I loved this comment by TicklingTimeBomb describing the Life Cycle of the White Urban Shitlib (WUS for short).
I live in the urban educated white demographic being talked about here.
If I had to hazard an anecdotally-informed guess, it’d go something like this:
Urban educated whites start families very late. So they spend a LONG time without kids, often with good or great jobs, enjoying all sorts of DINK goods and services that cities can provide. And their views on government are often, mostly, at the level of abstractions and virtue signalling. And a lot of them are in the weird situation that they have quite a lot of disposable income, which means they feel pretty economically secure from one vantage point… which leads them to having lots of moral outrage about the plight of minorities who are their neighbors (from a few neighborhoods over) and who use the failing schools and suffer all the gang violence. So they feel Privileged. [ed: the source of tikkun olam] And yet on the other hand, they also feel incredibly economically pinched, because of insane housing prices, and student loan debt, and the need (down the road) for paying for private schools, which contributes hugely to them putting off family formation, along with social norms from their peers about it not being a big deal to start families late, and to have few children.
If you’re this person, the idea that government should step in and make it easier for you to start a family is pretty understandable. It sucks to be hitting your mid/late 30′s and thinking your life is just on hold for ever. OF COURSE, you’re actually right in this case. You SHOULD be looking to government to step in… because in the places where people can afford houses, like in major Texas cities, government absolutely does play a huge role in setting zoning, tax, and regulatory regimes that are pro-growing-the-middle-class housing supply. Ironically.
What I have seen, over and over, is that white educated urban dwellers have their first kid, weather a year or two trying to make it work, and then either their kids gets too big for their apartment and starts needing school, or the lack of yards starts grating, or they have a second kid, and they end up giving up, and abandoning the city. And then they move out to the suburbs, have their attitudes change, start seeing the other side of policy discussions because they now have kids and so have skin in the game, and they’re now surrounded by neighbors with a different set of social norms about family and government – hell, maybe they even join the local megachurch because they think the socialization will be good for their kids. They might still be socially liberal in some sort of airy abstract way, but at a nuts-and-bolts level, their tax dollars are segregated to people like themselves. And because they’ve moved, the norms of the cities they’ve had to abandon remain basically static. These people’s attitudes and world views change, but they bring those changes with them somewhere else, only to be replaced by younger versions of themselves in the city with their former attitudes. It’s like a standing wave.
This isn’t just purely theory – I’ve watched this process happen with people I know a bunch of times.
It’s tragicomic ’cause it’s true.
The point about cities being essentially “standing waves” of shitliberalism is spot on, and the reason why densely-populated cities will never politically convert to light blue, let alone pink or red. (A good test case of this assertion is to create a new city along the coast populated with only very conservative people bussed in from middle America. Will the city gradually turn blue, or will it be the deep red of the people who moved there and enjoy its hedonistic escapes?)
Cities aren’t just population sinks; they’re shitlord sinks. Any starting population of shitlords in a city won’t be able to sustain itself because the shitlords will “boil off”, leaving for the suburbs or countryside where their values and aesthetic don’t provoke aneurysms in the locals.
Of course, the shitlord sink theory of urbanity competes with the theory of heritable political disposition, but my thinking is that inherited dispositions (and their relation to reproductive fitness) are positively or negatively affected by the Weltanshauung of one’s human habitat; i.e., gene-culture co-evolution.
The one child-per family formation of WUSes mathematically means that their population will halve each generation, eventually meaning their extinction. So how do the cities continue functioning if there are fewer WUSes every year who feel an affinity for the anonymous child-free fucking of city life? (“put condom dispensers in grade schools, BIGOT”)
OPEN BORDERS IMMIGRATION is one method cities are replenished. Another city replenishment program is accomplished through the anonymous urban environment acting as a matchmaking service substitute for what used to be the concern of parents, church, and community, drawing in prime age hotties and high horny level anime aficionados on the promise of endless unencumbered sex and romantic interludes while dining at sidewalk cafes (but don’t make eye contact with the glowering google strutting by!).
tl;dr There’s a reason the anti-White and anti-Heritage America globalists want to herd everyone into dense urban spaygrounds modeled after Calhoun’s rat experiments (which they sell by exploiting environmental concerns about “sprawl”). City life is a shitliberalism factory with a handy expiration date built-in for the hated native stock.
