Sunday, January 07, 2018

No country for white men

From the official, blue-checkmarked account of the Democrat party (red markings are my own):


Jewish women comprise about 1% of the US population and 1.1% of Congress. They are members of the only female group identified here that is already proportionally--if not slightly over--represented among our national elected officials. Freudian slip, anyone?

Yentas get to double-dip, but the party couldn't be bothered to include "married women" or "Christian women". It's COEXIS. They aren't even retaining the pretense of a "T".

Fittingly, the shrike featured is wearing a ring on her right hand (#YOLO!) but the wedding finger is bare and empty, as bare and empty as her womb and her apartment (litter box excepted).

We should encourage this as much as possible. The moderate white guy strategy emplolyed in Virginia and Alabama is our Achilles' Heel.

Parenthetically, check out the displayed tweets in support. There are scarcely any female Xers, let alone millennials chiming in. In fairness, they said nothing about attractive women, so they're support base is at least consistent on that front.

25 comments:

Phil said...

No check box for Vegan Carpet Muncher either.

Sid said...

I'm surprised Latina women came up so late on the list. Of course they would place black women first and foremost, but there are way more Latina women than lesbians and Jewish women.

I'm triggered they'd use "disabled!" Don't they understand "Women with disabilities" is the non-offensive way of putting it?

The fact that Muslim women are ranked above Latinas just shows how little most Americans care about having Hispanics around. Yes, the Dems want Hispanics in so they can win elections, but their intersectionality is pretty low. As Steve Sailer once said, whites are fascinated by blacks and don't pay much attention to Hispanics beyond what is necessary.

Anonymous said...

"The moderate white guy strategy emplolyed in Virginia and Alabama..."

What exactly do you mean by this? White male candidates who try to not offend anyone by being cucks?

Anonymous said...

Jewish women twice, it's like /pol/ writes the entire internet.

Audacious Epigone said...

Phil,

That alphabet soup continues to V, I think. But it's like pi--they did us a favor and only extended it out 4 decimal places.

Sid,

"Differently abled" (or maybe differentially abled!) is the preferred term now, I think. I've had to do some ADA work over my career and that's what I've come across, which is humorous in itself since ADA stands for "Americans with Disabilities Act". It's hard to keep up! We need legislation to be reintroduced that is identical to the old except for the newest Orwellian terms are inserted in place of the ones that were progressive last year but are deplorably hidebound today.

Anon,

From the Democrats' perspective. Northam and Jones didn't do much of the SJW stuff. Jones didn't even talk about immigration at all as far as I know.

Anon,

A gift from above.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

The Doug Jones/Ralph Northam strategy can be potentially ruinous for the GOP Senate majority but the DNC will have to deal with the frothy rage of clickbait media for pushing too many white candidates, let alone white men. Does the DNC have the balls to just ignore it or will they succumb to the progressive stack and throw lots of potential wins down the toilet by pushing more progressive friendly and non-white candidates? I do like that they are putting a lot of eggs in the woman basket this go around. We need some good old fashioned cultural resentment. They tried to make 2014 the year of the woman as well and it fell flat on its face and feminism was arguably stronger in 2014 than in 2018.

Sid said...

AE,

That would be a great idea for DC lawyers, lobbyists, and professional SJWs. Instead of coming up with new legislation designed to screw over white guys, they'd have to make sure that old legislation would need to be perused carefully and given the Current Year's correct terminology. The more tedious and time consuming, the better. This would keep their hands died, and some of the less-than-true believers in social justice might finally crack and say, "It's just words! Who cares?"

Random Dude,

Spot on. Politically moderate and tactful white men are the best shots Democrats have to win seats, but they face immense internal pressure to push for woke candidates to denounce white men, and then they can tell themselves they're victims of racism when they burn out and lose.

Larry said...

Dems probably don't find that many commie Latina women. I married two and have known many more during my 70 some years and most Latina women are driven capitalists. If they have no marketable skills they have a Raspa or Taco stand going on. Don't get in their way.

Thomas. Crowley said...

I think I would still vote for Roy Moore again, rather than another of these go along to get along pols.

Thomas. Crowley said...

Reason a Jewish women wears her wedding ring on her right hand. Whites are about the only race that wears on left hand and that's just started by catholics to keep separate us from what were considered Christ killers back in the day. IMHO

Audacious Epigone said...

Random Dude,

We are not passive viewers in this. Ew and ah at their lovely women baskets. More diverse women, fewer deplorables!

Sid,

That's important to note, the Christ complex non-white candidates get to enjoy if they lose, losses that will inevitably be blamed on waaaaycism.

Larry,

Where from? That probably matters.

Thomas,

I've been searching around for information on that and have come up with a lot of contradictory things, though the most common seems to be that Jewish women wear engagement rings on the right hand and wedding rings on the left. Interesting. It would be too perfect if the woman pictured is Jewish. Looks conceivable from the vantage point we have.

Jim Bowery said...

Leaders of the Alt Right are "With Her" on the BQ (Boomer Question):

“There are still generations of people, older people, who were born and bred and marinated in it – in that prejudice and racism – and they just have to die.”

-- President Oprah

https://youtu.be/2YXDqc-4Ee4?t=225

Audacious Epigone said...

Jim,

They need to do an image search on South African farm murders so they can see what is happening to Afrikaner toddlers.

Fourteen words. Fuck the internecine generational warfare.

Feryl said...

Guys, politicians (and others in the same strata) can pound away on older people all they want because.......Older people vote no matter what. Reliably. And around 2/3 of older voters are partisans who would vote for their party's candidate even if he was filmed eating a baby (back in the Bush bashing glory days I once heard a Dem say that many GOP'ers would still support Bush if they knew he'd done such a thing).

Leftist figures in particular like to do anything imaginable to drive up the youth vote (which Leftists invariably assume favors the liberal candidate) and yet......Young people don't vote. Even in the late 1960's, Nixon won in a landslide because....Most Boomers didn't even vote, let alone vote for the Democrat.

Leftists always figure that somehow someway, they can tap into the elusive youth vote (which is always assumed to be congenial with what the Left establishment wants) and ride it to victory. Never has happened, never will. The key to winning elections remains finding a way to appeal to middle aged to elderly people who are Independent or apolitical, which for Silents and Boomers is around 1/3 of each generation. Interestingly, whites born after about 1970 are less likely to be strong partisans. Good. Partisan cheerleading doesn't do us any good.

BTW, Trump did pretty well with white Millennials in quite a few states. Considering that supporting Trump became socially unacceptable in most circles around the time of the "Mexican rapist" speech...Trump didn't do too bad among whites of all age brackets.

The last viable candidate I can think of who openly criticized youth culture was George Wallace. By now, we've reached the sophistication and data point where each party's strategists understand that great effort must be exerted to turn out younger voters. One mustn't do anything to discourage them.

Feryl said...

T"he fact that Muslim women are ranked above Latinas just shows how little most Americans care about having Hispanics around."

Asians aren't listed at all!

Jewish women.....Tiny demographic and many Millennial Jews are halfbreeds, quadroons, and octoroons who don't have strong ethnic identity. Each generation of Jews outmarries that much more than the last. Moreover, it looks like awareness of "ethnic" white identity is fading over time....Early Boomers and older generations of "ethnic" whites grew up hearing about WASPy Mayflower types gittin' ready to form posses and grab their torches and brands. But since later generations of whites have grown up amid so much racial diversity, it's somewhat diminished awareness of ethnic differences within American whites. To ur average Jew or Irish white American, Tyrone and Muhammed are a lot scarier than practically any white. It's retarded to focus that much on appealing to "Jewish" women, especially when most have a generic SWPL identity and couldn't find Israel on a map.

Trying to highlight Muslims is bit problematic because: 1) like Jews, there really aren't that many of them., and furthermore, they are lower income than Jews and thus less likely to vote and less likely to hold office 2) you risk alienating more prolish whites who are scared of Muhammed blowing stuff up.

"LGBT" HA HA HA HA HA. Self ID'd gay/trans people are pretty uncommon, and like Muslims, tend to give a lot of proles the heebie jeebies. Also, gay men are politically indifferent, outside of a handful of elite gay professionals. Lesbos tend to be either damaged weirdos (as are trannies) or they're just boring.

Generationally speaking, we all know that elitist cultural combat primarily happens in an arena inhabited by people born before 1970. Those of us born over the last 45 or so years just want reform and want a fairer shake; we don't care about "our side" mauling the opposition and then doing a victory dance. That's why we are less likely to consider ourselves "Republicans" or "Democrats". We grew up in the 90's and beyond, when all elites were lining their pockets and fucking people over. We've got no reason to respect the leadership or overall culture of either party My condolences to .older people reading this who don't buy into partisan bickering; I'm just reporting what the GSS indicates, not to mention noticing the often public apoplexy of older "adults" who mindlessly trash talk the "bad guys" and excuse their side's problems

Jim Bowery said...

Feryl, you keep talking about voting demographics as the basis for your generational analysis. Politics is the continuation of war by other means. When Trump took office we all knew that there was only a _hope_ that he'd make it unnecessary to continue that war by violent means. Facing the prospect of having to organize for violent quasi-religious conflict against the world's most powerful military/propaganda/financial theocracy, it is entirely understandable that whites hold fast to that hope.

DACA makes that hope forlorn.

We have to prepare for hot battle.

It's time to reorient your GSS analysis. Very small percentages -- at the tails of the distribution -- become critical. The adversary _knows_ this which is why it keeps harping on "extremists". The adversary _knows_ it has taken the political theater of war by "electing a new people" with immigration. If it can simply run out the clock, the "people born after 1970" can, at leisure -- as in Zimbabwe and South Africa -- be hung upside down, their eyelids cut off and then skinned alive while their wives and daughters are raped and killed as the last thing they see before death while President Oprah attends to more important business.

Here's the kind of thing you should be looking at:

How much money did the Washington D.C. sniper attacks cost the adversary?

How many such "extremists" do whites have?

Let me give you a clue: 10s of billions of dollars and among Boomers, there are a _lot_ more "extremists" that want nothing more than to go down fighting than there are among those born after 1970. They don't have that many years left and their capacity to fight is dwindling. The number of such "extremists" dramatically increases if one can provide a narrative within which such acts of violence are on behalf of restoring the original intent of the US Constitution based on the laboratory of the States -- including ethnostates. The battle line then becomes simply those that want to tell other people how to live and those that want to be free.

If you want me to see your generational voting analysis as anything other than a useful idiocy in service of the adversary, get quantitative about the post-DACA world, starting with a critique of Coulter's analysis based on the empirical facts surrounding the 1986 amnesty's originally estimated numbers and the actual numbers of voters.

thekrustykurmudgeon said...

AE -

Did you get the text I sent you? I was talking about how feminism or #metoo is corrosive to the left. Thought I'd bring it up here since this topic is similar.

Feryl said...

Whoa there, slow down.

Since when is being politically independent the same thing as being a pansy?

My point was that older generations make excuses for the kleptocrats who control either the Dems or the GOP. Older people came of age before the 1990's. It was in the 1990's that elites totally sold us out. Ergo, those who came of age before the 90's have an easier time deluding themselves that Team GOP or Team Dem actually cares about broad layers of the population. Younger people intuitively sense that neither party is worth a damn anymore, and ya know....people born in the early-mid 70's are reaching middle age and they still are resolutely cynical about politics, so this isn't just a "youth" trend.

Regardless of how you feel about the degree of "fighting" necessary, ultimately salvation will not be found in the existing establishment of either party.


" Zimbabwe and South Africa"

I'd love to welcome African white refugees. In currently majority white countries, I don't foresee anything like South Africa happening here; what I do foresee is Sharia law/an Islamic caliphate gaining strength unless Muslim immigration is halted immediately and radical clerics ("radical" meaning those who preach intolerance towards non-Muslims) are put an isolation prison cells, deported, or executed. In countries where Sub-Saharan blacks are a sizable minority, you can count on a certain level of rage/frustration/truculence against a passive white majority; but blacks are too disorganized and hedonistic to bethat threatening. Also, we saw how in the Obama era blacks became a hot potato; Leftist elites know that 50-70% of blacks are hopeless, and they ideally want them spread out to flyover land and away from attractive and hip cities. Leftists want to imitate Europe, where fashionable people get the core of some key cities and proles (and annoying minorities) are relegated to the outer ring and a fair amount of hapless and decaying cities/small towns.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

Arguably Hillary's anti-Alt Right speech approached scolding the nation's youths. They returned the favor.

Krusty,

Yeah, because race reliably trumps sex. Among white women it may be a close call, but among non-whites it's not even close (see the OJ Simpson case).

Anonymous said...

Actually, wedding ring on right hand is common in Eastern Europe.

Feryl said...

The creative hand guiding the Alt-Right is almost entirely under the age of 40, and a lot of it was motivated by people goofing off and being trolls. But since the Left always blames older people first, and since the Left has banned non cultural Marxist ideas from polite middle to upper brow discourse since the late 80's (which we can blame on Boomer and Gen X cultural warriors), the growing disgust towards PC over the last 20-30 years is always erroneously blamed on old people. The vast majority of Leftists never hear young people expressing un-PC ideas (well, before 2015 I guess) since young people are better at obeying fashionable speech codes. As Steven Pinker just pointed out, though, never permitting teens or younger adults to state TrueFacts like Islamic terrorist frequency runs the risk of intensifying rage towards the establishment among dissidents who.....Would not be dissidents in a non-PC world.

It's one thing to merely disapprove of ideas that one doesn't like, it's another to claim, as Leftists have generally done since Obama's 2nd term, that merely speaking of certain things is a form of witchcraft, that's evil and should not be taken at all lightly. There have been flashes of this hysteria since the late 80's, but it seems like Obama being in power for 3 or 4 years made Leftists believe that we'd advanced into a new age where multi-cultural ism and the cult of "feelings" had been given sacred status and thus deserved anti-blasphemy customs and yes, laws.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

Much of the left doesn't grasp this, though a few do. Even on the right it's not particularly well known--but it will be.

Feryl said...

Troll voting (protest voting?) is fairly unusual, simply because quirky/rebellious candidates generally do not have enough traction to draw interest. But in times of widespread angst, troll candidates can do pretty damn well.

Ron Paul I wouldn't consider to be worthy of troll voting, as he draws from a conventional playbook (for his ideological bent, that is) and primarily appealed to the middle aged. Perot and Nader probably did get some genuine troll votes...It goes back to Kek/chaos stuff, which appeals mainly to younger people. Older Perot/Nader/Trump/Sanders voters mean well enough, are sincere followers of the cause...But younger voters often are motivated by taking the piss out of humorless and middle aged people, not unlike the frequently seen musical trend cycles, in which one dull and aging genre is put out to pasture and replaced by something fresher and less predictable. Like Disco being replaced by New Wave, while Disco itself initially was an exciting injection of life after the pretensions of late 60's/early 70's singer song writers and "socially conscious" rock groups. 1992 and 2016 were years in which a lot of people were fed up with mainstream/establishment culture, so thus, Perot and Trump did well, and hey, plenty of "bad boys" voted for the outsider candidate....Younger people take more risks and don't buy into the "Devil you know" argument which excused a lot of older people voting for Ted Cruz or Hillary Clinton.

Feryl said...

It tends to be older people (and to some degree youngish elites) who feel that the system is worth protecting. Young people don't have as much invested in it. Lost amid the tumult of the last several years is that Bernie bots have something in common with the Alt Right....Neither group feels like the current system wants them. People under 40 feel alienated from either party's gentry class, with a handful of exceptions, mainly on the Left (Nobody born after 1977 actually believes in post-1980 GOP ideology of trickle down economics and Christian fundamentalist pandering). Once 1960's births begin massively dying off, The GOP as it once was can no longer survive....Even whites who grew up after the 1980's hate the trad. GOP's guts, to say nothing of the minorities. People born before the mid 70's tend to think, if they're conservative. that a vote for the Democrats is a vote for commie big government and/or infanticide. That kind of hysterical prejudice against Democrats just doesn't exist very much among those who first voted in 1996 or thereafter. The GSS backs this up, with people born after about 1972, adjusting for race, being progressively less likely to consider themselves strong Republicans or Republican leaners. If the GOP got it's head out of it's ass and stopped pandering to older people stuck in the 80's, that would go a long way towards convincing X-ers and Millennials that they have a place in the party. That ultimately means muzzling the fundies and stopping the horsheshit about military excess and the notion that native born Americans have three career options:

1) having dual service jobs at Wendy's and Walmart
2) parking your ass in a cubicle as an office drone
3) Operating a small businessTM.....MUH SMALL BUSINESS MAKES AMERICA GREAT! I regret to inform Small Business crusaders that America only can support so many small businesses, and by default small businesses cannot employ that many people, of whom some are temporary, seasonal, or part-time...Not unlike many service jobs, come to think of it.

Face it, the GOP shredded the bejeesus of the best kind of employment for lower skilled natives (manufacturing), while flooding America with all kinds of foreigners to take jobs and lower wages in all kinds of industries. But, those Godless socialists in Europe, how in Europe the political and economic culture in say, Germany, actually protected and supported the making of things of real value. Us Americans have better things to do, like coming with more and more ridiculous FIRE schemes to ostensibly increase wealth while the well-being of 2/3 or Americans visibly has gotten worse for 30 years by now. That the Dems went full retard since the early 2000's doesn't change what the GOP has done to us.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

An articulate voice among a chorus in the wilderness pining for a place to call home.