Red, Purple, and Blue America: Is There A Divide?

[T]he most honest answer is not to start with a false frame of ‘we’ and instead examine the country by voting patterns that demonstrate those preferences (see Pew Research) for an empirical analysis not one of confirming existing priors by guessing correlations.

Roughly speaking, the north-south divide present since the civil war remains.
Primarily, people vote by two criteria: Race, Religion and Marital status.
White men vote red and always have voted as such.
White married women vote predominantly red and have voted as such.
White single women vote predominantly blue by the largest margin (again obvious)
Everyone else votes by race (blue) against the white absolute nuclear family.
In other words, people vote their reproductive strategies. Which should be obvious.

Ever since the South abandoned it’s post-reconstruction prohibition on the Republican party (the party of Lincoln, and the party against slavery, and against the expansion of the southern alliance into the western territories), the parties have increasingly shifted demographically to reflect white absolute nuclear families – with the family as the central unit of reproduction, production, and education that preserve capital (red) – against the traditional, serial-marriage, and single mother (fatherless) families that cannot preserve capital in the homestead.

People retain their reproductive strategies, family structures, moral codes and norms across many generations. It takes about 400 years to rotate a family upward in social and economic class. (yep. sorry.) The four waves of British Isle immigrants still use the family structures, norms, and values that they did prior to migration. The Germans still use theirs. The Italians theirs. The French theirs. Et al.

No one assimilates morally or normatively at all. We assimilate commercially, and commercialism is America’s cultural tradition. But politically we never assimilate at all. Why? Because political action by nature of its imprecision is a demonstrated preference of a moral, not empirical, not commercial bias. And when we call upon our intuitions in the face of overwhelming choices, we do what nature evolved us to do: decide by our reproductive strategies.

Why? For impolitic reasons: largely speaking northern Europeans eradicated their lower classes through a combination of manorialism, delayed reproduction, and aggressive hanging of 1/2-1% of the troublemakers per year. And anyone who understands the theory of compound interest will likely understand the tremendous genetic impact of that process over the 1000 years of hanging, and the 3500 years of agrarianism. Effectively, all northern Europeans are members of the middle class, and protestant – what is called ‘the Hanjal line’. The Catholics represent largely the unmodified natural distribution of the classes, practicing traditional families. The Africans that came as slaves have returned (thanks to 60’s progressives) to their traditional serial marriages (70% of all births to single mothers).

Correlation is not causation. Humans are unequal. We carry our tribal histories with us in our genes, in our family structures, in our morals and norms, because these were and remain, reproductive strategies.

As such all votes are demographic votes. No one assimilates. No one changes. Some reproduce more, some reproduce less, and he who reproduces more than others eventually wins. No one is converted. No one is persuaded. No one is convinced. At least no one sufficiently convince to alter his political action sufficiently to affect outcomes.

Net is, all our political debate is a Victorian parlor game. Nothing more. We are, in matters beyond our direct perception, such as political choice, mere puppets to our genes.

If that doesn’t sour you on the irrelevance of democratic choice nothing will: in the end, over time, the class that reproduces most wins. And because majoritarian rule forces a monopoly of control, the lower classes with greatest reproduction win. And under redistribution, we transfer rates of reproduction from the middle class to the lower. And therefore transfer our future to the most numerous of the lower classes.

Diversity decreases trust, decreases economic velocity, increases political conflict and increases demand for a totalitarian state as arbiter of differences.

Americans, Canadians, and Australians have a higher standard of living for the sole reason that the anglos used advanced weaponry (including germs) to conquer primitive peoples and sell of the land and unexploited resources to generations of immigrants. It has absolutely nothing to do with our way of life other than the initial immigrants from Britain practiced common law (which is empirical), and were almost entirely from the genetic middle classes (the french in Quebec are from the lower class, hence aside from their Catholicism and french love of authority, their difference with english Canada).

The germans were not a problem to integrate, and so we never hear about the challenge of german immigration despite the fact that the majority of white america is of german ancestry not British. That is because they were not a problem. Everyone else was. If you trace supreme court decisions they reflect the religion and class of the person voting.

It hurts. It’s true. That’s all there is to it.

The only thing that melts in our non-existent melting pot, is rule of law. Everything else is just an expression of the ongoing battle between our genes that we call class, race, and religious competition.

Democracy is sufficient means of deciding how to make use of scarce resources among multiple priorities. It is an insufficient means of deciding how to make use of scarce or plentiful resource of any kind between competing interests.

Science very often tells us what we don’t want to hear.

The democratic era, in the future, will be seen as a pseudoscientific one.

Just as the Religious era is seen as a mystical one.

They’re both networks of falsehoods.

Comfortable lies.

The truth is quite simple. We are super-predators that have found that competition through economics productivity is superior to competition through direct violence.

Western utopianism ended with the abandonment of communism that had held the rest of the world in regressive poverty. We were able to enjoy luxury goods because of privileges granted to us by our predecessors. The spoils of democracy (and any r-selected behavior) are luxury goods, not beneficial goods.

Time to give up pseudoscience, the same way we gave up mysticism.

As painful as it may be.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine

Leave a Reply