Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Debate round out

A few remarks, in no particular order of importance.

- Attacking Trump for working to reduce his income tax bill to the lowest level possible is despicable demagoguery.

Yes, she gave millions to the Clinton Foundation she controls. That is of course a blatant way of reclassifying her income so she doesn't have to pay taxes on it while simultaneously allowing her to claim charitable contributions that she is able to use, akin to me taking income from my career and putting it into the Audacious Epigone Foundation so I don't have to pay taxes on it and then using that foundation to pay my mortgage.

But that's merely an illustration of hypocrisy. The demagoguery comes about because everyone in the country does the exact same thing, from people making $10,000 a year to people making $10,000,000,000 a year. Ever used H&R Block or TurboTax, to pick at random two leading providers of personal income tax filings? Guess what--they, like every other income tax filing provider in existence, market their services by promising to lower their customers' tax bills as much as is legally possible.

- The number of missed opportunities is depressing to think about (Tom Woods and Lew Rockwell do a thorough job going through them point by point if you're interested).

The "basket of deplorables" is the single biggest piece of low-hanging fruit and though a little rotted from time, it will still be hanging there when the next debate takes place.

Hillary's rape-enabling and mafia-style intimidation of Bill's victims for the sake of their mutual political benefit is a close second. In one of the subsequent debates Trump needs to ask it as a "do you still beat your wife?" question. "Hillary, how many of the women Bill has abused have you threatened if they ever said anything publicly about it?"

If that isn't the impetus for a coughing fit or a seizure, Hillary's "I have never done that" response will be futile. Trump can respond with something like, "Sure, Hillary, sure. So you're calling all these women--Paula Jone, Juanita Broaddrick, Gennifer Flowers--liars? All these cases going on for twenty years, all made up. Sure, Hillary, sure. You defended the most powerful man in the world from the helpless women he victimized."

- Hillary's best moment:

- The Cathedral made some unforced errors. Lester Holt, an affirmative action midwit, favoritism was too over-the-top for Hillary's own good. Until the end of the debate, when both sides began clapping raucously, the audience broke into applause twice for Trump and five times for Hillary. They also laughed at Trump's expense a couple of times. Yet Holt only admonished the crowd for clapping for Trump!

Holt interrupted Trump far more often then he interrupted Hillary.

He grilled Trump about his alleged support for the Iraq war but didn't ask Hillary--who actually voted for it--anything about it at all. Trump was non-committal before the war--certainly no visionary like Pat Buchanan--but he was one of the few prominent 'mainstream' Republican voices to break ranks and turn against it. Crucially, he did so before the 2004 presidential election, which was in large part a referendum on the Iraq invasion before it became universally unpopular.

In fact, Hillary didn't face a single tough question, they were all directed at Trump or were neutral policy questions. Trump had to bring up the email scandal up himself.

I talked to several people today and every single one of them, even Hillary supporters, said Holt's bias was glaring.

Ted Cruz is offering to help Trump with debate prep. Trump could use it.

- Finally, my favorite image to come out of the debate. It's a pathetically self-indulgent one, but it's too fitting to pass up. Intellectually I fall somewhere between these two and I'm a faceless extra who happened to momentarily be caught on screen with two of the leads:


Sam said...

Before the debate I was with Scott Adams in thinking that he just needed to look presidential and not go crazy. Having watched I realize my expectations were too low. She was there for the taking and when pushed he didn't collapse either.
Had he hit her with some obvious points(e-mail scandal during the cyber security, her support of Iraq during his inquisition) she would have looked weak. That is stuff he should have been able to have thought up on the spot without preparation.

As the good people at Mofopolitics have pointed out, it wasn't as bad for Trump as some claim and nor was it as good for Hillary. As they write there wasn't any blowout moment which is what she needs since he didn't invalidate himself in any way. Inversely, this is why he should train for this as you would a rap battle and not like if it is a boxing match(winning on points). Prepare a killer line on the big issues where they stand apart. Because losing a debate for him probably won't do much damage but if she loses, or is perceived to, to him then it becomes embarrassing because unlike him, she doesn't seem to make it up on the campaign trail.


And I concur on the Woods meets Spencer moment. There will be no new no fusionism or paleo alliance but there could be grudging respect with the paleo libs moving in the right direction. Unfortunately this cycle only Lew and Tom have been moving in that direction. With Lew's political corner essentially being a Trump corner.

Cicatrizatic said...

We'll find out on October 9 whether Trump is just pacing himself, or simply incapable of putting on a good debate performance.

One possibility is that he never really intended to win the first debate. Perhaps anticipating that half the questions would be these gotcha questions (birtherism, tax returns, comments about women), and that the media's goal was to entice him into a full blown meltdown, he simply decided to defend himself in a measured manner, leave Hillary alone, and come off looking a lot less scary than excepted. He loses, but doesn't look crazy (Scott Adams analysis). Perhaps next time he'll improve, level some solid attacks against Hillary, and come off looking stronger. While I don't think it's good to have a bad performance at the first debate, I do think it is better to have an improvement from the first debate to the second, rather than topping out at the first debate. Remember that Romney was uniformly declared the winner of the first debate. He got a bump in polls, almost pulled even, but it dissipated after a week, and his late debate gaffes became more notable.

The other possibility is that Trump is just a bad debater. He simply gets drawn into the personal pugilistics of all of these attacks on him and can't mentally extract himself enough to pivot to the issues. It's just his persona and it's not going to change. This certainly seems to often be the case.

In the end, I think it's a combination of these. He probably does improve at the next debate after consulting with his advisers and laying out some lines of attack. It won't be a knockout, but he'll do better and it will be apparent.

It will be a real tragedy if, over the next 40 days, the corruption and lies of the Clintons are not brought out into the public forum. The email server, the Clinton Foundation, the Clintons' subservience to special interests, the Libya debacle, Hillary and Obama's role in allowing the rise of ISIS. After this first debate, this is why I am hopeful that Assange really does have something. I just can't believe that the first debate went by - 81 million viewers (and that's just on TV) - and not once were any of these matters discussed.

Anonymous said...


What do you think of Scott Adam's take on it here?

My favorite analysis of the first debate comes from Mr. John C. Wright:

"My opinion, in case anyone should ask, is that Donald Trump won the debate against Lester Holt on points, but that on overall appearance and comportment, Trump did not win."

"First Presidential Debate"

Anonymous said...

Trump was very cautious. More than anything he was being very deliberate and reserved.

He had to be. He's not looking to win his supporters. He's looking to win those few independents that will swing and most of those are women. If he did the old ground and pound on Hillary out the chute then he would have looked abusive and like a woman hater.

Note, he is also very calculating. For him this first debate was more of an observation to figure out how things will go. In all honesty it is way better for him to understand the lay of the land and then go in for the kill shot.

As it stands the real winner of the debate was Emperor Trump simply because the perception of him being a leader to the non decided voters went up. Which means he had an effect on women.

Audacious Epigone said...


Yes, Lew is definitely there. So is Walter Block, probably, and Michael Malice is too, although he and Tom Woods won't admit it.

Exactly right regarding the zingers. Trump just needs to prep a couple of them. He doesn't need to rehearse the full 90 minutes--that'd probably create so much dissonance that it'd be disastrous for him--but he should prep for 5 minutes worth of it. There are so many opportunities. And most people think Hillary should've been prosecuted. She is viewed as legally untouchable and it is corrupt as hell. People aren't thinking "lay off her for the emails", they're thinking "please, even if I don't like you Trump, go after for them because no one else has the ability to!"


Trump's campaigning got better over time and so did his primary debates. This is a different dynamic and he came out (too) cautiously. But he learns from his missteps. I suspect he'll be more aggressive in the subsequent debates. These debates are never going to be his strongest suit but there is realistic room for him to improve.

He has to depersonalize it. That's something he needs to be coached on. He has natural frame control, so he needs to leverage it.

Currently, he responds to too many provocations. Just ignore what Hillary says and go after her with practiced lines. If he nails her on intimidating women, selling state secrets, and calling a quarter of the country deplorable, those will be the only things any remembers or the media even covers the next day.


Far be it from me to take too much issue with Adams, who has nailed it so far. I don't see why throwing in a few prepared lines, which will naturally be perceived as less "crazy" when they're delivered than real world heat-of-the-moment responses will be, puts Trump at any risk of seeming unstable, etc. It wasn't a terrible performance by any stretch, but it seems like there were some no-risk improvements Trump could've easily made.


From my unscientific sampling of people I came across the day after, that was a consistent response I heard, too. Despite the "tantrum" stuff that was all written before the debate and would've been put out by the usual suspects irrespective of what transpired, a lot of women noted that Trump was pretty calm and reserved. That does stick with many--especially apolitical types who aren't that engaged--more than any debate specifics would have, so maybe you're closer to the reality than I am.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

At this point, I really don't think the debate had any noticeable impact. Trump widened his lead over Clinton in the USC poll yesterday (first poll released since the debate), he raised a record amount of money in one day ($18 million), and had to turn away 12,000 people in a Florida rally in a place meant to hold 15,000. If Trump suffered from the debate, it doesn't appear to have any real impact.

I suspect that most people at this time have made their decision and the fence sitters are actually potential Trump supporters who are just looking for the right reasons but will nevertheless find them in the next six weeks. By fence sitting, I don't mean they will go between Clinton or Trump, I mean they will either go for Trump or just stay home. These would be the suburban families who would have eagerly voted for Bush or Rubio but are a little unnerved by an unconventional candidate like Trump but I don't believe they are opposed to him either. Securing them would likely lock down the suburbs of Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Charlotte, etc. They would push him into definite wins in states like PA, NC, and MI. Even if he fails to convince all of them, these states are in play and at least two of the three states I just mentioned will go to Trump.

Looking at the media approval ratings, most people, except true blue Democrats, knew the debate was going to be tilted in Hillary's favor, that Lester Holt was not going to take the heat that Matt Lauer received, so it's unlikely people are that shocked that Trump got piled on. People expected it and got it. 14% of Republicans and 30% of Independents trust the media; Trump won with these people precisely because the debate was rigged and didn't just meekly accept it like Romney did with Candy Crowley in 2012.

Conversely, Hillary is having to shut down campaign offices because despite raising more money than Trump, she is running out of money. She still needs to defeat Trump, not just survive at the debates. So she needs to campaign more, fundraise more, and prepare more for the remaining two debates. October is going to be a very tough month for Hillary. Trump can only keep going up at this point.

Sigma K said...

Remember also, he was very gracious at the beginning by asking thecunt if calling her Madam Secretary and the fact that he reserved himself in front of her family.

Now that he quipped about being a gentleman people will remember. So when he kicks thecunt in the vagina the women watching will go "well she did deserve it".

To me Trump sees the debates as 3 rounds of bargaining for a deal. He laid out what he hoped could be (in the minds eye, sort of a figurative thing) a civil discussion. But the olive leaf was cast away.

Optics are everything right now. A towering giant against a sickly old lady... He has to let thecunt make the rules of engagement (which he did) so know he knows what weapon to strike her with.

BTW, I love you flow of logic in a lot of your posts. Very pragmatic and compelling.

Cicatrizatic said...

I do think there is some value to Trump framing the second debate as a "you had your fun at the first debate with the personal attacks, now it's time to talk about immigration, ISIS, emails, corruption, special interests, etc." He should have done better at the first debate, but stands to gain substantially by the pivot and re-frame.

Sigma K said...

Also. thecunt was trying to play gotcha with the introduction of fatty hooker pants. thecunt can't resist the low bar attacks. Now Trump has fodder to go back and rub that in the worlds face.

Team Democrats are unraveling faster and faster. Now women will really see who is really abusing women. It is not Trump. thecunt's placing of the human cum dumpster front and center shows lack of a good argument and very poor judgment.

Again, Trump can not look like a bully. That would sink it for him. It is an optics war now. Now he can look like a defender.

Audacious Epigone said...

Sigma K,

When he explained that he was going to refrain from saying anything bad about the Clinton family after she'd tried to smear him with the murder-abetting cum dumpster, my initial reaction was "man, what stultification!"

But as you allude to, one of the most common refrains I heard from people was that Trump look restrained and serious. It wasn't the hot-cold jugular-aloof dismissiveness I was eager to see, but I wasn't the target for conversion, either. And now with the narrative being that Trump was on the defensive and on his heels most of the time, Hillary doesn't get the fair maiden benefit.

She really went into the mud with the personal stuff. He didn't at all.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

Hillary also unloaded most of her talking points for this election at this debate. Now she has little or nothing. I guess she didn't mention Trump University, maybe she is saving that for a future debate. Other than that, she's got nothing left. She just used up her ammo and there's still two debates to go.

Sigma K said...


Yes, she is mudding it up with all the other pigs. Trump is clean. When he decides to get dirty he can claim, again, he did not want to but thecunt forced the issue. Women can get with defending oneself. The womyn on the other hand will go bombastic and as most of us know women do not like womyn. And again, that is Trump's demo at the moment.

@ Random

You are correct sir.

She will eventually try the entire Trump 'U' thing but only as a last resort. It would mean she would have to defend her NGO which she wants no part of.

She swung an ax once at an old oak and tried to knock in down in one debate. Not gonna work with Trump.

Also, Chateau posted about the big fix where thecunt and thechump were in on it together. Lets see where that goes.

And lets not forget... Assange.

Sam said...

I'm in NH where Trump supporters can show their faces in public, but I've got a buddy in L.A. who isn't so free. He and his wife are big Trump supporters, as are most of their friends, but they never talk about it in public for fear of reprisal. I told him he reminded me a French Resistance fighter in occupied Paris, when we start talking politics he lowers his voice and looks around to see who's within earshot. What a world.

Sam said...

Audacious Epigone
I don't think it was such a bad move on his part. He obviously didn't expect her to pull the woman card like that.

If he doesn't go through with a prepared manner of using this now for the next debate or in the campaign then in retrospect it would be a huge missed opportunity. With that said let me offer a brief defence of it nonetheless. When she pulled this crap in january, he responded by saying that we can talk about Bill and he posted a picture of Bill Clinton and Cosby together. Very effective and Hillary immediately stopped as even Krauthammer had to admit. Merely mentioning or hinting that he was going to talk about it forced the media to cover it. The same is true this time. If I were him I would keep playing the Cosby-Bill angle. He can simply goad her on the days up to the debate by posting pictures and inferring the rest. Call her an abuser etc. This way he doesn't even get explicit but he forces people to talk about it. Then he can unleash at a debate.

As one of the best journalist in this news cycle pointed out:

If he had any self control he could exploit this since the issue gives him license to go after the rapes. He could then top it off with Jeffrey Epstein. Voila!

Audacious Epigone said...

Random Guy on the Internet,

Good point. It was surprising to me that she didn't try to bring up any new dirt on Trump, suggesting that they probably simply don't have any. If everything is already on the table and it's just a question of drawing attention to it, then this is all Trump's to squander. The Trump University thing isn't going to move anyone. Trump just has to be disciplined enough not to go down the rabbit hole defending it. Something like, "It's buyer's remorse. We had a 98% approval rating and the people trying to get a buck now said they thought it was great at the time, we have the documents to show it", and then redirect into an attack on her to close the issue off.

All he needs to do is bring some of these things up and they'll become the next day's news story. It should be easy to put her on the defensive not because she's a clumsy debater but simply because there's so much material that even average Joes are familiar with for Trump to work with.


I make it a point to wear Trump something every time I'm out, usually the hat since it's the most conspicuous. I don't hear much but I'm in cuck country where a lot of people are AntiTrump Republicans but not NeverTrump Republicans. And I'm not exactly a soft target, either. If I were in LA I'd wear my stuff there, too.

Sigma K said...


I live in San Diego. I wear my Trump short to coffee shops while reading "Don't Make the Black Kids Angry".

I am around 6'2" and almost 200 lbs mostly muscle. Plus... I look a little Mexican even though my parents are from the Middle East. I was born in Detroit so I have seen things. I get either ignored or celebrated.

Sigma K said...

*Short = Shirt

CapitalistRoader said...

Hillary laid out three theories about why Trump hasn't released his tax forms. I think Trump could easily lay out three theories for why Hillary isn't currently in a federal prison:

She's got dirt on Comey.

Obama directed Comey to lay off.

Bill worked a secret deal with Lynch, perhaps allowing her to keep her job next January.

He really needs to pound home to the American people that Hillary is the ultimate example of white privilege. Anyone else who did what she did would be currently locked up awaiting trial.

Audacious Epigone said...

Sigma K,

I'm 6'1", 215lb and have a face that neutrally sets at don't-fuck-with-me (even though I don't have an aggressive chip on my shoulder attitude). I get the same. I've had a couple of drive-by insults but nothing to my face except for the Trump rally in KCMO ahead of the Missouri primary. That was a blast. I thought he'd be back for the general but it looks like Missouri is pretty safe for him so it looks like I was wrong.

Capitalist Roader,

Exactly. That's the kind of simple prep he needs to do. Provide parallel structure. What's worse, trying to reduce your tax burden (which everyone does), or selling state secrets, lying about it, and then buying off the FBI? Rhetorical. Trump doesn't even need to phrase it so explicitly.

john press said...

Capitalisist Roader, Exactly, her three reasons lead to jail.

Random Dude, if the elections aren't rigged, I agree with you: she will lose due to low voter turnout. Who actually likes her? And, Trump made a nice quiet appeal to Sanders supporters during the debate.

ALL, I think my new video puts Trump in a political spectrum. It shows he must become a steady Alt-Light person to go on the attack. Please watch it!


Thanks, John Press

Audacious Epigone said...

John Press,

Right, he's definitely not Alt Right and probably not even Alt Light, but he's not instinctively hostile to either of them. For a serious presidential candidate, that's without precedent. Pat Buchanan came closest, but he didn't get anywhere close to as far as Trump has.

Anonymous said...

Have any of you read this:

‘Missing’ White Voters Could Elect Trump. But First They Need To Register.


47 million blue collar whites are not registering to vote. That is because the Donald Trump campaign hasn’t “ground game.”

It's easy to see why a sizable percentage of these potential voters haven't been activated. It is because they are an unpredictable force.

The Cuckservative GOPe of the Koch Brothers, et al, is avoiding Donald Trump and working on the House and Senate races. Down ballot GOP Senate candidates are not only polling ahead of Trump by several points, but also leading their Democratic opponents in several Battleground States. In Florida, for example, “Little Marco” (despite receiving a Florida Presidential primary thumping by Trump) is up more than 5 points above his Democratic opponent, Patrick Murphy.

The Koch’s extensive network do not want those missing 47 million blue collar white people registered to vote. If only half or one-quarter of them were activated for Trump they might quickly go on to purge the GOP of its Paul Ryans, Mitch McConnells, Lindsey Grahams, and all the other political cucks. They might vote for populist white Democrats for Congress. They might come back in 2018 and primary the entire Koch Bros Network out of existence. In other words, activating these potential voters might have turned the Trump Revolution into a real revolution that eliminated the GOP’s political cucks and minimized the influence of its financial elite.

Trump is entirely aware of this and his actions indicate an arrangement with the GOP. Or he really is stupid.

The GOP elite remains entirely relevant, their political cucks are staying in office, and Trump is merely pulling off another show business stunt.

There is no genuine movement. Sorry, but social media tweets on twatter don't mean anything to the disaffected 57 million.

I'll vote for Trump, but no longer am I a Cuck for Trump.

By the way, has anybody noticed that the "Alt-Right" has been functionally co-opted by the Synagogue-dominated Breitbart & Drudge?

Sigma K said...

We need the big show like Trump to be the standard bearer out in the open. It is up to us to bring the fight.

The difference between the Tea Party and other such movements and the Alt-Right/Lite is that we are aware of the cucks. We are aware of the sniveling. We will not accept weakness.

I do not believe Drudge or Breitbart have co-opted the alt-right. I believe it is the other way around. You can bet your bottom dollar that if either shows any sign of weakness they will be thrown to the 4 winds. BB and Drudge need the Art-Right. It is not the other way around.

The A-R became a force with out them and will remain a force long after them. We are the weary. We are the stoic. We are the true fighters. We are the miscreants. We do not belong to a clique or to society. We make our own worlds and then people either fall in to it or they do not. If they do, we will protect them. If they do not we couldn't care less for them. If we fall so does society. Some womyn are now starting to find that out.

I have recently seen several videos of womyn world wide now asking men to step up to protect them from the onslaught. I will not stick my neck out for them. I will protect my own though. And my own knows what it means to be a part of my pack. They know I am the handiest person they know. I am the listener. I am the doer. I am the maker. I am the fighter.

My closest friends know that about me which is funny because their friends know that about me as well. That is way they are all asking to live on my property when I have it settled. They are seeking my comfort. My acceptance. My protection.

My girlfriends many friends want what I am creating. A man taking care of his own and they all want to be a part of that. They want to raise 10 babies away from schools and TV. They want to farm and tend the land. They want to celebrate life with the basics but having modern conveniences. Think modern day Amish.

At first they thought I was crazy. Now they listen to my every word. I will not let them forget that I have been correct about it all and for many years.

I have even cast away my own sisters for being blind. They voted for Prince Gay Muzzy Mulatto and now seem to regret it. I warned them years ago but to no avail. But now they are singing a different story.

Audacious Epigone said...


The GOPe brain trust doesn't do voter registration drives perpetually like the left does. It's probably more ineptitude and ignorance on Trump's part that some sort of corrupt bargain to allow the GOPe to do ok congressionally if they'll just let him sabotage the presidential ticket. People have been saying that at every stage of Trump's campaign thus far and they've been consistently off the mark. It's not that he doesn't want the presidency, it's that he initially didn't think he had a shot and now that he does he's scrambling to put a winning campaign together. The groundwork isn't there and rather than try to put it in place as thoroughly as he needs to, he's putting even more into the strategy that has worked thus far.

I'm skeptical about the voter registration stuff. Hispanics are always talking about it and it never materializes into actual votes. If you have a voter who is so unmotivated that they won't take five minutes to register, which they can figure out how to do with a google search, you're going to expend a lot of effort registering people who aren't even going to vote. If Trump goes 6 million better with whites than Obama and Hillary goes 2 million worse with blacks, he's there.

I assume you're the same person who commented previously on the same topic, and I may be too casually dismissing this (though 538 has shown quite convincingly that they don't know what the fuck is going on this election cycle at all). It'll be interesting to see via exit poll data how Trump under/overperforms Congressional races down ticket. I suspect in the Northeast he'll outdo down ticket, but in the cuck corridor he'll underperform significantly.

Audacious Epigone said...

Sigma K,

We are becoming the new barbarians, men without a state. If you want to become who you are, it is up to you to will yourself to power. It sounds like you are already a long way down that road.

Anonymous said...


Yes, I'm the same one.

Fwiw: For the past 30 years the received wisdom has been “it’s a waste of time to register those people.” The problem is, as you’ve pointed out previously, in the 50s and 60s half of them were voters. In the 90’s I registered hundreds of Perot voters at a Renaissance Faire at Glen Helen Park in southern California. At the time it seemed most of them were alienated, disaffected former Republicans. There were quite a few former Democrats among them, however. Now call my evidence anecdotal, if you wish, but the fact is that a huge subset of the non-voting white population used to vote. They stopped voting. Nobody has tried to reach them since that time. All we have are cavalier opinions as to why that is and why Trump is not bothering to chase them down. So Trump feels Minority Outreach to Latinos and American Africans is a better investment than Majority Outreach to disaffected white, blue-collar workers? If true, then he’s a fool or it’s part of an agreement (life insurance?) he has reached with the GOP.

One-fourth of 47 million disaffected white adults is more than 11 million. One-half is 23 million. This election could have been a Trump landslide of epic proportions. Not now. It will be a squeaker if he wins. The problem with squeakers is they are easily stolen. Only epic landslides can reduce the possibility of a stolen election.

Audacious Epigone said...


Well put, I don't have a counterargument. My guess is he just isn't very knowledgeable about the details and seems to be gobbling up the typical GOPe blather about minority outreach.

Regardless of how much tighter and more holistic his electoral game plan could have been, he's still providing a template that other aspiring and more polished politicians can use. Immigration restriction is no longer an issue that can be hand-waved away. The GOPe has been put on notice that nation building isn't something grassroots Republicans are interested in. If Hillary wins, it'll be with less than 50% of the popular vote and I wouldn't be surprised if her approval rating starts below 50%. It's conceivable through the course of her entire presidency it never cracks 50%.

Sigma K said...


I have a feeling you are off a little bit. The same thing happened for the Brexit vote. It was a 'shoe in' for the remain crowd pre-election according to the polls. They could not factor for the what I call: old guard. Those that were disaffected and left behind. Those people you are looking at here fall in that grouping.

It is nigh impossible to get there temperature because they are not in a voting block to be polled. I have a sneaky suspicion some will roll out election day. Trump is making headway in to the unions and blue collar folks like no rethuglican before him. It is the family members of those blue collar folks that are stuck in the middle of: do I vote rethug and piss off the family but make me happy or do I vote democrip to make the family happy but make myself sick? They just do not vote. that to me is the core of disaffected folks. And most of them are white.


How about Ronin Barbarians? Highly skilled, self reliant thinking men. Why do you think I call myself Sigma K? I am a classic Sigma with extremely high levels of self and family protection/preservation.

I know first aid, blacksmithing/fabrication (welding, machining, hand forging etc...), knife/sword making, basic electrical (enough to wire a house) auto repair, plumbing/pipe fitting, carpentry, tool making and a little hunting, fishing and survival. I have plenty of friends that hunt and fish I can pretty much repair anything. I own an aerospace/automotive engineering consulting firm so I like to tinker.

I work out to stay strong. I just did my brutal dead lift set of 275lbs x 56 in less than 22 min. I can hike on 100 deg days for 20 miles full exposure (shorts, white tee shirt and a baseball cap; I am bald...)no sunscreen and barefooted. I start the hike fasted from the day before so I am 12-14 hours away from food and carry nothing to eat or drink. Only thing I will drink is a mug of coffee in the morning.

Part of the reason I am compelled to read your blog is I see a lot of me in you. I have no idea whom you are but being here is a form of commiseration for me. Now that it is pretty much illegal for men to gather and share ideas unless a womyn is around...

Audacious Epigone said...

Sigma K,

I like the idea of ronin. What we're loyal to has been killed and we refuse to pledge loyalty to those who murdered it.

You sound like a more enhanced version of myself. I'm a middle management cog in the corporate machine. I've done well financially, we have no debt (including no mortgage) and my wife doesn't have to work and can stay home with our two kids. But my earning power is just barely in the six figures and will probably stay there for the forseable future. We're in the center of the country though, so $100k goes pretty damn far. I have surivalist contacts but fishing and proximity to a river is about the extent of what I could realistically do on my own. We could hole up in the basement for a month though.

In my teens I did full triatholons but I've long since gotten away from the grueling endurance stuff. I can still knock out a 5k in under 20 minutes and a mile in under 5:30, but I do almost all anaerobic now with the exception of a couple team sports and running the stairs once a week.

When it comes to mindset, though, it feels like we're synced up. I just have more work to do than you do. You, on the other hand, need to start making some copies of yourself. If we don't do that, there's no way we win the future.

Sigma K said...

I might do a mile in 7 min. Crush it!

I pledge loyalty to an ideal. If people are able to live up to that ideal I am truly honored to have them accept my friendship. (It is a convoluted concept most do not understand. Friendship is earned, not given)

You are doing great. My guess; you do not have any extraneous expenses. You are way ahead of the game.

When I get back to Kansas I would love to sit down and meet. I have a client in Wichita (Beechcraft) I get to on a blue moon.

Audacious Epigone said...

Sigma K,

Likewise, would be honored to host you. Make sure you get in touch if you're ever in the area.

Sigma K said...


If you are ever near San Diego please let me know. I am a mean cook and will gladly host you and the wife. I live in the country. On 3 acres of orange and lemon groove.