Wednesday, July 18, 2018

Kobach in Koch country

Don Junior is a simulacrum of candidate Donald Trump. He frames everything in the context of whether it is America First or Not. Asked why he stays involved in politics now that the campaign is over, he answered that it was for the "good of our children and our children's children". Ourselves and our posterity, implicitly.

He attributes the weeks he spent as a kid each summer in communist Czechoslovakia for his inculcation against leftism. History has a sense of humor.

Junior can't be canned. We're fortunate he has dad's ear. No matter what happens, Trump will never
be fully isolated by his counselors.

The funniest moment of the night was when Junior was describing how he'd bought the media narrative about Trump supporters all being angry old white men. So when he was in the airport and a, uh, an, um, uh, it was, when a woman, uh, with dreadlocks--(yes, that will do!)--when a woman with dreadlocks saw him and said "I need to talk to you", he was expecting the third degree but instead she allegedly thanked him.

Junior hasn't been a shitlord for that long. Give him time, he'll figure it out!

Kris Kobach was fantastic. He effortlessly used the phrase "illegal aliens" instead of "illegal immigrants". It's not accidental:

Underscoring the intentionality is the fact that he regularly uses the phrase "illegal immigration", too. Consistently keeping "illegal aliens" and "illegal immigration" distinct while speaking extemporaneously is no mean feat.

What other options are there? "Illegal alienization"? "Illegal invasion" (or merely "invasion") is probably a bridge too far for now. Kobach is too seasoned and shrewd an operator to fall into anything like a Paul Nehlen or Patrick Little trap. But Kobach never concedes ground or qualifies. He's unapologetic without being self-defeating.

Junior's cringeworthy Hispanics-are-natural-conservatives bromide was, to people who pay attention to these things, in stark contrast to Kobach's observation that "blue-collar workers are natural Republicans, they just don't all know it yet." Kobach also said that the blue wall Trump broke by flipping voters in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania is "the future of the Republican party".

Kobach understands the Sailer Strategy. He probably reads Steve. If he doesn't now, he did in the past. My first encounter with Kobach was back in 2006 (or maybe 2007), when a local political club headed by Jack Cashill hosted a debate between Kobach and Richard Nadler on the invasion, Kobach in opposition and Nadler in favor. Nadler mentioned Steve multiple times. Kobach countered by redirecting to the arguments rather than the obvious guilt-by-intellectual-association angle Nadler was trying to work.

Here's a white pill to close out. A week ago, PredictIt had the primary in a virtual dead heat, Kobach 51%, Colyer 49%. After dominating the debate last week and selling out this fundraiser several days before the event date, Kobach has gained some ground and is now up 58%-42%. Trading is light as a feather, but a market signal is still a market signal.

For the sliver of readers who are registered Republicans in Kansas, it is emphatically not permission for complacency of any kind. No matter how wide the margin of victory, we'd trade it all for a little more.


216 said...

I recall that Jr actually retweeted Kevin MacDonald during the campaign, probably not knowing who he actually was, I think Ann Coulter retweets Macdonald occasionally which is probably where he found it.

That said I don't like Jr as a person. He's even worse than Romney's sons. Our society has lost the value of the aristocracy's sons serving as military officers. Too much cringing behavior is the result.

IHTG said...

Junior's cringeworthy Hispanics-are-natural-conservatives bromide

Well, he is schtupping Kimberly Guilfoyle.

Sid said...

I like Jr quite a bit. He's one tough shitposter on Twitter: just as combative as his father, but closer to the alt-right in his connections and retweets, and yet still more polished.

I will cringe as much as the next guy when it comes to the "Hispanics are natural conservatives" comment, but I understand it's necessary in politics to make comments like that to confuse your enemies. A wayward comment in an otherwise commendable career is forgivable.

Kobach is the real deal, and he needs to become Governor.

My forecast for the future is that Trump will win 2020, but 2024 will go to a Democrat. In US politics, there's a natural pendulum of a Republican for two terms, a Democrat got two. Reagan disrupted that equilibrium, but it's otherwise held that way since Truman's presidency.

But if Kobach runs in 2024 and wins the damn thing, then that could very well be seen as the MAGA agenda's victory over open borders and globalism.

Joe Suber said...

Hmm, I wish we could bus in some extra people to lock in this primary for Kobach.

Whoah! What an undemocratic thought! Logically I must then wonder if my pro-invader, GOPe opponent has any such wishes or plans or capability?

This is the stuff of conspiracy theory, but I'm not the only one conspiracy minded these days.

The national people are paying attention. This Kansas race is a fight over the national direction of the party. Kobach is a silver bullet we can aim at the GOP cuck establishment.

This race is a great place to put some dissident-right dollars.

Audacious Epigone said...


How much of that is his fault, though?

I want to provide the sort of "privilege" Trump has provided for Junior and I intend on my children being as loyal and supportive of me as Junior is of his dad. I don't have any animosity towards him.


Touche. He doesn't have anywhere near the presence that Trump does. His voice is more alpha than dad's is, but that's about it.


We've talked about it here, how Trump is a transitional figure who has created a template for more skilled pols to make use of in the future. Kobach is just such a pol. To keep it referential for a national (international!) audience, Kobach is what you get when you blend Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, and he takes the best of both.

He doesn't look or sound like a weasel, but he knows his stuff with a precision of detail that at least matches Cruz. Kobach is definitely a high IQ guy--born in the midwest, he went to Harvard, Oxford, and Yale for his undergrad, PhD, and JD, respectively.


Touche. Will share that on social media, too. Forgot to do so in this post. Funny--though not surprising--that the "American Civil Liberties Union" has an "immigrants rights division" devoted to protecting illegal aliens. What does it mean to be an American, exactly, ACLU?

Feryl said...


"James Q. Whitman said that in its day-to-day operations the NRA only had limited resemblance to fascist corporatism. American corporatism was of an indigenous nature that traced back to nineteenth century German theorists of corporatism. It was also built on the United States' World War I experience, which used corporatism to manage the economy. European corporatism was an ideology of political economy, built on conflicts between labor and capital. It appealed to "thuggish anti-parliamentarians who were the fascists". The United States' corporatism was only an economic ideology as Americans viewed Congress as a "place full of incompetents, not rogues". Whitman said that there were two main differences between the NRA's corporatism and European fascism. One was that in the United States class warfare never reached the level of intensity that it did in Europe. The other reason was that unlike Italy and Germany, the United States had a long tradition of representative government."

In other words, America's still quite agrarian character, it's lack of development, allowed for a much more classless society. It was (relatively) easy for (white men, who then made up, what, 40-45% of the population in the Northeast, Midwest, and West?) to own property and have peace and quiet. Ben Franklin himself said that American's were freer and happier than Europeans, because America had much lower population density and outside of the lowland South resource lords mostly did not monopolize large tracts of land in order to create a feudal society that proles would resent.

America's current malaise can be attributed in large part to the Boom generation's sheer size, and the fact that both during their childhood and in subsequent stages America has been heavily developed. According to guys like Steve Sailer, it was around the late 1970's that traffic really became a horrible problem in the Los Angeles area. The builders of the interstates in the 1940's and 50's envisioned expanding roads to accomodate presumed growth, but the rise of NIMBYism in the late 60's made that expansion much more difficult. And on the West coast, which is full of tough terrain and the epicenter of the eco movement, it became hardest of all to build more roads. For that matter, even building public transit has been a nightmare in LA, as elites are overwhelmingly opposed to epxanded passenger rail systems, often on the grounds that it will be too expensive and too disruptive (in reality, Angelenos hate the idea of making affluent neighborhoods more accessible to proles).

Of course, the explosive growth after WW2 has hit California the hardest. As more of America resembles California in terms of pushing AFF out of reach, so too will more and more of America be faced with the problems that Europeans have had to deal with for centuries.

Feryl said...

It should also be noted that post-WW2 development has heavily favored large lot single family homes in the suburbs, large parking lots, and so forth. Car-oriented development eats up tons of land. In the Western US land use and transit officials have found that it ain't easy "retrofitting" post-WW2 development (which is largely the only kind of development in much of the Western US), because Americans by and large want car-oriented development (which is inefficient in terms of creating traffic problems and gobbling up tons of land for bare asphalt) due to cheap gas and the joys of car commuting and suburban living. The Midwest is probably the single dumbest region, for having nuked many old school urban areas in the 1940's-60's because blacks had rotted them out. A lot of terrific old school neighborhoods and business districts (when they were inhabited by whites) in places like St. Louis and Minneapolis were blown up and eventually replaced with parking lots, super tall modern buildings, large blocks of modern apartments (which often served to isolate the poor and black inhabitants from the outside world) and wide roads. Interestingly, the Northeast tended to be better at preserving pre-WW2 development, perhaps because Italians, Jews, and Irish-Catholics wanted to preserve the neighborhoods that their ancestors inhabited during the Ellis Island days.

The point of this topic is that America's pop. growth and suburban/car mania have eaten up tons of land (with the remaining land liable to be defended by Leftist eco warriors), and moreover, due to modern economic and financial practices (low paying jobs, resource lords now owning a lot property, high debt levels, etc.) lots of young people can't easily afford cars and home ownership anymore. That's why people born after 1972 are much less likely to be married or have kids. America is fast developing a problem of under employed, under paid, and restless young people.

Is the GOP happy that they de-regulated everything, immigration levels included? Silents and Boomers got the American dream by leaving a nightmare for later generations.

Andrew Smith said...

Since you brought up old Simpsons, I will as well.

I like Kobach’s chance just so long as he doesn’t start calling his campaign “Kris Kobach for Kansas” similar to “Krusty Komedy Klassic”. A poorly designed sign with that name could end his run for governor quickly in this social media age.

216 said...


Compare Jr to Ivanka. While she's a liberal feminist Jew, she's also an avatar of a religiously observant "tradwife" that appears faithful to her beta male husband and boorish father. She doesn't cause as much embarrassment as Jr does, especially considering his taking that meeting with the Russian lawyers. I see Jr as an overgrown fratboy. There's a reason he's barnstorming in flyover country instead of challenging Andrew Cuomo for NY Governor. Trump could do the greatest service to wresting elite culture in a positive direction if he encourages his youngest son Barron to become an officer when he's of age.

Feryl said...

"My forecast for the future is that Trump will win 2020, but 2024 will go to a Democrat. In US politics, there's a natural pendulum of a Republican for two terms, a Democrat got two. Reagan disrupted that equilibrium, but it's otherwise held that way since Truman's presidency."

I don't think anyone knows what will happen. We can't, because we are in a crisis era where eruptions of political, racial, and class conflicts are always a threat to happen.

If (and I do think there's a high chance of it happening) the Dems run either an ethnic champion or rabble rousing populist (not a DLC pussy), we could see more serious attempts at secession, or greater signs of a civil war type atmosphere (bloody clashes between non-Reaganite Republicans, who actually want to fight to restore cultural and ethnic tradition, and Bernie bros).

I read on this blog,, that Americans were at each other's throats in the 1930's. Not until the rising threat of fascism was clear (Pearl Harbor, the Bataan death march) did Americans regroup and decide to band together again. The blogger makes it clear that neither he nor anyone else can predict which event will be the one that's a catalyst for a rebirth. The blogger also says that the GI and Silent generation believed in national heroism against a consensus enemy, which was a sentiment forged in WW2. As he points out, Boomers and post-Boomers have no memory of banding together to defeat a threatening enemy (the Soviets exhausted themselves in the 70's and 80's; we didn't really "beat" them via active nation-wide effort), which ruins any sense of collective national pride and identity.

Feryl said...

WRT Bataan:

"General George Marshall made the following statement:

These brutal reprisals upon helpless victims evidence the shallow advance from savagery which the Japanese people have made. [...] We serve notice upon the Japanese military and political leaders as well as the Japanese people that the future of the Japanese race itself, depends entirely and irrevocably upon their capacity to progress beyond their aboriginal barbaric instincts.[34] "

The Bataan death march is a largely glossed over event in subsequent coverage of WW2. Western neuroses over WW2 are almost entirely focused on America, Britian, Spain, Italy, and Scandinavia all being culturally similar to Nazi Germany before and even during the 1940's, as Marshall's threat to wipe out an entire "race" (!) makes clear. But since Japanese aren't white, they therefore are deemed to be of greater sympathy than Western Europeans. Just forget the fact that the Japanese perpetrated such a mass atrocity against the moral high ground occupying Americans that it sparked talk of genocide that pre-1946 Americans did not dismiss as mindless bigotry and hate. Further, the presence of Filipino victims along with white Americans muddies the PC ethnic angles even more, and also prompts something liberals would be uncomfortable with: The Japanese were demonstrating extreme hatred in large part because a historical neighbor and rival of theirs was present (the Filipinos). This calls into question the conventional liberal wisdom that proximity conditions better relations between ethnic groups, barring the presence of white xenophobes who won't get with the program. In practice, the Japanese had had thousands of years to develop animosity towards Filipinos, whereas they'd only dealt with Americans very recently. On a similar level, The Red Army was terribly vindictive towards the Germans in the European theater, for reasons too obvious to explain (hint: one group was generally more Slavic than the other).

What's truly mindboggling about modern coverage of WW2 is the degree to which Soviet and Japanese atrocities are elided. Since one group was ostensibly progressive, and the other group non-white, we get *crickets*. Interest remains almost entirely focused on the efforts of the (legit) good guys of the Anglosphere vs. the dastardly Nazis.

216 said...


I understand your animosity to the Pentagon now, before I saw this data I did not understand the level of the problem.

The Northeast for logistical reasons never saw the same level of the Great Migration that was received into the Midwest. They were built out by the time of WW2, and ill suited for large scale heavy industry like steel mills and auto plants. The big industries were shipbuilding and textiles. The urban Midwest is also far less rooted than the urban Northeast, JFK's family had been politically influential for least two generations prior.

I have heard, possibly from you, that it is estimated that one-third of Millenials will never marry. Debt is a root cause. Women go to college in higher rates, and consequently have more debt. This debt reduces their marriage prospects, while they prefer to not marry down the credentialism strata to even prosperous blue-collar men. This generation also had many who grew up with divorced parents. The banks will not approve a mortgage to people who already shoulder a significant debt burden.

One of the major benefits of immigration restriction would be the resultant higher wages that would enable much of this debt to be paid off. I suspect employers will offer loan repayment as benefits long before announcing real-terms raises for all.

With the legacy of Boomer divorces, I don't see the Millenial/Zed women being driven towards a "tradwife" lifestyle, open practice of polygamy is a likelier trend. Absent the repeal of anti-discrimination laws, and structural changes away from FIRE, the marriage market value of huwhite betas will continue its decline. WMHF will noticeably increase, Jeb is still married all these years later.

216 said...


There has been a political need to rehabilitate Japan for commercial/military alliance purposes. Liberals also want to wash their hands of FDR's belligerence and treat WW2 Japan in a historiographic manner similar to the Vietnam War. The works of John Dower are good examples.

Japanese propoganda had promoted the ideal of Pan-Asianism, as Pan-X movements were very popular before the World Wars. The Japanese didn't anticipate being rejected as greedy pagans by Christians/Muslims they were supposedly liberating. The average Japanese was and is still quite isolated from other civilizations.

The internment camps are also rolled out as a monument of shame for whites, to a far greater degree than the Japanese atrocities against POWs. The blame is always cast on ordinary whites (whipped into a state of hysteria) rather than rival bureaucrats jealous of J. Edgar Hoover's detention of all the known subversives within two days of Pearl Harbor. This is quite a roadblock for us, as achieving self-determination will require the use of holding facilities for invaders being processed to their homelands. I suggest the use of the word "sequestration" or "shelters", the word "camps" always carries negative connotations.

Audacious Epigone said...


It's going to be done by the SJW faggots anyway, since he's going to be the governor of Kansas.

A couple of weeks ago I looked up his middle name. I was hoping it'd be "Eric" or "Ethan", but alas, it's William. Nothing to play with there.


They're serving their father in different ways. Junior is the only one who has any potential to be a force for our side though, that seems clear (excepting Barron, but that's decades from now... unless he were to flash an it's-okay-to-be-white "ok" sign!)

Running as a Dem to primary or running as a Republican and losing in New York--either way it'd be a bad look for Trump even if Junior was up to the task (which I agree he is not).


I bet a lot of SWPLs would do about as well placing the rape of Nanking as they are at placing Bruce Lee. The yellow people don't factor much into their worldview at all.

snorlax said...

AE -

snorlax said...

I'd guess most young people don't know what Pearl Harbor was, or at least can't accurately describe it.

Feryl said...

"I bet a lot of SWPLs would do about as well placing the rape of Nanking as they are at placing Bruce Lee. The yellow people don't factor much into their worldview at all."

They can't blame Asian savagery (or racism) on white colonialism in the region. Whites are always attacked from every possible angle, and the dysfunction of blacks, Arabs, and Mestizos is blamed on colonialism and the "soft bigotry of low expectations". Where does that leave Asians? In no man's land.

"Japanese propoganda had promoted the ideal of Pan-Asianism, as Pan-X movements were very popular before the World Wars. The Japanese didn't anticipate being rejected as greedy pagans by Christians/Muslims they were supposedly liberating. The average Japanese was and is still quite isolated from other civilizations."

Prior to 1946, nations and ethnic groups, on average, did not take kindly to large numbers of aliens being their midst. Religious mores made little difference (did the Cross Crusaders take too much mercy on the Saracens?). It does sound as if the Missionary generation (the pre-cursor to the Boomers) may have had certain elites who talked themselves into believing that it was a noble and worthwhile cause to travel the globe and cross-pollinate different cultures. The Lost generation in the 1930's tossed all that idealism in the garbage, as they made up the 40 and 50ty-somethings who enthusiastically pitted different races, nations, and classes against each other (and indeed, it was Losts, none more so than Adolf Hitler, who relished in the bloodshed of the 1920's-1940's; Missionaires made up a decent chunk of the era's commanders, but it was Losts who were most responsible for the implementation of the most savage moments of this era. Likewise, these days Gen X-ers in their late 30's-50's are now gaining greater authority and influence, but are showing little interest in reining in the ambitions of the Boomers. Indeed, the life-long fascination with morbid and occult subject matter among Gen X-ers has prepared them to wield the blade, pull the trigger, and drop bombs (Boomers proved to be poor fits for the police and military, whereas these institutions have been strenghtened under the tutelage of Gen X-ers who are respected by budding Millennial soldiers, much like how grizzled Losts became almost mythic figures of swift and tough action to young GIs in the 1930's and 40's).

According to that Generation blog, the 1920's and early 1930's saw a swift rise in LEFT-WING violence. Evidently the Missionary and Boomer generations often detest collective violence, and preferred to do things on their own. But as Losts (or X-ers) mature, the culture overall starts to lose it's distaste for collectivism. Since the Left is inherently more collectivist, the cultural shift expresses itself first and most heavily on the Left. Eventually (as we see in the late 30's), the Right catches up because it realizes it can't win a fight if no one bands together.

IHTG said...


Sid said...


According to wiki, Kobach adopted his nativist positions while studying under Samuel Huntington.

White Midwest boys have a hard, hard time of getting into Harvard. The school lets in a certain amount of exceptionally intelligent people to keep its reputation up while letting in the legacy and AA kids. In short, the Kobachs of Harvard are meant to counterbalance the Jared Kushners.

One of the realities of the Trump presidency is how he's a neophyte on immigration restriction, so he often makes weak moves, offers unnecessary concessions, and often contradicts himself on previous hardline stances. There would be no such issue with Kobach.


I'm not arrogant enough to claim my forecasts have an absolute certainty of coming to pass. I'm a big fan of the words "probably" and "might."

2020 will be a tough race, but I think Trump will prevail for a number of reasons, chief of which is that Trump won in 2016 in spite of all the claims he'd be a disastrous president. He really hasn't been.

Some alt-righters have been disappointed by his lack of progress on immigration, but most everyone else has been pleasantly surprised with Trump. Most Republicans are enthusiastic about him, especially those who went in with doubts. Independents can't help but wonder if he's really as bad as everyone said he'd be.

A year ago, my leftist friends were taking me to task about North Korea and were freaking out about the prospect of a nuclear war. Now the debate on North Korea is whether recent talks will lead to substantial material changes, or just a pleasant detente.

Hillary won Minnesota by fewer votes than the number of people who voted for Egg McMuffin. There was a lot of uncertainty and hesitation about Trump, and this time Trump will be a known quantity. What he is showing himself to be is far less worrisome for the normie voter than they imagined he'd be in 2016.

Granted, it's far from inevitable Trump will win. Kamala Harris opening the dams and ruining the USA in 2021 is a grim prospect we need to take seriously, but I'm cautiously optimistic Trump will win in 2020.

Now, 2024 is when I think the Democrats will make a comeback. There's nothing I'd like better than to be proven wrong and for a President Kobach to serve as the definitive MAGA victory. As AE would put it, for Trump's Caesar to be institutionalized with Kobach's Octavian.

Audacious Epigone said...


They can't blame Asian savagery (or racism) on white colonialism in the region.

There was the open door policy and it was only a generation out from commodore Perry, so they probably *could* try to blame it on whitey. The problem is that just makes things worse. Legacy of colonialism is why Sierra Leone is what it is today! Just like Hong Kong--oh crap, never mind! Yellows are inconvenient, really inconvenient--so they're ignored as much as possible.


Pink shirts and philanthropy? Convince me!


Re: Trump's 2020 chances it's worth noting that the markets give him a stronger chance of election in 2020 than they did at any point for 2016 save for the two hours before it was officially called (when people figured out Trump was going to win and the markets swung).

Audacious Epigone said...


216 said...


Gen Z Blackpill, watch the video

Anonymous said...

Sorry to OT (well, not much) but one of these days you should focus your laser eye on Arizona, which is a demographic disaster.

I came across a surprisingly honest article in some libbish outlet, unfortunately I forget exactly which one, about the demographic disaster in AZ. After California closed up the access points, everyone assumed that the invaders would not be able to enter AZ, because the land is so harsh. LOL.

The result is that Phoenix is an enormous ghetto except for the rich white eastern burbs. There isn't much to the rest of the state population-wise. It is only a matter of time before they come of age and this burst like a pus-filled boil.


216 said...


Cost of living in CA has been causing out-migration for some time, not surprising that the invaders have found cheaper housing built by their cousins. Remember that chain-migration hasn't been restricted, indeed the only workable function we've found that decreases immigration is wrecking the economy.

It's Belarus or Bust.

Dekker said...

Yellows are inconvenient, really inconvenient--so they're ignored as much as possible.

Also, yellows aren't massive cucks like whites (yet). Japanese and South Korean attitudes to immigrants are still very hostile, and their immigration policies are very strict, despite several attempts from globalist powers and elites.

Myanmar's Aung San Suu Kyi went from liberal idol and a champion of freedom to fascistic monster, in the eyes of the west at least, when she actually declined to open her country to muslim invaders.

East Asians, when they adopt the free market, thrive in their nations and abroad, and defend their own ethnic interests without a need for the White Man's Burden, so they're useless to the grievance-mongers (except as a useful prop for "the browning of America").

Random Dude on the Internet said...

Kobach is now almost at 80% per Predictit.

I do hope that Kobach runs for President in 2024. As of now, he is the best person to continue the MAGA agenda after 2024.

Feryl said...

"Sorry to OT (well, not much) but one of these days you should focus your laser eye on Arizona, which is a demographic disaster.

I came across a surprisingly honest article in some libbish outlet, unfortunately I forget exactly which one, about the demographic disaster in AZ. After California closed up the access points, everyone assumed that the invaders would not be able to enter AZ, because the land is so harsh. LOL.

The result is that Phoenix is an enormous ghetto except for the rich white eastern burbs. There isn't much to the rest of the state population-wise. It is only a matter of time before they come of age and this burst like a pus-filled boil."

It's the "rich" areas that cause the problem in the first place. Affluent people need (e.g. want) cheap and compliant lawn mowers, roofers, gardeners, nannies, etc. In an era where noblesse oblige does not exist, as long as the wealthy (and those who aspire to wealth) can live in relative comfort (not just good neighborhoods and jobs per se, but also not fearing attacks on their character and assets by a swell of Robin Hood sentiment), why should elites care that much about those beneath them?

Immigrants don't just show up arbitrarily. They count on being welcomed and hired by business owners and others who need labor. While in the cases of "refugees" it's clear that immigrants are heavily counting on Uncle Sam to be their sugar daddy, on the other hand for border jumpers many of them don't report their residency, income, etc. to the government for obvious reasons (e.g. fear of deportation). Which is exactly what employers want. They want to have labor who can be abused and underpaid with impunity because said labor will not report anything to the government.

In the case of CA, elite decadence is so out of control that many those who have neither the sociopathy nor the resources to take advantage of aliens are just up and leaving the state. As usual I'd like to point out that Hollywood is actually the last industry to blame for the state of CA. Film making is dominated by Anglos, most of whom were born in America. Script writing, casting, producing, acting, salary and residual negotiations, etc. has little use for ESL brown people. It is in fact agribusiness and "small business" owners who are to blame. As for show biz, Jay Leno could get away with making fun of CA's illegal alien population for years. Entertainment elites generally don't need cheap foreign labor for their industry to expand profit margins. Back in the populist 60's and early 70's, Cesar Chavez et al weren't attacking Hollywood (an industry opposed to censorship including PC, pro-union, attacked by McCarthyites in the 1950's for being too sympathetic to communist associated efforts to oppose war and strengthen labor); they were attacking business owners and shareholders in industries known for their exploitation of foreign labor, and no industry is more guilty of that then agribusiness in the Southwestern US. We shouldn't let the current CultMarx terror campaign overshadow the fact that into the early 90's, script writers could use "fag" and "homo" as an insult (I saw a SNL episode from around 1993 where Emilio Estevez who's playing a "cool" character puts down a different character by calling him a "homo"). And in 1993 Falling Down came out, a movie which did more to advance sympathy for the white middle class than anything done by a "conservative" outfit in the 1990's. And ya know, that movie was directed by a homosexual(!). Gay, but a white Anglo nonetheless. "Conservatives" in the 1990's were too busy complaining about White House blowjobs and cheering on corporate de-regulation to notice just how alienated many white Americans were starting to feel about the society around them.

Feryl said...

Of course at this point all industries in CA have been thoroughly corrupted, but the point is is that "heartland" America essentially did nothing to oppose the behavior of corrupt elites in the 1990's and 2000's. Ya'll remember how back then, "conservatives" said you were a whiner, a complainer, a loser, a "socialist" if they heard you complaining about how elites were taking advantage of the neo-liberal/Reaganite era in order to acquire assets at the expense of everyone else? As I've said before, a big part of Reaganite culture was the economic and demographic devastation of many areas while those who could do so accumulated enough resources to get the fuck out of a decaying area. In other words, during the surge of "conservatism" (mass incarceration, growing inequality, police militarization, etc.) that happened in the late 70's and beyond, people were encouraged to abandon "disadvantaged" areas and people while the privilege of elites grew. Dumbfuck Republicans claim that Democrats "ruined" CA; in reality the upswing in conservatism of the last 40 years has decimated many areas, and has destroyed not just the broad working class but also a great chunk of the middle class. When tradLeftist policies were in place from the 1930's-early 1970's, California was much whiter and had a stronger middle class. In the late 70's, "tough on crime" policies became mainstream, immigration levels surged, Jimmy Carter espoused his "Evangelical values" (whereas in the 1930's-early 70's candidates downplayed their religious ID to not come off as preachy), and the first earnest efforts to oppose "high" taxation and infrastructure spending begin to have mainstream appeal.

The shift to me-first ism was enabled with appeals to religious piety, law and order, a "work hard" mentality, and by abandoning idealistic social crusades and reforms in favor of that which is blatantly designed to benefit a handful of winners at the expense of everyone (whereas in the 1940's-1960's, every policy was intended to broadly benefit everyone, with the invariable effect of the highly rich few having to give a good chunk of their money to the mass lower class).

Feryl said...

Yellows are inconvenient, really inconvenient--so they're ignored as much as possible.

Asians are the polar opposites of blacks, in just about every way other than athletic ability (East Asians actually appear to be more athletic than the non-African ethnic groups found in Central America, Middle East and India). The CultMarx mainstream is obviously uncomfortable with the impression of contrast between Asians and blacks. Plus, the verbal elite finds Asians to be unsettling, and the verbal elite dominates the Anglosphere and really the West in general.

So yeah, just put Asians in the shadows.

Odder still is how extroverted and athletic whites are often contrasted with blacks. As a matter of fact, whites are much closer to blacks than are Asians. And on extroversion, whites align more with blacks than do Hispanics.

Mainstream culture doesn't want to read the memo, written ages ago but recently with some striking input from Rushton et al, about how whites in many ways are actually evenly between Sub-Saharan blacks and North Asians. HBD indicates that white Europeans, black Africans, and NE Asians are sort of the trinity of human diversity, with other ethnic groups being either too small in number or too racially mixed to be worthy of inclusion (for example, had whites and blacks not heavily interbred with New World natives, we might consider the New World natives to be more deserving of "unique" status).

Feryl said...

WRT soccer, a huge reason for it's popularity is that it gives ethnic groups which are small, slow, and weak a chance to compete for athletic glory. The emphasis on lots of fruitless running around means that many feats of athletic ability are not rewarded, and furthermore, the difficulty of handling a soccer ball means that an athlete's natural speed, agility, and strength can't be easily taken advantage of (by comparison, in football a ball carrier needs to just squeeze his hands around a ball which does little to impede powerful movement of a good athlete's legs). The lack of body contact, and the fact that the ball travels exclusively on and near the ground, mitigates the importance of size. Whereas virtually all other team sports, baseball, volleyball, basketball, hockey, etc., reward size because these sports emphasize involve power exerted against another person or handling a ball in mid-air with one's hands. Rebounding, hitting a baseball, spiking or deflecting a volleyball, checking a hockey player, catching a football, etc. all require strength and stature.

Feryl said...

As as sort of FU to poor athlete ethnic groups, soccer could legalize the use of one's hands to knock down/catch/pass mid-air balls. That and reducing the size of the field would immediately benefit taller and stronger athletes. It's worth noting that the small size of basketball and volleyball courts seem to be very beneficial to blacks who are tall and explosively powerful, on average. The natural size and strength of whites and blacks diminishes in importance in sports with large playing fields.

Soccer's absurdly large playing field, combined with not permitting the use of the hands, is very beneficial to small and weak athletes. "Bursts" of speed and agility are less likely to lead to scoring on large fields; moreover, the greater the guarding of the goal the less important bursts seem to be (in basketball and football there is no constant defender of the goal which permits explosive black athletes the ability to race to it and score. And as Steve Sailer would point out, blacks "improv" when running with footballs and basketballs around defenders in order to get to the goal; such improv wouldn't be as effective if a player was defending a small goal zone at all times to thwart would-be scorers).

216 said...


The dialogue by the Chinese here is almost 14 words level.

Such concern about the loss of one neighborhood in London, when the entire UK might easily be unrecognizable in 30 years.

Anonymous said...

The mind of the Euro-leftist distilled

Audacious Epigone said...


Pathetic, heh, and he wasn't even a thuggish dindu. Probably a faggot.


Yeah I've heard more and more about Arizona becoming an extension of California in a lot of ways. The son of a close family friend of my parents was recently killed in one of the many pedestrian fatalities. Not sure if this one is attributable to drunk illegals wandering around there. I'm working on figuring it out.


I regularly get the feeling that I'm fifty years in the Yellow Future, chuckling sorrowfully back on the time when Euros and Sun People were bickering before the West's collapse, China's embrace of genome technologies, and the start of the Chinese Century.

Random Dude,

The enthusiasm is all on his side. It feels a lot like the Republican presidential primaries of 2016 in that regard. Otoh, Kansas is a really cucked state.


That's another reason the term "conservative" may be unsalvageable. None of that is what Trump Republicanism--campaign Trump, iow--is about, but it's apparent that the critical mass of support we're going to need to retake the country is mostly going to come out of the contemporary right, not the left.

On the right it's the marionette pols and their corporate donors vs the oppositional grassroots. On the left, it's the marionette pols and their corporate downers vs the grassroots in a fight to see who can be the most slavishly and hysterically in favor of the invasion, no restrictions whatsoever.

It's why this KS governor primary is so important. Kobach calls himself a Trump Republican. He's not going to raise anywhere near the money cuck Colyer will, but he has a chance to show that it's not imperative he do so. We need lots of examples of the same across the country so that the 2016 presidential election isn't interpreted as a fluke, or a Crassus-rarity in that it can only be managed if the candidate is already independently filthy rich coming in.

Audacious Epigone said...


That shit is so blatant here in the midwest, probably where you are in Ohio, too--go to a Chinese buffet and the idea that even half of the staff is in the country legally is laughable.


Let's March for Science!

Random Dude on the Internet said...

> That's another reason the term "conservative" may be unsalvageable.

One of my favorite arguments against conservatives is to ask them what conservatism has actually conserved in the last 50 years. They lost with religion, race mixing, gay marriage, straight marriage, abortion, trans rights, gays and women in the military, schools, etc. the list goes on and on. There's nothing remotely worth defending in the term "conservative" because they have been unable to conserve anything.

It's always good to follow up that conservatism is just liberalism from 10 years ago. You see conservatives defend gay rights but think that tranny rights go too far. In 2028, they will pine for the good old days when liberalism was about transgender rights.

Nationalism side steps the kosher sandwich entirely.

Feryl said...

" As I wrote in my recent article, from the point of view of Generational Dynamics, the US and China are in a generational Crisis era, in a tit for tat escalation sequence that leads to a full-blown generational crisis war. It's clear from remarks by Trump, Hua and Kudlow that that's exactly where we're headed. Foreign Ministry of China and Axios

The Trump-Putin private meeting was almost certainly about China

Donald Trump and Russia's president Vladimir Putin had a private one on one meeting during their July 16 summit meeting in Helsinki. As usual, the mainstream media, who have absolutely no clue what's going on in the world, have been screaming hysterically, some suggesting that Trump should be tried and convicted of treason, and then executed. Others demanded that the American interpreter who sat in on the meeting should be subpoenaed and forced to testify, something that would trigger enormous international diplomatic issues.

Trump tweeted on Thursday that he would like to schedule a second meeting with Putin in the fall, this time in Washington. This drew further hysterical screaming, along with demands that no such meeting be permitted unless Trump fully describes what happened in the first meeting.

In his CNBC interview on Friday, Trump gave a brief description of his summit meeting with Putin:

"We had a tremendous discussion on many things -- terrorism, Syria, the Middle East overall, Iran, we talked about as an example nuclear proliferation -- to me there's nothing more important than that.

We had a tremendous meeting. I think it was a very good press conference, except for the fake news I think I did very well at the press conference."

As I wrote in my previous article, Trump is very well aware that we're headed for a world war against China. From the point of view of Generational Dynamics, this war cannot be prevented. Trump is taking whatever steps he can to prevent this war, and I'm not going to criticize Trump for taking steps to prevent a world war, even if the war cannot be prevented.

Vladimir Putin is also well aware that Russia is headed for a war with China. The Russian and Chinese people have hated each other for centuries, especially since Russia, after conquest by Genghis Khan, became a vassal state of the China and the Mongol Empire for centuries. ( "31-Mar-18 World View -- Russia's Far East, Siberia and Vladivostok under threat from China")

So today, both Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin are aware that their countries are going to be allies in world war launched by China.

When they had their private summit meeting on July 16, it's inconceivable that they didn't discuss this oncoming war, and how they would defend themselves and help defend each other.

That also explains why there's so much secrecy about the meeting. Any mention that Trump and Putin discussed plans for a world war launched by China would cause a massive international uproar. So the subject of the private meeting must be kept secret. But with so much at stake for the United States, Russia, and the rest of the world, it's inconceivable that they didn't discuss this subject when they had the chance. And it will be all to the good for them to have another meeting in the fall, for further discussions on this subject. The Hill"

Feryl said...

Despite the "Green Revolution," world population continues to grow faster than food production. This is one of the fundamental reasons why wars occur. (28-Jun-2004)
The "Green Revolution" that caused an explosion in food production in the 1960s in India and other third world countries was a "one-shot deal" that won't be repeated. It appears to have leveled off in 1997, when world population growth began exceeding food production again. This "Malthus Effect" results in extreme poverty and hunger in places that can't feed themselves.

I've been using the phrase "Malthus Effect" as a name to describe the phenomenon that the population grows faster than food production.

In a book called An Essay on the Principle of Population published in England in 1798, Thomas Roberts Malthus concluded that population grows faster than food production, and that therefore famines can't be avoided.

Some politicians make the claim that Malthus' predictions have proven untrue, a claim that I consider bizarre when you consider that you can pick any day of any year and there are 20-40 wars going on in the world.

My own rough estimate is that food production grows by 0.96% per year, while population growth exceeds 1.25% per year, and is 2-4% in some countries. (However, the United States population has been growing around 0.92% per year.)

[Correction: UN figures show that population growth has been 1.72% since 1950, not 1.25%.]

Undernourished people in world over time. Source: WSJ
Undernourished people in world over time. Source: WSJ

An article in Friday's Wall Street Journal (28-Jun) shows that what's happening is that food production grew faster than the population starting in the mid-1960s, but even so, the number of hungry or undernourished people has been increasing since 1997.

How do all these figures relate to each other?

The reason that food production grew so fast for 30 years is because of the "Green Revolution" that began in 1948 in Mexico and really exploded in India in the 1960s. It involved bringing new, hi tech agricultural techniques to underdeveloped countries, resulting in a big spurt in food production, much faster than the 0.96% that I estimated.

But that was a "one-shot deal." Once all the major farmlands of the world have been brought to the state of the art, then the 0.96% rate kicks in again.

The 0.96% figure is a rough estimate of mine. I wanted to get a kind of "steady state" figure for the rate of increase of food production that would be independent of things like the green revolution. So I went to the USDA statistical service and obtained the "bushels per acre of wheat" from 1866 to 2003. This figure grew from 12.1 to 44.2 during that period, which is an annual growth rate of 0.96% per year. The real figure is probably lower, since population growth reduces the amount of farmland available

Feryl said...

The "Feast or Famine" graphic above shows what happened. The Green Revolution reduced hunger around the world until 1997, but then the population started growing faster than food production again. Thus, the Malthus Effect is back with a vengeance.

What is the consequence of the Malthus Effect? Most people think that the principle result is famine, but that's wrong. Of course there are occasional famines, such as the mass genocide by famine currently taking place in the Darfur region of Sudan. It will probably cost millions of lives before the winter is over.

But the most important consequence of the Malthus Effect is war. Thanks to the Malthus Effect, food becomes continually more expensive which, in turns, drives larger and larger populations into poverty, and that forces populations into war to survive.

Poor neighborhood in Haiti
Poor neighborhood in Haiti

It's amazing how grotesque poverty can be, as the adjacent picture, taken recently in Haiti, shows. This kind of poverty is is caused by the Malthus Effect. As food becomes more expensive, people have no money to pay for other things, such as repairing their homes or even collecting the garbage from the street. Scenes like this occur around the developing world, and there are more of them each month, as the price of food continues to increase.

The "Feast or Famine" graphic above only goes through 2001, but it's fairly certain that the problem has gotten much worse in the last 12 months. The reason is that China has been buying up food at a much greater rate in the last year to feed its blistering economy. Have you noticed the increase in food prices at your local supermarket? A lot of that is because of China's substantially increased demand for food.

Africa and Asia have been hard-hit by the food price increases for another reason: AIDS. Fighting AIDS costs a great deal of money, and when you have to spend money on AIDS, then you have less money to spend on food, and if the price of food is going up, then you can't afford to buy much food at all.

As if that isn't enough bad news, there's more. When you're fighting AIDS, and you're an agricultural economy, then you also can't afford to buy seeds to plant for crops. So southern African countries like Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Swaziland, Zambia and Zimbabwe are being hit by famine. These countries used to be able to feed themselves and even export food, but now they're being hit by a perfect storm: money goes first for AIDS, then for food, and if there's any left it goes for seeds. Agricultural production is way down, and these countries are now starving.

Feryl said...

One of the craziest damned things is that everyone says that Malthus was wrong, even though you can pick any day in any year for the last century or more, and there will have been 20-40 wars going on at the time.

In 1798, Thomas Roberts Malthus, published his Essay on Population in London, where it was an instant best seller. He showed mathematically that the population grows faster than the food supply, and concluded that there would always be famines killing people.

Now, Malthus made some mistakes. His math wasn't quite right, but it's still true that the population grows faster than the food supply. But his biggest mistake was the conclusion that famines would be the main vehicle that brought the population down.

Nature provides one method -- sex -- to increase population, and three methods -- famine, disease and war -- to decrease population. There are occasional famines, and there were massive deaths from the Black Death (Bubonic Plague) in 1347 - 1350. But those are rare examples. War, especially genocidal crisis war, is the most common method.

Sex and crisis war are the Yin and Yang of "survival of the fittest." The most successful tribes, societies, nations, religious groups or ethnic groups are the ones that can spawn the greatest number of children while exterminating the greatest number of other tribes, societies, nations, religious groups and ethnic groups.
Population of China in millions of people<a href=
Population of China in millions of people

The adjoining graph of the population of China shows wild ups and downs. The straight line is the best fitting exponential growth trend curve (a straight line when graphed on a logarithmic scale). When the population goes up, we can assume that the Chinese were winning crisis wars against their neighbors, and perhaps enslaving them and taking their food. When the population does down, we can surmise that the Chinese lost a crisis war, or that there were civil wars where they killed each other off.

But why was Malthus wrong about famines and war? Let's now answer that question.

Feryl said...

Malthus' views are rejected by almost everyone because we haven't seen the massive famines that Malthus predicted. Pundits claim that Malthus' predictions have been invalidated by technology in the form of the "Green Revolution," that has produced enough food to keep up with population growth.

The Green Revolution began in 1944 when the Rockefeller Foundation founded an institute to improve the agricultural output of Mexican farms. This produced astounding results, so that Mexico went from having to import half its wheat to self-sufficiency by 1956, and by 1964, to exports of half a million tons of wheat. In the 1960s, the Green Revolution had similarly spectacular results, especially in India.

The problem with the Green Revolution is that it's a one-shot deal. You can move a given country's agriculture to the latest technology only once. After that, they'll have to invent new technologies to obtain further crop yields.

How fast do crop yields grow once a country has already been converted to the latest technology? To answer that question, I wanted to get a kind of "steady state" figure for the rate of increase of food production that would be independent of things like the green revolution. So I went to the USDA statistical service and obtained the "bushels per acre of wheat" from 1866 to 2003. This figure grew from 12.1 to 44.2 during that period, which is an annual growth rate of 0.96% per year. Thus, I've been using 0.96% as a kind of benchmark figure for the growth of food availability each year.

Next, I wanted to get an estimate of the world's annual population growth. To get this estimate, I went to the United Nations database of population information at", and got the following world population table:

Year Population
---- ----------
1950 2 518 629
1955 2 755 823
1960 3 021 475
1965 3 334 874
1970 3 692 492
1975 4 068 109
1980 4 434 682
1985 4 830 979
1990 5 263 593
1995 5 674 380
2000 6 070 581
2005 6 453 628

This represents an average annual growth rate of 1.72% per year.

In support of this figure, take a look at the CIA Fact Book which gives the population growth rate on a country by country basis.

Here are some rate of growth figures for some Western countries:

United States 0.92%
United Kingdom 0.3%
France 0.42%
Germany 0.04%
Israel 1.39%

These figures show that Western countries have a fairly low rate of population growth.

Now look at some Muslim countries:

Syria 2.45%
Saudi Arabia 3.27%
West Bank 3.3%
Gaza Strip 3.89%
Pakistan 2.01%

This shows that the population in Muslim countries has been growing several times faster than Western countries. If you want to understand why we're heading for a "clash of civilizations" world war, then forget all the nonsense about politicals and hurt feelings and saving face and just look at the population growth figures above. They tell the entire story.

Feryl said...

"Population versus food in China

The problem of food versus population is well shown by the experience of the People's Republic of China since it was formed in 1949.

During the 1950s, Mao Zedong's Communist collectivization program destroyed China's agricultural production, culminating in the Great Leap Forward of 1958-60, and a man-made famine that starved tens of millions of people. Building on that low base, and taking advantage of a Chinese "Green Revolution," China increased agricultural production steadily until the 1990s, despite a reduction in available farmland of 1/3 during that 40 year period, to erosion, construction of buildings and roads, and desertification. [[ ]]

Since 1998, grain production has fallen from 510 million tons to just over 400 million tons in 2004. This has required massive and increasing imports of grain into China.

The following table gives all the relevant figures, including the rates of growth for 11 years versus rate of growth for the last five years:

China: Production of Wheat and Coarse Grains, 1993-2005
Popu Land Produc Total Ending
lation Area Yield tion Imports Consumed Stocks
------ ---- ----- ------ ------ ------- ------
1993/94 56.0 4.0 223.6 5.6 214.0 149.5
1994/95 1.219 55.1 3.9 213.6 16.6 219.8 158.0
1995/96 56.2 4.0 226.7 15.5 221.9 177.6
1996/97 58.7 4.3 251.9 4.8 228.6 200.7
1997/98 58.1 4.1 238.0 3.5 230.6 204.2
1998/99 58.8 4.3 253.2 3.4 235.6 221.3
1999/00 1.275 58.4 4.3 251.1 3.4 238.1 227.1
2000/01 53.1 4.0 213.6 2.6 240.7 194.7
2001/02 52.1 4.1 216.1 3.1 241.6 162.1
2002/03 51.9 4.3 221.0 2.2 241.6 126.7
2003/04 49.3 4.3 211.1 5.3 244.6 88.1
2004/05 1.322 49.3 4.6 225.4 10.0 246.0 72.3
------ ---- ----- ------ ------ ------- ------
Rate 0.81% -1.1% 1.3% 0.073% 1.3% -6.4%
5 yr Rate 0.73% -3.3% 1.4% -2.136% 0.65% -20.5%

Population: Billions of people
Land Area: Millions of hectares of land (1 hectare = 2.47 acres)
Yield: Tons of grain per hectare
All other fields: Millions of tons of grain

File: hist_tbl.xls from:


Note the following points about the above table:

The yield has been increasing by 1.3%-1.4% per year. This is quite a bit faster than the 0.96% rate in America, because of China's "Green Revolution" in the last 40 years.
However, yield increases have been increasingly more than wiped out by land area decreases, at the rate of -3.3% per year since 2000. This reflects China's increasingly rapid industrialization, which has used up more and more farmland for buildings.
Food production has been falling dramatically, by -2.14% annually since 2000, which is when food production peaked.
Meanwhile, population growth has been slowing slightly, at 0.81% over the entire period, but just 0.73% per year over the last five years.
Putting these figures together tells us that the amount of food production per person has been decreasing by -2.9% per year. That means that each family has about 3% less food today than it did a year ago today.
To fill the gap, China has been drawing down its wheat stocks, at the alarming rate of -20.5% per year since 2000. Furthermore, imports have suddenly skyrocketed in the last year.

Feryl said...

These figures are important to all of us because food prices have increased 30% (thirty percent!!) worldwide in 2004.

This has had a tremendous impact on poor populations around the world, especially in Muslim countries. Why especially in Muslim countries? Because those are the countries where population has been growing the fastest, at 2-4% per year. These food price increases are hitting Muslim countries especially hard.

As for China itself, we can see it unraveling before our eyes. Day-to-day events, including regional rebellions, secessionist provinces, migrant workers, high food prices, high rust belt unemployment, addiction to a bubble economy, and unraveling of Mao's social structure, portray a country that's headed for a civil war. We can't predict exactly when this will occur, but the table shown above indicates a country that's unraveling faster and faster, so we expect a crisis civil war in China to begin sooner, rather than later."

Mr. Rational said...

Feryl, I don't know what you think you're doing but the "graphics" you're pointing me at don't display anything but what looks like caption text.  This is true even if I try loading the mobile version of the comments.

Feryl said...


China and the Islamic world are a major pain in the ass because their growth/development/resource consumption are at an irresponsible and unsustainable clip. Moreover, whereas excess in Africa can be localized to Africa, China and Arab Muslims are much better at organizing/infiltrating/blowing stuff up.

James Howard Kunstler said in the mid-2000's that Asian navies menacing the West Coast isn't as far fetched as you might think it is. A collapse of the post-WW2 capitalist order could easily (and in the opinion of Gen. Dynamics creator John Xenakis, it's inevitable) lead to another major world war, likely pitting China against "the West" (which might include Russia and the Visegrad countries). Japan, which has accepted the nuking it got from the US, and obviously bears a grudge against China dating back millennia, would be on the side of the West, although it's possible that in major shake up that China would flat out overwhelm Japan in an invasion. The growing irrelevance of the generations that remember the dropping of nukes could very well lead to major invasions/conquest of one powerful country against another, which obviously would bring us to a heightened chance of using nukes again.

It's quite possible that anti-Putin sentiment has been motivated by neo-liberal elites becoming concerned that Putin and the general Russian elite/taste makers have lost their investment in a world order that's created a gnarled co-depency between many countries: To wit:

1)Western Europe and Japan sponge off the US military, which bleeds US taxpayers who's own exports are heavily tariffed by most countries in the world. It's a double whammy; they get military welfare, we get the bill. They block imports of many goods, we don't do the same to them.

2)China relies extensively on Western IP and education, but doesn't pay it's dues fairly. China's political and economic elite have ruthlessly encouraged America to heavily indebt itself to China, which of course is not a fair trade at all; China is laughing it's way to the bank and rendering the US financially and politically vulnerable (many of our goods are now made in China, and China has gained much leverage over the US by becoming America's factory colony.....Which isn't even run by America! America relying on China for manufacturing is like Rome relying on mercenaries for military defense).

It's weird that Agnostic says that we shouldn't "blame" other countries for America's problems. I think that the preponderance of evidence is that the elites of both major and minor countries have allowed a seriously toxic mentality to emerge over the last 30 years, a mentality of elites piling up greater gains and resources while the masses are increasingly not looked after. It's fair to say that transnational elites have often co-operated with each other at the expense of commoners since the dissolution of regimes in major countries who still practiced "real" communism (in China, this would've been the late 1970's; in Russia, the late 1980's). Above all else, aggressive measures to limit population growth and resource consumption are needed, and if we don't do ourselves than nature will (in the form of war, disease, and famine). But the last 40 years have been an unabated orgy of consumer consumption. One definition of decadence is partying hard in the face of mounting evidence of trouble on the horizon. And that's exactly the mentality that most elites still subscribe to. Putin and Trump are taking baby steps to tamp down certain excesses (like Islamic terrorism and infiltration, or perverted gay rights promoters), while Duterte is probably the earliest adopter in this current era of full-blown measure to rein in decadence (rounding up and executing criminals, including drug dealers).

Feryl said...

"Feryl, I don't know what you think you're doing but the "graphics" you're pointing me at don't display anything but what looks like caption text. This is true even if I try loading the mobile version of the comments."

Sorry, I didn't edit them better. But nonetheless the general text ought to tell you enough. Besides, I also posted the web URLs of the original articles. The pictures and graphs are still at those links.

Feryl said...

"Random Dude,

The enthusiasm is all on his side. It feels a lot like the Republican presidential primaries of 2016 in that regard. Otoh, Kansas is a really cucked state."

Kansas is not the Rust-belt. The "true" Plains states (which is to say, not including the Great Lakes state of MN or it's ethnic cousin, Iowa) along with the inland West are for the most part lightly populated (compared to the Eastern US and the West Coast). And resource extraction/agribusiness are hugely important to these regions. This is the part of America which buys most into Norman Rockwell sentiment. Minorities and transplants in large metro areas generally are more skeptical (which is why Colorado is rapidly becoming a blue state), as is the New Right. If reforming the GOP for the greater good of us all means kicking the most annoying and greedy evangelicals, farmers, ranchers, and oil men off the bus than so be it (note that secular Trump did not alienate the non-Plains bible belt, who want actual results rather than mindless posturing. Also, mindless feel good-ism has always been much more common in the Plains and Western states than it is in points East. I'd put that down to highly rural states being of a more sanguine mindset. The venerable and larger "small towns", as well as the urban areas, of the Eastern and Great Lakes states tend to be better at dispelling the ascetic Man of the Praries or Man of the Mountain posturing you see Out West, where people "just want to be left alone" (lolbertarian extremism, not the gentle classical liberalism of the old-school Northeastern GOP). Trump's call to "bring America back" and "remember the forgotten American", w/o blatant pandering to fundies and ascetics, who are content to be on the anti-social margins.

Feryl said...

Actually, I realized that some of the Western mindset I described seems contradictory. But then it dawned on me: Westerners simultaneously "feel good" about "living off the land", and "not needing anyone". Yet they also are draconian in their moral judgements; people are constantly sized up as to their moral and life principles, and since no one can stand up to scrutiny, humanity is judged to be beyond redemption. In summary: hostility towards human character and endeavors becomes a means to celebrate a person's distance from, and elevation above, the ugly masses.

This is why Ted Cruz stole so many votes from Trump in the Plains and Western states (including MN and Iowa, although if Trump had a kinder personality I think he'd have done much better here in the primary; that being said Trump still almost won MN). Cruz's insufferable pious personality enables the Western mindset of simply hating the broad masses of people. Note too that these are "values" endemic to the Reaganite mindset, where one can congratulate others on high status and "hard work", and the "value" of never complaining, but as a whole there is nothing but contempt for wide numbers of people.

Feryl said...

Kobach is young enough to be disgusted by the haughty bullshit pushed by so many people born before 1970 (meanwhile, the lion's share of evidence indicates that it's actually people born from about 1930-1970 who are the real reprobates, even though these generations bought so much into the judgemental mindset). Later Gen X-ers and Millennials grew up knee deep in the stupid culture war (which repaired so little), and can't wait for the idiots who created it to either shut up or die off. On that note, I don't trust Gorsuch (b.1967) or especially Cavanaugh (b.early 1965) to be able to renounce the worthless Reaganite era in favor of a new era of social progress that emphasizes material well being ahead of moral judgement and mindless contempt.

Oh, and please stop with the notion that Texas is a "conservative" state. Nu-uh. It's a galloping libertarian state full of pompous dick wads. And at least the Northern Plains states are more Nordic/Lutheran, so people have a bit more of a sense of healthy modesty and dignity. What would Texans know about dignity?

Agnostic said that girls from the Northeast, the "real" South (e.g. not Texas), and the Midwest were less likely to report same sex experiences. The Southern Plains states and Western states are a different story. I tell ya, there's just something off kilter about people as you go further South and West in America.....

216 said...


Interesting that the "wine mom" phenomenon is moving down the generations, albeit with women who probably don't have kids at all. I don't see many reasons why taxing alcohol at EU rates is a bad idea, how much of a tax hike is really going to revive bootlegging?

It's things like this that lead me to appreciate single-payer. A host of sumptuary laws can be passed on the basis that the public is paying for your healthcare. Boomer conservatism did nothing to hem in obesity levels, far in excess of comparable EU countries. Farm subsidies privatize the profits, while Medicaid/Medicare socialize the losses.

Feryl said...

"From 1999 to 2016 in the U.S., annual deaths from cirrhosis increased by 65 percent, to 34,174, while annual deaths from hepatocellular carcinoma (liver cancer) doubled to 11,073,” they wrote in their report, published in the British Medical Journal."

1) That's not many people, even at this point

2) Getting stupidly drunk is a feature of cocooning and decadent eras. People weren't drinking themselves to death in the wholesome 1950's. People started to party more in the outgoing 1960's-1980's, but it tended to be more of a fun sort of thing. E.g., most people actually wanted to socialize with other people in a constructive way, rather than deliberately get so blitzed so fast that they'd not be able to see straight within a half an hour. Once cocooning set in the 90's (and we were in a decadent era too), that's when Gen X really started the inane BS about how awesome it was to go to college just to get blitzed every weekend (note also that when Boomers went to college in the 60's and 70's, they were a cognitively gifted bunch who knew better than to go too far; it's working class Boomers in the 70's and 80's who smoked and drank to excess back then and often in future decades. A lot of X-ers and Millennials who went to college after circa 1990 are literally stupid, so that goes a long way in explaining the culture of campus binge drinking).

It's true that in the 60's-80's, violence and sex was more common than it was in subsequent decades (exception: there was a lot of screwing and fighting in the early-mid 90's), but that can be put down to Boomers and early X-ers in their youth being explosively temperamental and confrontational. And perverted. Be that as it may, the chirrosis deaths back up the idea binge drinking was not as common among young Boomers and earlier X-ers, who actually wanted to have enough control of their faculties to enjoy being around other people. Even if they sometimes lost their temper and punched or shot or stabbed someone.

With later Gen X-ers and Millennials, they don't like confrontations and violence but they also have the misfortune of coming of age during a decadent cocooning phase (the 90's-2010's). So the inherent awkwardness of being around other people combined with the lack of vice control means that they resort to heavy drinking. And some of them do it way too often, hence the deaths. Once we enter another outgoing phase around 2020, youngsters won't turn as much to the bottle to overcome social inhibition. Back in the modest 1950's, shy people had enough respect for themselves and other people that they didn't get ragingly drunk to deal with their discomfort in social interactions.

3)There was a strong vice control movement from about 1982-1992, which was motivated by people in an outgoing climate looking out for each other (and the culture as a whole hadn't gone totally corrupt). There was a lot of fighting, rape, murder, robberies, etc. going on back then, but interestingly drinking and substance abuse declined from 1982-1992. That is probably due to middle class and clean cut people wanting to heavily distance themselves from the largely prole class of druggies and criminals. In the 80's and early 90's, it was not cool to be a druggie or criminal. A lot of the current idiocy about vice control can really be traced to the period of cocooning and falling crime that started in the mid-90's. Not to mention growing decadence. The retards who downplay the dangers of drugs and drinking since the mid 90's can only act that glib because cocooning and the rotten state of society mean that you shouldn't care about people throwing their lives away.

Audacious Epigone said...

Random Dude,

Yep. Ten years ago, Conservative Inc opposes same-sex marriage. Now it supports it. Same with drug legalization. In a decade (at the most), we'll be getting the conservative case for tranny kids.


I'm skeptical we'll come out the cocooning phase and into another outgoing one. I sense that we're on a death spiral towards more and more time spent staring into the gourd. I'm similarly skeptical that the generational cycles will be that useful in predicting the future because of the vast demographic changes that have occurred during these changing cycles. But I've obviously not thought about it anywhere nearly as much as you have.

Feryl said...

'm skeptical we'll come out the cocooning phase and into another outgoing one. I sense that we're on a death spiral towards more and more time spent staring into the gourd. I'm similarly skeptical that the generational cycles will be that useful in predicting the future because of the vast demographic changes that have occurred during these changing cycles. But I've obviously not thought about it anywhere nearly as much as you have.

All's that matters with cocooning, or lack thereof, is how interested people are in spending time around other people (hopefully in a fairly lucid state). And that's applicable to everyone and everywhere; people in 80's Los Angeles, 80's Houston, 80's Miami etc. were outgoing, not just the people in Dubuque Iowa.

Generationally speaking, these things still matter. Gen X-ers have done more traveling around the world in search of greener pastures than any other generation ever has; in a striking parallel to the Lost Generation, who also were an immigrant dominated generation. That's why Strauss/Howe called them Nomad generations; their own parents and hometowns treated them with pity at best, violent hostility at worst. Which sparked them to enter other lands. As of now destructive Boomers and Gen X-ers are still destabilizing much of the world, which causes Millennials to immigrate (Millennials are far more risk averse than older generations, and will only resort to something as drastic as emigration if they feel totally desperate).

In the 1920's and 1930's, we saw the public take an increasingly dim view of immigrants, criminals, outsiders, perverts, etc. Much of this was Lost on Lost combat, with 3 generations (Missionaires, Losts, and GIs) all agreeing that the frayed social fabric needed to be mended, lest the GIs turn out like the Losts.

It looks like it's up to Boomers and X-ers to be able to to fashion something useful out of the current crisis era, like how Missionaries and Losts picked up the pieces of the 1920's-early 40's and put together the middle class paradise of the late 1940's-1960's.

Feryl said...

"Yep. Ten years ago, Conservative Inc opposes same-sex marriage. Now it supports it. Same with drug legalization. In a decade (at the most), we'll be getting the conservative case for tranny kids."

Concise explanation: Conservatives won massive economic victories starting in the 1970's, coinciding exactly with the turn toward cultural liberalism. Conservatives become so enamored with the idea of a "hands-off" policy towards business affairs and rich people that their ability to keep their hands on the culture withers away. As much as "conservatives" bitch about cultural corruption, they simultaneously celebrate big companies and rich people piling up huge piles of money.

Agnostic made the great point that in the 1970's, the liberals on the Supreme Court at one point chided the conservative judges for not having a coherent legal and moral standing on abortion. The Righties felt the cultural wind blowing in the direction of "anything goes", and were starting to feel uncomfortable with the notion of the government telling people what to do. The liberal justices were frustrated that on the one hand, the conservatives bemoaned what they thought to be sinful behavior, yet on the other hand couldn't bring themselves to say that abortion was anyone's business but the mother's.

Also, as I've pointed out before the Right still cheered on mass incarceration (including WRT drugs) in the 80's and 90's because it coincided with the prison industry emerging. As far as the Right was concerned, why should we impose on the ability of a big industry to make money? The Reaganite Right may have objected to the government (which after all runs on tax dollars) telling people what to do per se, but mass incarceration as pursued by the government was clearly a corrupt racket benefiting a fair number of elites, so the government stopping street crime was ok. But that's the only thing the Reaganite Right wants the government to do: stop street crime. Even in war matters, the Reaganite Right has been comfortable with using mercenaries, rather than letting the "real" US military handle everything.

But what about white collar crime and "consensual" vice? Crickets. It literally took the advanced stages of an epidemic to finally close gay bath houses in the late 80's. Had a comparable epidemic emerged in the 1930's-1960's, the authorities would've aggressively stopped gays from having sex with each other. Recall that society as a whole was much more comfortable with vice control back then. The Reaganite era has given us payday loans, more casinos, state run lotteries, etc. It's clear that many industries which are incredibly greedy and abusive are allowed to run free. As long as it's consenting adults, why should we get involved?

Feryl said...

Private Choices and Public Health: The AIDS Epidemic in an Economic Perspective Hardcover – January 31, 1993

" The authors examine regulatory measures and proposals such as mandatory testing, criminal punishments, and immigration controls, as well as the subsidization of AIDS education and medical research, the social and fiscal costs of AIDS, the political economy of the government's response, and the interrelation of AIDS and fertility risk. Neither liberal nor conservative, yet on the whole skeptical about governmental involvement in the epidemic,"


If people choose to stick dangerous things in their butts and in their veins, then so be it, right? It's "wasteful" and not respecting of "freedom" to have the government step in and arrest or quarantine these people. Hell, why even be that nervous about the kind of people we're letting in? It figures that this bilge came out in 1993, which is right around the time that people started embracing the ghey.

Swear to god, if gays had been responsible for 90% of murders, we'd have seen a concerted effort to "educate" people on the importance of understanding that murder was just part of the gay lifestyle, get over it.

And ya know, that whole thing about the CDC et al allowing gays to donate blood in the early 80's, several years after public health officials were well aware of a disease unique to gays and IV drug addicts being a problem? Forget it. It's not as if blood recipients DIED from tainted blood. Get over it.

One of the last examples of cultural elites evincing knowledge of forceful disease suppression techniques was probably Alien (1979), in which the space ship's crew agrees to quarantine a crew member who's been "infected" by something (and initially, the captain doesn't even allow him to enter the ship at all!). Another rare modern example is Micheal Chricton's Outbreak ('95). Chricton was a conservative, though. Interestingly, both Ridley Scott and Chricton appear to be wholesome and populist artists, all things considered (and we'll have to forgive Scott for succumbing to feminist BS in the 90's).

Sentimental and corrupt Silents and Boomers galloped as fast as they could from the wholesome GI values of the mid-century, when the public mobilized in large efforts to reduce things that could transmit diseases (high immigration levels, urban overcrowding, excessive promiscuity, etc.). Fuck, I guess causing thousands upon thousands of people to be stricken with horrible diseases is part of the price we pay for "freedom".

BTW, remember "safe sex"? Just wear a condom, alright? We understand you might want to let a bunch of people screw you up the butt, but at least have them wear a condom. Yeesh. Can you imagine the elites of the 1940's and 50's tacitly condoning buggery?