Elites, serfs and freeloaders

hopeful dems v rep

This is a survey whose results hardly need much explaining to me. The world is in the grip of the left and there seems no genuinely conceivable way to loosen that grip short of serious catastrophe. And even then, if they elect some right side party, it is for emergency purposes only. The middle of the road is so far to the left, and is kept there by a media that is even more to the left than the average, that there is little prospect of anything other than an elites-serfs-and-freeloaders kind of future. The elites will keep themselves in power by promising a guaranteed minimum income for the freeloader class.

Reading as I have been doing the socialist literature of the nineteenth century through the eyes of one of its great critics, Yves Guyot, the one constant is “those who do not work, do not eat”. This was an old staple then partly addressed to those who received income through interest payments and dividends but mostly to those who did not pull their weight in the workplace. Now we really do have a massive cohort of non-working income earners dependent on the State but they have become the very essence of left side politics and its most reliable base of support.

Just to take the American example, in the United States the distribution of “food stamps”, which can now be used to buy TVs and whatnot, reaches towards half the population. When Obama became president the proportion was one third.

If you have a vision of a world made up of independent, self-reliant individuals who will look after themselves, you are nostalgic for a world that is disappearing so rapidly and in a way that it is almost impossible to imagine a return to how things were. And this is before we even start thinking about foreign policy and international relations.

If you’re a Republican why wouldn’t you be depressed?

The working class and the voting class

Ann Coulter does the numbers and it is now a demographic battle in the US about who comes and who votes. It wasn’t the young after all who has voted to subvert the America of individual effort and personal responsibility. Ann tells a quite disturbing story:

On closer examination, it turns out that young voters, aged 18-29, overwhelmingly supported Romney. But only the white ones. . . .

What the youth vote shows is not that young people are nitwits who deserve lives of misery and joblessness, as I had previously believed, but that America is hitting the tipping point on our immigration policy.

The youth vote is a snapshot of elections to come if nothing is done to reverse the deluge of unskilled immigrants pouring into the country as a result of Ted Kennedy’s 1965 immigration act. Eighty-five percent of legal immigrants since 1968 have come from the Third World. A majority of them are in need of government assistance.

Whites are 76 percent of the electorate over the age of 30 and only 58 percent of the electorate under 30. Obama won the “youth vote” because it is the knife’s edge of a demographic shift, not because he offered the kids free tuition and contraception.

There is even this, which does seem to show there is a way out, as difficult as it may be:

Nearly 20 percent of black males under 30 voted for Romney, more than three times what McCain got.

It is working and paying taxes that may be the divide that matters. As she points out, it is immigration policy that is in the middle. And it will be the big issue of the future as the US does or does not submerge itself under a flood of migrants from places where no one can even conceivably be employed in a high tech, English speaking nation as the US for the time being now is. This is how she concludes:

Romney got a larger percentage of the white vote than Reagan did in 1980. That’s just not enough anymore.

Ironically, Romney was the first Republican presidential candidate in a long time not conspiring with the elites to make America a dumping ground for the world’s welfare cases. Conservatives who denounced Romney as a ‘RINO’ were the ones doing the bidding of the real establishment: business, which wants cheap labor and couldn’t care less if America ceases to be the land of opportunity that everyone wanted to immigrate to in the first place.

My previous post on Australia becoming a third world country has as the subtext that the parties of the left are actively ruining their countries for political advantage. Most of these people will never pay more in taxes than they take in welfare. But they’re not being brought here to work. They are being brought here to vote.

The science of winning elections

On top of all of the other analytics employed by the Democrats there was a new element which included getting people to vote who had never voted before. From the article with the disturbing title, “Liberal Stealth Groups Paved Obama Win”:

More than 4 million people who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 did not vote this year. But by applying new voter science, Obama nudged enough replacements in key states — many who were rare or first-time voters — to give him his margin of victory (leveraged even larger by the Electoral College).

Years of stealthy multimillion-dollar efforts paid off forAmerica’s left in the 2008 and 2012 victories by President Barack Obama. Using new voter science to get rare and first-time voters to go to the polls, the races have changedAmerica’s electorate — those who make the country’s decisions by showing up and voting.

Aided by $5 million minimum from George Soros, plus millions more from others, at least two secretive institutions were created to enable this effort by focused research on behavioral science. Their results are made available only to liberals and their causes.

Married to the state

The American election has put up some interesting demographic effects for the future. Thinking about the American election once again, some depressing thoughts about the gender gap in the US which is emphasised by the marriage gap:

You don’t hear nearly as much about the rise of single voters, despite the fact that they represent a much more significant trend. Only a few analysts, such as Ruy Teixera, James Carville, and Stanley Greenberg, have emphasized how important singletons were to President Obama’s reelection. Properly understood, there is far less of a “gender” gap in American politics than people think. Yes, President Obama won “women” by 11 points (55 percent to 44 percent). But Mitt Romney won married women by the exact same margin. To get a sense of how powerful the marriage effect is, not just for women but for men, too, look at the exit polls by marital status. Among nonmarried voters​—​people who are single and have never married, are living with a partner, or are divorced​—​Obama beat Romney 62-35. Among married voters Romney won the vote handily, 56-42.

Far more significant than the gender gap is the marriage gap. And what was made clear in the 2012 election was that the cohorts of unmarried women and men are now at historic highs​—​and are still increasing. This marriage gap​—​and its implications for our political, economic, and cultural future​—​is only dimly understood.

Why is there a reluctance to marry? According to the article:

How did we get to an America where half of the adult population isn’t married and somewhere between 10 percent and 15 percent of the population don’t get married for the first time until they’re approaching retirement? It’s a complicated story involving, among other factors, the rise of almost-universal higher education, the delay of marriage, urbanization, the invention of no-fault divorce, the legitimization of cohabitation, the increasing cost of raising children, and the creation of a government entitlement system to do for the elderly childless what grown children did for their parents through the millennia.

There are, however, other considerations of first grade importance that have been left out. First is the changed moral climate that surrounds sexual relations. Boys like playing the field and girls find it more difficult to get some chap to commit. Secondly, since no-fault divorce also now includes divide-all-assets-in-half divorce and support-your-children-till-they’re-at-least-18 divorce, the potential costs of a failed marriage are ruinous. And because we live longer while the potential for extra-marital adventures are becoming more readily available, there is less to induce anyone to take the plunge. And since it is becoming easier to have the state pick up the tab on so many of the costs that were once a family burden, the financial advantages of marriage is melting away.

The wisdom of youth

First let me start with this:

global temps - dec 2012

The text below is from a different article with a different chart but the result is just the same:

The apparent ‘decoupling’ of global heat from atmospheric CO2 concentrations — with the clear divergence of observed temperatures from projected temperatures — provides mounting evidence for falsification of IPCC climate models.

The conclusion:

Some observers of climate data are expecting the Earth to pass through at least a 30 year climate cooling period.

But if you are young you are generally less knowledgable. You therefore need something to show your independance even if that something is totally preposterous and impossible to believe if the facts are closely examined, But it is useful as a means to show independance and to differentiate yourself from your elders off you go. But really, why pick something so damaging that continuing along these lines will wreck your own life? The world is not apt to stay as it is, and your futures are not likely to be as rich and rewarding as were the lives of the generation now heading into retirement if by the policies you support you ruin our energy producing industries and raise production costs that send industry offshore. You may think you are being self sacrificing by your willingness to accept lower living standards for a better world with less carbon in the air. I just think you’re fools.

Which brings to mind this letter to the editor at Barron’s following the election. It was published under the heading, “A Warm Thank You” and so it is.

To the Editor:

This 50-something, white, conservative Republican wishes to thank America’s youth for sacrificing their financial futures and standard of living so that boomers, such as my wife and I, can look forward to a long and comfy retirement, which we could easily have afforded on our own. Now we have the youth as our guarantors and providers of a little something extra.

As reported by the national exit poll conducted by Edison Research, Americans aged 18 to 29 voted 60% to 36% for Barack Obama. Prior to Obama’s re-election, I believed that it was morally wrong for my generation to pass a crushing national debt on to the next one.

The debt will top $20 trillion before Obama moves out of the White House, and it will include spiraling retirement-related costs that the administration has shown zero interest in bringing under control, largely driven by baby boomers piling into the Social Security and Medicare systems.

With the president’s electoral crushing of Mitt Romney, my overriding sense of morality and guilt have vanished. Thank you, kids!

Edwin D. Schindler

The sad part for these fools is that they have shown little appreciation for irony. Such a bunch of nitwits, but at least there is that one silver lining that we will not have to live most of our lives led by such dumbells as these.

Computer politics

More on the analytics used by the Democrats during the campaign:

The appeals were the product of rigorous experimentation by a large team of analysts. ‘We did extensive A-B testing not just on the subject lines and the amount of money we would ask people for,’ says Amelia Showalter, director of digital analytics, ‘but on the messages themselves and even the formatting.’ The campaign would test multiple drafts and subject lines—often as many as 18 variations—before picking a winner to blast out to tens of millions of subscribers. ‘When we saw something that really moved the dial, we would adopt it,’ says Toby Fallsgraff, the campaign’s e-mail director, who oversaw a staff of 20 writers.

It quickly became clear that a casual tone was usually most effective. “The subject lines that worked best were things you might see in your in-box from other people,” Fallsgraff says. ‘”Hey” was probably the best one we had over the duration.’ Another blockbuster in June simply read, ‘I will be outspent.’ According to testing data shared with Bloomberg Businessweek, that outperformed 17 other variants and raised more than $2.6 million.

Writers, analysts, and managers routinely bet on which lines would perform best and worst. ‘We were so bad at predicting what would win that it only reinforced the need to constantly keep testing,’ says Showalter. ‘Every time something really ugly won, it would shock me: giant-size fonts for links, plain-text links vs. pretty “Donate” buttons. Eventually we got to thinking, “How could we make things even less attractive?” ‘That’s how we arrived at the ugly yellow highlighting on the sections we wanted to draw people’s eye to.’

Another unexpected hit: profanity. Dropping in mild curse words such as ‘Hell yeah, I like Obamacare’ got big clicks. But these triumphs were fleeting. There was no such thing as the perfect e-mail; every breakthrough had a shelf life. ‘Eventually the novelty wore off, and we had to go back and retest,’ says Showalter.

Fortunately for Obama and all political campaigns that will follow, the tests did yield one major counterintuitive insight: Most people have a nearly limitless capacity for e-mail and won’t unsubscribe no matter how many they’re sent. ‘At the end, we had 18 or 20 writers going at this stuff for as many hours a day as they could stay awake,’ says Fallsgraff. ‘The data didn’t show any negative consequences to sending more.’

The full article quoted from is found here.

What’s so funny?

When good economics and good politics diverge, politics wins.

The Obama administration’s opening bid on Thursday in negotiations to avert a year-end fiscal crunch included a demand for new stimulus spending and authority to unilaterally raise the U.S. borrowing ceiling, a Republican congressional aide said.

The proposal, made by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to congressional Republican leaders on Capitol Hill, was seen as offering little the Republicans could agree to and was greeted with laughter, the aide said.

‘We can’t move any closer to them because they’re not even on our planet,’ the aide said. ‘It was not a serious proposal.’

Macro is still C+I+G and even if it doesn’t work and cannot work as economics, it is the only acceptable political answer. Where is “responsible government” then?

For lovers of irony

You don’t often find Glenn Beck quoting Pravda, or me either for that matter, but there you are.

Pravda made a bold statement over the weekend: the communists have won in America with Barack Obama. Why? Because, much like Russia’s past communist leaders, Americans re-elected him for a second term without so much as a stated economic strategy for success. Not even Glenn could disagree with the Russian ‘news’ outlet.

‘This is Pravda. And they are saying Obama is bringing America old‑style Soviet Communist practices. And Putin is perfect and he has learned. Again it’s only spin. They are only trying to make us look bad, but what they’re saying about what we’re doing is 100% accurate,’ Glenn said. ‘And I love this: Obama was recently reelected for a second term by an illiterate society, and he is ready to continue his lies of less taxes while he raises them. He gives speeches of peace and love in the world while he promotes wars as he did in Egypt, Libya, and Syria. He plans his next war with Iran as he fires or demotes his generals who get in the way.’

TheBlaze reported that the majority of the article contrasts Obama and Putin, portraying Putin as a traditional American conservative interested in lowering taxes and shrinking government in order to grow the economy. As Glenn noted above, most of this is just spin for Putin. But much of what Pravda says about Obama following many of the old school communist tactics are also true.

Pravda writer Xavier Lermer said, ‘Christianity in the U.S. is under attack as it was during the early period of the Soviet Union when religious symbols were against the law.’

He also wrote of Obama, ‘He is a Communist without question promoting the Communist Manifesto without calling it so. How shrewd he is in America. His cult of personality mesmerizes those who cannot go beyond their ignorance. They will continue to follow him like those fools who still praise Lenin and Stalin in Russia. Obama’s fools and Stalin’s fools share the same drink of illusion.’

If only white men had voted

Image

In contrast:

It’s one thing for a Democratic presidential candidate to dominate a Democratic city like Philadelphia, but check out this head-spinning figure: In 59 voting divisions in the city, Mitt Romney received not one vote. . . .

The unanimous support for Obama in these Philadelphia neighborhoods – clustered in almost exclusively black sections of West and North Philadelphia – fertilizes fears of fraud, despite little hard evidence.

Same in 37 precincts in Chicago.