Wednesday, May 23, 2018

Republican electorate leads opposition to 'free trade'

As the zombie-Reagan agenda continues to rot away, its organic material is fertilizing the Clinton wing of the Democrat machine. The following graph sourced from a current Reuters-Ipsos poll shows percentages of respondents, by selected demographic characteristics, who agree that "international trade hurts average Americans because it keeps wages down due to the cheaper costs of foreign labor" (N = 3,397):


Trade restrictionism, like immigration restrictionism, is a populist issue. Parenthetically, what constitutes populism in the American context? "Anything most Americans are in favor of but the 2% opposes" is a pretty good rule of thumb (though just 55 Jews were sampled, so take it as merely suggestive).

The political distinctions are modest by comparison. Surprisingly, this is even the case by income. There's a bit of a top/bottom-vs-middle dynamic apparent, but those differences are even smaller than the political ones are.

As currently constituted, international trade is an enormously complicated issue I won't make too much of a fool of myself by opining on. A couple of things I would, though, like to hear free traders address that they rarely bother to address:

- Trade deficits are not a curse, they're a blessing. We send them pieces of paper and they send us all kinds of cool stuff like cars, computers, and consumables. What a steal!

Okay, but why doesn't that logic apply at the individual level? I don't even have to send out pieces of paper to get a hold of cars, computers, and consumables. I just scan this piece of plastic and it's all mine. What a steal!

- If it is always in a country's best interest to keep its markets as open to international trade as possible, why is every country seemingly so willing to shoot itself in the foot by responding to one country's tariffs by imposing tariffs of its own? If the country imposing the restrictions is the loser, why do trade wars escalate?

The winning strategy must be to let other countries impose all the restrictions they want on your stuff--it'll just hurt them, after all--without imposing any restrictions in return. So why don't any countries actually do that?

35 comments:

Samuel Nock said...

I wonder how large the Trump Effect was? In other words, would Republicans -- 5 years ago, 10 years ago -- have responded at 75% that free trade is bad? This strikes me as yet another issue where Trump has radically disrupted the traditional Left / Right divide. It was a defining position of Conservative Inc. that free trade is wonderful.

I wonder if it was Trump Effect, or simply a disconnect between Conservative Inc. and its actual flesh-and-blood constituents.

szopen said...

The standard argument I've heard for free trade is that it allows for specialization. The best counterargument is the history of my country, which specialized in grain production and then had no middle class, no industry and - in the effect - no future.

Sid said...

Britain in the 19th century spearheaded the call for free trade. Why is fairly simple: being the first to industrialize, Britain was able to manufacture and sell goods at a far lower price than other countries could. Britain would open up markets and flood them with their own goods.

From my readings of history, the effect was devastating for local economies. China and Central Asian producers (and perhaps in other places too) were unable to keep up with British goods, and it caused their local production to collapse, unemployment to rise, and so forth.

With all of the classes I've taken on economics and what I've read on my own, I haven't ever really heard a good explanation for why it was in the general interest of China and Central Asia to have their markets open to British goods. Lower prices for the consumer, sure, but consumers need jobs too!

Today, we can see a similar impact on the USA. China manufactured cheap goods, and the people who used to work in factories got addicted to heroin. Furthermore, the Chinese, having learned how to manufacture for us, have mastered production and are now making their own goods. I saw a few weeks ago that Chinese engineers have created solar roads which absorb solar energy and then automatically charge electric cars with the energy. Maybe this shouldn't be surprising, but it blew me away. China used to just build our goods for cheap, but now they're becoming the innovators. The people who insisted they would toil in factories while we would inevitably find the "jobs of the future" have a lot to answer for.

Granted, I think that autarky as a rigid principle would be ruinous, and countries that trade usually become richer rather than poorer. Still, without being an economist but having an eye on history, I think blanket free trade can be similarly harmful for an economy. It's not enough to say that we just need to free up the markets and everything will magically sort itself out.

gazza90 said...

Free Trade is a chimera. To the extent it has existed historically (Pax Britannia/Pax Americana) it functioned a necessary component of a global hegemony designed to bring order and stability conducive to international commerce. Although these arrangements have obvious benefits the imperial burdens of enforcing global hegemony and competition from ascendant rivals (Germany then, China now) who take advantage of free trade to erode the manufacturing base of Britain then and US now lead to decline of the hegemonic power required to enforce the world order and eventually precipitates collapse. The US also suffers the effects of the free movement of people that is one of the unpleasant consequences of free trade to a much greater extent than Britain due to improvements in transportation.

Also I doubt China will jump the gun like Germany and get pummeled in premature attempts to overturn the hegemonic order. China will bide her time and wait for us to collapse on our own.

gazza90 said...

One of the firsts thing one learns in Econ 101 is Ricardo's Law of Comparative Advantage which is the primary theoretical underpinning of free trade. However, while there exists a theoretical truth in that concept the benefits that accrue from free trade as a consequence of comparative advantage are eroded and eventually reversed to the degree that the free movement of people and capital are possible. In a world of internet and cheap, safe international travel, a policy of free trade is lunacy from the standpoint of national well-being. Of course our so-called elites are citizens of the world who will happily burn the US to the ground to put more coin in their pocket.

The problem nationalists face is that educated people fanactically cling to fairy tales like free trade not because of epistemic rationality but because they realize such beliefs are necessary to become and remain a fully accepted member of the Brahmin class.

snorlax said...

@Samuel Nock -

There's some Trump Effect for certain (although primarily making Democrats more supportive of free trade than the reverse), but the trend started during Obama's first term.

https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/wd8ijvkesua4ck6ddietzq.png

https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/-y9uzey-qkcvnxmo_xeeoa.png

Joe Suber said...

"International trade leads to economic growth," is the way they sell it when they need the survey to show support.

Left out of some ideological musings is the effect of strengthening or weakening currencies, which mostly swamp the signal we might get from various tariffs or relaxations. The strength of the dollar likely has more to do with petrol & aircraft carriers than trade in this sovereign-debt fueled world. So tariffs might be a really good deal for us, a kind of rebate coupon on the stupid-huge defense outlay. I think Trump knows it.

lineman said...

What free traders also don't want to discuss is the regulations and taxes of the different countries that give one the advantage over the other...The globalist love that they're so many foolish people out there to advocate for the globalist fatter wallets...So many suckers(growing) and cheaters out there and the grudgers are becoming less and less...Sad That...

Feryl said...

"Britain due to improvements in transportation"

As we saw with Merkel.

Due to fast communication and travel, a "momentary" lapse in judgement can bring thousands of invaders to your doorstep overnight.

Now, if you roughed 'em up, word would get out that the door was closed tight and people wouldn't bother. But if you cuck........You're in for some real trouble. Since the Western world no longer believes in quarantining or ejecting people on the basis of ethnicity alone (witness the shit storm over the travel ban, and claiming that it's unconstitutional to deny entry on the basis of nationality and ethnicity), the best we can hope for is that Germany/France/America et al simply don't bother admitting people in the first place, while the diversity that's extant can be managed with Freedom of Association/Freedom of Speech/Gutting of welfare (there's no way on God's green Earth that white French or what have you are going to be letting Muslims pop out kids on the dole 45 years from now; Boomers who were fed up with black ghettos of America encouraged Bill Clinton to gut welfare in the mid-90's and no one has been clamoring to restore it to the levels of the 60's-80's).

Absent an economic collapse, I don't foresee the dominant Western countrie's elites permitting policies designed to raise the population of whites and Christians beyond it's current level. Incidentally, we may get policies that stabilize the demographics as they are right now, but not policies that turn back the clock.

To get more white liberals to knock off their bullshit, it's going to take rage at economic deprivation among the white middle class, which isn't happening right now. It's still way too easy for middle class white liberals to go about their business without a care as to the demographic time bomb that's ticking.

Lastly, if the Western countries don't get their head of their ass soon, we may see an important country (such as Germany, France, The UK, or America) reach majority non-white status within the next 40-50 years. At that point the remaining whites will not tolerate this foolishness any longer and will likely embrace an ethnic champion/warlord who vows to bring his country back to what it once was. That's just how it goes. The Silents and Boomers wanted a world where everyone was a wonderful individual who didn't get pre-occupied with his own, or any one else's, ethnic heritage and background, but that Racial Eldorado is never going to practically exist, no matter how hard white liberals try to materialize it. California has done almost everything imaginable to antagonize lower class and traditionalist whites, who've responded by often leaving the state altogether; and when the GOP cares more about the cheap labor lobby than they do anything else, people feel abandoned and betrayed, weak, and forfeit their state/area. It happens again and again, within and between states, because almost no-one in power really wants to be so bold as to fight for the interests of the founding population.

lineman said...

It happens again and again, within and between states, because almost no-one in power really wants to be so bold as to fight for the interests of the founding population.
So what would be a good solution then that doesn't rely on someone in power? There is really only one and that is become powerful yourself(your group)...How does one do that? You can do it by one of two ways or a combination of them both...Numbers or Wealth(to gather numbers)... Problem for those who see problems we are facing is that we don't have neither at the strength we are going to need to counter the problems...And the big one is we dont have enough to even see the need of that... Hopefully an awakening will happen before it's to late...

Sid said...

Feryl,

"At that point the remaining whites will not tolerate this foolishness any longer and will likely embrace an ethnic champion/warlord who vows to bring his country back to what it once was."

On Facebook I have a friend who is ethnic Hmong. (Long story.) She was fairly nice and friendly when I knew her in person, but her FB feed has since devolved into one long string of SJW ethnic pride and hatred to whites.

With all due respect to her, I'm not really all that happy to have angry Hmongs whining about how I don't respect their culture in my country. If their culture is so great, they can go back to their homelands and bask in it there.

Right now, such sentiments are wishful thinking. If whites become a minority in one of their own countries, however, it's not out of the question they will learn to say, "Oh you children of immigrants... Migrate away from the lands we settled!"

Audacious Epigone said...

Samuel Nock,

Snorlax's links here and here.

Looks like the shift began in earnest around the time the Tea Party movement got going. The movement was co-opted and converged, but the impetus for it wasn't so easy to snuff out. We are nearly a decade into Republican voters pushing back against the GOPe. If we count Trump voters as totally rebelling and Cruz voters as showing defiance, well north of 50% of Republican voters rejected neoconnery.

Szopen,

Curious how standard investing advice is to diversify, diversify, diversify your holdings. Diversify investments but not production, I guess.

Sid,

Wow, the obvious just hit me between the eyes. The West floods China with cheap goods (and mercantile "dumping") and get them hooked on opiates. Now China is flooding the West with cheap goods (and lots of dumping) as the West gets hooked on heroin. We're stuck in the Fukuyama past, the Han are headed towards the future.

gazza90,

And, mixing metaphors, China is well positioned to twist the shiv when the collapse happens. The conventional wisdom is that if China stops buying treasuries, China will obliterate the value of the treasuries it already has. But most of the treasuries are bills and notes, not bonds. All China has to do is stop buying new treasuries and wait for the ones they're currently holding to mature. Then it's decision time for the US. I hope we decide to default.

Joe Suber,

It's hard for people to understand currency valuations. A lot of it is speculative and a lot more sounds like "just so" explanations after movements occur. That's tough for a public poll to discern. Instead we should have a poll that asks people whether or not they hate George Soros!

Feryl,

Sink a few migrant ships and that'll be that. All the West needs is the will to survive and it survives.

Realistically our best (non-Sulla) hope is for an immigration moratorium coupled with either an increase in native fertility to replacement or the continued decline of non-white fertility, or both.

Audacious Epigone said...

lineman,

Those things are trade restrictions by another name, so why does every country weigh itself down on those fronts as well?

Random Dude on the Internet said...

I clicked on the zombie Reagan link and I didn't know akinokure became so deranged in his vision of the Berniebros running the country. Maybe it's just me though.

Sid said...

AE,

When it comes to their export-driven economic strategy, it wouldn't surprise me if Chinese economic planners sometime during Deng's rule drew from their own history and figured they could undercut Western industries by exporting cheap goods. It happened to them after all!

Mao himself noted how devastating goods from the West were for China. Of course he was one of the worst economic planners in human history, but it shows that awareness was in the CCP.

As for opium then, fentanyl now, yes, I'm sure the Han manufacturers see what they're doing as payback.

Random Dude,

I don't see the Democrats as any more malleable than the GOPe. For a month or two following Hillary's defeat, they pondered reaching out to the WWC again, but ultimately decided to make "Resistance" their strategy.

Moderate white male Democrats in swing and red states, like Doug Jones, won't ratchet up the anti-white rhetoric during the campaign, but once they're in power they will do whatever Chuck Schumer demands of them.

In fact, Bernie Sanders himself cucked hard on the National Question. Even if he somehow won the 2020 primaries, he would mouth off the same anti-white rhetoric as anyone else.

I'm not saying we have to like the GOP, but we can barter with them. We can trade, make deals. I know a lot of MAGA types are angry about how the GOP isn't enthusiastic about the Trump agenda, but the left is consistently furious with the GOP for not "standing up for their principles" and trying to impeach Trump.

In contrast, I don't think the Democrats will come around to economic populism unless Trump wins again in 2020. The Democrats see 2016 as a fluke, and that they will be able to adhere to their current strategy of population replacement by stalling out anti-immigration measures.

Losing in 2020 may not be enough to wake them up, but I don't see even the possibility of their changing otherwise.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

I'm a former leftist so it pains me to vote for and defend The Stupid Party. However, without a doubt, the GOP is the white party. The Democrats for the last decade (well, even going back to Hart-Celler of course) have done whatever they could to purge whites from their party. So if it comes down to the white vs. non-white/anti-white party, I know what side I'm taking on. It's a pipe dream to assume that a small minority of Berniebros are going to wrestle power away from the hordes of angry blacks and browns who are now getting high leadership positions within the Democrats.

The way I see it, the only battle there is to fight right now is the demographics battle. If we win, then we can get around to discussing the merits of Bernie's platform but until then, we got to get the numbers turned around to our favor. Hoping that Berniebros can take over a party that is hostile to white people is nonsensical. Hoping that the Berniebros can roll out a New Deal Part Deux at this point without it being chock full of gibs for non-whites is even more nonsensical. It just seemed weird to me that akinokure was positioning like this was just right around the corner, not 25+ years down the road.

The Z Blog said...

To reiterate and expand upon a point I made on Gab, Reagan was not an unalloyed free trader. He slapped tariffs on Japan, tried to protect US steel and shamelessly protected Harley Davidson from foreign competition.

Those of us old enough to remember the 80’s see Trump following the same path on the trade front. This time the target is China, rather than Japan.

Of course, the chrysalis of Reaganism cracked open in the 90’s and the neocon moths burst forth to gnaw away at the fabric of the nation. That’s how conservatism came to be identified with open borders, open trade and cosmopolitan globalism.


The lesson of the 80's is there is no compromise with the internationalists. They must be forever sidelined from public debate.

Dan said...

Dagnabit, AE, I try to tell myself, NAJALT, but then you keep feeding me the data.

We'll see how Mnuchin does on trade but so far it hasn't been promising. Between him and Gary Cohn the America First trade agenda seems to be stuck.

Audacious Epigone said...

Random Dude,

Agnostic has some exceptionally unique takes on things but his idea that a Bernie-led populist Democrat party is going to become immigration restrictionist. I gave it a thorough treatment here.

It was made clear to Bernie that there was no room in the Democrat coalition for his seditious talk about open borders being a Koch brothers proposal.

Z Man,

The 36.5% figure is staring me right in the face but I still tried to pin it on Reagan instead of the neocons who latched on after him. Thanks for correction.

Dan,

I'd like it as much as you would if it weren't the case. But it seems to be Every. Single. Time.

Audacious Epigone said...

become immigration restrictionist *is delusional*

Feryl said...

"Wow, the obvious just hit me between the eyes. The West floods China with cheap goods (and mercantile "dumping") and get them hooked on opiates. Now China is flooding the West with cheap goods (and lots of dumping) as the West gets hooked on heroin. We're stuck in the Fukuyama past, the Han are headed towards the future. "

Yeah, the "respectable" veneer placed on prescription drugs for which legal status is so arbitrary and Talmudically parsed as to obliterate any ethical or effectual difference between legal and illegal drugs, serves to fool more people than you might think into having no real clue what we are dealing with.

In the 60's and 70's, society (as run by older generations) was frightened of people reviving drug culture which for most people included psychedelics. In the 80's and 90's, the alarm about super stimulants like cocaine and PCP was raised.

But the downer and numbing agents that began to be (over) prescribed in the 90's have yet to produce much of an alarm or backlash; since so many Americans are weak and cowardly, there's a tacit understanding that it's ok to tune out and nod off, because the reality of what we've become is too painful to contemplate......And face. Whether it's our disastrous trade policies, immigration policy, foreign policy, rule by "intelligent" (but profoundly amoral) elites in law, media, academia, and business for decades has utterly demoralized many people, who are encouraged to psychologically check out though of course full scale dropping out of normal society would entail a reduction in consumption and that can't happen.

This kind of malaise, going thru the motions, saying and even believing things we know to not be true or in any event conducive to our long-term interests, is eerily similar to what happens to other empires that have gone sour. Nobody feels optimistic or particularly thrilled about anything anymore; On the American Left you get hysterical claims of a budding neo-Fascist movement in response to Trump and Brexit (which thus far haven't created any real results at restoring traditions in America and Britain) while Continental Europeans in many countries are tightening their borders lest they end up like Sweden or France . On the Right, you get neuroses about how "we" can't do anything right anymore and maybe we'll never get back on track.

Opiates are for lazy and defeated people; as we disarm ourselves psychologically, of course others will sense weakness and pounce. I think I heard Jordan Peterson talk about how Foucalt and the other 20th C. French intellectuals, who are worshipped in modern Academia from which so much toxic crap is spewed onto other parts of society, were a product of occupied WW2 era France and thus were deeply in standing with the lame, the whiney, the defeated, etc., which is how France felt about itself after not pushing back against the Nazis. They became cowards and weaklings who wallowed in a victim identity, instead of acknowledging that the Germans had bested them because the Germans were....Better (organized, motivated, whatever). As America slid into corruption and apathy (failure, I suppose), it became easy targets for opiates. We're a nation of losers, whose cultural elites are addicted to attacking Western Civ. for producing too many glorious winners, while lower class people feel adrift and forlorn, often becoming addicted to numbing drugs. The very elites who supposedly are so concerned with the "losers" naturally have not done a goddam thing in the last 20-30 years to actually help out the native born working class.

Feryl said...

Also WRT to mid-Century France, if it could produce cock suckers like Foucault, than sheesh, no wonder they got conquered so fast by the Germans. This provokes a sobering conclusion: a society that is vacuous and effete enough to never accept accountability for it's problems and losses, to indeed relish in the notion of being a hapless victim subject to subjugation by an aggressor, is begging to be conquered by stronger tribes. This vulnerability, in America at least, can be clearly traced to Boomers always finger pointing, losing their shit, making excuses, etc. Reason, stoicism, and accountability mean nothing. You will be weak and divided if people never resolve to better themselves, but instead only insist that it is the other side which must make accommodations to what you want. Foucault was a decadent fag, not having any masculine dignity, and ya know, it seems as if the Boomers are hell bent on driving out every last remnant of reasoned and dispassionate culture, with the English speaking countries and the French being the most decadant in their attack on order and dignity. The inculcation of relentless pity for the untermenschen is itself turning us into a bunch of pansies that are over-due for an ass kicking.

Jonathan Centauri said...

Donnie the Dummies Suicide Pact has killed him and it will kill his other so-called "donor class". That monopoly money doesn't mean shit. Its worthless. Gold is not much better. Food, water and shelter you NEED. Without it, Gold will just weigh you down.
The invaders came for the cheese. They don't give two shits about "Globalist World Peace". Where are the loyal troops of these swine? Nowhere from what I can see. Freeloaders, and paycheck soldiers.

Men will die for living space. Men will fight for women. Mr. Pennybags and his monopoly money can't bribe the Reaper.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

> become immigration restrictionist *is delusional*

His analysis of the 2016 primaries was spot on the point where it was eerie. A legion of six figure earning analysts weren't able to figure out what he was able to. Then it seemed like he got high off of his own supply and assumed a Berniebro takeover was right around the corner. The 2018 primaries are a sign of this: more angry blacks and browns are running for Democrat positions than ever, running on getting back at whitey. Going to be tough for the Berniebro set to have enough people in place to effectively shut them out of power.

Sad to say but Bernie's agenda can't work in modern day America where so much resources goes towards gibs and the societal costs we have to pay by being multicultural. In 1930's America in the era of the New Deal, Bernie's agenda absolutely was possible. In 2018? Sadly, no. It's going to take decades worth of work to undo the damage, if we even can.

Jim Bowery said...

"If you're 2% of the population, most of your members are marrying into the other 98% of the population, and you don't replace yourselves, your days as a distinct group are numbered."

And the number of those days is far more than those of Boomers, yet we are told that pointing The Finger at Boomers is more salient in The Current Year than pointing it at Jews.

Very well, as I have repeatedly challenged those who drone on and on about The Boomer Problem: So what? What is your specific call to action?

The silence is deafening.

Those who focus on "The Boomer Problem" aren't simply conflating correlation (kinematics) with causation (dynamics), they are actively destroying superior models of causation that have been long-established. A prime example is when Fuentes mentions how Boomers indoctrinated younger generations. Who indoctrinated Boomers? Fuentes talks about how Boomers were asleep at the wheel during the culture wars. Who was asleep at the wheel when mass media and academia took over indoctrination of Boomers from their parents, churches and community leaders?

Anyone who has bothered to investigate that question understands that a superior causal hypothesis must incorporate the inordinate influence of Jews in media and academia. "The Boomer Problem" is being promoted by a fifth column in white nationalism.

Even if you decide that your descriptive statistical (kinematic) view of the world can inform policy somehow, it is likely to end up with something like what I proposed in 1992: Tax net assets rather than economic activity and distribute the tax revenue directly in a citizen's dividend to younger people rather than filtering it through the public sector rent seekers.

But guess what happens next? I'll tell you exactly what happens next since it happened to me and "woke" me to "The Jewish Question":

First, rent seekers in both the public and private sectors, "libertarians" and "socialist" come out of the woodwork and go apeshit on you. Second, you recognize that these rent seekers are not just disproportionately "Jewish" but that they are overwhelmingly Jewish, and they are in a position to make their policy preferences stick. Third, you start thinking about policies that will permit you to have a polity free from Jews so you can implement your "Final Solution To the Boomer Question."

Feryl said...

Fuentes is wrong; you can't singlehandedly blame a generation for anything. What you can, and should, do is identifying a trend or meme, and see how it came about and who pushed it the hardest/abused it the most.

The behavioral excesses of the 1960's-1990's were inadvertently caused by the GI Generation (a civically active generation) not realizing what would happen when they raised a generation of strong-willed and creative youngsters, who of course came to question everything their parents did. Which included behavioral moderation. These youngsters would include primarily later Silents and early Boomers, who tend to be arrogantly headstrong. Late Boomers and early Gen X-ers would then commit some (but not all) of the behavioral excesses of early Boomers, yet without any sense of having been part of some kind of momentous socio-political movement, as such movements became impossible in the late 1970's when the culture war started at the behest of early Boomers (and some Silents) whose refusal to grant any respect to their opponents has made consensus and teamwork impossible.

Just as early Boomers most stridently embraced violations of behavioral norms beginning in the mid-60's, so too would early Boomers lead the charge for toppling the ideological norms of the 1930's-early 1970's. Suddenly the solution to every political and economic problem was to shrink the government, cut taxes, cut regulations, destroy unions, etc. The foundation of the politics and economics that were built by Missionaries, Losts, and GIs was savagely attacked by Boomers and also by GIs and Silents who told Boomers what they wanted to hear (while the traditionalist GIs and Silents were ignored).

Amongst youngster Boomers, it was behavioral excesses that were embraced. As we neared and eventually entered the 1980's, maturing early Boomers then left behind the physical chaos but instead of growing up, turned to another form of chaos: the intellectual and ideological kind. Around circa 1980, Boomers (and their fellow travelers of earlier generations) became committed to a zealous, bullying, hysterical approach to thought and debate. You couldn't have good faith, or civility; not when your opponent was EVIL and deserved to be smashed to bits. It's this moralistic and extreme approach to though and debate which became more and more poisonous as moderate voices were squelched by the rising dominance of Boomer voters who by the mid-90's had achieved the sought after goal of having their own generation occupy many political seats, in addition to countless seats in finance, law, media, and academia (the early-mid 90's were a period of rapidly declining professionalism among "elites".

The general theme here is that we've been giving early Boomers exactly what they wanted since the late 1970's. And look at what it's done: civility is non-existent, the "reforms" (corruptions) of the 70's and 80's are still presented as healthy and rational, and roughly 2 and 1/2 generations (those born from about 1955-1985) have been thoroughly alienated from "the system" (which is now correctly understood to be the province of early Boomers). And it can't be emphasized enough that the non-Boomers who are "allowed" to gain any traction have to answer first and foremost to the now doddering and thoroughly discredited early Boomer cohort (which gave us one of the worst presidents ever, Bush, as well as neo-liberal errand boy Bill Clinton and ADD and narcissism addled Trump who has barely resisted attempts to co-opt his presidency).

Jonathan Centauri said...

You should all disabuse yourselves of the notion that there are "natural progressions" or "cycles" that govern America. Progression follows natural laws and not the political winds that bash "populism". The mask has fallen off. The Soviet style policing of opinions has already begun. Not as a function of "power" or strength, but merely the predilections of an insane egotism and hubris that has now begun to have Delusions of Grandeur. The Bad never follow natural forms. Evil is the Opposite of Life. The word is Live spelt backwards. Opposing natural laws. Against natural hierarchies. Attacking the very FOUNDATION of God's Law and Order. This is NO ACCIDENT.
Morality makes you Strong and Healthy. Samson was said to be The Strongest Man in the World. Profligacy, vice and drinking made him lose his grip, sleep with whores and eventually DESTROYED HIM. Its no wonder our Enemy Aliens DISCOURAGE MORALITY.
Its now an US vs (((them))). They have an Insane Hubris. They are not gods. They have lost touch with reality. They believe that by changing WORDS they can change REALITY. Magical Thinking. Not rational. Completely Insane. Drinking blood, and eating the flesh. Its Harry Potty INSANITY. THEY DO BELIEVE IN MAGIC.

TRUST ME ON THIS...

Clayton Barnett said...

Oh, please! As if China might collude with Russia & India to rollout a new currency - let's call the ria for sake of argument - that would lead to the repudiation of the dollar and the implosion of the US economy.

Crazy-talk.

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/297684/

Jonathan Centauri said...

Its the Oil monetized Yuan or Renminbi actually.

Bretton Woods allows the Swamp to borrow to Infinity and beyond. The economy of America cannot justify the massive load of funny money Rothschild Pennybags Monopoly Money NECESSARY for TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICITS. No Bretton Woods or "petrodollar" and no Uncle Sham and his clownboy debt ruining your lives.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

The elites don't really even pretend to care about the losers anymore. They care about promoting people who check the right boxes (female, lesbian, black, etc) from within the 1% to positions for the 1% that are even more prestigious than the ones they had before. The JD Vances of the world can go to hell as far as they're concerned.

Random Dude,

Did Agnostic count Bernie out early? I don't recall it.

Audacious Epigone said...

Jim,

Why was the old WASP elite so easily coopted by Jews, and why did it become so pronounced as the Boomers came of age?

Jonathan,

I maintain a healthy skepticism for cyclical history because of how rapidly the demographics are changing. When a city like, say, Ferguson, MO, goes from 75% n-H white in 1990 to 25% n-H white today, that overwhelms whatever else is happening in the culture at the time.

Jonathan Centauri said...

AE, Europeans believe in the Rule of Law and Honoring Debts. Having a Den of Thieves that print monopoly money and purposely screw you with usury attacks that. An enemy alien lives amongst you. It says its White when it is useful to them and says they are not White when they make you a scapegoat for their misdeeds. Slavery was ALL THEM. They ran the Triangle Trade, the Plantations and Bought and Sold them like "cattle" or goyim as they say.
They are all about insular in-group loyalty. They hand that worthless monopoly money around to themselves. Pay no taxes and hide assets to collect your welfare. They make you support the bio-terrorism of enemy aliens they bring in for THE SOLE PURPOSE OF DISPOSSESSING YOU OF YOUR WORK AND LAND.

US vs them. One or the other. Do not negotiate with mindless parasites. They use cheap excuses and mercenaries. Truth has no meaning to Liars.

Feryl said...

"I maintain a healthy skepticism for cyclical history because of how rapidly the demographics are changing. When a city like, say, Ferguson, MO, goes from 75% n-H white in 1990 to 25% n-H white today, that overwhelms whatever else is happening in the culture at the time."


The exact events differ, but it's the tone and nature of different phases that matter. We're clearly in a crisis stage right now, for example. Events can eventually play out to our relative benefit if we develop a consensus on how to deal with the crisis, and that consensus is sound. In our own neck of the woods, the worst crisis was the Civil War because we failed to reach a consensus around Slavery. Whereas during WW2, Americans of all backgrounds cooperated to sacrifice for the greater good of our country and Western Civ. in general. There were some people who had reservations, but it didn't stop us from getting things done.

It seems to me that the current crisis, in the West anyway, is globalism Vs. localism, and elites Vs. proles. Since the late 70's many Western elites have acted in such a way as to benefit the upper classes and multi-nationals of the West, East, and Third World, while prole natives suffer.

WRT cycles, many of these problems were evident in the 80's and 90's, but nobody really cared and most were content to reap whatever gains or pleasures that could be had. Get while the gettin's good. If one can't discern the difference between the tone of the 80's and 90's, vs the tone of the last 15 or so years, then I don't know what to say. We've had many of the same problems since the 80's, yet what's key is our attitude towards them. There are now more people than I can remember in my lifetime who feel legit alienated, disconnected, and fed up with the system. Back in the 80's or 90's it was common for even proles to suggest that what mattered in life was working hard, and enjoying the fruits of your labor such as they were, instead of complaining and protesting, or getting caught up in what other people were going through. A society of narcissism, of accepted norms that impoverished the public square while private affluence was celebrated.

The key to over-coming a crisis is that those who benefited from the prior unraveling period (the elites) have to basically reject the mores of the period and clean up their act (an unravelling is seen as a period where elites succumb to corruption, which is then seen by most as an embarrassment in the following crisis period).

But if the damage done during the unraveling period is deemed to be very severe by people in the crisis period, and elites can't reach a consensus on how to fix the most pressing problems (or even identify the nature and severity of problems), then yes we could be screwed. The rising generations of the post-Civil War era came to despise their elders for being moralistic blowhards who damaged more than they ever repaired, and I'm afraid that Millennials and Gen Z will come to view most Boomers and even some Gen X-ers the same way,if today's elder generations can't clean up the mess that they created.

Anonymous said...

how to explain the jews at 36% when the next lowest group is at 63% other than jews are not Americans but globalists and don't care about the salaries of the American working class

Jonathan Centauri said...

9 out of 10 blacks were TOO DUMB for Military Service in WWII. That 85 IQ is the talented tenth you always hear about. The ONLY psychometric tests on blacks were done by the US Military. Why even bother to test them in civilian life? They had almost NOTHING but menial jobs until Affirmative Action Policies.