo-liberal era consider to be acceptable economic policy is predicated on most of the population doing reasonable well to the point that they are reluctant to "discourage hard work" via progressive taxes and expanded social spending. But those born since the early 70's mostly have never had a chance to easily make ends meet.

jonathan.sirius.centauri@gmail.com said...

Birthrates are going down, life expectancy trending downward, and socialization crumbles as nightclubs and malls go out of business. Those rosy economic forecasts are fake. Everything the media, academic, and goobermint MAG says is a LIE.

MAGA? Media, Academia, Goobermint Astroturf. Trump is and always has been a Con Man. Never fooled me.

Secession is Impossible. Like Lincoln, the Feds NEED you. Their brown serfs CANNOT DO IT. Even with computer assistance.

(((They))) NEED YOU. YOU cannot get away. Suburbs being swamped, and exurbs as well. Chase down the White Man.
The System is down. The Narrative is being turned off and people are tuning out.

Its all over. The Billionaires are building underground bunkers in New Zealand and Private Islands. They know.
These dumb browns do not work. They are now going to be used as cannon fodder. Plenty more where they came from.

They want conflict. The system is about near Complete Collapse. They want to run. They will burn this place down.
They fear REPRISALS and RETRIBUTION. They NEED a WAR to KILL YOU OFF, NOW.

The enemy is VERY PREDICTABLE. This is the GO FOR BROKE option.
They will tell their stupid gullible "useful idiots" to mount a "Glorious Revolution" or "PURGE" the White people.
It will either allow them to run or kill you off.

They have no other options.
Improvising and thought is NOT their forte, I have found.
Whatever they did before, they will do again.

COUNT ON IT.
WEIMAR 2.0.

Jig Bohnson said...

One thing about secession movements these days is that they seem really appealing n the abstract because they never have commit to any details until later, so people can just project whatever they like onto them.

The uber example is the Scottish secession referendum of a few years back. As the campaign began, they were telling leftists that freed from London Scotland would be a social democratic 83 gender paradise with open borders and a wind farm on every corner, while telling corporatist investors that freed from London it would be a cutthroat petro-state living off of all of that sweet fossil fuel, while telling rural paleocons that when freed from London Braveheart would ride again. Then once people had to actually contemplate the real details of secession, such as what would they use for a currency, support plummeted.



snorlax said...

AE -

I pointed out two problems with the wording of the question; the first being the use of the positive descriptor "peacefully" to describe secession. I believe that postgraduate education would correlate with the "openness to experience" Big Five personality factor, which would in turn correlate with being influenced by the use of "peacefully" in the question.

snorlax said...

Am tempted to spend the $$$ to do a SurveyMonkey poll w/ half the respondents asked my preferred wording[1] and half asked the Reuters wording[2], just to prove myself right! :)

[1] Should [respondent's state] leave the United States and be its own country?
[2] Do you support or oppose the idea of your state peacefully withdrawing from the USA and the federal government?

Anonymous said...

@Feryl

Marrying young and staying married are inversely correlated to one another. It amazes me that so called "alt-right "race realist" "red pill" men love to cite empirical studies when it comes to the differences between black people and white people, yet deny the fact that in the United States, early marriage (age 18-24) is positively correlated with divorce.

216 said...

Anon,

In the present time, marriage at that age is uncommon unless there is an unplanned pregnancy, and thus a "shotgun marriage". In terms of middle class respectability, the average male isn't signaling "provider status" until their career is "established". As few men have this kind of economic stability, its not surprising that they don't marry until later in life. Few people also live within a religious subculture that attempts to bend economic realities in favor of this lifestyle.

One exception is that of men in the military, who tend to marry earlier, but also suffer high divorce rates. This is because being married accords a junior enlisted a better standard of housing. As most men in the military don't *stay* in the military, it's not as surprising that divorce rates are also high.

In any case, divorce is a political choice that society has decided to tolerate. If it was so desired, many feminist policies could be simply abolished.

216 said...

https://www.ocregister.com/2018/11/10/maybe-the-california-gop-should-ditch-republican-label/

If the feckless CA GOP did this, it would be a major step in favor of partition.

The question would be: Bavaria's CSU, or the Quebec separatists?

IHTG said...

216: A major step in favor of partition? You don't need to look so far afield - it would be no more so than George Wallace's 1968 presidential run. Rather, it would be a major step towards political realignment.

216 said...

IHTG, If the CA GOP disaffiliates with the national GOP, it could lead to state GOPs in other perma-blue states also disaffiliating. The breakup of the country could be presaged by the breakup of the GOP.

Otoh, this would be devastating if the disaffiliation led to similar "cuck parties" forming in states where the state party remained affiliated. But perhaps not, if the electoral system was reformed to be proportional.

The writer got in wrong in telling the CA GOP to be more "free market". They should do the exact opposite and move way left of the Dems on the environment, and in forcing corporate reforms to structure the economy like Germany with worker representation on boards.

Audacious Epigone said...

IHTG,

But this, like support/opposition to military adventurism, tracks more by age than by political orientation. I suspect the shift will be paradigmatic.

Jig,

That luxury exists so long as the current arrangement is perceived to be tenable. It's why the coming economic collapse is probably a necessary precursor to political dissolution.

snorlax,

Touche, though the adjective is probably necessary since secession is so strongly associated with violence in the American context.

Anon,

Intragenerationally yes, though not intergenerationally. A century ago Americans both married earlier and divorced less. Teenagers who marry in The Current Year are well outside the mainstream of broader culture.

216,

Relatedly, maybe the United States should ditch inclusion of California as part of the federation!

snorlax said...

AE -

It's obviously unknowable whether a certain state seceding would lead to violence or not, so a poll should leave that consideration up to the judgment of the respondent.

And regardless of context the descriptor "peacefully" will substantially bias the result. If you ask "Should it be legal to peacefully poop in public?" you'll get many more yeses than if you asked the same question without "peacefully."

snorlax said...

My wording has a grade level between 6 (Kansas, Maine, Texas, Utah) and 9 (Pennsylvania) and the Reuters wording a grade level of 12 according to this site. I'd conservatively estimate at least 80% of American adults are below a 12th grade reading level (falling to maybe 50%—and that's generous—for those with postgraduate degrees), so the purported results of the Reuters survey are complete junk.

Sid said...

snorlax (though it's pertaining to an issue AE is discussing!),

I think part of the issue, too, is that current talk of dissolution or peaceful withdrawal doesn't have a concrete programme attached to it. It's not hard to support it in the abstract, but actually trying to see it through in practice would be an immense challenge.

Calexit and Texit are both feasible, but otherwise there aren't really any other states that could soundly break off and form their own independent countries.

From everything I've read, much of the desire for a break-up from both the left and the right comes from both sides not being able to stand each other anymore. That's quite understandable, but a break-up along red and blue states would create a host of problems. I don't see Eastern Washington, for example, being happy about breaking off from America to be part of West Coast Shitlibistan. If we're talking about a break-up along the lines of blue and red counties, then we're looking at the Hillary Archipelago asserting its independence, and these islands would have a hard time being viable countries.

Then there's the matter of race. The problem is that different races are dispersed across the country. A break-up along racial lines, with officially enforced or informally induced population transfers would be monumentally difficult.

(Beyond our narrow circle, however, I don't think there's much of any will for a national break up along racial lines. Whites just don't hate other races that much.)

Even so, I don't think changes to American national borders are impossible. As I wrote in the previous thread, the mass influx of immigrants into California means that a new regional identity for "Kalleefornya" is coming about. I don't consider them Americans in any meaningful sense, and because Hillary won the popular vote only because of California, I think the claim that most Americans voted for her is near-sophistry.

A Calexit is far from impossible, though I think it coming to pass would be a terminal event for California's economic development.

In the Pacific Northwest, I don't think there's much attachment to America as a nation. The whites there aren't really American to my mind, but are an offshoot of the American nationality who weren't quite able to form their own national identity before they became states of the USA. I don't think PNWers will push to make Cascadia on their own accord, but if there's a crisis of legitimacy in the future, they may not opt to be part of the USA.

Similarly, the status of much of the Southwest looks precarious to me over the long term, again because of immigration. That said, I don't have much of an intuitive grasp of what whites in those areas are like.

As such, it's not inconceivable to me that the West Coast and Southwest will go their own ways, and white Americans will have to retreat to their ancestral homelands northeastward.

Of course, history never ends, so you might see revanchist Yankeedom aspire to reclaim the Manifest Destiny in the 22nd century, but I'm at the point of entertaining speculation.

Feryl said...

"Marrying young and staying married are inversely correlated to one another. It amazes me that so called "alt-right "race realist" "red pill" men love to cite empirical studies when it comes to the differences between black people and white people, yet deny the fact that in the United States, early marriage (age 18-24) is positively correlated with divorce."

According to the GSS, those never married who are in their late20's starts to rise in the later 90's. This is correlated to AFF being much worse for people born after about 1972. As I said above, why do you think people born in the 1960's are much more likely to be Republican? It's all about AFF. What the GOP relies on ( easy home ownership, family formation, middle-upper class income) is increasingly out of reach for those born after the early 70's.

A lot of marriages have ended in divorce since the 70's, yet the fact is that as one generation after another is hammered by high living expenses and a crappy job market, we've arrived at a crisis where people born in the mid-late 70's, who are now in their 40's, are much less likely to have gotten married or had kids and arrived at financial stability than older generations. And people born in the 80's are doing even worse. The "good" news, such as it is, is that people under 45 want to flush culture war crap out of our system, which they never bought into in the first place (it's the privileged older generations who could afford to bicker over abortion and such).

Obviously, it's dumb to act as if irresponsible family formation is going to somehow benefit us in the long run (as we saw when GW Bush and his GOP bought into the idea that giving people houses they couldn't afford was going to somehow convert everyone into a Republican).

Feryl said...

The Western European mantra of importing the warm bodies that the natives no longer produce is now being duplicated in America, since recent birth rates in the US have for the most part never come anywhere near what they were in the 1950's and 60's. The rising level of immigration into America has been the inverse of the falling birth rate (although there was a decent spike from about 1987-1993, and later on in the early-mid 2000's, that one was driven heavily by Hispanic Sun-belt immigrants).

216 said...

Feryl,

Wrt to Phil Gramm and Bush/Raines and the housing bubble, was this inspired by the Thatcherite "right to buy" the public housing in the UK? I believe that it was credited for John Major's surprise victory in 1992, to the extent that Blair switched Labour's position on the issue.

Like many neoliberal schemes, the cash gained from selling off public housing was plowed into tax cuts, rather than reinvested into more housing. So the UK has a housing shortage (don't mention the "I-word") and lacks funding to fix it.

Worth noting that even generous/feminist policies in Scandinavia have proven useless at raising the birth rate, though that clashes with other government policies designed to promote/allieviate social degeneracy. At the same time, a point in your favor that even Sweden is way less egalitarian than it was in the days of Palme.

Corvinus said...

Jig Bohnson...

"One thing about secession movements these days is that they seem really appealing n the abstract because they never have commit to any details until later, so people can just project whatever they like onto them."

Exactly! That is why I do not take much stock in how young people responded to the initial question. Specific questions are required to find out if they truly understand the magnitude of our nation "breaking up" and the potential consequnces. The devil is in the details, from personal rights to trade deals to national defense to Supreme Court decisions. How would these things be dealt with?


Sid,

"I think part of the issue, too, is that current talk of dissolution or peaceful withdrawal doesn't have a concrete programme attached to it. It's not hard to support it in the abstract, but actually trying to see it through in practice would be an immense challenge."

Definitely. See above.

"I don't consider them Americans in any meaningful sense."
"The whites there aren't really American to my mind."

OK, so it would appear you believe there are "good whites" and "bad whites". It's just your opinion, similar to how nativists felt about Eastern and Southern Europeans when they came here by caravan in the late 1800's/early 1900's.


216...

"In any case, divorce is a political choice that society has decided to tolerate."

No, divorce is a personal, religious, and legal choice that the people have collectively decided, through political means, as being acceptable in our society.

Anonymous said...

How about representation matters? We are done only electing white folks. You can stay stuck, the rest of us are enjoying the REAL america

216 said...

Anon,

No matter how much you claim otherwise, you and your peoples are not the real America, any more than I am "the real Iroquois". You are anti-American usurpers that have never believed in the Constitution. Your record of ethnic bloc voting confirms it.

Anonymous said...

216,

Your opinin doesn't really matter. Demographics are not on your side

A majority of the White Women i have seen in California are dating either a Black guy or a Hispanic and they are not fat and obese as Most of the Cucks on this Website would like to claim. White “man” cannot compete with Black Men or other Men of Color in the sexual marketplace. Men of Color are strong creative disciplined athletic and have fought their whole lives white men are weak dull effeminate clumsy and play video games Is it any wonder that white girls crave Black Men?

snorlax said...

Sid -

I think it's very possible, even probable depending on how various trends develop, that there could be a genuine groundswell of support for secession or partition in the future. And I'm personally not unsympathetic to the idea.

But I'm very skeptical that there's 22 or 29 percent who already support the idea. That's around the same support as there is for "abortion should be illegal in all cases," "all firearms restrictions are unconstitutional," "abolish the income tax," "abolish ICE," slavery reparations, Bush, Nixon and Truman at the end of their administrations, unilateral nuclear disarmament, forcibly quarantining AIDS patients or banning rock music in the 80s, legalizing abortion or impeaching Earl Warren in the 50s, abolition or secession in the 1840s, etc.

Even fringier ideas with half that level of support or less, like anti-flouridation, PETA-style animal rights, the "dissident right," "punch Nazis" and so forth will make a clearly visible impact. I haven't seen any visible pro-secession sentiment besides spitballing on extremely marginal blogs (no offense) and one clearly flawed poll.

Anonymous said...

Tiny Duck @ 8:59 AM:

Your mental illness is a more reliable signature than your nom de mierde.

216 said...

Contd

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/11/19/andrew-cuomo-only-extreme-conservatives-socialists-oppose-controversial-amazon-deal/

If the GOP knows whats good for it, they scuttle the deal. Of course, the House of Bezos will richly reward any cuck that votes with Cuomo.

Andrew, the term is not "extreme conservative" the correct term starts with "F..."

Sid said...

snorlax,

Most of the pieces I've seen in support of secession or dissolution come from a place of red staters and blue staters being fed up with each other. It's just that the process of a real breakup would be so costly that it's hard to chart an easy course to such a resolution.

Speaking from personal experience, I haven't heard much real demand for an independent Cascadia. Mostly it comes up when local white nationalists leave some pro-ethno-state Cascadia posters around, and it triggers the local shitlibs to have their Ecotopia appropriated by people they loathe.

Right now I would say that red and blue staters are less like an unhappy married couple in need of going their own ways, and more like Millennial roommates who can't stand each other but can't afford to move somewhere else before the lease is up. As such, they scheme of finding ways of supplanting and replacing the ones they loathe with other people. They want us replaced with Third Worlders; we want repatriation of non-citizens, higher white birth rates, and red-pilled younger generations.

Corvinus,

Good whites and bad whites? You do have a particular habit of misreading my posts and impugning me with base motives.

thekrustykurmudgeon said...

i know i'm feryl-posting but i think looking at only 60+ is wrong. The younger half of that generation doesn't really have much memory of the "america of old" and were possibly the most drug-using generation. The older half of the 60+ crowd does remember the "america of old" and drugs weren't really a thing during there youth.

Feryl said...

"Worth noting that even generous/feminist policies in Scandinavia have proven useless at raising the birth rate, though that clashes with other government policies designed to promote/allieviate social degeneracy. At the same time, a point in your favor that even Sweden is way less egalitarian than it was in the days of Palme."

The whole thing about falling birth rates is that they derive from a lot of things that are worsened, or at least not improved, by higher immigration levels. The main cause of falling birth rates seems to be:
- Growing population/population density, caused by formerly high birth rates, longevity increases, and a lack of population culling (e.g. no major war, famine, or disease)

Higher immigration raises the chance of a great war or epidemic, as competition for resources escalates and bugs thriving and intensifying from having greater contact w/previously unexposed (and therefore, lacking in protective immunity) subjects. Also, new bugs being transferred from one previously unexposed person to another, in rapid succession, over and over again as is possible under conditions of high population density and a high number of migrants (and decaying standards of hygiene in homes, neighborhoods, and workplaces, all of which are associated with periods of high corruption when the high class fails to set standards that guide and protect the middle and esp. the low), leads to bugs mutating to have greater virulence. Agnostic says that measured pathogen levels amongst the general public (e.g., not just homosexuals) reached a lower level in the 1940's (after 15 years of halted immigration), and stayed low for 40 years. Then there's a measured increase in the 1980's (which is when there was a massive surge of immigration into America from Asia and Latin America, and also when companies started to take a lot short cuts to boost profits). In the early 20th century, there were some terrible disease epidemics across the Western world, as that was a period of urban overcrowding and very high immigration levels (and also poor workplace standards).

Today's American populace is getting sick much more frequently than it did in the 1940's-1970's, because today's metro areas (and in some cases, farms) have a much higher proportion of immigrants who bring pathogens with them; the pathogens than get transferred to natives/other kinds of immigrants, who are lacking in immunity and end up sick, only to give the bug to someone else. And food-borne illnesses have also become worse, due to shoddy workplace standards and immigrant workers.

Feryl said...

"i know i'm feryl-posting but i think looking at only 60+ is wrong. The younger half of that generation doesn't really have much memory of the "america of old" and were possibly the most drug-using generation. The older half of the 60+ crowd does remember the "america of old" and drugs weren't really a thing during there youth."

America of old=pre-1990's, pre-dissolution of the Soviets. Ergo, the primary generation gap in American politics is those who graduated high school before the 1990's vs. those who did so later. The differences between someone born in 1946 and someone born in 1964 are minimal compared to what the difference is between Millennials and Boomers.

Varying rates of drug use are meaningless compared to the economic issues that each generation faces. Silents, Boomers, and early Gen X-ers benefited from easier AFF, while they also grew up really believing that Americans did things better than other countries did. Later Gen X-ers and Millennials came of age in the 90's and 2000's, when this country was doing a major face plant in terms of it's economic and political culture ('nothing' is done except ensuring that rich people make more money, and no accountability or serious reforms are applied to Wall Street or the Pentagon). Nobody under 40 really think that there's anything special about America; well not in a positive sense, anyway. Trump became the most popular candidate with younger voters because he trashed our modern economic, trade, and immigration policies. He told us that a lot of things sucked, and that blathering platitudes about our divine goodness wasn't going to cut it.

snorlax said...

216 -

If the GOP knows whats good for it, they scuttle the deal.

Exactly how do you propose they do that? Gov. Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio are, obviously, both Democrats and both pro-deal. The New York State Assembly is 107D-43R and the State Senate is 40D-23R. The New York City Council is 47D-4R.

In Virginia, Gov. Ralph Northam is again obviously a pro-deal Democrat. The Arlington County Board is 5-0 Democrat. Republicans do have one-vote majorities (with numerous RINOs in the caucus) of 21-19 in the Virginia Senate and 51-49 in the House.

snorlax said...

Sid -

I have seen at least partially tongue-in-cheek sentiment by normie liberals/conservatives that they wish Texas/California would secede, but not that their own states secede.

On an unrelated subject, I suggest you don't feed the troll.

216 said...

Snorlax,

I'm presuming that there are enough socialist Dems in New York to vote against the deal in at least one of the two houses. Upstate Dems might also be convinced to vote against it, as it goes to NYC. In NY the GOP has nothing to lose by voting against the deal, and lots of populist cred to gain.

VA had some DSA Dems seated in the legislature last year.

snorlax said...

216 -

In NY the GOP has nothing to lose by voting against the deal, and lots of populist cred to gain.

I'm sure the great majority of Republicans will do so, but they would need every Republican plus 12 Democrats in the Senate to vote against it; defining "Upstate" as everything except NYC, Long Island and Westchester County, there are 7 Democrats from Upstate. The three Republicans from Long Island almost certainly and the one from Staten Island probably will vote for the deal regardless of arm-twisting.

Defeating it in the Assembly is such a remote prospect it's not even worth talking about.

Ja D said...

Should Obama be thanked for the work he did to make this idea possible?

Josh Hader said...

The next Democrat president will make Obama look like Jesse Helms and the enemy will be out for blood post Trump. At that point, things will get real interesting. Hopefully Texas will still be red enough to lead the resistance.

Sid said...

snorlax,

If California or Texas left the Union, the DNP and GOP respectively would have to utterly revamp their electoral strategies. That's great for partisans in the other states.

The other thing is that Californians and Texans are basically parodies of blue-state/red-state stereotypes.

wrt the troll, I agree but saw fit to point out how slimy his debate methods are.

Corvinus said...

Sid,

"Good whites and bad whites? You do have a particular habit of misreading my posts and impugning me with base motives. I agree but saw fit to point out how slimy his debate methods are."

What I am doing here is pointing out a reasonable conclusion. To you, it would appear, certain whites are more desirable than other whites. Putting them into a category of "good" and "bad" is logical given your past statements on the matter.

Sid said...

Corvinus,

You've regularly accused me of wanting homosexuals thrown out of helicopters, believing fathers should give Roosh's book "Bang" to their sons, craving a new civil war in America, etc. Now you're declaring it's a "reasonable conclusion" that I think there are "good whites" and "bad whites," and that makes me like one of those mean old 19th century nativists.

No, I'm not exaggerating. I've regularly been amazed anyone could come up with such outlandish "conclusions" from my writings.

If you're just trolling, you're wasting your time, and you should just watch some cat videos on YouTube, so that you won't waste that of other people. If you're sincerely trying to debate me and others on this blog... I don't know, you have some serious problems.

But that's enough. No more bread crumbs for the black bird.

Anonymous said...

"Peacefully."

Re-frame the question: How many millions of casualties are acceptable for secession?

Let's see the takers.

anon vet

PS: AE you said something the other day about the US MIL's track record not being inspiring. This requires remedy: We haven't lost a military campaign never mind War since 1942 in the Philippines- not militarily. We haven't.

We win militarily then are betrayed at table. Consistently. We also consistently fail at making the newly liberated into White Progressive Liberals, this is true. It's not possible of course and we've have no success doing it in America either.
To begin with very few of us are White Liberals.

Now laying down for betrayal is a legitimate issue to raise - although the alternatives to laying down before civilian authority are unattractive and frankly implausible in terms of success.

But we're not losing wars militarily. Not since 1942. Battles sure - not wars.

We're quite competent at fighting. We understand and are now quite practiced at war - politics and how to handle traitors we don't have a handle on. Neither does America - yet.
I doubt that America will do anything about treason until it tries everything else first; Churchill knew us well.

Audacious Epigone said...

snorlax,

Wikipedia's page on Calexit lists results from six surveys, averaging at 25.2% for, 74.8% against (with "dk" excluded). Those are pretty close to being inline with what the R-I poll shows. Support is modestly weaker, but not much, and that's expected given that the question is more specific here than abstract.

Also, to your/Jig's/Corvinus' point, there is a clear trend of support declining the longer the specific proposal was out there. The trends are similar, too--Hispanics and younger people in general are more supportive.

So I'm not convinced the question is worthless even if it is worded suboptimally. The issue of post-graduates being the most supportive of withdraw is also still there.

Sid,

Shitlibistan is even better than bluestatistan. Thanks!

When the roommates both lose their jobs and the eviction notice comes, that's when they'll part ways. Stay tuned!

216,

Occasionally I'm at a loss as to the traffic source of some commenters. Enjoy!

To that anon, keep poking and prodding. And don't forget to read your Kipling.

If white men adopt identity politics, you're fucked. You simply cannot compete.

Ja D,

Yes. Accelerationists deserve their due!

Feryl,

The Soviet Union is a useful template for thinking about the American Union. Nobody thought it would disappear a decade before it did. It did so in large part in response to something arguably similar to a financial/dollar-as-reserve-currency crash, it so surprisingly peacefully, and the subsequent countries that emerged from it are better off now than they were before it fell apart.

anon vet,

Yes, those of us inside the Hajnal line and its diaspora have created our own prisons. We're probably going to have to save ourselves, if we do, by operating within those limitations.

snorlax said...

AE -

That set of polls is very strong evidence for my argument about the wording. Thanks!

Here they are listed in the same order as on the Wiki page with the result, the wording of the question and my comments on the wording:

1. 23Y / 57N

(days after the election and after numerous priming questions about how racistly sexistly antisemitically homophobic Trump and his voters are) Would you support or would you oppose the idea of California seceding from the United States?

Many, many people do not know what "seceding" means.

And asking if people support or oppose "the idea" of something is too confusing; it could easily be interpreted even by an intelligent respondent as whether you think the idea is interesting, of if it should be fair game for debate, etc. This is also a problem with the Reuters wording.

2. 26Y / 56N

(1/2, asked of half sample) An initiative might appear on the November 2018 election ballot calling for a special election to decide if California should declare independence from the United States. If that special election were held today, would you vote for or against California declaring its independence to become its own country?

(2/2) An initiative might appear on the November 2018 election ballot calling for a special election to decide if California should declare independence from the United States. If that special election were held today, would you vote for or against secession of California from the rest of the United States?

This makes the Reuters question look well-written by comparison. You or I might easily get this one wrong if we spaced out in the middle. Even if they are paying attention, there is no way that Juan, Lateesha nor even Brittney will be able to make any sense of it.

3. 18Y, 58N

Should California withdraw from the United States and become an entirely new nation? Or should California remain part of the United States?

Again with the "withdraw!" And again with the positive loaded question; "entirely," "new" and "nation" are all positive.

The closest to the Reuters wording of the listed polls.

4. 32Y / 68N

An initiative has been proposed for the November 2018 statewide ballot that calls for California to declare its independence from the United States and become a separate country. If the election were being held today, would you be inclined to vote Yes or No on this proposed initiative?

Same comments as on #2 above.

5. 16Y / 71N and 6. 14Y / 73N

Should California secede from the United States and become its own country? Or, should California remain a state in the union?

The closest to my wording of these poll questions, and whaddaya know, also the closest to my prediction of single-digit support.

I wouldn't use "secede" nor "in the union," the latter of which probably made many respondents think it had something to do with labor unions.

I'm confident that had they used my wording they would indeed have found support in the single digits on a national basis, maybe a little over in CA, since I agree partisanship is likely to be a factor.

Corvinus said...

"You've regularly accused me of wanting homosexuals thrown out of helicopters, believing fathers should give Roosh's book "Bang" to their sons, craving a new civil war in America, etc. "

What you have done here is taken my legitimate critiques and turned them outside down. You are much better than that!

"Now you're declaring it's a "reasonable conclusion" that I think there are "good whites" and "bad whites," and that makes me like one of those mean old 19th century nativists."

Well, you certainly aren't denying it. Listen, YOU were who said "the whites there aren't really American to my mind." That statement has assuredly a negative connotation. If certain whites are not "really American", given our current political climate, one can reasonably infer that this particular group is other than desirable. In other words, "bad". So stop playing what amounts to as the "victim".

"If you're just trolling, you're wasting your time, and you should just watch some cat videos on YouTube, so that you won't waste that of other people."

So what type of white does that make me?

"If you're sincerely trying to debate me and others on this blog..."

I have been nothing but sincere.

Audacious Epigone said...

snorlax,

Thanks for digging deeper into those. You may well be correct.

On the other hand, the initiative definitely came strongest out of the gate and then lost momentum over the intervening months and years. There is still the odd issue of more educated people tending to be more in favor of withdraw than less educated people.

More research is required!

jonathan.sirius.centauri@gmail.com said...

The breakup of Yugoslavia and "ethnic cleansing" is the most probable outcome. Segregation is natural, and "integration" was done at the poin of bayonets by the Yankee Imperialists. It was never agreed upon by anyone naturally. The "white trash" is enemy propaganda by the Babylonians. Whites have purposely been forced into unemployment and discrinated against by law. The substance abuse is exacerbated by Bad Medicine in the form of "painkillers" that are merely opiates that are addictive and SOMAs disguised as "psychiatric meds. They are tying to DULL natural instincts with SOMAs. White women are DOPED UP with DULLING "psyche" meds to make them more pliable to enemy propaganda.
The petrodollar is about to fall, with China DUMPING it by the ton. When the World Reserve Currency status is GONE, the Yankee Imperium WILL FALL DOWN like a House of Cards.

ITS INEVITABLE. The Swamp is a Black Hole of Debt. It will SINK, and Fall. IT MUST. IT CANNOT SURVIVE.

PREPARE. Its about to HAPPEN.