Thursday, August 02, 2018

Kobach vs degenerate mendacity

Pairing up with the failing Kansas City Star, ProPublica deployed an "October surprise" attempt to snatch the Kansas Republican gubernatorial nomination from Kris Kobach. Several national outlets like Ralph Maddow, Single Mother Jones, and Daily Poz simultaneously deployed articles on it. As we've long argued here, this race has ramifications extending far beyond this middle American flyover state.

Read the whole thing and it will become clear--if you didn't take my word for it!--that Kobach is the real deal when it comes to the National Question. He's been boldly fighting in the immigration trenches since the early 2000s, years before he became a public figure.

The gist of the story:
Kris Kobach likes to tout his work for Valley Park, Missouri. He has boasted on cable TV about crafting and defending the town’s hardline anti-immigration ordinance. He discussed his “victory” there at length on his old radio show. He still lists it on his resume.

But “victory” isn’t the word most Valley Park residents would use to describe the results of Kobach’s work. With his help, the town of 7,000 passed an ordinance in 2006 that punished employers for hiring illegal immigrants and landlords for renting to them. But after two years of litigation and nearly $300,000 in expenses, the ordinance was largely gutted. Now, it is illegal only to “knowingly” hire illegal immigrants there — something that was already illegal under federal law. The town’s attorney can’t recall a single case brought under the ordinance.
The whole thing is tendentious. The ruinous financial costs associated with the laws Kris helped write and pass have come from open borders organizations like the ACLU in the form of lawfare waged against every municipality that has passed them. Leftist judges, via case law, cherry-pick the rulings of leftist judges who came before them to buttress their own political rulings. It's a sham. The process makes a mockery of the legal process.

For quite modest fees, Kobach has teamed up with frustrated cities wanting to do something about the illegal invasion the federal government refuses to stop. The anti-white ACLU responds to that in each instance with unending lawsuits against the legislation until the outnumbered and outgunned cities tap out.

It's not until paragraph 40 that the shysters let readers in on the source of the litigation and consequent ruinous expenses. As you may have guessed, they aren't coming from Kobach:
The ACLU had asked an appeals court to order Hazleton to reimburse it for $2.4 million in attorneys fees. 
Despite that, Kobach told the Hazleton paper, the Standard Speaker, that the city shouldn’t expect many more substantial legal bills. “At this stage of the game, costs are much lower for both sides,” he said, adding that “they are minuscule costs as opposed to costs at the front end of a lawsuit.” 
That may have been true to the extent that he was describing his own fees. But a year later, Hazleton was ordered to pay the ACLU $1.4 million to cover its attorneys’ fees.
As for what Kobach actually earned:
Kobach rode the attention the cases generated to political prominence, first as Kansas secretary of state, and now as a candidate for governor in the Republican primary on Aug. 7. He also earned more than $800,000 for his immigration work, paid by both towns and an advocacy group, over 13 years.
Hold the phone! A lawyer who went to Harvard, Oxford, and Yale for his BA, PhD, and JD, respectively, made $62,000 a year working in the legal profession! It's outrageous, so outrageous that even though it's been public information for over a decade, we had to gaslight it into a fake news story less than a week away from the primary!

Is the billing hour rate of a single verminous lawyer from the pack the ACLU has devoted to fighting Kobach at every turn--$1.4 million worth for lawfare against a single city--lower than Kobach's? Rhetorical.

Incidentally, the ACLU is actively campaigning on behalf of Jeff Colyer, the current Kansas governor Kris is attempting to primary. Having managed to make a killing frustrating Kobach's legislative agenda, the anti-white (((organization))) is a leetle beet worried about what a full-throttled gentile from the heartland might do to them with a little executive power at his back. Racketeering, anyone? I'd take it, though treason--and the penalties for it--would be even better.

The layman could be forgiven for thinking that Kobach's record has been one of legal defeat after legal defeat. But many of the laws he helped craft have withstood intense, unrelenting lawfare assaults, most notably in Arizona and also in Alabama and Nebraska.

Instead of lending a hand, or even merely voicing moral support, Cuckservative Inc--including Colyer, of course--hasn't missed a chance to stick a knife in Kobach's back at every opportunity.

Kobach, like Trump, is a bare-knuckled fighter, though. When the ACLU came out in support of Colyer, Kobach celebrated it. When the fuggernaught flipped out over Kobach's mounted machine gun replica, he mocked them and hasn't missed a chance to ride around in it since.

What has this coordinated hit piece done to Kobach's chances, by the way? Oops:


There's no margin of victory too wide, no amount of humiliation too undeserved for a spineless cuck like Ephialtes Colyer.

33 comments:

thekrustykurmudgeon said...

I don't really get what they're trying to say. Did he bankrupt the cities because of what he did or did they go bankrupt because of having to fight potentially vexatious lawsuits from human rights orgs?

Audacious Epigone said...

Krusty,

They’re trying to insinuate the former even though the truth is entirely the latter. Tendentious, mendacious, prevaricating, diespicable lying sacks of shit they are.

Chase said...

What they’re trying to get across is that some are good, some are bad. Don’t worry about the details or the coherence of the argument, goyim. Just do what you’re told and you’ll be a good person*.

*subject to change without notice.

Joe Suber said...

AE: Your article is like a claymore-mine which I will easily position ENEMY TO FRONT.

You may have exhausted the best descriptive adjectives for this L├╝guenpresse we are fighting. "Bought-and-paid-for globalist shills engaging in collusion to smear and distort the efforts of a man who has used his talents and energy in the defense of his people" - my stab at it.

Kobach at rally yesterday said we are on track to shatter pre-election-day (non-presidential) balloting records in Kansas, saying over 57k had already been cast as of August 2, which already exceeds the total in 2010, the last record holding year.

Also, we have almost achieved, thanks to his efforts, 100% paper ballot receipts, which is more than any - ANY - other person who worries about "hacked" elections has done to ensure that votes are counted accurately in Kansas.

Lance E said...

It continues to amaze me how many people in both the Democrat and Republican camps have no idea that the ACLU's original (and continuing) mission was as the legal defense organ of the Communist Party. Sort of like how the SPLC was founded by a direct-marketing sleazebag lawyer who helped run the campaigns of Jimmy Carter and (yes, really) George McGovern.

If not for decades of sanitization and indoctrination by the lamestream, everyone would be treating these organizations as the scum-sucking parasites they actually are, rather than knowledgeable authorities on complex legal issues.

Will Wilson said...

"...no amount of humiliation too undeserved for a spineless cuck like Ephialtes Colyer."

Nice. Jeff Colyer => Jeffialtes

Audacious Epigone said...

Joe,

That's both pithy and informative. It is exasperating how deceitful this hit piece is. The honest story is that for over a decade Kris Kobach has, for modest fees, helped small towns get control of their illegal alien problems and many of those towns have been bankrupted by ACLU lawfare. There is nothing new here--almost everything that is discussed in the article happened during the Bush and Obama administrations! There aren't enough street lights for these people.

Lance,

Heh, yeah, Morris Dees and his "non-profit", the non-profit he takes over $300k a year from.

Will Wilson,

Stealing that, thanks!

Audacious Epigone said...

Chase,

Yep. There is some good information in the article that allows the astute reader to piece together what is actually going on, but readers won't get to it until 30 paragraphs in--so the vast majority won't get to it, period.

Andrew Smith said...

I saw a Kobach campaign ad on TV the other day. It ended with a slow motion roll-by of the Jeep with the machine gun. I loved it.

I’m so glad he didn’t apologize for that Jeep. That’s one of the best lessons to learn from the Trump campaign. There’s no reason to apologize for stupid stuff like that. There’s especially no reason to apologize for your beliefs.

Can this guy just be president already?!?!?

216 said...

Ouch

https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/08/quote-of-the-day-college-educated-republican-women-are-extinct/

The Right cannot survive universal suffrage, democracy must be dispensed with.

Trump needs to tweet "the Anti-White New York Times", that's a world-breaker.

HBS said...

216,

I wouldn't put too much weight in that article. The exit polls showing Trump above Hillary amongst white college grads were fake. He never won them and at best hit 40%. I think any loses that do exist from white college grad women can be made up with gains from white college men.

216 said...

The tendency of spouses is to vote alike, the Dems are likelier to get more white college men to cuck out or vote third party. White college women are the foremost beneficiaries of the spoils system, and Trump is the apotheosis of misogyny to them. Sexual assault, boorishness and Roy Moore isn't washing off, and this is on top of the older "war on women" narrative.

We've come to the point where feminism threatens the survival of our civilization, we will abolish it or perish.

Sid said...

216,

'White college women are the foremost beneficiaries of the spoils system, and Trump is the apotheosis of misogyny to them.'

Spot on. The way the job market works is that white male Boomers and older Gen Xers sit in fairly secure positions. As their generations were whiter than current population is, their employment means that companies and organizations are disproportionately white. The Diversity rackets demand that said firms and organizations have fewer whites and more minorities. As such, white Millennials (as well as younger Xers and older Zs) face weaker employment prospects.

But... Since 2012, companies have faced renewed pressure to hire more women. As such, white women still enjoy solid employment prospects. Companies hire minority men and women to be safe on race, and then hire enough white women to be secure on gender. As such, Millennial white men face grim, grim job market prospects.

I saw that Sarah Jeong derided white women in one tweet... The sooner white women start getting the same end of the Diversity stick that white men have been getting, the better.

'We've come to the point where feminism threatens the survival of our civilization, we will abolish it or perish.'

Feminism never really had a solid intellectual basis, but by the 1990s, no intellectually honest person could believe feminism's key tenets. Men and women are inherently and significantly different for biological reasons, and most of the different outcomes we see between men and women make sense with that truth in mind.

Feminism made a major come back in 2012 with the War on Women. Of course, feminist arguments got no better, they simply punished people more frequently and severely for refuting their claims.

As such, feminism can't be defeated with facts and reason. It would've been vanquished long ago if such were the case.

Feminism needs to also be attacked on the social level. It must not only be proven incorrect, but also uncool. Men need to make it clear that they won't date women with too many feminist attitudes, need to boycott feminist-polluted entertainment, and openly reject feminism as much as is possible.

The image of a feminist being either a lantern-jawed lesbian or a fat, short-haired, angry SJW does far more to make feminism repulsive to women than a hundred evolutionary psychology books.

While feminism is far from beaten on this level, I'm happy to say that 2014-2015 was the low point in the valley and we're on our way up. I saw a message board discussion from 2015 where feminists were calling Princess Peach/Toadstool from Mario a sexist stereotype and she should be able to rescue herself. The anti-feminists were responding with half-hearted defenses of Mario, explaining it's no big deal, etc. Nowadays, shitposters say, "Get woke, go broke" and generally laugh at feminist arguments.

So far I haven't seen anyone praise the latest Terminator poster with the two strong womyn and the androgynous freak. I've just heard people groan and declare that's just another movie they won't see.

wrt Kobach... The more I learn about the guy, the more I ask myself if this is real or a dream. I don't have much to add on him, but he can't be elected governor too quickly.

Feryl said...

Ouch

"https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/08/quote-of-the-day-college-educated-republican-women-are-extinct/

The Right cannot survive universal suffrage, democracy must be dispensed with."

There was a pretty good sheocracy movement in the latter stages of the Gilded Age (peaked around 1880-1910). But it's worst excesses got curbed in the 1920's and 30's, when progressive reformers focused on measures that brought greater material prosperity to all, not just a particular group. The generations that bought into the progressive era (Missionaries, Losts, GIs) had a level of power and influence that dramatically waned in the 1970's (when porno went mainstream, when unionized labor started to get a bad name, when a lot of youngsters abandoned small towns to try and strike it rich elsewhere, etc.). Silents and Boomers began to pit various groups of people against each other (the beginning of "red zones and blue zones", secularists vs theists, rich vs poor, well-educated cosmopolitans vs proles, rockers vs disco fans), which was a major change of pace from 1920-1970 when elites went to great lengths to ensure maximum camaraderie in society. And of course the 1970's is when vast chunks of the Northeast and Midwest were essentially abandoned by elite care takers, in some cases to be gentrified in subsequent decades but in other cases left moribund and rotting to this day. The GOP, after Nixon's success, insisted on running pres. candidates from the South and West, and furthermore, even the Democrats made hay with Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, while the New Dealers and Doves from the Northeast and Midwest (such as McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis) were BTFO in the 70's and 80's). Sanders, Hilary, and Trump all being the primary candidates in 2016 was quite remarkable, given that they all are from East of the Mississippi and North of the Mason Dixon Line.

Feryl said...

"Spot on. The way the job market works is that white male Boomers and older Gen Xers sit in fairly secure positions. As their generations were whiter than current population is, their employment means that companies and organizations are disproportionately white. The Diversity rackets demand that said firms and organizations have fewer whites and more minorities. As such, white Millennials (as well as younger Xers and older Zs) face weaker employment prospects."

Right, I saw a YouTube vid where a Gen X-er called out Boomers for removing the very things that the latter generation could count on when they climbed the ladder decades ago.

I would however note that AA differs greatly from one region to another; not in the desire to enforce it, but in the demographics of each area determining AA's relevance. So for example, whites in Los Angeles, Detroit, NYC etc. were impacted to a decent degree by AA when it really started in the 70's. Because obviously, those areas were rapidly becoming less white at that time. But there were still fairly large swaths of America where non-whites were small to non-existant in number well into the 70's and even 80's.

I would also suggest that de-industrialization, high immigration levels, union-busting, rising education costs and credentialism, growing cronyism and nepotism in college admissions and employment, etc. are all serious issues that have decimated the prospects of Gen X-ers and Millennials, and these issues are all independent of or incidental to AA. It's obvious that the fate of native born, younger, and lower skilled Americans makes no difference to elites at this point. It's not as if elites have anything against, say, American blacks. The evidence is overwhelming that elites beginning in the 1970's became fed up with "pampered" American workers, and as time went by they got more and more people to buy into the idea that America needed to abandon "old-fashioned" attitudes to work, regulation, and taxes.

I do predict that the English speaking countries are going to risk becoming like Western Europe, where oodles of 20 and 30 something people can't find solid and gainful employment and will be very keen on the idea of a new regime that forcibly punishes wayward elites. Of course the current crop of Leftists is simultaneously trying to be "progressive" while holding onto post-modern crap like high immigration levels, gender confusion, and celebrating techno-utopians. Getting down to brass tacks means reasserting trad. gender roles, tribal stability, and making things of obvious value all by ourselves again. A lot of Millennials though are being psychologically battered by this bizarre mixture of some economic Leftist ideas and and all forms of decadent cultural liberalism. There's a huge level of dissonance between trying to bring about a new New Deal while also trying to give the perverts and rootless vagabonds everything they've been asking for since 1968. Hilary was a horrible candidate because she simultaneously represented the destruction of the New Deal and the furtherance of the perverted culture of the last 50 years.

Feryl said...

You can't simultaneously expect people to go all-in on a progressive economic regime while also forbidding criticism of the sort or social culture that encourages people to be perverted and narcissistic , the sort that Boomers promoted to varying degrees since the late 60's. Enthusiasm for wealth re-distribution and worker protections waned a great deal during this time, partially because the Boomers were so obnoxious and irresponsible. Who wants their tax dollars going to loud mouths, child abusers, drug users, people who have had dozens of one night lovers, etc.

If you look at the reactionairy attitude that developed toward welfare and unions after the mid-70's, it's obvious that a lot of it came about because of the perception (reality) that many Boomers did not deserve any kind of protection as adults based on their terrible behavior. It was actually strongest within that generation; Boomers frequently hated the other people in their generation and blamed them for any number of trends they didn't like.

Feryl said...

Not to beat a dead horse, but has anyone tried to square Jewish abortion attitudes with the CLASS variable on the GSS? We've established that Jews and white gentiles with similar regional backgrounds have differing attitudes toward abortion. But it's not as if shared regional background mean they have the same econ. status.

Seems to me that the CLASS variable would confirm something most of us have long suspected: The post-1968 cultural revolution wherever it's been seen (Brazil, Sweden, etc.) was promulgated, at the start especially, almost entirely by mega elites and the pet groups in whom elites invested (for example, Boomers were actually more supportive of Vietnam than older generations, but the college kids of the elites opposed the war, and post-1968 history almost always prioritizes elite views).

The initial WWG was initially sponsored by a fairly small number of bohemians, lawyers, judges, etc. in the late 60's. Sentimental "Civil Rights" (which of course ignored the rights of traditionalists to live in peace) types used criminals, the mentally ill, and gays (but I repeat myself) as a battering ram against the peace and order that had been carefully cultivated in the 1930's-1950's. By the 80's it was obvious that we'd bit off more than we could chew (AIDS, record high crime rates, etc.) and some upper class people expressed regret at the changes wrought by the 60's and 70's. But once AIDS had a "cure", and crime leveled off in the 90's, the upper classes became more brashly insistent on "tolerance" for gays than we'd ever seen. The cultural liberalism of the mid-1990's-present has led to Millennials parroting PC talking points out of fear that Boomer and Gen X Lefty enforcers will ruin their lives. And whereas PC in the 80's generally didn't apply to gays (it tended to focus on race and immigration status), it's blatantly obvious that gays and related groups (trannies) have become the most protected class since the mid-90's.

Over the last 50 years, it's become undeniable that terrible economic policies are often rationalized by saying that lower class people are cultural dinosaurs who deserve to be punished. Why look out for people who "cling" to out-dated notions of behavior?

Feryl said...

HOMOSEX (always wrong?) and CLASS (white males only):

1973-1979:
Lower Class - 79%
Working Class - 77%
Middle Class - 65%
Upper Class - 49%

1980-1989:
Lower Class - 79%
Working Class - 81%
Middle Class - 72%
Upper Class - 63%

1990-1999
Lower Class - 68%
Working Class - 74%
Middle Class - 63%
Upper Class - 49%

2000-2009
Lower Class - 63%
Working Class - 63%
Middle Class - 51%
Upper Class - 46%

2010-2016
Lower Class - 55%
Working Class - 47%
Middle Class - 38%
Upper Class - 21% (!)

There are virtually no culturally conservative elites left. The dwindling few have been completely marginalized, and we hear dopey crap about how it's only Christians who are opposed to buggery because of what they read in the bible (news flash: during the peak of homophobia in the late 70's-early 90's, a lot of secularists and moderates were disgusted by gays, and certainly I don't think very many 80's teenagers were devoutly studying the bible).

Feryl said...

The peak of opposition toward HOMOSEX happened during the all-time peak of violent and property crime (the late 70's-early 90's). Coincidence? Draw your own conclusions.

I don't think the bible has any significance to the innate sense of right and wrong that's brought to the surface during a crime wave.

snorlax said...

The peak of opposition toward HOMOSEX happened during the all-time peak of violent and property crime (the late 70's-early 90's). Coincidence? Draw your own conclusions.

It might've been a reaction to big hair, the Sandinistas or Tina Turner's solo career, but I'd say it was more likely AIDS.

Feryl said...

Nobody knew about AIDS in the late 70's. There was only faint regional awareness in the early 80's (interestingly, a number of horror movies from the late 70's/early 80's have blood related subplots involving infection/mixing of blood (Rabid in '77, the Thing in '82) which seem to indicate a growing sense that something nasty was brewing among the Me Generation. For that matter, David Cronenberg in two of his 70's movies (Shivers and Rabid) caught flak for linking sex and outbreaks of horrible diseases. The AIDS epidemic proved him right.

Murder, robbery, property crime, teen sex, teen runaways, juvenile delinquency, etc. all became very visible problems by the late 70's, and remained a problem in the 80's and into the early 90's.

From this chaos comes a sense of wishing to instill (relatively) wholesome values and wanting to look out for each other, lest your friends/family/neighbors succumb to the negative trends of the day. Of course there's no way the Me Generation was going to be able to revive the mid-century overnight, not after the civil rights revolution of the 60's; nor did many people in the Me Gen want things to revert to the 1950's, anyway. All that being said, there's a reason why drugs and buggery fell so far out of the acceptable mainstream in the 80's.

Note also that cats (who hunt vectors of disease and are meticulously clean) were really popular in the 80's (even metal bands were named Pantera, White Lion, Def Leppard, etc.) while slobbering and smelly dogs fell increasingly out of fashion in the 70's and 80's (lame and campy movies featuring dogs were revived in the 90's, restoring one deplorable sub genre that had been dormant since the mid-60's, the cheap and obvious dog film.

It's evident that outgoing periods (such as the late 70's and 80's) tend to downplay disgusting crap (like gays and dogs). Meanwhile, what period emphasized masculine and conservative ass kickers? The 70's and 80's, duh. Stallone, Arnold, and Chuck Norris would never be mistaken for poofers. When were obviously closeted actors most likely to be cast? The late 1930's-early 1960's (a cocooning period), as well as the mid-90's-2010's (a cocooning period). Say what you will about the 70's, but nobody was going to question the hetero status of Charles Bronson, Clint Eastwood, Burt Reynolds, Harrison Ford, or James Caan.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

The good news for guys like Kobach is that antipathy towards organizations like the ACLU are at an all time high. The more the ACLU supports people like Colyer, the better Kobach does. This only motivates them to campaign for Colyer harder and so on. It's a perfect spiral into irrelevance. There's even been pushback against the SPLC in recent months. The media and (((NGOs))) are on their way out.

Rod1963 said...

Excellent article!

What I don't understand is why cities have to pay the legal bills of the ACLU and ADL. I've read of that happening here in the state of CA where I live but am baffled by it.

Mr. Rational said...

If I understand correctly, the civil-rights laws under which these clowns are suing provide for recovery of "reasonable" legal fees if they win.

The problem is that cities can't band together to fight these things even though they all have a strong interest in winning, so they are picked off individually.

216 said...

Self-Abasement as moral virtue

https://twitter.com/humansofny/status/1025849194433531904

The Other is allowed to stick together, but us, no we get guilt-tripped and victim blamed.

Audacious Epigone said...

Andrew,

Exactly. An apology is a capitulation.

Kobach is a smart, motivated guy. He's got my vote for 2024.

216,

R-I shows it 50% D, 30% R for college/college+women. There's a young skew there, though, and that includes non-whites. The marriage gap matters more.

Sid,

The generational hammer is an important thing to point out. If the company needs to be 50% non-white but is currently 80% white because of tenured whites, guess how many millennial and Gen Z white men are going to be considered (hint: It's a negative number!).

Re: Kobach's "flaws", there's no way around him being a zionist. Like everything else he believes, it's probably sincere. I'm fine with moral support for zionism if the ruling party in Israel keeps telling us we need to build a wall and enforce our immigration laws to repel infiltrators, though!

Also, he's not the most appealing candidate because he can't help but sound like the smartest guy in the room most of the time (and 100% of the time when he's dealing with other pols). Ted Cruz had a similar problem, though Kobach is naturally less fruity than Cruz is.

Finally, he's not that wealthy. He has a farm, a law practice, and a high five-figure salary in his current position, but he has a wife and five daughters. I'm confident no one is going to be able to own him. So he's a great test case for whether or not Trumpism is viable without the Trumpist being independently extremely wealthy.

Feryl,

I've been thinking Elizabeth Warren would be the disaster candidate for Dems in 2020 a la Dukakis. Sanders is another potential, of course. Think it'll be another northeasterner vs northeasterner? For so many reasons, Kamala Harris would be the most... clarifying nominee.

A lot of Millennials though are being psychologically battered by this bizarre mixture of some economic Leftist ideas and and all forms of decadent cultural liberalism. There's a huge level of dissonance between trying to bring about a new New Deal while also trying to give the perverts and rootless vagabonds everything they've been asking for since 1968.

That explains the resonance of people like Jordan Peterson. I think you're spot on here.

Random Dude,

Yep, and Kobach knows that. He's pushing it for all it's worth. Meanwhile Colyer just sheepishly avoids talking about it. He won't even disown the endorsement (so far as I'm aware).

Rod,

That's not the case in every municipality, probably not even in most of them. The cost of defense is taxing enough. But if they lose--and you can bet the ACLU is shopping every one of these lawsuits to a sympathetic judge--they're often ordered to cover the ACLU's exorbitant expenses.

Sid said...

AE,

I am fine with there being a Jewish state, though I certainly won't die on the hill of Israel's (or the Arabs'!) human rights record. What I don't appreciate is when (((cucks)))) generate and accept every excuse for why we can't have border security, but then cold-bloodedly defend Israel shooting Palestinians for trying to cross their walls.

It doesn't bother me if Israel defends its sovereignty, but damn the hypocrites who accept their doing it but shed tears over Squatemalan families. Seeing the (((cucks))) doing that not too long ago red-pilled me even further.

Trump was able to get around a lack of donor dollars in 2016 because of his preexisting celebrity, use of Twitter, and having enough money to cover expenses as needed. As such, the Trump campaign won the election spending roughly half of what Hillary spent.

Unfortunately, donors are necessary to success in US politics. Steve Sailer has argued that US businesses in need of protectionism could be a source of funding in the future, but I haven't heard of much following up on that. Kobach may find a way.

Feryl,

My paternal grandparents were New Deal Democrats. My dad admitted to me that one reason why he became a Boomercon was that his older siblings embraced the 60s counterculture and wound up as screw ups while his parents worked hard, acted responsibly, and had to keep the belts tight when it came to money.

It took me a while, but I eventually realized that so many of the "conservative" values held dear, as opposed to those of the counterculture, were those that emerged and took hold in the 1930s and 1940s.

In a lot of ways, I consider FDR to be an alt-right forebear. He opposed business interests which jeopardized the nation, constantly strove to improve the lot of the WWC, and his vision of a peaceful community of nations is infinitely preferable to open borders, invade-the-world/invite-the-world nonsense.

Yes, let the modern left hate him for his turning back the refugees and his lack of hesitation with the internment camps. Let us have him.

Feryl said...

I've been thinking Elizabeth Warren would be the disaster candidate for Dems in 2020 a la Dukakis"

Dukakis was a 1970's flavored SJW.....E.g., not the total "intersectionality" hate white people fruitcake of the present, like Obama or Harris. Plus Dukakis was a committed New Dealer, not a neo-liberal apologist. And actually, Warren from an ideology standpoint ain't half-bad. It's her smug and abrasive early Boomer persona that's a drag. Both Trump and Warren will never have much broad appeal because of their obvious arrogance. If you're already on board with their stance you can accept their personality; otherwise you won't buy in.

"Think it'll be another northeasterner vs northeasterner? For so many reasons, Kamala Harris would be the most... clarifying nominee."

Harris is of recent immigrant heritage and from the Western US. That would definitely go against the "re-alignment" theory, vis a vis geography, but I suppose there's no law or anything that says that every single candidate West of the Mississippi can't adjust to the times. As we saw with Ted Cruz and Gary Johnson, though, it might be hard for a lot of them to cut the crap (in Ted Cruz's case, it was non-stop piety that nobody bought, and Johnson's case it was, to quote Agnostic, the goofy pothead/class clown act that got old really fast).

"That explains the resonance of people like Jordan Peterson. I think you're spot on here."

The (decadent) culture that's been mainstreamed by Boomer and Gen X elites is not something that most Millennials really buy into. They superficially approve of it because, well, you have to in order to not be cast out as a Nazi. But Millennials don't want to bash their parents, don't want to leave their homeland, etc. They are far more conservative in their behavior than Boomers and Gen X-ers, who idealized risk taking and individualism, the kind that flourished after the late 60's cultural revolution. A secret "cultural revolution" has occurred over the last 20 or so years, coinciding with the earliest Millennials graduating high school around 2000.

Decadent culture is rewarding and elevating the most fucked up Millennials, who are then portrayed as representative of their generation. But by and large, whether they know it or not, Millennials are in fact distressed by the rootless and glib culture of older generations. I would argue that all generations are hurt by this mentality, but whereas Boomers and X-ers are comfortable with the idea of big winners and big losers that was popularized in the 80's and 90's, younger generations hate it.

At the Generational dynamics blog, there was a good article about institutions being shredded by what the writer called "lenscap" stupidity and "lens cap" nihilism. Boomers do the former, X-ers the latter. The idea is Boomers often intentionally choose to not be aware of something, lest it get in the way of their hopes, dreams, and desires. End result? Things don't get done, don't add up, etc. He said for example, Boomers easily get excited by a company making lots of money in the short term, and when evidence of poor business practices is mounting, Boomer managers would just act as if nothing is wrong lest they have to admit that business practices need to be reformed before they start to hurt people and the company starts to fail.

The nihilism aspect comes about from X-ers being well aware of moral and logistical shortcomings, but still plowing ahead anyway with no regard for the risks. One generation acts sincerely clueless, the next generation gleefully evinces knowledge but doesn't act on it correctly.

Passer by said...

Hey, Audacious Epigone, an interesting poll showing white women being very anti-russian, together with jews. White men are the most supportive.

What do you think about it?

http://polling.reuters.com/#!response/TM1128Y17_14/type/oneshot/filters/Z19:9/dates/20170101-20180803/collapsed/true

Audacious Epigone said...

Passer by,

The question shouldn't include Donald Trump's name in it. The support for his handling of Russia mirrors his support generally (by demographic group). White women are 50% disapprove to 70% for Jews though. White men are 44% disapprove. Am I missing something?

Passer by said...

Yes, that's true, it could be Donald Trump's name causing differences. Question should be more neutral.

I have seen this gender difference in some other polls, one international (about Putin), and one where the question was for all US women, whether if its better if Russia is a friend.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/november_2017/most_prefer_russia_as_a_friend_not_an_enemy

http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/06/29/2-obamas-international-image-remains-strong-in-europe-and-asia/

Deter Naturalist said...

Premise Cascade:
1. Democracy is inherently Leftist.
2. Leftism isn't politics, it's theology, the theology of wish-fulfillment (first as the Gnostic Heresy, i.e., using politics to institute the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth, and later simply creating a catechism ever-more diverged from reality and insisting on it as a progression toward Perfecting the Human Condition on Earth, because Man...or better, WOman, is now God and can literally change the laws of Nature itself if magic runes are written on parchment, AKA statute legislation.)
3. Lenin was correct (sort-of) in his comment about the Capitalist who would sell Lenin the rope to be used to hang the Capitalist. What in fact occurs is that here, after cumulative innovation has yielded previously unimaginable wealth, markets deliver into the hands of the misled, insane and psychotic (Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffet, George Soros, ad nauseum) enough wealth to actually "hang the shoppers."

By this, I mean that the "price" of a good available on Amazon (etc.) only reflects the dollar units, it does not include the "price" of handing a cretin like Bezos a metaphorical atom bomb (his influence on the Leftist Theocracy and its ever-changing catechism.)

It is this asymmetry, this concentrated benefit and diffuse cost structure, that warps what otherwise is a good process. Scale is the enemy here, and scale is an inevitable bedfellow of such widespread innovation and the cooperation on which it rests.

The Left is made up of lunatics, hopelessly hopeful idealists and status-whores. The lunatics have set policy for quite some time, so we have trannies in the toilet while Magic Negroes and homophilia reign on Video Fiction.

What will occur when people stop believing the visions of sugarplums dancing in their heads that are all those future cash flows promised by $247 trillion in IOU's, pensions and exponentially-rising spending on medicare, et.al.?

PS: Trump is a signpost on a highway that says "Dissolution Ahead."

Audacious Epigone said...

Deter Naturalist,

Yes, and the signpost notes there are still a few off ramps available ahead that are coming up quickly. Stay on the main road, though, and its crash into dissolution.