I also can’t disagree with Yarvin’s description of the American Democrat-voting nobility:
Blue Americans are some of the best Americans. Everyone in the world should, and most people in the world do, want
to become blue Americans or live among them. And they can be completely trusted to govern themselves.What they can’t be allowed to do, ever again, is govern anyone else. Blue Americans need to be separated from all authority over non-blue Americans including their old client classes—the way slots addicts need to stay out of Vegas.
This is true. In spite of an occasional they/them, these are people who live in clean, beautiful enclaves, form strong families, and donate generously to charity. They govern themselves effectively but are incapable of understanding other people. All their ideas for others are predicated on the belief that everybody on the planet is a highly organized, WASP puritan with a Nordic nervous system and gigantic amounts of interiorized guilt. Since that is not the case, the Dem nobility destroys every community it touches while having the best possible intentions.
Almost everybody I know is a blue American, and they are absolutely wonderful people who want what’s best. Yarvin is right yet again.
Clarissa's Blog 
From your drinking days, which was a better cocktail – a Bloody Mary or a Bloody Caesar?
Happy Ides of March!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I hate both. All I ever drank were rum and cokes. People who know me in person, please confirm that I’m legendary with my rum and cokes. Captain Morgan spiced rum, to be exact.
Good times.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Okay, because my Mom and her group drink that watching football, I will forgive you the recent appalling feminasti snarkyness. But I still fully intend to lead you to repentance ;-D
LikeLike
Do they donate generously to charity, though?
I was under the impression that religious people were still at the top of that category (along with the columns for adoptive and foster parents). Do we have numbers on this? Are we counting “ActBlue” and other destructive political nonprofits as “charity” here? Are we looking at percentage of income or overall dollars given to charity? Blue America is, after all, wealthier.
This site has some stats on it:
https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/almanac/statistics-on-u-s-generosity/
“This chart holds all other demographic variables like income, race, education, etc. constant, so that when religious and non-religious counterparts are compared they are true peers in every other way. And the results show that persons who attend religious services twice a month or more give over four times as much as persons who never attend services.”
…
“Democrats and Independents both had many zero-to-very-light givers (less than $100 for the year), and modest numbers of heavier givers. Republicans, in comparison, had comparatively few skinflints, and numerous serious donors—31 percent sharing at least $1,000 with charity, versus 17 percent among Democrats, and 20 percent among Independents.”
Further down the page, it says conservative households give 30% more to charity, while liberals are more likely to run charitable foundations. Which isn’t quite as good a look as maybe it was before the USAID stuff went public. Now it just means liberals are more likely to have cushy nonprofit nepo jobs.
And looking at states as individual units:
“Though it comes as a surprise to some observers, it is not Americans in the high-income, urban, liberal states like Massachusetts or California who are our most generous citizens. Rather it is residents of middle-American, conservative, moderate-income, religiously active regions who step up the most.”
There’s lots of other interesting tidbits in there.
But the overall impression that Blue America is awfully generous and donates more to charity is dead wrong. I’d readily believe the Blue America *thinks* of themselves that way, but the numbers say otherwise.
LikeLiked by 1 person
More like blues pay most of the taxes.
LikeLike
Yes, these are wealthy people. Much of their wealth is a result of them creating barriers to entry for people who don’t share their beliefs.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@methyl Exactly! Glad you found that. Blues are apparently good at forming ngos that tap taxpayer funds for all their pet projects. And get hefty salaries while they virtue signal.
Amanda
LikeLike
Yes, that’s been one of the more depressing things coming out of the whole USAID thing: like, ok, there are all these NGOs and ‘charities’ out there with super-high overhead expenses, where the board members are all getting paid buku bucks, and there’s not a lot of evidence that *any* of the money is going to the stated cause… but hey these folks can all say at cocktail parties that they “work for a nonprofit” and that’s what really counts, right?
And then it wasn’t even a charity after all, because most of the budget was coming from the government, not voluntary donations.
How much of that “Blue Charity” stuff is actually just embezzling taxpayer funds to make sure somebody important’s cousin Sylvia and nephew James and brother-in-law’s stepkid have secure high-status jobs, even if they aren’t very bright and boozed their way through college? That’s not charity, that’s a taxpayer-funded welfare entitlement program for the rich and well-connected.
LikeLike
In SA, the voting system after the Boer war was weighted in favor of small towns and farms. The post-apartheid system made all votes equal. The reason boers can’t return to power isn’t because they are white but because the new system favors cities.
https://dailyfriend.co.za/2024/11/07/who-wins-gauteng-will-decide-south-africas-future/
LikeLike
that sounds familiar as this happens within most American state governments. Rural areas have no power and predominantly Blue cities hold most of it.
amanda
LikeLike
Blue Americans who vote for DemoCRAPS compare to Revisionist history bull shit. Church guilty of the Shoah and assisting Nazi War criminals to escape justice and flee through a Xtian rat-line to South America.
LikeLike