Friday, June 22, 2018

California skin games

From a SurveyUSA poll conducted back in April, illustration 364,140 of how in a multiracial society, democracy inevitably devolves into a skins game, even on the left. The following shows the percentages of whites, Hispanics, and Asians who said they were supporting gubernatorial hopefuls Gavin Newsom, Antonio Villaraigosa, and John Chiang:


The racial percentages all fall short of 100% because the poll asked about eight candidates in addition to an "other" candidate option--these three were the top (D)s. The black sample was too small for SurveyUSA to break those out by candidate.

Although California is majority-minority, non-Hispanic whites still comprise a majority of the electorate because Hispanics and Asians are slackers. Newsom won the primary and so consequently will be California's next governor.

A couple other noteworthy observations. Firstly, political dissolution is on the horizon. No matter how it's sliced, Gen Z and millennials are more favorably predisposed to political dissolution than boomers and silents. When the latter disappears, the political landscape will look a lot different. Support for the CAL3 initiative that would break the state up into three new smaller states, by age:


Secondly, even in a state like California where blacks make up a small and shrinking proportion of the non-white coalition, they are open borders fanatics. The survey asked respondents whether the national guard should be used to secure the southern border and what it should focus on if used. The percentages who said the national guard should not be utilized, with "not sure" responses excluded, by race:


The other two possible responses were the based "patrol for those crossing [the border illegally]" and the cucked "focus on gangs and drugs".

A plurality of all respondents chose the cucked answer, so don't optimistically come away thinking the inverse of the bars above are the percentages who want the National Guard to stop illegal alien crossings. Most of the residuals just say they want the drugs and gang activity halted. The invasion itself is okay--we'd just like it to be a little more peaceful and sober is all!

This is a finding that crops up everywhere. For example, from Pew Research:

Blacks are more inclined to accept rapefugees than Hispanics. Hispanics are also twice as supportive of Trump's immigration stances as blacks.

If I retained an ounce of hope in civic nationalism, this reality would challenge that hope. Since I don't, it serves as another battering ram to smash into the quixotic civic nationalists who think a multiracial democracy can do anything other than devolve into a skins game.

75 comments:

Lakarn said...

WHY are Blacks even more in favor of immigration than Hispanics, though?

Immigrants depress wages for menial jobs, which hurts Blacks, they take away gibs from Blacks, dilute the electoral power of Blacks, and in general are indifferent to even slightly hostile to Blacks and their grievances.

I can understand Hispanics who wish to have more relatives and more electoral power for their group in the US, but the absurdly high Black support for immigration makes little to no sense.

Unless the Hispanic support is brought down by legal immigrants who see the illegals as competition, and the Black support is purely out of spite against whites and out of loyalty to the Democratic party line.

But even so I'm not convinced. Blacks can deviate from the Diversity Gospel (for example when it comes to LGBTETC issues) and making it about pissing Whitey seems reductive.

So...does anyone have any ideas?

IHTG said...

Broke: It's a white nationalist ethnostate vs multiracial civic nationalism, get rid of the non-whites.

Woke: It's illiberal democracy vs liberal democracy, get rid of the white liberals.

Anonymous said...

Surpised by the black support for open borders. Blacks don’t exactly have the highest opinions of immigrants. They don’t get along well with Hispanics and especially Asians.

Audacious Epigone said...

Lakarn,

Not sure there is a logically satisfying answer to the question.

Z-Man probably provides the best explanation: Black identity in the US is an entirely negative one. Everything black in the US exists in contrast to what is white.

According to the GSS, most blacks now support same-sex marriage. They've shifted enormously on the buggery question just like everyone else has.

IHTG,

Hah! It'd be funny if it weren't quite possibly true.

Anon,

Only in places where the invaders are market-dominant (i.e. Asian shopkeepers in urban food jungles, etc). They exhibit a lot more general animosity towards whites than to other non-whites.

216 said...

The country has been browbeaten, eagerly accepting its demise.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/235793/record-high-americans-say-immigration-good-thing.aspx

We have the right to exclude

DissidentRight said...

1. Dissolution.
2. Reconquest.
3. Repatriation.

Audacious Epigone said...

216,

Barely half the current population sees the country as a country worth anything but demise. Time to get in the life boats--otherwise, prepare to go down with the ship.

DissidentRight,

#3 plus an uptick in native fertility more-or-less does the trick. So simple... and yet virtually unimaginable.

pithom said...

@AnEpigone

Seems the Black attitude is just a logical outcome of their general anti-police attitude.

Anonymous said...

Black response could be explained as opposition to white political power. They have identified whites as their political enemies and support every policy that diminishes whites' political power. If Open Borders turns whites into minority, so be it. Enemy of my enemy is my best buddy.

Long term consequences may be very harmful even for the blacks but in politics people are driven by tribal emotions, not cold, rational, calculations.

216 said...

AE,

Gallup actually recorded Trump polling at his highest approval rating since taking office. I chalk it up to basking in the NK summit glow, I expect the next poll to be lower.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/203207/trump-job-approval-weekly.aspx?version=print

A major shift in the trends has been that Immigration has become the sine qua non of being a liberal. The NYT times opposed an amnesty in 2000, the unions and the Sierra Club opposed immigration until being bribed in the 90s.

What is really galling is that 20% of GOP voters want to increase immigration. That is chickens voting for Colonel Sanders. A noticeable amount might also be the unwitting creators of future r/hapa rage. We complain about the media driven subversion of BMWF, but smile and wave when it comes to WMAF.

Anonymous said...

"What is really galling is that 20% of GOP voters want to increase immigration." - I believe that to be the old "If anything, we need more immigrants" meme used to defend opposition to illegal immigration. it will fall apart when faced with any scrutiny.

Anonymous said...

How is this longed-for dissolution going to take place, or rather, what will it look like?

The last dissolution at least fell along sectional lines. But this time around I see Beirut. I don't like the current situation AT ALL, but the idea of cracking up doesn't thrill me.

But I'm interested in hearing what you think? How will the US dissolve and will it be violent?

Puzzled

216 said...

Kirstjen Nielsen is exhibit A in "bad optics"

Heckled by DSA at a Mexican restaurant, a childless unmarried female that is locking up children. And isn't even white knighted for by the President's own base.

When a non-white calls a white person a racist it causes one of two reactions: defensiveness (DR3) or guilt. When realists like us are called names, we take it in stride, but the average GOP voter both Boomercon and younger is desperate to stop being called a racist. What they don't understand is that only force will stop the left from using its sharpest weapon.

Conservatism Inc's biggest failure has been the inability to shame the left out of anti-white racism. To some regards they could take lessons from the Fords of Ontario, who have done some of this, while still remaining useless when it comes to calling for immigration cuts.

The GOP could still win in California if whites voted tribally and they mobilized at presidential year turnout.

216 said...

Contd

https://twitter.com/FaithGoldy/status/1010141213159280640

Scroll through the replies to this. Vast majority is left-liberal moralism, basically a religious argument. Quite subversive in a way that the evangelical religious right has never been able to adopt in regards to social matter.

"This is bad, you should feel bad, repent/die heretic"

Jim Bowery said...

Since the Gallup immigration opinion trend graph shows the latest approval of increased immigration at only 25%, and that includes all voters, I'd like a cite of the "20% of GOP voters want to increase immigration".

Up until 2000, less than 10% of the population wanted to increase immigration and subsequent increases in that number look adequately accounted for by the increase in immigrant population and their version of 'manifest destiny'. Since 80% of those "New Americans" vote Democrat, the arithmetic doesn't work out for 20% GOP support for increased immigration.

Jim Bowery said...

If I retained an ounce of hope in civic nationalism, this reality would challenge that hope. Since I don't, it serves as another battering ram to smash into the quixotic civic nationalists who think a multiracial democracy can do anything other than devolve into a skins game.

White nationalists are de facto cucks who, because they settle for a definition of "culture" as anything less than "artificial selection", kick the can down the road on eugenics rather than starting with eugenics and grappling with the issues that presents both morally and practically. That leaves whites without a vision. If you want to kill off whites, just keep it up. The 14 words are an uninspiring defensive and even amoral posture leading to little in the way of morale.

White culture is that which produced whites through artificial selection. If whites are genetically superior to other races, and I believe we are, it is because that culture is eugenic. The problem is we are no longer imposing its artificial selection pressures because we've lost sight of the deep, indeed universal morality of that culture of individual integrity. This doesn't mean that "whites" have to "rule" everyone else but it does mean that those who want whites to flourish, rather than merely survive, need to start with a moral conception of eugenics (velocity) rather than racial preservation (position).

The fact that some Jews managed to define "individuality" in terms of "nonaggression" and make white nationalists leap into moral insanity should not be assigned to the artificial selection regime that produced whites and our congenital individual integrity that is the source of our creativity.

Whites who can't overcome this barrier to the instauration of white culture need to stop kidding themselves that they are pro-white. If you relegate eugenics to an afterthought of "white preservation" you have no business leading anyone.

216 said...

Jim,

The last poll in your link was from March, Gallup hasn't added the new June poll that I linked to at 8:31.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/235793/record-high-americans-say-immigration-good-thing.aspx

"The change in "decreased" sentiment was roughly uniform across party affiliation. Currently, 44% of Democrats and Democratic leaners would prefer immigration to be kept at the present level, 36% would like it increased and 15% say it should be decreased. Among Republicans and Republican leaners, 35% think immigration should be kept at its current level, 20% would like it increased and 42% say decreased.
Gallup also tested an alternative wording on this question for the first time by asking half of respondents about "immigration" and half about "legal immigration." Those asked the "legal immigration" question were more likely than those asked the "immigration" question to support increasing the level, 34% versus 28%, respectively."

The change in opinion has been formed by decades of media and academic browbeating. Another point has been the incomplete partisan realignment, historically a large number of Dems and Black Dems supported slashing immigration. In the time of Trump that stance is untenable for party unity, so it has disappeared. There was never a powerful organization of leftists arguing for slashing immigration despite high profile supporters like Lamm and Kaus. The unions and the greens were captured by the globalist oligarchs.


The better the economy does, the worse the support for cutting immigration. It doesn't help when President Trump is claiming we need "guest workers". 2010 was a missed opportunity, the GOP didn't take the Senate, and the Koch Bros funding ensured the Tea Party would never be truly independent or populist.

Issac said...

You have half-Asian children don't you Jim.

Jim Bowery said...

Issac, no. I don't. I don't even have any nieces nephews or grandchildren that are mixed race.

That doesn't mean people who are victims of the current artificial selection regime, including folks that are mixed race, have no place in a properly led white culture. They just have to get over themselves when it comes to propaganda about "inclusion" meaning people who don't want them around have to let them in.

If you want to grow up, read http://sortocracy.org and recognize that you might have something to learn.

Issac said...

"They just have to get over themselves."

And why would they do so when they have the upper-hand?

Jim Bowery said...

The corrected link to debunking the "immigrants commit less crime because look at El Paso" nonsense:

https://twitter.com/jabowery/status/1010714442739408896

Jim Bowery said...

Issac, you think they have the upper hand.

https://rpubs.com/jabowery/countydensitypredictsclintonmarginovertrump

Review that scatter plot and think again.

Audacious Epigone said...

pithom,

Great point, well taken. Hell, we're talking about the National Guard, after all--the same National Guard that gets deployed when blacks lose their minds destroying their own neighborhoods!

216,

Interesting you say that, as immigration has shot up in terms of issues Rs are concerned about. It used to perennially lag somewhere between spot 6-10 on the 10 most important issues. Now, among Republicans, it's almost always top 3, and often spot #1. And the other issue it jockeys with--terrorism--is related to immigration in pretty obvious ways that even normies understand.

Anon,

My best guess: We'll get a gubernatorial campaign based on pulling a state out of the union. Texas and California are the two most obvious states. It'll probably take an economic crisis, but that's coming the next few years anyway.

There is virtually no public stomach for largescale military violence against civilians in the West. The idea that tanks will roll into Sacramento or Austin is risible. For one, if Calexit happens, a lot of Rs will say "don't let the door hit you on the way out", and viceversa if Texit happens.

216 said...

Jim,

Land Area and Firearms ownership don't matter unless we go to a grid down scenario.

The Right doesn't control a single R1 University or a single F500 company. Our only media presence is Fox News, Breitbart and the Daily Caller. All other cultural power is in the hands of the left, even historically reactionary organizations like the Southern Baptists.


Anonymous said...

@ Anonymous,
"How is this longed-for dissolution going to take place, or rather, what will it look like?"

This link gives us a rough idea of what the boundaries of the Ethnostates will look like:

http://www.censusscope.org/us/map_common_race.html

" The last dissolution at least fell along sectional lines. But this time around I see Beirut. I don't like the current situation AT ALL, but the idea of cracking up doesn't thrill me."

As this map shows, east of the Mississippi there is a White American section and an African section, but urban areas will be Beiruts , and the West is likely going to be Yugoslavia.


"But I'm interested in hearing what you think? How will the US dissolve and will it be violent?"

In my opinion we're still two to three generations away from dissolution.
I doubt they'll be a single cause to the dissolution.
A number of issues and events will act as contributing factors:
non- white control of the Democratic Party and the consequent changes in immigration law, expansion of affirmative action,possible "reparations" for slavery, continuation of the demonization of Whites and their advocates, an increase in the extremity of speech (against Whites), riots,attacks on Whites, and the growth of
White Racial Consciousness.
The cumulative effect of all this and more, will be dissolution.

Add to this a possible economic depression and/or a major war against another Superpower, and it could accelerate dissolution considerably.

It's not inconceivable that it could be largely peaceful.
Once it's clear that the representatives in Congress are essentially representing different Nations, the United States Congress could be converted over night into a congress of diplomats which start the talks leading to peaceful separation.
It only requires one person to suggest it at the right time.

On the other hand,
if a civil war breaks out between the Left and traditional Right, over, say, a disputed Presidential election,it will soon become a multisided affair when State and Regional Secessionist,
Ethnoracial Nationalist, Christian Nationalist etc, decide this is the best chance in their lifetime to achieve their goals.
In such a scenario no side is likely to have the numbers to conquer the others,thus dissolution comes when all sides decide the Union isn't worth the effort.

Jack Nickle said...

216,

The right has massive cultural influence - it's just in the hands of the cuckservatives and the big business factions.

Phillip said...

Median IQ

Anonymous said...

Audacious:

:My best guess: We'll get a gubernatorial campaign based on pulling a state out of the union. Texas and California are the two most obvious states. It'll probably take an economic crisis, but that's coming the next few years anyway."

Say what? The only people who are in favor of secession are white nationalists, like you.

Why would brown California, and Texas about to become brown, want to pull out of the union? If you want people to take your secession (or rather, crack-up) scenarios seriously, then flesh them out.

Being in the Union allows the brown states to punch upwards so why would they secede?

Then there’s the other side of the equation. As disgusting as these states are socially, they are strategically a necessity to USG, which would never allow them to bolt.

"There is virtually no public stomach for largescale military violence against civilians in the West."

LOL. Read a little bit about Vietnam, where USG slaughtered two million peasant in large-scale bombing raids. My point is, there could be, and easily. There is nothing easier to do than whip up public sentiment for a war, and leftists, who are basically totalitarians anyway at heart, could be easily persuaded to put down breakaway states with violence.

If two resource rich (California water) and strategic states brown states decided to secede you’d have every white person (ESPECIALLY libs) shrieking bombs away like Slim Pickens in Dr. Strangelove, in 5 minutes.

"The idea that tanks will roll into Sacramento or Austin is risible."

No, what's risible is your idea of a peaceful dissolution. The tanks would roll in as a mopping up exercise.

"For one, if Calexit happens, a lot of Rs will say "don't let the door hit you on the way out", and viceversa if Texit happens.”

Very few R's, and the country isn't made up of R's.

You’re pretty good at interpreting data but not too smart when it comes to prognostication.

Audacious, believe me, there are many people who agree that a society that considers gender identity to be real is beyond bonkers, but don't let the crazy affect your rational faculties and make up crazy dissolution scenarios, OK?

216:

"This link gives us a rough idea of what the boundaries of the Ethnostates will look like:

http://www.censusscope.org/us/map_common_race.html"

You and I must be looking at two different maps. I see Beirut, not a white Ethnostate.

"Puzzled, or Skeptical of This White Ethnostate Stuff"

Jim Bowery said...

216 writes: "Land Area and Firearms ownership don't matter unless we go to a grid down scenario."

As I've pointed out in a prior comment at this blog, things needn't go that far before those with the so-called "upper-hand" capitulate to a moral plausible promise. Indeed, it is a mistake to even conceive of "them" as opposed to "it" until such time as they've been woken from its zombie conditioning of them. At that point many of them -- mostly but not entirely of the white race -- can be treated as humans. As obscenely demonstrated in the latest "moral" panic over "children being ripped from the arms of their mothers", we're not dealing with humans but with a blob that is utterly impervious to facts, reason and admonition -- and this blob, aka "it", is an organic identity best described as "urbanization" if not "inner city urbanization". The mind control it exerts over its erstwhile humans is of a primitive, extended phenotypic, nature that is accurately characterized as "parasitic castration". Parasitic castration is the mechanism that entomologists increasingly understand is the true source of so-called "altruism" in the eusocial species: The queen is a parasite that castrates her own young to create sterile worker castes. This is the reality of the field observations by E. O. Wilson backed up by the mathematics of Nowak et al in "The Evolution of Eusociality". As with an ant, bee, termite or naked mole rat colony, the organic nature of such a blob is indistinguishable from a state of war. All of the institutions through which it has marched are weapons of fraud, not force. It utterly depends on avoiding its state of war being identified as such by force informed by intelligent recognition of its vital metabolic pathways as urban support infrastructure. Moreover, it's too stupid to realize this -- although exquisitely "intelligent" in other ways, as are all products of evolution.

The only question is: "What is the universal moral principle that is most compatible with the congenital individualism of whites, underlying the evolution of the white race?"

Answer that question -- and I believe I have -- and you have the essence of a formal declaration of war, the morality of which will be apparent to all humans that can be woken from their zombie conditioning by appropriately controlled punishment of "it". Achieving that punishment is trivially easy compared to trying to get whites to "march through the institutions" to match fraud for fraud with it. We're just not that kind of animal. We must wage war by force and then as a temporary state the termination of which is formally and morally declared in a "Declaration of War".

Black Death said...

Splitting up California into three states may or may not be a good idea, but it won't take place without congressional approval. If the net effect would be to add four more Democrats to the Senate, well, fat chance.

216 said...

Thread exposing central left-liberal lies:

Immigration (non-white) good; gentrification (white) bad

https://twitter.com/ShaunHuston/status/1010609173866745856

Noah Smith is an absolute piece of shit.

Anonymous said...

Audacious,

As I wait for your reply/explanation, just want to clarify that I think this society is a horror-story, it is one successful gaslighting after another choking on its own toxic fumes, and I would welcome its demise.

But I do not see it. I think you're spinning escape fantasies.

"Skeptical about this white-ethnostate"

Anonymous said...

"You and I must be looking at two different maps. I see Beirut, not a white Ethnostate."

It's less Beirut than Yugoslavia,with the West being Bosnia.

Dissolution may or may not come about by a rational,peaceful process,
but come about, it will.
There are actually many ways it could come about.

Holding it together is increasingly going to be the challenge.
(I'm not 216,by the way )

Feryl said...

Jim,

"Land Area and Firearms ownership don't matter unless we go to a grid down scenario.

The Right doesn't control a single R1 University or a single F500 company. Our only media presence is Fox News, Breitbart and the Daily Caller. All other cultural power is in the hands of the left, even historically reactionary organizations like the Southern Baptists."

- When cultural (and thus economic) elites were much more conservative before the mid 1990's, the Right became conditioned to put down working class and poor people who were associated with unions and big gov. But they also became conditioned to adopt a "hands-off" policy towards elites, which has played out throughout the Western world since the late 70's. And we've seen the consequences. Besides the poisonous over cramming of Ayn Randian ideology down our throats, we now have to contend with most elites being very far Left wing on cultural matters. Yer supply sider type paranoid anti-statists may have been more willing to give elites the benefit of the doubt if said elites weren't trying to outlaw bigotry among cake bakers. Though as Obama said, to paraphrase, "maybe they (the lion's share of Americans) just aren't ready yet for SWPL values to be legislated and elevated to sacred status". Obama is onto something; I think that people on average are much more liberal than they used to be, however, esp. among older people you see a lot of pushback towards the rate of change and cultural legislation that the Left started to really push in the Obama era. It seems as if back in the 80's or whenever you had a decent number of elites who would furrow their brow at some of the Left's fantasies regarding race and gender, which kept these things in check. By the 2010's, it's like nearly every elite stopped doing anything to register disapproval of the cultural Left.

Younger conservatives understand that the "system", the "elite", most institutions etc. have capitulated to SWPL values. A lot of older conservatives still have a Pavlovian attitude about defending private sector elites, since when they came of age it was primarily welfare bums and government bureaucrats who were scorned. But all the same, when even Rush Limbaugh is concerned about the incipient Left cultural revolution that the establishment Right has often cucked over, well, then we know that it's not the 1980's anymore when according to conservatives heroic private enterprise would make the culture more wholesome and stable. Not that that was really true even back, of course; union busting, privatization, trade deficits, and high immigration levels are the things that destroyed much of the working and middle class in America.

For both cultural and economic reasons, we need to pounce on corrupt elites, not kiss their ass like much of the sell-out Left has been doing for the last 5-10 years.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

Non-whites are stronger supporters of secession than whites are, and that polling comes during the Obama administration! There is also much stronger support for political dissolution among younger people than older ones irrespective of political orientation or race. Calexit, which has failed for now, was primarily a Hispanic initiative.

I suspect you’re probably above the age of 40. To boomercons, secession seems unthinkable. To younger generations, it seems increasingly acceptable if not desirable.

Wrt violence, I said against citizens in the West. It’s not the 70s anymore. Hell its not even the 90s. Even something like Waco today would be overwhelmingly unacceptable.

216 said...

Feryl,

"Not that that was really true even back, of course; union busting, privatization, trade deficits, and high immigration levels are the things that destroyed much of the working and middle class in America. "

Privatization has never ridden as far in America as it did in the other Anglo Four. We never had that many state-owned enterprises to begin with. The main shift has been the declining share of government work done by public sector employees that receive Defined benefit pensions. Our airports and toll roads remain largely state-owned, while most EU countries sold them off. Conservatism Inc is gung ho for privatization, but it is an electoral loser so the politicians never campaign on it anymore. I am surprised to see anti-privatization sentiment grow in the US (I somewhat agree) as the average American isn't familiar with the problems privatization caused in the UK. Is it the result of pro-public employee sentiment, or a residual backlash to Paul Ryan's Medcaire proposal or GWB's SocSec proposal?

It is amazing that often the very same leftists that complained about Amazon's receiving corporate welfare and low wages pre-2016 will now defend the company for both the convenience and its owner's anti-Trump sentiments. It is blue metros that outbid red suburbs for the HQ2 proposal.

The administration has proposed USPS privatization, a sure loser with black voters given their overrepresentation in the workforce. It of course has nothing to do with Fred Smith of FedEx being a major GOP/Heritage donor. The ads write themselves. The Heritage/Koch staffers are in effect sabotaging the populist crusade against Amazon and the other Silicon Dons.

Feryl said...

"The GOP could still win in California if whites voted tribally and they mobilized at presidential year turnout."

Modern Californians hate the GOP. Hate, hate, HATE it.

Silicon Valley and Hollywood are extremely liberal industries, the state is the epicenter of the environmentalist movement, and it no longer has many of the traits that once made it Republican:

1) A strong working and middle class associated with manufacturing and/or the military.

2) (relatively) large amounts of land available to be developed and inhabited at a (relatively) quick pace and cheap cost.

3) Fewer transplants and SWPLs (many of the Silents and Boomers who voted GOP in the 1940's-1980's in California were native to the state)

4) A Western libertarian bent. The now almost total loss of kinship (esp. on the coastal and heavily populated part of CA) with the traditional Western cultural and political identity (the Western US, including the Pacific, used to be considered the most strongly Republican region of America before the late 1980's) makes it hard to envision things ever going back to what they once were. Typically, people in the Western US who profess Middle American values will point to the non-urban/non-coastal areas as regions for which to be optimistic, but the truth is that most Westerners live in Denver, LA, Salt Lake City, Seattle, etc., all of which have taken on tons of transplants who have no interest in the traditional identity of the Western US. Oregon last voted for the GOP in 1984, likewise for Washington in 1984, Colorado in 2000, Nevada and New Mexico in 2004 (by razor thin margin), and CA in 1988. Now whereas the Eastern US votes Dem out of a sense that the GOP just wants to subsidize the military and agribusiness,while destroying unions, Westerners vote Dem out of the perception that the GOP are backward Xtians and bigots. Traditionally the West voted GOP as a "fuck you" to the federal government and because the region was highly dependent on the military. Nowadays many Westerners are perfectly fine with the government incarcerating homophobic cake bakers.

The lack of strong cultural and moral values are overwhelmingly apparent in the rootless and shallow West, which shows few signs of wanting to repudiate it's general reputation as an ornery pain in the ass, and hell, the negative trends of the last 30 years appear to have hit the region harder than the Eastern US (which is why Boomers from Out West are more fun and sensible than the utterly miserable Gen X-ers and Millennials from the region).

Sean Trende said that Trump cleaned up in the moderately sized smaller towns of the Northeast, South, and Midwest. But these kinds of towns don't really exist to the same degree in the West, where people often either live in the city or in a remote area. The biggest exception to this is in CA, which used to be the region of the US that was the most rooted and had the biggest tradition of settlement and established culture.

Feryl said...

*region of the Western US*!!!!!!!!!

LOL, not the US as a whole.

Feryl said...

"Black response could be explained as opposition to white political power. They have identified whites as their political enemies and support every policy that diminishes whites' political power. If Open Borders turns whites into minority, so be it. Enemy of my enemy is my best buddy.

Long term consequences may be very harmful even for the blacks but in politics people are driven by tribal emotions, not cold, rational, calculations."

Yup. To blacks it's always the civil rights era, where everyone has to bend over backwards to make blacks feel better and whites feel worse. America is still a nominally a white country and in the eyes of blacks, whites running a country for any length of time (ala S Africa) in the past or present is grounds for being uppity and supporting all kinds of things that undermine white authority and strength (riots, protests, attacking cops, PC, high immigration levels, you name it). It'll be interesting to see how blacks perceive a decline in the %s of white elites as Asians, high functioning Muslims and Hispanics, Dot Indians, and so forth become much more visible in the middle and upper class. Even parts of the South (mainly Virginia and Georgia) now have a burgeoning population of people who are neither white nor black.

Will people like De Bozo in NYC continue to fight on the hill of black entitlement and anti-white animus, even as whites decline in power and as various ethnic groups feel ambivalent about the struggle for black liberation? If non-black ethnic groups had any brains in NYC, they'd be campaigning along with whites to throw De Bozo out on the grounds that he has no respect for the peace of mind of non-blacks. They wouldn't say that outright, but they could accuse him of wanting to destroy the schools and hurt their kids.

One of the biggest drawbacks about the decline in crime is that it makes it easier to buy into the "rainbow coalition" BS. In practice, nobody ever really buys into it, but the idea was even more laughable in the dystopian conditions that prevailed in the urban (and thus often on-white) areas of the 80's and 90's.

Feryl said...

216:

I think privatization was such a calamity in the UK that it gave other countries cold feet. In the US institutional culture tends to be slower to change than it is in NW Europe, so that's a big reason privatization didn't really take off here either. In the 80's and 90's, we still had the inertia of the New Deal era to contend with. Also, the US was in much better shape in the 60's and 70's than Britain was (after all, much of America's infrastructure didn't exist until the 1940's-1960's in the first place). I think the Brit attitude in the late 70's and 80's was that "things can't get any worse", so let's try privatization and see what happens. Well, a lot of things got worse in their functioning in the 80's, although the North Seas oil plays and the Western economic Booms of the mid 80's and beyond helped insure that the neo-liberal trend was here to stay.

Robocop (1987) parodied the 1980's privatization meme, with corporate CEOs deliberately endangering the privatized police and cutting corners to make more money. The movie was a hit, suggesting that most people at heart understand that their are some aspects of Ayn Randian ideology that just don't seem like such hot ideas.

The average Americans hatred of our healthcare system probably gives us as much privatization as we can stand. Whatever the mistakes that Europe makes, they still have a better system than we do, because healthcare is always going to be the most important issue. It's one thing to be charged a $30 toll by a fat cat road owner, it's another to be charged well into the 4 or even 5 digits for an operation.

The government can set limits to greed when they run healthcare, whereas in a privatized system a CEO or group of shareholders have an obvious interest in charging as much as they can possibly get away with. And unlike other industries, the health care industry can extort the ever living shit out of people because people need health care and they often can't control when they'll need it. It's not consumption that you see with clothing, or transportation, or what have you where consumers have an ability to rein in costs to the extent that they wish (don't buy pants for a year, or buy a cheaper pair, or don't drive a gas guzzler or don't live too far from work if you wish to cut down on transp. costs).

Those who defend our system give stories of long waits for care and not being able to choose a provider with a public system. But that's laughable. Many working class Americans either lack health care, or pay grievously for it, or have a chintzy level of coverage. So many people either forgo important visits, or end up getting stuck with huge bills. End result? People are poor and unhealthy.

216 said...

Feryl,

4.4 million people in California voted for Trump, 4.8 million voted for Romney. Many of those people didn't even have a downballot Congressional or State Legislative office worth showing up for.

Jerry Brown got 4.3 million votes in 2014 for Governor. This year it is two white men running for Governor, non-whites will be disinterested.

The GOP won Oregon, Wisconsin and New Mexico in 2000. Voter fraud moved the states into the Dem column. The GOP also won a statewide election in Oregon in '16, and Trump came close to winning Peter DeFazio's district. As far as I know Trump did minimal campaigning in the state. Trump also did better among legacy Hispanics in Southern Colorado, the first GOP to win Pueblo County since Nixon. White moderates kneecapped him in the Front Range metro.

216 said...

Feryl,

The US is also far more obese than Europe, due in large part to demographic reasons. But also due to the subsidization of certain agricultural commodities, and the low-density development pattern that restricts walkability. This reduces workforce productivity, and adds on more healthcare costs from heart disease. Lolbertarians refuse to see this, presuming a world in which Medicare/Medicaid can somehow be abolished. In realtalk a sugar tax is overdue, and certainly because Coke and Pepsi are running pro-multikult advertising. Ending farm subsidies would also shift production to lower cost Mexico and encourage more automation.


I don't favor a national single-payer system, I would rather see Medicare devolved to the states and have the states pick and choose which foreign systems they would like to copy. We also need to get rid of affirmative action in medical schools, and subsidize the education of M.D.s so we no longer need to import them from the Subcontinent. It would also help to use lower cost PAs and NPs, but the AMA is a powerful lobby.

Jim Bowery said...

Feryl, although you addressed a response to me, the unattributed quote you include was not mine.

Nevertheless, when you say: "conditioned to adopt a "hands-off" policy towards elites" as the penultimate if not ultimate cause of "conservative" corruption, you're dead on correct.

Here's another area where it's high time that white nationalists wake up to exactly how poisonous the libertarian "The Nonaggression Axiom" is to the authentic individualism bred by white culture. I see "white nationalist leaders", on the one hand, pine for the good old days of "aristocracy", and on the other, ridicule me when I talk about natural duel, carefully constructed to mimic the paleolithic mutual hunt that founded white culture. These "leaders" haven't a clue what true aristocracy is let alone what made (past tense) whites the most noble of races.

I've laid out, in Sortocracy, the quasi-secular framework within which white culture can be instaurated without even so much as dissolution of the US nor abandonment of the original spirit of the Constitution -- particularly as emphasized in the 9th and 10th Amendments.

This is a profound gift to whites because it is stated in such simple terms that it can be understood by just about anyone and is, therefore, vastly less vulnerable to fraudulent legalism and corrupt elites than anything anyone else has set forth.

People better wake up to what I've given them -- The Declaration of War or "plausible promise" in terms of fourth generation warfare -- before violence breaks out and they are left to random warlords claiming to be "white leaders" who will, as have past "aristocrats", insulated themselves from the consequences of their treason.

Anonymous said...

"But I do not see it. I think you're spinning escape fantasies."

There is no doubt we're speculating.
There are many possible futures,and nobody knows which will be realized.

Who in early 17th century Virginia could have foreseen that their descendants as well as the descendants of New Englanders',New Sweden, New Netherlands,etc. would unite into a Federation allied with the French to defeat the British?
It wasn't inevitable, and though not impossible must have been very, very improbable in 1640.
Yet, with each passing year, the interplay between issues(taxation of the colonists),ideas(no taxation without representation) , and events(the Boston Massacre) made it more and more probable.
Until it happened.

What do you believe is a more likely future than the dissolution of the U.S.?
Why do you believe this?

216 said...

Anon,

I think a more likely future than dissolution is the merger of the NAFTA countries into a confederal bloc. If an amnesty is granted the militarist wing of the conservatives will support a North American Union as a way to prevent Reconquista. It might even be sold to us as restoring some kind of regional autonomy, Canada and Mexico also have their troublesome regions. Most importantly it prevents a "white ethnostate" with "Nazi Nukes".

I'm hostile to globalism and regional blocs beyond the trading level. But I respect the overwhelming majority in Europe that loves Schengen, Erasmus, NATO and even the Euro. The EU would be a very different institution if the Conservative blocs cooperated (EPP, ECR, EFDD, ENF). An EU that included Russia would be an overwhelmingly conservative institution, a strong Russia would also force the relocation of the capital from Brussels to Vienna. Russia might even be able to force a new Constitution that reestablishes Christianity as the foundation of Europe, and explicitly states the European countries as ethnic homelands.

Jim Bowery said...

One of the public figures who has been poo-pooing the notion that violent civil war is going to break out in the US is Scott Adams.

Well, this last week has most definitely changed his mind. He now says that he's going to vote for the first time out of a matter of self-preservation because he sees a Democrat Congress impeachment of Trump as a harbinger for Fed-supported violent, physical retribution against Trump supporters.

BTW: His aforelinked nonsense about "open borders" is belied not only by the "child refugee" situation, but by my scatter plot of Percent Immigrants Predicting (r=.3 p<1e-15) County Violent Crime Rate r = .3, p<1e-15

Feryl said...

"The US is also far more obese than Europe, due in large part to demographic reasons. But also due to the subsidization of certain agricultural commodities, and the low-density development pattern that restricts walkability. This reduces workforce productivity, and adds on more healthcare costs from heart disease. Lolbertarians refuse to see this, presuming a world in which Medicare/Medicaid can somehow be abolished. In realtalk a sugar tax is overdue, and certainly because Coke and Pepsi are running pro-multikult advertising. Ending farm subsidies would also shift production to lower cost Mexico and encourage more automation."

I would say that the Western Boomers didn't learn anything about restraint or discipline in the 1950's, 60's, and 70's (Ma and Pa may have been good people, but they let their Boomer kids get away with murder, sometimes literally). By the time that there was "crack down" in the 80's on poor behavior, it was just too late to save the Boomers (who simultaneously were the biggest supporters and biggest victims of mass incarceration and the war on drugs and drunk driving). Simultaneously, we also began to shred the safety net that had once existed to keep people out of trouble and help those who did get into trouble. This also includes healthcare. American Boomers who developed bad problems with drugs, drinking, and obesity have had increasing difficulty accessing good medical care and advice. European and Canadian Boomers are doing better because their societies are less socially Darwinian than America, where nobody likes "losers". Boomers across the West lived like heathens during in impressionable age, but America was and still is incredibly harsh towards the poor, the sick, and really the needy in general. We made a kinder and gentler society form circa 1900-1970, but the 70's and esp. 80's saw a massive effort by the upper classes to indoctrinate all generations into believing that you, and only you, are responsible for your fate.

It's been observed that coinciding with late Boomers reaching adulthood in the late 70's and 80's, the West has seen growing levels of stratification. There's been a massive split, a chasm, between the affluent and the lower classes and hitting America the hardest. And it's getting worse with each and every generation. It's a mild problem with later Boomers (who'd be doing better if they hadn't lived like such heathens), a bigger problem with Gen X-ers, and a massive problem with Millennials. The social Darwinists are trying to attribute inequality to IQ differences, growing racial diversity, assortative mating, and the like, but that stuff has fuck all to do with explaining why inequality within the GI and Silent generations is fairly minimal (the GI and Silent generations are the most secure and happy generations in human history), while inequality and it's attendant issues has become so devastating to later generations.

Feryl said...


Anyway, these problems that we see with lower class Boomers are now going to be seen to at least some degree with X-ers and Millennials. The obesity, the drug addictions, the alienation, etc. I see our primary problem as being out of control arrogant elites, who fuss over dumb crap like cake baking while the lower tiers of society rot. Mr. Obama, perhaps you ought to tackle poverty, indebtedness, poor health, high cost of living, etc. instead of you and the gentry class lecturing people about their "xenophobia". For the time being you can count on the gentry of all generations to have your back, while a decent number of Millennials are still too young to reckon with the issues that really matter (in America in particular, youngsters have been socialized to think that they can get anything they work hard enough for, and shouldn't resign themselves to adopting a shiftless prole identity that they associate with lower class Boomers and X-ers, and the big losers of their own generation). As long elites are comfortable and not challenged on social Darwinist norms, we won't see much progress. Something has to happen that exerts pressure on elites to shape up, like what we saw with elites in the early 20th century becoming gradually more concerned about sweatshops, urban overcrowding, foreigner terrorists, red light districts, etc. with the Great Depression being the galvanizing event for reform that made the remaining Darwinists look like buffoons.

Anonymous said...

"What do you believe is a more likely future than the dissolution of the U.S.?
Why do you believe this? "

I didn't say dissolution was impossible - it might well happen, although I am completely unsure of the scenario.

The only thing I am sure of is this - it will be violent. Very very violent. Epigone is being either dishonest or disingenuous.

Why do I believe this? Human beings are inherently violent and I've never heard of a country dissolving without violence, except once, and that was so unusual it is a one off. Czech Republic.

"Skeptic"

Jim Bowery said...

"One of the country’s biggest trends over the last decade – the spread of immigrant groups around the country into places further outside of big metro areas – has played a role in the Military Bastions as well."

http://www.patchworknation.org/node/78

Feryl said...

Jim:

There are peaks of organized violence and political tumult that happen about every 50 years. Think, the 1860's, the 1920's, the 1960's, and now the 2010's.

In addition, we have to look out elite behavior in these era:

- The 1860's, wildly clashing viewpoints on how to deal with slavery, which nobody could reconcile. We were in the beginning of an elite arrogance era.

- The 1920's (continuing into the 30's to some extent), violent labor disputes, brawling between natives and immigrant groups (sometimes the brawling was between two different immigrant groups), clashes involving anarchists, fascists, and communists. Elites by now did not always handle the big issues of the day all that well, but at least they were making strides at how to better cooperate to fix things.

- The 1960's: war protests, race riots, campus unrest. Elites (mostly virtuous) generally believed in both restoring order and trying to figure out how to make the (predominately young) trouble makers feel better and calm down.

- the 2010's: elites are arrogant and full of toxic bluster, and would rather pit various restive entities against each other than come down hard on the extremists while trying to assuage the bitterness of the day.

So we see that it's imperative that elites understand that for the sake of our long-term well-being and peace of mind, they need to restrain themselves and figure out how to better manage the affairs of certain disgruntled and/or over zealous groups. If the aggression and sanctimony of clashing parties isn't tamed, then it can have disastrous effects for decades afterwards.

216 said...

Feryl,

Alcoholism has also increased, at least among middle-aged women especially. The "Wine Mom" is a cringing trend. Given that 40% of the people can't scrape together $400 in an emergency, I have to wonder what the vice consumption rate is among them. Wage stagnation requires collective action to solve via immigration restrictions, independent trade unions and inculcating a sense of civic virtue in all classes. But slimming down and kicking vice habits doesn't require state action, though a healthier social capital might reduce their incidence. While I think it is beneficial to have cannabis legalized and taxed heavily, and possession of small amounts of drugs decriminalized, I don't want it normalized to be recreationally intoxicated in the way that has re-emerged with alcohol. Traditional sources of moral guidance have vanished, while Hollywood and Harvard are promoting all sorts of degeneracy.

Anonymous said...

@216 "I think a more likely future than dissolution is the merger of the NAFTA countries into a confederal bloc. If an amnesty is granted the militarist wing of the conservatives will support a North American Union as a way to prevent Reconquista. "

Such a confederal bloc would probably hasten Reconquista,since the free movement of goods and people would be a predicate of the Confederation.
If history is any guide a North American Confederation will probably fall apart,putting back more or less to where we are, or move towards a more consolidated Union.
A Union non- Whites will dominate.
There's no reason to believe the attitudes
of the Leftist in Academia, Media, and Government towards Whites would be any different in such a Union.
If anything, I believe they'd likely be worse.
So the centrifugal forces
towards more homogeneous countries aren't likely to go away.

216 said...

Anon,

The militarist fear of a Reconquista is that an enlarged Mexico would turn anti-Israel and possibly pro-China. I predict they would rather be a less powerful minority in an NAU rather than the majority in a partitioned America. Partition will also involve population exchanges, or what we call "ethnic cleansing". If partition gains political legitimacy, animal spirits will be unleashed.


An independent California or Texas is more sustainable than joining Mexico, CA/TX would be subsidizing Mexico's Amerind southern states. Mexico might also demand that CA/TX split up as a condition of joining. The Aztlan supporters actually want to cut the south of Mexico loose and merge Northern (whiter) Mexico with the Southwest. I detect unspoken race realism.

While there is an anti-globalist trend with the masses, it hasn't extended yet to boycotting major multinational consumer goods. The elites are dead-set on globalism. There is a very real chance that nationalists worldwide could return to their mid-2000s nadir in the polls if Trump is held responsible for a trade war recession.

An NAU only becomes feasible once the GOP is finished electorally, so perhaps an overwhelming Kamala coronation in 2024 combined with PM Singh in Canada and ??? in Mexico would start the process. The 2nd Amendment will likely be nullified by then, and the Boomercons will be dead/too old to offer violent resistance. The establishment will helpfully point out that Canada's gun laws are friendlier than Mexico's. If Brexit is nullified, and I chance it at 50-50 barring a major terrorist attack by 2019, the NAC(U) will go on the hot burner after being in hiding since 2000. National Review already has "the Conservative case for the North American Union" in the can.

I certainly think any offer of "autonomy" would be a ruse, and temporary at best, in the same way that FW De Klerk promised "power-sharing" to the Afrikaners.

Feryl said...

"Alcoholism has also increased, at least among middle-aged women especially. "

Drinking peaked in the 70's and early 80's, however that includes a lot of mild drinking, as opposed to idiots getting blasted at parties(if you watch movies and TV from the 60's-early 80's, it was common for middle-aged people to drink in their homes as a sort of blase custom). "Binge drinking" (e.g. heavy drinking to specifically get wasted) was a fairly big problem for late Boomers in the later 70's and much of the 80's. Indicators of intoxicant use fell heavily among all cohorts in the late 80's and early 90's (both the lightweight drinking and the heavy drinking), but in the late 90's Millennial teenagers really kicked off a new era of alcohol abuse, though I think that alcohol abuse has really risen among all cohorts. A lot of Gen X-ers who were basically straight in the 80's and early 90's made up for "lost time" by overdoing the drinking later on, and Boomers also increased their drinking. I think that a lot of people out their are just miserable, and try to escape it thru drugs and heavy drinking.

Neil Howe is correct that overall drinking peaked around 1980, but that included Silents and early Boomers who casually sipped booze as they unwound. Heavy use of intoxicants dipped moderately in the late 80's and early 90's, during the peak era of the war on drugs, before climbing up again in the late 90's. I do understand though that late Boomers, Gen X-ers, and early Millennials seem to be the biggest offenders, as those born in the 90's and 2000's seem to be extremely risk averse and are not following in the footsteps of older generations. I think too that there were two periods of nihilism and excess (the late 70's, the later 90's) that really were hard on the teenagers of the time, as people born in the early 60's and the early 80's seem to be the biggest drinkers and addicts.

216 said...

Feryl,

The data seems to indicate alcohol use is down with youth, probably due to less socialization that has also seen the rise of the MGTOW phenomenon. But it has increased with middle aged white women, "the White Death".

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/moneybox/2013/08/01/alcoholic_beverage_preference_the_end_of_beer/gmz1ed3b8uk4zif72mjz_a.png.CROP.article568-large.png

There has been a secular increase in wine consumption.

https://recoverybrands.com/consumption-by-country/assets/images/xasset-3-Alcohol-Consumption-over-time.png.pagespeed.ic.QqOgKt_jFo.png

The postwar economic boom was also an alcohol boom. All of US except the French/Germans are drinking more than we did before the Great Unraveling.

Feryl said...

"4.4 million people in California voted for Trump, 4.8 million voted for Romney. Many of those people didn't even have a downballot Congressional or State Legislative office worth showing up for.

Jerry Brown got 4.3 million votes in 2014 for Governor. This year it is two white men running for Governor, non-whites will be disinterested.

The GOP won Oregon, Wisconsin and New Mexico in 2000. Voter fraud moved the states into the Dem column. The GOP also won a statewide election in Oregon in '16, and Trump came close to winning Peter DeFazio's district. As far as I know Trump did minimal campaigning in the state. Trump also did better among legacy Hispanics in Southern Colorado, the first GOP to win Pueblo County since Nixon. White moderates kneecapped him in the Front Range metro."

About these states, elections have been getting closer and closer since 1988 (a sign of rising partisanship and/or bad candidates, depending on who you ask). I find the accusations of election fixing to be mostly yawn inducing, since as Trump proved, if you attain a sufficient level of popularity in a series of key areas then you won't lose. No doubt the Dems have to resort to greater levels of cheating since their base tends to draw on low income folks, the disabled, criminals etc. who can't be trusted to get their shit together and vote properly. The cheating won't matter though if you get a big enough vote haul in the right areas, like how Trump got enough votes in the hinterlands to give him PA and MI.

DissidentRight said...

AE,

There is virtually no public stomach for largescale military violence against civilians in the West.

Yet. There was plenty of public stomach for large-scale military violence against civilians about 100 years ago. That spawned the Never Again™ generation…which is just now finally beginning to die out. Millennials are the trailing edge of that pacifist ideology.

I think we can reasonably expect Zyklons to reverse the white demographic trend. Zyklons will be like, "Gee, large-scale military violence against Invader-Americans is the least we can do for our children."

After Zyklons, of course, comes Generation Alpha.

Anonymous said...

Maybe I'm wrong.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/portland-occupiers-shut-down-ice-office-steal-flag-replace-it-with-refugees-welcome-flag/

Enough of this and the country will indeed fall apart. But not peacefully. Anyway, it seems that everything has broken down except the desire to keep the economy going, and even that will stop at some point.

"Skeptic"

Feryl said...

GOP pres. victories in the West w/ margin of victory:

Alaska
2016 - 15%
2012 - 14%
2008 - 22%
2004 - 26%
2000 - 31%
1996 - 17%
1992 - 9%
1988 - 23%
1984 - 37%
1980 - 28%
1976 - 22%
1972 - 24%
1968 - 3%
1960 - 1%

Arizona
2016 - 3%
2012 - 7%
2008 - 8%
2004 - 10%
2000 - 7%
1996 - 2%
1988 - 21%
1984 - 34%
1980 - 42%
1976 - 17%
1972 - 31%
1968 - 19%
1964 - 1%
1960 - 11%

CA
1988 - 4%
1984 - 16%
1980 - 17%
1976 - 2%
1972 - 14%
1968 - 3%
1960 - 1%

Colorado
2004 - 4%
2000 - 8%
1996 - 1%
1988 - 8%
1984 - 28%
1980 - 24%
1976 - 12%
1972 - 27%
1968 - 9%
1960 - 10%

Hawaii
1984 - 12%
1972 - 25%

Idaho
2016 - 32%
2012 - 32%
2008 - 25%
2004 - 38%
2000 - 40%
1996 - 19%
1992 - 14%
1988 - 26%
1984 - 44%
1980 - 41%
1976 - 22%
1972 - 38%
1968 - 26%
1960 - 7%

Montana
2016 - 20%
2012 - 14%
2008 - 2%
2004 - 21%
2000 - 25%
1996 - 3%
1988 - 6%
1984 - 22%
1980 - 24%
1976 - 7%
1972 - 20%
1968 - 9%
1960 - 3%

Nevada
2004 - 3%
2000 - 4%
1988 - 21%
1984 - 34%
1980 - 36%
1976 - 5%
1972 - 27%
1968 - 18%

New Mexico
2004 - 1%
1988 - 5%
1984 - 20%
1980 - 18%
1976 - 2%
1972 - 25%
1968 - 12%

Oregon
1984 - 12%
1980 - 10%
1976 - 1%
1972 - 10%
1968 - 6%
1960 - 5%

Utah
2016 - 18%
2012 - 48%
2008 - 28%
2004 - 25%
2000 - 40%
1996 - 21%
1992 - 19%
1988 - 34%
1984 - 50%
1980 - 52%
1976 - 29%
1972 - 41%
1968 - 19%
1960 - 9%

Washington
1984 - 13%
1980 - 12%
1976 - 4%
1972 - 18%
1960 - 2%

Wyoming
2016 - 40%
2012 - 41%
2008 - 32%
2004 - 39%
2000 - 40%
1996 - 13%
1992 - 5%
1988 - 22%
1984 - 42%
1980 - 35%
1976 - 20%
1972 - 39%
1968 - 20%
1960 - 10%

Jim Bowery said...

This just in from Global Guerrillas:

"PPS: Things are spinning out of control very fast now in the US. The fictive kinship that held us together as a nation has collapsed. Nothing but dark skies ahead."

http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2018/06/fire-kites-and-decentralized-drone-defense.html

Audacious Epigone said...

216,

It is amazing that often the very same leftists that complained about Amazon's receiving corporate welfare and low wages pre-2016 will now defend the company for both the convenience and its owner's anti-Trump sentiments. It is blue metros that outbid red suburbs for the HQ2 proposal.

It's a good illustration of how the left has shifted from class concerns to the right demographic profile of the various 1% positions. Or, by extension, the 1% having the right ideas about demographic profiles. Trump hates brown people, Bezos hates Trump and therefore presumably loves them. What more do you need to know?

A North American Union? All the energy on both the left and the right is against that. It would be quite a uniparty coup.

Feryl,

Will people like De Bozo in NYC continue to fight on the hill of black entitlement and anti-white animus, even as whites decline in power and as various ethnic groups feel ambivalent about the struggle for black liberation?

The black-yellow alliance is the most tenuous of the coalition of the fringes. Blacks and Hispanics, though, they are pretty much in the same boat when it comes to benefits and set-asides. Whites in general will slowly but steadily come to resemble whites in Mississippi and Alabama. An open question is whether or not Asians will bolt in significant numbers from the coalition of the fringes. I doubt it.

Skeptic,

The Soviet Union's breakup wasn't particularly violent. It was less violent than the preceding four decades had been. Brexit isn't in the same category, obviously, but it has been peaceful. True, it hasn't gone through the formality of actually occurring, and may not, but if the margin was more pronounced--say 65%-35% in favor of Brexit--there wouldn't have been as much feet-dragging.

I think we're mostly on the same page. Peaceful separation is by no means a guarantee--maybe it's a pipe dream, as you suggest--but whatever its true probability is, that probability decreases with each passing day. Iow, if there is a soft landing, the sooner we land the plane, the better our chances are of pulling it off.

Audacious Epigone said...

Dissident Right,

Generation Alpha, yes! I have three budding members of that glorious cohort.

216 said...

AE,

The NAU is still a long way off, given the likely victory of Reconquista-supporter AMLO. But I see the trends moving still towards supra-national unions. The EU has recovered from the depths of its unpopularity during the Greek crisis. We were within 60,000 votes from the TPP being ratified alongside TTiP and TiSA (Noah Smith generously giving you new Pakistani neighbors).


Don't discount the possibility that Sharia May scuttles Brexit, or Parliament forces a second referendum. The success of Brexit paved the way for a Trump victory, its failure will see Kamala Harris championing the NAU as the fulfillment of Ronald Reagan's dream.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcTPwHY-LpY

I'm somewhat bullish on the GOPs chances to keep the House, especially if the Sweden Democrats come in first this October. DSA members are not ready for their illusions to be dispelled. Merkel losing a confidence vote will also boost Trumps international standing, and thus his domestic poll numbers too. Euro-envy could take us in the other direction for once.

snorlax said...

AE -

I like alternating between 17 and 19-year generations, which works out very cleanly. That would give us:

1910-1928 Greatest
1929-1945 Silents
1946-1964 Boomers
1965-1981 X
1982-2000 Millennials
2001-2017 Z
2018-2036 "Alpha"

Congrats on your n≥1 contribution to that cohort, BTW.

Jim Bowery said...

snorlax says "Congrats on your n≥1 contribution to that cohort, BTW."

Seconded with a hope that they'll be raised in a small town environment, safe from the coming, necessary Physical Punishment of It.

Audacious Epigone said...

216,

Optimistic in the short-run and pessimistic in the long-run, then. I'm less bullish about the GOP's chances in November. Look at the Cali primaries--the moderate white strategy won big there, in California of all places. Feinstein dominated her CotF challenger, and Gavin Newsome will comfortably win the governorship. This strategy has been nearly unfailing for Ds since VA--it worked there, in FL, in AL, in PA, etc.

snorlax,

That is more consistent, though most renderings have a short X window and start Gen Z in the mid-90s, not 2000. If I have a couple of zyklons and an alpha, though, I won't protest!

Jim,

Thanks. We're somewhere between suburbia and a small town environment.

Anonymous said...

@audacious

Your graph does not support your narrative at all. If it did, the hispanics would have the highest percentage of disagreeing with the National Guard at the southern border, and the asians would have the second highest percentage.

Yet the graph shows that blacks have the highest percentage who don't want the Nat'l Guard, followed by the hispanics, followed by the WHITES. It is the asians who have the lowest percentage.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

Which "narrative" are you referring to?

Jonathan Centauri said...

Actually AE, I think most of those blacks are more worried about their drugs being cut off than the invaders. Its no secret that Mestizos HATE blacks and kill them on sight most of the time. But blacks know less about agriculture than some breeds of ants. Without hydro, those blacks have to smoke crack or drink purple drank.

Feryl said...

"The black-yellow alliance is the most tenuous of the coalition of the fringes. Blacks and Hispanics, though, they are pretty much in the same boat when it comes to benefits and set-asides. Whites in general will slowly but steadily come to resemble whites in Mississippi and Alabama. An open question is whether or not Asians will bolt in significant numbers from the coalition of the fringes. I doubt it."

A more salient issue might be the clash between Asians and Jews that's brewing. Selective public schools in NYC now have a growing number of Asian students, which seems to have touched off De Bozo's/the liberal elite's attack on school policy. Meanwhile, Asians are suing Harvard for implicit anti-Asian policies which aid Jewish nepotism and preserve the Anglo-Jewish norms of university culture.

Because the modern Anglo/Jewish form of the West is so decadent, at this point we might as well encourage Asians to began dominating East Coast schools. What do we have to lose? Better to have taciturn Asians grinding away than to have 'white' (heavily Jewish) people stirring the CultMarx pot. Asians have the least to gain and the most to lose from Jewish nepotism and AA for blacks and browns. The outpourings of venom and rage elicited by the events of the last several years (be it crude tweets and columns by elites and shit-libs against Trump and the new Right, anti police riots and murders, etc.) have overwhelmingly been perped by white liberals (frequently Jewish), blacks, Muslims, and Hispanics (in that order). Blacks and whites are still the locus of activism (of any kind), and middle Earthers who are neither Christian nor Asian punch above their weight too, but still aren't really big enough in America's pop. to make that much of a difference.

I'm sure that there are Asian SJW's, but I think that's just a matter of convenience and fashion. I'm more concerned that are (heavily white) verbal elite is so corrupt that they will drive us into a great violent conflict under the sincere delusion that for the betterment of human kind prole whites need to be demoralized and brow beaten into not trying to restore trad. values. Moreover, the heavily brown immigrant population as well as blacks will provide most of the muscle in the Sun Belt and Eastern urban areas, while whites will be used in college towns and the NW quarter of the country. I think that a sustained attack on conservative whites elites, or white elites generally, might finally be the catalyst that drives traditional GOP fat cats (who run cheap labor hungry businesses, military bases, oil drilling operations, and the like) to crack down on immigrants, as well as out of control ethnic activists and other kinds of shit-lib elites (to start with, the government needs to shut down or deny funding to public schools that promote hostility towards white people, phrases such as "white privilege" could be considered evidence of bias).

Feryl said...

Suing and punishing schools for anti-white bias and rhetoric would be a tremendous populist victory. In one of Minnesota's more high end school districts, parents banded together to force school/district admins to hold a conference in which parents got to question curricula that was derogatory towards whites and American traditions. But that was a grassroots affair, not something spearheaded by conservative elites in the realm of politics, business, religion, and the military.

Sadly, the bulk of con. Inc. is still into the PR management of not offending possible customers (who may be non-white or liberal), rather than going to greater lengths to punish decadent elites even when they've turned huge sectors of society into an orgy of anti-white hatred. Some GOP firm or working group who I don't recall the name of did a 2017 study of Trump voters and found that most of them hated high immigration levels and were concerned about Islam. Solution? Educate voters on the joys and economic growth of diversity. Swear to gawd, these fuckers for the most part aren't going to get it until they're swinging from the lamp posts. And we might have to be spark the hangings ourselves.

Jonathan Centauri said...

Feryl is either completely cut off from reality or giving advice from the 20th Century through a temporal anomaly. Mexican and blacks make cats and dogs seem friendly to each other in comparison. You must be living in a bubble and seeing only what you see on the Telly there Feryl.
Suing someone implies you have some expectation of getting a fair trial. I think OJ and the crazy people who keep upholding prejudice against Whites as some form of legitimate legal exercise has made the court system seem like a Mad Hatter Tea Party run by phony Holocaust survivors that call anyone White a Nazi.
This peace crapola was baloney before. The only peace you get in this World is having people fear you enough to play nice or enjoy the magical land of Extinction with the Dodo Bird and the Passenger Pigeon.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

The 2% is able to rail about the injustices of systemic white oppression blah blah blah to push the gentiles below them under the water while floating above it all themselves.

An Asian elite, at least, isn't going to go on and on about white privilege because "Asian privilege" may become a thing as a result. Their game is merit because they win on it anyway and they don't care about the well being of non-Asians, white or otherwise.

Jim Bowery said...

I had written: One of the public figures who has been poo-pooing the notion that violent civil war is going to break out in the US is Scott Adams. Well, this last week has most definitely changed his mind...

He's back to poo pooing it. Although he does acknowledge that about a 1/3 of the country thinks violence is likely to breakout in the next 5 years, his current argument is that because the folks with the guns are pretty much getting what they want, they don't have any real reason to do much except support law enforcement.

This is true as far as it goes. And with Trump in office, bolstered by a Red Wave this fall, it is unlikely that violence will break out in the next decade. If we're lucky, it will extend another decade beyond that.

But sooner or late the binary explosive ingredients will come together:

1) The 1965 Immigration Act of Fraud will continue to change the demography of the US toward ethnic nepotists.
2) The 80% of that demography that votes Democrat will continue to vote for ever greater Federal powers.

At some point -- probably within the lifetimes of most reading this -- the mixture will detonate.

Hopefully by that time people will have gotten it through their heads that: A) there needs to be a declaration of war for the culture of individual integrity against the culture of group integrity, B) the urban areas are the strategic power base of the culture of group integrity and C) the optimization for economic efficiency over resilience renders the urban areas vulnerable to disruption by synchronized but otherwise uncoordinated and anonymous actions of even a small percentage of the population.