Saturday, January 21, 2017

Be careful what you wish for

The idea that violence is primarily being done by Trump supporters against Trump opponents has become increasingly risible over the last year-and-a-half. It's long since passed the point of absurdity and has now reached the point of being embarrassing even for most moderate leftists to treat seriously.

The quantity of video evidence refuting the blood libel mendaciously spread by fake news and their lickspittle lackeys is overwhelming. The cache grew larger still during Trump's inauguration yesterday:

Psychological projection is an important concept to understand in making sense of how cultMarxists are constantly warning about violence being done by Trump supporters. These people are characterized by a dangerous mixture of self-righteous zeal and a bully's intolerance for anyone who disagrees with them about anything. There are lots of comments to news stories on these events about how Trump supporters have it coming to them, that violence against "Nazis" is justified, etc.

The danger they pose is dwarfed by the danger they are exposing themselves to, however. The vast majority of the people doing the attacking are devoid of any actual relationship with violence--they aren't in shape, they're not physically strong, they've never trained in any martial art, they don't own guns (let alone have any idea how to use them), etc. These are self-entitled, prospectless omegas living off student loans or their parents in urban and suburban aquariums. If they acted like this in the ocean they'd be hanging from street lights in a matter of minutes.

With Trump in the White House and Jeff Sessions as AG, law enforcement across the country is probably going to significantly step up the severity of how they deal with the left's violent street rabble. If the authorities to whom we've outsourced the execution of violence fail to do so, middle Americans will do it themselves.

It's going to be an interesting eight years.


Jack Burton said...

Some of it is unconscious projection and mental illness, but some of it, if not a majority of it, is willful deception and malicious propaganda. Communists not only assault the body, but also the mind.

It's similar to the idea of using self-deprecation to disarm those who would insult you. You own the words before they do to disarm them. They will claim first that you're violent when in fact they are.

They use just about every mind manipulation they can including gaslighting. They will complain about something, and then when you bring it up they will claim it doesn't exist. Leftists and Jews want total control over the argument.

Feryl said...

Jack - They can convince the majority of people that Soviet spies had minimal influence on America (yeah, right) or better yet, just pronounce the memories of such things as Soviet espionage dead so that our "living" memories do not contain leftist excesses. At the same time, we've been bashed over and over again from day one about Hitler and the Jews. And the "heroic" civil rights movement (whose answers to various inequities and grievances have done far more damage than the difficulties it purported to resolve).

BTW, the Lefties feel terrible already and love to dump their misery and inadequacy onto other people. Conflating normal and peaceful times with alleged injustices and corruption is how they con people into running away from the dreadful present/past into ostensibly fair future. But actually making people better would negate the reason Leftism exists in the first place. So they're always finding more things to bitch about and fabricating pretexts to lecture and control people who wish to live according to standard communal and ethnic principles rather than kneeling to a commie cabal.

Dan said...

To quote Gavin McInnis, I think I just creamed my pants.

I just learned that Fox is replacing George Will with Nigel fucking Farage. That is like getting a Lamborghini to replace roller skates.

It's only been one day and we are already getting better immigrants.

Audacious Epigone said...


Re: the mental illness assertion, it's always associated with something else though because these things rarely ever (never?) happen at leftist gatherings.

Agree and amplify, right. And as Vox Day is fond of saying, show them no mercy at all. The only thing to do after you've stepped on their throats is to slit them, not to lift your foot (figuratively of course!).


What's left (heh) now, though? Not just in terms of the next frontier in social justice--what's after transgenderism, something that is relevant to .0000001% of the population instead of just .0001% of it?--but also in terms of attacking their enemies? Half the country is already literally Hitler. What's left in the rhetorical quiver?


Great news, thanks!

Sid said...

"They will complain about something, and then when you bring it up they will claim it doesn't exist."


"They can convince the majority of people that Soviet spies had minimal influence on America (yeah, right) or better yet, just pronounce the memories of such things as Soviet espionage dead so that our "living" memories do not contain leftist excesses."

You can see that phenomenon quite readily. In recent months, we've seen the leftist hysteria about "Russian hackers." It's quite remarkable: Leftists will claim that the Soviet Union's attempts at subversion were negible, whereas the modern Russian Federation is able to topple American democracy by hacking the DNC and Podesta's email. The contradiction is simply baffling.

"Not just in terms of the next frontier in social justice--what's after transgenderism, something that is relevant to .0000001% of the population instead of just .0001% of it?--but also in terms of attacking their enemies?"

The left has tried to get transgenderism up and running as an issue, but has consistently failed. They had Chaz Bono on "Dancing with the Stars" in 2011 and Caitlyn Kardashian in 2015, but both of them wound up being freaks who quickly burnt up under the spotlight.

The problem is that transgender people are, practically by definition, mentally ill. No matter how hard leftists try, common sense refuses to recognize that trannies are normal, healthy people. While it's possible for normal people to tolerate, accept and like homosexuals, transsexualism seems to be a bridge too far for normal people to accept.

I think that the left has reached its rhetorical limit when it comes to condemning its enemies - at this point, who HASN'T been called a Nazi? - but they can still openly and explicitly call for violent attacks against their enemies. If they do so, I agree that Core America, with its guns, hunting skills, and staffing of the police and military, will destroy the fringes in moments.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

It's the Daily Mail so take it with a grain of salt but it seems like a couple hundred violent rioters are going to get arrested on felony rioting, which carries up to a 10 year prison sentence and a $25,000 fine. Will George Soros be willing to foot the bill for his paid army of protesters? I bet there are some very scared, very privileged white kids right now who are about to face some very real consequences for the first time in their life. I bet they wished they sat at home and just tweeted #notmypresident instead.

chris said...

Here's to hoping that leftist protestors all commit felonies and can never vote again.

Audacious Epigone said...


In recent months, we've seen the leftist hysteria about "Russian hackers." It's quite remarkable: Leftists will claim that the Soviet Union's attempts at subversion were negible, whereas the modern Russian Federation is able to topple American democracy by hacking the DNC and Podesta's email. The contradiction is simply baffling.

There is tons of meme material here. I'm surprised to have not seen any of it floating around (at least not yet).

Re: trannies, the SJW causes are becoming too much for other members of the coalition of the fringes to pay lip service to. If it's hard for normal middle Americans to take seriously, it's even harder for urban blacks or Somali immigrants to accept.

Random dude/Chris,

Soon-to-be AG Sessions should throw the book at every single one of them (though I'm not sure who actually prosecutes that--does DC have its own citywide prosecutor?). Here's to hoping a couple hundred coddled, overprivileged little brats are sharking in their larping combat boots right now. Play with fire and get burned.

Mil-Tech Bard said...

The Left will keep doing what they are doing -- media condoned violence against Leftist "Approved Targets" -- until they are imprisoned or killed.

IMO, we will only see this sort of escalating Left wing violence end when there are for-real "Right Wing Death Squads" hunting them down.

The Left seems bound and determined to push their violence to the level of an on-going urban insurgency.

Historically, be it the Sunni's in Iraq, Muslims in French Algeria or Leftist Guerilla's in El Salvador, only death squads have won the victory.

The Spanish Civil War is coming. (TSCWIC)

Note: This is a prediction, not an endorsement.

The Z Blog said...

The future is not written so there is still time for the adults to step in and put some limits on these lunatic assemblies. The most effective weapon would probably be suing the financial backers or at least going after them. The great failure of the Official Right was in not going after the funding mechanisms of the Left when they had the chance. Trump may not be so foolish.

Even so, going after the financial backers of these groups is one way to keep things from spiraling out of control. Another way is to start hitting the protesters with serious jail time. And not just the masked idiots setting fires. The Feds can roll up the whole organization like they do any other criminal organization.

Now, if the adults don't step in and this continues, before long young men looking for action will begin to appear at these events to "stand guard" and provide security. This is a familiar pattern and before long you have organized political violence on the streets.

Feryl said...

We could also punish left leaning hives by better voter ID enforcement. College towns and urban areas have tons of voters who lack the credentials to prove their identity. Trump and the GOP can't get cocky; next election the Soros' of the world are gonna be browbeating these demos to turn out against Trump. We've got to stay one step ahead of them. Of course we can't rely on the officials in Dem-friendly areas to properly enforce the law so I suggest that Team Trump needs to pressure state GOP officials into monitoring the process in areas hostile to the GOP. If there's a backlash, the GOP should tell the Dems that they're more than welcome to monitor GOP territory themselves.

One thing nice about the Michigan recount was that it exposed how idiotic the election officials in urban areas are. For the uninitiated, the number of ballots in certain districts (especially in Detroit)l were reconciled incorrectly with the overall vote tally because ballots were being scanned multiple times without resetting the count. MI law excludes these areas from recount changes unless there's an accompanying explanation written on election day. Alas, these areas initial votes still count. State GOP can't be intimidated from further scrutinizing the voting process in precincts run by buffons and crooks.

Other measures to help us Paleos: recalibrate electoral college votes by excluding immigrants from pop. totals. This will immediately reduce the influence of California in particular. Considering further GOP gains in the 2018 mid-terms, it's now or never to pass important legislation and action before the next election while the Dems can't fight back.

WRT the previous thread, another step to reforming the Dem primary is killing the urban multiplier that's obvious pandering to immigrants and non-whites, that basically kills more heartland friendly candidates. Note that since non-whites are still the minority in most states, the Dems are basically killing the chances of truly populist candidates by pandering to a irregular American base that's growing but still not equal to native white Americans). The Dems have so captured blacks that they hate to do anything to make them feel less relevant. That becomes a huge problem when hinterland whites, who still dominate much of the rust-belt and Midwest, turn on the Dems for either cultural (read: race realist) or economic reasons. Let's not forget either that Carter and Clinton had appeal to the South, especially the whiter peripheral South. The increasing cosmopolitanism of the Dems since the mid 90's has totally annihilated the party in the South (where white people frequently state their ethnicity to be American), save for Virginia and to a lesser extent North Carolina both of which have become striver magnets.

Feryl said...

In this series Trende talks about the geography of the election. Hillary and the Dems in general do very well in most large metro areas (one exception: Pittsburgh) but are getting shellacked just about everywhere else. It also confirms what I suspected: quintessentially American small to moderately sized towns matter a lot relative to the aforementioned urban areas.

He classifies areas by the nature of their development:

- Some regions have big urban areas that overwhelm the rural and smaller town vote, like the highly developed Eastern Seaboard that stretches from NorVirginia to Boston. Dems did well here. Trende says that outstate Midwesterners voted like Southerners in the '16 election; problem in Minnesota and Illinois is that Minneapolis/St. Paul and Chicago are so cosmopolitan and non-white that they keep each state away from the GOP.

- Some have both very large metro areas and few small town/rural voters, as you see out West in the Pacific and Colorado. The Dems did extremely well in these states, aided by the rural population containing a decent amount of Hispanics. Colorado, when it was less populated, used to vote reliably Republican. But the last 10-20 years have seen considerable urban development, as well as the addition of rings of suburbs to metro areas. But these Western suburbs are never going to have the flavor of pre-WW2 towns that are much more common East of the Mississippi.

- Texas and Florida have an increasingly tight battle between urban and less urban voters, but can still be won by Republicans due to having a lot of conservative and older white voters.

- East of the Rockies States with few to no large urban areas are now dominated by Republicans. The only exceptions are in New England, in which Trump still managed to get an EC vote from one Maine District (that's like getting blood from a stone given how the Bush era alienated New England from the GOP) while doing well in New Hampshire

- West of the Plains states have few smaller town voters and are each dominated by a handful of metro areas, but if they're lighter populated or heavily Mormon they will vote GOP. There just aren't that many cosmopolitan liberals in Idaho or Utah. One exception: New Mexico, which is probably the 2nd least culturally American state after Hawaii.

In summary, the Dems have become tethered to heavily populated mega urban areas with tons of strivers and immigrants. If more states did Maine and Nebraska style EC vote apportioning the Dems would get brutalized with the not insubstantial smaller town GOP voter base in MN, Illinois and upstate New York not having having their votes stolen by Mpls, Chicago, and NYC.

Mil-Tech Bard said...

As far as a Sessions Justice Department systematic enforcement of the law on the Left's Brown shirts (but I repeat myself -- Fascists are Leftists) rioting and violence in DC and elsewhere:

1. It will take 3-months to get in the new Federal attorneys to all the appointed places.

2. It will be another 3-months after that for investigations can indict the low hanging fruit on the Brown shirt tree.

3. After 1 & 2, the "Brown Shirt Fringe" will be introduced to Patriot Act indefinite detainment for terrorism related crimes.

Number 3 is where is where all the Project Veritas exposed Democratic dirty tricks operators are going to get their livelihoods destroyed. The anti-financing of terrorism provisions are going to run right up to George Soros given enough time and NSA metadata.

This will take 18-months to a couple of years, but right in time for the 2018 election cycle.

And the surveillance of these people's activities during the 2018 election cycle will get most of the dirty tricks network exposed for Trump's "Keep America great" re-election campaign of 2019-2020.

Audacious Epigone said...

Mil-Tech Bard,

It's at least conceivable that Trump could stop this by being Mr. Law and Order who gives the police free reign and throws the book at every single protester that is arrested, by deporting the millions he's said he'll deport, and by using his bully pulpit to relentlessly crush his media adversaries into pulp. He'll have an army of shitlords behind him and a silent majority that supports him. If anyone has the gumption to make it happen, it's him.

O'Keefe says his next target are the fake news organizations themselves. Can't wait.


Well put as always. I saw Ricky Vaughn talking about something along the lines of a "freedom of speech" voluntary protection unit forming at public events and presumably being coordinated ahead of time online. What you're predicting is already in the seminal stages, in other words.


The push to get rid of the electoral college has probably already fizzled out since it was a nakedly partisan reaction to the election results--the DNC was actually worried the opposite outcome would occur, with Hillary winning the EC but losing the popular vote, and tried to run up the score in urban areas like Chicago--but if the issue has legs, we should parlay that into a push for an EC by congressional district, like Maine and Nebraska have but for every district in the country.

Feryl said...

The implementation of the popular vote as the decider would result in even greater effort to stuff invaders into America (as if there wasn't already enough effort) as elites in decadent periods just don't care about what happens to even the middle class, let alone those below.

The magnificent thing about the electoral college (even if it could be improved) is that it provides adequate representation to every ethnic and regional group in America even though such groups vary greatly in terms of numbers and culture. Liberals claim to care about fairness; yet in a popular vote system any group that is both large and willing to vote as a bloc would have undue influence on every election. And that includes white sub-groups. You could throw the liberal concern in their face by telling them flat-out: would you be comfortable about the popular vote decision if we decided to throw out a substantial number of non-whites before the next election?

Also, as for playing fair, the Leftists have shown terrible faith by deciding to win elections not on the basis of persuasive ideas or even past performance, but rather on throwing a dogpile of foreigners onto America knowing that recent settlers in an area typically will not be attracted to the more conservative party.
You get this bizarre notion that the electoral college is outrageous because it undervalues the feelings of people who are tenuously American and/or actively detest huge swaths of the American populace.

Some might bring up the straw-man argument that other systems/countries use the popular vote, so why not us? One size fits all doesn't work. America is far more geographically and ethnically diverse than any other country in the world. When Brexit was voted on, Britian certainly had become a much more diverse country. Yet even Britain pales in comparison to America. America has pockets of Mormons in the Rockies, Cajuns in the Louisiana Swamps, Yankees in New England, blond farmers in Iowa and MN, and so on. Even American whites, due to both ancestral origins and the effect of greatly differing regional geography and culture, are highly diverse. I've heard white people from the Northeast comment on how few natural blonds there are in the region. Stephen King often makes a character blond as shorthand for being Midwestern, though really, blondness isn't that uncommon among Anglos or Scots which is why a decent amount of Southerners are blond as well. It's possible that the flood of potato-famine Irish, Italians, and Jews really depressed blond genes in the northeast, especially in the mid-century when a a Boomer like King came of age.

There already is enough tension between different American regions and ethnicities. It doesn't need to be intensified by letting L.A., NYC, and Chicago decide every election.

Theodoric said...

DC prosecutions are all done by the US Attorney's office, so it would be Sessions who is ultimately responsible. The big problem would be that the jury pool would be drawn from DC.

Audacious Epigone said...


A pure popular vote is the ultimate iteration of majority rule so it's hard for the left to defend polemically. And yes, voter fraud would be monumental in big urban areas, especially those in blue states where Democrats still control state legislatures. There'd be zero effort to investigate allegations of fraud in a city like LA no matter how compelling the evidence.


Many of the thugs were white and probably spoiled college kids from middle/upper middle backgrounds, so a black jury may not have too many hangups about throwing the book at them.