Wednesday, December 05, 2018

Kamala polishing progressive credentials

Broadly speaking, there are three wings of the contemporary Democrat party--the POC ascendancy, corporate globalists, and socialist progressives. Securing the Democrat presidential nomination will be contingent upon garnering each wing's support, in respective order of importance. Obama won the 2008 nomination by dominating the POC ascendancy vote. Hillary similarly won it in 2016 by doing the same. That she had no purchase among socialist progressives didn't matter.

In 2020, the POC ascendancy will belong to Kamala Harris. She will, as the only non-white female running, have unquestioned moral authority in any dispute with any other candidate. She is aware of the power this affords her and trades on it constantly.

Deval Patrick, the only potential POC candidate who wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth and who had the potential to see Obama retconned from the first black president to the first mixed race president to make room for Patrick to claim the first black spot, appears to be definitively out. That leaves Questionable Cory as Kinky Kamala's only real competition.

The corporate globalists like Kamala because she's ambitious and unprincipled so can be corralled and controlled but also disciplined enough to stay on message without significant risk of deviation.

Her toughest sell will be to the socialist progressive wing. She's keenly aware of this and has been working it relentlessly:

Expect more of that in the coming months and years. Cowardly Bernie Sanders needs enough cover to save face with the base he will betray again when he throws his support behind Kamala. She's going to be sure to provide him with plenty of that cover.

But, but she's polling substantially behind the putative frontrunner, Joe Biden!

What did polling look like at this point in the 2008 campaign? Taken December 5, 2006, exactly as far out from the 2008 election as we currently are from 2020:

Precedence, folks.

Biden's previous presidential campaigns, when the Democrat electorate was far more amenable to his demographic profile than it is now, were total non-starters. All he has going for him is his association with Obama. If it means denying a POC like Kamala or Cory Booker, Obama will not betray the ascendancy by endorsing his former lieutenant. The nomination is not going to one of the old white dinosaurs.

And Beta O'Rourke is too late. The Justin Trudeau and Emmanuel Macron moments have passed. Kamala is coming.

My modest suggestion to help ensure the 2020 election is as clarifying as possible: Insinuate that anyone who expresses support for a white Democrat nominee is lame and maybe racist. "Really? Another old white man (or woman in the unlikely cases of Elizabeth Warren of Kirsten Gillibrand)? I think it's time we put our values into practice. I'm really excited about Kamala Harris." Do your part!


216 said...

The "domestic worker" bill the invaders are sponsoring is a good triangulation effort, coupled with E-Verify.

Black Death said...

This one is too good to pass up. Bernie Sanders has been caught spending almost $300,000 on private jet trips! Yes, the elderly socialist-global-warming alarmist disdains mixing with ordinary people on commercial flights:

The website Vermont Digger discovered that elderly socialist and climate alarmist Bernie Sanders spent $300,000 on private jets as he crisscrossed the country to talk about the evils of the wealthy and the danger to planet Earth from excess carbon emissions from things like, you know, private jet travel.

Sanders, like Al Gore, has three power-sucking homes and makes well over $1,000,000 a year.
Can you imagine the uproar if he were a Republican?

Kipling said...

I thought you were embracing accelerationism. Do you think Harris has a better chance of beating Trump? Or rather do you think that Trump, thanks to the response he provokes while he does very little substantive, is helping speed the crack up even more than a Democrat would? I'm coming around to the argument that the only way to vote out of this is to go back to 1992 and elect Buchanan.

I was surprised to hear Warren making populist noises; who knows what will be said/shifted to by 2019. It's going to be a fun campaigning two-year.

Jig Bohnson said...

Well I'll state my claim again. A high yellow halfsie with the good hair who is married to a rich white nerd does not have the black vote locked up. Not by a long shot.

Audacious Epigone said...


Surely it's not going to pass though, is it? Kamala probably prefers that it doesn't.

Let me tap your encyclopedic knowledge of electoral politics--were there any Dem primaries at the House/Senate/Governor level where a white beat out a POC? Ben Jealous looks like he'd qualify, but of course he identified as black so that doesn't quite count.

Black Death,

There is a lot of truth to the idea that the pols sort themselves out by sending the unscrupulous people to the left and the morons to the right.


I'll develop in more in a future post when I really go on the record in terms of the impending economic meltdown, but I find it highly unlikely that Trump will be re-elected almost irrespective of who wins the Democrat nomination. There is no way I'm able to work out a scenario where he wins the popular vote, and four years of actuarial assault in the upper midwestern states he won in 2016 means he's unlikely to win them again.


The question is one of competition. Obama got obliterated in 2000 when he tried to be a black candidate because he was going up against Bobby Rush, whose black bona fides are much better. When Obama went up against Hillary and Edwards and 2008 though he dominated the black vote.

Kamala's only competition is Booker and he's a weird loose cannon who doesn't look any POCier than she does, and he's male.

216 said...


Michigan, Governor

Whitmer (NWL) beat an Arab and an dot Indian.

Wisconsin, Governor

White male beat a large cast of creatures, 2nd place was a black union president that had previously been a statewide nominee.

Minnesota, Governor, dishonorable mention

Two white females split vote, white male won primary and general.


Making its return:


It would be nice if Don Jr would bother to notice what's going on in the company he is supposedly running, instead he's banging Gavin Newsom's leftovers.

MBlanc46 said...

Oh please, Dems, please, please, please give us Kamala Harris.

Ledford Ledford said...

How does Kamala do in Iowa and New Hampshire? Does she need to win one of them? She can do well in the South, I assume, but if she looks like a loser going into South Carolina she might have problems.

Iowa and New Hampshire are the white prog primaries.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

I would say that Kween Kamala is the likely candidate for the Democrats. She has more intersectional multipliers than any other viable Democratic candidate for 2020. Why go for transracial "Beto" when you got the real deal running. Cory Booker has a penis (even if he prefers it go into another man's ass) so that's no good. Joe Biden and Kirsten Gillibrand are white people and even though one of them is a vagina haver, as we've seen in recent years, that's not good enough. It's all about melanin content so the best Gillibrand is going to be able to do is maybe a senior cabinet position. Maybe. The POC ascendancy doesn't really care about the white woman vote any more than they care about the white man vote.

As to her 2020 viability, it depends on how they sell it. I think if she runs as a blue dog democrat, it will probably convince enough badwhites to give her a chance to tip the scales in the states Trump won by slim margins like Wisconsin and Michigan. If she runs as a social justice warrior, then she will likely lose. As nonwhite as this country is rapidly becoming, convincing 2-3 more percent of whites to go for Trump as an anti-Kamala measure versus 2016 is enough to keep him in office.

HBS said...

Not saying this will stop her, but Harris being without children is something that could work against her as well as make her unrelatable. Its not something that has to be pointed out, its something people subconsciously notice. Even POC want someone who shows signs of having run a household. In the media era, the candidate that can show at least one younger child (pre-20) on stage does tend to win (Kennedy, Carter, Clinton, Bush the lesser, Obama, & Trump).


I'm not so sure that the economic meltdown will be here before the end of 2020. If you look at the Treasury yield curve for 2018, it matches the 2005 spreads almost to the day. With that in mind, I think the next recession may be more around 2021-22.

I do agree though, that it might be the best case scenario for us to have Trump sit 2020 out, let the democrat win and let them get hit by the next recession. It would open the door for a Trumplican wave in 2022/24 and free Trump up over the next two years.

Anonymous said...


What if another woman of color, one more robust, one more battle tested, and, most relevant to this discussion, one who is unquestionably the more darker, were to challenge Harris?

Say hello to Stacy Abrams.

Yes, she lost, but, I would argue as a general proposition, one who loses an intense, no holds-barred, ruthless contest is more battle tested than one who prevails in a cakewalk.

Abrams might have more appeal to the typical negress for a variety of reasons. One, she is not threatening. Two, she has lived the life which far more resembles they typical life of black women than has Harris. Three, as far as I know, she didn't have a bedmate / patron like Willie Brown.

Liberty Mike

thekrustykurmudgeon said...

someone on mpc wrote this:
"The curious thing is that they don't sincerely care what the black guys would have done on the project - they really only care that blacks get some minimum proportionate share of the credit for the project whether they were integral to its success or not. They could have put a black guy in charge of a department with makework tasks that don't ever get accomplished and no objections would be raised. Just bring in N.D. Tyson with a high profile sinecure and allow him to vocalize his typical tweeted banalities.

Sailer cued in on this for quite some time - blacks love phony awards and commendations and seem to have little self-awareness or concern with regard to whether the award actually represents a recognition of merit. They're a modern form of Danegeld liberally applied in mixed race institutions to maintain blacks' outsized sense of self-esteem so that others can do the real work."

I sometimes think this same principle applies not only to blacks, but to women as well.

Audacious Epigone said...

Ledford Ledford,

Good question. Since 2000 when the same D has won both states, he/she has easily gotten the nomination. Obama/Clinton and then Clinton/Sanders split. Otoh, if she is competitive in each she will be set up to easily win South Carolina and probably Nevada after that.

There should be more protestations from POCs on the left about the white privilege inherent in the Democrat nominating process. Iowa and especially New Hampshire are much whiter than the country as a whole is. No fair!

Random Dude,

Harris should promise her unserious female competition (like Gillibrand) cabinet spots if they support her early. Making sex more prominent than race (which will take care of itself) is probably the best way to win the nomination.


Interesting. It is a sort of trend in Europe but one the US has bucked so far.

Why I think we'll crash sooner: "Quantitative easing" isn't nearly as viable this time around. We're at 2.X% interest rates, not 5.X% like we were in 2008.

Liberty Mike,

Losing, especially a close one in a 'red' state (Georgia should not be thought of that way anymore given that it is on the cusp of becoming majority-minority), is as you say not an impediment. It seems to have similarly been good for Beta Omega in Texas.

Abrams would price Harris out of the POC market, unquestionably. That she was too soon for Georgia means that she'd almost certainly be too soon for the US as a whole, but if she runs it'll do more to question my assertion than just about anyone else would (maybe Oprah).


Great quote. In the culture war between whites, the goodwhite position is paying the danegeld without protestation is the way to go. The badwhite position--including libertarian blank slatists all the way to racial realists--is that doing so is objectionable.

216 said...

AE (krusty),

The central problem we face is the lack of moral authority. Everyone is aware of the problems, and no one is disputing the solutions. If we were in the position of displacing the dominant cultural position of the media/academia, but we are not. We are unable to set up a single payment processor, relegating anyone that angers the establishment into postal money orders.

I've been both inflammatory accelerationist, and blackpilled doomer. But I have to wonder if maybe the likeliest result is that we grudgingly accept the fact of becoming a despised minority. As long as white liberals exist with cultural power, there will always be an oligarch somewhere willing to pay them to be propagandists (see: DuPreez, Max of South Africa). Perhaps things will change if the power of the university credential can be bypassed. And as long as those aforesaid white liberals have cultural power, we will not have moral legitimacy.

216 said...


that was fast...

Ja D said...

Viva the black party!

vok3 said...

Regarding the next economic meltdown, I've been reading Angry Karl since 2006-2007 or so, and for all his faults he's been harping on the 2024 timeframe (+/- a few years depending on events) for as long as I've been reading him.

His latest:

A Texan said...

And it's lost on dipsh__ts like Kamala that Obama and the party passed a lot of laws and regulations that would make energy more expensive for working people. Those costs get passed down into groceries and other stuff than just the gas put into a car. How do we end up with such stupid POS's in Congress that don't understand this?

Feryl said...

Hey, O/T but might as well mention it....

Russian crime (homicide) rates appear to roughly parallel American ones, at least from the 1960's-early 1990's.

In Russia, excessive drinking is closely tied to periods of "bad manners", while as Steve notes crack-cocaine was closely linked to the dystopian crime levels of the late 80's and 90's.

In both countries, there's a rise in big rise in substance abuse in the late 60's and 70's, which is linked to rising crime during those periods. Both countries experienced a noticeable decline in crime in the early-mid 80's, before the rate begins to rise to record levels far beyond even the late 70's in the late 80's and early 90's.

The countries diverge in the late 90's and 2000's. In America, that was the period of widespread acceptance of neo-liberalism, de-industrialization, the housing bubble benefiting Boomers, et al, in tandem with early Millennials reaching high school and young adulthood. Crime rates fell dramatically. On the other hand, in Russia, the late 90's and early 2000's were a continuing period of angst and depression, and as such, crime remained at a high level. Only with the emergence of Putin did Russia start to get back on track.

Historical cycle wise, Neil Howe says that "unraveling" periods are known for highly dangerous urban areas and reckless youth. Thus, the urban jungle of the late 80's and 90's is evidence of our unraveling, and Gen X-ers would be the "street children" who made large swaths of America dangerous during that period. It looks as if the same thing happened to Russia, as well, except in Russia they had much bigger cultural and poltical problems which prolonged the worst excesses of the unraveling for a good 10 years longer than what was seen in America.

Meanwhile, it's rather unsettling to see that Russia's crisis leaders (Putin et al) appear to be handling this historical phase much better than their American counterparts. Howe and Strauss always say that crisis phases call for aggressive but savvy leadership....But it doesn't necessarily mean we will actually get it. A Chris Martenson podcast I Listened to pointed out that Putin so far has been remarkable calm with his public rhetoric, in comparison to Western leaders who foam at the mouth at how "evil" and dangerous Russia is.

Feryl said...

I would venture to guess that the Western awakening and unraveling period were not sufficiently tough on Silent and Boomers. They did not learn how (or why) they could (and should) be better leaders....And better people. This is all evidenced by many American Boomers OD'ing, or gradually wasting away, on a diet of cigarettes, booze, pot, and opioids. We're in our hour of need, and the same generations (Silents and Boomers) who coasted in the 1960's-1990's are now either hoarding their money and privilege, or if less affluent, are hunkering down into a cocoon made out of TV and substances.

Now it's quite interesting that Russian and American Millennials appear to be fairly similar in their temperament and behavior, but here we find a striking difference just the same: Western Millennials are melancholy and withdrawn because elder generations are fucking idiots who since the early 1990's have failed to produce good and attentive leaders, whereas Russian Millennials are going to come of age like American GIs did in the early 20th century: bodly confident about the progress to come, and welcoming to older generations.

+1 for Millennials in the self-destructive and nihilistic behavior avoidance category. Boomers and early X-ers (in America) appear to be succumbing to their weak character by soaking their brains and bodies in substances and junk culture. In the awakening and unraveling, this is more acceptable....To a degree. But in a crisis phase that they are badly botching, sure enough we find them taking the coward's way out: heroin and opioids, when they aren't trying to eat and shop their way out of acute feelings of low self esteem (since they know that they and their generation mates suck big time).

Random Dude on the Internet said...

> And it's lost on dipsh__ts like Kamala that Obama and the party passed a lot of laws and regulations that would make energy more expensive for working people. Those costs get passed down into groceries and other stuff than just the gas put into a car. How do we end up with such stupid POS's in Congress that don't understand this?

LOL, what makes you think that they don't know this? They couldn't care less what their policies do to the untermenschen, they only care about enacting policies that get them pats on the back at the next party or the next $5,000 a plate fundraiser dinner.

Feryl said...

Lists of celebrity drug deaths actually show that later X-ers (those born in the 70's) have thus far actually done a good job of avoiding drugs.

On the other hand, Boomers and especially Gen X-ers born in the 60's are well-represented in the drug related death category.

Agnostic says that X-ers born from 1965-1967 mostly over-lap with Boomers, and I'm inclined to believe him based on this list of celebrity drug deaths (DOB listed first):

1965 - John Kordic (athlete)
Chris Mainwaring (athlete)
1966 - Chris Antley
1967 - Kurt Kobain (musician)
Anthony Durante (pro wrestler)
Eddie Guerrero (pro wrestler)
Anna Nicole Smith (model)
Chris Bowman (athlete)
Philip Seymour Hoffman (actor)
Scott Weiland (musician)
1969 - Chyna
Verne Troyer (actor)
1970 - River Pheonix (actor)
Lisa Robin Kelly (actress)
1971 - Dolores O'Riordan (musician)
1973 - Elisa Bridges (model)
Umaga (pro wrestler)
1978 - Andy Irons (athlete)
Chris Kelly (musician)
1979 - Steven Scott Bechler (athlete)
Heath Ledger (actor)

Why does 1967 stand out so much? I'm guessing it's because this cohort was 12-13 in 1979/1980, when drug use was at it's peak of mainstream acceptance (there's YouTube video of legally sold cocaine paraphanlia advertisements, which judging from the graphic design it would seem that almost all of it dates to 1978-1982.

Those born in 1967 are probably the most likely to have been introduced to pot and booze in junior high, and children/teens who start drinking and smoking pot in their youth are the most likely to develop serious abuse problems down the road. Steve Sailer once linked to a study showing that people born in the late 70's are the least likely to report substance abuse problems. The late 80's and early 1990's was the peak of hostility towards drugs. The same study also revealed that those born from the late 50's-about 1967 are in deep doo doo.

Zeroh Tollrants said...

I will personally burn down the White House myself, before that gapped toothed anti-white Aunt Jemima sits her butt in the Oval Office.

Zeroh Tollrants said...

Hello. Born in mid 66 here. I find your argument extremely compelling. Yes, most of us were intro'd to the booze & weed in middle school, but we also were intro'd to diet pills (speed) and in the wealthier urban areas, coke.
Everyone I knew in HS/college from affluent areas were using coke at their parties circa 1981-1987.

Anonymous said...

As a south Asian, let me give you a little background on Kamala's roots from there. Her mom is a Tamil Brahmin, these people have perfected putting deplorable in their place for over 2500 years, now its your turn pilgrim. The Tamil Brahmins are of particular distilled variety because their ancestors were hand chosen by the 6'th century Tamil king from North India to reintroduce Hinduism there, think if somebody wanted to choose the best and smartest Jews in America and settle em somewhere else to act their Jewishness, what would that place look like. US based Tamil Brahmins are further distilled from their home areas.

Up until now I have been clinging to Steve Sailor's analogy for Trump and George Steinbrenner, through all the chaos and turmoil the team will win eventually, but after 2018 I am not sure at all. The cuckservatives are fully on board the Democratic train, nothing about higher taxes or violence is going to scare them probably because they put very low probability on it happening, the mid west whites who put him in office are either holding back or voting Democratic, against Kamala they probably vote Trump but it wont be enough. Even if he wins MI and WI (PA is lost cause), I see him loosing AZ and one of FL/GA/TX.

Its time to start planning for split of this country for peaceful coexistence.

Audacious Epigone said...


Even if they're not active there, everyone reading this thread should have an account on Gab. Forget the shortcomings--they're fighting the good fight and they have the will to fight it.


+/- five years and I'm with him!


For a brief period during the primaries I thought some sort of Old America alliance between whites and blacks could potentially be forged. Naive, obviously--anti-white sentiment is so much stronger among blacks than any animus towards the foreign-born will ever be.

A Texan,

Don't understand it, or benefit politically from it?


Is the slight uptick in violence over the last couple of years tied to BLM agitation rather than cyclical? Is the current increase in drug use, with overdoses up ~10% year-over-year going to produce a more acute increase in violence in the 2020s?


Heh, easy on the fed posting. We'll assume you were speaking figuratively!

Audacious Epigone said...


Does she have any European in her? Her father looks like he has some.

Feryl said...

Total crime, but especially burglary, peaks in 1980. The Carter years were pretty awful for a lot of reasons.

"Is the slight uptick in violence over the last couple of years tied to BLM agitation rather than cyclical? Is the current increase in drug use, with overdoses up ~10% year-over-year going to produce a more acute increase in violence in the 2020s?"

I agree with the former, in the sense that inept Democrats really do seem to be associated with a spike in violence and unrest, dating back to the civil rights era (LBJ, Carter, and Obama). Clinton, the wily bastard, understood how detested the dangerous climate of the early 90's was, and co-opted the Nixonite/Reaganite law and order attitude while also sponsoring actual legislation to attack criminals. The mid-late 1990's actually were a period of much greater civic calm than the late 60's-early 1990's (bookended by black riots), which can be thanked for crime diminishing. Millennials are much less volatile than Boomers and X-ers, so whatever cultural and psychological problems we may be dealing with at present are not going to cause the massive waves of destructive behavior that we saw in the late 60's-early 90's. Sure, there was a slight increase in violence in Obama's 2nd term, but this is nowhere near as bad as what both America and Russia experienced in the 1980's-2000's Unravelling (which hit Russia for a more sustained period of time). Millennials are the dominant heroic youth cohort in a Crisis stage, which goes a long way toward explaining why Crisis stages feature much less crime than Unraveling stages in which Boomers and Gen X-ers turn society into a self-centered battleground (as opposed to angst in Crisis stages being channeled toward collective interests).

WRT drugs, it's mostly heroin/opioids, isn't it? Other kinds of drugs have seen their use fall dramatically since the early 2000's. As I said above, these our drugs for people who check out. So I actually would say that these drugs are substantially less likely to contribute to violence and crime compared to alcohol/speed/cocaine/PCP. And social mood is still important; drug use was more common in the late 90's than it was in the early 90's, but crime was a lot lower in the late 90's because people felt better and more confident than they did in the late 80's/early 90's, when was crime was terrible. Anatoly does say that alcohol is particularly noxious for it's association with greater violence, and the current American generations struggling with the effects of alcohol abuse (those born in the 50's and 60's) are the same people responsible for crime reaching record levels in the late 70's-early 90's. The Youth Risk behavior survey shows that the rate of drinking and smoking among teenagers has been falling almost continuously over the last 20 or so years. Other surveys that go back further showed that the late 70's and early 80's is when teen drinking and pot use was at it's highest point.

Opioids obviously can motivate addicts to steal things, but they don't really seem to otherwise destabalize a person's behavior compared to alcohol and stimulants. The "scares" associated with cocaine in the 80's, and meth in the late 90's and 2000's, were caused in large part due to potent stimulants making users act like total nutters. Likewise, the campaign to control drinking in the 80's (MADD and the like) happened for good reason; alcohol doesn't always lead to violence, but it never makes any one's life better, least of all those who are pre-disposed to being impulsive and aggressive.

Feryl said...

"Hello. Born in mid 66 here. I find your argument extremely compelling. Yes, most of us were intro'd to the booze & weed in middle school, but we also were intro'd to diet pills (speed) and in the wealthier urban areas, coke.
Everyone I knew in HS/college from affluent areas were using coke at their parties circa 1981-1987. "

Among the professional class, coke was already ubiquitous in the mid 70's, than it spread to night clubs in the late 70's, than it spread to upper middle class suburban households in the early 80's. Evidently "productivity" soared in the late 70's and 80's, and I think we can all figure out what was going on (The LSD of the late 60's and early 70's was totally out, coke was in). There was a major backlash towards drugs and drinking in the mid-late 80's, due to a number of celebrity deaths as well as rising concern for the youngest generation of children (Millennials). Anti-drug memes were everywhere by 1988 (which as you indicate was around the time that just about everyone was starting to tire of the "party" atmosphere that everyone bought into in the late 70's and early 80's). When I played arcade games first around 1990, new games often had a screen that said "Winners don't use drugs" which flashed when you put a quarter in. On late 80's TV, Cops and Unsolved Mysteries regularly featured misadventures involving high and drunk idiots.

WRT affluence, low-income communities were hit hardest by the effects of drug and alcohol abuse from the 70's-present (Steve Sailer says that most 1960's drug use was done by hippies, college kids, and bikers, not working class normies). Wealthier people have greater social support networks, better medical care, and can take advantage of re-hab, both of which can lessen the negative impact of abuse. Plus, among later X-ers and Millennials, it's generally been those with less intellectual horsepower who turn to abuse in the first place (since after all, everyone since the late 80's has understood that you have to be a moron to do drugs or abuse alcohol).

Feryl said...

"For a brief period during the primaries I thought some sort of Old America alliance between whites and blacks could potentially be forged. Naive, obviously--anti-white sentiment is so much stronger among blacks than any animus towards the foreign-born will ever be."

It's interesting how close America and Japan have become since 1946; given that we dropped nukes on them. Meanwhile, look at everything that's been done on behalf of blacks since 1946, and what do we have to show for it? Nothing. Prior to de-segregation, the most talented blacks were much more likely to be active in the lives of all blacks. Post de-segreation, black elites have totally abandoned their race while pretending to still care (at a safe distance). One of the most destructive aspects of this is in providing work; talented blacks are now "targeted" for placement into white run institutions, where they sometimes won't rise to particularly high level. 60 or 70 years ago, these same blacks would've been guiding black institutions that would've given meaningful work and a sense of belonging to lower class blacks. Would things have been perfect under this arrangement? No, of course not. But it still is a much better system than the one we've had since the mid-60's, wherein whites bend over backwards to encourage the best blacks to physically abandon other blacks (or in some cases, the better blacks refusing to live among the worse blacks), which thus leads to there being no more effective stewardship of blacks. And as we see with Obama et al, talented blacks end up resenting whites because they know deep down inside that a paternal relationship still exists between white elites and blacks, a source of obvious tension and insecurity (black liberals like Obama can't resolve the cog. dis. between feelings of inherent capability among blacks and the reality that most black elites are extended affluence and opportunities that they don't generally deserve and wouldn't have had prior to the 60's).

Put another way: cognitive elite and highly motivated blacks being permitted a great deal of territory in white society has been an abysmal failure, because even they do not necessarily feel welcome, or respected, among whites. It's better to have elite blacks among prole blacks than it is to awkwardly mix blacks and whites together. If even Obama (the president !) feels resentful of the accomplishments of whites, and continues to stew about incidents of overt or alleged racism, then what hope do we have? To compare and contrast, conservative blacks seem to earnestly desire a society where people can "get over" whatever insults they may or may not have experienced in their lives.
Elite black liberals, on the other hand, actually want their co-ethnics and everyone else for that matter, to continue to obsessively dwell on poor race relations, often under the guise of "improving" things (!).

Feryl said...

As Sailer has pointed out ad nauseum, the Obama admin, w/ people like Obama and Holder, became a platform from which often mulatto blacks would project their own racial fears and insecurities onto whites (w/ the AFF Housing act being esp. galling, as it aimed to push prole blacks out of the urban real estate coveted by elites). And some Boomers appear to be utter headcases when it comes to racial issues, since the last 50 years haven't really improved relations among the races, but in fact have led to much corruption, sanctimony, and hypocrisy often designed to make elite liberals feel better about themselves...Only for proles of all races to suffer. Of course a lot of X-ers and Millennials go along with this stuff because they have to....In order to not upset the older generations who created this BS in the first place (meanwhile, a lot of Silents and Boomers say that they had to buy into it because the government made them. Bullshit. You guys had a choice in the 60's and 70's, and you damn well made a choice...But probably not the best one.)

Also, the government doesn't make people sanctimonious or corrupt. Most of my generation (people born in the 80's) aren't ripping anyone off, or deliberately lying to better take advantage of people. Compare that to how many con artists were born in the 40's and 50's (here I give credit to people born in the 60's, who seem to have resent how pompous and corrupt earlier births were and still are).

Audacious Epigone said...


Ghetto blacks have no love lost for whites when they see them but they're otherwise out of mind when they're out of sight. The mulatto mafia types who made up so much of Obama's administration, in contrast, seem to dwell on their resentment of whites 24/7/365.

216 said...

Re: Balkanization

Amazing that it is possible, but Ctrl F "demographics", and it doesn't appear among the trucon wondering why his constitutional rights are targeted for extinction. Nor does anyone suggest "self-determination" of Redstanis as an ethnocultural group.

Anonymous said...

I feel like Joe Biden vs Kamala Harris would be entertaining to watch, but I would be actually afraid of Biden managing to pull off a win.

It could derail the flight from the dems by whites who think their party would still be capable of nominating a sane white man after biden, which would hurt us pretty badly.

szopen said...

Audiacious, I saw your blog at unz'. Congrats at being recognisez as pretty much part of the fringe mainstream :D

Audacious Epigone said...


Even if Biden wins, the Coalition of the Fringes would be irrevocably torn asunder. If it was both tough and split hard along racial lines in the primaries, Biden probably wouldn't win anyway.


Thanks very much!

Disordered said...

Would agree, if domestic worker laws meant a corresponding decrease in feminism in the workplace. Because technically a housewife would be just like a job - therefore no need for affirmative action for women. (If anything, men could ask higher representation as househusbands... lol). Ergo, higher wages for better-IQ breadwinners (mostly men, plus the few high IQ wives or single mothers head of household would also benefit economically).
And yeah, without e-verify Kamala's intention be pretty much importing more Latina maidslaves.