tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post2197847416830749359..comments2024-03-27T23:28:20.274-04:00Comments on Face to Face: Immigration is a quantity problem: Mass immigration necessarily draws from shithole countries, not rich functioning onesagnostichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-55834908793267155422018-01-17T21:49:38.071-05:002018-01-17T21:49:38.071-05:00"Trumpians are Boomer-driven and therefore mo..."Trumpians are Boomer-driven and therefore more partisan, while Bernie people are X/Millennial-driven and less partisan. That's who's going to change things going forward."<br /><br />Time's running out on conservative culture warriors. The trad. GOP has a major blackhole in it's support base....It's not just the obvious weakness with voters who are neither white nor Hispanic, it's also amongst under 40 voters. Nobody born after 1976 actually believes in the GOP's smelly brew of Xtian fundamentalism and trickle down economics. <br /><br />The die-hard Republicans who think that voting for the Dems=voting for communism and infanticide are going to well, die out eventually. Since white people born in the late 50's/60's are a massive cohort often that buys into Trad. GOP nonsense, it's allowed the GOP to build up a good sized voting/funding base from which to win a lot of local elections, with state-wide elections being a tougher task but still fairly doable as long as they don't have terrible candidates. I understand that a lot of early Boomers are pretty liberal, and they often snicker over how many "junior" Boomers bought into the Reagan Revolution back in the 80's when they were 20-something.<br /><br />According to Neil Howe, GOP support begins to progressively decline with people born after about 1972. Right now there's a huge cohort of 1960's/very early 70's born white people who are keeping the GOP on life support, often times voting for their generational peers (the GOP's extant elected officials are quite a bit younger than their Dem counterparts). The Dems being so crusty makes sense, since early Boomers are grossed out by the thought of letting Reagan's youth into their ranks.<br /><br />The GOP as it's been known is finished. They desperately try to figure out ways to appeal to non-whites and Millennials; but these "autopsies", funded by the usual cucks and yuppies, never consider the idea of changing the party's ideology. Instead, it's always wishful thinking that the same ideas will work as long as they're packaged the right way. People'll drink the poison if we keep the skull and bones off the package.Ferylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01336057631877941839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-3523208917167285172018-01-16T18:33:25.661-05:002018-01-16T18:33:25.661-05:00The generational angle also points to the Bernie r...The generational angle also points to the Bernie rather than Trump movement as the change agent's most likely source.<br /><br />Trumpians are Boomer-driven and therefore more partisan, while Bernie people are X/Millennial-driven and less partisan. That's who's going to change things going forward.<br /><br />Among Bernie primary voters, about 15% voted Trump in the general, compared to only 2% of Hillary primary voters going with Trump in the general. That's a healthy level of non-partisan behavior.<br /><br />What if it were the other way around? Trump gets robbed of the nomination, endorses the GOP nom -- say, Bush -- and Bernie has an upset win in the Dem primary. So it's Bernie vs. Bush in the general.<br /><br />Among Trump primary voters, how many would choose Bernie over Bush? Probably not better than 15% and maybe far below that, because GOP primary voters overall and including Trump primary voters are more likely to be Boomers than Bernie primary voters, and thus more partisan.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-1643436130526155452018-01-16T18:25:24.359-05:002018-01-16T18:25:24.359-05:00The point about generations is who is partisan vs....The point about generations is who is partisan vs. non-partisan, and who will therefore be willing to build broad coalitions to get things done.<br /><br />Silents and especially Boomers have been the most partisan generations, from young adulthood all the way through decrepitude. Gen X-ers and Millennials recoil from the idea of making every political project into an apocalyptic Super Bowl of team Red vs. team Blue.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-38076882034065288682018-01-16T11:41:59.616-05:002018-01-16T11:41:59.616-05:00".it has nothing all to do with the generatio...".it has nothing all to do with the generations or age brackets or any of that...period."<br /><br />Don't be so quick to dismiss Agnostic's and Feryl's well-thought out comments. It does have to do with generations, because the older ones were status-striving and pursued the policies which began rising inequality.<br /><br />For instance, militarism is one area where the younger generations - Gen X and Millenials - have clearly learned the lessons of the past, showing much less support for the Iraq War or future wars, than the Boomers and Silents.Curtisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-66566080994080335162018-01-16T10:39:08.254-05:002018-01-16T10:39:08.254-05:00regarding the discussion here in the comments over...regarding the discussion here in the comments over the generations and what they have done and what characteristics they have, yadda yadda, this discussion is nonsensical...this political correctness/mass immigration mess has nothing to do with the generations whatsoever...it has been driven by corporate greed and accomplished via propaganda and indoctrination in school...it has nothing all to do with the generations or age brackets or any of that...period.chan chan studioshttps://twitter.com/ChanChanStudiosnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-85575800399332823642018-01-16T09:56:04.026-05:002018-01-16T09:56:04.026-05:00someone who makes as much sense as you (or me) wil...someone who makes as much sense as you (or me) will not gain much visibility among the dissidents online...unfortunatelychan chan studioshttps://twitter.com/ChanChanStudiosnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-43576714413980200122018-01-15T18:46:38.787-05:002018-01-15T18:46:38.787-05:00That should be thin-skinned.
Anyway, might a chan...That should be thin-skinned.<br /><br />Anyway, might a change be in the offing once cocooning lifts over the next 5-10 years? X-ers have spent too much time blocking blows, instead of delivering them, since the early 90's. Boomers developed tremendous ego strength from spending much of their adulthood in an outgoing era, then when cocooning (and really high striving) began to hit us in the 1990's, Boomers simultaneously developed greater delusions about their importance while X-ers were socialized to be culture war bystanders and generational punching bags at a time when the Boomers badly needed 2nd opinions from those who were not their peers. Boomers have never been more badly in need of a reality check, but most X-ers (and Millennials) due not have the nerve to relay the message.<br /><br />BTW, it's to the point that later Silents and Boomers get to be the permanent leaders for whichever cause any of us might be supporting. The overwhelming power among each side is concentrated in those over 50. In the 1960's and 70's (an egalitarian period with elder elites from less entitled generations), it was common for 30 and 40 somethings to gain power and respect as rising figures.....These days 45 yr old X-ers are still seen as expendable meat, foot soldiers, for the grinder operated by late Silents and Boomers. Jared Taylor on a podcast talked about how it's easy for the Dems to pretend it's the 60's when for the last 25 years people born in the 30's and 40's are still given ample power which they have no interest in giving up. Remember how long it took Al Franken to retire, after he was disgraced?Ferylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01336057631877941839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-36481867878769399522018-01-15T18:23:46.943-05:002018-01-15T18:23:46.943-05:00"The most hyper-competitive generations in wo..."The most hyper-competitive generations in world history are not going to compromise in the interest of meeting their greater goals."<br /><br />What about the dipshits who caused the Civil War? Per Strauss and Howe, The Transcendental generation (born in the early 1800's) were the worst generation in American history as of the early 1990's. By the time they attained full power in the mid 1800's, they trampled all over younger generations as much as they trampled on each other.<br /><br />Later Silents (the true 60's generation) can be annoying and sociopathic, but IMO and IM experience the ones born in the late 20's-mid 30's have done as much, if not more, good as they've done bad. The worst thing you can say about a lot of them is that they're insecure and neurotic.<br /><br />Also WRT generations, Millennial and Boomer women have had almost equal suicide rates. while X-ers have a moderately lower level. I think your notion that being physically traumatized (challenged?) at a young age in an outgoing period, and having parents and peers too busy with having a life to pity you, girds up your psychological armor before we fully transition to a cocooning period in which X-ers (or GIs) know better than to sweat the small stuff. Problem is, the current combination of a high cocooning and high striving mood has given extroverted (but psychologically fragile) Boomer elders a huge advantage; stolid X-ers won't take the keys away from Boomers, and the teeming masses of Boomers wouldn't deign to share more of the spotlight with X-ers (a generation against whom the Boomers have always stood) anyway. <br /><br />The scary thing is that it's 1940's births who are simultaneously the most over-privileged, the most powerful, yet also are the most psychologically immature. They had the luxury, the time, etc. to accrue the superficial trappings of sophistication, but they spent their childhood and most or all of their adolescence in the paradise of the immediate post WW2 era, where their elders and their peers didn't teach them a damn thing about humility, patience, or respect for the past...Nor did they realize how damn lucky they were to be born into a time in which so many ills, once thought to have been permanent features of human life, had been seemingly cured. As we've entered deeper into a striving era, all the weaknesses of Boomers have been magnified.....Judging from 70's and early 80's NFL games, Boomer professionals were still capable of modesty and dignity, but over the last 30 years every knock on Boomers has been reinforced (thick skinned, hot headed, envious, selfish, etc.). It's great that you insisted that your kids be treated better in the 80's and 90's than they would've been in the 60's or 70's, but what else didja do?Ferylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01336057631877941839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-92126557769776183572018-01-15T16:33:09.506-05:002018-01-15T16:33:09.506-05:00The goal, then, for the conservative or nationalis...The goal, then, for the conservative or nationalist side is to find ways to frame the appeal for immigration restriction that would resonate with liberals and moderates. And if the conservative framing would downright repulse those would-be allies, keep it to themselves -- fine for expressing freely on a niche forum like MPC, but not in real life or in a general-public part of the internet.<br /><br />There doesn't seem to be any more blood to be squeezed from the stone of pointing out how shitty Haiti and the Haitians are, to audiences who would be receptive to that argument. It's pretty obvious.<br /><br />The work to be done is building coalitions with other large groups who *don't* resonate with that argument, and getting them on board the same policy goal and tangible outcome (closing the borders).<br /><br />One of the few conservative -- corporeal -- threats posed by immigrants that liberals would resonate with is risk of epidemic diseases when effective population size increases through migration that connects formerly distinct regions, particularly when they're introducing pathogens into a region that has had no chance to evolve defenses against them.<br /><br />They've red Guns Germs and Steel, or Plagues and Peoples, or can understand basic epidemiology. It's science!<br /><br />In fact the Nader 2000 platform had something in it, or maybe Nader himself making comments, about needing reduced immigration because of the risk of spreading diseases. It can be framed as managing and solving a public health problem, which liberals like, rather than expressing and promoting fear of contamination by those dirty foreigners.<br /><br />I'd rather get closed borders *and* have more people wise up to how filthy the incoming foreigners are -- but if that message isn't going to sway enough people, then I'll keep that quiet and make it about managing public health according to simple applied science and epidemiology.<br /><br />Outcomes, not ideology!agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-53103863601919784762018-01-15T16:32:30.398-05:002018-01-15T16:32:30.398-05:00There's a strong generational component to pol...There's a strong generational component to polarization, with Silents and especially Boomers being the most polarized -- and having been that way for their entire lives -- while Gen X-ers and Millennials are far more Independent, and have been and will be so for their entire lives.<br /><br />The difference is constant across the decades, so it's a true generational effect, not just changes across the lifespan.<br /><br />The most hyper-competitive generations in world history are not going to compromise in the interest of meeting their greater goals.<br /><br />Especially not when those concessions would be merely ideological while getting their way 100% on the actual outcome -- for the hyper-competitive, the ideological badges matter more than the real outcomes. It's like a sport or capture the flag.<br /><br />For the post-airhead generations, they will compromise to build broad winning coalitions, rather than pound the table and only hang onto loser fringes.<br /><br />In this way, the white nationalist / identitarian / Alt-Right are even more Boomer-ocious than the Boomers -- obsessed purely with ideology and culture rather than tangible outcomes and materialism, and hell-bent on polarizing until there's only 1 person left on any "side". They're the ultimate dead-end, trying to live like their parents in a world that no longer allows for such living. It's political downward mobility.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-43633810992802383872018-01-15T16:11:07.786-05:002018-01-15T16:11:07.786-05:00Right, liberals are the natural group to be concer...Right, liberals are the natural group to be concerned with over-population, as their views are adapted to surviving in a "K-selected" rather than an "r-selected" ecological niche.<br /><br />K, meaning the population is near carrying capacity and per capita resources are stretched thin, pop growth is minimal and mostly stable. And r, meaning the population is well below carrying capacity and per capita resources are abundant, pop growth is exponential and unstable.<br /><br />http://akinokure.blogspot.com/2017/03/rk-theory-conservatives-r-liberals-k.html<br /><br />They have abandoned that natural focus because the issue became contaminated, in their minds, by association with conservatives or nationalists talking about the quality of those who would be the excess population -- filthy immigrants, the 10 kids being pumped out by every welfare-using single mother in a trailer park or ghetto, and so on.<br /><br />Both sides should have done some polling to see which framing was more palatable to the general public, and gone with that. Each side would get their desired goal, but their ideological victory might not happen -- maybe each would have to meet the other half-way in the framing, or maybe one would get their framing and the other would have to keep theirs quiet and practice ideological taqqiya.<br /><br />As part of a general trend, the two sides don't want to do any sort of compromise, and have polarized themselves into puritanical sects. That began around the mid-1970s, and really took off after that.<br /><br />But even as recently as the 1980s, the Left was still talking about these issues, including over-population, rather than identity politics:<br /><br />http://akinokure.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-left-in-1980s-what-did-they-focus.html<br /><br />And as late as the mid-1990s, liberal Americans (not just activist groups) were against the open borders immigration policies that were becoming the norm. They were against work permits for illegals, wanted lower rather than higher immigration, etc.:<br /><br />http://akinokure.blogspot.com/2013/07/leftists-were-anti-immigration-back-in.htmlagnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-64374347646842063962018-01-15T11:00:52.446-05:002018-01-15T11:00:52.446-05:00The Sierra Club opposed immigration for years, how...The Sierra Club opposed immigration for years, however they were co-opted by the Establishment and now favor illegals.gumdeohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16176571456227420680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-54712489879048232882018-01-15T01:39:33.108-05:002018-01-15T01:39:33.108-05:00Your point about “sorry, but this country is alrea...Your point about “sorry, but this country is already full,” brings up a thought:<br /><br />I can remember when concerns about overpopulation were once a common topic of discussion among environmentalists and the general public in the late 1960s-early 1970s, and that overpopulation would turn us into a “shithole country” by the year 2000 unless people stopped procreating so prolifically.<br /><br />But for some reason, those concerns are no longer at the forefront of discussion, and you never hear the greens say a peep about it.<br /><br />Overpopulation is at the root of just about every environmental problem, from the dreaded “climate change” to deforestation, species endangerment, resource depletion, and your garden variety air and water pollution. <br /><br />The point is, our population would have remained stable for the last 40+ years were it not for immigration. This would have meant A LOT less environmental damage. <br /><br />If I wanted to get liberals on board with dealing with uncontrolled immigration, one angle I’d take is its effects on the environment.<br /><br />But why haven’t any liberals done that?BAWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01776991172578419994noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-90319137516963497752018-01-14T20:45:52.077-05:002018-01-14T20:45:52.077-05:00I deleted the long-winded "identitarian"...I deleted the long-winded "identitarian" derail again.<br /><br />The name is stupid -- "identitarian" means what "racist" does in plain English, and will fool people no more than "race realist" did.<br /><br />You idiotically think it's a mere fig-leaf reform to reduce immigration from 1 million per year down to 100 or 1,000 per year, the numbers given in the post, just because we wouldn't be overtly obsessing over the race or ethnicity of those precious few who we let in.<br /><br />You don't understand anything about the structure or history of our economy, and aren't interested in learning.<br /><br />You also don't understand the long failed history of the framework you're advocating in off-topic derails again and again. "Identity politics for white people" is not new, and has failed more and more over time -- now with repeated disavowals by the would-be re-aligner President Trump.<br /><br />You also don't understand how badly the GOP has fucked the country over on measures of economics and cultural cohesion, arguably worse than the Democrats have, when you factor in the non-racial angles about economic decline and de-industrialization leading to so much of the degeneracy we see today.<br /><br />How outside-the-box of you identitarians to sanctify the GOP, a party that you feel could never be worse than the Dumbocraps. You're like aspiring Boomers -- learn from their failures, and get a clue about populist economics rather than pushing more retarded right-wing Gramsci-ism.<br /><br />You sound like you're 19 years old, typical of the Alt-Right, so you may mature out of it and learn more as you grow up.<br /><br />But I was way beyond where you guys where when I was 19 -- part of the anti-globalization and anti-imperialist movements, going to Quebec City to protest the Free Trade Area of the Americas, descending on DC to protest the Iraq War before it had even started.<br /><br />You guys may be getting stuck in a rut already, but we'll see after a few years. So far, though, it doesn't look good judging from where you guys are at compared to two years ago.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.com