Saturday, August 19, 2017

Overwhelming bipartisan support for sanctions on new axis of evil

An understandably exacerbated Dan:
It's all so easy. Populism is a winning concept. Trump can just tell the Republicans what to say and they only have to follow.

But no, they have to have more third world poor, more stupid wars, more deficits, and some tax cuts for the rich.

The sanctions on Russia in Congress were unanimous. Is there anyone who cares a fig about that?

Dear God, I must be living in a simulation. Such desire to lose continuously cannot be possible.
To leftist plaudits, Evil in 2017 includes welcome white face
My sentiments being in general agreement with Dan's, it must be pointed out that sanctions--at least against the new axis of evil--are populist!

From Reuters-Ipsos polling, the percentages of Americans, by partisan affiliation, who support and who oppose sanctions on North Korea, Russia, and Iran. The balance of respondents said they "don't know" (n = 4,033):


The identical "oppose" figures for Republicans and Democrats isn't a transcription error. There is grassroots bipartisan opposition to, well, opposition to sanctioning countries whose combined annual military spending is 14% that of the US.

Even those aged 18-29 are broadly in favor, with 56% supporting to 17% who oppose.

The physical infrastructure of the American Empire may have to come crumbling down before popular support for maintaining it does.

22 comments:

Feryl said...


And how many Americans supported the Iraq War after muh yellow-cake and "we'll be greeted with open arms"?

No matter how alienated we may be from many aspects of American life (declining trust, declining churchgoing, declining national pride, etc.) we still get talked into being the world's cop. BTW, whatever happened to those survey results (maybe mentioned on a different blog) that said people under 40 are much less pro-war than previous generations?

Now, sanctions are a much different beast than outright war, albeit such sanctions can provoke greater tension and conflict.

It is fair to say that a good 80-90% of Americans has no clue about the history of how America chooses to side with or oppose a given country/leader. Nor does it grasp the perfidy of our policies (how often did we shack up with a regime and then stab 'em in the back?). It looks like we've even turned on Israel, something that I didn't think possible before the Obama era. There are far more Muslims than Jews, and after the Bush era's Islamophobia gave way to Obama and the Current Year, it looks like vigilance about keeping Muslim ideology out of domestic power centers collapsed and anti-semitism is now accepted as fair play on account of Jews being "oppressors" and Muslims being "victims". This thing already was happening among the Left in the 80's and 90's, but the GOP largely resisted and was loath to offend evangelicals who venerate Israel.

Now it just so happens that certain non-secular Muslims regimes sit on a little bit of oil, and we've made deals with the Devil on numerous occasions to ensure access to oil, to monitor and babysit the region, and exert pressure on states/leaders for whom we desire control. The fundamentally Leftist and utopian basis of post WW2 American foreign policy can be discerned by the frustration of Western elites arising from Iran, North Korea, and Russia (except during the drunken Yeltsin neo-liberal rape years) refusing to accept Western liberal pressures. As Agnostic points out, the durability of proudly idiosyncratic political culture in these regions indicates that it these countries people in whom such nationalism rests, as opposed to a given regime forcing these ideas upon a non-receptive public.

Leftists that they are, the neo-con bent of post-WW2 leaders does not allow them to write off ethnic groups as being distinct and incompatible with Western values (or at least some aspects thereof). That would be "racist", after all. Once upon a time we gave derisive labels to all kinds of ethnic groups, marking them as different, rather than deluding ourselves that some boogeyman (be it Hitler, or Putin, or whatever) was responsible for warping them. Even modern conservatives (cucks) have to keep up appearances by claiming that an ethnic group's differences from the desired Western norm are due to bad culture, bad leaders, or bad role models.

Rich Higgins was canned from the Trump regime by McMaster (as cucked as they come) for pointing out that globalists (who are by definition Leftist, because they don't recognize national/ethnic character) have developed a blind spot wrt Islam, as he pointed out that the globalists in the Pentagon and elsewhere have let themselves become the bitch of Islam which seeks to destroy the West.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

You may be referring to this, from the same outlet regarding support for airstrikes on Syria.

Those under 30 were split about 50/50, while support increased by age from there so that overall public support was strong.

Feryl said...

I heard this idiot Boomer Pentagon apologist (who's career military) tried to describe various war scenarios to stamp out North Korea. Don't they get it? To the extent that these people have any respect for us (and they usually don't), Koreans, Iranians, and Russians are not exactly going to be persuaded to our side by bombing and/or invading their countries. They're not going to greet us as liberators; they're going to be enraged by the threat of their countries being Westernized.

Of course, the globalists tolerate Islamic terrorism in the West and know damn well how dangerous it is for US forces to be in the Islamic/Arab world. They have to for oil/geo-political reasons, but they also have the luxury of deluding themselves that at some point in the future towelheads finally will accept us. No different than white liberals awaiting white-black parity still, after 60 years of liberal policy actually hurting many people.

As Roissy points out, the enemy has been equalism, and nobody believes in it more than Boomers who remain incredibly idealistic about achieving the utopia which the prosperity of the 50's and 60's promised. The more Boomerfied our personnel got, the worse our ideas and results got. As I've said before, the GIs and Silents started this crap but it got worse under the Boomers.

We've also got to stop with the cuckisms to have any chance. Stop going out of your way to celebrate how much you love other nationalities/ethnic groups. Stop shaming whites for feeling good. De-stigmatize ethnic labels and slurs (if you're not allowed to recognize other groups as alien and possibly dangerous to your tribe, we can't spread the healthy practice of defending your tribe). Prior to 1946, freely throwing words like Wop, Paddy, Kike, Kraut, Gook, Spade, etc, around was common and nobody thought anything of it. Unflattering labels kept in-group identity strong. Do ya want alien and threatening tribes to rob you of your job or your neighborhood?

WRT Islam, the only solution is to evict them back to their lands. We just need leaders to get their heads out of their asses. I know plenty of white proles who would gladly throw bricks through Mosque windows, but right now no Western leader at all would stick up for whites who wish to protect their culture by ridding their home of towelheads. Current Western values don't permit prejudice towards a religion; yet Islam itself will gradually supercede Western norms in towns and cities in which it becomes the greatest religious/cultural force, hastened by cuck Western whites who are loath to be seen as racist.

Islam is the most violent and backward religion to have numerous followers across the globe; few modern whites want anything to do with Odinism, yet these same whites would rather shoot their children than admit that Islam is basically the same thing.

Audacious Epigone said...

few modern whites want anything to do with Odinism, yet these same whites would rather shoot their children than admit that Islam is basically the same thing.

That sounds like one hell of an effective rhetorical line. Keeping it in the pack pocket--strike up a conversation in a social setting, talk about my younger brother converting to Odinism and the problems therein, and then reveal it to actually be Islam. The problem is most normies who have any comfort level with a person aren't that reluctant to cast aspersions on Islam. It's (a little) more allowable than pointing out differences in sex or especially race, so it may not get much of a reaction.

Issac said...

Considering the press these nations have received in the last year I'm shocked the numbers aren't higher. Dems view the Iran propaganda with some skepticism, Reps now view the Russia angle with some skepticism, but overall lumping the two together (and adding NK for good measure) is bound to get you a Pavlovian reaction. Considering most people don't understand what sanctions are, aside from punishment that doesn't involve war, it's unremarkable to see high figures. Gaslighting is very effective with people who understand neither the subject(s) or the object of the topic.

Feryl said...

"An early usage of the term regarding Europe was in a 2002 opinion piece by David Ignatius in The New York Times, where he wrote about France, "Arab gangs regularly vandalize synagogues here, the North African suburbs have become no-go zones at night, and the French continue to shrug their shoulders."[21] La Courneuve, a municipality (commune) in the Paris region, was described by police as a no-go zone.[22]"

"In January 2015, after the Charlie Hebdo shooting in Paris, various American media, including the news cable channels Fox News and CNN, described the existence of no-go zones across Europe and in France in particular, or featured guests that referred to them. In some cases, the French areas termed "sensitive urban zones"[28] were described as no-go zones.[29][30] Both networks were criticized for these statements,[31] and anchors on both networks later apologized for the characterizations.[32][33][34][35] The mayor of Paris, Anne Hidalgo, said that she intended to sue Fox News for its statements.[36][needs update]"

Do we need any more evidence that cultural Marxism reached it's nadir under Obama and still isn't letting us go? In the Bush era, we were still cognizant of 9/11 and wary of towelheads. Also, a Righty US president seems to exert a a respect for security concerns, as opposed to feel-good horseshit. Yes, I do realize that the Bushes have covered for the Saudis for ages and are globalist to the core, but that doesn't negate the fact that when a white GOP dude is president, people feel more comfortable being "bigots" (e.g., less likely to cuck). The '08 recession and Obama representing a kind of Marxist globalist wave crashing over everyone in the West seemed to divert attention away from national security so as to make it easier for elites to basically cheer on the transformation of the West. And obviously, this cheer leading has gone to the heads of blacks, Muslims, and foreigners who now brazenly come to our lands and disrespect us as the proper authorities would rather caution everyone that we mustn't let anything tarnish our opinion of their mascots.

Again, with Israel, the later Obama era made it clear that relations were cooling. It's not just Obama, per se; it's as much the doing of Pentagon cucks who, being cultural Marxists, empathize with Obama's stock Marxist belief that a group of miserable people (Palestinians) did nothing to deserve their pain. Realists (which we once were in the late 1800's and early 1900's) believe that every conflict is complex , that there are no full heroes or villians. Leftists automatically invest sympathy in the group that historically is lower on the food chain, and see to it that great effort is made to try and put every group on the same page (except for the bigots who claim that different groups have innate traits and irreconcilable differences). The Obamas and McMcasters' have interest in losing face by being called out as fools who wasted everyone's resources. Obama is still lurking, and McMaster is reportedly piqued by populist conservatives calling him a Muslim symp betraying the West.

Feryl said...

Somebody at Isteve pointed out that there's some demarcation/feature in Europe's geography associated with intelligence and restraint; don't remember where it is, though they did say that it runs through England. Ethnic groups near this line are known to be hard-working, pragmatic, and smart. Cultural Marxists claim that the Irish are always the good guys and the English are always the bad guys; yet the ability of certain ethnicities to come out on top more often than not can be traced to the privilege of innate characteristics of success, not the mystical "oppressor" privilege that comes with exploiting the oppressed. Always left out is that if the victim group could get their shit together, they'd turn the tables and become the oppresser themselves! Oppresser being the definition of whichever group has more power at the moment. Not unlike modern Leftists claiming that they're the underdogs still opposing authority and the establishment, when they themselves arrogantly run the establishment and bully their enemies (and nationalists these days are the oppressed). See also Jews being the royalty of whichever places they inhabit in English speaking countries, while still trying to drum up sympathy based on being a historical victim group.

BTW, push comes to shove, who do you want privilege to go to? Innately talented groups, or Cultural Marxist pet groups? Look at that Missouri black woman Democrat who says that her promoting assassination is justified because people have hurt feelings. The lunatics are running the asylum, and elites who once would've know better are being dragged down with the worthless idiot affirmative action recipients. Good on Sailer for calling out blacks as uniquely prone to paranoid hysteria; they have worse reasoning abilities than any other ethnic group, and PC spikes (the late 60's, the early 90's, The Current Year) invariably bring out the worst in blacks. The likes of Aristotle and Thomas Paine are rolling over in their graves that not just blacks, but moderately functioning (I use the term loosely) retarded black women are afforded any kind of clout or engagement with Western power and discourse. That woman, in her pictures, looks like ghetto trash. Scarcely any dignity or sophistication, and there are black people who can manage those things; African born people are more graceful than current American blacks, who post-1960 have been taught that not having a chip on your shoulder is "acting white".

Audacious Epigone said...

Issac,

Agreed. Something I've long become accustomed to.

Feryl,

We're getting close to the virtual equivalent of conscription lists. Without a president Trump, we'd probably be there.

Is the Hajnal Line the term you're looking for?

Feryl said...

Prolly, looking at the map I don't know what else it would be.

Issac, sanctions are an esoteric subject. Most people don't have time to learn the nuances, so when they hear that the US (the "good guy") is leveling sanctions at Russia or whoever (the "bad guy"), they just say "Yay". It's all simplistic and often there's little appreciation of the blow back potential or how possibly improved relations are being jeopardized by grandstanding.

Also, as Agnostic has astutely analyzed, America's foreign policy ambitions have increasingly outstripped our actual ability to "win" wars and have an out-come well-suited to our long term best interests. Korea, Vietnam, "losing" Iran in the late 70's (to the extent we really had it), Iraq/Afghani misfires, agitating Russia with neo-liberalism then treating Putin like crap after he made Russia great again, while also being soft on China (who practically own us, by now) and making excuses for Islamic terror.

The Right has tried to make Pentagon criticism off-limits by conflating the brass with the grunts (how do you support the troops if you want to rein in the military's size and ambitions?), while the Left has been corrupted by the multi-national lobby which wants neo-liberalism everywhere..

Random Dude on the Internet said...

A lot of people don't mind sanctions because it's not a war and there's relatively little skin in the game for us. Most people, at a gut feeling, know that Russia, Iran, and North Korea are shady countries at the absolute minimum.

> Considering the press these nations have received in the last year I'm shocked the numbers aren't higher.

It's a slow transition but people are growing more nationalist, especially on the right, to where they don't believe picking fights with other countries is worth the benefit, especially as we have a growing list of issues to solve in our own country. I agree that 10 years ago it would be higher and 20 years ago even higher. I think it is just a slow but noticeable shift in what the public wants prioritized.

Think about how flimsy of a pretense we had to go to war in Iraq in 1991 vs. the more evidence (albeit mostly exaggerated or fabricated) for 2003 vs. the failed attempt to get the public interested with a war in Syria by 2013 vs. the total non-starter of a Ukrainian conflict a couple years later. People are finally tired of war, sanctions are going to be following next although at a slower pace since it doesn't involve any dead American soldiers.

Sid said...

"The problem is most normies who have any comfort level with a person aren't that reluctant to cast aspersions on Islam."

If you were to erase PC thought enforcement tomorrow, and made it so that telling the truth about race and sex were no more punished than indicating that the moon is eclipsing the sun, normies would still be averse to hearing real talk about blacks, Hispanics, and gays. Normies want to like blacks and to not mind Hispanics and gays. As such, if you talk about IQ differences or how gay sex is dangerous and unhealthy, normies feel outraged spontanaren'. Even if we were to seal PC culture within the eclipse, it would take a year or two for most normies to wake up.

But you're right, most normies will agree with critiques about Islam and Muslim cultural norms once the Eye of Soros is off of them. I think one reason why PC is starting to breakdown is that, after 9/11, decades of terrorism, and Islamic countries being basketcases, most normies don't want their soldiers there or to share their neighborhoods with them.

Granted, SJWs have drunk the KoolAid and like Muslims because they tear up Western cultural and civic norms like no one else, and they make openly criticizing Islam a painful endeavor, but without PC thought enforcement, such criticisms would be readily accepted.

Audacious Epigone said...

Random Dude,

Right. Sanctions aren't associated with any sense of cost. Most people probably only evaluate it by whether or not it seems fair, and since these countries are portrayed as shady, slapping sanctions on them seems fine.

Sid,

The desire to appeal to blacks here in the cuck corridor is nauseating. I notice it in supermarket lines and at convenience stores regularly. I spent a lot of time around blacks when I was in my late teens and early twenties--there was section 8 housing across the street from the place I worked when I was in high school and college and a played basketball there 3-5 nights a week. If your affectation is not nerdy or SWPLish (mine is neither), not modulating your behavior at all is the best way to interact with them.

Sid said...

AE,

Agreed again. Most normies want to not mind Hispanics, but rarely ever feel a special need to ingratiate themselves to them. The same is true when it comes to straight normie men and gays, at least in the places I've lived in: male normies now frown on blatant homophobia but aren't exactly hankering to be friends with gays. (Though, of course, fag hags are a thing.)

Normies, on the other hand, absolutely want blacks to like them. It's a combination of white guilt, desperately wanting to prove to themselves and others that they're not racist, and the high pop cultural capital blacks command (they're fantastic athletes, stars in pop music, and no slouches in movie stardom).

As I'm writing this comment, one of my normie friends from the cuckbelt is sending me videos of a black preacher and is swooning over how much he loves him. Yup.

Audacious Epigone said...

Sid,

Look at how white Republicans (but I repeat myself yuk yuk) fall all over themselves praising a black candidate like Herman Cain or Ben Carson. Both men are decent, respectable people but neither were ever serious presidential aspirants--they were wafted on a wave of implicit affirmative action from the base. Hispanics, gays, and female Republicans don't get anywhere near the same sort of handicap.

Sid said...

The only thing I can add is that the enthusiasm for black conservatives candidates is a grassroots affair too. It's not like tax cuts, where the base really doesn't care anymore but the Establishment gets giddy.

The GOPe had its heart set on Romney in 2012, and the base was enthused with Herman Cain until it was clear he was not fit for the presidency (Cain didn't know anything about Libya in fall 2011, when we were whacking Qaddafi!).

The GOPe would've accepted Ben Carson over Trump, but he wasn't their man the way Jeb and then Rubio were. Again, Ben Carson enjoyed a solid surge in fall 2015 and made Trump nervous for a little while because he was also tapping into the base.

Anonymous said...

Oh, Goy!

Feryl--"WRT Islam, the only solution is to evict them back to their lands. We just need leaders to get their heads out of their asses. I know plenty of white proles who would gladly throw bricks through Mosque windows, but right now no Western leader at all would stick up for whites who wish to protect their culture by ridding their home of towelheads."

Most American Muslims are immersed into our society. And if they are citizens, the probability that our government is going to boot them out is virtually nonexistent. And as far as those "white proles", actions speak louder than words. They need not a political figure to "back them up" if they were serious about religious desecration. Damn white moral instincts!

"Islam is the most violent and backward religion to have numerous followers across the globe"

Your opinion is duly noted.

Sid--"Normies, on the other hand, absolutely want blacks to like them."

Normies want people to like them. It's normal, whether it be white, black, yellow, or red. That's called fellowship.

Audacious Epigone said...

Sid,

Yes, I should've been clearer--I was talking about rank-and-file voters.

Feryl said...

Numbers. Huge floods of young Muslims coming into Europe, which can't possibly economically or culturally fit so many people into the system, is causing mayhem over there. The US hasn't been hit as hard, because we're a big country with relatively little Muslim immigration. But if Hillary had been elected, the gates would've been flung open to turn Huma on.

There's already enough Muslims here, and presumably their birth rates are higher. Until we get a strict restrictionist immigration policy, we're looking at Muslims increasing their presence with each passing year. The friction is going to increase, especially if conservative leaders (like a Michelle Bachman) sound the alarm about how alien Islam is. Islam always tries to impose itself on other cultures if natives don't keep Islam out.

Oh, btw, try and tell more Western whites to forgive and forget about 9/11, the Boston Bombing, the Pulse nightclub massacre, the Ariana Grande concert bombing, etc. Muslims are far more likely than other kinds of believers to commit violence. To put things in perspective, if American Christians were so violent, than we ought to see massacres by Christians on virtually a monthly basis, if not more frequently.

Islam is a violent loser religion, which appeals to the most neurotic and clannishly violent people in the world. Not to mention the high levels of inbreeding.

Sid said...

"Normies want people to like them. It's normal, whether it be white, black, yellow, or red. That's called fellowship."

People generally want other people to like them, that is true, but most people don't get worked up about winning approval from people they don't know. For example, I don't think anyone in Uzbekistan gives a damn about me personally, and that fact doesn't bother me in the slightest.

As AE and I discussed, white normies, including conservatives, are elated at the prospect of being liked by black people. In contrast, they want to get along with Asians, Hispanics, gays, and the like, but aren't desperate for their approval.

Audacious Epigone said...

presumably their birth rates are higher

Indeed.

Anonymous said...

How telling a bar chart.

I'm tempted to save it for when I have to make my point on human nature... it elucidates it so concisely and precisely :)

Republicans and Democrats?
No difference.
They are just semi-liquid clay, taking the form it's given.
And I never saw self-aware clay.

Anonymous said...

Sid

"Normies, on the other hand, absolutely want blacks to like them. It's a combination of white guilt, desperately wanting to prove to themselves and others that they're not racist, and the high pop cultural capital blacks command (they're fantastic athletes, stars in pop music, and no slouches in movie stardom)."

Hominids feel no guilt but societally-induced guilt. So the 3 items in your list are in actuality one. One induced one, we shall say.

They just struggle to replicate what's indicated to them as right from above... // what they see the majority of "peers" do.