October 2, 2015

School shooter was libertarian, not conservative

Apparently the UCC spree shooter left all sorts of profiles around the internet, including a dating website where he described himself as "conservative" and "Republican". Naturally the libs are having a field day, crowing about how the evil man du jour was from The Other Side.

Back on planet Earth, this guy was a libertarian, not a conservative. Gun nut (not a hunter, but gun fetishist), fetish porno addict, into punk / goth, horror movie buff, dislikes "organized religion" AKA religion, into magic / occult / conspiracy theories / other gay shit, definitely does not want children (how uber-traditional), introverted loner, geek, and most importantly from the West Coast.

There are few to no conservatives out West, which is instead populated by libertarians and liberals. Especially in L.A., where he was from before recently moving to Oregon.

Degenerate fetishist, kneejerk "fuck society" attitude regarding authority, looking out only for Number One instead of some greater group -- this loser went against all of the distinctly conservative moral foundations (Haidt labels them purity, authority, and loyalty).

However, "libertarian" usually doesn't appear on dating profile options (and few would understand what you meant anyway), and since he's not liberal, he chose the "conservative" option by default.

But why let his obvious libertarianism get in the way when you can whack off to fantasies about "conservative tears"?

46 comments:

  1. Know who else is a Republican? Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner. Hardly the Bible-Thumping, Gun-Fellator that the liberals want to portray all Republicans as being.

    And this guy singled out Christians to kill. I'm thinking this is some 4-Chan Goon from a fatherless home who saw one too many episodes of The Amazing Atheist and decided to go all Travis Bickle on the Godbotherers. FOR GREAT JUSTICE!!!111

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sounds like a leftist-libertarian (which means leftist) rather than a "libertarian."

    ReplyDelete
  3. WellThatWasEdgy10/2/15, 9:58 AM

    I don't think even the most shameless of liberals are seriously trying to cast this guy as a conservative, although perhaps they will surprise me. Mercer did not seem like he had a coherent ideology, even if what we can gather from him points towards libertarian. He seems like a fairly typical specimen (with added violence) of the sort of person our late capitalist Babel churns out with increasing regularity. Raceless, cultureless, thoughtless, rootless, godless (of the FUCK YOU, DAD variety), and with extremely poor taste. There was nothing conservative or right-wing about him.

    You are correct about the West coast. Here we basically have liberals and liberals who want lower taxes.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "I don't think even the most shameless of liberals are seriously trying to cast this guy as a conservative, although perhaps they will surprise me."

    I'm referring to people posting about him on Twitter. Some were randos, some had a decent number of followers. Grassroots libs rather than visible pundits.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Here's the stream of people on Twitter talking about the #UCCShooting and mentioning the word "conservative":

    https://twitter.com/search?q=uccshooting%20conservative&src=typd

    ElmOnTeamHillary ‏@lordxmen2k 5m5 minutes ago

    The Gunman Was Just Some NRA Card Carrying Conservative Republican Murderous Nazi Scum... As Usual #UCCShooting #Oregon

    clydetheslyde ‏@clydetheslyde 15h15 hours ago

    Half of Twitter suddenly went silent an hour ago when it was revealed the #UCC shooter was a "conservative Republican." #UCCShooting

    Occupy Voting Booths ‏@OccupyTheBooths 16h16 hours ago

    It shouldn't come as a shock to anyone, but the Oregon school shooter was a conservative Republican who... http://fb.me/3cTREBMBX

    Etc....

    ReplyDelete
  6. "And this guy singled out Christians to kill."

    At this point, it's premature to assume he was anti-Christian rather than against all religions. The only answers that the students gave about their religion was Christian, no religion, or no answer. So we don't know how he would've treated someone who said Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Mormon, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The LA Times talks about how he was a white supremacist without mentioning that he's biracial.

    http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-oregon-shooting-20151002-story.html

    ReplyDelete
  8. And almost never saw his white father, according to a relative -- just his black mother.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Chris Mintz shot 7 times while trying to block him from coming into the room:

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/02/us/oregon-school-shooting-hero/

    ReplyDelete
  10. Black man murders whites, blacks hardest hit.

    Do they really think they can get away with this in the age of the internet?

    OT: you've talked about Mormon gullibility have you look at at Jason Chaffetz's bio

    From Wikipedia:

    Chaffetz converted from Judaism to Mormonism during his last year of college...

    During his college years, Chaffetz was a Democrat. His father had previously been married to Democratic Governor Michael Dukakis's wife, Katherine, and his half-brother is former actor John Dukakis.[4] Despite their different political affiliations, Chaffetz remains close with his brother and the Dukakis family.[5] While a student at BYU, he was a Utah co-chairman for Michael Dukakis's 1988 campaign for U.S. President. After college, Chaffetz worked in public relations for multi-level marketing company Nu Skin International for about a decade.


    So they elected Michael Dukakis's Jewish huckster stepson to congress and all he had to do was convert to Mormonism.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Mormonism is pretty shallow historically, so they're used to having a high fraction of converts -- 26% of American Mormons were converts in 2009. (By contrast, only 8% of American Catholics were converts.)

    Low-lifes "converting" just to sponge off the Mormon church are an open secret where there's a heavy Mormon presence.

    They're genetically the same people who have been welcoming in hordes of foreign sponges into England, Scandinavia, and the Nordic part of Germany. They're basically red-state twins of Minnesota, showing that deep culture matters more than shallow party affiliation.

    BTW Chaffetz has mad gayface:

    http://images.politico.com/global/arena/100427_chaffetz_ap_376.jpg

    http://i2.wp.com/hoh.rollcall.com/wp-content/uploads/UT03Chaffetz.jpg?resize=244%2C335

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2009/12/11/PH2009121102111.jpg

    http://i.huffpost.com/gen/302231/images/s-JASON-CHAFFETZ-large.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  12. Shooter was also British:

    "American media reports said he was born in England and moved to the US at a young age: his stepsister, Carmen Nesnick, told CBS Los Angeles that he travelled to the US as a young boy. Other accounts report that Nesnick specified that Harper-Mercer was born in England."

    "A Myspace page bearing Mercer’s name is filled with pictures of masked gunmen and references to the IRA, including a picture of the front page of a the Irish republican newspaper An Phoblacht, bearing the headline “British Army Could Not Defeat IRA”. Another photo to the page carries the words “IRA undefeated army”."

    May be where the 'Republican' affiliation came from ;)

    Uprooted from the already deracinated and deculturated community he grew up with at a young age and replanted in the arid social soil of Southern California's inland browning shitholes, whose nicer people and communities offered only the vaguest of spirituality. Really do feel sorry for him, if only because he seems much more salvageable than prior spree killers.

    "Rootlessness" is definitely the watchword. But the fact that he was simply a common pathetic mainstream shitlib rather than an obviously disturbed dude from the beginning should be scary, and mentioned to all your shitlib friends. The borderline personality profile is now moving closer to the social and cultural mean, and getting harder to differentiate from it.

    Or possibly the other way around, which is even worse.

    ReplyDelete
  13. http://www.si.com/vault/1989/12/11/121217/they-said-it

    Jason Chaffetz, BYU placekicker, describing his position:
    ''It's like being a ballet dancer -- tight pants, a little contact
    and a whole lot of kicking.''

    ReplyDelete
  14. The most salient fact I heard about this guy was that he posted something about siding with the cops over the BLM movement. If true, that fact alone would qualify him as a conservative. Race is the only issue in American life. Is it possible he hated the other kids at school because they reflexively sided with BLM? After all, such a circumstance woukd fit in with your characterization of Oregon-West Coast political orientation.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Grab bag ideologies that draw a little from everyone inevitably get cast as conservative by progressives, because anyone not on board with the mainstream of progressives is a de facto conservative. This most definitely includes libertarians. "Beyond Left & Right" is code for right, as far as they're concerned.

    This blog post is too idiosyncratic to make waves with any leftists who might be listening.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Come to think of it, we should probably note that the doctoring of social media profiles is now taking place much closer to real time (media works with government, does not release names until the FaceBook/Google/4chan other major online corporations can sanitize the history, which is probably why we only saw Myspace pages back from before his turn to his personal Negro Side with the Black Lives Matter brouhaha.) We probably saw his Myspace page first because no one in government bothered infiltrating them deeply enough to have a quick response time. Looks like the sheriff investigating the events is more than a bit supsicious of these things, though also probably rather hapless. Noting definite meddling by the government == HOW DARE YOU DENY IT HAPPENED, BIGOT!!!

    Also note the white hedonist father angle, courtesy of the Daily Mail.

    His dad also a rootless cosmopolitan, explored his creepy gay side with his own employees. Or could have just been cultural misunderstanding of even more depraved British striver culture in slightly less depraved LA.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Comment thingy dropped the conservative Tree House link, here it is:

    http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/10/02/the-curious-case-of-oregon-shooter-chris-harper-mercer-a-social-media-profile-shaped-modified-and-deleted/

    ReplyDelete
  18. Julius Stormer10/7/15, 5:33 PM

    "Distinctly conservative moral foundations"? I'll grant you 50/50 on loyalty based on the speed of which SJWs turn on people who do a minor deviation with a caveat being that they'll go out of their way to defend people who are either outright abusive or criminal. Note their rallying around Sarah Nyberg who bragged about being a pedophile.

    The others? Not so much. Purity? See how SJWs try to go out of their way to stay away from bad influences/shut down hints of dissent with the reasoning being that they feel gross/icky/violated/disgusted by having them there. Authority? Notice how well disciplined they are when doing offensives against organizations for not being SJW enough.

    ReplyDelete
  19. In this case of SJWs, those moral foundations are exercised only individualistically and opportunistically. Conservatives are the ones likely to have expressed the nature of those moral foundations and defined their boundaries and use beyond simply "I feel this way." or "My friends have always done it this way." Marriage is a sacrament for all, loyalty is an unalloyed virtue among all families, purity is and should be a common discipline for all, and all who violate these strictures, great and small, are subject to the just punishments of a Higher power.

    The Biblical phrase I'm thinking of is 'having a form of godliness but denying its power.'

    ReplyDelete
  20. Yeah, hearing SJWs talk often feels a lot like traditionalist Conservatives, as they fundamentally are not operating on the basis of reasoning on harm and care, but rather on the base irrationality of traditionalist Conservative discourse (it can be tiresome and unsatisfying in the same way, and you often feel in the same way that you're talking to someone with a ridiculous image of themselves, who grant to their own speech and actions an unworthy, bathetic form of dignity).

    They are deranged in comparison, because they have no real links to any proper, real, functional community and are highly neurotic*, but they're obviously not doing any reasoning using only a harm and fairness foundation, so it is inevitable these other moral bases step forward, and they aren't exactly Liberal in Haidt's sense.

    *being angry or feeling threatened or depressed or untrusting are all pretty separate from the actual moral bases.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Off topic but I'd like to bring it to attention:

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/thanks-ted/#comments

    Does anybody read the comments anymore at Isteve? This post about how awesome mid 1960's culture is (not even the late 60's, the mid 60's!) didn't attract one commenter able to distinguish Boomers from Silents, and Silents from Boomers. Stick a fork in that site 'til they get control of the drooling hotheads polluting the comments.

    Evidently the average Isteve commenter must not know a goddam thing about music judging from the lack of awareness of basic things like syncopation, solos, and whether artists relied on distant 3rd party song writers. To be fair, a couple commenters did say that when you actually look at the bulk of contemporary early to mid 60's hits, most of it was dull to simpleton maudlin junk from the corporate factory. (aside from the B bands e.g. Beatles, Beach Boys, the Byrds). And kudos to the guy who praised ABBA as being much more entertaining than most other 70's music.

    And go figure, maybe one person who mentioned 80's music. And they didn't talk about it's quality, either. Do we really need to hear selective nostalgia/sentiment from Steve S., a self-professed awkward introvert? Does he realize that music complexity peaked in the late 70's and early 80's? Does he realize that hit songs were most likely to be written by the performer in the early 80's? Does he wonder why danceable music peaked in popularity and quality in the later 70's and 80's?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Feryl,

    Agree with this. Just out of curiosity, what is your favorite era in music? For me, I really hate to give the Boomers credit for anything, but the fact remains that my favorite era in music was the late 70's / early 80's. I feel that this was the era in which rock reached its ultimate potential. 60's and early 70's rock was too folksy By the late 70's bands had really figured out how to use things like the electric guitars, multi-track recording equipment, etc.

    Also, the performers were still unashamedly masculine and feminine during that time; they didn't feel the need to tone down their masculinity (hair metal -- I'm sorry, guys should not have super-long hair or wear makeup, supposedly those guys were totally straight but I'm not buying it), or exaggerate it (rap, metal.) I liked a lot of the songs by the hair metal bands but the appearance of those singers was one of the things that drew me to rap, rap is a debased form of music, but at least Snoop Dogg does not grow his hair long and look look GAY.

    There were some awesome songs in the 80's, no doubt, but I almost think that by the 80's rock had kind of matured too much. It was almost like modern art, by the mid-80's rock was too self-referential and tended to rely too heavily on synthesizers, or started doing ridiculous things like guitar solos. There are very few good guitar solos, a guitar is meant to accompany the rest of the instruments, and few people are willing to pay to listen to the screechy sound of an electric guitar all by itself, but by the late 80's bands had lost artistry and discipline and were just showing off. (Because that's what Boomers do.)

    Ironically the Disco era produced better music, Disco was sort of ahead of its time in that the musicians mostly abandoned instruments in favor of synthesizers, drum machines and the like. By the time bands like the Pet Shop Boys came along mainstream rock sounded a lot like Disco, but the original Disco stuff from the late 70's / early 80's usually sounded better.

    We'll never know how music would have continued to evolve, because the MP3 era slowed a lot of innovation to a halt; these days there is very little innovation because the music industry still hasn't really figured out how to make music pay. If a song gets air play there are perormance royalties, and if it gets used in a commercial, TV show or movie there are sync royalties, but no one buys CD's any more and that pretty much killed off all of the record labels.

    So while i hate to give the Boomers credit, IMO the late 70's / early 80's was the greatest era in rock music. What do you think?

    ReplyDelete
  23. well said, Feryl. I have one quibble though:

    "Does he realize that music complexity peaked in the late 70's and early 80's?"

    there was still a lot of good music in the late 80s/early 90s, for instance the R & B revival involving Boyz to Men.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Feryl: Does he realize that music complexity peaked in the late 70's and early 80's?

    If you told him that complexity overlapped most with sales under the Prog Rock era, he'd get it. (and on the Blacker side, funk bands and jazz-funk. less complex than jazz, sure, but more listened to.)

    People overestimate the degree to which a noticeable change is sudden - so they'd assume music totally fell away from the Prog Rocky overblown elaboration to stripped back punk, while actually it was a slow fall away from more complex songwriting norms, with those artists still being active, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I was talking about complexity of pop hits rather than entire (sub) genres. A lot of super duper technical metal songs have been made since the mid 80's but the only popular rock songs to be hits since the mid 90's have largely been "minimalist" (e.g. dull) in instrumentation and melodic/harmonic structures..

    "they'd assume music totally fell away from the Prog Rocky overblown elaboration to stripped back punk,"

    In your face, minimalist, and angry punk was never popular in America outside of a handful of disgruntled teens. Most of whom quickly lost interest anyway. The kind of new wave bands who had success on the charts and on MTV were highly competent musicians and songwriters who made melodic and often danceable music.

    In America, when MTV started out in the early 80's, British new wave bands (Duran Duran, Flock of Seagulls, the Police etc.) had more or less equal footing with more established New World classic/prog rock groups (like Rush, REO Speedwagon, Journey etc.). Sort of 70's vs 80's, though some of the older groups like Rush or ZZ Top were incorporating lots of synths, higher tempos, and somewhat more straightforward arrangements in order to stay current. Which some acts did do well; many classic rock groups had hits well into the 80's (Boston's biggest hit song was released in '86!).

    Intrestingly, new wave and classic rock basically petered out nearly simultaneously. As early as '86 many artists were taking the exciting new wave aesthetic and applying it to increasingly contrived and bland songs. The energy and color were intact but that trademark sense of quirky edge that true new wave had from about 1978-1984 was running out. I still think '85 was a great year for music in general though.

    Classic rock groups were still releasing lots of popular records in the earlier 80's. 1984 was probably the last plausible year for the classic rock era. Some cool albums like Springsteen's Born in the USA, Foreigner's Agent Provocateur, and Van Halen's 1984. Plus some heartfelt, powerful songs by John Waite, Night Ranger, Huey Lewis, and Pat Benatar. Laugh if you want, but '84-'86 was just about the last period where people (especially celebrities) were confident, sincere, and approachable. By 1993 it was undeniable that people were becoming a snarky drag. "Dude, it's so 80's, so uhh GAY, to put your heart into something". "We're above that now".

    Hair metal basically superseded classic rock by 1986. You still had loud guitars, melody (more or less, less in the case Motley Crue), and solos. But these late Boomer acts would be much brasher, more "street" (an adjective that became very popular in the later 80's) than the more affable early Boomer acts that started in the 70's. A sign that the later Boomers had a chip on their shoulder about early Boomers getting a head start in the striving game.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "There are very few good guitar solos, a guitar is meant to accompany the rest of the instruments, and few people are willing to pay to listen to the screechy sound of an electric guitar all by itself, but by the late 80's bands had lost artistry and discipline and were just showing off. (Because that's what Boomers do.) "

    The L.A. metal scene was notoriously competitive and fickle. Everybody wanted to be the next Van Halen or Randy Rhoads. I think too that American culture (especially in more elite/wannabe elite circles) was growing more ruthless in the 80's. I'm a big fan of 80's metal, and most of the younger/late Boomer groups signed deeply horrific record contracts. The late Boomers have a lot of piss and vinegar regarding the fact that Silents and early Boomers were hogging high status by the early 80's. It's understandable that late Boomers would be bitter; what's less forgivable is that late Boomers desperately tried to catch up in the game by naively heaving one Hail Mary after another. Gen X detests the Boomer win it all costs mentality; late Boomers have the twin issues of being screwed by the system while also actively solidifying striving and egoism.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "Also, the performers were still unashamedly masculine and feminine during that time; they didn't feel the need to tone down their masculinity (hair metal -- I'm sorry, guys should not have super-long hair or wear makeup, supposedly those guys were totally straight but I'm not buying it"

    You're confusing personal adornment/decoration with a person's self concept/character. Testosterone levels were much higher in the 80's; tough guy culture (the real kind, not the pouting James Dean kind) was big. Action movies, heavy metal, denim, sleeveless shirts worn tightly to show off your physique, etc. were totally in. Homophobia peaked in the late 80's.

    Since people were very outgoing in the 80's, there was a lot individuality and style that people conveyed. And at times that was in forms of adornment like jewelry, well styled long(ish) hair, make-up, and clothes that made you look mature (like higher waisted pants). Low rise pants shorten the appearance of legs; babies have very short legs. The higher waisted pants worn in the later 70's-early 90's made people (even teenagers) look longer legged aka more mature. And thankfully, few people had non-ear piercings or tattoos. Which aren't pro-social adornment; they're signs of alienation and crass distancing from healthy norms.

    Are you gonna tell me that Millennial indie rock groups (with their sober Puritan colors, Islamic beards, short hair, ugly tats/piercings, and dorky beneath the ass crack skinny pants) are better ass kickers than 80's late Boomer metal bands?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Feryl,

    I'm actually a fan of 80's metal too - a lot of the songs were great. But at the same time, when I look at it I see a lot of wasted potential. A lot of those bands had tremendous talent. But instead of saying to themselves, "we're entertainers, let's give the listeners a good show," they indulged in too much self-expression.

    I see your point about how competitive the rock scene was in the late 80's. You can see why the late Boomer artists engaged in so much one-upsmahsip in a desperate effort to get ahead. The ridiculous, over-the-top showmanship displayed by the late Boomer bands makes a lot of sense when you view it in that light.

    But just imagine how good bands like Guns N' Roses could have been if they'd concentrated on recording kick-ass albums and putting on great concerts. Instead, they got so intimidated by their own fame that they were too afraid to release a new album.

    On the other extreme, think about all of the bizarre acts from the 80's who also had real musical talent but squandered their opportunity by focusing on image and style. Adam Ant, Boy George, Duran Duran -- the list goes on and on. I know that their image drove part of their sales, but a lot of those guys had real musical talent, which is rare, but they squandered it on looking hip or avant-garde. Acts like those are also the ones that relied way too heavily on synthesizers.

    Van Halen, Bon Jovi and Def Leppard were really good bands, IMO, they were basically the successors of the late 70's arena rock groups like Journey. Van Halen is probably the mid-80's band that comes closest to the late 70's ideal. They were all about writing catchy, fun songs, putting on a good show, and while the guitar solo was terribly overused in the 80's, Eddie Van Halen really was a great guitar player so his solos were pretty good.

    But most of the 80's acts blew it -- for example, Madonna, like her or hate her, is an exceptionally talented artist. She put out four -- four! -- really good albums in a row. But then she started concentrating exclusively on her image, and after the Sex book came out in 1992 it was all downhill from there. She probably still had a lot of good music left in her, but we never got to hear it because she started concentrating on shocking people.

    The late 70's acts seemed so much less contrived, so much more exuberant. The sound was more natural and didn't rely so heavily on synthesizers and remixing, the late 70's hits sounded like they were performed by a really talented group of teenagers during a jam session, while the 80's acts sounded like the products of recording studio alchemy.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I see what you mean about 80's individuality. Also, guys who performed in the long hair metal bands of the 80's grew up in the 70's, when it was normal for men to have long hair, so it didn't seem as strange to them as it seemed to me, someone a few years younger. But a lot of those guys were really over the top with their narcissism and self-indulgence, and those are traits I normally associate with gayness. You're probably right that they weren't' actually gay though.

    ReplyDelete
  30. "The late 70's acts seemed so much less contrived, so much more exuberant. The sound was more natural and didn't rely so heavily on synthesizers and remixing, the late 70's hits sounded like they were performed by a really talented group of teenagers during a jam session, while the 80's acts sounded like the products of recording studio alchemy."

    This is sort of a matter of aesthetics. Naturalistic vs. stylized. The 70's were a somewhat confused marriage of lingering bold 60's modernism and an un-selfconscious "live and let live" attitude (which was agreeable at times but also could be abused by those who were hedonistic and selfish). A of people had no particular concern for the past or for the future. People were kind of waiting and feeling things out. You can tell by some of the fashion (clothes, music, art direction, etc.) that managed to be both dull and garish at the same time. This uncertainty and lack of affect made for some great horror movies; virutally all the great horror movies were made in the 70's and the not quite out of the 70's early 80's.

    80's aesthetics are much more dynamic and highly stylized. Striking motifs and patterns (often inspired by a variety of cultures and eras). Red and blues (instead of earth tones). Treble (not bass). Moodiness (rather than obviousness). Cats (not dogs). Right angles (not curves). Shadows (rather than sun). Pallor (instead of tans). Film stock that emphasized contrast (whereas 70's film stock was blander).

    When style peaks about every 60 years (the 1920's, the 1980's) it is so striking that these eras quickly develop a reputation for being exciting and distinctive. It's just too much for some people, I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  31. In case you didn't catch it, Steve Sailer has a new article about crime:

    "In 1994 in the suburbs of Oxford, England, I had lunch with a half dozen or so colleagues in the marketing research business. It looked like Mr. Darcy’s estate outside, but Grand Theft Auto was the locals’ obsession. The only topic they talked about at lunch for 45 minutes was having their cars stolen. As a Chicagoan for the last dozen years, my stories of having my car windows repeatedly smashed simply couldn’t compete with these suburban Oxfordians who all had had their cars entirely stolen.

    There was nothing anomalous about this. While property crimes were already way down in the U.S. and were falling further, much of Europe was plagued by criminality."

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/why-did-crime-go-up-in-europe-while-it-was-falling-in-the-u-s/

    ReplyDelete
  32. Different birth/crisis dynamics? Guns? Generational characteristics being different from one country to the next?

    I hear a lot about NW Europe has been increasingly pitiful when it comes to dealing with criminals.

    Yet in the U.S., the Boomers spearheaded a tough-on-crime culture (which Gen X did not protest even though it them hardest) since circa 1980. As the Boomers still dominate and Gen X-ers by and large are not the activist type, there are few signs of the U.S. returning to the more genial rehabilitation ethic that G.I.s created and Silents mostly continued from the 30's-70's.

    Boomers like Sailer began panicking about crime in the 80's and, with their individualistic disregard for the effect of a huge prisoner population and growing desire to protect Millennial children, quickly rammed through much draconian legislation. This legislation was hardest on "blue collar" (e.g., young and calloused Gen X) criminals. Though of course middle aged people of older generations were also affected.

    Had such punitive law existed in the 60's/70's, many of the influential Boomers might have had their lives derailed. After all, remember Bush's "youthful indiscretions"? G.W. Bush mocked the pleas of death row inmates yet his own generation got the privilege of 20-35 years in the equitable and humble mood that prevailed before the elite striving that began to take off in the 80's.

    For all the talk about misguided Willie Horton type fiascoes (which was attributed to a M. Dukakis, a Silent, by legions of Boomer hotheads), there are countless examples of people making a relatively minor mistake that soon entangles them in a desperate struggle to keep their freedom, their job, their money, their shelter, and their family intact. For the sake of not letting any criminal/possible criminal "get away with something" or "get out too early", we must also deal with the authorities destroying countless lives and families needlessly.

    This also makes both subject and ruler alike paranoid. Cops are brainwashed to view EVERYONE as a threat and their bullying is enabled. Judges and prosecutors are encouraged to mete out the greatest possible punishment. People on trial are threatened harshly if they don't immediately plead guilty, though such pleas themselves usually entail retribution that may trigger a series of difficulties that might wreck the person's ability to ever live a peaceful and productive life. And "sparing" the tax payer and victim the "ordeal" of a trial leads to countless innocent people getting bogus convictions that may haunt them.

    As M pointed out, even if U.K. Boomers had the same temperament as American ones, their smaller numbers would mitigate their ability to dominate culture.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Also, in spite of the (warranted) concern over youth spree violence that is indicative of high inequality, on virtually all other measures of rowdiness/risk taking/aggression, Millennials are substantially more docile than gen X-ers in the U.S. And that's got squat to do with incarceration rates. The imprisonment rate shot up in the 80's and early 90's so how come crime didn't begin to decline until about 1996?

    We've been able to pin down (on this blog) the fact that crime began decreasing due to most Boomers entering middle age by the later 90's, X-ers mellowing out sooner (and being incarcerated sooner) than Boomers, and the overall mood encouraging people to take fewer risks. Which is the mood that most Millennials have spent their lives in.

    I find it hard to believe that the mere absence of guns has somehow induced Euro Millennials to be more sociopathic. I sense that British culture has been much darker and more nihilistic than America since circa the mid 70's. America has been more into moral absolutism even to this day (if American Millennial's opposition to abortion is any indication) and it's a healthy sign that some Americans still resolutely believe that some things are simply wrong. In spite of what some effete sophisticate would have you believe.

    I'd say the Jews are dragging us down with their constant underming of Anglo/Celtic/Teutonic tradition. We're been shamefully complacent about not giving the Jews their eviction notice.

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

    Go figure. Outside of the dopey nordic countries, the white(ish) countries that have most embraced multicultural decadence are the most Jewish.

    ReplyDelete
  34. The harsher crime policies were not responsible for the crime decline - they were a reflection of inequality. I'm always surprised how many conservatives, or at least online conservatives, vehemently believe that one caused the other.

    Trying to explain cocooning seems almost impossible since no one will buy that a high crime rate is a sign of a healthy society.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah Curtis, I don't know how to really explain it to anyone either. Certainly not in a short soundbite. I think about the things discussed on the blog every day, but am not sure how to talk about them with the people close to me. Even the conservative ones.

      Delete
  35. It's the old correlation doesn't always mean causation. Most Boomers were teens or near teens when crime exploded circa 1970, and this was often attributed to both the surge in the number of teenagers (even though adult Silents began committing more crime as well) as well the G.I. system being too lenient. But ultimately, whether Boomers realized it or not, this leniency would remain intact largely because noble G.I.s and sensitive Silents did not want to condemn large numbers of young/vulnerable Boomers to being institutionalized. G.I.s and early Silents were also, let's not forget, the parents of Boomers.

    It's worth noting that many Boomers were actively resisting starting families in the 70's when they began demanding draconian anti crime legislation. If extreme punishment tore families apart, what difference did it make? Besides, cocky Boomers didn't fear being entangled themselves or innocent people being hurt. Rather, they figured that it would only be the hardcore bad guys who'd be punished. And it goes without saying that the average Boomer always feels that they themselves are virtuous; it's only other people who are bad.

    In the 80's, when Boomers began having Millennial children, they then did become more concerned about family. But only in the sense that there were criminals out there who might hurt their ability to raise the best child in the world. Again, that harsh punishment would damage the ability of innocent people and minor offenders to be free and make a living (thereby not allowing them to mature into capable family men) was ignored.

    ReplyDelete
  36. "Does anybody read the comments anymore at Isteve?"

    No. They've been bad for years now. I think a big part is generational -- too many Boomers, or X-ers LARP-ing as Boomers from the '70s, when being a libertarian contrarian was the hip new thing.

    I don't read the blog hardly anymore either, though that's true of lots of places I used to read. Steve is a good gateway to more comprehensive sites like My Posting Career.

    Being an introvert doesn't mean someone will miss large swaths of good music, but confessing that you have no rhythm and don't like dancing of any sort is more of a red flag about their musical tastes. It's like art critics being color-blind.

    ReplyDelete
  37. "But these late Boomer acts would be much brasher, more "street" (an adjective that became very popular in the later 80's) than the more affable early Boomer acts that started in the 70's. A sign that the later Boomers had a chip on their shoulder about early Boomers getting a head start in the striving game."

    New Wave came from late Boomers who were 20-25 years old, not early Boomers. The difference between '83 and '88 is one of changing zeitgeist, not generational turnover.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Rates of property crime and violent crime are still on a 20-year decline in the UK and western Europe, AFAIK. The researchers are only saying that the decline has been profounder in America than in the UK, to the degree that our rates are now lower than theirs, whereas during the rising-crime period our rates shot up faster and higher than in the UK.

    Crime rates did peak slightly later in the UK, around '94-'95 instead of '91-'92, but that's just random variation across places. There's variation across places within the US as well, with NYC peaking earlier, in '90-'91 I believe.

    ReplyDelete
  39. There are few to no conservatives out West, which is instead populated by libertarians and liberals. Especially in L.A., where he was from before recently moving to Oregon.


    What about Mormons? Aren't they puritanical?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Practicing or devout Mormons have a conservative orientation -- very attuned to who is and is not a Mormon, eager to fulfill their duties in the church hierarchy, and swearing off all sorts of things as polluting (caffeine, porn, gay marriage, etc.).

    But that devout group isn't very big or growing -- shrinking, actually. There were lots of converts during the rising-crime climate of cults, roughly 1960 to 1990. Most of them and their children aren't devout anymore. During this century, there's been a massive exodus of Gen X and Millennial Mormons ("ex-Mormons" or "jack Mormons"), falling conversion rates among white people since about 1990, and more and more considering themselves lapsed or merely "cultural Mormons" akin to lapsed / cultural Catholics.

    Most growth in the LDS church has been, and will be, from Third World converts who may or may not maintain the conservatism of the church. Mass influx from poor Third Worlders usually turns a church into a "peripheral spirit possession cult," in the anthropology jargon. Think of Pentecostal churches.

    I imagine it'll drift off in that direction, probably maintaining the emphasis on food and other taboos, but weakening the hierarchy and diluting the Us vs. Them loyalty in practice, relying only on shared beliefs and occasional church attendance to signal loyalty, as opposed to the high levels of mutual aid that Mormons traditionally gave to one another.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Needless to say that most folks flooding out of the Mormon church are being absorbed in the libertarian climate of the Mountain West. I've posted before about the data showing Salt Lake City to be the gayest city in America.

    Their anti-conservatism is stronger than elsewhere since this huge group of people define their identity based on being an apostate from a morally conservative church. They drift more easily into the atheist / libertarian circles in real life or on the internet, and all of a sudden they see nothing wrong with legalizing pot or letting people download as much porn as they want -- as long as they pay for it (ex-Mormons still have the Saxon-Scandinavian genes for legalism and being sticklers for rules).

    ReplyDelete
  42. "But these late Boomer acts would be much brasher, more "street" (an adjective that became very popular in the later 80's) than the more affable early Boomer acts that started in the 70's. A sign that the later Boomers had a chip on their shoulder about early Boomers getting a head start in the striving game."

    "New Wave came from late Boomers who were 20-25 years old, not early Boomers. The difference between '83 and '88 is one of changing zeitgeist, not generational turnover".

    I was mainly referring to hair metal compared to the "Slow Ride" 70's rock scene, particularly the dizzying Sunset Strip scene (even groups that weren't from L.A., like Poison and Skid Row, still had to pay their dues in that scene and typically had similar late Boomer pre rock star lifestyles and upbringings anyway). California in general produced a lot of hard edged rock whether it was thrash, hardcore, or hair metal. These groups were usually composed of early 60's or very late 50's births (one rare exception was Blackie Lawless, born in '55). Dokken and Van Halen had personnel born before 1956 and these groups weren't as grimy as the younger groups. I once read Sammy Hagar say that by the late 80's, younger groups like Metallica could connect in some ways with the teens that he wouldn't be able to. Basically, late Boomers were better at connecting with alienated and long suffering Gen X teens.

    I certainly think the more hedonistic and turbulent life of late Boomers made their art grittier.

    When you look at Silents being perpetually big supporters of high art, I think there's something to be said for a generation's taste being at least slightly immune to trends. Whether it was tough guy 80's metal or moody New Wave, the late Boomers were letting their sensibilities do a lot of the talking, not just doing whatever was trendy. AC/DC didn't affect a morose stance in the 90's.

    Some artists of course do try to tap into whatever's popular (even if it doesn't mesh with their temperament or skill) to stay on top.

    ReplyDelete
  43. "No. They've been bad for years now. I think a big part is generational -- too many Boomers, or X-ers LARP-ing as Boomers from the '70s, when being a libertarian contrarian was the hip new thing.

    I don't read the blog hardly anymore either, though that's true of lots of places I used to read. Steve is a good gateway to more comprehensive sites like My Posting Career."

    I do miss the internet of the 90's/very early 2000's. You know, when some barely knew what a computer was and message boards and websites were largely the product of Gen X and the occasional Boomer.

    I wonder if Unz.com and especially Taki attract a lot of weirdos and malcontents because of some of the garbage they host. Like attention whore trolls like Jim Goad. A '61 birth, Goad like some late Boomers has superficial Gen X traits; Alienation, a volatile life, etc. But '65+ Gen X-ers don't have the ostentatious egos, big mouths, and glib disregard for others that '61-'64 people do.

    "Being an introvert doesn't mean someone will miss large swaths of good music, but confessing that you have no rhythm and don't like dancing of any sort is more of a red flag about their musical tastes. It's like art critics being color-blind."

    Another self-conscious nerdism is disliking rambunctious, spontaneous, and energetic physical activity of any kind. Not just dancing. Steve doesn't like hard rock either, probably because he's worried that he'll turn into a jock gorilla if he listens to it too much (a 1990 book about metal said that women found male metal fans to be reassuringly masculine).

    I don't know about my sense of rhythm, and I don't care that much for small talk with strangers, but I've been boisterous my whole life. That's a big reason I never sided with nerds. It's kind of a cerebral Vs. physical thing. The cerebral types are always analyzing risk and detail, instead of just going with things and dropping their pretentions.

    ReplyDelete
  44. I don't think Steve Sailer is so much an introvert, since he's always telling stories about all the people he met and the "insider information" he got from people in the know, he's just very intellectual and suffering the effects of cocooning. He's also very creative, and real introverts are less creative.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Unabashed (and un-punished) boisterousness is kind of a dividend of an already-trustworthy society.

    Expecting older marketing executives or their collegiate commenters to have firm grasps on music theory, practice, style, and quality, plus a personal memory of enough music from greater than 20 years ago or more and its effects on them, may be a little too demanding to be considered reasonable.

    Still, I think it's reflective of the boisterous fanboy spirit, which did indeed inform and refresh most of the early Internet, before it became gradually swamped with no-talent posturing clickbait snarkers who seem fundamentally incapable of knowing why people might unabashedly love something in the first place (no talent, children, or life experience themselves, 90% of the time.)

    ReplyDelete

You MUST enter a nickname with the "Name/URL" option if you're not signed in. We can't follow who is saying what if everyone is "Anonymous."