Tuesday, August 22, 2017

Killing instinct

Trump, on more of the same in Afghanistan:
My original instinct was to pull out, and historically I like following my instincts, but all of my life I heard that decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk in the Oval Office.
Remember when the Establishment's licentious left and cowardly cucks made a big fuss over candidate Trump questioning the advice of "the generals"? Well, congratulations to them for having committed America to pouring another decade or three's worth--if she lasts that long--of her blood and treasure into that miserable graveyard of empires.

The Establishment nipped the insurgent force on one side in the bud. The other is made of sterner stuff, but it looks like he, too, is being worn down.

If the president fails, it will be post-election Trump who fails, not Trumpism. Trump's failure, to the extent that it occurs, will be due to the Trumpism that got him elected being cast by the wayside. This episode is a particularly stark illustration of exactly that occurring.

Slamming the lid back on the pot isn't going to stop the boiling underneath, though. Gen Z's vote share between establishment and anti-establishment candidates*:


To the Cloud People on high, we say this:



* Anti-Establishment candidates are defined here as Trump, Carson, Sanders, and Cruz. The latter's inclusion is debatable, but that is how he has positioned himself and how he has generally been viewed by his supporters. Establishment candidates include Clinton, O'Malley, Christie, Rubio, and ¡Jabe!.

"Other" candidates, who garnered 13% of the high school primary vote, are excluded entirely because the category is not broken down further than that. In the general election survey, 9% voted for third-party candidates, so most of this excluded portion is anti-Establishment but since it's can't be gauged precisely, it's not included here.

"No answer" responses are also excluded.

25 comments:

Sid said...

The withdrawal from Iraq and ISIS' subsequent reign of terror mean no presidential candidate turned Commander-in-Chief will ever withdraw from Afghanistan. The costs of being there are painful, but nowhere as bad as jihadis overrunning the country. Trump said it was a mistake to go into Iraq and a mistake to withdraw from there. For better or for worse, that logic also applies to Afghanistan.

I'm not at all optimistic about developing the country. I expect we'll keep bases and soldiers there much the same way the Romans kept garrisons on their borders to fend off the Picts, Parthians, and Germans. It's expensive and painful, but alas, it doesn't hurt the way "losing a country to terrorists" does.

Jonathan Centauri said...

He is Mealy Mouthed Glorihosus. Makes a speech most Bellicose Neurosis. Attacker of the White, daughter not contrite, despoiler of the work, he looks like some Bush jerk.
He is Mealy Mouthed Glorihosus. He makes little work of all he told us. He bombs the tears of his flesh. Makes mincemeat of the rest. Gets some of the pie, and all he does is lie.

Nintendo War II, Amerikwan Empire Collapse. Brought to you by Peptic Cola, Kentucky Fried Riot, Same Old Story and Little Jebbie's wrong kind of pussy.

Anonymous said...

Calm down.

Politics is power, not principles.

He's putting in a brigade, O put in 100K

And he's telling them to win, and only win and not hold back.

Which won't make the Afghan's White but may cow them into quiet.

Moreover this small war allows him to see who's who...in the US MIL. Who are winners and who isn't.

Also feeds the Military/Contractor complex and gives enemies distraction to debate whilst he consolidates Executive power and continues his good work.

He's done more than any President in a generation.

War is policy, not principles. So is politics. Don't go looking for morality or principles or you'll get used as a dupe.

vxxc

Dan said...

At least he isnt starting a new war. He isnt going into a new country. He ran on smashing terrorists in part. He surrounded himself with generals and he loves him some military. Well their balls are blue and they crave release. Since this is already the world's least functional country, at least you arent making things worse.

Duke Norfolk said...

I'm not keen on this either, but:

1) This is Trump, not just another of the standard establishment presidents. So I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and see how this plays out. Keep in mind that any other of the candidates would have been doing the same or worse (and yes, I believe even Bernie; he's a coward when it comes down to it. And he's Jewish after all). And I really don't even know myself how this should be handled. So I'll defer to Trump.

2) At least he was much more honest than any other politician has probably ever been about this. Who else would have explicitly acknowledged that they were going against what they campaigned on? They just don't talk like this. That's refreshing.

It's funny to see how many people on the right are criticizing him for not wanting to micromanage the military operation and giving the generals/troops more autonomy. Isn't that exactly what presidents have been damned for not doing in the past? Damned if you do, damned if you don't. He's still going to hold them accountable for results like no other president would, IMO. He's not a pure political animal; in case anybody needs to be reminded of that (which is apparently many of his supporters, quite often).

dc.sunsets said...

Concur.
The apogee of Leftism and subsequent trend change is hardly all about One Man. Those who thought electing someone "new" was all that was needed to reverse the Left-spinning top were surely looking to take the easy road. No such path exists.

Trump's election was a signal, nothing more. Just as the cure for high prices is high prices, the (centuries-)long awaited end of Leftward spin will be found in today's jet-turbine-speed Leftism.

These last 50 years are the Blow Off Top for a peculiar type of magical thinking and its subsets: the Gnostic Heresy (Leftism writ large) and "repeal" of Say's Law (in economics & the monetary system.)

A. All forms of Leftism aim at creating Utopia.
B. Fully fiat money and the "borrow $1, get $2+ in "wealth creation" (at least $1 in GDP as the borrowed "value" cascades through the economy plus another $1, counted as an asset--a receivable--in the bond market) ended the need for Congress tax in order to spend and ended the need for consumers to work (produce) in order to consume.

"We" could eliminate sin (racism, sexism, etc.) and be freed of Earthly requirements to produce in order to consume (Say's Law.)

Of course this is insanity. The "eliminate sin" part is well-critiqued, but the recognition of our monetary/economic system's "repeal" of Say's Law is largely unrecognized. People describe the symptoms but can't diagnose the disease.

The USA has been turned into one big Pawn Shop by those who arbitrage between low cost manufacturing (where the jobs are) and high cost consumption (where the consumers are.) The US Chamber of Commerce wants open borders to flood the High Cost First World with consumers. Jobs? Why they're as unnecessary to precede consumption as taxes are unnecessary to precede government spending.

Just issue a bond. So (for example) the Chinese make stuff and ship it to the 1st world, who sends IOU's back. The Chinese can't use (for example) T-notes to buy stuff in China, so they bring it back to the USA to buy up stuff here. Like I said, we live in a PAWN SHOP.

Heaven on Earth. No?

This explains why:
Deficits (and the national debt) haven't mattered.
Job losses haven't mattered.
Export of manufacturing hasn't mattered.

Will they ever? I suspect so. Eventually there won't be anything left to pawn.

And eventually, the maniac-level social trust underlying the bond market (and everything else) will naturally wane, and EVERYTHING we see will be reframed. That reframing will be accompanied by SHTF chaos. And the Trump Admin's success or failure will fade into irrelevance.

Anonymous said...

Potential cannon fodder doesn't like being cannon fodder. Who'da thunk.

Anonymous said...

At some future point, Trump may need full support from the US military to stay in power, and maybe even alive.
If listening to the general's dumb ideas gains him that support, it's worth it.

Glen Filthie said...

It depends what he does.

Not being acknowledged by the Alt Right is the fact that the Taliban and other terrorist organisations are very much a real and present danger to American citizens - and they will not give up and go home if America does. If anything they will see that (correctly) as weakness and step up their activities. If Trump goes soft on Afghanistan and America gets hit - Trump will shoulder the blame. If he goes all in and tries to kill terrorists Over There rather than right here - he'll be seen as a war mongerer. He is between a rock and a hard place, and he is trying to split the difference. Obutthole was supposed to be the great peace maker and he got kicked to the curb for his efforts to get along with moslems too.

Terrorism can be beaten but war will have to be waged - actual war. The military will need full authority to designate and strike targets without having to wait for Congress or Obama to finish his golf game. They will need meaningful rules of engagement, and protection from the judiciary and lunatic left in the matter of collateral damage. I strongly suspect that to keep moslems from killing our women and children - we are going to have to kill a metric ton of theirs first. America doesn't have the stomach for that ... yet. If they COULD commit to that - then the war on terror could be fought and won in a matter of weeks. Moslems are mostly cowards and curs except for their loons, whose handlers regard as expendable weapons platforms. Until moslems get their jihad they'll just keep on doing what they have.

Feryl said...

"At some future point, Trump may need full support from the US military to stay in power, and maybe even alive.
If listening to the general's dumb ideas gains him that support, it's worth it."

The cabinet generals are clearly wary of Trump, never liked him, never liked his platform, never trusted him and never will. They're there to babysit him and keep him in line. I don't remember who it was exactly, but I heard someone saying that the cabinet generals have said a number of very patronizing things wrt Trump. It's very disrespectful and unusual. Flynn was supposed to be Trump's attack dog but the Deep State (the Pentagon/CIA/Team Hillary/Team Obama) clearly colluded to frame Flynn and knock him out before he had a chance to see Trump's campaign promises through.

Flynn was a warning shot, and since late April (a mere 3 months into term one) Trump's been noticeably more attentive to sticking to Pentagon and GOP orthodoxy, with occasional tweets and policy announcements to remind us that he's not a total GOPbot. The likes of Cernovich and Bannon are going to try and hold Trump to his initial platform while doing everything they can (within reason) to get the biggest clowns out of the white house. Had been Bannon been the top dog, he would've gone on a "I'm gonna take them down with me" rampage after the Deep State and MSM colluded to try and steal the White House away from him. Trump isn't a zealot; he's trying to reason with and bargain with the personnel that's been foisted on him, and likely he feels that he's got a responsibility to the Pentagon/the establishment since, after all, how could they all be wrong?

I don't think Trump feels personally threatened, if that's the case then he would've buckled long before May 2017 under the challenges and insults he's endured. The Flynn/Bannon/Stephen Miller camp is furious that the agenda they designed under Trump's supervision has been dashed primarily by the Pentagon. Trump is trying to find ways to appease both sides, but it's bit him hard as an inability to rein in the Pentagon has thinned the ranks of the original Trump loyalist side. The sneaky thing is that the military remains respected, and Trump is probably concerned that great effort to rein in the Pentagon would be dismissed as a power trip by a wildly arrogant president (never mind that the Pentagon is thwarting the agenda Trump ran on anyway) who's dissing the great military leaders.

Thing is, at some point Trump has to wake up and face the facts about the Pentagon still hating him (nothing Trump does will get him the leeway that an insider cuck has "earned" over several decades of service to the system), as is evident from the Flynn job, the Russian dupe meme (which has the CIA's fingerprints all over it), or the neo-nazi meme (which is heavily managed by globalists). The Pentagon could nip this stuff in the bud if they so desired (they've got power over the MSM and the tech companies), but they let it fester.


Feryl said...

In effect, a sort of slow motion, insidious, coup is being perpetrated. The sheer amount of resources marshalled to discredit Trump and the New Right has succeeded at making Trump support socially unacceptable in virtually every mid-large metro area that isn't in or near Appalachia. 50-60% of American feel annoyance to blinding rage at those who voted for Trump, and that will never change. It's becoming the "are you with the North or South" of this era.

They did this to Nixon, who was foolish enough to play into their hands and shortly before Nixon's resignation virtually no America was publicly supportive of him. And thus began a period of about 1973-1982, in which much of American culture was borderline nihilistic and depressed. But at least there was a consensus at that time, however. A downer, maybe, but nobody was blaming the other side for our problems.

We've reached a point with Trump where it's evident that his early loyalists and even some later bandwagon joiners are not going to turn on him because they know there's no one else to turn to, neither will his enemies back off. Any chance at healing has been thwarted by elite liberals and globalists fomenting self-delusion and outward rage.

Audacious Epigone said...

Sid,

The window for withdrawal has now effectively closed. All the painful decisions need to be made early in a term--not only is the electoral "goodwill" there, that's when the base public perception is created.

Whenever I take over a new team, which I do with some regularity in my professional career, I cut no slack at the beginning and then loosen up as time goes on. Six months down the road people think "man, I thought he was sort of a dick when he first got here, but that was unfair, he's actually gotten results and he's fair/helpful". Bending over backwards early and then trying to tighten the reigns later is disastrous. It seemed like that was what Trump was doing with the initial flurry of EOs, but that feels like ancient history now.

VXXC,

If we revisit this in two years and I have to eat crow I will gladly do so.

If he's playing a smart game, then his base--of which I include myself--is expected to at least mildly criticize deviations from what the base backed him for. It's better that way. Ann Coulter is better for Trump than Bill Mitchell is.

Dan,

What do you make of the "instincts" 'confession'? Strategic, sincere, to create a sense of distance--what was its purpose?

Duke,

Don't mistake this for a serious shift in general support for Trump on my part. It's not. If he has to triple-down, pull out completely, or something else entirely to get the wall built, I'll take that in a heartbeat. This is of minor importance in the long run. I do wonder how indicative it is in a broader sense, though.

dc.sunsets,

As someone who considers himself an Austrian (or at least a fan of the Austrian school), I'm sympathetic. There may be a way to short-circuit your ultimate outcome, though. Rothbard thought so.

Anon,

Touche. As Agnostic regularly points out, he's tied in many ways to the Pentagon.

Glen Filthie,

We understand the danger. We realize, though, that one Taliban in the West is more dangerous than 1,000 in Afghanistan. Simultaneously stop invading the world and stop inviting the world and our problems with Islam are drastically reduced.

Audacious Epigone said...

Sid,

It seemed like Trump was coming in like a lion initially, that is (i.e. it felt like he was doing it right).

Feryl said...

I have to chuckle at claims that Trump won over Americans massively. No, he didn't. If he did, then McMuffin and (blows)Johnson(s) wouldn't have garnered enough votes to steal New Hampshire and Minnesota from Trump. I appreciate that he dominated rural areas and smaller towns to a degree perhaps never seen before, but racial voting patterns being what they are, he needed more swpl type whites to stop kvetching about muh racism and "God, what will my European acquaintances think if I vote for Drumpf?". And fer fuck's sake, how many "conservatives" bitched and moaned about Trump being an interloper who hadn't paid his dues?

Not to say that Hilary won people over, either (lost in the Left's accusation of an unfair election is that Hillary was the worst major party candidate since Dukakis).

Even if we turned demographics back to the 1970's, it's not like Trump would've won over 60% of the population. We're in the twilight of striving, in which it's virtually impossible for people from different classes, different ideologies, different backgrounds, and different regions to find common ground. I remain more perturbed by white liberals and white cucks and the power they (mis)wield than anything else. BTW, ya noticed how Alex Jones gets the most shit from whites? Status struggles seem more open within races (note how around 1990 the term uncle Tom started being thrown around more often among blacks). Conflict between races becomes more about collective racial territoriality, whereas self-absorbed cultural one-upmanship is more common within a race.

Feryl said...

The current regime surrounding Trump has all the markings of a de facto military coup. Priebus, who has no military experience, few ties to the military, and comes from a state with minimal military/intelligence infrastructure (Wisconsin), is replaced by John Kelly (a life-long military man from the East coast). McMaster (another military man from the East Coast) has been given seemingly greater authority to carry out the Pentagon's agenda, what with firing so many Trump loyalists.

We need Bannon and Cernovich (among others) to launch some kind of platform (maybe TV news?) to remind more people on a regular basis that the Pentagon has been screwing people up the butt for 70 years. The Deep State, in all it's forms, has got to be taken to task. And I'm amenable to bringing in lots of people from the Upper Midwest and Appalachia, who've not been subjected to idealistic war mongering garbage and are pragmatically not concerned about America losing face. Agnostic noted that a survey showed the Midwest to be less interested in using the military to advance the American way than any other region, plus the upper central region of America has little reason, culturally or economically, to buy into the idea that endlessly expanding the influence and size of the military (and by proxy, the Pentagon) is good idea.

People on the East Coast and in the Sun Belt ain't gonna like this, but the reality is that building ever greater military and intelligence infrastructure, and glorifying those who work in these departments, has just not paid off after WW2. Too many people in these industries and these regions are taking more than they are ultimately giving. The heavily Celtic band in the Northeast and Sunbelt might feel forlorn in the absence of contriving greater and greater excuses to have a massive military and intelligence operation that has come to exist to validate the career choices of people like Kelly, but hey, tough shit.

If fires stopped existing, I'm sure that Irish firefighters in Boston would take the news pretty hard. But when you've outlived your usefulness, well, deal with it.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

> It seemed like Trump was coming in like a lion initially, that is (i.e. it felt like he was doing it right).

I agree. The first couple of weeks of Trump's administration, you felt like real change was coming and the Trump Train was not going to slow down. Then it proceeded to slow down. There were a couple of weeks in April (I believe) when it seemed like he reversed course on everything and embraced the establishment. Then he reverted back for a while. It may just be a thing where for brief periods at a time, he cucks, and then he uncucks.

My theory with his first cucking was that it was a deal to get Gorsuch through. He bombs Syria and Gorsuch gets approved. My theory with this second cucking is that with budget season coming up, if he wants initiatives like the wall to be fully funded for 2018, then he needs to make another deal. Extend the Afghanistan boondoggle for full wall funding. I'd consider it worth it if that's what it takes. Again, just my theory. With Bannon out, there's one less of "our guys" in the White House.

Dan said...

"Dan,

What do you make of the "instincts" 'confession'? Strategic, sincere, to create a sense of distance--what was its purpose? "

Well I don't think its 4D chess, it is just the truth. He doesn't feel great about this, but he hasn't been presented with any good options.

His generals presented him with a menu options which were basically the same, one of which was probably not,

"Our recent synthesis of the brilliant sociological discoveries of Audacious Epigone of Kansas led us to the conclusion that due to complications stemming from human biological diversity as it relates to the Afghan people, peace and civilization are not realizable in that country except on evolutionary timescales. We recommend full withdrawal in order to allow nature to carry on her work, and will observe from a distance for a period of 10,000 years. During that time-frame 'explosions' of evolutionary development have been known to occur in human subgroups."

Alas, we know too much.

Sid said...

AE and Random Dude,

My own theory is that Trump relied on Bannon from late January to late March or so. You saw big, transformative EOs being issued week after week. You also saw courts turning down those orders and Congress freaking out. After the first healthcare debacle in the spring, I think Trump thought less of Bannon.

From roughly the start of April until the end of July, Trump softened up a bit and tried to compromise with Congress, trying to rule the country through them. But again, healthcare blew up and Trump fired Priebus.

At this point, the Trump administration is Trump, Ivanka, and Jared, with generals dominating foreign policy (Mattis, McMaster, Kelly, and perhaps Dunford).

Trump's foreign policy should be fairly establishmentarian, but I don't know what Trump has planned for domestic policy. Jared and Ivanka are center-left Democrats and would celebrate should Trump cuck. On the other hand, Trump always has his finger on the base's pulse. You see Bannon losing his job, but you also see the globalist business councils getting disbanded. As usual, I expect Trump will shift back and forth in his priorities and will act according to the circumstances at hand.

Dan said...

Trump's agenda always had a contradiction. He is super pro military and talked always of 'rebuilding our military.' He is also against foreign engagement. Well guess what? Foreign engagement is what military exist for, and its what they train for day and night.

In my mind he instructs the military to 'remove the foreign invaders from US soil' but as John McCain might explain, 'armies' and 'protecting your country' are two unrelated topics.

Sid said...

My "Delenda Carthago est" statement is that we need to go #MAGA2018. If Congress is staffed with more candidates who are anti-immigration, anti-intervention, we'll give Trump more leverage to be the guy we voted for in 2016. Of course, I've seen people eager for such a social media cause, but such a thing is not underway from what I can perceive.

Dan said...

Mad dog Mattis, who is cool to republicans because his nickname is mad dog and because he says chuck norris type things, is in Ukraine suggesting we arm them. Geez louise.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

We're probably still a generation away from the Boomer Nationalism idea of the US being the righteous world police. A severe economic downturn--there is over $1 trillion in outstanding student loans that are booked as assets by the institutions carrying them, but that are, in totality, worth a small fraction of that $1 trillion, etc--is the only thing I see seriously accelerating that.

Random Dude,

Yes, if this Afghanistan extension gets hard funding for the wall, it is worth it as far as I'm concerned as well. Foreign policy is temporary--demographic changes are forever.

Dan,

Hah! I do wonder to what extent the realities of human nature are talked about, a la the recently released Nixon tapes. My guess is even less now than fifty years ago.

On the trail, Trump argued that we'd have such a spectacular military that we wouldn't ever have to use it. It makes for good campaign rhetoric, anyway...

Sid,

Trump seems to like Miller. Senior policy adviser is no token gig. Miller is at least an acquaintance of both Richard Spencer and Peter Brimelow, and watching him in action convinces me that he has read Steve Sailer at some point (maybe still does). Despite being called all kinds of names after he smacked down the charlatan Acosta, Trump hasn't waffled on him at all. That, at least, is encouraging to me. As long as Miller is around, there is hope.

Sid said...

AE,

Agreed on Miller. Trump publicly bashed Sessions for recusing himself, but he ultimately relented and I think he and Sessions are now at least somewhat reconciled.

The problem with Sessions isn't his ideology, but that he's an old-fashioned Southern gentleman with a Boomer's sense of idealism. He also was brought to heel in the 80s by that psychopath Ted Kennedy, so he was trained to give in while mouthing off about the nobility of his opponents' intentions. As such, his temperament led him to conclude it would be best to recuse himself in the interest of impartiality, whereas we've seen that the Russian investigation is just an anti-democratic witch hunt, which is now operating as opposition research into Trump's real estate deals with former Soviet billionaires.

But, there's really no way we could get someone as good on immigration as Sessions at this point, so I hope he and Trump get along and Sessions wises up about how Machiavellian and unscrupulous his adversaries are.

My sense is that we see Trump the man when he speaks unscripted, and he's as good as ever, but sometimes the other members of the Trump administration derail him because of the outside pressure and their own lack of vision.

Delenda Carthago est! #MAGA2018

Audacious Epigone said...

Sid,

We will salt their fields and they will become farrow.

Jonathan Centauri said...

Face it, Trump is fake and over. He hasn't done shit. Bannon is gone and all he has is Goldman neo-cons left. He's over and so is this voting crap. When people find out the system is rigged and they cannot ever win, the game is over. This system is falling down. CT was said to be the Richest State in the Union. It just went belly up. All that hot air about "recovery" just blew up. THE WHOLE COUNTRY IS BROKE. THE END OF THE ROAD IS HERE AND NOW. Those fools are getting pretty desperate now. Grasping at straws. The Shit is About to Hit the Fan and knock the Whole House of Cards Down.
TRUST ME ON THIS. THERE CANNOT BE A BAILOUT OR RECOVERY.