Thursday, April 05, 2018

John McShame

John McCain is more popular among Democrats than he is among Republicans (contemporary binary poll, N = 12,644):


They came, they saw, Europe died
The 800-pound black pill in the graph is that these figures are above 50% across the board. McCain, like Hillary Clinton, combines the worst aspects of left-wing progressivism and right-wing progressivism together into a (hopefully moribund) bituminous stew of civilizational decay--and most people smile and nod in agreement with these anti-white butchers.

On the other hand, it's increasingly clear the Republican party is going to have to be burned to the ground and a new shiv nationalism arise from the ashes if it will ever be the political vehicle for an American renaissance. Contemporary Republicans don't much like McCain (58.6% two-way), but they do like Trump (81.3% two-way). They like Trump more than Mitch McConnell, too.

We wanted the change yesterday. We may have to settle for tomorrow. The battle will be a long one, so prepare for the long game. The future will be here before we know it:

25 comments:

Jim Bowery said...

Insurance investments must divide resources against multiple outcomes to form a rational portfolio. The long game and the urgent game are on a spectrum of games. Nor is this pedantry. When seeking the Pareto Frontier in a multi-objective optimization, it's important to keep in mind that some investments work both in the short and the long game. Keep your eyes wide open for those in preference to unnecessary division of resources. But before you can do that, you have to be open to divided resources so you can realize the appearance of unifications.

Black Death said...

In the posted photo, in addition to McCain and Hillary, Elizabeth Warren and John Kerry are also visible. A clean sweep!

Jim Bowery said...

I'm going to give an example of the unification of the urgent and the long game, using the current action Trump has taken by comandeering the National Guard to, finally, perform the most important function of the US Federal Government: Defend US Territory.

This creates an immediate exigency. The most important _material_ and _immediate_ impact of this isn't that it stems the flow of illegal immigrants, and it isn't even that it stems the flow of illegal activities per se. It is that the illegal activities it stems cuts off deep state black market cashflow to which it has become addicted in its relationship with international organized crime. Without that cashflow, the addicts will become irrational -- and I don't mean the opiate addicts, although that is a possibility. I mean the deep state bad actors and their criminal networks. In that situation they can be made to defect against each other and expose the cancer that has metastasized in the body politic.

This is a dangerous time -- far more dangerous than people realize.

So, shall we all run around like chickens with our head cut off in anticipation of an impending Civil War, sell off our houses and buy guns and to hell with the long game?

Many would like to portray me as advocating just that -- and they do -- so as to prevent my message from being heard:

Organize locally in "the short game", think globally in "the long game".

A _very_ simple example:

All young men who identify with the nation of settlers in the US should be volunteering for service as sheriff deputy reservists NOW.

This prepares for immediate crisis situations _and_ it positions them in the wider community for the long game, including politics. The most important next step is a very strategic political play but is most visibly economic: Before Christmas time, the deputy reserves should issue a local, county currency for human services to needy families. Various human services organizations in the county should be admonished to accept the currency in majority if not full payment. The county government should then be admonished to accept the county currency for up to 10% of property tax liability. The reservists should then ask to be reimbursed for their volunteer service, by the county government, in the county currency. This is the seed crystal for greater local autonomy based on a monetary system backed by property rights guaranteed by the young men who are compensated by economic rent.

neal said...

Long game. Not for anyone over 30, or over 4000 or so. Of course never trust the kids, or the gods.

That shite will get you sort of killed, but not enough to matter to the scribes. Maths is hard.

Anonymous said...

https://twitter.com/peterjhasson/status/982406169401679872

Interesting link to an article promoted by Twitter Oligarchs Dorsey and Williams, regarding the oncoming trainwreck that is the GOP in 2018 and 2020.

https://medium.com/s/state-of-the-future/the-great-lesson-of-california-in-americas-new-civil-war-e52e2861f30

Disregarding their techno-boosterism, I can't find much to disagree with regarding Texiera's conclusions. We cannot vote our way out of this mess.

And we can never accept as legitimate Democrat Congress and President for Life Kamala Harris.

Self-Determination

Anonymous said...

Continued from 6:55

Our bicoastal metropolitans are at a similar point to the ANC in South Africa. No matter what they do, the Democrats will never lose. The last GOP Senator in a West Coast state was elected 16 years ago. The last GOP Senator in NY, 1992. NJ, 1972.

We are now faced with a moderate white male former Governor in TN, that might well be the next Doug Jones.

A Dem Congress means Trump will be impeached, and an Australia-style gun confiscation will follow shortly after the grant of citizenship to any willing Third World invader.

The federal courts threw out Prop 187 in California, and if the recent case in Massachusetts means anything, they will uphold a gun ban.

We need a strategy of economic disengagement. Violence only works when you have the state monopoly.

Audacious Epigone said...

Jim,

That's better advice than for young men to join the reserves to get weapons and combat training on the state's dime. It precludes ever having to go fight goatherds in the mountains of Afghanistan.

Anon,

Molon labe. It won't happen here. If there's one thing that will unite the right in the US, it's gun grabbing.

Of course instead of each spouse fighting to the death for control of the estate, we could just go our separate ways. The US needs a divorce. Irreconcilable differences. It can be peaceful soon or bloody later. I've a 4 yo, a 2 yo, and a baby who will be here in a couple of months. I want the soft, peaceful landing.

Anonymous said...

AE,

All it takes is one more mass shooting, especially if it "hits the high score", and society will trip over itself to end the Constitution. The Deep State will quickly see to winding up a psychopath if it doesn't happen out of normal chaos.

If the NRA was trying to win the PR battle, they would have been splicing their rhetoric with the fact that Chinese state media is loudly calling for a US gun ban.

I don't see any violence happening unless several state Governors decide to resist. There won't be any "sanctuary laws" allowed for gun owners.

As I've said before, we are going to need help from Russia.

Feryl said...

" Democrats will never lose. The last GOP Senator in a West Coast state was elected 16 years ago. The last GOP Senator in NY, 1992. NJ, 1972."

Yeah, and the shitferbrains GOP was much more enthusiastic about high immigration levels in the 70's and 80's than old school Dems could ever dream of being.

Nixon and Reagan thought that anti-big gubmint sentiment out West was so strong that it could sustain floods of people from the 3rd world. The GOP focused heavily on the South and West after WW2, where the belief was that newly developed areas heavily reliant on the Pentagon, and lacking a history of urban ethnic political machines, could form an electoral redoubt from which to launch an assault on the "Eastern elite".

Fact: The GOP's addiction to growth for growth's sake plays much better in rural areas. In heavily developed and resource scarce areas (such as the Northeast and the West Coast), people hunker down and furrow their brows. What are conservatives so optimistic about, anyway? They think. During the economic recessions of the 1930's and 1970's, the GOP was about as popular as leprosy.

High immigration levels contribute to low wages and higher housing costs. In theory, that ought to make people more "conservative", but in reality, the sting of expensive living steers people towards the party that dominates urban and expensive areas, where people have a highly defensive mentality about getting something that's hard to get and then defending it. The Southern US, the Great Plains, and much of the inland West are still so undeveloped and cheap that the GOP can still do well in these places.

The GOP ultimately will always place the interests of moderately educated professionals and business owners ahead of what's in the best interests of proles. Since the use of cheap immigrant labor is regarded as a patriotic right by cuck inc. and a means to run a better workplace, then poof, there goes drastic measures to halt immigration (such as imprisoning elites who use cheap labor). At best, GOP'ers will limit the most brain dead and dangerous kinds of immigrants from entering; but in their bones they know that a full immigration moratorium such that we had in the 30's-50's would, wait for it........Re-create the FDR era of the proud organized AMERICAN worker....GAAHH!

Moderate Trump voters in the old-school organized labor belt of the Northeast, Eastern Midwest, and Appalachia (the most proleish part of the South) knew that Trump wasn't' a "typical" Republican, so they thought, "maybe this guy doesn't buy into the horseshit about business owners and the Pentagon being the real patriots". Well gee whiz, it turns out that the GOP ain't about to allow its entire image and reason for being get whollly replaced by Trump, who mauled the the cynicism of the Right elite on the campaign trail.

Feryl said...

A rising number of Leftists are calling out Dems for being too nice to crooked-ass elites. While the Right cries in it's beer about it's inability to wake it's elites up. Leftists know that eventually, head are gonna roll. First it'll be the gutless GOP, then it'll be the corporate whore Dems who go too easy on corrupt elites. Then when we've got more populist champions in elite quarters we can then get crackin' on nailing corrupt elites, fining them, taking their assets, putting them in jail, maybe even publicly humiliating or beating them. Whatever it takes.

We went from even the GOP giving us presidents who made sure elites didn't get too big for their britches (Eisenhower and Nixon), to Obama not bothering to significantly punish any wall street house or player for their fraud and greed.

Since the Right has it's "principles" of order and decorum, they usually are more difficult to rile up and motivate to action....Collective action esp. The Right always downplays the group and emphasizes the individual...No wonder the Right sucks at getting things done.

Only after voters told the GOP to fuck off in the 20 year long FDR-Truman era, during which prosperity was established, did voters become more willing to give the GOP a chance, and they elected Eisenhower, who invested in infrastructure and cracked down on Mexicans. When a lot of things seemed to sour around 1970, the public began to turn away from the Dems, although frankly neither party was very popular in the 70's. Then the economy picked up under Reagan, and a fair number of people born before the 1970's became convinced that GOP econ. policies were wonderful.....But good luck getting younger people, who aren't marrying or buying houses, to grasp that. And Democrat Boomers know the con that's been played by supply siders for decades, and they aren't buying it any time soon.

Feryl said...


"As I've said before, we are going to need help from Russia"

The elites of both parties have destroyed any opportunity for meaningful alliance with Russia. Either we wait for elites to run this country into the ground, or we organize and apply pressure to boot the assholes out before it's too late.

Russia tried, within reason and context, to get along with us, but over the last 5 or so years the Pentagon elite in particular has been itching to revive the cold war. Why? to keep up the delusion that America is the good guy (as compared to who else?) and ought to "vigorously" pursue "it's" interests everywhere. Well, it seems to me that the Pentagon is far more concerned about continuing investments in programs and ideologies which make money for a class of arrogant Western fat cats who need to take a hike, than it is in doing what's in our best long-term interests.

We certainly are overdue in reforming the excess of worthless pigs feeding at the trough. Doing things primarily or entirely in the absence of money-driven motives is how things ought to be done.

Anonymous said...

Feryl,

If you read Texiera's entire four articles, he makes a lot of hay bashing fossil fuels and supporting Bullet Train style infrastructure. Destroying the coal industry was a loser in 2008, but in 2020 it will be a winner. We should be demanding Made in the USA windmills and solar panels, and make sure that Elon Musk doesn't get a monopoly. We should also be slashing the Defense budget in half, and building a Japanese 500 km/h maglev.

The GOP has squandered any attempt to get more black votes, thanks to Richard Spencer's Great Adventure and the failed attack on Colin Kapernick & co. Boomercons haven't bailed on sportsball, and the muni bond tax breaks were saved thanks to Paul Ryan.

The "woke capitalism" of the neoliberals will only survive if the Right is tricked into maintaining it. Otherwise the Sanders-Corbyn trans-socialists will destroy it.

Anonymous said...

Feryl,

I don't see any infighting on the left. They learned their lesson from '16. Trump can only survive a Dem Congress, if he can get the GOP to vote for Tulsi Gabbard as Speaker with the help of the Dem Progressive Caucus. Otherwise he will be impeached, and the Senate will overwhelmingly vote for removal.

Trump (and the Freedom Caucus) should offer the Dems single payer healthcare and the elimination of Citizens United; in exchange for the RAISE Act and the border wall.

If this country is headed towards Balkanization, and I believe that insurrection is almost certain by 2030; we will need both the moral legitimacy of State Governors and the guns of the Russian Army.

Killing the new B-21 bomber and the new SSBN might prove beneficial for the Right's long-term interests.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

The bi-partisan anti-Russian sentiment--not just among elites and pols, but among voters--is staggering. The poll referenced in the post more recent than this one shows the following percentages viewing Russia as either an "ally" or "friendly":

Democrats -- 10%
Independents -- 16%
Republicans 17% --

Compared to the percentages viewing Russia as an "enemy" or "unfriendly":

Ds -- 75%
Is -- 63%
Rs -- 70%

Feryl said...

It's still not the cold war, though; in 1980 100% of Republicans considered Russia to be an enemy, while upwards of 80-90% of Democrats did.

Another encouraging trend is the Independent number. Over 1/3 of Independents don't identify Russia as "the enemy", and partisan leanings decline with younger voters.

Russia doesn't meddle with foreign elections like the US does, Russia didn't renege on treaties first, the US/NATO did. Russia doesn't have 1/20 the military footprint that the US does.

Ultimately, I feel that it's aging Leftists most likely to buy into aggressive posturing towards Russia on the basis of supposed meddling and/or Putin's lip service to Christian values, while aging Righties are nostalgic for the Cold War and want to revive it....Just because.

Caution towards militarism is much more common among younger voters. We grew up with the Mid-East atrocities overseen by the Bushes, and are very much familiar with the concept of "blow-back", as Bin Laden among others was initially funded and trained by the West. Older voters can rationalize Pentagon pork by continuing to fantasize about us kicking HItler's ass.....But hey, it looks like the US itself has indeed become a "Great Satan" by deliberately sowing chaos and discord in a region that's always primed to be volatile, that region being the Middle East and Africa.

If we managed to fuck so much stuff up in the third world, than how are we gonna exactly take on Mother Russia?

I have a feeling that most Millennials are profoundly ashamed of Pax American, and attempts to boost further military adventures will eventually face a severe backlash among younger Americans. And if the culture changes enough, perhaps older adults will finally start to sympathize with younger generations being pointlessly slaughtered. Back in the 60's older people didn't turn their back on younger people, they actually were quite opposed to Vietnam expansion. These days Boomers are far too willing to adopt belligerent rhetoric; sure some Millennials are bitter about Putin, but do they want shots fired or missiles launched? No.

Feryl said...


"I don't see any infighting on the left. They learned their lesson from '16."

That's kinda what I mean; the Left is gradually shifting away from neo-liberal and Pentagon apologism, while the Right desperately clings to these ideologies as though they can't conceive of a change in identity. This is where the much-derided "principle" stuff gets in the way. The Right wants to be loyal to a certain set of "values", and feels dirty about doing what it takes to win and stay relevant. Thus the constant defeatist rhetoric about packing up to the mountains and getting away from the sick culture of Millennials, minorities, and urban yuppies. Funny thing though is older generations and whites presided over record high crime rates, drug use rates, etc. when they were younger. A lot of older conservatives are deeply in denial of their own problems, and they seem to project their own failures onto young people and non-whites.

Refusing accountability and refusing to change, the Right is due to be shellacked in the next several decades. Also, telling California, or urbanites, or whatever boogeyman to get lost smacks of scapegoating. The older/traditionalist/white Right has screwed so much stuff up at this point, it's not as though giving them their own separate society will do a whole lot. The cuck Right will always create societies with military excess and a non-existent safety net that produces tons of homeless and sick people. When has any modern Pentagon ass-hat talked about saving underclass Americans? They say we need to liberate whatever country from some barbaric warlord, while so many Americans are sick, impoverished, and dying. Then of course there's the Pentagon boosting immigration levels in the 80's and 2000's, when such boosts self-evidently contributed to poverty among lower income Americans.

Anonymous said...

Feryl,

? on the Pentagon increasing immigration levels? Was this bureaucratic subversion by Wes Clark style generals that kept the NG off the border? Or was it intentional recruitment of non-citizens to enlist?

The Right should be demanding the closure of the military academies, which function as excuses for taxpayer funded sportsball teams and are now producing people like that Communist Lt. Rapone exposed a few months ago. The physical structures could be used for OCS.

The farm subsidies lobby is also one of the worst offenders, exploiting the traditionalist's romanticism about rural life. Meanwhile the population becomes obese while a million illegals are doing farm jobs that could be filled by either automation or higher wages to citizens. Food imports from the Third World should not be tariffed. This would provide an alternative to emigration for poor rural farm workers.

Feryl said...

? on the Pentagon increasing immigration levels? Was this bureaucratic subversion by Wes Clark style generals that kept the NG off the border? Or was it intentional recruitment of non-citizens to enlist?

What happened?

1960's and 70's: The Pentagon was at a (momentary) collapse in influence and popularity. Genuine refugees did make it to America in the 60's and 70's, often because the US genuinely wanted to rescue people from communist countries. So that's why most immigrants came from Asia and Latin America. Immigrants were vetted much better back then, too, and their numbers weren't very large. The economic difficulties of the late 60's and 70's made people unsympathetic to business owners crying about labor costs.

Early 1980's: Reagan is elected, then re-elected in a historic vote of confidence for private enterprise and against government regulation. The US and various NGO's sponsor "refugee" legislation designed to bring in large waves of immigrants from all over the globe into America. California and Texas see large communities of foreigners established, as the government encourages the creation of ethnic enclaves regardless of how natives feel. The economic booms of the period stave off any nativist backlash, and besides, outside of CA, TX, FL, and the urban Mid-Atlantic there still are relatively few foreigners visible. The Pentagon also get it's mojo back, and encourages high levels of immigration so as to have a bigger supply of foreigners from which to solicit globalist oriented work (e.g., older male relatives of the Boston Bombers and Omar Mateen turn out to be on the government payroll), naturally many of these foreigners are grifters making a fool out of Uncle Sam (e.g., lining their pockets for ostensibly helping the US gain greater access to foreign governments and leaders).

Late 1980's: Politicians, for the first time since perhaps the early 20th century, openly began to voice concern for immigrants in America. Reagan, who remained popular in immigrant magnet CA well into the 80's, genuinely believes that an immigration Amnesty during the go-go days of 1986 will benefit natives and immigrants alike, as the authorities promise to punish employers who hire illegals. Befitting the elite favored trends of the time, this punishment never materializes and Latin Americans continue to stream over the border, while those who flew over to the US on various kinds of visas habitually over-staty their legal residence and often never bother to check in with authorities or work to get full citizenship.

Feryl said...

Late 1980's: Politicians, for the first time since perhaps the early 20th century, openly began to voice concern for immigrants in America. Reagan, who remained popular in immigrant magnet CA well into the 80's, genuinely believes that an immigration Amnesty during the go-go days of 1986 will benefit natives and immigrants alike, as the authorities promise to punish employers who hire illegals. Befitting the elite favored trends of the time, this punishment never materializes and Latin Americans continue to stream over the border, while those who flew over to the US on various kinds of visas habitually over-staty their legal residence and often never bother to check in with authorities or work to get full citizenship.

Early 1990's: after the 1990 recession, many out of work native born Americans start to notice how many foreigners are roving about, often on the public dole, not paying taxes, and over-crowding neighborhoods. The DEMOCRATS , on a national level, display more concern for native workers than the GOP does. On a state level, a variety of CA politicians on the Right and the Left promise to reform immigration so that natives get a fairer shake. CA's voters vote to deny illegals most forms of public funding, which a judge eventually overturns and CA doesn't challenge the ruling (by the time they could have done so in about 1997, the economy was on the upswing and the GOP wanted to shake the perception that the GOP was the white party, even though native born whites and blacks in 1990's California were heavily against the practice of illegals on public subsidies). Immigration levels remain at historic levels in 1990-1992, then after Clinton is elected, the cheap labor lobby and the Pentagon decline in influence. So immigration levels decline moderately from 1993-1997.

Late 90's: the economy has been humming since 1993, nativism declines yet further, immigration levels go back up. Elites in both parties now increasingly less concerned about prole American natives., and more convinced that America is country that's beyond a trad. economy, and that the world is borderless.

Early 2000's: Bush elected, does well with TX Hispanics. Pentagon now at it's all time high of influence and popularity. Globalism begans to run amok, as Western elites become openly contemptuous of their constituents. Never ending wars start. This is basically where we are still at, although the election of Trump indicated that people are done with the corporate-military industrial complex, which will either allow itself to be reformed or will likely destroy whatever is left of our society.

Feryl said...

The Pentagon is full of globalist traitors. They think it's "racist" to keep America a mono-cultural and mono-ethnic country. They really do believe the swill about America being beacon of shining values that ought to be the capitol of the world.

Clearly the generations who gave us this crap were only able to do so in the context of the post-WW2 economic boom. Everybody started to question a lot of this in the 1970's, when we weren't building McMansions or anything stupid like that. Resource scarcity breeds realism and tribalism. But after that brief period of wokeness, we went right back to Kumbaya horse shit in the 80's and if anything it seems to get worse with every passing year, though as usual an economic down turn in the early 90's got people's heads briefly out of their asses.

The globalist fools are passing "America" around like the town slut It no longer means anything to be "American", with use of this tribal marker being so indiscriminate and we have effectively abdicated any measures to insure the cultural and demographic stability of this country.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

The tradcon/cuck right won’t be able to sustain global empire when political dissolution comes—not because the rump(s) will be smaller, but bc the $ will lose its status and the global currency. The American Empire is simply unsustainable without the seemingly infinite ability to create (putatively) good (but actually bad) credit.

Audacious Epigone said...

status as* the

Anonymous said...

AE,

A good example is the UK after WW1, which was in hock to the US. That is why Ireland got independence. If President Wilson had avoided his stroke, he might have won a third term and forced total de-colonization of all European empires.

Xi Jinping could in theory force Israel off of the Golan and the West Bank, simply by threatening to dump the PRC's US treasuries. A future PRC leader might be the 21st Century Louis XVI and give us REDexit.

Anonymous said...

Education attainment for girls unlike the cartoon actually will extinct those who participate in it. Returning it somewhat to the low education norm language, arithmetic and homemaking skills or aversion to it from the female sex.

So this cartoon is inaccurate that our current educational system is sustainable. Given the superior alternatives of apprenticeship and classical education.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

Fair. I’m confident by the time my older daughter, currently 2, is a teenager the current educational complex will have collapsed.