Sunday, September 03, 2017

The real Rainbow Coalition

In 2016, non-Hispanic whites continued to comprise a majority of all Democrat presidential candidate votes, albeit narrowly so:


The Hispanic Heritage Foundation's poll shows that will not be the case for much longer, maybe another election cycle or two:


The Democrat party's elite whites are ancient. Non-whites are the party's future at the bottom, the top, and everywhere in between. The state of PredictIt's 2020 Democrat presidential nominee market is illustrative: 


In the coming years SWPLs will be presented with a stark choice: Either learn to sit down and shut up or come back home with hope that the good people you've spent so much time spitting on will welcome you back into the fold. 

56 comments:

Sid said...

2004 will be the last year it was possible for a white man to run as a Democratic president. John Edwards in 2008 had plenty of star power and charisma, but there was no way he could've overcome Obama or Hillary, affair or otherwise.

Martin O'Malley and the other white Democrats (except for Sanders) didn't have a snowball's chance in hell. Bernie Sanders himself was facing impossible odds, though there were still enough Democratic SWPLs to help him give a good fight.

Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders will simply be too old to run in 2020. Elizabeth Warren will already be at the absolute limit in terms of age, and the videos of her in the airport holding onto someone's hand as she shouts about the Muslim Ban doesn't assure me of her longevity.

Democratic Senators and Governors in their 50s and 60s, the bread and butter of potential presidential candidates, simply won't cut it anymore if they're white men. White women won't cut it for much longer as the Democratic Party becomes increasingly the NAM party.

A comment made not just within the alt-right, but among conservatives and rightists more broadly, is that the right is where ideas are discussed and deliberated. The Democrats haven't really developed new ideas since the the 1960s, except for increasingly bizarre stances on who qualifies for marriage and who can go into which bathroom. This will be true in the realm of electoral politics: it will be the Republican primaries where we decide what kind of balance we want between the market and the state, for example, and it will be in the Democratic primaries where which grievance issue will be deemed the most important.

Realist said...

The fact that so many whites voted for Hillary proves that many whites are stupid.

TipTipTopKek said...

When you consider the jews and mohammedans/arabs and others who are "census white" but really non-White, you get closer to a majority non-White democrat voter.

Then, out of the Whites who voted for her, take out the ones who are poopdicks and carpetmunchers, and you get that Normal aka "straight" White People are less than 50% of the coalition.

If you go a step further and remove the atheists from the remaining Whites, and I'd guess that fewer than 1/3 of the democrat vote was Christian Whites.

On the other side, probably 90% of the GOP vote was White. They are the defacto party for Whites, if only they'd act like it.

Feryl said...

NYtimes search sez that "Islamophobia" was not used until 2001 (!), with the earliest mention occurring before 9/11.

It looks like usage happened about 5-10 times per year from 2002-2009...then....Usage in 2010 and thereafter went crazy.

It may be hard for 20 year olds to believe, but far, far Lefty politics didn't go mainstream until the 2010's. This ignominious decade desperately needs something, anything, to break the grip of latte white liberals and their uppity underclass thugs. Unless change is brought about by say, logistical circumstances (economic collapse)or some miraculous heroism/change of heart by Western heads of state, the 2010's will go down with the 1940's and 1960's as periods of embarrassing failure for the Right.

Lest anyone say, "But Trump won!, Brexit", let's not forget that Nixon won in 1968. People got tired of the worst Leftist excesses (murders of cops, general condoning of civil unrest, histrionic rhetoric, etc.) But it also became clear that Leftists had seized territory that they wouldn't soon relinquish; they just piped down after several years of the Silent Majority doing in the ballot booth what they feared to do in the streets (confronting Left agitators).

It's becoming clear that due to the demographic, foreign policy, and financial crises already under way, any of which would could wreak greater damage on us any time soon, that just voting won't be enough. We can't continue to let culturally liberal elites (who've now infiltrated the Pentagon, what the hell?) have their way. The paleo brand sustained enough damage after the 40's-60's, then the general public mostly let a handful of elites on the Left and Right have comparatively minor and mostly rhetorical skirmishes from the mid 70's-2000's. We gradually moved further Left during this time, with virtually all battles save for drug legalization and incarceration being Left victories. After Obama was elected, the Left fully sensed the cuckery of "conservative" elites and had had 40 years to forget how much The Sixties had worn on the nerves of common folk. Why not reactive the machine that gave us Jim Jones?

We've had 7-8 years of cultural revolution once again, and soon enough the ability of middle-aged sociopaths to prey on naïve kids under the guise of "liberation" (e.g. Charles Manson and the above mentioned cult leader) will become clear, at which point common folk will begin to extinguish the flames of the Left that threaten to incinerate stability and peace of mind. But with successive gains made by the Left, which don't really go away so much as they become slightly less annoying, each cultural revolution furthers alters the fabric of our culture and we're now in danger of having it all ripped away from us.

Giovanni Dannato said...

I've understood since the primaries in 2016 that the SWPLs have no place in the coalition of the fringes. I knew that case was shut the moment I saw Bernie buried by the Black voter bloc in South Carolina.
Over time, populist progressives are going to be gradually forced into the defacto white populist coalition even if they go kicking and screaming.
Desertion of white professionals will keep losing elections for democrats for some time to come. Their chance to come back was to adopt more progressive policies. Vengeful minority grievance groups and the elites will never allow that.
That, said, the GOPe and friends might well end up crossing over into a single establishment/minority party vs. white populists. McCain and Pelosi are already on the same page. The re-alignment is still underway.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

The remaining non-SWPL white Democrats are slow to figure out that their party actively wants them disenfranchised or gone. Many of them (most of them I suspect are over 40) still think of the Democrat party in the Spirit of 68 tinted glasses or through crappy Bruce Springsteen and John Cougar Mellencamp songs from the 80s. I suspect as they die off in the next couple of decades that it will become even too obvious for them. No amount of "Pink Houses" is going to cover up what the Democrats have become.

Not to say that will change anything. There are still whites who vote for ANC in South Africa. However the Republicans will continue to peel off a couple million more each election, which will have the effect of more Republican victories for the foreseeable future. There may be a point where that may not be enough but it is enough for now and probably the next 3-4 presidential elections. So as long as Trump Republicans continue to see the nationalist vision through, we just might avoid certain doom. The neocons can't be flushed out of the party soon enough. They're gripping tightly to what power they have left but its undeniable that even boomers think their day is done.

Back to white Democrats. 2020 will be a key moment for them when they see how there is an active push to just eliminate all white candidates. It will be a different tone than in 2008 where promoting a black candidate was considered powerful and historic. In 2020, it will be more of a threatening tone where if you're not down for Kamala Harris, you're open season.

I still think Warren and Biden will run. I think a couple more white candidates will run that will be in the Webb/O'Malley/Chafee tier. Someone who hasn't quite figured it out yet. When Warren and Biden start getting victories in the primaries, we will see a lot of anger and fury that makes the Sanders vs. Clinton split to be amicable by comparison. Yet many of them will be in denial that they're no longer wanted by the new members as well as the party leadership. They don't even want you to cast a vote for Kamala Harris, they just want you dead.

dc.sunsets said...

IMO the time line you describe was the phenotype of an underlying "fifth wave" rally in social mood fully predicted under the Wave Principle elucidated by R.N. Elliott in the 1930's and 40's. A herd-level extraordinary popular delusion (characterized by the embrace of belief in unlimited resources) witnessed a credit bubble, debt bubble and nominal price asset mania dwarfing John Law's Mississippi Scheme & the South Sea Bubble of three centuries past.

Each rally wave since the Second Wave low in 1784 increased, in the social space, the rate of Left turn (all of which is nothing but the Gnostic Heresy writ large.) This fifth of a fifth of a fifth, the last 8 years, has us spinning left like a top. (Heaven on Earth will occur as soon as white privilege--and the implicit racism animating it--, transphobia, xenophobia--i.e., borders--, homophobia, etc., etc., are eliminated.)

By this construct, 5th waves are the final wave in an impulse, usually demonstrate internal weakness and are followed by corrective waves of similar magnitude.

This is why leftist "wins" of the past worked like a ratchet on the way up (for two+ centuries) but are likely to no longer be "sticky" during the predicted degree-of-trend correction.

dc.sunsets said...

During a social mood decline, it seems unlikely that Sailer's Coalition of the Fringes will be able to organize a successful garage sale together, much less field a competitive political party within a de facto two-party system, even with a billionaires-funded MSM-orchestrated saturation-bombing PR campaign.

Sid said...

"During a social mood decline, it seems unlikely that Sailer's Coalition of the Fringes will be able to organize a successful garage sale together, much less field a competitive political party..."

Just look at the Labour Party in Britain. They're so politically feckless and dominated by Muslims that not even the globalists have any faith in them. Labour is still a political faction that grows when the Conservatives stumble, but they're not the viable political movement they were in the 20th century.

I'm heartened by Trump's ending DACA. If the right loses Texas to demographics, then the political right in America will be a permanent opposition movement. But that may not yet be our fate. If we deport enough illegals, slash immigration altogether, and reinvigorate the white birth rates, the Republican Party will still be viable for decades.

Audacious Epigone said...

There's some indication, not just at the top with miscreants like McCain, but also in the polling with more self-identified Republicans supporting Trump than McConnell while more self-identified Democrats support McConnell than support Trump, that the transition is occurring at the electoral level.

It's humorous to see Biden there, as though being VP for a couple of terms is really going to raise his electoral profile much. He ran in 2008 and got crushed. Same thing would happen in 2020. He won't run, however.

My dark horse (heh) is Deval Patrick. I want to hear the downgrading of Obama from the first black president to the first mixed race president so that Patrick's candidacy can offer the US its first black president! I joked that maybe it would happen with Booker, but though both his parents identify as "black", he looks like he has about as much African ancestry as Obama does, maybe less. Patrick, though, is the real deal. Black guy from a single mother household in southside Chicago!

The best way for the Democrats to keep SWPLs in the Coalition is to throw them VP bones that give voters some plausible deniability about the Democrat Party = the Black Party. Biden was one such, and I wouldn't be surprised to see something like Booker as P, Warren as VP or Harris as P, Sanders as VP in 2020.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

The coalition of fringes only works when they are fringes. There will come a time (maybe 2020 if we're lucky) where the Hispanics will begin asserting their numbers over the blacks in terms of political power. Asians will be shrewd, siding with whoever looks to be the winner and the white SWPLs will back whoever has more intersectional multipliers. This could result in a split between the Democrats where it's Hispanics and Asians vs. White SWPLs and Blacks. This would ensure that the Democrats would be unable to ever pull it together to get a victory when up against the Republicans. Back when America was 80% white, it was easier to group together. Now that it is 60% white? Not so much.

Audacious Epigone said...

Random Dude,

That will be something to behold. SWPLs have, since Obama, run the Democrat show. Hillary Clinton beat Obama among both whites and Hispanics in the primaries, but he crushed her among blacks which is how he got the nomination. Similar story in 2016, except Clinton had the blacks this time around. It appears that for a decade now SWPLs will not vote en masse against the blacks' chosen candidate and since blacks do vote en masse, that effectively means black choose who the nominee is.

Another problem for Hispanics asserting themselves is that the first three contests--Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina--have few Hispanics. It's not until Nevada before they have a chance to flex and by then the "momentum" is elsewhere.

Sid said...

It will be striking to see how blacks vote when they have a number of black candidates to choose from. Kamala Harris and Cory Booker are being raised up as we speak, but I agree that Deval Patrick has a fantastic shot at getting it. Kamala Harris has an East Indian parent and Cory Booker looks slightly more white than black to me (he has green eyes, and while he shaves his head, he looks more like a white guy who has gone bald and shaves the horseshoe, and not like a black guy who shaves his head in order to look sharp).

Deval Patrick just looks black. Period. It doesn't hurt he has Harvard degrees and was a two term governor in Massachusetts. Most importantly, it sounds like he was one of those civil rights shakedown artists!

Blacks, in presidential elections both in the primaries and the general, vote as if they live in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. They have their preferred candidate and stick with him or her. But if they have two or three choices, how will they go?

If anyone has information about how blacks vote for numerous black candidates for other political offices (mayor, city council, state senator, governor, etc.), please share with me. It could help guide us for how the 2020 Democratic primaries could turn out.

Sid said...

"There will come a time (maybe 2020 if we're lucky) where the Hispanics will begin asserting their numbers over the blacks in terms of political power. Asians will be shrewd, siding with whoever looks to be the winner..."

On an anecdotal level, most apolitical and conservative East Asians I've known have tended to dislike blacks in varying degrees. They are usually astonished by how ineffectual blacks are, as well as lazy, whiny, and dangerous. "Hey, our ancestors had it AT LEAST as hard as theirs, but we aren't lazy thugs!"

Leftist Asian-Americans, however, tend to be anti-white and at least espouse pro-black attitudes. Their great hope is to model their identity politics upon those of blacks.

I don't think East Asians have especially strong feelings about Hispanics. I at least have never particularly strong attitudes.

Parenthetically, the Hispanic Heritage survey found that Trump won slightly more support from Gen Z Asian males than Hillary did. As I noted elsewhere, Asian-American men will enjoy a lot of what they find about HBD, and they're big winners from principled anti-miscegnation attitudes. Asian girls went with Hillary markedly, and Asian women I've spoken to have tended to loathe Trump.

So in a battle between Hispanics and blacks over the Democratic Party, I think that most Asian voters would go with Hispanics over blacks, but the especially shrill anti-white Asian female SJWs are going to be giving a lot of pro-black speeches at the Democratic National Convention.

Audacious Epigone said...

Sid,

I didn't follow Patrick's--or Deval's; I'll refer to him thus from now on to remind readers that he is black and not Irish!--long governorship of Massachusetts, but a nice thing about governing the state with the highest average IQ in the country is that most of the time things probably go relatively well (the Boston bombers notwithstanding). Assuming that was the case, then, he may hit the same sweet spot for SWPLs that Obama did. Aesthetically he's the perfect token while on the inside being (or at least appearing to be) one of them.

Will vociferous, SJWish screechy Asian women browbeat docile Asian men into submission?

Sid said...

The night after the election, I went out to a Chinese hotpot restaurant with some liberal SWPL friends who were Massachusetts natives (in the real world, I wear a very meticulously crafted mask). I asked them what they thought of Deval Patrick running in 2020. Their emotional reaction was fairly muted. They would gladly take him over Trump but said he was a ho-hum public speaker.

That's one problem with black presidential candidates after Obama - they're not exciting. In 2008, people could fantasize a post-racial America. I will readily state that Obama handled race relations pretty well between the time he renounce Jeremiah Wright to the Trayvon Martin scandal - but after that he was just awful.

Anyway, my stance is that Deval Patrick has as good a shot as Cory Booker or Kamala Harris. SWPLs aren't excited for another black candidate, but hey, they made their bed and they can lie in it.

Asian women who subscribe to traditional cultural norms are famous for being submissive, but if you study the Cultural Revolution, you'll find that the women who adhered to Socialist values were every bit as cruel and insane as the very worst Socialist men. So yes, I fully expect that Asian female SJWs are at least as bad as the worst white feminists, and they may well emasculate the poor schmucks who married them.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

The Democrats really got lucky with Obama. Now it's going to be tough to find another black person who is articulate enough to not scare off the white middle, who espouses progressive policies to attract the SWPLs, most of his life was sealed off so nobody really knew who he was so they could make their own conclusions, and being the first non-white candidate made him a novel enough candidate to bring together the fringes. The 2020 crop of candidates have some but not all of these. There just isn't enough juice to get people to rush out to vote for another minority the way they did for Obama. The second black president just doesn't have enough of a ring to it. As we saw in 2016, people cared less about voting for the first female candidate than for the first black candidate. Looks like race trumps gender in our current society and I see that only crystallizing in the future, especially since non-whites have "problematic" views regarding women.

I didn't think much of Deval Patrick but he'd be a good dark horse candidate. However I just don't think he will attract the crowds Obama did in 2008. For a country who has outrage fatigue, having another guy who will run on a platform of social justice will likely cost him the white middle. In my opinion, when it comes to these superstar minority candidates, the longer they are in office, the tougher it is going to be. I suspect Cory Booker will have too much baggage and you already hear rumblings about Kamala Harris and her various shenanigans she got herself into.

> Another problem for Hispanics asserting themselves is that the first three contests--Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina--have few Hispanics. It's not until Nevada before they have a chance to flex and by then the "momentum" is elsewhere.

True but it could also take Democrats by surprise when Nevada does hit. Then when the southwest (including California) and mountain state primaries and caucuses hit, it will become apparent that the Hispanics are no longer willing to play a background role. Why should they? They outnumber black people by millions and millions. It's time that the era of black people being the official American minority is ending sooner than later. Some ambitious Latino candidate will see this and exploit it.

Audacious Epigone said...

another black person who is articulate enough to not scare off the white middle

Deval's voice is whiny and non-threatening, so there's that.

The West goes late, so that if a Hispanic favorite was able to hang around until the end and then begin surging, it could create additional strains on the coalition, especially if said candidate surges but doesn't quite get there, so that he/she loses after 'surging'.

Audacious Epigone said...

SWPLs aren't excited for another black candidate, but hey, they made their bed and they can lie in it.

Right. The question is if blacks strongly get behind Deval or Harris or Booker, will SWPLs be able to bring themselves to vote heavily *against* that candidate once it has become clear that blacks support him/her. If SWPLs fall in line, we'll have what we've had since 2008, with blacks controlling the Dem nomination. If SWPLs break ranks, then we have the tear in the coalition we've been waiting for. It could be something to behold.

Giovanni Dannato said...

", it will become apparent that the Hispanics are no longer willing to play a background role. Why should they? They outnumber black people by millions and millions. It's time that the era of black people being the official American minority is ending sooner than later. Some ambitious Latino candidate will see this and exploit it. "

This condition was already met in the last election. Hispanics seem they may be a politically inert ethnic group in elections. They seem to rely on cultural dominance as their primary tactic. Just show up, start talking Spanish, start up Latino grocers with envios de dinero, fly the Mexican flag.
Off hand, I can't think of a single well-known Hispanic politician. Even in the coalition of the fringes procession of ethnic grievance saints and martyrs, the only name that comes to mind is Cesar Chavez and he was a labor activist at least as much as an ethnic activist. Other than that there's maybe the Stand and Deliver guy Jaime Escalante?
Come to think of it, only countries overwhelmingly dominated by Indio blood like Boliva are sometimes actually governed by their own kind, and even there, the token Euros are well represented in the elite.

It could just be that Mestizos and Indios are highly concentrated in just a few states, but they don't seem to meet with great political success even in their homelands. They don't really seem to cause trouble for elites compared to other groups, one reason perhaps they are ideal replacements.

Giovanni Dannato said...

There is of course Cruz and Rubio, but they are republicans and as far as I can tell are close to 100% European and have Cuban ancestry rather than Mexican or Central American like most American Latinos have. If the democrats have some bullpen of Latino talent, I've yet to hear of it.

Sid said...

"If SWPLs break ranks, then we have the tear in the coalition we've been waiting for. It could be something to behold."

Every SWPL I know absolutely loves Elizabeth Warren. Granted, the super wealthy despise her guts, but that makes the downwardly mobile SWPLs love her all the more. She combines Sanders' socialist politics with Hillary's woman card.

No one really knows how good Booker/Harris/Patrick will be in the primaries. If they're duds, and Warren lights up our progressive friends on Facebook, then SWPLs may bind together and form an implicitly anti-black voting movement, much the way Bernie Bros formed an implicitly anti-feminist one.

Of course, the superdelegates will probably go with the black candidate because Wall Street hates Warren, but that will allow the alt-right (or whatever it is the alt-right evolves into over the next three years) to peel off more white Democrats.

"There is of course Cruz and Rubio, but they are republicans and as far as I can tell are close to 100% European and have Cuban ancestry rather than Mexican or Central American like most American Latinos have. If the democrats have some bullpen of Latino talent, I've yet to hear of it."

In 2012, there were pictures of Rubio and Romney standing together, and if anything Romney had more of a tan than Rubio.

Cruz and Rubio's Cuban blood must be at least 90% European. To paraphrase Rushton, Africans probably have the highest proportional number of exciting, charismatic "big men," and Mongoloids have the smallest proportion. Whites are somewhere in between, and Southern Europeans tend to produce more extraverted, charismatic leaders than Northern Europeans.

As such, Mexican mestizos and Indios don't produce many electrifying leaders, whereas white Cubans can produce a high number, despite having a population of a mere two million in the US. Both Cruz and Rubio made it fairly far in the primaries, so Cuban Americans clearly punch above their weight.

Granted, Rubio and Cruz have their faults as candidates. Rubio is charismatic but a dimwitted empty suit. Cruz is a brilliant legal mind but a little off-putting in his manner. But they're both very young and still have shots at becoming president in the future.

Feryl said...

A lot blacks are dimwitted, too. Just spend a decent amount of time talking to one, and it becomes clear how child-like, poorly read, and shallow they are. We've struggled mightily to figure what to do with blacks after it became clear as early as the civil-war era that they were well, different.

Liberals claim that "all" ethnic groups were given a bum deal; nah ah. Mexicans, Asians, Jews, friendly Indians, etc. never caused the consternation that blacks did. In fact, blacks were so pitiful that they lacked the capacity to mount sustained resistance to whites or anyone else, for that matter. To plantation owners, that was great. But at the same time, it further proved that blacks lacked the character to ever really be good for anything beyond simple labor. We (as in whites)at times had various dealings and understandings with all ethnic groups besides blacks. It's not that blacks weren't given room to apply themselves at building things, trapping, hunting, farming, exploring, winning military battles, etc. It's that relative to other ethnic groups, blacks have neither the discipline nor mental ability to compete.

Obama ain't that much to write home about, but he competed against a series of terrible candidates who either weren't suited for the times or were too cowardly to really put Obama to the test (Hillary, McCain, Romney). It was all part of Obama's charmed existence that seemingly has been managed by the CIA for decades (not unlike McCain, come to think of it).

Obama is intellectually above average, and emotionally/psychologically is quite flawed (his racial neuroses, his inappropriately personal attitude towards Martin/Gates etc., his open wounds about innocent things said by his white family and so on). But he did let himself be groomed and marketed by his handlers, so he doesn't have quite the ego that many other politicians have. And of course, as Ted Kacynski would point out, as is often the case with Leftists they're attracted to unhealthy victim ideology and hating winners. Obama ended up palling around with bitter 60's activist types like Bill Ayers and reverend Wright.

Feryl said...

VP is meaningless. Theoretically, it's suppose to off-set perceived demographic liabilities of current or past party candidates. E.g., Southerners Clinton and Gore in '92 to atone for the idiocy of running Masshole Dukakis in '88, or mild Midwesterner Pence being used to offset brash NY'er Trump.

Thing is, the VP usually is supposed to be pleasant and is to gracefully echo whatever the President stands for, lest there be accusations of infighting or mixed messages on a ticket. So essentially this rhetorically and emotionally castrates the VP, thereby making the VP bland and toothless. Yes, Timmy Kaine was embarrassing in the VP debate, but nobody votes for the VP in the first place so who cares?

Feryl said...

To further my point about the VP, Pence barely gets any attention. He doesn't get much praise or condemnation from the Left or Right.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

> No one really knows how good Booker/Harris/Patrick will be in the primaries. If they're duds, and Warren lights up our progressive friends on Facebook, then SWPLs may bind together and form an implicitly anti-black voting movement, much the way Bernie Bros formed an implicitly anti-feminist one.

To make it even better for us, imagine if we get into a scenario where the winner only wins due to superdelegates. If Warren leads by votes but Harris wins due to superdelegates, that may be the irreparable rift that we've been hoping for. There are still millions of white Democrats who aren't swayed by white guilt. It could get interesting.

I suspect the MSM is perfectly aware of how precarious 2020 can be because we've already seen a couple recent articles about how Trump only wants to be a one term President and how there may be a GOP challenger. I think a lot of it is projection because even they can see factions coming to a head. Since the left has only become more angry and more violent since 2016, we could see some actual fighting in the streets between the progressives and the minorities.

Audacious Epigone said...

Giovanni,

The push for Julian Castro--and that's what it was, all push, no pull--went nowhere. Steve Sailer has pointed out for years how ho-hum Hispanic electoral influence is, and the charisma of Hispanic "leaders", such as they are, is almost always found in white Hispanics like Cruz, Rubio, Jorge Ramos, Vicente Fox, etc.

Sid,

If they're duds, and Warren lights up our progressive friends on Facebook, then SWPLs may bind together and form an implicitly anti-black voting movement, much the way Bernie Bros formed an implicitly anti-feminist one.

Of course, the superdelegates will probably go with the black candidate because Wall Street hates Warren, but that will allow the alt-right (or whatever it is the alt-right evolves into over the next three years) to peel off more white Democrats.


That's precisely what I'd like to see happen. It's a real possibility.

Feryl,

VP is symbolic. Meaningless in terms of executive action, but not necessarily electorally meaningless (though it is admittedly hard to tease out how much it matters--generally it seems to matter less than the hype suggests it will). It always seems as though the natural thing to do for a candidate who wins the nomination is to offer the VP to second place, yet that rarely happens. It's hardly inconceivable that had Bernie been offered the VP spot, Clinton is president.

Random Dude,

The predictit market has Trump running in 2020 at 45% yes to 55% no. The market for 2020 GOP candidates opens this week.

I'm confident he isn't going to get booted out of office, and have put my money where my mouth is. I'm not so sure he'll want to run again in 2020, though.

Audacious Epigone said...

Ah, the 2020 GOP market has already opened. It's just a regurgitation of 2016 plus Pence, with Trump still given the highest likelihood by far.

Audacious Epigone said...

The markets give John Kasich a 55% chance of running in 2020 but only a 5% chance of getting the nomination.

What a fucking loser.

Sid said...

"A lot blacks are dimwitted, too. Just spend a decent amount of time talking to one, and it becomes clear how child-like, poorly read, and shallow they are."

A point Rushton made is that blacks tend to be very lively and creative, and come up with ideas on the fly. As such, they're able to come off as more quick-witted than they really are. Much of the time, black people make for great conversationalists, but if you really try quizzing them on something, they're usually quite vapid.

The tough thing about blacks is that their skill set usually applies for extremely competitive, winner-take-all endeavors. Blacks are great musicians, but following the invention of radio, how many talented musicians do we really need? Not many. Blacks are phenomenal athletes, but following the age of TV, we don't need many competitive athletes. Blacks are fine actors, television personalities, and so forth, but again, we need very few of such people.

Black people do best when they're in highly structured environments with strong levels of discipline. As such, for the 98% of blacks who won't make it in entertainment, it's for the best to keep our expectations realistic and make their environments as orderly as possible.

The current environment we have (where blacks are encouraged to voice their opinions, feel aggrieved, and live unstructured lives) isn't just bad for them, it's also bad for whites with IQs in the 90s who are around them. They often become "white trash" and the lack of orderliness, long-term thinking, and patient skill-building among blacks rubs off on the whites. Same thing with Hispanics - the first wave of illegals usually have handy skills and are happy to wake up at 6:00am for tough work if it pays, whereas their kids absorb ghetto culture and end up lacking even the redeeming traits of their parents.

"To make it even better for us, imagine if we get into a scenario where the winner only wins due to superdelegates. If Warren leads by votes but Harris wins due to superdelegates, that may be the irreparable rift that we've been hoping for."

Imagine if Harris, Booker, and Patrick all run for president in 2020 and split the black vote 45-35-20 among themselves. That would probably give Elizabeth Warren the kind of headway she'd need to win the popular vote.

Of course, I still think the superdelegates will go with a black puppet over a white populist, but Warren could win a ton of delegates if the black vote is fissured.

Sid said...

AE,

Trump lost New Hampshire by a few thousand votes, and Hillary Clinton won Minnesota by fewer votes than what went to Egg McMuffin - and that's not even counting Gary Johnson!

If SWPLs in those states believe that the Democratic Party isn't theirs, then we might see those states flip.

I agree that Trump will serve his first term. Every month, the Russian collusion conspiracy theory gets more ridiculous, and if what Dana Rohrabacher believes is true, Assange might release evidence showing that he got the emails from inside leakers, not Russian hackers.

I think Trump will run again in 2020, because almost every president runs again to defend the legacy of his first term. Problem is, every second term is worse than the first one, in large part because the President will be exhausted by the time his second term starts up. People with comparably stressful jobs (like Secretary of Defense or State) usually last for about 2-4 years before getting a more relaxing gig.

Kasich was a huge disappointment. He actually ran against illegal immigration just a few years ago. If Trump hadn't run, Kasich had started running a few months earlier than he did, and Kasich ran on anti-immigration platform, I think he could've pulled it off and beaten Hillary. But I want to retch whenever he talks about "children of God." Whatever happened to the Old Testament's love of purity and bloodlines, and hankering for the land of your ancestors and giving it to your offspring? There's more material about that in the Bible than there is about open borders and letting people from other religions have their way with your women.

Feryl said...

- Everything is spun to fit the tenor of the Current Year. When Muzzies were invading Europe, Christ was used to band whites together as they pushed back. After WW2, Western Christians (a redundant statement before the 70's) used religion to make a case for expanding the civil rights of blacks and welcoming in more foreigners, even non-Christians (!).

- Trump did poorly in the Twin Cities metro area when MN had it's primary. He won about 2/3 of these counties in the general. He did lose the swply and foreigner drenched counties of Hennepin (Mpls) and Ramsey (St. Paul), which are the most highly populated counties in the state. There's a fair amount of yuppies and muh principles Christ cucks in the TC metro area, and many of them felt like Trump was an interloper. Some held their nose and voted for Trump, but far too many voted for McMuffin or pothead Johnson. MN is the shyest and most Nordic state, so really it's pretty impressive that Trump came so close to winning a state that hasn't gone to the GOP since 1972 Lastly, enough Somalis voted to rob Trump in the state. You'd think being a Dem state nationally would've protected MN and Maine from the refugee racket (it's not like the Dems needed to turn these states that badly), but nope. At least Maine is more British/Celtic/French/Italian, so hopefully they won't be hit as hard as MN. Then again, MN is still more culturally conservative than the Northeast.

Audacious Epigone said...

Sid,

Right. Trying to funnel blacks towards entrepreneurship is generally a bad idea.

Re: a second term, Trump's unorthodox so he may not feel that same compulsion. I think it more likely than not that you're right, though. It's hard to judge from a distance, but it doesn't seem like Trump is fatigued by any of this. He famously never has been.

Kasich is the worst kind of hollow man who tries to calibrate himself comfortably inside the Overton Window.

The Old Testament is a lot longer than the New. A lot more that I enjoy in the former than the latter, too!

Feryl said...

Blacks are great musicians, but following the invention of radio, how many talented musicians do we really need? Not many. Blacks are phenomenal athletes, but following the age of TV, we don't need many competitive athletes. Blacks are fine actors, television personalities, and so forth, but again, we need very few of such people.

- Music? They can be fine singers, but they also love to over-sing. I've noticed that some white rock/R&B acts from the 70's and 80's often layered in black background vocals. They can be toned down enough to offer solid but not overpowering support to the white vocalist who usually has a higher and thinner voice.

Blacks famously dig Jazz and Rap, which often emphasize groove, spontaneity, and improv. Yet these genres can be tiresome and sloppy when done to excess and frankly are often borderline unlistenable (black showboating and chaos is annoying, even when put to music).

-Sports? Blacks began to dominate events requiring explosive foot speed in the mid 70's. Tapping latent talent.....Or something else? Canada turned it's 1976 Olympics sprinting squad exclusively black, and did well. Catch? The coach and his favored doctors/trainers were also PED suppliers, as whichever team he was coaching was: Black, drugged, and very fast. Blacks appear to have greater gains from drugs than whites. Before the mid 70's, white sprinters tended to be more competitive. It's also worth noting that West African blacks are extremely meso-morphic to begin with, and such body types appear to be better suited to PED power gains. Until we can isolate a group of athletes representing all races for 5 years, then test them on athletic endeavors, the jury is still out as far as I'm concerned.

Outside of sprinting and sustained distance running (which East Africans are perfectly suited to), whites do quite well in other events. As far as football and basketball, the rules have been modified over the years to minimize the importance of stamina which hurts whites, PED usage is quite common (see above), and coaches and referees do not punish poor technique and rule infractions like they once did (of course, if rules were enforced than whites would be better at following rules like not palming the basketball). Worth noting is that 1985 appears to be the year that NFL coaches stopped playing whites at corner back (fewer white safeties as well; before the mid 80's many safeties were white, Paul Krause a HOF white guy from the 60's/70's had tons of interceptions). The idea that black talent wasn't adequately used before the 80's is laughable; every coach wanted to win by any means in earlier decades. Sports became an SJW realm in the later 80's, with coaches eager to assuage white guilt by making certain positions black only (defensive back and running back, mainly, with receivers being nearly all black in the 90's before coaches wised up and started using more whites in future decades). The Miami Dolphins had some wonderful teams in the 70's and early 80's, which famously had a "boring" (read: white) but highly effective defensive roster.

Don't be fooled; whites are tremendous all around athletes. Less explosive strength than blacks (esp. drugged blacks), but in totality whites are probably the best athletes.

Sid said...

My very rough prediction for Trump's presidency is that the Republicans will gain more seats in Congress (and hopefully a lot of cucks will be thrown out too), Trump will win re-election in 2020, but in 2022 the Republicans will lose seats to the Democrats in Congress.

It's hard to forecast how 2024 will go. Usually there's a pendulum, where we have two terms of a Democrat and then two of a Republican. We had two terms of Truman, two of Eisenhower, Kennedy and LBJ made up two terms, and Nixon and Ford made up two terms in turn. Reagan of course cut Carter short, and gave H.W. a term, but then it has been two terms of Clinton, followed by two of Dubya, followed by two of Obama. As such, that strongly favors a Democrat after two terms of Trump.

What could disrupt this, though, are changing demographics. After 2012, it wasn't inconceivable that the presidency would stay Democrat indefinitely, given the increase of minority voters. On the other hand, Zyklons could change the game as more of them can vote.

We will be able to judge Trump's presidency in 2025 by how America's demographics are doing. If he will have succeeded, America's demographic profile will be improving by then.

Feryl said...

"Blacks are fine actors, television personalities, and so forth, but again, we need very few of such people."

Charisma, sure. But they're also harder to photograph and have raspy/breathy voices compared to whites/Asians. It certainly is true that the demand for charisma will never be the same as the demand for competence. So essentially, on the mundane tasks that really matter, blacks will always come up short. We just don't need that many powerful bodies or charismatic personalities. Or music improvers.

Feryl said...

Most sports also emphasize youth. Blacks develop much faster than whites, which coaches can plainly see. High School and college coaches see shredded black bodies and think "instant athlete". They don't care that 30 year old whites are much bigger and stronger than 15 year old whites. 30 year olds don't play youth sports. As Sailer has pointed out, the ideal leading man is a white guy in his mid 30's-mid 40's; too many white kids as old as 30 look like, well, kids.

Perspective: power lifting, world's strongest man, and pro wrestling are all quite white. Why? These athletes compete well into their 30's and even into their 40's. Baseball players are also given more time to develop than track athletes/footballers/basketball players, so white players get more of a fair shake in baseball also. Of course, locating the ball as a hitter or pitcher isn't entirely about strength or physical maturity, so baseball scouts don't automatically assume that the studly looking guy is a good ball player.

Feryl said...


A point Rushton made is that blacks tend to be very lively and creative, and come up with ideas on the fly. As such, they're able to come off as more quick-witted than they really are. Much of the time, black people make for great conversationalists, but if you really try quizzing them on something, they're usually quite vapid.

Yeah, just shooting the breeze is fine, but blacks are not at all deep thinkers. They come from cultures emphasizing dominance and repetition, rather than fine reasoning and analysis. Also note the emphasis on warm feelings, rather than cold facts. Whites, being smart and creative, have pensive moods and can wander off into thoughts of varying profundity or mundaneness, with lots of self-deprecating ego checks, generally keeping at least one foot firmly planted on solid ground. I'd like to find a good Thomas Jefferson (?) quote about blacks that I once read, where he said that their capacity for reasoned thought was most lacking.

A lot of Amreners over the years have made various observations that in their experience, many blacks have simply not even had many mental,rational, and philosophical processes that whites take for granted. Blacks seize on what feels good and right, and are too busy soaking up the present to consider the full range of possibilities and mysteries in life. That of course is why it's so dangerous to ever send the message that there will not be accountability for poor behavior. Also, that anyone would deem a black to be wrong about something is very disturbing to blacks, who after all have so little grasp of modesty or self-judgement. Many, many whites are tired of the inability of NAM's (most of all blacks) to have the inward moral debates that non-sociopathic whites regard as the norm, Why must we impose on other ethnic groups what comes so naturally to us, no matter our upbringing?

Sid said...

I wouldn't say that blacks > whites in music and sports, but I would say they're undoubtedly competitive in those fields. Where they're not competitive is in intellectual fields to whites and Asians, nor are they competitive with Hispanics in construction and agriculture.

Part of the reason is that men generally don't work all that hard in West Africa, and generally sponge off the women. Compare that with Mexicans, where the men have been in agriculture for centuries, if not millennia. Anyone who's honest will tell you that, whatever else their faults, black women work much harder than their men do.

Ideally, to compensate for their deficits, blacks would be given highly structured environments with lots of discipline. As Peter Frost has noted, Northern Europeans have evolved a system of guilt which means they're much better at self-policing their thoughts and behaviors. Blacks didn't evolve such tendencies, so it helps them when such structures are in place to compensate for the deficits.

But of course, our system is much the opposite. Blacks are encouraged to speak out about whatever grievances they can imagine, and whites are instructed to never, ever, talk back, under threat of increasingly draconian punishments. Barack Obama never really succeeded at anything, except for getting into Harvard and writing a book, but always failed upward. What's funny is that blacks get how softly they're getting treated, and they're resentful about that too. The movie "Get Out" for example is one huge complaint about how annoying white liberals are for being soft and condescending. The bad guys in that movie are basically wealthy white Obama voters who think blacks are "cooler" than whites and want to be them.

Feryl said...

"It's hardly inconceivable that had Bernie been offered the VP spot, Clinton is president. "

Interloper presidents can get insider VP's (Reagan and Bush, Trump and Pence), but insider presidents usually get insider VP's. The Dems are trying to run out the clock on Bernie, and besides, he cucked mighty fast in the last several months of the primaries.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

Good point re: VPs. Looking at it through that lens, you're right. Buchanan didn't get it in '92, either. It would've almost been unthinkable, actually. A prime slot at the RNC was surprising enough.

Blacks of West African descent are explosively quick. The greater the premium on that, the more dominant blacks tend to be in the sport in question. Explosiveness is of course of paramount importance in sprinting, hugely important in basketball, important in the offensive skill positions and most defensive positions in football, not so important in baseball or soccer.

Sid,

Right. Many young black men are not going to adhere to Western norms without a lot of external social pressure, pressure that includes consequences beyond opprobrium. We're so far away from that now.

Feryl said...

Before the 80's, white coaches and administrators feared the consequences of silverback athletes chimping out. So what changed? By the 80's, Boomers were hard core sports fans who had lost much of their racial consciousness. Tons of money was being thrown into sports by the 80's, and coaches felt a lot of pressure to win at any cost. Including public safety and racial self-respect. Borderline retards were chimping out, committing robberies and rapes, yet school administrators and police/campus authorities frequently were covering up these things so as not to hurt the football or basketball team.

Another possibility is that by the 80's, it was clear that most blacks were hopeless so we figured that might as well do nothing to discourage their athletic success. And that entailed excusing and covering up how many of them were illiterate thugs.

"Northern Europeans have evolved a system of guilt which means they're much better at self-policing their thoughts and behaviors. "

It's not quite so clear-cut. Slavs and Celts fare more poorly on measures of integrity/responsibility than, to quote Wikipedia: "Modern Germanic ethnic groups include the Afrikaners, Austrians, Danes, Dutch, English, Faroe Islanders, Flemish, Frisians, Germans, Icelanders, Lowland Scots, Luxembourgers, Norwegians, and Swedes.[3][4]". Basically it these groups from whom so much of what constitutes "modern" culture and technology originates. And tragically, these are also the groups most hostile to healthy self-pride. In America, Jews, Italians, and Irish overplay their identity instead of having gratitude for the Teutons who laid the groundwork for much of what is great about modern Western civilization.

Also, you mentioned Southern Euros having greater charisma, but I'm not quite sure about that. Agnostic once said that he lived in Spain for a while (or at least had several vacations there), and Spaniards leaned a bit to the melancholy and even dour, unlike most Italians or Greeks. England and Germany have produced tons of engaging rock stars. Partly that's due to language (Germanic speakers do better at exporting their culture than do Romantic or Slavic speakers), but it's also due to Teutonic culture being about working your ass off and then having a great time blowing off steam via rock music, stand-up comedy, and the like. Whereas among Europeans who didn't adopt the Protestant work ethic, it's more difficult to let your guard down and put on a show. Hell, The Final Countdown was done by a Swedish band and that's bound to remain more widely recognized and iconic than just about any song to come out of Russia or the Iberian Peninsula for generations to come. Ted Nugent during the Pres. campaign talked about "his" kind of people working and playing hard; it shouldn't be hard to figure out that he was talking about the Teutonic core of America.

Feryl said...

"Blacks of West African descent are explosively quick. The greater the premium on that, the more dominant blacks tend to be in the sport in question. Explosiveness is of course of paramount importance in sprinting, hugely important in basketball, important in the offensive skill positions and most defensive positions in football, not so important in baseball or soccer."

A dude I knew of, skeptical of blacks, liked to joke that there's much more to a complex sport than running in a straight line for 20 yards. Coaches and fans have to excuse black players:

- committing infractions more frequently
- feigning injuries and pain more frequently
- forgetting the correct course of action more frequently (like forgetting how many time outs or fouls you have)
- greater overall coordination miscues (like dropping passes)
- having a worse attitude than other races

The end result is that games are sloppier. For all the highlight reel plays, there are also tons of embarrassing miscues. Not to mention that advertiser friendly game stoppages enable blacks to catch their breath, so they can have more "burst" for the next carry or lane drive. Football substitutions are ridiculous, as it's ennabled players to get bigger and bigger. Play a few seconds, come out, catch your breath, then go back in to run at the opponent with great speed and force. Bigger size means more stress on the body and worse injuries since joints are chronically stressed and also because greater mass and weight means greater impact on the body of whoever you run into.

For a while I watched old (as in 70's/early 80's) NFL games on YouTube, and was shocked at how many white receivers, DB's, Linemen, and even running backs there were. Growing up in the 90's, I assumed that just about every team besides the Bills (coached by a Jew, go figure) was 70-90% black. The sudden shift towards black players in the later 80's I think can be explained by most D1 programs favoring blacks starting in the 80's.

You'd think the Raiders, of all teams, would've been a bell-whether for diversity, but nope. I saw a game from circa 1982 and they gave at least half of their carries to a white guy from Colgate U. As I understand, teams used to have more patience with the idea of giving a white grinder time to slowly break the other team down, but by the late 80's every team wanted a Barry Sanders even though such runners would often lose yardage. That still doesn't explain why white DB's vanished by the mid 80's, why Safety became much less white in the late 80's, and why nearly all receivers were black in the 90's. In the early 80's, D1 programs went full SJW and starting reserving certain positions almost exclusively to blacks, Given how young pro rosters are, these effects were soon felt in the pros. According to Castefootball.us, 1985 was the "magic" year in which the NFL really began to be hit by the "diversity" (rookie whites no longer accepted, older stars get grandfathered in) craze.

I think coaches became addicted to shredded young blacks starting in the 80's. They didn't care how retarded or dangerous they were. In light of how outrageously racist against whites most football admins became around 1980, you can't really pass judgement on white ability. Coaches became SJWs; how else to explain why they would accept a black quarterback when deep down inside, they know that white quarterbacks are much smarter (and are less likely to rape their daughter or rob their son). Sailer also once said that the sheer number of whites in the US make it pretty obvious that whites are slotted into PC positions (e.g., fast white kids are told to bulk to be full-backs or linebackers instead of running backs or DB's) instead of being "allowed" to play a taboo position and upset the brothas and deny more brothas the only opportunity they have to be succeed at anything.

Feryl said...

"full-backs or linebackers instead of running backs or DB's"

Or receiver or kick returner, for that matter.

Feryl said...

Castefootball sez that NFL defenses and most D1 defenses are atrociously bad because of how incompetent blacks are. The coaches drool over young black bucks and seem to forget that most of 'em don't have a brain. Who really cares what your agility or speed is if you can't friggin' remember who you're suppose to be covering. Over the last 5-10 years I've seen some teams really blow leads/games on account of the secondary (the blackest and therefore most incompetent unit on every team) forgetting what the hell to do. Stuff like giving up a 90 yard TD with 10 seconds remaining.

Pro football in particular is a big AA program. QB helmets now have speakers with which to relay plays and circumstantial info; great, no longer do you need to have a studious white QB with situational awareness of everything, not just who's open or where to target the ball. Castefootball sez that when QB becomes 50-60% white, many white fans will lose interest.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

Combine results show that NFL blacks do tend to be of above average black intelligence. O linemen and quarterbacks score highest, and it makes sense that a triple digit IQ offers a substantial premium for those positions, but it's hard for me to wrap my head around how it takes more than an IQ of 90 to play zone defense, or an IQ above 80 to play man coverage.

I don't follow the sport closely anymore, but it does seem like relatively recent rule changes continue to allow the natural black advantage in explosiveness to be more and more valuable. DBs not being able to make contact with receivers after 5 yards, for example, puts a huge premium on CB explosiveness. White safeties still exist, but CBs are extinct.

Sid said...

The Irish and Slavs largely fall outside of the Hajnal Line. Both Ireland and Scotland are geographically distant from the rest of Europe, so a lot of the alleles associated with "quintessentially" Northern European traits (non-kin altruism, fair hair) came to Ireland and Scotland relatively late or unevenly. Hence, the Romans wrote that the Picts were unusually dark in complexion, we still see the Black Irish today, etc.

My hunch is that the Lowlanders of Scotland have more alleles associated with Hajnal Line traits in their genome than what is found in the Scottish Highlanders.

The Slavs largely fall outside of the Hajnal Line. Russian history attests to how ethnic Russians have high IQs, but have always been slow in developing a modern state and have struggled with corruption, efficient state structures, etc. compared to Britain, France, and Germany.

I would say that Southern Europeans are more emotionally expressive and extraverted than Northern Europeans, with plenty of regional differentiation. While you need a lot more than being passionate and extraverted to be a charismatic leader, having those traits in a population makes it easier for those leaders to emerge in a population. Hence, 2 million Cuban-Americans have produced more competitive presidential candidates than 36 million or so Mexican-Americans.

I haven't been to Spain, so I can't speak about Spaniards the way I can speak about Italians, Greeks, Turks, and Caucasian peoples. That said, I think Agnostic spent most of his time in Barcelona, whereas the Spaniards who went on to conquer the New World and became the peninsulares and creoles were disproportionately from southern Spain. Northern Spain falls within the Hajnal Line, while southern Spain doesn't. As such, I'd expect that northern Spaniards tend to be more introverted, cooperative with non-kin, and fair-featured than southern Spaniards, but again, I haven't been to Spain so this is just speculation on my part. Who knows, maybe that's why Castilian independence has been such a matter as it is.

Feryl said...

"but it's hard for me to wrap my head around how it takes more than an IQ of 90 to play zone defense, or an IQ above 80 to play man coverage. "

Players still have to be on the same page about the nature of the defense they're supposed to be using. And blown coverages happen quite a bit.

"I don't follow the sport closely anymore, but it does seem like relatively recent rule changes continue to allow the natural black advantage in explosiveness to be more and more valuable"

Demographic trends have existed independent of rule changes, though of course the rule changes have often fit into these trends. For example, receiver became 96% black in the 1990's NFL, while rule changes to protect receivers were introduced about 6 years into the decade. The 2000's weren't much lighter, then the 2010's for whatever reason became more favorable to white receivers.

Also, like I said earlier, 1985 or so is when white DBs became non-existent in the NFL save for a couple aging stalwarts finishing the last couple years of their career. Outside of very desperate or novel situations, teams since the mid 80's have virtually never played a white at DB, with the only exception famously being Jason Sehorn who was regarded as a solid pro for about 7 or 8 years on the NY Giants roster (many of those teams were coached by Jim Fassel, who appeared to be favorable to white athletes).

Of note is that wherever certain coaches go, demographic changes are sure to follow. Some coaches and GMs seem to designate a racial "hold" on certain postitions; Bill Belichik for example likes to use under-rated and under-valued white players on offense while also sticking to the modern script that most whites don't have the dominance or agility necessary to play defense. In the 80's (when else?), often racially toned schisms developed in certain locker rooms based on defenses becoming 75-95% black while the offense invariably had offenses with a white QB, White O-line, and 1-2 white tight ends.

Last but not least, bullying of white athletes by blacks, cucked coaches, and cucked fellow white athletes appears to have intensified over the last 20-30 years. That certainly isn't helping the confidence of white athletes. For example, Brett Favre and Eli Manning were known to publicly pick on white team-mates for mistakes while avoiding any disses of blacks. Every racial issue you can imagine affects sports as much as it does anything else. Now that a lot of O-Linemen are black, what white QB in their right mind would risk a racial mutiny?

Feryl said...

If it was true that blacks inherently make football teams better, then every team should have roughly the same racial demographics in every era. But that never happens. In the NBA, teams evaluate players using extensive value metrics, and thus it's not surprising that in the 70's, 80's, 90's, etc. most teams have 2-4 whites and 8-10 blacks on the active roster. The 1980's Celtics Vs Lakers rivalry was sometimes framed in demo. terms as one team had 2 great white players and the other had 2-3 great black players. Yet overall, the Lakers still gave regular minutes to Kurt Rambis and the Celts had plenty of black players, they just weren't the stars for the most part.

The NFL has always been about intuition as much as statistical deduction, and NFL evaluators often prize what they consider to be important psychological characteristics (like toughness, heart, tenacity, etc.) as opposed to objective measures of production. Not to mention that playing strategy and opponent tactics/strength often dictate what stats a player ends up with. The sheer small size of a season, and the highly violent nature of the sport, do make it difficult to objectively measure how good a player is. Other kinds of athletes get to play numerous times against a variety of different opponents, so everybody understands the value of a given basketballer, baseballer, hockey player, etc. Just look at QB controversies which usually plague at least 1/2 of NFL teams during a season; the reason so many people have so many different arguments is because it's often difficult to gauge the value of a player unless that player is clearly in the top shelf of talent.

Feryl said...

There was Purdue B-ball game in the NCAA Playoff, with Purdue's 50-60% white team having a great game with their star white forward putting up around 30 points. Than in the last 4-5 minutes their lead collapsed, the black PG turned the ball over on, if memory serves, at least 3 occasions. It was like after every mistake, the coach figured, "that's gotta be the last time he screws up", only to be haunted by the guard making yet another mistake. Everybody on that team must've not been able to sleep that night, most of all the coach who must've kicked himself for not taking the retarded guard out earlier. I can't imagine a white guard making all those mistakes, and had one did you can bet that cuck whites would've gladly partaken in racial self-abasement to honor the embarrassing occasion.

Feryl said...

"Hence, 2 million Cuban-Americans have produced more competitive presidential candidates than 36 million or so Mexican-Americans."

Any type of Euro ancestry is better than being mostly or fully of an ethny descended from sedentary farmers who inhabited the same villages for thousands of years, and glumly went along with whatever was asked of them to not rock the boat as opposed to ever feeling like they did something out of an innate sense that "it just feels right". Darker Central Americans and East Asians are charisma vacuums.

Whites had to develop skills to persuade, charm, and entertain people. We don't just take it for granted that people will mindlessly obey and conform. We need to convince people and raise their spirits to make the ride easier. Blacks developed these skills to better showboat and dominate rivals, and the skilled ones quickly "won" and got more ass, after which they moved on to impressing more girls and getting more ass. Whites use their skills to motivate co-ethnics to better perform tedious and time-consuming tasks that must be done to run an effective society; blacks never developed the same capacity to build civilization, and the only consistent institution among blacks is mothers tending to their families; blacks do not form effective hunting crews (black males sometimes fish, which is much easier than hunting), construction crews, military units, etc. Basically anything dependent on masculine team-work. Black women can to some degree operate with a fair amount of success with other women and men of other races, though they won't be as skilled as other races, of course.

But male interpersonal skills and team-work are essential to running a 1st or even 2nd world country. Black males are so inept at running organizations that women end up taking care of the few things that must be taken care of (food provisioning and child care, mainly) without which things would completely collapse.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

John Lynch was nothing to scoff at. Pro bowl caliber, multiple times if memory serves. He was an ivy leaguer too so he might be your archetype of overlooked white talent.

Scotty said...

The problem with the numbers is that the starting data is false. According to the US Census, Hispanics represent 18% of the US population with a head count of 57,470,000. If Ann Coulter is correct and the number of illegal immigrants, who would not show up in the Census, is about 30,000,000 people higher than claimed, then the Hispanic population is about 27% of the population, not 18% (87 million versus 57 million). Absorption is much less feasible if Ms. Coulter's figures are accurate.

Jonathan Centauri said...

Blacks cost tons of money and they have to be watched and babysat like the retards they are. There is an inherent Anti-White bias and prejudice. They are purposely filling out every place they can just to push out Whites. The SBA uses your tax dollars and gives not ONE RED CENT to Whites. Did you REALLY BELIEVE those itinerant subcontinental Indians and Pakis saved money that Whites could not save to buy all those gas stations and convenience stores? That's YOUR TAX MONEY WHITE MAN!
The Real Story of this political cycle is this: Hillary the Hag DIDN'T GET THE COLOREDS ON BOARD. All those NAMs stayed at home when another NAM didn't get the nod. Catering to this savage is bad all around. ONCE YOU GO BLACK, THEY WON'T SUPPORT ANYTHING BUT BLACK! HA, HA! The DNC "Chair" had a nasty and bitter internecine war between black and Hispanic. The "Healing" will not take.
Without bleeding heart White wimmens, that crazy quilt is splitting up into hostile Balkanised Camps. The blacks want a black party NOW! Its all bout dems and gibsmedat. No one else matters to blacks doncha know? La Raza is about to split in Caleefornya NOW too. Wait and see. Those "celebrations" of the end of Ebil Whitey, just split that place into warring camps fighting for the scraps...

Audacious Epigone said...

Jonathan/Joshua,

No n-bombs or racial slurs comparing human races to non-human animals. While I wouldn't ever characterize groups that way, it's not the reason I care whether or not you do. The reason I care is because it will draw the censors. We don't need that headache on account of nothing more than putative rhetorical flourish.

Audacious Epigone said...

Scotty,

I've heard her put it at 30 million though not 30 million above the official (and apparently forever static) 11 million figure. The point holds either way, of course. Since polling samples are based on presumptive population shares, they largely wouldn't catch this, either. I'm a bit skeptical of that 30+ million. The idea that illegals in the US live in the shadows is a joke. They don't hide at all. They go out in public freely. I doubt the majority refuse to participate in things like census current population surveys. That's just speculation on my part though.