Saturday, September 15, 2018

Throwing November


And tax cuts. From Reuters-Ipsos, the issue registered Democrats and Republicans identified as the most important one in determining their mid-term congressional votes (N = 26,785): 


The contrast between the priorities of congressional Republican 'leadership' and what their voters care about is why the GOP is called the Stupid Party. That's unfair to people like Paul Ryan, though, who are doing exactly what their paymasters want them to do. The stupid slur may be more aptly applied to Republican voters. They voted for a Muslim ban and a wall and all they got were these lousy corporate tax cuts, after all.

The mid-terms are largely about motivating the base to turn out, so it could be plausibly argued that's why Republican congressional leadership is trying to throw the House to Democrats avoid the National Question. After all, Democrats are fired up about it, too. Right?

No, not really, as the graph above illustrates. VDare nails it by asserting that they want to lose.

59 comments:

Random Dude on the Internet said...

I'm not going to vote this midterms then. Fortunately the candidates in my area are big time cuckservatives so it's no big deal. At this point, there is no difference between them or a Democrat. I'm not even mad, which is the sad part. I'll be sure to let my local congresscucks know why I won't be voting for them, as if makes a difference (I know it won't).

Now the real question is how do we handle a situation where we have to look past Trump because the odds of getting any kind of wall funding or any meaningful immigration reform are less than 1%. If we can't get the wall, I'm assuming it will be a lost cause to mandate E-Verify, cut off welfare for illegals, ending birthright citizenship, etc.

Anonymous said...

@Random Dude - We could severely curtail H1B visas as a punitive measure against Silicon Valley and corporate Poz. We could do a lot of things if we hold the House and Senate against the "Blue Wave." We could even outlast Muller. If you really can't stand your local conserva-cucks, send some money to a good guy like Kris Kobach - he needs it!



Audacious Epigone said...

My suggestion is to calibrate it by the race in question. If it's an open-borders cuck, go the accelerationist route and vote for the abolish ICE Dem, third party, or don't vote. If it's someone like Kobach, DeSantis, or Kemp, crawl over broken glass to vote for them and to get others in your social network to do the same.

Andrew Smith said...

AE, what’s your guess as to why Trump has been so ineffective at getting a wall built?

Was it all talk to get elected, so he could have another trophy on his shelf?

Is he being blackmailed? Threatened?

Is the opposition in the swamp too great? Didn’t he appoint that cuck-filled cabinet? After all, we could’ve elected Jeb to NOT get a wall.

For someone who seemed pretty in touch with what the frustrated Americans wanted, he sure seems to be out of touch now.

There probably isn’t an easy answer.

It’s all very disappointing, but probably predictable. I suppose our best hope is that his election inspires better people who actually accomplish what they say they will.

216 said...

The claim was that "Mexico will pay for the wall". The double-digit IQ voter presumes that Mexico will literally write the US a check, or that Trump is a bold faced liar.

The "remittance tax" was killed very early on by a lobbying campaign by WokeCapital against the "border adjustment tax". They were distracted by the travel ban, and the subsequent airport shenanigans.

The Joint Chiefs issued a public coup threat after Charlottesville, Chief of Staf John Kelly (Gen. Ret. USMC) is the real source of power.

Kobach didn't get DHS because McCain, Flake and Sasse said they wouldn't confirm him.

Audacious Epigone said...

Andrew,

It's an open question, one I don't have an answer I'm satisfied with, which is just another way of saying Trump may genuinely not have ever intended on getting the wall built.

He could get it done using the military. There's no need to involve congress. Okay, fine, he tried to give them the opportunity to legislate funding and they spit in his face. It looks like they're set to do it again.

216,

Right, there are plenty of ways to spin it so that the funding part of the wall is adequately addressed. Funding is unimportant, though. It's a relative drop in the bucket, a week's worth of current federal government spending to build the thing and maintain it for the next decade.

Re: Kobach, that's a fight Trump should've taken on when he had the electoral momentum behind him. Promise those bloodthirsty war mongers you'll drop bombs on some Arabs in exchange for it. Or use the bully pulpit to call them out. He didn't even fight.

And there are other appointed positions that don't require senate confirmation, like chief strategist or chief policy adviser.

216 said...

AE,

The most damning admission from Congress is that they want to give Israel an extra 5 billion dollars to their military aid, for a total of 38 billion. That's enough to both build a border wall, and build a second border wall on Mexico's southern border. The same Congress never moved on the RAISE Act out of concerns that it would "hurt the economy".

Kobach certainly has the intellect to be chief of staff, but he's managed (correct me if I'm wrong) a small government agency that oversees recordkeeping. Of course the current DHS secretary never ran anything important either, but she has a valuable commodity that balding men in their 60s have a high demand for.

If we are to believe some of the stories, Trump had this delusion that his fellow billionaires would reward him due to the tax cut. The GOP has been starved for campaign cash, but the sellouts will be assured lobbying sinecures. Kevin Yoder won't be going back to Pizza Hut.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

> It's an open question, one I don't have an answer I'm satisfied with, which is just another way of saying Trump may genuinely not have ever intended on getting the wall built.

A positive theory that I have is that he wants to make sure that the courts are more likely in his favor. That way when a judge in Honolulu issues a nationwide injunction against it, you have Kavanaugh instead of Kennedy who will likely vote the right way.

A negative theory that I have is that he wants to dangle it in front of his base for as long as he can get away with it. He cynically believes that his base is too loyal and that there isn't a good enough alternative where they have no choice but to keep voting for him and his endorsed candidates. He probably wants the wall to be built but thinks that if it doesn't get built, he can point to a tax cut nobody wanted as a concession.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

Sorry for the double post:

> Re: Kobach, that's a fight Trump should've taken on when he had the electoral momentum behind him. Promise those bloodthirsty war mongers you'll drop bombs on some Arabs in exchange for it. Or use the bully pulpit to call them out. He didn't even fight.

I think Trump was/is still high on his own supply when it comes to thinking of himself as a great dealmaker. He would love nothing more than a coalition of cuckservatives, baste minorities, and pragmatic Democrats and I suspect this is what he envisions and wants the most. This is the guy who fancies himself as being able to make a deal with anybody but so far in practice he has barely been able to cobble anything together with his own party, who can barely hide their intention of wanting him kicked out of office. Washington DC is not Manhattan in the 1980s where everyone can set aside differences to make money on a deal; he has done a poor job of calibrating his "leadership" based on reality.

F the ADL said...

I don't think it's realistic to expect a border wall before 2020. The reality is that the Republicuck party is still desperately trying to lose, and so have been playing spoiler on Trump's agenda. Trump has only a few allies, a number of career politician-cucks who are willing to go along as long as there are no bumps, and a metric ton of enemies.

Building a wall now would, in a very real sense, get people killed. SJWs would purposefully endanger themselves by rushing the construction areas. I have no doubt that the massive virtue-signalling & propaganda effort would swing things against Trump in 2020. The media is still extremely powerful.
The play for 2016 is declassifying the FISA memos, revealing further how the media has been complicit in massive abuses of citizenry via FISA, saying goodbye to Mueller, and consolidating victory after the FBI/CIA/DS coup. Next 2 years are impeachment circus if D's retake the House, hopefully followed by a massive Trumpist-Republican wave in 2020.

If R's hold both House & Senate then who knows. Many But either way I doubt seeing any action until after 2020.

IHTG said...

He could get it done using the military. There's no need to involve congress.

This is a myth: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/04/can-the-us-military-build-trumps-border-wall/556967/

The GOP is afraid of government shutdowns, it's not much more complex than that. Mickey Kaus discusses this here: http://www.kausfiles.com/2017/05/01/shutdowns-a-gop-defeat-machine/

IHTG said...

As I've said before, it's probably politically impossible to enact a clean immigration restriction law in the United States in 2018. Anything you want, you'll have to pay for with amnesty for illegals, by the million*.

Wall - 2 million
Merit-based reforms or E-Verify - 5 million
Actual reduction in legal immigration - 10+ million

A very popular president with a broad mandate could have gotten around this or at least reduced the price, but that's not what you have.

The House passed Kate's Law and anti-sanctuary city legislation in 2017, but even something as milquetoast as that never got a vote in the Senate. Can you blame the GOP congress critters for not being gung-ho about something they can't actually do?

At some point, people will have to forgo dreams of an imperial presidency that can make their dreams come true and find a way forward for America. Think outside the box a little. How about an amnesty that somehow keeps the amnestied illegals in California, which is lost to the GOP anyway?

It's either that or try to hold out for that perfect candidate on a white horse. Who knows, it could happen. The Democrats could overreach, fuck up and provoke a broad counter-reaction. It's a risk, though.

*Keep in mind, this doesn't mean that Trump's election victory had no effect. Not so long ago legal immigration reduction wasn't even on the GOP's radar. Bipartisan deals like the Gang of Eight were sold as solutions for illegal immigration at the cost of actually increasing legal immigration. I think Trump has killed that concept forever. You may find "amnesty for restriction" unacceptable, but it was not the preferred policy of the Jeb Bush GOP. Progress has been made.

Anonymous said...

"what’s your guess as to why Trump has been so ineffective at getting a wall built?"

My guess is it is one of two things.
a) Trump really isn't a very good politician. I mean, very specifically, that he didn't understand that he had to use his political clout while he had it, and that clout goes away with time. Other new presidents had their '100 days' where they initiated big changes in the very beginning of their terms-they had the clout of the victory, and they used it.
Trump didn't do that. Maybe it doesn't work that way in real estate-maybe wheeling and dealing is a long-term, semi-permanent condition, and Trump expected to just wheel and deal for four years. But he didn't have his 100 days right after the election: instead, everything is 'just around the corner,' forever.

b) "A negative theory that I have is that he wants to dangle it in front of his base for as long as he can get away with it."

This. Maybe Trump doesn't want to get the Wall built: he wants to get reelected. If he gets a bit of the Wall built, then campaigns for the 2020 election on 'if you reelect me, I'll finish what I started,' he expects to use that to ensure his reelection. Whether he actually intends to build the wall in the 2nd term? Who knows. Under this theory, he's really not doing anything-his motivation is to be President-not to be an effective President.

anon

Feryl said...

"The subjects listed could've been better. What exactly is "other" and "social issues"? Both are so vague that they overlap. If I care that much about trannies, what would I check off? They should've listed racial issues and homo/tranny issues seperately. After all, what's been the priority of the Left for the last 8 years?The "remittance tax" was killed very early on by a lobbying campaign by WokeCapital against the "border adjustment tax". They were distracted by the travel ban, and the subsequent airport shenanigans.

The Joint Chiefs issued a public coup threat after Charlottesville, Chief of Staf John Kelly (Gen. Ret. USMC) is the real source of power."


WRT Pentagon and the wall, our "defense" establishment does not consider Mexico a big deal. They are much more concerned about ISIS, Russia, Chinese expansions and spying, etc. In past history, the US was spooked about commie governments in Latin America, almost all of which ceased to exist in the 1990's. For the most part I don't think the current establishment really cares that much about Latin America. Venezuela is a basket case, but they're not, as far as we can tell, really expanding their influence or plotting attacks on the US and the US's allies.

Also, most of the "bad" Muslim and Chinese actors in the US came via airplane. I'm sure there are exceptions, but usually these people arrive via a valid Visa. And of course many of the Chinese are H1-B type recipients of our kindness, or came here to study at our colleges.

The Pentagon is protecting Trump. There is no other sector, no industry, which is willing and able to shield Trump. Now, in the more equitable/less fractious climate of the 1960's and 70's, no one stuck up for LBJ, Nixon, or Carter. They were cast out by elites, by the public, and even the media after they were proven to not be up to the task of handling difficult issues(look at the Pentagon Papers, for example). But these days, people stubbornly stick to a side (like many of the cuck apologists for the GOP) instead of admitting that one person/one party/one company etc. is highly flawed and perhaps, we ought to give another person or idea a try.

Audacious Epigone said...

IHTG,

No, that assertion is false. Trump could declare a star of emergency and then have access to unlimited funds for military purposes relating to that state of emergency. We’ve technically been in a state of emergency since 9/11, so he could just order it done on that pretext.

In response to the squawking, he says his election was a referendum on a wall and the public said “yes”. The time to do that would’ve been in the Spring of 2017, but it is not a “myth” that it could be done now.

Audacious Epigone said...

state* of emergency (smart phone ftl)

Audacious Epigone said...

The partial wall ahead of 2020 is plausible, but the idea that there will be any legislative avenue for the funding is dubious. Rs are going to lose the House and Ds can’t even pretend to want any restrictions on immigration, in any context, at all.

Cloudbuster said...

Gee, I wonder what happens when half the country discovers that its interests are not and will not be represented by its government....

Jim Bowery said...

It doesn't take half the country. If history is any guide, it can take as little as 5%. Of course, it helps that 5% if the barrier between its territory and the imperial capital is separated by a month of dangerous travel. On the other hand, it also helps that 5% if it has built the physical infrastructure upon which the imperial capital and its regional centers of power depend for life support.

Laying siege isn't something the 5% of the American colonists could do very effectively, even though they were largely rural.

Regarding Trump's failure to act as Commander In Chief of the military and perform the primary function of the government:

The way to view Trump's presidency is as a grace period during which we must prepare for war. The single most important war preparation is agreeing on a Declaration of War. Since the House of Representatives no longer exists, it cannot perform this function. We must do it.

Everything flows from that.

Anonymous said...

@audacious

The very root of the issue is that low IQ prole whites are mad because even in an all-white society, they're still at the bottom of the totem pole. Don't believe me? Look at Poland and Hungary. These countries are 96-97% monoethnic. Most of the minorities are still Caucasian. Do you think that some IQ 87 lumpenprole from Poland is driving a Bentley, or eating filet mignon, or getting invited to upper class parties?

I 100% support right-wing economic policies. Abolish the welfare state. Reduce the size and the scope of the government to the bare minimum. Cut taxes for everyone as much as possible.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

The argument that the differences between Germany and Poland are due to IQ differences (which are negligible) is absurd.

216 said...

Anon,

Without the welfare state we'd have a communist revolution. Hong Kong can get by with no welfare state because they are a dictatorship that borders an even more oppressive dictatorship.

Absent a return to small ethnoreligious communities, seen today in some parts of Utah, there is never going to be the cohesion for the elite to ensure that the working class is paid a family sustaining wage. Welfare statism is designed to ameliorate the catastrophic risks that industrial society poses when your job is culled, and you can't fall back on an extended family.

The angriest people in Poland/Hungary are not the underclass, its the university educated elite that want to be just as pozzed as the Western Euro countries they studied/worked in. PiS and Fidesz have had several corruption scandals that would have brought down a German government that committed a similar type of crime. Their working class voters didn't care. The socialist but patriotic government in Slovakia was caught murdering journalists, and only the PM resigned and he probably won't be even charged with a crime, let alone convicted.

I agree with Feryl that a violent reaction against neoliberalism is likely via a "Crisis of the 2020s", but today the anger is not really class-based under the traditional gdp definitions of class. The anger chiefly comes from the overeducated university graduate, and is mostly female. The "declining female happiness" is a big problem because women have been encouraged by feminism and forced by economic circumstances into professional life that rarely provides the happiness that family life does. Survey data indicates that 30% of younger males (40% or so among the indigenous) in UK voted for the Conservative party in 2017, while barely half of females that age did.

DissidentRight said...

My suggestion is to calibrate it by the race in question. If it's an open-borders cuck, go the accelerationist route and vote for the abolish ICE Dem, third party, or don't vote. If it's someone like Kobach, DeSantis, or Kemp, crawl over broken glass to vote for them and to get others in your social network to do the same.

10/10

Our immediate goal, as it has has been since Trump's campaign, must be to decimate the traitorous/moderate Republicans.

Every seat they lose is a victory, regardless of whether it goes to one of our guys or to a Democrat.

The time to "tactically" vote for (R)s is over. No tactical gains can possibly overcome the strategic value of decimating the ranks.

216 said...

DR,

Not counter-signaling, but making the contrarian argument. Purity spiraling did not work in 1990s California, nor in 1980s South Africa. It cost the GOP several Senate seats in 2010 and 2012. Ben Sasse is actually a product of our purity spirals, as his campaign was based on the idea that his opponent (who had a better immigration stance) was insufficiently conservative.

We live in a system where "cthulu swims left", even great victories like the monarchist sweep of the 1871 French elections still managed to achieve nothing. The problem may be intrinsic to representative government itself, perhaps even biological.

Presuming Kevin Yoder loses in the fall, the GOP may not learn the lesson, or they will take the wrong conclusion and go "full cuck". The GOP challenger for Senate in my state (Ohio) had a record as a ho-hum moderate republican that always claimed he was willing to work with the Dems. After endorsing Trump (the only R in Ohio that endorsed him in the primaries) he seems to have been told "up-or-out". His opponent is a socialist that has an three-decade record of opposing free trade. In the likely event that he loses this fall, the conclusion will be made that Kasich would have been a sure shot to win the seat.

DissidentRight said...

Purity spiraling did not work in 1990s California, nor in 1980s South Africa.

Hasn't it? To be fair, 216, the visible collapse of failed cities, failed states and failed countries is why we have Trump. Of course it hasn't worked out very well for South Africans or for Californians, but that was never in the cards anyway. There is no political solution—that door closed in '65. That means war. And war means we're not all going to make it out of this in one piece.

Accelerationism just accepts that. It's exactly the same reason we want Xeno-Americans replacing white/Jewish Democrat incumbents. The Democrats are the Alien-American Party. The faster they look like the Alien-American party, the better. Put the inmates in charge of the asylum, and then rile them up.

In the likely event that he loses this fall, the conclusion will be made that Kasich would have been a sure shot to win the seat.

To what end? What's the point of having another Open Borders (R)?

the GOP may not learn the lesson, or they will take the wrong conclusion and go "full cuck".

They will never learn the lesson. The institution cannot change unless you change the people. Just like the Roman church will never be reformed until the laity go Deus Vult on the homopriests.

A couple years ago, I thought there was a chance that Trump could whip the Republicans into line…that taking out a few of them would serve to illuminate the others. I think it's pretty clear I was wrong about that. So we're back to Plan B. Nuke the GOP. Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.

216 said...

DR,

That's an interesting way of looking at things. I'm an not able to agree there. There is a utility to even a nominal center-right presence, as the institution confers legitimacy by its very act of existing. We call this the "incumbency advantage".

Removing this advantage, not just of defeating an individual incumbent, but the entire system, requires societal collapse. That level of carnage is not usually familiar to us, but most recently occurred among Europeans in the Balkan wars of the 1990s. That's not something we can be effective merchants of.

Even South Africa has not hit the level of "collapse", nor is it likely to barring a Black Swan. The IMF, World Bank and the PRC will make sure of that; the globalists will not let us have this win.

The essence of politics is numbers, and we know that better than anyone given our demographic focus. Most of the GOP politicians at the end of the day will vote the way they are told. The real focus is the leadership, change them and the rest will follow. The Trump agenda would have moved further if we had Senators Brown, Ayotte, Lugar, Heck, Steelman, Lowden and Norton. If we are talking Kirk and Castle, perhaps it would be going the other way, but even they were still better than what took their place.

We win by entryism, not by accelerationism.

Audacious Epigone said...

216,

That presumes the shift in leadership isn't calibrated to the shift in electoral preferences, though. The Kevin Yoders of the world, like the Paul Ryans, are incapable of expanding beyond Reaganite Republicans. They turn off WWC and lower-middle class whites, though those voters don't like "Abolish ICE" leftists, either. The boomercon demographic is inexorably shrinking. There is still a window of time for the Sailer Strategy to work, but the choice needs to be made clear and decisive.

In the particular case of KS-3, Yoder, who despises Kobach (and I suspect the feelings are mutual since Kobach is both a lot smarter and a lot more principled than Yoder), and Kobach appearing on the same ballot presents a huge opportunity to send an F-U to KS GOPe. Kobach winning and Yoder losing is the optimum outcome.

216 said...

AE,

It appears very difficult to get upper and lower class whites to vote alike. This same pattern exists in the UK, so it isn't exclusive to Trump or the US. Part of that I think can be ascribed to strategy. The Brexit referendum was a fluke that we got thanks to David Cameron winning a majority in 2015. (Had one in four AFD voters of 2013 voted CDU, Merkel would have had a majority government where the CSU would have maximum leverage).

What is turning off the WWC is the tax cuts for the rich, not the personal style of RINOs. That's also hurting Trump, as thanks to Gary he wasn't able to put the Dems in a position of having to vote against raising the top bracket to 44%. Tax cuts for the rich is also the number one non-white complaint about the GOP.

The problem for us is that as bad as Yoder is, the Dem that replaces him will likely never be voted out except via a Dem primary by someone even further left. The Dems have only three rural white seats left, all of them in Minnesota. I would still vote against him knowing that.

We have to be more judicious in primary challenges, as there are reasons why the NRA almost never goes against an incumbent. The bulk of entryism consists of low-level GOP precinct seats, that eventually should lead up to challenging open seats. While the political option is lousy, it must be exhausted before our people will support extralegal options. There are still deluded people in South Africa that think the courts will save them, thus Afriforum concentrates everything on the courts.

216 said...

Addendum: Entryism

https://www.ft.com/content/303283ae-b1f2-11e8-87e0-d84e0d934341#comments-anchor

The comments are quite entertaining, but also concerning. You see, Brexit means World War III, don't laugh too hard, these people paid to write that and they mean it.

Anonymous said...

The GOP is for sale.

Fine.

Lets purchase it.

What percentage of the population of the US do we (the awakened, active far right) constitute?

Lets use the smallest conceivable estimate, 0.1%.

30,000 middle class incomes = 30,000 people who can afford to give $5,000 per year.

$150 million / year!

It only cost $200,000 to elect Dave Brat.

Each of us should give $2,700 to each of the candidates for major office (governor, senator, congressman) who has an "A" rating from Numbers USA, and who is a race rated "toss up" by Real Clear Politics.

Kris Kobach and Dana Rohrabacher, for instance, both fall into this category.

Anonymous said...

The natural constituency of the American right, white evangelicals, is far more disciplined and willing to sacrifice than most of the left's constituencies.

If they stopped tithing to churches which have fallen into heresy (Christian feminism, Christian Zionism) and instead applied that money intelligently to right wing politics, the results would be revolutionary.

Audacious Epigone said...

216,

KS-3 was D in the early 2000s. Johnson county comprises most its electorate. Johnson is the most affluent county in the midwest. It's 80% n-H white so could easily go D in 2018 and then flip back at any time. Yoder is owned by tech and communications companies that have large presences here--Sprint, Garmin, Cerner, etc. There is no ceiling on legal immigration as far as he is concerned.

Looks like being a subscriber is required to see that Financial Times thread.

Anon,

Interesting idea if there were some way to mobilize it, though these insurgent Trumpian candidates should be able to win without money. That's what we're hoping to see with the KS, GA, and FL governor races.

Anon,

Indeed--and no more money for sports ball, either.

Russ G said...

Sure, throw the 2018 midterms and the Beltway RINO's once again have a built-in excuse for failure. They can spend the following two years mailing and emailiing us fund-raising push polls pretending to be concerned with corruption, porous borders, government debt, and the like while demanding money to be doled out to Conservatism, Inc! The Clintons will skate, the Deep State will resume its control over the ludicrously named 'Department of Justice' and the "Republicans" who lose their seats can jockey for those coveted lobbying jobs.

216 said...

AE,

Apologize for that link, when you copy/paste it hits the paywall. Search "brexit entryism" and it shows up on the first page. However the paywall works, it isn't as hard as The Times paywall (the Israeli wall of paywalls), it will appear if you click that way. Some paywalls can be beaten with incognito mode.

https://order-order.com/2018/07/30/soubry-defeats-deselection-plot-as-association-chairman-resigns/

https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/how-to-deprive-mainstream-media-of-revenue-and-get-around-their-paywalls-fb515deb4fb8

I'd have to think this would be the EU's next target.

DissidentRight said...

216,

 Most of the GOP politicians at the end of the day will vote the way they are told. The real focus is the leadership, change them and the rest will follow.

Really? Trump's been telling them how to vote. How has that worked out? They follow a higher leadership than the GOP leadership. They serve the Swamp and the Deep State because they are part of the Swamp and the Deep State. In this context, that's what being an incumbent means.

We win by entryism, not by accelerationism.

Entyism and accelerationism are tactics, not strategy. What is the strategy behind entryism, if not the same failed strategy that got us to where we are now? The system can't be reformed "from within".

Conservatives and classical liberals and the moderates who favor them woke up just enough to roll over in bed, open one eye, and vote for Trump. But they didn't vote for Roy Moore (extremely disappointing) or Paul Nehlen (not surprising given how cucked Wisconsin is), and various others.

The Alt-Right has explained the demographic, racial, and cultural problems to death. We've proven that CivNats aren't willing to do what is necessary to make CivNat work, and we've proven that CivNat is evil anyway. We've proven that their tactics AND their strategy have failed.

The Fake Right (conservatives, libertarians, etc.) have no arguments. They're not serious. They just want to ignore the problem. No arguments will serve to change their minds. Only pain.

Fake America will be delighted to administer that pain, with or without "help".

The faster Majority-Americans experience the sweeping consequences of their laziness, cowardice, and short-sightedness, the faster they'll start listening.

Obviously I'm going to vote for Trump one way or another, but Trump can't do it alone. If the base is going to half-ass this, then Trump will turn out to be nothing more than a proof of concept—which is extremely important—but we don't need a proof of concept for 8 years.

AE writes: The boomercon demographic is inexorably shrinking. There is still a window of time for the Sailer Strategy to work, but the choice needs to be made clear and decisive.


A counter-argument to accelerationism would be that Majority-America's wake-up process is inherently generational. In that case, we want to delay the demographic trends as long as possible (particularly by marginal cuts to immigration) to make the Sailer Strategy window as large as possible. That way, once the Boomers have bounced their last check, there will be fewer Xeno-Americans for Gen-Z to deal with.

But to me that smacks of kicking the can down the road. Conservative Boomers will fight, however grudgingly, if they are forced to.

216 said...

DR,

Alleged Rapists and Nazis aren't going to win elections in normieland.

Tens if not hundreds of millions of people think we've got itchy trigger fingers for World War III, it doesn't help when we confirm the stereotype.

Your path seems eerily familiar to the self-destructive path the Conservative Party used in South Africa. By refusing to participate in the negotiations, they thought instability would lead to opinions shifting and the West coming into save them. De Klerk called their bluff and they lost big. Then they bungled an attempt to start a civil war, and went into electoral oblivion.

As Jim Bowery says, without moral sanction from their leaders, we don't fight. We will continue to run or be collaborators.

Our people can't even manage to stop drinking Starbucks and watching the NFL, this despite a direct order from their leaders. They aren't going to fight a war. Only the DSA types will.

216 said...

Accelerationism blackpill

https://twitter.com/FrameGames/status/1041573205062938625

Lots of Boomer "extreme right" though mostly Gen X, few Millenials. Despite the think tank fearmongering about veterans, those veterans were probably from decades ago and not in combat condition.

No Boomer Islamists

DissidentRight said...

Alleged Rapists and Nazis aren't going to win elections in normieland.

That's the problem right there. When you concede the Enemy's frame, you've already lost.

1. You know perfectly well that Nehlen is not a Nazi.
2. You know perfectly well that Moore is not an alleged rapist.
3. Everyone who is aligned with Trump is an alleged rapist and an alleged Nazi.

Are you sure you're not counter-signaling?

Tens if not hundreds of millions of people think we've got itchy trigger fingers for World War III, it doesn't help when we confirm the stereotype. 

What do you want, 216? What is your strategy? At what point do you confess to the normies that you want to send all the post-1965ers back and make the blacks independent?

Tactical lying is not a very good tactic for the Right. We can't do it.

Your path seems eerily familiar to the self-destructive path the Conservative Party used in South Africa.

There are two major differences. First, Americans are self-reliant. We are accustomed to being the world's superpower. We do not anticipate, want, or need help from foreign governments. Second, we aren't vastly outnumbered, like South African whites always were.

If you're outnumbered and you give up political control, it's over. That's the time to flee the country. We, on the other hand, maintain a large majority—large enough that we are still over a generation away from being outnumbered, and that's assuming the rosiest immigration predictions. We can can afford to give the Democrats control over the government for two election cycles, and let the Fake Americans wreak havoc like they do best, because whites aren't magically going to become outnumbered in that timeframe.

As I've argued in the past, the very act of diversifying America pisses Americans off and makes us more sympathetic to white identity politics.

216 said...

DR,

We're not going to agree, so I won't cause any more division.

DissidentRight said...

216,

Fair enough, but I'm still interested in hearing how you'd like your strategy to unfold, if you don't mind.

I will agree to disagree.

Anonymous said...

I just returned from a nine-day visit to Kansas. Squat, brown, non-English speaking illegals everywhere working for farmers, landscapers, painters, the City of Wichita's road crews, restaurants - "doing the work white people won't do." Kansas is looking more or less like California did back in the late 80's, early 90's. While in Kansas I learned of the 39,000,000 stolen social security numbers. Jeezus, I wonder what southern Missouri is looking like.

Trump never intended to build a genuine "boots on ground" political movement. All we have are tweeting twatters. Trump never intended to enact the program sold to us. We were played. Again. I will do my damnedest to ensure that fewer people fall for it.

Feryl said...

"Hispanic students account for 25 percent of all K-12 students, the latest sign that Latinos are the fast growing population in the United States.

Census Bureau numbers analyzed by the Pew Research Center’s Fact Tank found that the population of young Latinos under 18 surged 22 percent from 2006 to 2016. That helped “keep the nation’s youth population steady at about 73 million over the past decade,” said Pew.

Over that period, whites under 18 declined 11 percent, and blacks 7 percent. There are over 18 million Latinos under 18-years-old in the U.S."

That's an 18% decrease among America's historical ethnic groups.....In 10 years!

"Lots of Boomer "extreme right" though mostly Gen X, few Millenials. Despite the think tank fearmongering about veterans, those veterans were probably from decades ago and not in combat condition."

The 45-60 demographic is probably the most Republican generation in history. What good has that done? They mostly push culture war crapola (which they'll get their ass kicked on since well-educated people and well-heeled people typically are socially liberal) and Reaganite non-sense way past it's sell by date (bitching about the government size, taxes being too high, welfare being too generous, unions being too strong etc.). What's more, with this demographic you usually see a gradient of retarded fundy stuff strengthening as you go down the income ladder, weakening as you go up it. The Reaganite stuff goes up as you scale the income ladder, and is somewhat weaker as you go down it.

Neil Howe says that the GOP is thriving because of 60's and very early 70's births. But most of these people don't belong with us. We (those of us born over the last 40-45 years)want to restore economic liberalism because we know it goes hand in hand with cultural conservatism and modesty. The older GOPers want to have a LOLbertarian free for all....The GOP can run on fumes for a while in it's current model, but it'll be smashed apart within 20-30 years. It can't be emphasized enough that the veterans of the ideological battles of the 70's and 80's don't have any currency to younger generations. Late Gen X-ers and Millennials didn't grow up with:

- Criminals being set free easily (mass incarceration took off in the late 80's)
- Private sector unions perpetrating frequent slow downs and strikes (unions were effectively non-existent in their power by the 1990's)
- Mature adults having a reputation as well meaning but ineffectual (By the late 1990's, most adults were Boomers who had a rep. for being destructively temperamental and misguided)
- Welfare benefits being of a decent size (unemployment benefits were also much higher and lasted longer before the 90's, too)

The Me Generation (and the early Gen X-ers who got poisoned by them) wants to annihilate every last remnant of the modest and equitable mid-century. And if anything, this wish get stronger the later in the baby boom you go (early Boomers are more likely to be idealistic liberals).

Feryl said...

Sadly, the Boomers on Sailer's blog are the woke ones, but way too many older conservatives are dawdling with Fox News, etc., and also the paranoid, defeatist, and alienating Religious Right. The religious Right and Reagan ism have totally alienated younger people from the Right. We have a crisis of leadership, of general social, political, and cultural direction, and of elites being too competitive and arrogant. Blaming these problems on secularism, Millennials, or whatever isn't going to cut it. For the last 40-50 years we've seen a growing breakdown in the ability of society to diagnose and solve real problems. While Xtians bitched about the "gay agenda", and liberals "violent media", our society's ability to provide for and inspire the general masses has withered. First it was the homeless, the mentally ill, and the drug addicted in the 70's and 80's. Then it was working class people in the 90's and 2000's. In the 2010's, much of the middle class has been besieged by growing health care costs, competition from immigrant labor, soaring housing costs, and the like. But still, many GOPers still prioritize tax cuts for the wealthy, which engender not too much criticism from liberals, who are too busy attacking white people and rescuing immigrants to care.

For those of us who are pointing fingers, just saying "its the immigrants" or whatever, need to get a clue; "hard work" and "competition" (being the biggest and "the best") have been the biggest evils of all. For those who reaped huge rewards from the 1970's-1990's, you think, "what's wrong with being the best"? What wrong, you selfish asshole, is that you benefited from the lingering remnants of a fair society. People born since the late 1970's never got to partake in any of that, which you don't seem to understand. Why is it so hard to understand? It wasn't your "hard work" that made college, housing, and health care affordable. Get real. Wake up. And don't expect the younger generations to shed a tear when you're being hurtled toward the grave by nature itself, or perhaps being encouraged along by.....Something, or someone.

"I just returned from a nine-day visit to Kansas. Squat, brown, non-English speaking illegals everywhere working for farmers, landscapers, painters, the City of Wichita's road crews, restaurants - "doing the work white people won't do." Kansas is looking more or less like California did back in the late 80's, early 90's. While in Kansas I learned of the 39,000,000 stolen social security numbers. Jeezus, I wonder what southern Missouri is looking like."

Shush, you party pooper. The economy is doing great! Just "work hard" to get a place in a "nice" neighborhood, and send your kids to "good schools".

Feryl said...

In "duh" news, I read a good comment that said the best evidence of a labor "shortage" is higher pay. Uh-huh. Yep. A shrinking labor pool induces employers to raise wages so as to attract more applicants.

But that doesn't stop the tired fallacy of companies paying shitty wages to the desperate hoards while claiming that they can't find workers in the first place.

216 said...

Feryl,

The data was from the UK, our police usually doesn't use the term "extreme right" we use "Patriot" or "militia groups".

Feryl said...

Whoops, but what I said is still true, anyway.

"A Colorado meatpacking division of agribusiness company Cargill Corp. will pay $1.5M to 138 Muslim workers fired after they were denied prayer breaks."

Where do we start? Generic greedy company pays shit wages to immigrant workers, finds them to be incompatible with non-stop work levels, cans 'em for their (presumably) shitty attitude and performance, then they go to court which punishes companies for un-PC actions. Oh, and of course Muslims insist on making their religious practices come before everything else, even in Western countries that have been more and more secularized for the last, I dunno, 400 years. And jeez, do Christians, Jews, Buddhists, etc. HAVE to engage in elaborate physical prayer rituals several times a day? What a death cult for violent losers. Absent the regular discipline enforced by religion, these hotheads would be totally hapless.

216 said...

Feryl,

The Corbyn/Jews saga in the UK is still going on, of course I don't think many UK Jews are actually preparing to move to Israel (as they should). I've never taken this "scandal" seriously, it seems to be a "silly season" item that acquired a life of its own. Everyone knows that Corbyn has a Third World bias on foreign policy, but his support of Chavez gets much less airplay.

The US Muslim community is rather well behaved, at least for now since most are immigrants subject to selection bias. That will change as the second and third generations grow up and are alienated from mainstream US and the old homeland. Trump should have put a moratorium on all refugee resettlement on Day 1 of his presidency, the employers would have to either hire locals or move production to Mexico (thus preventing more migration).

DR,

My strategy for repatriation is based on voluntary returns, and arresting the business owners that employ illegals. Refugees would receive payments to return to their homelands at the conclusion of the war. We should further end farm subsidies in order to induce production to move to the Third World. In the longer term, a "basic income" paid to Third Worlders that stay put might become viable.

I envision either a breakup or major decentralization of the US. I think this can be encouraged by the acceleration of existing trends (ideological sorting and gentrification). I'm unsure if this can be completed without exogenous factors (PRC, RF, EU intervention).

Beyond mere entryism into political parties, I would like to see dissident rightists engage in entryism into otherwise moribund community organizations like Rotary. The wider goal should be the creation of the "alt-economy". Achieving de-facto separatism will come before the de-jure version. One thing that even ordinary cuckservatives should be concerned with is the banking industry's efforts to deny credit to gun businesses. The NRA (sadly controlled by the Military-industrial complex) should start its own credit union.

216 said...

Feryl,

In my experience in the low end of the economy, no one in management has any kind of clue how to find employees. Anyone with institutional memory of the last "boom" years of Ohio is either in a nursing home or dead. Managers seem to prefer sticking "now hiring" signs up, instead of raising pay or offering recruiting bonuses. This is odd as signs are a Boomer tool, and jobs are applied for online. On the plus side, these signs to seem to increase societal optimism.

It should be said that much of "The White Death" was self-inflicted, and these missing underclass workers were replaced by pliable Hispanics. Employers have also logically preferred the ample supply of laid off and immigrant adults, over local teenagers yet to be instilled with good habits. There's also been an increase in seniors working, perhaps from "depleted retirement funds" which I can no longer believe is the "recession's fault", and others from boredom. I dislike this as it undermines the New Deal principles of inter-generational equity. Part of the reason why SS taxes exist is to remove the elderly from the labor market.

Feryl said...

http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/xct.gd.e180913.htm

"As I've been writing for over ten years, almost every nation in the world is becoming increasingly nationalistic and xenophobic as the world goes deeper into a generational Crisis era. "

"From the point of view of Generational Dynamics, the way the world works is that population grows exponentially, growing faster than the resources such as food and water, resulting in mass migrations. Today we're seeing huge human migrations around the world, in the Mideast, Africa, South America, and Asia. These huge human migrants cause problems that can be resolved in only one way -- a new world war. A new world war will reduce the population 30%, 40%, 50% -- through nuclear war, ground war, starvation and disease. That will reduce the need for mass migrations, will solve the problem of insufficient food for everyone, and will even reduce the amount of "human activity," making climate change activists happy. European Commission and EU Observer and BBC and EU Observer and Daily Mail (London)"

Leaving aside such frivolities as morality or shallow and irrational sentiment, it all kinda makes sense, don't it? Nature finds a way; Jurrasic Park was only half-right. The Boomers who embraced the "life" finds a way sentiment in their yuppie heyday already had a reality check, but they ignored it: the AIDS epidemic/public health crisis, that rudely reminded humanity that there's a price to pay for "bad actors" piling into dens of teeming corruption.

Nature cares not for bleeding heart sentiment. Nature, and life, is cyclical. Birth, life, death....Maybe reproduction along the way. Being that there's been such utter ignorance, such a childish sentimentality that vainly tries to bury the harsh realities of existence (death, disease, and war may come and go, but they never lie dormant forever) promoted since the late 1970's (after a peak in eco and resource wokeness in the early 1970's). In the 1980's we started to see young people embrace a culture of "death" in terms of horror movies, metal music, goth fashion, and the like. This was all a (woke) reaction to the vacuous "life affirming" New Age manure that Boomers bought into in the late 70's and 80's. Quite a few youngsters saw it for being the narcissistic and thought-free culture that it was. At the end of the day it will, ironically, be the Boomers themselves who hurled themselves and their nations toward a grotesque wasting of resources, and physical and social vitality (Boomers had more "dirty" sex, did more drugs and alcohol, did more eating, did more to undermine social customs of propriety and respect, than the several generations preceding and following them). A generation that thought that the rules never applied to them, who really thought that anything, really, anything, was literally possible if they wanted it bad enough.....Cullings and destruction await.

Audacious Epigone said...

Russ G,

It depends on who loses. If Trumpians candidates win and CoC cucks lose, it's a big win. Rs aren't losing the House and Trump isn't leaving office before January 2021. A modest majority of Ds in the House isn't going to be able to do anything.

Feryl said...

"It should be said that much of "The White Death" was self-inflicted, and these missing underclass workers were replaced by pliable Hispanics. Employers have also logically preferred the ample supply of laid off and immigrant adults, over local teenagers yet to be instilled with good habits. There's also been an increase in seniors working, perhaps from "depleted retirement funds" which I can no longer believe is the "recession's fault", and others from boredom. I dislike this as it undermines the New Deal principles of inter-generational equity. Part of the reason why SS taxes exist is to remove the elderly from the labor market."

The neverending labor life is a topic that connects to many important themes of the day.

Grotesque striving. Retirement is seen as a demotion in status and visibility, and many Boomers frown at the idea of joining the ranks of the elderly, who they still, in their mind's eye, associate with the GIs of the 70's and 80's shuffling off to their own communities and being disconnected from cultural viability. Silents resented this "demotion" as well, but Silents are so few in number, and so overlooked as a generation, that as usual they are squeezed between the GIs and the Boomers. But Silents still retired much earlier than did Boomers, partly because Silents typically had huge levels of money and assets at retirement age. Also, the good fortune of the Silents exposes the myth that Gen X-ers do poorly because of their generation's size. The reality is sound economic fundamentals benefit those who are working age, no matter their generation. The increasingly debauched economy is terrible for X-ers and Millennials. I don't know what the Mstream media or culture is smoking when they say that X-ers are squeezed by Millennials. Really? No, we're all "squeezed" by obscene living costs that would be hard to deal with even if more of us had promotions and better income. The depressing and covered up truth is that people at the same time enjoyed high income and low living expenses from the 1950's-1980's. It's been the reverse for the last 20-30 years.

Self-servingly, many Boomers make up crap to justify hanging onto jobs that once would've gone to younger people. A common one is that, no, really, we are talented and wise and the whole place would crumble without us. As usual, they just make shit up. Boomers have been a cancer everywhere they go. Of course on average they probably are more likable and friendly than younger generations, but hey, they got that from having a childhood and/or adolescence during the mid-century. Us younger generations can't fathom an America where people felt good about stuff, but there ya go. X-ers and Millennials often have a diffident demeanor, but it doesn't make us worthless. Also, you can't blame younger generation's for having a shitty attitude being that they grew up in a dog eat dog culture full of striving, bullying, and corruption. And that's not what a lot of us wanted. Whereas the preponderance of Boomers got their way in the 70's, 80's, and 90's. I'm not stupid and I'm not lying: Boomers overwhelmingly were listened to, and got concessions from, older generations. Boomers, on the other hand, have often been crassly contemptuous of later generations, calling them lazy, stupid, dangerous, and social and cultural waste buckets polluted by rotten "junk" emanating from the TV, radio, and internet. Not helping matter is depressed younger people embracing these stereotypes (Gen X-ers habitually insult their own smarts and self-worth, while Millennials always accept the idea that they're entitled and aren't deferential enough to older people, yeah the older people who once mocked adult authority in their own youth).

216 said...

Feryl,

Are Boomers to blame for the loss of DB pensions, or is this foisted on the GI Generation executives of the 1970-80s? Are DB pensions actually sustainable, or will they always be a time bomb?


The embarrassing thing is that Gary Cohn, who was trying to con Trump into thinking that manufacturing can't be revived, is from my region. And despite his Jewish ancestry, his parents weren't from the professional class (FWIW, Schumer's dad was a bug exterminator). Rather than stay and rebuild his hometown, he left to be a Wall Street vulture.

https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2018/09/workers-prefer-manufacturing-bullshit-jobs/

Part of the problem with the shift to services is that the jobs are mostly part-time (U6 rate is at 7.4% above the 5% that we call full employment).

DissidentRight said...

216,

Thanks. I don't really see anything to disagree with. :-)

DissidentRight said...

216,

We should further end farm subsidies in order to induce production to move to the Third World.

Of course we should end farm subsidies, but we should also ban food imports.
We need to pick our own cotton.

Mr. Rational said...

Tactical lying is not a very good tactic for the Right. We can't do it.

The truth is our best weapon.  Lying renders it useless, because people will stop believing us.

Feryl said...


Are Boomers to blame for the loss of DB pensions, or is this foisted on the GI Generation executives of the 1970-80s? Are DB pensions actually sustainable, or will they always be a time bomb?

DB? What is that?

Anyway, the reason private sector pensions disappeared is because the greed of executives aided and abetted by the Boomers flat out turning a blind eye to a growingly parasitic private sector. When Boomers came of age, they heard hostility toward the government for doing too much, and toward the military for being foolish. Not until the 2008 crash did many Boomers began to evince as much hostility toward the private sector as they've always had toward the government.

Obviously Silents bear some of the blame, but they were the generation, who as Neil Howe points out, always asked about retirement packages before they accepted most jobs. It was Boomers who tended to disregard basic measures of responsibility, like planning for retirement. This set in motion a culture that's consistently celebrated big winners who often took great risks at the expense of others, while looking down on the losers, as well as putting off tough decisions in government and finance while big bubbles get inflated again and again. A lot of corporate sociopath Silents have gotten away with lots of terrible actions because of the corrupt elitist/above the law mentality that's gotten so bad over the last 30 years. Boomers could've cleaned this up, since Silents have always obeyed the Boomers, but it's not happened because Boomers are loath to re-introduce progressive "class warfare". Why do we hear so much BS about how high taxes discourage hard work and the like? Too many Boomer have, or want to have, vast riches and they are uncomfortable with reining in elites. The trappings of success are too important to Boomers, which prevents a mass movement to push down individual greed and arrogance so as to better the fortunes of all classes. The erstwhile "progressive" movement has totally forgotten the corruption exposed by the 2008 crash; what gives? Elites do not permit genuine, long lasting populist movements. They have contempt for "losers", and couldn't care less about them. Sad to say, but this has been 40+years in the making, as we've shed the knowledge gained from the hard lessons of the late 19th and early 20th century. For that matter, Boomers just had to bitch about every perceived short coming of the Progressive era, dwell on every excess of the period, so as to justify running away screaming from it and then embracing an era of extreme individualism, incivility, and greed. We've dramatically reduced ethnic nationalism, tribalism, racial separatism, and such since the 1970's. But at what cost? In return for people being allowed to do whatever they damn well please aside from street crime, we've gotten vast economic inequality, disease epidemics, two generations (X-ers and Millennials) with profound psychological difficulties in terms of trust issues, and an overall sense of poor self-worth and alienation.

Anyway, we can't let the social Darwinism of Boomers keep getting in the way, and that's the thing about which Millennials are most in disagreement with older generations. Millennials have inherited a culture that's run amok and ruined our well-being. And since we know of so few generational peers who've benefited from the Reaganite mindset, what reason do we have to defend it?

216 said...

Feryl,

DB- Defined Benefit, what we think of as a traditional pension
DC- Defined Contribution, like a 401k

ChanChanRight said...

congress works for big business, globalist CEOs etc...those are the ones who make congressmen rich via insider trading tips, access to IPOs, and seats on boards of directors, if and when the politician get booted out of office...so therefore the congressmen do whatever the rich folks want them to do...the rich folks do not want populist legislation passed...such populist legislation can only be passed when one party holds both the white house and congress...congress thwarted trump's populist legislation so far, but they really want the Dems to control congress so that there is no chance of populist legislation passing...

same thing for the supreme court--the upper class & globalists do not want a court that is strongly either leftwing or rightwing...the upper class wants a balanced court ---that means less chance of populist rulings...

AB.Prosper said...

The GOP leaders are feckless as seen by the actual lack of Obamacare repeal. They want the corporate money but know they can't win without at least lip service to the base so they are constantly triangulating and dodging responsibility

The only option is to primary every time and replace them with people with the stones to change the party leadership . The problem though is they have so little loyalty they'll throw elections to the Democrats either by running as an "independent " or just switching parties

They care only about getting what they want not the nation,.

So a removal would require a very motivated electorate. It can work after all the Never Trump crowd tired the same strategy but President Trump is unusual in many respects


Still worth trying to vote miracles happen but who really thinks that we can vote our way out of the mess? Seriously much better odds are its collapse into many nations, dealing in lead or some of each not "put in the right guys"