Wednesday, June 20, 2018

Camp of the Squatemalans

Most of the 2012 invaders were "unaccompanied minors". Most female invaders, including children, coming through Mexico are sexually assaulted along the way. Many of the adults with the children aren't the real parents of the children. Incarceration requires family separation. Concern for Tommy Robinson's children? For the carcasses of raped and mutilated Afrikaner toddlers?

No novel observations there. Using the opposition's principles against it is standard operating procedure, literally right out of the Alinsky playbook. In a generation or two, if we're still around, we'll be whispering to each other how we should've shot the invaders on sight just as our European brethren will be whispering to each other how the migrant vessels should've been sent to the bottom of the Mediterranean.

President Trump--or as I suspect in this case, Stephen Miller (heaven preserve him)--is a formidable tactician himself. When news of the executive order reuniting families broke, I assumed another hard cucking. Instead, Trump boxed the anti-whites in. The EO doesn't instruct the resurrection of catch-and-release. It allows the children to accompany their scofflaw putative parents in detention centers, nice detention centers run by HHS.

The anti-whites are pissed because the EO provides Trump with great optics without relenting on the actual "zero tolerance" (I know, I know, but it's not nothing). It's obvious the anti-whites don't give a damn about the child-invaders. They want the borders wide open, but even they can't quite say that yet, so they went the family-separation route assuming the results would be the same. Nope. They were outplayed on the invasion front by the Trump administration again.

On the topic of invasion, the American Bar Association is a festering den of thieves and robbers. From the ABA's head harpy and "social activist":


"appears to violate longstanding precedent protecting rights to family integrity"--ie, this has no constitutional basis, but black robes have through the magic of case law allowed us to call it illegal because we're allowed to do that with anything and everything we want to do it with.

Still on the topic, here's a man made of the stuff the West needs to survive:


Dispense with the "undocumented migrants" phraseology. Kobach doesn't even use the cucky "illegal immigrants". He uses the based and legally descriptive term "illegal aliens" instead.

Fellow Kansans--and readers who know Kansans--are urged to support this great man in the GOP gubernatorial primary on August 7th. Here's his twatter cover photo:


A pretty wife who stayed pretty after bringing five lovely children into the world. And is that a retriever on the left? Looks like we know Kobach is good on the pit bull question, too.

Compare Kobach's photo to Paul Ryan's:


All the rafter ties in the world aren't enough to visit justice on these miscreants determined to destroy ourselves and our posterity.

38 comments:

Anonymous said...

Kris Kobach is a Jew lover who thinks that Israel is Kansas's greatest ally. He gets the rope along with the rest of the politicians.

IHTG said...

I'm not sure what exactly the plan is but on the face of it, under current jurisprudence the detained families are supposed to get catch-and-released after 20 days.

Sid said...

Some thoughts...

1. Except for the drug war in Mexico, there are no major conflicts in the Western Hemisphere: https://twitter.com/HumanProgress/status/1007797159859773440?s=19

The idea that Central Americans are fleeing war and chaos is nonsense. They're here for economic benefits and gibs. They came in caravans in open defiance of our laws.

I don't have any sympathy for the invaders. None at all.

2. I've been seeing a lot of pictures of crying migrant children, and I honestly haven't felt any emotional reaction. I feel immense hostility to the adults, but I am indifferent to the children.

Granted, they were too young to be making these decisions. I don't wish pain and suffering on them. But ultimately I don't want them in my country, and they can grow up elsewhere.

I will let people decide if they should be separated from their parents, or be kept in prison with them. But there can be no catch and release with them. I wish the children well, but I don't want them draining education budgets, imbibing anti-white SJW propaganda, sponging up gibs, and interfering in our democracy because their votes were bought off by the Dems.

The left is trying to use our empathy against us. Let's not give them any. My outrage has been spent up in my country being torn up from demographic change, Tommy Robinson being imprisoned because the British government is covering for rape gangs, and what is happening in South Africa. Human beings only have a finite amount of tears, so shed them wisely.

3. Here's to hoping Trump stays true. If he lets children be imprisoned with their parents, then that's on the left. But may he never bend on his strict policy against catch and release.

4. Paul Ryan is a dissolute reprobate. Trump gave him the tax cuts last year, one of Paul Ryan's lifelong aims, and he's repaying it by cucking harder than I thought even he could do.

Thank God this is his last year. "Don't let the door hit you on the way out," is too refined and courteous for him.

Jog Bohnson said...

What's the pit bull question?

kennymac said...

Eat a dick, troll.

Joe Suber said...

I am ready to sign up for the Kobach ethnostate defense force:

Kansas, Kobach and Kids.

But seriously, Kobach has proven he is willing to wage the battle against our enemies. The Voter Fraud Panel he headed up, was beset by lawsuits from (((them))), a sure sign it was on to something. All the spin from MSM said it "failed to find evidence," but ignored the lack of cooperation from the biggest potential offenders. Kobach is willing to go there, unlike 90% of Republicucks.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

Kobach is pro-Israel in the evangelical mold. I find the love for Israel weird and off-putting, but his America First credentials are impeccable. That he is an Israel-Seconder doesn't change that. I've met him multiple times going all the way back to the mid-2000s. He's been a warrior on the immigration front for a long time.

IHTG,

Allegedly Sessions is trying to find a workaround the Flores thing, though Trump might just issue more EOs to do so.

Sid,

1) Good point. I take for granted that asylum seeking is always a thinly-veiled scam and so never even consider it. That's a useful working assumption since it's virtually always true, but it's worth keeping in mind that not all normies are as jaded as we are.

2) Likewise. It's even easier with children of my own. Hurt them to help invaders? No thanks.

4) The destruction of Paul Ryan's political ambitions is something I'll be eternally grateful to Trump for. Sure, Ryan will be selling the influence he's accumulated for the next several years and will become rich beyond the dreams of avarice in the process, but as far as his actual political power--it has peaked and is on the inexorable way down.

Jig,

A meme phenomenon on twatter. The pit bull side is the blank slate side of the canine question--they dindu nuffin wrong, it was they owners!--while the #dogright represents itself with labs and beagles.

Joe,

Hah!

The GSS shows what everyone knows to be going on at some level wrt voter fraud. Kobach is undeterred. He has always been that way. He's as solid as they get. Nothing is going to turn him on the National Question, I'm confident of that.

thekrustykurmudgeon said...

AE - you've gotten a lot more edgy since I started reading you around 2014. Squatamelan is a killshot word because it describes everything you need to know about these people.

As for Kobach - I have mixed feelings. It's kind of a "Nixon goes to China" type thing. Yes, I agree with him on immigration, but he otherwise seems like a generic republitard. I kind of wish someone who I agreed with more would be bringing up these issues. Peter Beinart is probably the closest thing to that.

Pangur said...

Background on the pitbull issue, written by the MPC poster who got the ball rolling:

https://twitter.com/BixterN/status/997620941977878528

It's actually a broader thread than just "pitbulls bad", it delves thoughtfully into CogDis and modern politics, worth your while.

"AE - you've gotten a lot more edgy since I started reading you around 2014"

I cannot speak for anyone other than myself, but radicalization is almost inevitable if you're paying attention.

Sid said...

AE,

"I take for granted that asylum seeking is always a thinly-veiled scam and so never even consider it. That's a useful working assumption since it's virtually always true, but it's worth keeping in mind that not all normies are as jaded as we are."

The hardcore open borders crowd supports non-white people migrating to (erstwhile) white countries. That's the end of it. They'll give you lots of explanations after the fact. They will tell you that America is unique because we're not a country based on ethnicity, and that white Americans have no right to complain about newcomers coming in because we're not indigenous to the continent.

Then they'll forget all of those arguments and will devise new ones as to why Europe needs to take in an infinite amount of Africans.

You can't persuade these people with facts and principles, because they care about neither. But they make it easy to point out their contradictions and legerdemains to normies, which is something I'm trying to do more and more.

The current open borders thinking is that Merkel became the leader of the free world once she opened the borders to the Syrian refugees, which had to be done on account of how brutal the Syrian Civil War was.

Well and good, so why should Europe accept migrants from Nigeria and Eritria on their boats?

I am not saying Central America is a wonderful place (well, I did like my trip to Costa Rica, but you know what I mean!), but there's NOTHING as horrendous as the Syrian Civil War going on there now. It's a place where the quality of life is gradually creeping up, even though coming to America for blue collar jobs and gibs still makes for a wealthier existence.

Open borders fanatics won't be fazed by any of these arguments, they'll keep on pushing ahead with new sophistries as to why we need more people with fewer skills, but the normies watching the argument will be less swayed to open borders once they see how devoid of principles and good faith arguments it is.

216 said...

Sid,

El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala have high homicide rates due to drug gang violence. I believe they are higher than South Africa's homicide rates, but I think we have reason to suspect that SA manipulates their rates to make the country seem less violent than it was (officially SA crime peaked in 2002).

The legitimacy of those three CentAm nation-states is questionable at best. While these days there isn't a serious Communist threat, those countries are highly corrupt and the non-criminal population has every reason to not trust the police. Legal firearms ownership is probably almost impossible for self-defense. (Russia is the most violent white country, and these countries are several times more violent than Russia)

The terrain is also quite mountainous, and there is no integration of the railroads with the rest of North America. That limits the potential for manufacturing. A reasonable solution would be to offer to build them a railroad (before China offers it) in exchange for halting emigration.

Feryl said...

BTW, Trump's admin has been the occasion for some of the most....dubious activity ever among the judicial branch. The BAMN tactics shown by Derek Watson and so forth to thwart the travel ban and other immigration policies of Trump are disgraceful, and very much proof of the civil war atmosphere extant. I read a lot of analyses of the anti-Trump rulings, which discerned how these liberal rulings often made only the most token and perfunctory attempt to stay within the boundaries of lawful and fair jurisprudence. Often times, the Derek Watsons would essentially make the argument that Trump and his inner circle were not allowed to have a say on matters such as immigration because.....These men had said mean things about current and future immigrants. That's how lazy and biased these anti-Trump rulings were. Why not just outright say that you hate Trump and mean to block his policies via the power that's been granted to you? Which raises the question: if reasonable (and legally sound) action to enact one's presidential agenda (when said president has been legitimately elected) is consistently subjected to stoppages via inept legal rulings and criminal politicians and police chiefs (sanctuary cities), then are we (morally and strategically) justified in firing/arresting/jailing inept officials until we get greater cooperation? And if neither side can work things out, than perhaps our side needs to push harder....And harder.....Until shots are fired, and we bleed each other out until it becomes apparent that we've got to cut the crap and rebuild society, from the ground up, if necessary.

Methinks that the 2020 election just might be a short fuze waiting to be lit. If Trump steps down and the GOP fields a typical cuck, the GOP will either lose or get a slight victory, but either way the spineless GOP candidate is such a pussy that the Leftists know that they're getting ever so closer to getting their paradise where every state must have at least one Senator who is black, Muslim, or transsexual. If Trump should run again, we have to confront the very real possibility that Leftists will bring fire bombs, chemical bombs, and automatic weapons to gatherings of Trump supporters (or appearances by Trump), and naturally the Trump fans will have sensed the mood and brought their own war toys. Looking back, that nobody (as far as I know) actually died during the 2016 election campaign is almost a miracle, and I think some Leftists regret that they didn't go far enough to intimidate Trump. Blood was shed in Charlotsville to discredit the Alt-Right (to make an omelet, you gotta break some eggs). But that certainly was no consolation for losing the goddam election. Oh, and let's not forget the Las Vegas massacre of country music fans that the media rushed to sweep under the rug (a degenerate Boomer gambler takes his frustrations out on people who, lets face it, were primarily white Middle Americans).

Audacious Epigone said...

Krusty,

Given where you're coming from--and that you're all-too-familiar with that archetype because of where you live--that's understandable. I'm fine with it, but even if I wasn't, the National Question is the only thing that matters so I'd support him regardless.

As for the edginess, it's a consequence of realizing what the stakes are and what the trajectory is. Acting in good faith when the opposition wants you dead is for suckers. Or, as we've come to call them between now and 2014, cucks!

Pangur,

Thanks, I'd obviously only picked up on it through what it grew into.

Sid,

Wrt converting normies, the gumball video remains one of the best. It's the gateway that gets people thinking about immigration as something other than a purely moral issue. The Derb points out regularly how difficult it is to get people to approach a nation's immigration policy as a, well, policy.

216,

Refugees are supposed to seek sanctuary in the first country that isn't a hellhole at war. If all of Central America is a hellhole--or shithole, if you will--then let's hear the elites talk about them thus and formulate our immigration approach accordingly.

Feryl,

It's too bad Trump didn't go the Andrew Jackson route. There was an outside chance I thought he might try it in early 2017, but retrospectively that looks embarrassingly naive.

As for violence at Trump rallies, it'll be interesting to see. I suspect it'll be much tamer than 2016 simply because Antifa isn't going to throw down with the Secret Service in the sorts of numbers president Trump will have with him, nor will Trump allow his supporters to be abused with such a large Secret Service at his disposal. But we'll see.

Anonymous said...

I thought you were just shitposting with that Paul Ryan cover photo, so I had to check. Incredibly, it's real. Poe's law.

Feryl said...

"As for violence at Trump rallies, it'll be interesting to see. I suspect it'll be much tamer than 2016 simply because Antifa isn't going to throw down with the Secret Service in the sorts of numbers president Trump will have with him"

late 2015-present is the worst outbreak of belligerence and bad faith between varying factions (Left V Right, young V old, nationalist V globalist, Deep State squid V reformers, centrists V purists, etc.) since.....The early 1920's. In the 1960's, you did not typically see "protestors" wearing masks or dressing all in black (protestors back then either dressed conservatively, or "pushed the envelope" with hippie dress (which was intended to be a sign of integrity and an open mind, not a uniform of terror). The paramilitary groups (such as the Black Panthers and the Weathermen) had fairly few followers (to the extent that the FBI was able to easily spy on them, infiltrate them, and disrupt many of their activities). The current epoch is reminiscent of the 1920's-1930's in it's mood, partisanship, and aesthetic.

What's also telling is that in the 1960's law enforcement took a very hard stance against civil unrest and terrorism. Whereas in the 1920's/30's, and in the 2010's, certain sections of the establishment (including the law) are clearly "sponsoring" one side of trouble makers against another.

In the 1960's, we had a low incarceration rate yet took threats to the overall social and political order very seriously, and surveys showed that GIs and Silents were very reluctant to endorse radical youth groups. Nowadays, we have record high incarceration rates yet the (Boomer and Gen X) establishment have made a farce out of public order and security by often standing down from violent protesters. In Charlottseville, it became obvious that LE actually made the unrest worse on purpose. I don't know of any similar incident from the 60's. What's more, LE in the 1960's was associated with stern white men. Whereas nowadays, you've got AA hires who sometimes are the police chief! The 1960's was a time of minimal corruption and good faith (a few loudmouthed campus radicals did not reflect what most people thought); today we've had decades of corruption build up, and much behavior is cynically motivated.

Also stunning is that anti-fa types literally break the law by merely donning a mask (the concealing of ID for purposes of mischief is ilegal in most places), yet rarely do you hear of this law being enforced (maybe on some Southern campuses, but in Seattle or something? Forget it). Look, the FBI in the 1960's would've been actively breaking up anti-fa and building cases against it's leaders; nowadays it's trying to desperately to pin it's 2016 election corruption onto a handful of fall guys. Every institution in America has been discredited over the last 20-30 years; back in the 60's some dipshit Boomers were acting as if the establishment was corrupt and worthless. Well, now that finally is true. Boomers were just 30-40 years premature in their judgement.

Feryl said...

The Vegas Massacre, the attack on Rand Paul, the attack on Steve Scalise, Charlottsville are all things that happened after the 2016 election. The media's ad hominem, straw-man, and guilt by association tactics aren't getting any better, and many Leftists eagerly want a sequel to the 1960's which they themselves constantly mischaracterize (the 1960's were not about mainstream acceptance of cultural Marxism, PC, and Leftist ID politics, rather, they were much more about intellectual and cultural freedom). The Left if anything is desperately trying to marginalize anything that doesn't worship Foucalt's nihilist self-loathing loser ID politics that became earnestly accepted in the humanities depts of the mid-1980's and then proceeded to suck the blood out of the soul and intellect of more and more Western institutions. Never in my life did I ever foresee the day when sell-out Boomer robber barrons would hold struggle sessions ala Howard Schultz and Starbucks, but here we are.

Besides the nihilism, there's also the terrorist campaign to silence and attack those with whom you disagree, the kind of tactics that were out of the mainstream from the 1940's-1970's (when the culture was egalitarian, stoic, and generally civil, with the exception young Boomer activists being a headache in the late 60's). Again, look to the late 1980's as the time when stating one's opinion in mild terms became grounds for shouting and name calling from an opponent.

216 said...

AE,

The very concept of refugee is supposed to be temporary. When the war is over they should return to their homelands if practicable. At the very least we should provide incentives for those we foolishly naturalized to renounce citizenship and go back along with any descendants.


It will be interesting to see what the Turks do with the 3+ million Syrians residing there, they might not be able to pawn them off on the West. Historically the Ottomans often played groups off against each other, giving citizenship to Arabs would frustrate the ambitions for Kurdistan. Depending on how the political winds are blowing, the Turks could move from "oppressed browns" to "white oppressors"

216 said...

Feryl,

From the left/media viewpoint, the country is under siege from white male mass shooters and a wave of alt-right inspired hate crimes, attempted terror attacks and telephone pole posters. ISIS attacks appear to have peaked in 2016, Muslims have been pressured to rein in the extremists for now.

The media runs cover for Antifa, but more importantly they are lionizing the rise of DSA, arguably the most popular politics club in universities. Its not hard to imagine that DSA will either take over the Democrats or become a political party in their own right. The media has been very successful in meme-ing that the Trump administration is illegitimate, unlike the squashing of Birther theories during the Tea Party era. (I think the very existence of Birtherism explains the higher turnout of black women in '12 vs '08)

The Right cannot expect access to Liberal platforms, but building your own platform will provide marginal protection given the nature of even liberal judges to still give heed to property rights, at least in the US. It is completely reckless to hold alt-right meetings and demonstrations on college campuses, the Left will defend what they rightfully see as "their turf" from "outsiders". (Ironic)


I love to rag on allegedly conservative Boomers that still watch sportsball and drink Starbucks. Will their come a time when Millenials realize Starbucks is too expensive and reject it as neoliberal?

thekrustykurmudgeon said...

Feryl -

Since you seem to have a lot of opinions on a lot of historically related things, I wonder if you would comment on this:

The other day - I watched a pbs documentary on the "Summer of Love" in 1967. As ludicrous as it sounds my takeaway after watching it was that the initial wave of hippiedom was conservative in a sort of way. It was an expression of a sort of wholesome attitude of the time. Very much a "everythings fine and groovy and let's celebrate". Think the fifth dimension, the mamas and the papas, spanky and the gang and what not.

In my view, the real change occurred when people who in 1967 called hippies faggots started growing their hair long and doing drugs. So they superficially were very similar but as far as viewpoints - they were pretty different. The precursors to the hippie movement such as the greenwich village folkies - reminded me a lot of the hipsters of today. Pretending to be edgy but failing miserably and way too earnest and idealist to really be engaging in the seduction of american youth. The few bands that actually were doing that were british such as the yardbirds or the kinks.

The way that america caught up to the british was when the old folkies started becoming irrelevant and new blood started filling the void. Laurel Canyon, which was the epicenter in LA of the folk/hippie movement started filling up with a new generation of people. It's also possible that the manson murders (5 of the 7 being in laurel canyon) sort of permanently changed the area.

Anyways, guys like the eagles or the doobies were actually countercultural in a way that simon and garfunkel never could be - because they could appeal to the middle and working classes. Although Henley is a shitlib, they never had the preachiness of folky 60s music and in a way - used what we call "critical theory". A lot of there lyrics have a sort of "whatever man" type vibe to them.

So, feryl, after reading this - do you agree or disagree with me?

streamfortyseven said...

I don't see this getting mentioned much, but: The President has the legal authority to deny admission to any aliens, or group of aliens he so chooses - including Mexican and Central American refugees - and this has been law since 1952 - 66 years ago: "(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President: Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate." https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182 A few days ago he clearly and unambiguously stated that he does not intend for Mexican and Central American refugees to enter the US. Period. No request for asylum will be granted. As long as 8 USC 1182(f) is in effect, he has that absolute and discretionary power.

Secondly, Mexico has lost control of its northern provinces to the drug cartels. "The cartels determine who goes in at a port of entry and decides who goes in outside of a port of entry." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDljS0e2jPs at 4m10 to 4m25s. The rest of the video is the usual whine, these 15 seconds are the interesting part. This means that the northern border of Mexico is no longer in control of the Mexican government, but is being controlled by the drug cartels, who strip immigrants of their money and may either kill or enslave them. The fact that Mexico has lost control of its northern border to an armed paramilitary organization - which controls the entire border by force of arms - represents an armed threat to the United States and should be met by US or UN military action to do what the Mexican government is incapable of doing or is incompetent to do so. The US policy of separating parents from children is abhorrent, but the border under control of an armed paramilitary organization is a far greater threat. Deal with that, and a lot of the refugee troubles will go away - they can be resettled in Mexico, a Spanish-speaking country.

Finally, we need to address the real problems which cause those refugees to come up here in the first place - and the problems started with the Clintons and the Democrats: "Beyond any one country or policy, these policies fed off of each other. Bill Clinton’s multibillion-dollar aid program to one of the worst human-rights violators in the world, Plan Colombia—which Hillary Clinton now recommends for Central America (though it’s hard to see how the United States could militarize the region any more)—had the effect of diversifying the violence and corruption endemic to the cocaine trade, with Central American and Mexican cartels and military factions taking over export of the drug to the United States. This, along with the collapse of Mexico’s and Central America’s agricultural sector caused by NAFTA and CAFTA, kicked off the cycle of criminal and gang violence that today engulfs the region. This violence, in turn, has been accelerated by the further privatization of the economy (of the kind that Clinton’s ambassador forced on El Salvador) and the rapid spread of mining, hydroelectric, biofuel, and petroleum operations (of the kind that took over Honduras after the 2009 coup and that donates to the Clinton Foundation), which wreak havoc on local ecosystems, poisoning land and water. The violence has also been accelerated by the opening of national markets to US agroindustry, which destroys local economies. The ensuing displacement either creates assorted criminal threats that justify harsher counterinsurgency measures or provokes protest, which is dealt with by new-style death squads—of the kind that killed Berta C├íceres and hundreds of others in Honduras (and Colombia, Guatemala, and El Salvador)." https://www.thenation.com/article/a-voters-guide-to-hillary-clintons-policies-in-latin-america/

Sid said...

216,

There's little doubt that Central America is a lousy place to live, but it's far from unlivable the way asylum cases demand. I agree readily that it's better for the US to develop the region economically than to host their populations.

The crying girl's father said her mother crossed the border for a better job, not because of political persecution: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-photo/father-says-little-honduran-girl-on-time-cover-was-not-taken-from-mother-idUSKBN1JI07W

wrt Turkey: Turks are "huwhite," meaning that they're in-between people everyone would consider to be white (such as Austrians, French) and brown-skinned Caucasoids (Pakistanis, Saudis), similar to the way Caucasians, Lebanese Christians, and Sicilians are huwhite. Turkey also had one of the most elaborate, vicious colonial histories of them all.

My guess is, if Turks only mess with other huwhite peoples, they won't be considered white imperialists, but messing with the Kurds, Yazidis, and especially Sunni Arabs will do the trick.

AE,

Immigration is usually a debate about identity and "muh values." Quantity rarely figures into it.

Compare that with, say, Social Security and healthcare, where principles and interests are at play, but the hard questions of how much money we really have to dole out inevitably is part of the discussion.

Bringing quantity to immigration discussion is key. Another thing that's key is getting across that letting some people in because they have hard lives means we'll be letting in a lot more people with lots of problems in after that.

Feryl,

I think one reason why the Boomers have been so awful in holding authority is that they grew up claiming that all authority is illegitimate. Once they got their hands on power, however, they were exhilarated by it and have had a blast abusing it every damn way they can. After all, if there's no such thing as just authority, what's wrong when they use it however they want?

thekrustykurmudgeon,

The Boomer historiography usually treats the early and mid 60s as a rebellious but wholesome time, talking as if no one had ever made love before they did. It's in the late 60s and 70s when the attitudes became far more selfish and cynical. Less about what is lovey-dovey and more about systematically screwing other people over, abusing drugs, and eschewing any and all responsibility.

ChanChanRight said...

all this moot, for naught...nothing will change...the senators we elect are hiding behind mcconnell and the filibuster rule, and the congressional reps we elect are hiding behind ryan ...these congressmen and senators are getting rich by not stopping immigration...do you realize this?

Do you realize that as long as these politicians toe the big-business line on immigration that they will step into lucrative business positions once tossed out by the voters? And that if they do not toe the line on immigration they will NOT get rich once tossed out?

The gop DC politicians are getting paid NOT to stop immigration.

And no matter who we put into office that dynamic is not going to change.

There is no political solution.

This is not a democracy!

The GOP took all 3 branches in the early 2000s by promising smaller government and school vouchers. And once they got power in all 3 branches, did they follow through?

The Dems took all 3 branches in 2008 by promising single payer healthcare. And once they got power in all 3 branches, did they follow through?

The GOP took all 3 branches in 2016 by promising smaller government and less immigration. And once they got power in all 3 branches, did they follow through?

There is no political solution. No matter who we put into office, nothing important will change. It will only get worse. More immigration. More complex tax returns. More expensive healthcare. More propaganda in the schools.

And if you believe otherwise you are delusional. But then living in a delusional state is the natural state of mankind. Right?

snorlax said...

Sid-

The "huwhite" meme is about the way Jared Taylor pronounces "white." Nothing to do with ethnicity (other than "white") AFAIK.

Sid said...

snorlax,

You're probably right. I once heard that meme applied as to whether certain groups are white or not, and it stuck with me. Maybe a new term should be coined here.

Feryl said...

"I love to rag on allegedly conservative Boomers that still watch sportsball and drink Starbucks. Will their come a time when Millenials realize Starbucks is too expensive and reject it as neoliberal?"

The whole "shopping with a conscience" thing was big in the 90's among Gen X-ers in particular, but I've noticed that in my lifetime most sanctimonious Boomers just shop wherever it's cheap and convenient, and/or in keeping with their social class. Also, the proliferation of monopolies and big box retail happened under the watch of Boomers, and during a time (the 1990's and 2000's) when most consumption was done by Boomers. Many of these companies were actually run by Silents during that period, but all the same most of the shareholders were Boomers and Bill Clinton and his Boomer peers who began to heavily influence government and finance in the 80's and 90's were virulently hostile towards anti-trust measures, unions, and income re-distribution.

Us Millennials have fleeting memories, or no memories at all, of how much less corporate retail used to be. To use one example, video stores in the 1980's and early 1990's came in two flavors: a variety of chains (not just Blockbuster and Hollywood, but several others), as well as a healthy number of "mom and pop" stores where employees didn't wear necessarily wear uniforms or have to worry about following a corporate code of conduct and management. In the later 90's the mom and pop stores largely went out of business, and by the early 2000's most of the chains had either folded or been consolidated by Blockbuster or Hollywood. BTW, this was during a time when video stores were still pretty popular.

Local/smaller retail operations started to fade in the 80's, which then became a massive trend in the 90's and beyond. Wal-Mart during the mid-90's economic boom began to open numerous stores fairly close to each other, as a way to eat into the business of the competition and eventually put them out of business. There are documented examples of Wal-Mart opening and closing stores within a period of 2 or 3 years, often the closing happens after other retail outlets in the area closed. Wal-Mart also frequently gets tax breaks to open stores, even though many of Wal-Mart's employees stay on are start getting welfare during their Wal-Mart "career". In addition, Wal-Mart can hurt an area's over economic health by causing other businesses to shutter, and those businesses of course are good for tax revenue and an area's employment level.

Feryl said...

Where I lived in the early 90's, the first area Wal-Mart opened in the late 80's/very early 90's, and I know that my family and other people in the area began to shop at Wal-Mart moderately to nearly religiously (my best friend's family always had can after can of Wal-Mart's generic soda). Nobody ever seemed to question their business practices back then, aside from cheap shots at how much foreign made crap was at the store (remember that in the early 90's it was still a novelty to see just how much stuff was beginning to be made overseas; in the 70's and 80's people gawked at TV's and cars made in Japan, little did they know how shit would get pumped out from China and Southeast Asia to the shelves of Wal-Mart and Target. But who cares when the prices are so low? This was also (esp. during the early 90's recession) a time when many young and working class families were beginning to struggle a bit, so of course, why not go to a store that provides so many cheap goods? I think a lot of Boomers developed "brand loyalty" to Wal-Mart in the early 90's, while at the same time the public's expectation of quality goods began to slide. Seriously: Fuck Wal-Mart. They represent everything that's gone wrong with globalism and corporate America since the 90's.

"One group estimates that the growing United States trade deficit with China, heavily influenced by Walmart imports, is estimated to have moved over 1.5 million jobs that might otherwise be in America to China between 1989 and 2003.[156] According to the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), "Walmart is the single largest importer of foreign-produced goods in the United States", their biggest trading partner is China, and their trade with China alone constitutes approximately 10% of the total United States trade deficit with China as of 2004.[157]"

I rest my case. Shopping at Wal-Mart is like pissing on everything that we used to do economically right.

Feryl said...

"The other day - I watched a pbs documentary on the "Summer of Love" in 1967. As ludicrous as it sounds my takeaway after watching it was that the initial wave of hippiedom was conservative in a sort of way. It was an expression of a sort of wholesome attitude of the time. Very much a "everythings fine and groovy and let's celebrate". Think the fifth dimension, the mamas and the papas, spanky and the gang and what not.

In my view, the real change occurred when people who in 1967 called hippies faggots started growing their hair long and doing drugs. So they superficially were very similar but as far as viewpoints - they were pretty different. The precursors to the hippie movement such as the greenwich village folkies - reminded me a lot of the hipsters of today. Pretending to be edgy but failing miserably and way too earnest and idealist to really be engaging in the seduction of american youth. The few bands that actually were doing that were british such as the yardbirds or the kinks."

- Short hair came into fashion in the early 20th century, and most conservative door knobs have a conception of fashion that goes like this: 1900-1965, good. Post 1965: bad. In reality, long hair among men has a long and venerable tradition. The real "tell" isn't head hair, it's facial hair. When decadent elites are making the world a shithole, facial hair is popular because for men growing facial hair is a cheap way to signal older age and older age is associated with higher status. During more wholesome periods throught history, men can have no facial hair while also sometimes growing their hair to be near or past their shirt collar, if not near or past their shoulders. What's particularly bizarre is that Jesus is canonically depicted with long hair yet Western conservatives often retch at long haired men (and many women claim to dislike long haired men, even though romance novels almost never depict men with bald heads or short crew cuts on their covers. In the late 1980's and early 1990's (a time of low usage of marijuana, BTW), A LOT of guys had really long hair, and it wasn't associated with being a hippie or anything (in fact, in the late 80's an entire genre of music came to be known as "hair metal"). Oh, and do you think it would be a good idea to tell Clay Matthews, or James Hetfield, or Stallone that having long hair made them look "faggy"?

Feryl said...

The way that america caught up to the british was when the old folkies started becoming irrelevant and new blood started filling the void. Laurel Canyon, which was the epicenter in LA of the folk/hippie movement started filling up with a new generation of people. It's also possible that the manson murders (5 of the 7 being in laurel canyon) sort of permanently changed the area.

Anyways, guys like the eagles or the doobies were actually countercultural in a way that simon and garfunkel never could be - because they could appeal to the middle and working classes. Although Henley is a shitlib, they never had the preachiness of folky 60s music and in a way - used what we call "critical theory". A lot of there lyrics have a sort of "whatever man" type vibe to them.

- To your point about music, the 1970's was the peak of "soft rock" which basically was marketed to the aspiring Boomer bourgeoisie of the 1970's. Hard rock and Prog was for proles, stoners, and kids too young to have been 60's hippies. Disco and R&B was heavily black and urban oriented, though in general the public seemed to become quite enamored with funky and dance able music as an escape from the often crushingly sour mood of the 1970's. Music was very cliquish in the 70's (Death to disco and so on); people became very invested in a certain genre or artist, and often thought that it made them cooler or better. In the 1980's, people chilled out and everyone listened to Micheal Jackson, Prince, and Madonna. Music in the 80's was so dazzling and fun that most people didn't get bent out of shape about "enemy" bands or artists.

The music industry was bleeding money in the late 70's and very early 80's due to how much formulaic pablum was being churned out (this was the era of artists blowing wads of money on cocaine and fancy production jobs/orchestrations, with some records sporting dozens of "spot" appearances by hired gun musicians festooning records and layer after layer of vocal harmonies). Into these doldrums came mostly British New Wave and heavy metal bands, who often recorded on small budgets in the early 80's with a minimum of fuss, being inspired by the aesthetic of late 70's punk (albeit making music that was much more sophisticated then punk). In addition, whereas later 70's bands competed to have as many bells and whistles as possible on their records, the leading acts of the early 80's often made due with a minimum of instruments. Plus, the synthesizer allowed for recording sessions to be much cheaper and faster, which propably contributed to music feeling much more energized after circa 1982. Whereas a lot of 70's bands were noted to often sound glacially slow on record, but somewhat faster live. Recording music in general has been greatly simplified over the years, and the tedium of old-school production techniques probably made artists feel bored in the older era, with the rampant over-production of the later 1970's producing some of the most soporific music ever. Ironically, many artists were doing cocaine (!) in the late 70's, not that the dull as dishwater music would indicate it, though the tendency to record records for 3, 4, 5, 6 months (or whatever) and bring in one session player or guest star after another would. More, More, More! Whereas New Wave artists prided themselves on going it alone and producing material fast as they could.

Feryl said...

"Finally, we need to address the real problems which cause those refugees to come up here in the first place - and the problems started with the Clintons and the Democrats: "Beyond any one country or policy, these policies fed off of each other. Bill Clinton’s multibillion-dollar aid program to one of the worst human-rights violators in the world, Plan Colombia"

The Clintons are the neo-liberal first family. Just how well we can navigate the current crisis will be determined in part by how much the liberal elite repudiates the worst tendencies of the Boomer Left (cashing in while sanctimoniously talking up "philanthropy" and committing oneself to zealous ID politics that do nothing to threaten the global corporate order, as represented by Schultz/Bezos et al who'll push anti-white poison while desperately muzzling talk of anti-trust enforcement, higher wages/UBI, and other forms of economic Leftism).

We don't have the cultural or generational, or economic factors to live in the past, even the recent past. There will be big changes coming down the pike, it's just a question of what form they will take. If we can't work out a healthy solution, then the next phase will be one of lingering regret and bitterness, and put-upon younger people cursing the arrogant "do nothing" bluster of an older generation who when push came to shove.....Came up short.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

Seeing is believing. That's how he wants the world to see him.

216,

The DSA giving someone like Sanders the nomination contingent upon, as he and the others have been well trained, their unadulterated championing of open borders and non-white diversity would be the nightmare scenario. It bring the boomercons out in force in opposition, and the right would tilt back away from its nascent Trumpism. The National Question gets buried in that situation while the demographics continue to steadily get worse.

streamfortyseven,

Has that faced constitutional challenges? It's not ringing a bell, though I assume I'd have come across it at some point if it were still legally in effect.

chanchanright,

It's why the uberwealthy whose wealth is not dependent on the state is the our best chance. Crassus couldn't be bought and sold.

Yes, Trump spread money around to get favorable tax abatements and the like, but someone like him looks at the money-grubbing politicians as annoying cost of doing business, not as something he wanted to become.

Feryl,

Kevin Sorbo in Hercules is when I first remember thinking long hair was cool as a kid. And whaddya know--he didn't sport any facial hair. (I didn't watch Conan until I was in my twenties, even though Sorbo's an obvious ripoff of that stock character type).

Sheila4g said...

In general, posts about the whole immigration issue either enrage me or leave me profoundly depressed - or both. Given the number of Chinese, Indians, Squatemalans and other squatmonsters here, this is all rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. We could stop all immigration - illegal and putatively legal- tomorrow, and yet barring massive deportation, death, or war, White people of European ancestry in America will still be a minority in 25 years at the outside.

As far as the crying brown children - I am utterly unmoved. As a foreign service officer, I did my time in visa hell in Jamaica, and I watched women abandon newborns and crying toddlers without a backwards glance when told their permanent visa "sponsor" (usually the purported husband)did not have a sufficient income to sponsor the entire family based on that year's poverty guidelines. Of course, most of the time any income claimed was spurious, and despite the family relationship, the resident American sponsors (particularly when adult siblings) never had either the intention or the ability to ensure the potential immigrant did not become a public charge.

It really shouldn't need to be said, but they are NOT LIKE US. White people project their own emotions or motivations or reasoning on the various alien semi-sentient subspecies, and it's akin to anthropomorphizing rocks. And no, I am neither exaggerating nor being facetious. Like most Negroes in America, the vast majority of these people do not have higher brain functions. They don't read, or cogitate on the meaning of life or collect stamps, or consider the cosmos, or participate in theological debates. All stimuli must be external in lieu of the life of the mind - sex, violence, food, pain.

The public ignorance and media lies, combined with empty-headed women emoting, pretty much ensure that our future will, at best, be Brazil in the short term. People get the government they deserve: Democracy, the god that never was.

Sorry for the black pill, particularly in light of your daughter's birth (belated congratulations), but I've read all I can stomach about how to "solve" the immigration issue. It's far too late for voting or legislating our way out of a very questionable future.

ChanChanRight said...

AE wrote:
"It's why the uberwealthy whose wealth is not dependent on the state is the our best chance. Crassus couldn't be bought and sold."

I agree...that is one possible avenue to real change...but congress is not going to follow the populist plutocrats...they are still trying to get rich...and that magic piece of paper called the constitution is what allows these congressmen/senators to sell us out and stop populism...

a populist plutocrat is nice, but not enough...first, whites are going to have to see that there is no political solution...and then they have to realize that it is Big Business that is really the enemy...and that the economy and asset prices is mostly what Big Business values....then they can start to figure how to hurt big business enough to make them let us go

Feryl said...

In the 70's and 80's, the "barbarian" aesthetic that took off (as part of the Boomer motivated "back to the Earth"/pagan revival culture) had an odd mix of of different values; for one thing, it clearly was promoting excessive behavior and individualism, yet on the other hand we hadn't totally ripped ourselves away from the communal spirit of the 1940's-early 60's. So that's why Frank Frazetta's iconic Conan paintings from the 70's depict a long-haired warrior....Who's clean-shaven. It wasn't until the 1990's that large numbers of highly visible men began to sport beards, goatees, mutton chops, or variations thereof. And by "highly visible", I'm including lead singers of rock groups, actors, and politicians. Clean shaven faces "level" the playing field and reinforce a basic standard of discipline and camaraderie (which is why the police and military strongly discourage facial hair aside from the occasional mustache). Whereas extensive facial hair is clearly intended to intimidate actual or possible rivals ("this is my turf, stay off it"). In addition, whereas most people from circa 1900-1980 (as usual, peaking from the 40's-early 60's) put obvious effort into their clothes (even the proles), as the 80's went on and became the 90's eventually, proles started to dress like complete buffoons. Looking back on the 90's, esp. the later 90's, everyday people just looked terrible. The clothes are poorly fitted, wrinkled, and often you don't see any real sense that people actually wanted to dress "up" so as to make society feel better. The period of circa 1900-1965 that conservatives idealize in many ways (which incidentally was one in which men had really short hair, but that's not really a sign of wholesome values) also had a strong streak of economic Leftism that Boomercucks don't want anything to do with. Well, you can't have it both ways. You can't have a pleasing and restrained culture while promoting social Darwinism, you blowhards. The previous time we had this kind of elite favored Darwinism before the 1990's was the mid-late 19th century, and gee whiz, that also was a time when men had a thuggish tribal cheiftan aesthetic with elaborate facial hair favored.

"The DSA giving someone like Sanders the nomination contingent upon, as he and the others have been well trained, their unadulterated championing of open borders and non-white diversity would be the nightmare scenario. It bring the boomercons out in force in opposition, and the right would tilt back away from its nascent Trumpism. The National Question gets buried in that situation while the demographics continue to steadily get worse."

A bout between a cucked Sanders and Trump would probably fray everyone's nerves even more than what we've had. Older generations would detest an expanded panoply of econ. Leftist measures (we've seen time and time again that Boomers just don't care about the hand they've dealt younger generations, which is proven by how often Boomers whine about how tough they themselves have had it) would be offered by Sanders, who could persuade the Dem elite to appeal to Millennial distaste for social Darwinism. Meanwhile, all factions of the Right would find something to be offended over (the cultural Right not liking CultMarxism, atheism, and urban SWPL values, while the econ. Right would be pissed for obvious reasons). On the Left side, they would be made more apoplectic over the idea of enduring another term of orange Hitler.

Feryl said...

"Do you realize that as long as these politicians toe the big-business line on immigration that they will step into lucrative business positions once tossed out by the voters? And that if they do not toe the line on immigration they will NOT get rich once tossed out?"

Well, it seems as if this kind of blatant corruption really only appeared in earnest in the mid-90's, which I'm sure you'd have never imagined happens to be when the earliest Boomers were entering their 50's and well on their way to re-shaping norms so as to ensure that most people never feel guilt, shame, remorse, or embarrassment at raking in the dough BAMN. And if you didn't approve of this culture, then tough shit, you're a loser who didn't play the game the right way. Didn't play to win it, ya know? STFU and work harder.

This culture has solidified over the last 30+ years, and it's basically a fact of life that people habitually judge each other on superficial measures of status, rather than questioning what wealthy people did to earn their wealth, and being empathetic to lower class people instead of dismissing them as untermensch. We have to start getting tough with elites, exact retribution for the wrongs they did to most of society.

A sign of psychopathy is glib defensiveness about ethical lapses, and of course this classic Boomer trait has been ingrained in the culture for 30 years if not longer. Some Boomers may harshly judge other Boomers for various reasons, but ultimately individual Boomers are capable of defending every last terrible choice that they made with their own life. You can't really hope to reform or change a a generation that places (material) success above all other considerations. They don't believe in restraint, boundaries, or deferred gratification. That's why they get off on sportsball, they like the thrill of cutthroat competition with a clear winner who can celebrate after a game, and they blast Millennial athletes who are just their to collect a paycheck and hang out, and don't act as if a every sporting event means THAT much to even themselves let alone the masses of zealous (and usually aging) fans who live vicariously through athletes. We also saw how Boomers popularized boxing, football, and thuggish versions of ice hockey in the 1970's, which attracted raucous and drunk young crowds.....Who, funny, got older with each passing decade yet their zeal only mellowed to some degree. Fighting in ice hockey peaked around 1984, then stayed high until the late 2000's, when the league cracked down on fighting to protect Millennials (and later Gen X-ers had their own doubts about being thugs). Fighting and cheap shots in the NBA rose heavily in the 80's and continue to be a problem in the 90's, but then the league cleaned things up for the same reasons that the NHL did.

Feryl said...

Addendum: the NHL has only done moderate clean-up of rule enforcement and penalties for cheap shots. Fighting is still allowed as much as it was in the past. The primary thing that's changed is the character of the players. Players born in the 70's and esp. 80's and 90's don't have the same capacity for anti-social thuggery that players born in the 50's and 60's had. Most younger people would be shocked at just how nasty the NHL (and even the NBA) was in the 80's and 90's. Most of the all time leaders in NHL penalty minutes were born in the 60's, which says a lot about how norms among young adults disintegrated in the 80's and 90's (it's one thing for hippies and bikers to ignore social norms and rules, it's quite another for elites such as pro athletes to openly flout ethical standards and civility)

silly girl said...

Out of curiosity, I read the #pitbulldropoff thread. Wow.

As for pit bulls, they are popular for hunting feral hogs. Feral hogs are extremely dangerous. Here in Texas, the state dog is the Blue Lacy, which was bred to track feral hogs and make a baying sound when they find them. Once found, the pit bulls bring down the hog. I am not making this up. Two or three pit bulls can bring down one of those extremely aggresive and dangerous beasts which is saying something. The hunter eventually goes in and either, well, hog ties the hog and loads him up, or shoots it. So, pit bulls are good for something, but they live in kennels till it is time to go to work. The blue lacy can come in the house and play with the kids, but not the pit bull. The owners see dailly what those attack dogs do so eagerly.

I am a dog lover, vizslas not pit bulls, but if someone is going to give up their dog, then the dog isn't theirs anymore, just like anything given away. So, while I might work really hard to give my dog to a good friend that I knew would love him, people just giving pit bulls away to strangers can't really know what is going to happen to the dog. Duh. They are giving them away because they don't want them, not because they love them but have some extreme hardship and have to find another owner for their best friend.

Audacious Epigone said...

Sheila4g,

Thanks for the thoughtful commentary. I don't have anything of value to add, but want to acknowledge the personal resonance.

ChanChanRight,

Points well taken. The hope may be naive--we'll get a better sense in 2020--but hope is that some ambitious aspiring politicians are seeing a path to electoral success without a lot of financial backing, even if they're not already rich. Julius Caesar did it for the power and the fame, not the money--that only accrued later!

silly girl,

Are there youtube videos of that? Do I want to look?

Corvinus said...

Trump cucked on the matter. Period. There wasn't any "boxing in of anti-whites", the majority of immigrants have always been like with "higher brain functions", and America is observably not on the path of Brazil.

Feel free to continue to virtue signal.