[Going strong]

There is a particular type of (profoundly hypocritical) people who annoy me: the so-called Liberals, who choose very Conservative cities to relocate and live in.

I mean, they make a very "Liberal" choice indeed : To live in very Conservative cities, cities with almost no diversity, with nicely submissive women, and truth be told, right-wing security provided by heavy police presence - yet claiming to be Liberal.

The more I travel, the more I wonder at "Liberal" expats' choices of cities to live in: they usually proactively choose the most Conservative cities available to them. And there is also the case of numerous former-Californian "Liberals" relocating for example to Austin - plus all these Western "Liberals" relocating to EE.

Those are the types I don't get along well when I'm abroad. For I see them enjoying the quality of life coming from Conservative politics (no third world migrants, no African ghettos, public security, sound economics), yet they keep running their mouths about how they "still are Liberals at heart".

So I wonder how they rationalize their choices of life and destinations, in their (probably confused) "Liberal" heads? Because almost always, they could have chosen a job in a non-Conservative country and city, but no: they chose de facto right-wing, nationalistic countries and cities, either in EE (Russia, Poland, Hungary etc) or Asia (China, Thailand, Philippines etc). Shouldn't they reconsider their political affiliations and views on the world, then?

[churros]

Are you deliberately trolling people again? Did you not learn your lesson from the Thai cave thread?

Please take the initiative to police yourself and post this thread in politics, where it belongs.

[Contagion]

It's simple. They are fleeing from the shitty environments that they helped to create in the first place by their votes at the ballot box.

You can apply this to any political agenda, in any state.

For example, lets take the issue of taxation in California.

California was once a red republican state. Liberals moved en-masse to California. They then voted in leftists politicians who raised the taxes.

Before long, the left gained power and went further and further to the left on economic taxation policies. This resulted in California having, to this day, a shitty tax environment that nobody who makes decent money wants to be a part of.

As a result, the liberals who moved en masse to California got tired of the high taxation policies that the politicians they voted into office enacted.

So, what did they do? They fled their new shitty tax environment to red conservative states that have lower taxes.

And what did they do when they firmly established residence and became eligible to vote in their new state?

They now vote in leftist politicians who raise the taxes.

As the left gains power and goes further and further to the left on economic policies, the same liberals who voted in the politicians who enacted high taxation policies, will eventually get tired of said taxation policies.

And what will they do?

They will flee their new shitty tax environment to red conservative states that have lower taxes.

And the cycle will repeat itself.

A shithole is a shithole for a reason.

[gework]

I've been thinking about this a lot recently and I think it rests on one thing - the left's desire to perceive themselves as good people.

The desire to see yourself as a good person is present in about 99% of the population, minus psychopaths.

It's obviously also a fundamental linchpin of civilisation. If society was full of people who wanted to see themselves as bad people we wouldn't have reached the current levels of civilisation and would rather resemble something like a black widow mating marathon.

The desire to see yourself as a good person is distributed, i.e. some people have the desire more than others. And circumstance dictates it's presence, e.g. it's very easy for Bill Gates to say/do things that make himself/others think he's a good person, but not so easy for someone living in a trailer park.

It's something you can indulge once you've attained other aspects of life like financial security.

The downside of this is the lack of realising that there has to be work and responsibility to make things nice and cosy, you can't just have them by saying or thinking them. So when it comes to the fake liberals - they want it all - they want the fruits of Western capitalism, but don't want to feel bad about the unequal outcomes it produces (which are still net better than known alternatives) - they want to feel good.

So they live in the well-known liberal schizophrenia called - living as far away as possible from all the people they think society should pay most attention to.

Another big aspect of it is emotions. These people are usually intelligent. They can calculate 114*637. There is nothing in the answer being 72,618 that they may find offensive. But when it comes to calculating social realities they find many realities so offensive that they must be ignored and banned.

They have this good idea of themselves from making platitudes and living in the wealthy suburbs. They can't have inconvenient facts like the immigrant crime wave that has swept Germany coming in and challenging it. They can't maintain acknowledgement of such realities and the image of their self as good. And it's a further reason to keep as far away from their victim classes as possible.

And that is a big part of why, over a several decades lefty ares degenerate into shit holes that they all flee from without being able to say why.

Taking America, from cira 1964 the left made the North-Eastern working class one of their main votes. Outcome: those areas have been sold out to globalism, rotting with surging drug use and unemployment issues. Detroit, once one of the world's premier cities is now verging on a third world shit hole. They captured the vote of blacks and delivered third world crime levels, shattered families, Latin American levels of social dysfunction.

Now those voting blocks are moving away from the left as the left has captured the class of people we're discussing the educated, young left who live in major cities. They're up to their eyeballs in debt, have no property, no home, no pension. The cities they live in are havens for foreign criminals, the streets are peppered in shit, syringes and prostitutes.

Just as they've wrecked Detroit. They will do the same to Chicago, LA, Portland, London, Paris, Berlin...

The likelyhood is that as technological and social change played a part in the decline of GM etc., the big tech companies in Silicon Valley will face change and as they wane and collapse, it's not hard to see places in California on the same level as Detroit in a very short period of time. Particularly as so many of these lefties don't have a real stake in society and are rent peons.

I'm very familiar with this as I was more like it when I was younger. I remember watching these charity programs and literally getting off on how good I felt about myself that money was being raised for victim classes. I cared more about this feeling than anything about all the people that I would never know that get a few dollars. And that's these people - that is the left. They'd rather roll out long-term destructive policies (and refuse to look at the evidence which proves that) if it makes them feel good about themselves in the now.

Just imagine being able to get yourself off by sitting at your desk and then thinking, "Oh, I think poor people should have a better life." You've just imagined the world of liberals.

They don't even have to scoot over to TitAndBumTube.net or buy a bag of drugs. All they need to get themselves of is think how good they are. Masturbation prime.

[Suits]

I'm quite confused. I'm trying to figure out if I am one of those liberals who lives in a conservative city.

There are a number of factors that muddy the waters. First, Beijing (my city of residence) is in what is officially a communist country. On the other hand, values are very conservative. People shame sluts and fatties.

But it gets complicated. China is a place of political totalitarianism that looks more like the form of government favourite by the extreme right than anything that Marx ever described or recommended. There's no immigration (definitely right-wing), no rights (definitely more of a right-wing ideal, since the left obsesses about rights, whereas the right side of the political spectrum doesn't view individual rights as a big priority). Heck, you're not even guaranteed citizenship even if you're born in the country to two citizens, which is an issue that would definitely upset any liberal, but not necessarily conservatives.

As a result, I'm rather stumped. Can someone help me out here?

[Barron]

Yes^^ it's deliberately confusing because confusing laws and power structures = the powerful stay in power

Also, restrict voting to men and all these liberal problems will evaporate within two election cycles. We tried giving women the vote, it didn't work.

[Belgrano]

(07-10-2018 04:12 AM)Suits Wrote:  

no rights
(definitely more of a right-wing ideal, since the left obsesses about rights, whereas the right side of the political spectrum doesn't view individual rights as a big priority).

[nomadbrah]

Great thread Going Strong, pertinent and well timed.

Two words: narcissism and transgression.

As you correctly say, why do left leaning people flock to the very conservative Japan, Eastern Europe, SEA.

Why do they who preach inclusion and diversity, everywhere seek out countries where they, unlike the Western European countries, will never, ever, be considered part of the people.

This is because of the combination of narcissism and transgression.

Part one, the narcissism, allows the leftist to ignore what they're seeing. They can ignore that they travel to a very conservative country. They mistake tolerance for approval. They mistake friendliness for acceptance. They mistake kindness for weakness. They mistake in group orientation for permissivenes.

The narcissist creates this "dream reality" in order to transgress.

This is key to understand narcissist leftist behavior. Leftists are in common word "cheaters" with no strong internal moral code. The narcissist has the inner core of a bullied child, who rationalizes every transgression away to protect the fragile inner self. Over time, this transgression of moral codes, becomes a part of identity.

Thus, you have the leftist in a highly conservative country, usually behaving badly.

Saying things like "the local guys are so beta". Usually said by an outsider, many times a racial outsider, in addition to a cultural outsider.

Let's talk about this for a second.

This is narcissism and transgression at full display.

First the narcissism to convince yourself that the tolerance and order is not why your competition are seemingly acting beta, but because YOU are something special. Second, the narcissism enables your transgression, when you blatantly flout all local social and moral codes in your attempt to get laid.

Your seeming advantage over the locals, is primarily because you are not subject to their strict conservative codes.

You as an outsider. You as not belonging. You as a "non entity".

The narcissist doesn't see this or want to see this. You're the big man, everyone loves you, they all love "demographic who is me" in "country I am visiting".

Of course, women are attracted to transgression, so the narcissist can be temporarily be confirmed in his delusion.

[Richard Turpin]

It's similar to how many of the people in my experience who are most vocally leftist, are very, very comfortable financially. It's almost like a guilt complex urging them on to signal their virtue at every opportunity hoping that folk will give them a pass and overlook the fact that they are extremely wealthy (there's nothing wrong with having money by the way!).

I see this all the time on fakebook, with my associates posting socialist shit and I just want to point out to the fuckers that each and every one of them have benefited from inherited wealth, good universities, cars, houses and holidays paid for by rich parents etc. Many of them follow their virtue-signalling posts with scenes from their incredibly costly around the world trips.

[Going strong]

Several extremely truthful posts written above, notably by Gework or nomadbrah.

About churros: I posted in Everything Else as it is between choices in life, Politics and Travel (for it concerns, not exclusively but in particular, expatriation abroad). But of course Moderators can move it to Politics.

The answer by Suits is also very interesting. Suits is actually answering like the (intelligent, intellectually lucid) "Liberal" expats with whom I occasionally discuss this very subject. Whereas non-intelligent Liberals (the majority) just shut off like stubborn oysters, if one asks them about their choices in residency - but intelligent (in terms of IQ) Liberals accept the debate, and soon realize, startled, that they actually made a choice of living in right-wing countries.

The next step when one talks about this subject with Liberals, is to make them realize that this choice was not subconscious. It was deliberate, and therefore, they are not the "do-good soft-heart Liberals" they imagine themselves to be. They are intelligent individuals wanting to progress in life and society, to make a good life for themselves through hard work (and relatively submissive pussy) in civilized places: therefore they are... Conservative men.

Now, I have had this conversation with many expats in EE, and they cannot deny that they live in Conservative right-wing places (and this might even include zero-migrant-tolerancy Belarus). Their only line of defense is, "I was sent there by such or such employer, I had no option" - but it is wrong as they always have diplomas and therefore could have found a job in a leftist country (or city). I mean, if you qualify for a job in Moscow, I am pretty sure you could have found a job in socialist NY or Paris or Barcelona.

But it is more interesting to have this discussion with ("Liberal") expats in Asia, as many will reply, "hey, I live in a leftist place". They are wrong. Even China and Vietnam (yes with their red flags and paraphernalia of old communist History) are de facto good, intelligent Conservative and mostly right-wing countries.

So people enjoying the benefices of life in these (beautiful) Conservative cities (for example, Austin, or Bordeaux, where all French Leftists flock) or countries (Russia, Poland, etc or Asia in almost its totality) should be grateful and vote Conservative.

[nomadbrah]

(07-10-2018 04:12 AM)Suits Wrote:  

As a result, I'm rather stumped. Can someone help me out here?

China is doing what they perceive to best for the Chinese.

They don't care if it's fascist/racist/communist/capitalist. These are (((western))) inventions.

The Chinese are nationalist-socialist, complete with the discrimination against non-Han chinese and religious minorities.

[CynicalContrarian]

"Tolerance for thee, yet not for me!"

Who would want to live in a literal shit-hole like San Francisco when Chandler, Arizona (for eg.*) is not that far ?


*"Chandler, Arizona has low crime rates and it is a hot spot for several technology companies, making this a great relocation area for people in this industry."
- http://www.citiesjournal.com/13-safest-b...n-america/

[marcusdivincenzo]

The migration you see in the US right now between cities is more about the cost of living than political ideology. For example, the median house price in San Francisco went up by $200K+ in the first half of 2018 to $1.6M. This is obviously insane and means people earning $120K cannot afford to buy a home. These prices are caused by the fact that local groups of homeowners have huge influence over local governments and restrict new housing to preserve their own property values. Same issue across many major cities and it's not really a liberal/conservative issue.

Coincidentally, the vast majority of people living in US cities today are "liberal". I believe it's because most people in the modern era are insulated from the consequences of their actions. When you work in a big bureaucratic organization, your job is more about convincing other people that you are doing a good job, and less about results. You end up voting for people like Obama who are great talkers but produce zero or counter-productive results. There are very few liberal plumbers, or mafia bosses.

[Redcloud]

It goes both ways; I see very few “conservatives” choosing to live in the country and work in traditional American jobs like farming or oil & gas. Hell, most young farmers I know are trying to get the F out of dodge.

Many “conservatives” choose to live in liberal cities working for large multinational companies, working in an air conditioned office, and buying iPhones. These people aren’t true conservatives anymore than are the liberals who live in gentrified neighborhoods.

I ask you, Going Srong, what’s stopping you from moving to a truly conservative rural American town and embracing the politics you preach?

[Going strong]

(07-10-2018 06:36 AM)Redcloud Wrote:  

It goes both ways; I see very few “conservatives” choosing to live in the country and work in traditional American jobs like farming or oil & gas. Hell, most young farmers I know are trying to get the F out of dodge.

Many “conservatives” choose to live in liberal cities working for large multinational companies, working in an air conditioned office, and buying iPhones. These people aren’t true conservatives anymore than are the liberals who live in gentrified neighborhoods.

I ask you, Going Srong, what’s stopping you from moving to a truly conservative rural American town and embracing the politics you preach?

Going Srong, what’s stopping you from moving to a truly conservative rural American town and embracing the politics you preach?:

I would like nothing more. But, first, I am not a US citizen (and obviously I would not migrate or settle illegally); and secondly, I am over 35, which means that I have high "SMV" in Asia (or Cuba), but not in the Western world anymore (barring luck or niches, or if I master good salsa dancing - not holding my breath here, in spite of my female Colombian teacher: Conservatives are medio de madera).

But anyway, if (and I believe it will happen, given his numerous successes in Economics and internal security, and on the World stage) President Trump is reelected, I might then humbly ask for residency in the Land of the Free (especially now that the US Supreme Court is cured and secured). I'll just have to bring with me a cute Filipina or smart Vietnamita - or maybe who knows, find me a blonde corn-belt woman?

But careful what you wish for, redcloud: if I move to Gun-and-Bible land and marry a traditional American woman, we'll have six little GSs hopefully four boys and two girls... and I guess, the boys, they'll all end up posting on RVF , fucking hotties, and of course voting Conservative.

[nomadbrah]

The irony of Redcloud encouraging Going Strong to go full Blood and Soil.

[Paracelsus]

(07-10-2018 06:31 AM)marcusdivincenzo Wrote:  

Coincidentally, the vast majority of people living in US cities today are "liberal". I believe it's because most people in the modern era are insulated from the consequences of their actions. When you work in a big bureaucratic organization, your job is more about convincing other people that you are doing a good job, and less about results. You end up voting for people like Obama who are great talkers but produce zero or counter-productive results. There are very few liberal plumbers, or mafia bosses.

(1) The distinction between plumbers and Mafia bosses versus the occupants of the clerical/bureaucratic class comes down to this: the latter does not have sufficient of what Nassim Taleb calls 'skin in the game'.

The bureaucrat's incentives are structured such that they do not generally suffer any negative consequences for the mistakes they make that affect others. The plumber in business for himself who does something that causes pipes to back up and poison people at least might lose his licence to practice if not lose a lot of business as the word gets around. If the Mafia don fucks up, other members of the family may well express their disapproval in rather more direct ways - and note that criminal families often had codes of conduct that bloodletting was to be limited within the families, that innocents were to be left out of it.

Compare that with the Tim Geithners of the world: help set up conditions to create the 2008 subprime crisis, provide regulatory "solutions" following the crisis, and then go and earn large amounts of money in private industry advising industry how to subvert and avoid those regulations. He absorbed all of the upside, but suffered no consequence for his mistakes - the risk of his decisions was transferred to, well, everybody else.

That isn't to say that employees of large corporations generally can't have skin in the game; they do, but the problem is that the game is wholly their employer's, not that of the public. An employee has to remain employable, therefore they can't do something moral for one employer if they hope to have another job if their moral decision causes them to be fired - the one thing all whistleblowers have in common is that they are, without exception, former employees of the businesses on which they blew the whistle. In short: it's not that the employee is insulated from the consequences of his actions. Any employee certainly knows the consequences of his actions, if they aren't in keeping with his employers, the consequence is to be fired. The problem is that he's only worried about the consequences to himself, not to the people who will be affected by his decision.

(2) That said, I don't think the distinction is political as such. People certainly have different political views depending on context; this is why universalism in political views is just plain ridiculous, and is most easily sensed in the hilarity of activists on the picket lines of Occupy texting on iPhones. As Geoff and Vince Graham once said: "I am, at the Fed level, libertarian; at the state level, Republican; at the local level, Democrat; and at the family and friends level, a socialist."

On this, I'm always amused by what Wikipedia calls a pundit like Noam Chomsky: a libertarian socialist, which to me says he's a guy who wants the government to stay out of his life but is perfectly happy for it to control every aspect of mine.

[Redcloud]

(07-10-2018 06:57 AM)Going strong Wrote:  

I'll just have to bring with me a cute Filipina or smart Vietnamita - or maybe who knows, find me a blonde corn-belt woman?

Well brother I wish you happiness in your life down whatever path you choose.

But I do challenge you to realize that the notion of marrying a Filipina and bringing her to the U.S. would not be possible without liberals; the people who campaigned for civil and equal rights.

Even today, bringing a foreign women into a conservative American town would raise a lot of eyebrows, and would be only barely socially acceptable. Many true conservatives would consider you a liberal or at the very least, an outsider, for such a move.

[pants]

How many percent of the US would you consider being liberal? 50% 40%, 30%?
People being open to move, take on new jobs, meet new people score higher in openness than people who want to stay in their home town.
More open people tend to be on the left side.

Given this its not so strange you are finding liberals in conservative cities. After all, there are millions on the move, many liberals, which are open to take a job where they could find one.

[Dalaran1991]

I see this no different to the HIV infected people who want to spread their disease to the rest of the world because deep down inside the liberals are rotten and unhappy, which cause them to become liberals in the first place.

Adding in the extra dimension that you need to be quite discontent to leave your place of birth to live elsewhere, in a land/culture different to yours. Liberals are not aspiring 3rd worlders wishing for a better life. They are like that French artist girl I dated who said she is ashamed of being French because they treat women badly here. And voilà, you have some ideological/cultural flagellants who travels the world spreading their corruption born out of misery.

The more they become unhappy in their host countries, the more they lash out and the harder they try to change it to become their shithole. Is it any difference than the immigrant invaders wanting to turn France to a 3rd world shithole?

[marcusdivincenzo]

(07-10-2018 07:11 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(2) That said, I don't think the distinction is political as such.

If you have skin in the game, you will not vote for today's democrat policies. How many people would vote for importing refugees if they had to live next door to them?

In cities, you can import immigrants and put them in ghettoes far away from wealthy suburbs. As a result liberals get all the upside from immigration (cheap labor) with none of the downside (social chaos).

If you live in a small village, you have skin in the game. If you bring in a new person, and that person doesn't integrate, it's everyone's problem.

The modern world is too big and too complex. Liberals aren't necessarily malicious but they live in a system where they can't see or feel the consequences of their actions on others.

[Paracelsus]

(07-10-2018 08:22 AM)marcusdivincenzo Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 07:11 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(2) That said, I don't think the distinction is political as such.

If you have skin in the game, you will not vote for today's democrat policies. How many people would vote for importing refugees if they had to live next door to them?

And that indeed may be the only way to put someone's skin in the game.

This is also why Taleb favours decentralisation, and why he likes the American model as originally imagined: largely-independent groups coming together solely for common defence or such other limited topics, and with a very weak central authority. As you say, a new person in a nation is a statistic; a new person in a village is everyone's concern.

But that same reason is also why universalist principles as applied don't work. Just as a spider scaled up to human or larger size collapses in on itself because it's structurally unstable, socialism practiced at a small level does not work practiced at a gross level: because the whole is greater -- something different -- than the sum of its parts. A nation doesn't behave just as the combined mass of its citizens. A market is something very different and independent from the combined mass of its participants. This can be most easily seen in the old classic Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, though the principle itself goes back to the Classical authors.

[heavy]

I think it's just a normal cycle. Maybe not every cycle looks like this, but I think it's fairly normal.

Conservatives build solid, hearty, economically stable places. Liberals make them even better (because conservative cities really are kinda boring).

But eventually liberals institute liberal policies (big government which are ineffective and inefficient). This grinds businesses to a halt and takes away property rights for the purpose of "community".

Conservatives take the trash heaps and rebuild these places into boring stable cities.

Wouldn't surprise me if this has been repeated over the course of human history. It's one of those things that can be good to look at from a broader scope perspective, outside of the current political climate (as much as I hate the Left agenda right now).

[deuce]

Well they’re fucking up Salt Lake City, that’s for sure. Cost of living is going through the roof, more homeless, anti-gun activity increasing, LGBT virtue-signaling everywhere. But hey now we have a street named after Harvey Milk. #progress

[DJ-Matt]