Saturday, July 07, 2018

The ideology of itinerants

Heartiste on rootlessness and ideological identification:
Shitlibs more strongly identify along ideological axes. This is why, for instance, they can’t tolerate the company of those with differing world views. (White libchicks are the absolute worst at tolerating those with opposing political views.)

And, although I don’t have confirmatory data at hand, I suspect shitlibs are more likely to wander and become itinerants, always looking for a shiny new city to infest.
Something is better than nothing. In this case, the something leaves plenty to be desired--but hey, it's something.

The GSS asks respondents where they lived at age 16 in addition to tracking where they live at the time of survey participation. In both cases it is only by Census region rather than by state, let alone county or city.

The following graph shows the percentages of respondents aged 40 and older (because asking an 18 year-old where he lived at 16 probably isn't very informative) who lived in a different region at the time of survey participation than they did when they were 16 years old (N = 28,571):

The differences aren't huge (but the sample size is, so the modest differences, especially at the 'extremes', aren't merely noise). There is a greater tendency for liberals to deracinate than there is for conservatives to, though. Those self-describing as "extremely liberal" are 36% more likely than those who self-describe as "extremely conservative" to live in a different region as adults than they did as teenagers.

Since cities are population sinkholes today, as they have been throughout human history, a finer-grained analysis would probably reveal a greater disparity between liberals and conservatives than the GSS reveals, with liberals from small towns and suburbia moving to urban centers while conservatives from small towns and suburbia put down shire roots.

GSS variables used: REG16(1-9), REGION, AGE(40-89), POLVIEWS(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)


Anonymous said...

I'm not sure what the point of this post is. Are you trying to tell everyone to stay in the same zip code for their entire life? Are you trying to insinuate that if I move to a different census tract, that I will automatically turn into a Sanders-supporting progressive?

Also, I see that your side is blaming white women for everything again. Apparently we are "the absolute worst"...which means you see us as worse than blacks, hispanics, gang-members, illegal immigrants, drug dealers, and Muslim terrorists. I find it really hard to believe that white women are somehow "less tolerant" of diverse viewpoints than some extremist Muslim from Saudi Arabia.

Lol good luck with having your "white ethno-civilization" without white women. You guys love to talk about the purity of the white race yet John Derbyshire, Richard Spencer, Mike Cernovich, Kyle Chapman, and Andrew Anglin have all had interracial relationships. You guys have more interracial relationships than liberal and moderate white men.

Issac said...

Anti-racists are the real racists. Isn't that true fellow white person?

216 said...


For single white women the ratio of D-R is 2-1. Nearly as bad as Asians/Hispanics. If white women voted alongside white men at the same rates, this country would have an Orban-style government. Yes, it is 100% your groups fault because you have the highest level of agency. There is no ethnic expectation to vote Dem, it is purely an ideological one.

Three of the men you listed are liberals, that you listed them together with two men they despise suggests to me that your intentions here may not be genuine. WF complaining about AF is bad optics, same was WM complaining about BMWF is bad optics. You'd have better mileage warning your fellow WF away from black-dominated pop culture than complaining to us here.

Anonymous said...


none of the men I listed are liberals. Have you even read anything Derbyshire has written? Richard Spencer coined the term "alt-right". Cernovich and Chapman are both alt-lite, which means their ideology is almost the same as "alt-right". Anglin was associated with the Daily Stormer.

Next thing you're gonna do is tell me that Ann Coulter and Steve King are "liberals".

It's only bad if a white woman who is right-wing dates a black man. Anyone who is a liberal, a moderate, or a libertarian can date whomever they want. I don't care about racial purity. I just hate hypocrites.

Audacious Epigone said...


The primary point of the post is to empirically validate stereotypes. That’s the blog’s raison d’etre, after all.

Single white women are far more leftist, especially on the National Question and immigration, than white men (single or married) and married white women. It makes sense biologically—women without families can lay on their backs when the invaders come and be okay. The rest of the invaded population isn’t able to get off so easily.

The blame shouldn’t be laid solely at the feet of single white women though—they’re responding to ingrained biological incentives. The ones most blameworthy are white men for letting it get this way in the first place. If we are unwilling to reassert ourselves, we will be conquered—and we will deserve to be.

Parenthetically, my wife is white and we have three white children.

Anonymous said...


What you say, and what the rest of your side does are two completely different things. Go to any "alt-right", alt-lite, "red pill", MRA, incel, or MGTOW forum. It's full of white men constantly accusing white women of being "the absolute worst". When Heartiste says that he is saying he thinks we're worse than Muslim terrorists.

You are one white man. And there are many more white men out there who absolutely hate white women. Even moderate feminists don't hate white men to nearly the same degree as the groups listed above hate white women.

Your side is characterized by hating non-whites, hating white women just as much, then hypocritically marrying non-white women, even though your ideology is against interracial marriage. This is why the rest of society looks down on you.

And lol you'e not thinking straight if you think that white women will "lay on their backs" for black and hispanic men. Only fat, IQ 85 white women who dropped out of high school do that in large numbers. Middle middle class, upper middle class, and upper class white women, whose IQs are generally 100 or higher, who are generally educated, almost never "lay on their backs" for black and hispanic men.

Audacious Epigone said...


Lots of psychological projection going on here. If you want me to respond specifically to something, tailor it to something I’ve written, not what putatively goes down on various forums.

WF/BM is 3x as common as WM/BF, and that’s despite hypergamy being a much stronger driver in women than in men.

Lots of stories about peace corp/amnesty international/refugee resettlement women ending up on their backs for Muslim invaders in Europe.

SeanF said...

AE, the 'extreme conservative' category is showing up brown, at least on my display. As your biggest color bar - heh - fan, I must respectfully request true crimson for this category in the future, if possible.

216 said...

Anon (Mrs. Corvinus?),

The term "liberal" does not mean one cannot be classified as "right-wing". Left and right relate to the political center of gravity. This center moves around, and some see it differently than others. Moving the center is related to the Overton Window concept.

Derb, Cernovich and Chapman(?) are liberals. I say that because that's what they call themselves, and how they live their lives. They are seen as "alt" because the political center of gravity has moved quite far to the left. What they advocate is the same old failed model of classical liberalism.

Does introspection matter to you? It takes a lot of chutzpah to tell right-wing men that moderate feminists don't hate them. And the rest of society hates us because they are just following the orders of mainstream culture. While at least 40% of the country is conservative, there isn't a single media company or R1 university that is even 10% conservative.

216 said...

Z hits it more eloquently than I ever could.

Audacious Epigone said...


Damn it, I meant for it to be a deep maroon color but I have the typical male difficulty distinguishing color hues at the margins. I’ll make it a vermillion later today!

DissidentRight said...

Lol good luck with having your "white ethno-civilization" without white women.

The thirst for male validation is real.

hating white women just as much

Who hates women, sugar tits? We simply look down on you from our lofty peaks of glorious male privilege. Male privilege means you don't have to run around in a constant panic because there might be someone somewhere who doesn't entirely approve of your constantly-changing opinions.

This is why the rest of society looks down on you.

Rabbit-speak, from a SWF? On a blog dedicated to validating stereotypes? /facepalm

Audacious Epigone said...


My wife says it is deep red, not brown. She is able to pick out ten different colors in a spectrum where I only see one or maybe two. That's not self-deprecating faggotry on my part, either--I'm being entirely honest.

Audacious Epigone said...


Rabbit-speak, from a SWF? On a blog dedicated to validating stereotypes? /facepalm


Honu said...

Hey AE, I was looking at a previous post you made around 2.5 years back labeled: “Among whites, conservative-liberal fertility difference twice as large as Democrat-Republican difference”. It was really great because it broke down the specifics within the total “Conservative” TFR.

The data you used was from women born from 1944 to 1974. Is this the latest data out for this specific subject? I understand why it’s used because of completed fertility. I ask because the total White TFR I got from that was 2.04 (which seems high for White TFR from 1960 to 2014) and now the Non-Hispanic White TFR is around 1.75; so around a 14% decrease.

Is there any new data you’ve come across which shows the current White Conservative or White Very Conservative TFR? I’ve seen something on White Conservative TFR from 2000-2016 being 1.95 but it most likely includes all “conservatives” including slight/lean types.

With political orientation and levels of religiosity largely being heritable it’s very interesting.

Honu said...


Nevermind, I think I found what I was looking for:
Slight Conservative - 1.79
Conservative - 2.03
Very Conservative - 2.24

Just don’t know the percentage each category represents for the Non-Hispanic White population.

Noah Carl said...

Incidentally, there's a lot more evidence for liberal/left-wing intolerance than just that chart from the Dartmouth survey:

Feryl said...

"Damn it, I meant for it to be a deep maroon color but I have the typical male difficulty distinguishing color hues at the margins. I’ll make it a vermillion later today!"

From what I understand, brown eyes discern color easier, and blue eyes discern shape easier (thus probably explaining why Northern Euros run better societies, but Southern Euros are better visual artists).

Kipling said...

Feel free to shuffle the question elsewhere, but riffing on the "Color of Love" facts, do we have anything more up to date on the ratios than Sailer's article of twenty years ago? It's useless for educating Corvinia there but it'd still be interesting.

I also am vaguely curious about the difference in atypical mixed-race couples. Our church has four mixed-race couples, two Asian Male/White Female, two White Male/Black Female, which is odd enough to be notable. They're all pretty based people, for what it's worth.

Anonymous said...

I have to say this one misses the mark for me.

Empirically testing stereotypes is one (worthwhile) thing, but it seems pretty sad to hang one's cultural/ideological hat on "we real Amurricans stay where we were born, damnit!" About 15 years ago I started seeing these "Native Coloradan" license plates and it struck me the same way, as pretty pathetic actually, to be proud to the point of advertizing it that you never left where you were born for any career, educational, love, military service, just plain wanderlust, or any other purpose.

Audacious Epigone said...


Let me know if you have any more questions on the methodology. Twatter is the best way.


What's the thinking behind female ability to distinguish hues more easily? The memes for it are everywhere.

In my case, even though my eyesight is better--perfect 20/20, probably better than that tbh--I don't pick up color differences particularly well. Parenthetically, I have green eyes and my wife has blue.


I did an update about a decade ago that you might be interested in. I should do another. The ratios were similar to Steve's famous findings, but the total frequencies were more common across the board.


Traveling is one thing, living is another. Deep community- and relationship-building takes time. There's a deeper sense of ownership in a place you've lived since childhood than there is in a place you moved to last year and will be leaving the year after next.

Audacious Epigone said...

I suspect, too, that wanderlust tends to result in later and less reproduction. Cities are a population sinkhole. That's roughly as true today as it was 1,000 years ago and as it was 2,000 years ago.

216 said...

Part of the historical reason for urban population sinkholes was incidence of disease, lack of sanitation. I suppose there may have been later age of marriage due to higher costs of living, but incomes in cities have also been historically higher than on farms, the reason why they keep growing via rural migration.

In post-industrial societies the main reason for lower urban fertility seems to be status seeking. It's not as if Upper East Siders couldn't afford 5+ kids, but they might be relegated to the Upper West Side. We also have indicators that urban living is mentally toxic, and I suspect the incidence falls higher on women. Part of it might be that living in an urban area makes it easier to access a physician and pharmacy to get contraception, while minimizing contact with extended family members that will pressure you into having children.

We need the PRC to build some ghost cities in sub-Saharan Africa, no greater need for a population sinkhole than there. Having pets should be subject to progressive taxation in the West, the "dog mom" concept needs to die. said...

The enemy is like Marcus Aurelius without the poetry and philosophy and the Legions. The Real Reason they are boiling the frogs full blast is their crazy quilt of blacks, brown, Asiatic hordesmen and freaks is falling apart like a cheap suit. The enemy has a nasty habit of "celebrating their victory" around the fifty yard line. That's a GOOD THING for US.
Demographics may be destiny, but I can change the demographics in about a month just by cutting off the subsidies. Some would starve, most would simply leave. The enemy is so smug and conceited, THEY ACTUALLY BELIEVE THEY ARE SOMEHOW SUPERINTELLIGENT.

Wiley Coyotes, super geniuses. Rapist smuggling to get a World like Uganda and Idi Amin, Last Kang of Scotch.

Anonymous said...


If white men are so hard-working and ambitious, why are you asking Chinese men to do it? Why not do it yourself?

Asking others (especially outside your family) to do something reeks of laziness. I don't ask a Mexican to mow lawns/garden/shovel snow/rake leaves.

Anonymous said...

Obvious troll is obvious

Feryl said...

This is from a question in a different post, but I thought putting it here would make it more visible (the originating post has like 86 comments by now).


"Thanks, well put. It's easier for millennials not to do things (we're fantastic at that!), but are we capable of putting anything together and executing it?"<

Agnostic did a great post about how Boomers love to jump headlong into stuff (for better or for worse, depending on the competence and ethics of the person). Gen X-er are more tentative, and Millennials are more cautious still.

I would put this down to when you came of age; if you remember the spirit of the 50's and 60's, it makes you feel more confident and optimistic about taking a crack at something. If you only remember post-1970, you're well aware of how hopeless and futile so many human affairs seem to be, which discourages you a lot. And of course, such things as temper tantrums, rudeness, bullying, child abuse etc. became a lot more common after the mid-70's. The coarsening in interaction between people I think has given a kind of PTSD to Gen X-ers and Millennials, who tend to assume the worst in everything (note that younger people are much less trusting). In the case of Millennials, they might actually be somewhat worse off mentally than Gen X-ers, because of mixed signals (Gen X-ers were always expected to deal with whatever was thrown their way and not complain or cry too much, whereas Millennials have been given this odd upbringing of superficial protection amid rampant signs of cultural and civic decay). It's analogous to the Civil War era, when that era's Millennials were championed by older adults yet that young generation never quite came into it's own because they grew up in such a fucked up culture.

Aud and the others (primarily those born in the late 70's/80's), did you ever as though the world was so forbidding and unwelcoming, that sometimes the best choice is to just shut down, withdraw? I mean, I grew up around Boomers who often thought I was aloof or unhappy, not realizing that maybe I had my reasons to keep my distance. I've noticed that Boomers feel dissed if you don't immediately act friendly to them. Later Gen X-ers and Millennials however "get it". There's probably a gradient here, with early X-ers only a little more standoffish than Boomers. Later Gen X-ers were more traumatized by failing norms, and as you get to early Millennials they grew up in the late 80's and 90's when our culture was in a free fall in terms of people being decent and respectful towards each other. I find it strange that Boomers get miffed about how "checked out" younger people can be, without realizing what it does to a person psychologically to grow up around adults (yes, adults) constantly acting impulsive, argumentative, and irresponsible.

I'd be curious to see how Gen Z and A act, since they were raised by adults who genuinely were sensitive to their kids. Their parents were more on the quietly responsible side, as opposed to the kids of the 70's and esp. 80's and 90's being raised around drunk, obstreperous, boisterous, and hot-blooded Boomers*.

*I'm not saying that every person in a generation has the same traits. What I am saying is that (per professional research) traumatic childhood experiences inflicted by adults and teenagers was more common in the 1970's-1990's, with the peak being the late 80's and very early 90's (e.g. when most parents were Boomers). I have a cub scout book from 1992 that has a section that parents are supposed to remove, dealing with anger management and child abuse. God almighty, I can't think of hardly any parent born after 1970 who needs to be advised of proper behavior around children.

Audacious Epigone said...


The West has had enough contact with Africa, not for the better. Time for another civilization to have a go at it.

Feryl said...

"Single white women are far more leftist, especially on the National Question and immigration, than white men (single or married) and married white women. It makes sense biologically—women without families can lay on their backs when the invaders come and be okay. The rest of the invaded population isn’t able to get off so easily."

And here we see that woman's loyalty is to their womb. Prostration before the powerful is what women do to survive and simultaneously procreate. Which after all is the main intent of survival, isn't it?

Males on the other hand are loyal first to their immediate off-spring, and beyond that their extended family including their ethnic group. Exceptions to this are primarily seen in the most successful and/or rootless men, who've been socialized to not think that in-group solidarity and defense means anything. Only after a wave, or "crush", of fierce opposition do these decadent or arrogant males began to feel noblesse oblige. Note also the culture of competition; when it's ebbing (such as in the 1920's-1960's), men are more rooted and less likely to believe in "anything goes". When it's high (such as in 1860-1910, or 1970-2020), cutthroat psychopaths favor opulence and material gain at the expense of tribal cohesion.

What I find interesting is the generational element; we immediately saw discouraging signs of poor and self-centered socialization in young Boomers in the late 60's (after being, in the 1950's and 60's, the single most psychologically comforted generation in human history), among whom the most affluent were ironically the most likely to rage and seethe, and often deliberately sought to stir up heated debate and even violence, at a time of nominal opposition to "war". As a matter of fact, older generations were actually more against Vietnam for reasons both pragmatic (why are we doing this again?) and sentimental (our Boomers don't deserve to die, a sentiment that didn't really exist for older generations in say, Korea, or WW1). Strangely, the vehement battles between young Boomers along cultural, ideological, regional, racial, and class lines have largely been never well understood or have been ret-conned thru the lens of "older" people against Boomers. Which is actually quite laughable given how much shit the Boomers got away with (the GI Gen sometimes played tough during the worst excesses of the 60's and 70's, but oh they coulda been a lot tougher, yet they couldn't bring themselves for the most part to ever flat out tell the Boomers to their faces that they need to grow up and toughen up. Also, GIs largely retired by the late 70's and were willing to give Boomers a good chunk of economic and cultural power. Such was the flavor of the generation who in the early 20th century were socialized to sneer at elites who held onto their privilege too long or never deserved it in the first place).

Of course by the 1980's the battles between middle aging Boomers became notorious, whether it was parents frantically accusing people of Satanic child abuse, or yuppies racing to the ethical bottom to get richer than the next yuppie.

Feryl said...

At this point you could make a good argument that in every phase of life beginning in their young adulthood and thereafter, Boomers have not so much been responsible for every cultural phase as they've been responsible for making each phase as ugly and shallow as possible. Which continues to this day as one example of another of an out of control Boomer surfaces (one of the people recently arrested for political threats was a Boomer for example).
This isn't cherry picking by any means; in comparison to the way that previous generations acted in different phases of their life and in different time periods, there's no doubt that Boomers have been far more troubled and irresponsible. Gen X-ers thus far have succumbed to a lot of the same bad trends, but they are more self-aware of their problems and less likely to arrogantly stir up trouble for the sake of doing so.

Ann Rule (a Silent) was driving with Ted Bundy (Boomer) around a campus in the early 70's, and she said that was when she saw for the first time the rage he was capable of. Bundy (a conservative!) fumed at campus protesters getting in his way and said that we shouldn't have any tolerance for "anarchy" (black and white thinking, and having no grasp of nuance or another's viewpoint, is text book Boomer). Eventually he got out of the car, found a club type improvised weapon, and started menacing protesters with it. Hostile conflict, no good faith, confrontations, no desire to find value in an opposing viewpoint, etc. are all problems that the Boomers brought with them everywhere. So too has a rigid opposition to the notion that limits to personal expression and personal sentiment are ever to be sought.

Of course you could go back to the elders of the Civil War to find another similar generation of fiery malcontents and no-compromisers (compromise being among the most scorned words of the last 40-50 years), whose destructive means spoiled whatever virtue there was in their ends. said...

A non Christian society of non Whites going to Africa is a narrative smasher. China has quite a large population. It skews male due to the one child policy. This is either an army or a workforce. In Africa, you need not make such a choice. I'm not impressed by Chinese technology manufacturing, but resource extraction they should be able to handle as well as pest control shall we say.

lineman said...

The blame shouldn’t be laid solely at the feet of single white women though—they’re responding to ingrained biological incentives. The ones most blameworthy are white men for letting it get this way in the first place. If we are unwilling to reassert ourselves, we will be conquered—and we will deserve to be.
Exactly right Brother...Humans in general though like the easy way so they will continue to blame others instead of banding together and start solving problems...

Issac said...

China has a fairly inconsistent rate of success outside their historic imperial borders. They are performing remarkably in Africa today largely as a result of the west taking up all the humanitarian slack required to keep the African population docile. Without that, it would be bush wars cropping up left and right with even the mildest agitation. The west still views Africa as their own territory so they have spent little effort doing anything to bother the Chinese interlopers. If the west changes their stance or is forced out by demographic collapse at home, it's very likely China will stall or retreat to only the most defensible positions they have on the continent.

Pat Barkus said...

Part of me agrees with you about the Native Coloradan plates.
Vermont a few years ago had a real split between true Vermonters, and new arrivals, and it seem silly.
I can certainly see the pathos in clinging so tightly to one's home town.
OTH the essence of patriotism is not the love of the nation state, but rather the love of the rolling hills, the tree laden streets, and the small creeks that filled our youth with life's wonder is what, no matter how far we wander, still calls us home even if only in our dreams.
The lack of contentment that seems a long standing feature of American life is also full of pathos, and seems to speak to a sad discontentment.
As always the hint of melancholy is a salient feature of all life, at all times, everywhere.

Audacious Epigone said...


The lack of contentment

Right, because no matter where you go, there you are.

216 said...


Catastrophic levels of African violence seem to be a Cold War phenomenon. Albeit, by African relative standards. State-state level conflicts are uncommon, most war is intrastate, due to the colonial boundaries putting multiple ethnic groups in the same country. Of course, despite all of the complaints the colonial boundaries remain unchanged. China has goodwill in Africa due to its willingness to build infrastructure, and pay bribes to leaders to allow the infrastructure to be built. The West is interested in social services via NGOs, and multinational corporations. We don't take it into account as much, but the West is also dominant with "soft power" via our triple parentheses friends in the entertainment industry.

China doesn't have the emotional baggage of being a colonial power in Africa that it does in Korea/Vietnam and the overseas Chinese in SE Asia. On the contrary the PRC is viewed as the liberator in the way Americans view France. Construction remains a labor intensive business, and Africa has lots of cheap labor. One major risk is that automation could wipe out the jobs of the two biggest low end sectors (clothing, call centers). A Chinese-pacified Third World country also becomes tourist-friendly.

Western capital is running out of spaces to obtain equities growth, the only way to keep pension funds solvent. The PRC is also aging, even the repeal of any limits on childbirth won't produce Israeli level TFR. The Subcontinent and Africa are the two remaining pools of consumers that don't have symbolic goods of industrialization.

TPC said...

Black women have halved the interracial marriage gap with black men and both are interracially marrying more, particularly among the college-educated pool. Asian men have also closed a lot of their gap with Asian women on that front and are increasing their outmarriage as Asian women decrease theirs. The existence of a now-substantial pool of mixed-race people is also changing the makeup of interracial marriage. The current trend is towards about 1/4-1/3 of couples being interracial, with the mixed-race individuals disappearing into the white group more than the not-white ethnic group they have.

TPC said...

Also, re: Feryl's comment about Boomers being the ones to jump into stuff. Mothers of the latter generations are plenty quick to jump into stuff, pretty much all these generational analyses aren't looking at the massive cultural changes in specifically married maternal behavior driven by media, cults, the internet and social media, in rough timeline order.

Feryl said...

I was getting at the confidence and speed that decisions are made with. Boomers are decisive and fast, Millennials are diffident and slow. Gen X-ers are somewhere between the two generations. If you ever interact (as I assume you do) with different generations, you'll usually find that Boomers are the quickest to create ideas, make suggestions, etc. Again, this reflects the change in culture that happened in the mid-late 70's. People who came of age in the 1950's-early 70's are more confident and optimistic, and energetic. People who came of age in the late 70's and thereafter (X-ers and later generations) are prone to angst and doubt. said...

Isaac, the levels of violence increased with the black population. The blacks are just savages. They massacred all the Whites and half breeds in Haiti and even now they are threatening to kill aid workers. They are a worthless race at this point. Robots and machines are far superior to their meager contributions. Replacing Whites with machines is just stupid. Even AI cannot really match the inventiveness of the White man, just due to NECESSITY BEING THE MOTHER OF INVENTION. What do computers really NEED? Maintenance and electricity perhaps. Not much else.
Tibet would disagree with you that China doesn't want more living space and resources I'd expect.