Tuesday, September 26, 2017

Kneeling negroes

We're at Peak "This Has Nothing To Do With Race". Normie Whites are waking up to the anti-White racism that permeates oh, pretty much the entire world, but they're still not brave enough to speak plainly, so they're lashing out at nonwhite ingrates under plausibly deniable symbols like the anthem.
Reuters-Ipsos recently initiated a poll asking respondents if they "support the stance Colin Kaepernick is taking and his decision not to stand during the national anthem". Only 1,630 people have been sampled thus far, so these results are relatively preliminary, but it looks like the silver tongue nailed this one. The following graph shows the distribution of support for and opposition to by selected demographic characteristics:

Single white women were added to convey how remarkably racially contingent these results are. There's a modest tendency for those with more education to be more supportive of the kneeler than those with less, and men are more opposed than women, but only very marginally. The only exception, at least among the filters provided, is by sexual orientation. The racial divide is the most salient--even white Democrats are less supportive than non-whites of all partisan affiliations are.

Civic nationalism is implicitly white. At what point does it become explicitly so? About the time we call it another kind of nationalism, I suppose. Look out.


Sid said...

"Civic nationalism is implicitly white. At what point does it become explicitly so?"

The sharpshooter who runs the VDare Twitter account has pointed out that not honoring national symbols means the failure of civic nationalism:


When people ask me in person about my opinion about players who kneel in defiance of the national anthem, I say, "They have a right to do it. Maybe they have their reasons for doing it. But if they won't respect the symbols of our shared national identity, then they're not on my team anymore." So far, I haven't found a normie who can find a sharp retort to that.

Jonathan Centauri said...

These monkeyshines are too dumb to see that this latest stunt has opened the eyes of many Whites to the totally incompatible nature of this foul beast. IT IS INCAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING THE HIGH CIVILIZATION WE HAVE. That dumb little freak Obama has emboldened this inferior anthropoid. They erroneously believe they can rule over us since they are bad at math and see everything as them and US. There can never be "peaceful co-existence" with savages. They see kindness only as WEAKNESS. They must be MADE TO KNEEL, and KEPT DOWN. They can NEVER BE TRUSTED TO BEHAVE WITHOUT A WHIP THERE TO CORRECT THEM.

Audacious Epigone said...


Well played. It's getting harder and harder to maintain the belief that a country so divided politically, economically, racially, linguistically, religiously, geographically, culturally, culturally, and ethnically can be held together. Or even that it should be held together.

When the next recession hits--it'll be even bigger than 2007/2008--I predict we're going to see the first serious signs of organized, serious movements towards political dissolution. Economic expediency is about the only thing keeping the tattered quilt from falling apart.

Audacious Epigone said...


I don't want to rule over anyone or keep anyone down. That's why we have separate countries for separate people.

R-Type said...

As a white male, it empowers me to stand before my 96" TV and have hordes of ignorant savages bow before my countenance. It kinda makes me feel a little like god. Thanks NFL

Sid said...


What keeps the US together under the federal government is the might of the military and the fiat dollar - the federal government having not only the ability to borrow in its own currency, but that currency also being the primary global reserve currency. The former is easy to comprehend; the latter is a highly technical matter, but it means that the federal government gives more money to the states than it takes in. It also means that the idea of a Calexit became unpalatable when the Oroville Dam incident was underway, and Texit is even more unappealing now that Houston needs to be rebuilt, and the federal government is happy to foot the bill.

I don't foresee the US military ever devolving to the states, and I don't see any state being able to withstand what the US military would bring to bear in a conventional war. I anticipate that China's military might will increase over time and the gap between American and Chinese military power will narrow in time. This also incentivizes the states cohering to the Union - China might get strong enough to kick us out of Asia, but we're not going to let them get east of Hawaii, not when we stand together.

What would imperil the US as a political union would be the ruination of the dollar. When the federal government can no longer print money at abandon to paper over our differences, well, that's when we're in trouble.

More another time...

Jonathan Centauri said...

The US Military is now a basket case. Those ships crashing into slow boats like the Filipino Cargo Vessel are the result of "diversity". Half the US Air Force is now on the ground. That's why that idiot Obama was using drones. Trump has had to hire mercenaries to go to Afghanistan. There are former Blackwater dudes doing most of the fighting now. The Pentagon is pissing their pants about Korea. They don't have the combat troops. They are sending USMC units that are supposed to be used for Marine Invasions and parking them at the DMZ. I don't think its for another Inchon. The US Military is now basically a work program for unemployable minority trash.

Anonymous said...

Something doesn't seem right here. How can "White Democrats" agree while "Single White Women" disagree? Aren't single white women, by definition, white democrats?

Audacious Epigone said...


They skew more Democrat than other groups of whites, but they're not exclusively so (about 30% R, 20% I, 50% D according to GSS, compared to whites as a whole which are 45% R, 20% I, 35% D--the GSS has a weird "independent but lean R/D" that I'm counting as simply R or D here, too, so that's why the I figures look smaller and the partisan ones larger than is generally reported).

Audacious Epigone said...


Genuflection is a weak, submissive stance. It is a little surprising to see that be the position of choice. Turning their backs on the flag is what I would have initially expected, but here we are.


Agree. The dollar will not remain the world's reserve currency in perpetuity, though, and another 'financial crisis' may be what triggers a global dumping of it.

I remain skeptical that the federal government would use military force to stop a state or group of states from seceding. The dissolution happened gradually, then all at once...

Audacious Epigone said...


Ha! (scroll down to the bottom of the post)

Sid said...

Jonathan Centauri,

Whatever its problems, the US military remains far and away the most powerful military force in the world. Furthermore, its only real potential rivals are Russia and China, and they're on the other side of the planet. There's nothing in North America that could take the US military in a conventional war for a week.


It really depends on the context. If Texas broke off and then a grouping of red states around it in the South and Midwest joined it, then the troops ordered to pull the trigger would be young boys from those places, which isn't an easy thing to do.

On the other hand, there are god-knows how many deep staters who saw what happened to the USSR, and comparing its demise with how Deng kept China together in that same time period with the Tiananmen Square massacre, would find all sorts of mean, devious ways to get the trigger pulled.

Anonymous said...

Would have liked to see figures/bars for married women and/or married white women.


dc.sunsets said...

At AE, I use comments sections on blogs like this to vet my perspective (which is a tad unusual.) To me, ALL of this hinges on the long term bond market...

...which hinges on the quantity or level of social trust, which is sort of synonymous with Social Mood as discussed by Bob Prechter in his Socionomic Hypothesis.

In my view, we're surrounded by Plenitude and wealth, and a pervasive belief in unlimited resources. People trust...and trust, trust, trust, trust. They trust a list too long to populate:
- their government bureaucrats to protect them from tainted food, dangerous immigrants, bad water, corrupt politicians, scary people in NK, on and on and on. Sure, they say they hate Congress, but what do they DO? How do they BEHAVE? Like little, dependent children.

They trust that all those promises of future cash flows are real. We know, because most people buy a new iPhone rather than save for that rainy day. People CHOOSE to live paycheck to paycheck, when saving would simply require small changes. They'd rather drink, smoke and drive a later model car.

They trust that lending Uncle Sam or IBM, Intel, Ford, Fiat, Georgia Pacific or Exxon-Mobil some money is utterly risk-free (hence why interest rates remain near Zero Fear levels.) Despite all evidence to the contrary, INCLUDING THE FOMC who tells them it INTENDS to rob them of 2% compounded in perpetuity of the value of their dollars, they trust this crap dollar-based rip off.

Peak stocks. Peak bonds. Peak politics. Peak trust.

I aver that all this is an illusion. Bond prices bottomed in a secular bear market back in 1981. No one (including the FOMC) "did" that. It's a market. It was huge then, and it's grown unimaginably since. No one can control a market. That's why it's called a "market."

For 35 years, bond values rose, interest rates fell. Holding the debt of a government entity or a major corporation was like planting a money tree in your yard. It grew and all you did was sit and watch. People couldn't lend Uncle Sam money fast enough. Congress learned it could shower loot on its supporters and cut taxes, too. The more it borrowed and spent, the higher went GDP and the more people clamored for more BONDS to be issued, because holding them was GREAT! Each dollar borrowed and spent was at least two dollars in wealth, one cascading through the GDP economy and the other "wealth" in the bond market.

I suggest that this mood, this absurd madness of the many reached apogee last year. Stocks are coasting higher, but bonds appeared to top 13 months ago. Even the FOMC is now promising to sell its $4.5 trillion in "emergency stash" of bonds. Why? They have no intention of sitting on them as rates rise and their "stash" loses capital value. This firms my conviction that bonds are now in a bear market, and that when it begins to really bite and rates head toward 4% or more, the entire house of cards will collapse.

When the debt market was small, a change in interest rates had a small effect. Each time rates fell, bonds rose in value, but people also issued twice as many. Over and over again. Now, there's a massive ocean of bonds. Each small increase in rates causes evaporation over the ENTIRE SURFACE AREA of that ocean. Even a doubling from here may be enough to set off a chain reaction collapse in values, and we witness rates pop from 4% to 8% (by which time interest on the US national debt would subsume 100% or more of all tax receipts and it's game over.)

dc.sunsets said...

Part 2 (I apologize.)
We see the backstabbing at the DNC because Sailer's Coalition of the Fringes, once united to milk Whitey, is beginning to realize the cupboard is bare and they're going to war with their competitors for what's left. We're on the precipice of a complete breakdown in the ability of the state to purchase relative peace from its underclass.

I think of social trust like a game of Six Degrees of Separation from Kevin Bacon. When trust is high, A trust B (because he knows him), and because B knows C, C knows D, D knows E, and E knows F, A trusts F. In fact, A trusts F because it seems like everyone he knows trusts F. This is how the Mainstream Media work. I don't know Anderson Cooper (and I'd walk away from him if introduced) but tons of people must trust him because their idiot acquaintances watch his shows.

This is mood driven. People herd. It's *fashionable* to trust celebrities. Or it was. I think that's breaking down, and eventually social trust won't reach beyond what people can touch with their own hands. They'll stop going out to eat because they won't trust that the Mestizo cook at the restaurant isn't spitting active TB into their food. Times a thousand.

Things they don't fear now will become SO fearful that they'll use the Rabid Dog theory: If in doubt, shoot it. People will fear their water is toxic, their food tainted, their cops all on the take, their suppliers will be robbing them, and all those foreign-looking faces (and especially people who can't speak unaccented English) are just taking their jobs, filling up their landfills and crapping in their water supplies. People "not like me" will be deemed dire threats, and actions will follow accordingly.

Popular consent to our polity is evaporating and we haven't even seen significant financial change. Once the markets visibly start down, people won't capitulate. Two huge bear markets, quickly erased in succeeding years, taught investors that only fools sell. This will stave off the capitulation necessary for a meaningful bottom. Asset prices should collapse as the vast, historic credit inflation of the last 36-50 years comes back out of every market. Those who hold onto their dollar-based purchasing power should see what their grandparents witnessed in 1930-32: A dollar bill will buy more, then more, then more and more and more all the way to the bottom of asset bear markets.

If there are open holes in my analysis, I'd really benefit from seeing them.

Audacious Epigone said...


It may be naive but I don't think there will be much appetite for violence against seceding entities, at least not if they are states with government infrastructures already in place. Normies won't go for it.


They're virtually indistinguishable from singles of the same sex and race. It surprised me, too, though maybe it shouldn't have. The stars and stripes aren't 'offensive' to SWPLs like they are to many non-whites. I remember Heartiste noting after the 2008 election how every street in Manhattan was suddenly filled with American flags.

In other words, this is an issue identitarians should put a lot of pressure on.


Feel free, an electronic record is handy. It was the initial impetus for this blog--as a way to marshal comments I was leaving over and over again in various places so I could cut+paste the basics instead of rehashing the same thing.

My sense is similar to yours, and I have my eggs in baskets that prove it. The critique I'll offer is simply that it has seemed like it hasn't been able to go on in perpetuity and yet it more-or-less has.

Eventually we're going to default massively on foreign-held debt. There's nothing China can do about it other than stop using the dollar as the world's reserve currency, but given that exactly such a thing is what will most likely precipitate the default, the Chinese and other foreign governments will be SOL. They know this, so there's a globalized vested interest in keeping this game going on and on and on and on and on.

Are we really going to see negative interest rates in the future? I guess in some limited sense we already have.

Sid said...


I think that red state secession is a possibility if conditions and tensions worsen. Right now I don't see blue state secession being so. My reasoning is: if states can secede, then counties will choose whether they want to jump off the train or stay with the US.

Example: The state of Washington is the one I've lived in the longest. People in Seattle are complete reprobates (feminists, SJWs, antifas and the like are all at their worst there, except for maybe the ones in Berkeley), but people in other parts of western Washington are normies. People in eastern Washington are red staters, not much different from people in Idaho and Montana, and there's no way in damnation they would ever stand to breakaway from the US and be under the iron grip of Shitlibia. They would resist that as fiercely and bitterly as the Northern Irish were against the prospect of Catholic rule.

A map of blue and red counties: http://static.snopes.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/3141-counties-trump-won.jpg

The blue counties basically add up to being major coastal cities with immense population densities, Reconquista Mexico, New England, and an archipelago of rural blue counties. Altogether, they don't form up to cohesive, viable countries, so much as a series of city-states and an enlarged Mexico.

(New England is blue, but in my experience New Englanders still consider themselves Americans and are Democrats because of patronage-inducing public works projects, naivete about race, and their family and community traditions.)

In short, red states still have the option of breaking off if things get bad, but blue states don't. I guess there's enough of California that has been made non-American by decades of immigration, but those parts would soon find themselves dominated by Mexico.

On another note, it the red states break off, I imagine the left will be terrified, not by the prospect of the red states leaving, but the fate of blacks in Southern states. My guess is that if the Southern states were to break off again, the shitlibs would panic about the black people who live there and would have few compunctions about raining hellfire on Southern whites, if the military agreed to push the button on their missiles and bomber jets.

Audacious Epigone said...


Well put. Red states could force blue ones to call their bluff. Sure, a lot of midwestern states need the federal government agricultural subsidies--oh wait, actually they don't, but they sure do enjoy them!--but like Trump with the current *yawn* taxes pitch, that's not what viscerally motivates people.

On the other hand, I could conceive of something like Calexit passing on the frog and scorpion principle a la the rabble rousers who shouted down Pelosi. Maybe that element isn't large enough to swing a proposition, but then again maybe it is.

Sid said...


There's little doubt that the "Make America Mexico Again" foreign saboteurs would vote Calexit and then flip, either swiftly or gradually, the state to Mexico. I actually think it's more critical to deport seditious foreign agents as quickly and ruthlessly as possible than it is to do so to MS-13 members, at least if our aim is to keep the country together.

Anecdotally, California whites, even when they're complete SWPLs or even shitlibs, view themselves as being Americans. My hunch is that they would largely vote against Calexit and most of Silicon Valley would promptly relocate to North Carolina if the state were to break away from the Union. This of course would turn California into a no-longer-figurative 3rd world hellhole.

Conversely, Seattlites don't think of themselves as Americans, so much as evil Europeans who stole beautiful Cascadian soil from the innocent, peaceful Indians. While it's not a serious political movement, "Cascadia" has been a local dream for decades. So ironically enough, if Calexit happened it's the white Seattlites who would spearhead the drive to join California in forming some kind of West Coast bloc. Of course, all of the people who came a few years ago to work for Amazon would leave with Bezos for North Carolina, joining Steve Cook and Mark Zuckerberg who had already set up shop.

dc.sunsets said...

Since my view is animated heavily by Prechter's Socionomics, I do wonder what will happen, Nation-state wise, when the urge toward togetherness inverts as hard as it peaked.

Creveld has noted frequently that the era of the Nation-State is over. It has (like any monopoly system) reached the point where it's a black hole for resources and produces not one iota of its original raison d'etre (order.) The nation is now the primary source of disorder in people's lives.

In the late 1990's the USSR dissolved because Social Mood was so high that it simply couldn't consent any longer to the coercive structure necessary to maintain it. This is why political change occurred relatively peacefully.

Contrast that to the last wave of massive political change: 1914-1945. The plunge in social mood of the early 1910's led directly to World War One, which ushered in the Bolshevik Revolution and lead to half the world's people being placed under that murderous, totalitarian yoke. By the end of World War Two, the other half of the world was under a slightly less murderous, but just as totalitarian yoke of Fabian Socialism (AKA the 3rd Way, AKA democratic socialism.) Progressivism in the USA explicitly shed its Post-Millennial Christian Pietist dogma in favor of the toxic flower we see in full bloom today, Equalitarianism with its dogmas of Blank Slate, Magic Dirt and Holy Diversity.

The next big wave of political change is not going to arrive at a Social Mood high. It will come near or a bit after the next LOW, at a point where $200 trillion (or $1.25 quadrillion) in face value promises of future cash flows will be accounted for at nearly ZERO value. How do you break away (Cal-exit, Cascadia, Texit, etc.) when you're on the hook for your "share" of those (already unpayable) obligations?

Chaos. There is no orderly way to reconcile all this. The promises of the future rest on capital that no longer even exists. It's like a farmer promising his future crops and livestock after he sold all the seeds and slaughtered all the breeder pigs, cows and chickens. Each Real Thing that still exists is legally promised to five, ten, even a hundred people for delivery in the future. WHO WILL END UP WITH TITLE? And who will end up empty-handed?

Audacious Epigone said...


at least if our aim is to keep the country together

On his podcast today, Z-Man was talking about the potential future for apartheid in the US as an inevitable consequence of "minority majority" status. It may be the hard apartheid of South Africa, but it'll more likely be the sort of soft apartheid we see in Brazil.

Or we can have political dissolution and the possibility of avoiding that outcome.


The simplest answer I have is "default". Massive default on all kinds of debts, defined benefit promises, etc. That's probably preferable to a massive devaluation of the currency through inflation and it's politically more palatable, too, since there isn't much public sympathy for the investor class now, and there won't be ANY after the collapse. To the contrary, they'll get the lion's share of the blame.

Anonymous said...

AE - let me address a few things you may not have considered:

Default - Debt:
The United States and Western Europe are already defaulting on unsustainable debts in a controlled manner. After inflation, real interest rates are negative. Risk free borrowing, debts are being repaid at less than their value. We have been doing this while our currencies stay stable with each other. It has been going on for ten years, and hasn't generated the kind of outrage that a stock market or real estate collapse did, so I think you are incorrect about outright default being preferable to inflation.

Default - Pensions:
However, outright default is coming anyway. Pension funding is deteriorating during a historic bull market.
Pensions costs simply cannot be paid, and we are already seeing defaults in California. Pension economics required the productivity growth rates of the third industrial revolution to continue, but they have not. Stock values are high because many believe that these returns are just around the corner (Facebook, Netflix, Amazon, Google), but if they are not the stock market will suffer a huge drop making the economics of pensions even worse. There is a Harvard Economics professor who has made a fairly compelling case that the returns are not coming. In fact, we are already seeing pension defaults:

Political Dissolution: the only reason the United States didn't dissolve before the Civil War was the North was afraid the South would ally with the UK or France to threaten the North. Does anyone really think we would fight a war today to stop a state from leaving the US if they voted out? If a state or states feel oppressed by the Union, they would leave, and they wouldn't be stopped. We will probably be in a new political world after the next economic disaster, baring a major medical breakthrough. None of us will enjoy it.

Apartheid: there is simply no logic for this in the post-Industrial economy. The real assets of the country are knowledge based, not the ability to extract resources or agriculture. The murder rate in Brazil is four times higher than the United States its standard of living is more than two thirds lower. Violent crime robbery crime is off the chart. The Brazil situation coming here would represent an economic disaster more than three times the size of the great depression. The United States would break up long before that happened. Or there would be mass migration to other English speaking countries: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the UK with people who were viewed as an oppressor group not welcome. Societal attitude and the rules of the game would change unpredictably. I view this as very unlikely.

--An Inflammatory Commentator

Anonymous said...

P.S.: Don't forget that the sub-replacement fertility rate is temporary.

Audacious Epigone said...


Good points regarding debt. Hyperinflation vs default was what I had in mind, not the perpetual free money that sort of allows both to partially happen simultaneously.

Is it inconceivable that pensions are slashed drastically or simply defaulted on? That's another reason I suspect our rulers want to elect a new, younger, non-white population--so when the time comes, they'll have the electoral support to simply hose the old white fogies who planned on having pensions coming their way. Sorry, you're on your own, granny!

Couldn't agree more regarding political dissolution and apartheid.

Not inflammatory, sir, just good stuff.

Anonymous said...

AE - we are not in a hyper-inflationary environment. The central banks are trying to avoid deflation because it makes debts harder to pay off. However, the demographics of the west are inherently deflationary because there are fewer people that can afford to pay high housing prices. House prices have only been sustained because overseas buyers are speculating and leaving units empty. I suspect this is coming to an end over the next year, possibly the next two. The central banks appear to realize the only inflation they have created is in asset prices.

They will try to avoid outright pension defaults, but in many states, cities, and companies it will be unavoidable. This is due in part to demographics and in part to economics / slowing productivity growth. The changing demographics are due to the biological factors temporarily holding down birth rates. That could be fixed next year, it could be fixed in three decades. This is outside of the leaderships control. They are not that smart or powerful, and they do not have a master plan.

As an example of why some pensions will simply default, take a look at this analysis one of the largest pension plans in Chicago. With even excellent returns, it will be out of money in six years:

-- An Inflammatory Comentator

Feryl said...

The Brazil situation coming here would represent an economic disaster more than three times the size of the great depression. The United States would break up long before that happened. Or there would be mass migration to other English speaking countries: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the UK with people who were viewed as an oppressor group not welcome. Societal attitude and the rules of the game would change unpredictably. I view this as very unlikely."

The Northern US is never going to be "run" by 3rd worlders, and I highly doubt that the upper Mountain states, the Upper Midwest, and New England are ever going to be more than 50% dark skinned POC. The climate in these regions is quite harsh for 5-7 months of the year, and these places don't get much strong sunlight. Furthermore, much of the interior US, even the regions with warm summers, often get dreadfully cold/snowy/drizzly winter weather.

The Southern Hemisphere countries have much more temperate climates, and the sun is stronger (thus partly accounting for the warmer temperatures).

Dark-skinned people in the far Northern regions of the Northern Hemisphere would be suffering from crippling malnourishment if we didn't fortify foods. American whites were unaware of this until blacks moved to places like NYC/Detroit/Philly etc. and had kids who were beset by health problems caused by a lack of consistent exposure to strong sunlight. Good Whites saw to it that milk and formulas be fortified with vitamins and such.

I'd predict that if the far Northern US states fell under non-white rule, NAMs would have absolutely no reason to live there anymore, since the harsh winters make it impossible for NAMS to create hedonistic favela type areas. Sure, the Northern US has a lot of shitty ghettos, but didja know how often blacks (and everyone else) retreats inside during the colder months (of which there are 5-7 depending on which region we're talking about)?.

It's clear that a Mexico or Brazil type environment already exists in California, and is beginning to take effect in much of Texas and Florida as well. But these are warm states amenable to both hedonistic POC and striving elites. Neither group can soak much sun in the upper third of states, and the middle tier of America is only somewhat more pleasant.

The Upper Midwest, and to a lesser extent some of the Northeast, could easily become 90% white over-night (or at least totally non-black) by cutting affirmative action and welfare, and not accepting refugees anymore. Minnesota and Wisconsin have (and especially had) very generous welfare that attracted some blacks and resulted in some parts of big cities becoming nasty slums. Be that as it may, blacks are never going to be more than 10-15% of the population in these states. It just doesn't make biological sense, and blacks can feel it. For around 30 years at this point, a decent number of blacks have moved back to the South, where they belong.

Compare and contrast: as I understand, Northern France and Northern Italy have more Nordic populations, while the Southern regions are swarthier. So even within the same racial group in the same country, geography clearly matters. I strongly suspect that over time, a similar thing will happen in the US. Actually, already it's obvious that other racial groups altogether are taking over the most warm and sunny parts of America. Considering how poorly adapted Nords and Celts are to strong sunlight (their skin ends up looking horrible if they spend a lot of time tanning in booths, in desert/mountain areas, and in wetter climates below the 35th latitude parallel), I have a hard time believing that there won't be some kind of evolution that takes place eventually. I seem to remember Carleton Coon, in his studies of biology and ethnicity, saying that over time, the elites in regions closer to the equator tend to get whiter than the laborers. Elites marry lighter women, and don't have to spend as much time baking in the sun, so they can get away with pale skin.

Audacious Epigone said...


Black separatists--the Emanuel Nashville shooter linked to one on his Facebook page--do always seem to choose the American South as the destination point for ethnonationalist blacks in North America. I assumed that was out of convenience--even now, that's where most of them are--but I guess that begs more than the historical question.