Wednesday, June 13, 2018

Nearly three times as many Californians would move to Canada as would move to flyover America

SurveyUSA is one of my favorite polling organizations because of the unique questions it poses. A few weeks ago a representative survey of 1,100 Californians statewide was commissioned. Respondents were presented with a hypothetical--if they could retain their current job and salary, would they be willing to move to selected other places if it meant their cost of living would be cut in half? The results:

- 12% would move to Nebraska
- 12% would move to Indiana
- 18% would move to Mississippi
- 31% would move to Canada
- 36% would move to Nevada
- 43% would move to Oregon

Parenthetically, the respondents were asked about each place separately, not which one of the six they'd prefer. One-in-five respondents pretty consistently said they were unsure. A plurality said they'd move to Oregon.

The blue bedfellow state is the most popular destination, followed by the blueish-purple Nevada, then Canada, and then finally the red states.

Canada ahead of Mississippi, Nebraska, and Indiana? Even with the residency requirements to contend with? It doesn't get much more middle American than Nebraska or Indiana. The weather obviously isn't driving these responses--it's the politics and the culture. Why are California and Indiana under the jurisdiction of the same national government, again?

Time for the political dissolution of these disunited states. Californians have more affinity for Canadians than they do for Hoosiers--and the feelings are probably mutual.

But won't there be war between the states/regions if they separate?

Highly unlikely. Far more probable is that tomorrow the relationship between the country of California and the country of the American Midlands will be comparable to that of the US and Canada today. And tomorrow California may have a modestly better relationship with Canada than the US does today while Indiana may have a modestly worse one. Big deal.

Parenthetically, the new invaders Americans who have colonized California aren't going anywhere. The survey asked respondents to pick from seven statements the one best describing themselves, ranging from "I am in the process of relocating to another state" on the emigration end of the spectrum to "I will never, ever leave California" on the staying put side of things.

Percentages of respondents, by race, why said they were "never, ever" leaving:

California Dreaming is a thing new Americans do and Old Stock Americans don't. The golden state is gone.


Anonymous said...

It is very unlikely that any sane US Government would let California go.

The naval base at San Diego is one reason, plus other Federal assets in CA.

Personally, as a CA resident, I would move to Nevada, Utah, Texas, etc.

Oregon is just too SJWish for me.

Anonymous said...

My family and I are leaving in a few months. We're sad, as we were born and raised here. But we have no voice here anymore and the SJW's are ridiculous in their demands. There are places we won't even go anymore, as they've ruined these areas and they are full of nuts and criminals now. We're going to the more conservative areas of rural Washington after visiting there. Oregon is too liberal. You might as well stay in Cali as go there.

Michael Dean Miller said...


Kudos on using race relative chart colors, makes info easy to digest.

Other news outlets seem to purposely use chart coloring designed to induce "chromo-confusion".


Jonathan Centauri said...

Cut the free gubmint cheese and see the color flee. You could get blacks to move to Madagascar if you offered them free cheese there. The Mestizos are not creators of anything at all. Mexico was made by Hernando Cortez and the Conquistadors. The Mestizo is just the by product of leaving their wives and girlfriends at home. When the gold ran out, the Spanish mostly went home. The Mestizos didn't get to go.

Joe Suber said...

California supposedly is a net contributor to Federal coffers. They might attempt to divide themselves up first, in an effort to get more representation. That could be the stepping stone we need towards Calexit. Of course a Trumpian 2024 win might push them out anyway.

I wouldn't have believed any of this from my trench in Brownbackistan, if not for a couple of recent anecdotal conversations with childhood friends who are now California cloud people.

Pangur said...

It would be foolish indeed for a political entity to let an asset like California go. It's worth untold trillions. Invasion/decapitation of California's political elite, followed by a expulsions and a reconstruction as gentle as the last one, is far more cost-effective and politically desirable.

Why, again, should we reward the left by giving it something nice for saying they will going away? (By the way, the left will not respect the results of any such a division, but will instead move incrementally to their final destination, total dominance of the entire US.)

Jim Bowery said...

Any kind of engineering pays attention to scaling laws or the systems it builds fail. If, for example, one thing scales at twice the rate of another, and you don't engineer that into the system, you're shooting yourself in the foot.

How much worse, then is to ignore qualitative differences in types of scaling like log, root, linear, poly and exponential. Yes, the constants of proportionality may differ within a type of scaling -- and that's still important, but if you ignore the qualitative differences, you aren't shooting yourself in the foot -- you're shooting yourself in the head.

Now, why, in the present topic, go all pedantic about something so basic that there are lots of ways it applies to the present topic? I mean everyone knows, for example, that reproduction is exponential up to some limit and demography is destiny blah blah blah.

So, no, I'm not bringing it up because of the mismatch between a 3D universe and what are essentially the unlimited dimensions of exponential reproduction.

So why?

Here's why:

The network effect is a polynomial law (proportional the number of interconnections which limits at (x^2+x)/2) and the network effect is at the basis of more than just Silicon Valley's black-hole monopolistic companies like YouTube, Twitter, FaceBook, PayPal, Ebay, AirBnB, Uber, etc.

The network effect is at the basis of the economics of civil society -- the most obvious effect being the rise in land values.

Jim Bowery said...

OK, now we're getting somewhere, right? I mean territory is, in the final analysis, just LAND whose VALUE is a polynomial of ...... what?

It's a polynomial of civil society's node count and, to the naive, short-sighted among us -- that is people count.

Ah, but we sophisticates aren't so naive and short-sighted! We know that not all nodes are created equal -- at least not as participants in the economy's network effect. And those among us who are the wealthiest are going to be more cognizant of this than are you and I, right? I mean they aren't "the naive, short-sighted among us", right?

Wrong! The way the polynomial law of land value -- and other network effect value -- is concentrated in the hands of land owners (and other network effect owners) is the key to the downfall of civilizations:

If you or I or anyone else can just sit on an empty lot of land that happens to located in, oh, I don't know -- uh... uhm.... say Silicon Valley, we don't have to do anything to enjoy what many economists call "economic rent". I mean we don't even have to do property management because we can rent that lot of land out to someone else who develops and/or manages it for us and we can collect an ever increasing rent stream even if they are fools because we are foolish in how we choose them. How could such sorcery be achieved? Because the correct name for "the network effect" is "the positive network externality".

An "externality" can be either negative (like a toxic waste dump next to your piece of land) or postive (like Trump builds a tower next to your piece of land). In general, civilization's network externality is positive -- which is why civilization might be thought of as a profitable enterprise for everyone within its Pax.

So why then rename "network externality" to "network effect"? Well, one reason is it implies the "positive". But another reason is to hide the word "externality". Why hide the word "externality"?

Because folks who are wealthy like being made wealthier without having to THINK.

For many of us -- those with a working memory more than a few digits -- this may remind them of the phrase "naive and short-sighted among us".

On the other hand, if one has the wherewithal to THINK up such a scaling law on one's own, and thereby analyze which investments enjoy a "network effect" more than others -- then those individuals might be considered to have at least something on the ball -- until they get so lazy due to not the NO-BRAINER ECONOMIC RENT they set themselves up with long ago that their brains get flabby.

Ah, but there's a way around this!

If one is evolved to sniff out "network effects" because one is not a mere individual but rather a part of a culture that over millennia has selected for those who don't even have to THINK in order to do whatever it takes to acquire, by any means necessary, assets that enjoy economic rent -- and one can enjoy the company of others of your culture during the invasion of a culture that is rooted more in a rugged individual wife, children, dog and shotgun defending his own land with his wits and brawn...

Oh, wait.. what were we talking about?

Oh, that's right:

All those ASIANS who say they'll never leave California while all those whites flee back to fly-over-country.

I could go into loathsome theses such as those set forth by Gregory Clark that totally elide the existence of the aforementioned selective pressures in the West, but let me just close with this:

Why do you think the network effect companies in Silicon Valley are going ape-shit?

What do you think the "Asians" are going to do when they turn California into India 2.0?

Jim Bowery said...

The San Diego Union's article: What the SpaceX launch was missing asks:

If Elon Musk can put a Tesla in space, it begs the question: Why on Earth can he not hire more women and minorities?

SpaceX isn't primarily a network effect company. That's why. And, by the way, could someone please just go shoot all the Austrian School morons with their "no such thing as natural monopolies" blather?

Just wait until SpaceX gets its internet constellation into a position where it actually starts sucking up all the digital communication business. Yeah, Musk thinks he's going to be able to take the economic rent of the network effect and plow it into Zubrin's idiocy.

I don' think that's the way it's going to play out -- particularly given the fact that Musk has naively located in India 2.0.

Unknown said...

>The naval base at San Diego is one reason, plus other Federal assets in CA.

Move them to Washington.

216 said...


Thanks to our great captains of industry, Gates, Allen, Ballmer and Bezos, the wet side of WA state is overrun with foreigners and just as leftist as California.

I don't know if there is a geographically suitable port in the red parts of Oregon, Coos Bay? Anchorage, Alaska could also be an option, and the influx of veterans would stabilize the leftist-trending politics of Alaska.

I think the likelier option is a Sevastopol-type lease of San Diego and Everett. In time perhaps we could take the areas back as Russia did, once the strategic and demographic situation is favorable again. Then again, an independent West Coast country would likely allow unlimited immigration to ensure that doesn't happen, though perhaps the Green Party would rise to become the "right-wing" party opposing immigration on environmental grounds rather than identitarian grounds.

Feryl said...


WA State has experienced one of the biggest proportional drops of white residents compared to other states since 1990 (other competitors: CA, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Virginia). The 90's were THE info-tech decade, in terms of novel growth (perhaps in previous decades this R&D would've been military-centric and thus inhibited by Pentagon bureaucracy, while titans of info-tech would've been nervous about using too much foreign labor for obvious reasons e.g. Cold War spying).

Us "winning" the Cold War (while developing greater relations with China) was the coup de grace. We were already letting in too many foreigners in the 1980's (for cheap labor and also because the Pentagon wanted to have "inside men" for foreign meddling), and around the time of the Soviet Union's collapse we threw open the gates to huge numbers of foreigners. Alarmed Americans pressured the government into limiting immigration in the mid-90's, but by the late 90's the neo-liberal/post-Cold War consensus of de-industrialization, cheap labor, FIRE bubbles/rising debt levels, etc. was firmly in place. The early 90's were the last period where elites demonstrated any concern at all for what proles wanted (some CA Democrats actually campaigned against giving illegals benefits!).

It's quite interesting that the West Coast's militaristic orientation before the very late 80's (we're talking Joe Sixpack middle class people and many professional elites here, not a fringe of hippies or Hollywood chuckleheads) shows no sign of coming back; the hi tech/info-tech powerhouses that once were part of the Cold War culture of all sectors of society supporting the Pentagon (well, maybe not much of academia....) have since circa 1990 become global market place oriented and have also become big players in Dem circles.

I'll never forget the sentiments that were expressed about pre-90's California; it was once considered to be of firmly Western political orientation (anti-government outside of the military, individualistic, etc.). But bringing in too many foreigners too fast, and becoming the HQ of increasingly liberal industries, changed all that.

Not that I'm going to dive on a grenade for the Pentagon, the oil industry, or agribusiness, who have of course gone to great lengths to support many of the worst trends we're dealing with. But nonetheless, it's clear that an active Soviet Union gave us glue to bind us together; it isn't just demographic changes that make California a much different place now (or even in say, 2005) than it was in 1985.

Feryl said...

Rude awakening:

Canada's culture outside of Quebec and coastal BC largely resembles the culture of the American Midwest (in Joel Garreau's American nations, he likens most of Canada to the lower Midwest and Central Plains). People are modest and friendly. Canada also has more than it's fair share of proleishness (the average IQ in Canada is not unlike America's). As usual, liberals have a foreign fetish; they like to imagine a place where everyone is smart, trendy, and aggreeable to their values, when in reality no such place exists....At least not across an entire country although perhaps the Netherlands has come closest.

I think we're seeing growing evidence of an Eastern/Western split in the US, that has yet to latch onto an issue as divisive as slavery was to the North and South.

For those keeping score, the East Vs West divide is a major change of pace; the South and West, before circa 1990, were often regarded as kindred spirits united by their hostility towards the old and pompous Northeast. This strengthened from about 1946-1989. After that, with deepening globalization and so forth, it's become evident that the Western US has taken somewhat better to this new paradigm then has much of the Eastern US. People back East feel as if something went terribly wrong; the more rooted populations of the East have felt discomfort with the notion of being "global citizens". Seems like a betrayal of history and your tribe. Out West, there is no tribe (well, maybe the Mormons and the Indian reservations, but other than that.....)

Oh, and here in cuckistan MN (that nearly voted for the GOP for the first time in 50 years, in 2016), I grew up around quite a few "woke" whites who said un-PC stuff all the time (as is often the case in the Eastern US, whites learn to say the right things in polite company but when they're candid around those who they trust, they know damn well that they belong to a racial and sub-cultural tribe. And since the early 90's one of the most popular radio personalities is a Boomer who got flack for saying unflattering things about Hmong or whomever started infesting the state in the late 80's/90's.

Of course, by this point Millennials have been so brainwashed that they can be reluctant to Realtalk even to their close friends (not that older generations haven't been also affected by plummeting male hormone levels). It remains to be seen whether we can climb out of this hole. I have a suspicion that as long as being full of shit pays well, not much will change. An economic collapse might be the best way to change the culture. We'll see if that happens anytime soon, soon enough that we can get what we want a bit faster.

216 said...


The West Coast has always been home to a higher degree of labor union militancy, which has its roots in 19th century protests against Asian immigrants. California once had tuition-free state universities and tremendous infrastructure spending under Pat Brown. Part of the reason the state's finances are unstable is rooted in the decline in oil excise tax revenue, as the greens blocked offshore drilling.

One of the GOP/Pentagon's biggest mistakes was in pulling the military bases out of the Bay Area. That probably shifted the region's politics more to the left than alleged shift of the state GOP to the right via 187. CA liberals frequently justify their stances by pointing out social conservatives in other states, rather than the moderate stances that the local GOP pols take (Ahnuld, Whitman, Kashkari).

A concerning aspect about the trade negotiations with China has been the US demands for the PRC to remove the quota on Hollywood films. While it would certainly cut the trade deficit, I'd rather see China protect itself from our decadence. Hollywood is one industry I would be thrilled to see leave to pursue cheaper labor overseas.

Voluntary repatriation subsidies are the only sustainable solution to the problem of mass migrations. A Ben Shapiro solution isn't possible without a Burma-type dictatorship. Future wealth might also allow the payment of a basic income to Third Worlders contingent upon them remaining in their home nations.

Audacious Epigone said...


The western part of the country did make things difficult for itself by allowing the federal government to take so much land. The disparity in federal land ownership between east and west is stunning. A currency/debt crisis will bring the federal government apparatus to its knees. That's when political dissolution is most likely to happen.

There are other approaches, too. The 32nd street naval station could exist with an arrangement similar to that of Guantanamo bay in Cuba.


I've driven through the Cascades and into central Washington a few times over the last several years. I love the landscape. Spent a few nights in Wenatchee and really found the place charming. I have the steppe orientation, though. More locally, I love the Flint Hills. Best of luck.

Michael Dean Miller,

You're welcome, my pleasure. It's really inconsiderate to readers to have a yellow bar for blacks, a brown bar for whites, a green bar for Hispanics, etc. It's another manifestation of PC-creep--about the only thing you can count on most of the time is that the black line will NOT be for blacks, the yellow line will NOT be for Asians, and so on.


Cut the free gubmint cheese and see the color flee.

Reason #41 that political dissolution will be a good thing--this will happen in some places.


I hear the scare-mongering about how blue states pay more than red states, blah blah blah. Who cares? Let the dumb subsidies stop, and let the (significantly non-white) populations who use them leave to blue states after dissolution.

Red states have 40% more blacks than blue states, a remaining huge amount of the red-state drag is through the form of agricultural subsidies, and the rest is through the form of "defense" subsidies for military bases and the like.


Because that's not going to happen. There is simply no tolerance in the western world for large-scale military violence against civilians. If an aspiring governor successfully runs on a Calexit platform alongside a Prop calling for it that passes in the same election cycle, DC isn't sending in the tanks. Political dissolution is an idea whose time has come.

As for 'saving' the state, the dwindling number of whites in California have done nothing of consequence to stop the transformation (Prop 187 was the last serious effort). They're not going to start now.

Audacious Epigone said...


For those keeping score, the East Vs West divide is a major change of pace; the South and West, before circa 1990, were often regarded as kindred spirits united by their hostility towards the old and pompous Northeast.

I really became cognizant of this during the 2016 presidential election cycle, in no small part because of your comments here.

216 said...


Much of the federal lands out West are basically desert, Indian Reservations and military. It's not exactly locked up arable land or easily converted into more suburbia, the complaints of Utah GOP politicians nonwithstanding. The virtual absence of federal land in Texas hasn't exactly stopped invasion and displacement. The main benefit was that the state of Texas gets more hydrocarbon royalties.

Here's a map of Ontario.

Assuming the acceleration of existing political trends, the emplacement of WMD bases in Middle America could become untenable. North Korea showed what a deliverable nuke system can do to the geopolitical situation. Apartheid South Africa never had an ICBM for its nukes.

Mr. Rational said...

Voluntary repatriation subsidies are the only sustainable solution to the problem of mass migrations.

Nonsense.  Take away government benefits to create migration penalties (by disadvantaging migrants relative to Americans) and the problem will reverse by itself.  The jobs magnet, the welfare magnet, the medical-care magnet, the education magnet and the birthright citizenship magnet are all artificial creations.  We can turn all of them off.

What happens when our response to an illegal showing up at any ER is to stabilize them and put them on the next plane home?  It sends a message.

216 said...

Mr. Rational,

Since the Brexit referendum, the European Union has become more popular in every member state. The main driver of anti-immigrant sentiment is a bad economy, which also has the salutary effect of causing migrants to return to their home nations. When the economy is doing well, as it is now, people will tend to blame problems in public administration on conservatives blocking tax hikes before they will blame immigrants. A good economy also creates real and alleged "labor shortages", and rising property prices. That means business lobbying to prevent the government from turning off the magnets.

We live in a society where the media is controlled by a few oligarchs who ensure that no one lasts long that doesn't toe the neoliberal line. Even Trump has stopped talking about E-Verify.

Paying migrants to go back sidesteps all of that. It reverses the present incentive structure, and redirects their alienation back to their homeland and away from radicalism. It also is a viable option for the "citizen" minorities on the wrong side of a future partition, the media as it is today won't allow us to use direct action. For the cost of the Iraq War, we could have paid every Post-65 invader a nice sum to leave and never return.

Jig Bohnson said...


The Federal Government didn't "take" most of the land in the Western states. That land was bought by the Federal Government with the Mexican Cession and Gadsden purchase long before there were any of those states. Compared to the amount of Federal land owned in this way, the additional post-statehood takings for military bases etc. were minor.

216 said...

Exhibit #1 as to why anti-immigration politics is a difficult sell with double digit IQ voters:

"Dey took yer jerbs" is a crude, but effective meme against us. "increase of labor supply, lowers wages" is too big brained, and is always counter-signaled by the Chamber of Commerce wing.

Joe Suber said...

AE - This piqued my imagination regarding the hand-waving usually invoked around ethnostate talk. Instead of carving out a bit for whites, carve out a bit for the pozzed where a lot of them already are! If we could get the old-USA back to 90% in a couple decades via voluntary migration, I'd certainly have peace-of-mind in my dotage about the direction of history.

Feryl - New Cal proponents could offer student loan bankruptcy relief to buy millennial middle class votes. A "Canada of the Coast" strategy would be the "moral" sales pitch. It has the hydrocarbons to back some sovereign debt of its own while escaping the looming US debt.
Great point about the cold-war-East-West glue coming apart.

Zagg said...

Although I’d hate to see CA Leftists pouring into the land of 1/8 of my ancestors, I’d be pleased to get them out of my nation.

snorlax said...

216 -

Correct; Trump's positioning on the issue (crime, "shithole countries") is the best way to get through to the IQ <110 crowd.

Pangur said...

"There is simply no tolerance in the western world for large-scale military violence against civilians."

Except that such violence has happened within living memory (WW2). I am always surprised when someone says "THIS _____ CANNOT HAPPEN EVER AGAIN" when, clearly, because it has happened once, it can definitely happen again. It's an ahistorical criticism.

"If an aspiring governor successfully runs on a Calexit platform alongside a Prop calling for it that passes in the same election cycle, DC isn't sending in the tanks."

The tanks are already there and before the tanks would be needed, a federal court would likely overturn it (see Prop 187) as unconstitutional. Also: you don't need widespread violence in this scenario, you need to cut off the head.

Anonymous said...


Left-wing separatism has generally received a green light, Scotland was allowed a vote on false independence. The Catalan separatists were led by cuckservatives, but historically the left was demanding independence. Quebec was allowed two votes, and Greenland separatists have faced little interference.

If California wanted out if Trump wins again, the GOP isn't going to stop them. Many EU states have given de-facto autonomy to Islamist enclaves. If London wanted independence, in order to rejoin the EU, no one is going to offer opposition. The left isn't content with autonomy or independence, they want to rule us so that we learn to love Big Brother.

To our elite "liberal democracy" is translated as "liberals and liberalism win all the time. Might as well call it "liberal supremacy".

Right-wing separatism is never tolerated, and normally treated as seditious, often infiltrated by the intelligence agencies. In Flanders the threat was so serious that the separatists were co-opted by the cuckservatives.

Feryl said...

"The West Coast has always been home to a higher degree of labor union militancy, which has its roots in 19th century protests against Asian immigrants."

I don't think the pop. of the West was really big enough to matter all that much until the 20th century (life in the Wild West was nasty, brutish, and short until Losts and GIs tamed much of the area in the early-mid 20th century).

"California once had tuition-free state universities and tremendous infrastructure spending under Pat Brown. Part of the reason the state's finances are unstable is rooted in the decline in oil excise tax revenue, as the greens blocked offshore drilling."

Infrastructure spending everywhere surged in the mid-20th century under the aegis of the GIs. Silents and Boomers begin to attack this culture in the 1960's for any number of reasons (environmental, aesthetic, libertarian anti-gov. programs/anti-spending, etc.). In the 80's, GI voters were supplanted by younger voters who hated large projects (esp. of the material building kind) and wanted to sink their own resources as they personally wished into small businesses, conspicuous consumption, the stock market, family formation, etc. The 70's offered a decent taste of this; CA voters elected to say no to higher property taxes, New York City was famously told to "drop dead" as they neared insolvency in the late 70's, more and more people begin to demand high incarceration levels to deal with "losers" instead of social and economic programs to assist the left side of the bell curve, mental health facilities were also beginning to struggle with solvency and PR which led to vast numbers of crazy people being let loose whereas in the 1930's-1950's they were locked up. In the later 80's this vibe really took hold.

Feryl said...

America and England bought more into this than did just about anywhere else; Britian's railways became a joke in the 80's due to Thatcher's hatred of infrastructure spending (in the climate of the Reagan and Thatcher era, public works I suppose were just going to make do with what little they could get). And it would seem mighty strange to Eisenhower, or even to some extent Richard Nixon, that deliberately starving public spending on even the most necessary of public resources (roads, bridges, railways, land and water management) was some kind of elixir for greater "freedom" and prosperity. It was generally understood in the 1930's-1960's that the government was responsible for some basic aspects of life and society, and that was that. Not until the mid-70's did libertarian/classical liberal dross about government only being good for police and military began to have influence, although many people rolled their eyes well into the 80's (Democrats were locally popular in the 80's, not until the '94 "Republican Revolution" did the GOP began to dominate). As we moved from the mid-70's-mid 90's, there's a clear spreading of classical liberal ideas from one class to another. Only a handful of mega elites (ur Kock Bros) supported this stuff in the late 70's and early 80's. As the early neo-liberal movement only had fairly minor negative impacts in the eyes of most, Reagan won in a landslide in '84 although I believe that most blue collar voters didn't really appreciate the changes that lay ahead. The fact that Joe Sixpack still locally voted for Democrats (with ample support from a good chunk of the upper middle class) tells me that 50 years after that Depression, many people were still reluctant (most of all GIs and Silents) to really give the go ahead to the Koch Bros to manage our affairs. Bill Clinton's neo-liberalism and corporatism would mean that he'd never get more than 50% of the vote (or even close to it), yet by the mid-90's a large chunk of the middle class was feeling resentful toward the New Deal mindset and chose to vote heavily for the GOP. But then there's also the issue of Clinton's unprecedented cultural liberalism making Middle America very nervous, which would subsequently play out with Obama and Hillary as well (Trump's election was yet another sign that America will make you pay for highly elevated cultural liberalism.

The Clinton's had their finger on the neo-liberal pulse that was surging in the later 90's, yet they strove too hard to please the Manhattan and Marin county donor class by promoting feminists, gays, etc., which would reach self-parody levels during Hillary's campaign). Economic conservatism and cultural liberalism is the least popular ideology; it had it's "peak" in the 90's and early 2000's, but as of now has been sent back to the margins where it belongs and where it was from the 1930's-early 1970's.

Feryl said...

*the middle class voted heavily for the GOP in regional elections in the mid-90's, while enthusiasm for voting for anyone in the 1996 election plummeted, with turnout falling to record low levels and not even Clinton the winner getting over 50% as Ross Perot netted 8% of the vote*

Feryl said...

"Correct; Trump's positioning on the issue (crime, "shithole countries") is the best way to get through to the IQ <110 crowd."

Crime is at very low levels, outside of some ghettos that everybody knows to stay away from and generally don't have much "spill over" (whereas in the 1970's-mid 90's, a fair amount of crime happened even in decent areas, to say nothing of most urban areas). "Tough on crime" doesn't have the utility that it had in a previous era, and besides the recent slight increase in crime e.g. Ferguson Effect, appears to be more correlated with Obama being a civil unrest promoting moron than it does any long-term cultural or generational trends (ya think Millennials and Gen Z who abstain from smoking and getting knocked up at a young age are going to start knifing people, brawling, holding up liquor stores, etc.?). We've got a certain class of blacks and to some degree Mexicans who we've got to keep a lid on, which Obama then tried to rip off, only to be very disappointed that America doesn't have the culture or generational factors to make the late 1960's possible again. Back in the 60's, Silents and Boomers were blowing off the steam that had gathered in the 1940's and 50's; what steam do we have left to blow off? The late 90's-2010's are the most culturally liberal period in Western history; mass murder is a frequent occurrence, such is the degree to which we no longer insure that people are correctly socialized. There's mostly been improvement in behavior since the late 90's, yet signs of great alienation (caused by economic conservatism and cultural liberalism) are apparent in drug use, suicide, and mass murder, which have increaed at varying rates associated with inequality and decadence (drug use shot up in the late 60's and 70's and remained fairly high throughout, with a dip in the late 80's and early 90's, suicide has risen progressively from the late 60's-present day, and mass murder was nearly non-existent into the 70's and early 80's, then immigrants, alienated youth, and disgruntled workers started going berserk in the later 80's.

Feryl said...

We may be exaggerating crime risk due to the intense stress people feel in a high inequality era where there's little stability and we have leaders who openly betray us. A big reason immigration control passed into effect in the late 1920's was because people had had enough of large communities of foreigners who had little to nothing in common with the natives, and immigrants were associated with higher crime and poverty levels. That moratorium sent the message to "ethnic" Americans that they needed to forget their roots, and Silent generation descendants of immigrants typically felt embarrassed by accusations that they lacked loyalty towards America, while GI and Lost Gen immigrants in America mostly proved to be capable of building a new and worthwhile culture.

As long as so many things got fucked up after the late 60's, you might as well act as if crime is still at horrible levels, even though younger generations have been socialized to be frightened by the volatile youth culture that Boomers and Gen X-ers took for granted.

Feryl said...

For those keeping score, the East Vs West divide is a major change of pace; the South and West, before circa 1990, were often regarded as kindred spirits united by their hostility towards the old and pompous Northeast.

"I really became cognizant of this during the 2016 presidential election cycle, in no small part because of your comments here. "

One reason I latched onto this was the big jump in GOP voting in 2016 among the voters of the Northeast and Midwest. Another reason is that the remaining conservatives and normies Out West are largely Silents, Boomers and very early Gen X-ers. These were cohorts who came of age in the still fairly homogeneous 60's and 70's (or even earlier), when regional identity was still solid and "traditional" (e.g. ur Steve Sailer's were socialized to be Western mavericks, not insufferable douches). In the 80's and beyond, there's been so much immigration and development, and it's had the greatest effect on the West. Listening to podcasts, it's usually younger people from Out West who can be insufferable. I believe the GSS shows that people born after the early-mid 70's from the Mountain region are way more culturally and politically liberal than the older generations from that region. The Pacific always scored as culturally liberal, but it used to be more politically conservative for reasons I noted earlier.

I read an article on California being an Alt-Right intellectual hub, but of course CA is hardly the swamp that much of the East Coast is (the real revolution will not arise from the chattering classes in DC/Maryland, NYC, NorVirginia, Boston, or Eastern PA). Furthermore, most of the CA conservative brain-trust is Boomer with some early Gen X-ers along for the ride, though the same could be said for other regions to some degree (and people under 45 are largely not drawn to partisan politics the way that older generations were and still are.) While CA is clearly a cultural vanguard that matters, the real Geo-political heavy lifting occurs in, I would argue, the Mid-Atlantic coast and even to some degree the South (where there's shitloads of military bases, at a time when the Pentagon exerts more influence than perhaps ever before). The inland/upper Northeast and the Midwest have been declining in importance and influence for the last 50-70 years; when was the last time a presidential candidate both grew up in the Midwest and still hailed from the Midwest when they ran? Obama doesn't count (he grew up in Hawaii), neither does Hillary (she moved to Arkansas in the 80's, and has never gone back to the Midwest. Reagan grew up in the Midwest but after going Hollywood he never went back.

Feryl said...

That being said, Agnostic correctly pointed out that 2016 marked the first time in ages that the three dominant candidates were originally from the Northeastern quarter of America, with two of them never really leaving(Sanders and Trump) and the other (Hillary) now living mostly in NY and not bothering to affect a phony Southern or Western ID like she once did. This is important, because the godforsaken culture wars always seem to have been strongest Out West, while Back East people just want to get down to the basics of restoring living in a functioning society, not get bogged down in moralistic sanctimony that blocks everything up. It'll take work to drain the swamp where it's deepest (the Mid-Atlantic), and get the Pentagon on a diet (the South), but when push comes to shove there's only so much trust we can place in the flaky West. Yeah, The East has given us idiots like Hilary, but even she realizes that at this point the normies of this country esp. in most of the East understand that the paranoid, combative (in a bad way*) and highly individualistic culture of the Western US is toxic to restoring a sense of wholesome community and tradition (which is more pro-social in the East, and more oriented towards "don't tell me what to do" in the West).

*People back East band together as tribes to fight for a good cause, people Out West are more apt to be abrasive and sour in an atomized way, being that they often are far away from family and are poorly socialized (people in the Mountain West tend to have high suicide rates, this is the most rootless and lacking in established tradition/history part of the country). I mean, Mike Bloomberg tried to ban tall sodas in the name of improving public health in NYC, while porno production on the East Coast essentially died off in the late 80's after RICO destroyed the mob (whereas CA porn production is more of a blase "small business" activity that's less in the shadows). Commiefornia under the aegis of elite Leftists will regulate things deemed to be of prole taste (such as smoking), but generally will not punish many hedonistic excesses.

216 said...


The Anarchists/Red Scare also played their part in getting the immigration cuts passed, Ireland also got its independence which temporarily reduced Anti-WASP sentiment. The anarchists set off a bomb on Wall Street, wrecking their cause as OKC did for the Right.

I've always seen the upper-middle class as heavily GOP/Tory until 1991. This pattern still holds in Australia/NZ, as evangelical Protestantism is absent there. Look at the voting patterns of Westchester County NY, Lake County IL, Montgomery County PA. After the end of the Cold War, there was no need for unity with the socons trying to ruin their hedonism. In the UK this is expressed more by pro or anti EU sentiments.

You are correct to note the decreased salience of crime. Attacking immigrants based on crime is "broke", attacking cheap labor is "woke, attacking them as burdening public services and increasing housing prices is "bespoke". Sadly, attacking them as an unwanted culture is "joke".

The Western states were notable in the early 20th century as being mostly WASP, Basques are the only "ethnics" that concentrated in the area. The importation of Chinese/Japanese/Filipino/Mexican workers as cheap labor sparked the rise of the powerful longshoreman unions and the IWW, even the Hispanic UFW is a legacy of old racial conflict. Seattle had a general strike in 1919, and major strikes have been common both there and in Oakland. The GOP's biggest unforced error in these states has been an unremitting hostility to labor unions, even though I doubt the average Boeing factory worker is an SJW.

They only get away with this in Idaho thanks to the Mormon vote and the largely rural population. California exiles and Hispanic farm/construction labor appears prone to repeat the same "mistake" around 2026 when I predict a Dem Governor or Senator.

Audacious Epigone said...


The gubernatorial campaign is the default scenario I use because it doesn't require a lot of creativity on my part and it's probably the most plausible avenue to get the thing started, but it could also conceivably happen from the top. Imagine someone running a presidential campaign on political dissolution, selling it as an amicable divorce due to irreconcilable differences, promising equity in the split up, bringing people from different ideological/partisan backgrounds on board, etc. That makes the federal land/military bases issue easier to tackle.


100% of Kansas, where I live, was federally-owned territory after the Louisiana Purchase. There is very little federally-owned land in the state today.


The obvious issue with that is that a Wakanda in the southern United States will quickly come to resemble something much closer to Sierra Leone than to Hong Kong, and the Wakandans will be hightailing it back to racist white America.


Something like the Iraq Attaq of 2003 couldn't even happen today. The virtual world has done an enormous amount of good in terms of severely limiting large-scale conventional military action.

Audacious Epigone said...


Smoking is one of only major lifestyle issues the left demands restraints on (another major one is hassles justified as environmentalist). I've not come across a satisfying explanation as to why that is, other than that RJR and Phillip Morris have deep pockets.

216 said...


While Romney is the quintessential rootless cosmopolitan, he does have ancestral ties to Michigan given his father's terms as Governor there. Mitt would probably have become President if he had persuaded Bain to set up in Detroit, then becoming Governor in 2002. Detroit lacked a FIRE presence until the rise of loanshark Dan Gilbert.

Paul Ryan is a typical product of the Midwestern elite, I was surprised to learn how wealthy his extended family and Oklahoma in-laws are. Ryan displays a typical disinterest in foreign affairs for people from this region, but he won't voice the natural isolationist sentiment that this region would return to if not for the propoganda about long dead Nazis. (Steve King is surprisingly worthless when it comes to foreign policy, he should be more like Rohrabacher and Paul)

On another point, various prelates from assorted denominations are again virtue signaling against the Right. When is the last time that they attacked feminism in any significant manner? The conservative elite throughout the West have failed to shame women into rejecting careerism/consumerism in favor of family life. Given their own choices, most women are probably ok with being a polygamy for Mr. Big. Reversing the demographic decline will necessitate a means of bypassing or abolishing feminism from the law.

216 said...


Tobacco Farming-racist white southern plantation owners

Tobacco users-disproportionate black/deviant, also white working class

Progressives-moral saviors uplifting the downtrodden and punishing the wicked exploiters

Our society would actually do well to socially shame vice in the manner applied to smoking tobacco. Prohibition is unviable except at the international distribution level. But we can certainly restrict advertising, impose higher sumptuary taxes, have state run dispensaries/casinos/brothels, and encourage the private sector to discriminate against users with the same veracity that it promotes diversity initiatives against us. Even "safe injection sites" are defensible to the extent that vagrants are cleared from the streets.

Audacious Epigone said...


Once marijuana legalization becomes blase and passe, will the prog-left be the ones pushing for restrictions on its consumption/punitive taxation on its users/producers, then?

Feryl said...

"Tobacco users-disproportionate black/deviant, also white working class"

There's a difference between moderation and abstinence. Today's upper classes still play the ponies and the stock market, still have sex, still drink, etc. But they tend to be better at it (e.g. more judicious) than the lower classes who are broke/incarcerated etc. because they sin in excess.

Tobacco smoking, however, has become virtually non-existent among elites. Probably mainly due to second hand smoke being smelly, obnoxious, and dangerous (whereas light drinking and watching porno isn't going to immediately hurt those around you). Trans fats are also nearing the point at which nobody in the upper class dares to consume them. Lastly, smoking and bad food are seen as horrible things by the lifestyle strivers of the Western US, who make a big deal out of fitness and that which typically make your body prematurely ugly. All the same, Western Americans (even when adjusted for race*) tend to be healthier and more active then Easterners, but that doesn't compensate for how spiritually ugly the Western US is.

*The Scots-Irish and blacks of the South, lower Midwest, and Appalachia are notoriously unhealthy, Minnesota and Iowa are probably the least Scots-Irish states in the East and as such tend to be quite healthy, moreover the Plains states are sunnier than the rest of the Eastern US which tends to encourage activity.

Feryl said...

"I've always seen the upper-middle class as heavily GOP/Tory until 1991. This pattern still holds in Australia/NZ, as evangelical Protestantism is absent there. Look at the voting patterns of Westchester County NY, Lake County IL, Montgomery County PA. After the end of the Cold War, there was no need for unity with the socons trying to ruin their hedonism. In the UK this is expressed more by pro or anti EU sentiments."

The wealthy were overwhelmingly pro-GOP before the late 1980's onset of the culture war began to spread the values of Marin county to more and more layers of society (Oregon and WA voted Democrat in the 1988 election after voting GOP for several decades). Less affluent and esp. less educated elites aren't as irritated by fundies, and they don't have gay BFFs to cry over, so to a large degree ur small business/low tax/anti-union types have never really gone over to the Dems. But in the late 80's and most of the 1990's, Marin Co. values were largely confined to the West Coast and a fairly small pocket of the Northeast and Upper Midwest. By the late 90's, with decreasing crime and the evidently beneficial (to Boomers) neo-liberal economy, "prejudice" towards gays, immigrants, and blacks was increasingly stigmatized among wider and wider layers of the middle class. You still saw Boomerisms of hatred of big gov., high taxes, unions, and regulations being as popular as ever in much of the middle-upper class of the late 90's, but more educated professionals who in 1984 didn't give a shit about gays or black criminals suddenly were getting all PC and uppity about "insensitive" views and comments.

Feryl said...

The initial burst of PC happened in the mid 80's when Academia and elites in liberal sectors (the media primarily, but also including activist/civil rights groups) began to swarm attack those who were insufficiently culturally liberal (there's a great Joe Sobran interview from the late 80's where he describes the Mcarthyist terror tactics against cultural conservatives that the Left was beginning to perfect). There was a backlash towards PC in the early 90's, which then faded away in the late 90's when essentially all sectors of society went totally PC. "Shy" Trump voters demonstrated that a wide swath of the country still aren't PC pansies, yet cultural views that once were accepted to at least some degree in the mainstream (though the Left may have busy trying to "deplatform" them) have no longer become acceptable discourse in most arenas in life, giving us a Soviet style level of self-censorship that nobody could've predicted in say, 1980 (views on homosexuals have changed the most of all, in the early 80's a CA Dem. tried to pass legislation banning the entry of homosexuals into America, while "homophobic" language used to be commonplace in the movie dialogue of the 1980's).

Putin is justified in deplatforming gays as a means to control the radical Left (he's seen how the decadent modern Western Left has become more and more arrogant and abusive since the late 60's). And it turns out that helped spark a row between Russia and the American Left, because the Left since the late 80's has so idealized homos.

BTW, that Sobran interview is a must see because he is so articulate and thoughtful about his views and predictictions. A major problem with Trump, and the Boomers in general, is that they are so crude and classless that even if they have something interesting to say, they don't express it well. If Boomers had smaller egos and were more well-spoken, then we'd have a greater chance of popularizing heterodox ideas. If you're going to saying taboo stuff, you need to learn to do it in the right way. With consideration and modesty. While Trump can offer chum to Boomers and Gen X-ers, he's alienating anyone who isn't already an ally. Lost Gen. Eisenhower didn't need to say crudely perjorative things about Mexicans as he deported them, and Silent gen. Sobran explained the dangers of predatory PC and even raised the question of Jewish-American dual loyalty without resorting to vulgarity, exaggeration, or mean-spirited derision. Certainly it looks as if two terribly socialized generations (the Boomers and X-ers) have been crapping all over discourse for decades at this point, I think we're tired of it by now.

snorlax said...

In rural areas, if your neighbor smokes, it's none of your business. In cities it is your business because he's blowing disgusting smoke in your face. The left is urban, therefore anti-smoking.

Audacious Epigone said...


Do you have a link for the Sobran interview? I'd like to listen to it.


Thanks. That's as plausible an explanation as any, though I wonder if a similar dynamic will take hold when marijuana smoking becomes publicly prominent in non-ghetto urban areas.

216 said...


Most states outside the South/Appalachia have some variant of a smoking ban in public places. Those laws presumably extend to cannabis as well.

The quickest way to turn the left against cannabis would be for Richard Spencer to encourage "Bong Hits for the Ethnostate".

Cannabis legalization initiatives have normally been justified in public discourse by arguing that it will bring a flood of tax revenue, and free up the police to pursue other crimes. I think we will see leftists arguing for an end to Narcan revivals before they try restricting cannabis use to inside your home. In terms of public consumption, isn't Missouri the only state that allows open containers of alcohol in public?

Feryl said...

I believe it's the 1986 video. And notice how the (Silent) host doesn't treat Sobran like a leper. As the 80's and 90's went on, Boomers would wreak more and more havoc on the ability to have two way conversations, preferring instead to lecture, argue, harangue, and interrupt rather than hear an opinion (or set of facts) that differed in the slightest from their own. This is part of the "unraveling" that Strauss and Howe identify as beginning from about 1982-1984, and gathering strength into the 90's (the late 80's and 90's were politically and culturally dominated by Boomers, since Gen X-ers mostly avoided getting too involved in social arguments or debates, while highly status sensitive Boomers (and a decent number of Silents) insisted on hanging onto as much power as possible for as long as possible (Gen X-ers have been slower to gain political office in the Senate and even Congress than any previous generation). The alienation felt by Gen X-ers (which overlaps with late Boomers and early Millennials) has often been cited by older generations as a reason to keep them at bay, because if they aren't willing to make passionate culture war arguments than something has to be wrong with them and they aren't to be trusted. In the 80's and early 90's it was common for adults to bemoan that youngsters no longer seemed to "care" about anything after their brain was rotted by "junk culture" (a phrase that was never used in the 60's and 70's to describe what young Boomers had), then mysteriously became a meme exactly when first wave Gen X-ers had entered high school. Google NGRAM: Junk culture rises from the early 80's-late 90's, then plummets in the mid-2000's which is around the time that the earliest Millennials were close to graduating from college. Despising youth culture was a vital part of the 80's-early 2000's unraveling; by the later 2000's people had moved on from "cultural" debates in favor of more pragmatic and less judgemental concerns.

Feryl said...

"Thanks. That's as plausible an explanation as any, though I wonder if a similar dynamic will take hold when marijuana smoking becomes publicly prominent in non-ghetto urban areas."

I don't think pot will ever be that popular. You see the strongest drug culture in the Mountain and Pacific states where people aren't as affected by concerns about what their family will think of their behavior, further there's the tendency of misfits (including druggies) to end up Out West if they didn't start there in the first place. I don't suppose the mores of Denver, Vancouver, Seattle etc. are ever going to exactly duplicated in much of the East

I also think that the current mania for legalizing sports betting and pot etc., is part of the death spasm of "classical liberal" culture that has been increasingly dominant since the late 60's (while barriers to excessive behavior were being blown up, so too was the public increasingly frustrated by high taxes, strong unions, government programs to take care of stuff and assist people, and so forth). How long could the spasm last? We'll see. If our leaders know what they are doing, then we should be on the verge of entering an era of modesty and restraint. If they screw up again and again, the decadent paradigm of the last 50 years we'll be "artificially" prolonged for what, 10 years? 20 years? And catastrophic failure of leadership could be a blow to our civilization from which we don't recover. We're also seeing, as I dreaded, the over-investment in Edmund Burke et al continue to be a major problem in the Anglosphere, as other Western countries (Well, ok, maybe not Germany or France) seem to be doing a lot more to stabilize their cultures. The cheap labor and growth addicted hydra of America, England, France, and Germany have developed mainstream cultures in which taking huge steps to reign in excesses are invariably described as "socialist"/"class warfare" (greater taxes on rich people, busting up monopolies, etc.) and "racist" (attempting to limit the number of aliens in your society and restoring the traditions of the past).

Feryl said...

We've got to rein in greed and the presence of degenerates and aliens. I predict that in the US the former will be easier to do first than the latter, which is why Boomer enforced economic mores need to be attacked vehemently by those who wish to politically succeed and by those who wish to make niche/"alternative" viewpoints more popular. But by cleaning up the boardroom, we ought to also see an improvement in moral standards and a reduction in the numbers and clout of invaders and degenerate gamblers, druggies, and gays. An electoral bounty awaits those who would appeal to the "socialism" of Americans under 40; remember that over-40 black women stole the Dem nomination from Bernie Sanders. The continuing "growth" of the Trump economy (which is modeled on the practices of the last 40 years) has been contrived by various means some or all of which could blow up in our face at any time (we continue to have serious trade problems, debt problems, stagnant growth of secure and good paying jobs, and manufacturing remains MIA compared to pre-NAFTA America). Then again, perhaps an economic calamity is exactly what we need to sober people up from both an economic and cultural perspective.

As Neil Howe never tires of saying, the effort put into making Silents and Early Boomers comfortable has come at the expense of later generations, some of whom haven't been born yet. It's primarily the upper class of those born since 1950 who've really benefited all that much from the economy of the 1990's and subsequent decades. As long as we have superficial "growth", many Gen X-ers, Millennials, and Gen Z can tell themselves that they need to just work harder and be smarter if they want to have a better life. But what happens if we endure a major crash? Ya think a lot of Millennials were excited by Sanders in 2016? Imagine what'll happen under sobering economic conditions.

Jonathan Centauri said...

You guys must be libertarians. You know the price of everything and the value of NOTHING. Like gold. It never reaches zero, but its not good for much but jewelry and trade. Without something to buy, it'll weigh you down like lead and attract thieves like pretty girls attract horny men.
Business is about location, location, and location. Real estate can be valued ENTIRELY by demographics nowadays. A two bedroom house in a black neighborhood might cost a dollar. With back taxes added of course. A dog house in a White neighborhood might cost over 100k.

Keep that in mind when California wants to take shitholistan off your tax bill.

CJ said...

Black Americans smoke tobacco at almost exactly the same rate as white Americans. Younger blacks appear to smoke less than younger whites.

Tobacco Use in Racial and Ethnic Populations