Tuesday, April 18, 2017

Playing with fire

The real tough cookie on getting acquainted with violence for the first time in her privileged life:
“Me and my friends were fleeing. As we were running away I lost my friends,” she said. “I was trying to follow my boyfriend, but he just disappeared…I was just trying to block myself away from different people who were just pushing me and attacking other people.”
As has been noted here several times, if the civil authorities refuse to intervene against leftist street fighters, the new populists will take action into their own hands. And we are much better prepared for violence than the agitators are.

Antifa was better armed--they brought banned items like glass bottles and pepper spray--and still got their asses handed to them.

While her recounting of events should be taken with a grain of salt, it is telling that as she was allegedly trying to follow her boyfriend, "he just disappeared".

In 2004 the GSS asked respondents if they agreed with the statement "I would rather suffer myself than let the one I love suffer." The percentages, among men, who gave a response other than "strongly agree", by political orientation (n = 610):

Not only are the leftist street brawlers no match for MAGA berserkers in a melee, they are--as the GSS illustrates--more likely to flee the fray to save themselves when the going gets tough. As every student of history knows, that's devastating to the tactical effectiveness of any fighting unit. When the line breaks is when the route begins. They will leave their wounded on the battlefield. We won't.

Parenthetically, absorbing punishment so one you love does not have to is not white knighting. White knighting is absorbing punishment for someone who does not love you, often someone you don't even know.

If Billy Petit had staggered up the stairs with a lead pipe in his hands and bloodlust in his heart instead of scampering off to a neighbor's house while his wife and daughters were burned alive, it wouldn't have made him a white knight. It would have made him a man worthy of the name.

If Abdullah Kurdi would have swam under the waves in a frantic search for his two-year-old son until his lungs filled with water, he wouldn't have died a white knight. He would have died a man worthy of the name.

Were you planning on living forever? No one gets out of this alive. If there aren't things you're willing to die for, yours is not a life worth living.

GSS variables used: AGAPE1(1)(2-5), SEX(1), POLVIEWS(1-3)(4)(5-7)


Anonymous said...

Rock on.


Random Dude on the Internet said...

Antifa are mostly people in their 20s and 30s and as we're finding out, there are a depressingly high percentage of people in this age group who can only see current events through the prism of pop culture. So they watched movies, TV shows, and games about how good triumphs over evil, of which they see themselves on the good side. The evil side ends up being incompetent or will only fight through honorable combat. They say a bunch of dumb crap like "I punch Nazis!" even though they never threw a punch in their lives. They're just LARPing.

So they get taken aback in real life when they find out that not only is life not a movie, the "Nazis" actually punch back. Reality smacks them upside the head and suddenly they find themselves in a losing fight. This is why so many of them turn from Nazi Puncher to Poor Victim when they get any pushback. Their false narrative instantly collapses and they have no idea how to react. So they run. They will run just long enough until they get brave enough to talk about how much they want to punch Nazis again.

Sid said...

There are plenty of reasons why the antifas got smacked once the Trump supporters in Berkeley stopped kidding around:

1. Progressives generally brand any kind of hierarchy, mass mobilization, and commitment to something greater than yourself or mere pleasure as "fascism," especially when it's white men organizing, giving and following orders, and pushing hard for their goals.

Antifas not only believe this as other progressives do, they have specifically labelled themselves against it.

What made the Trump supporters so effective wasn't just that they could beat up antifas in a group: they tended to their wounded and helped one another out. This is altruism in its purest, sublimest form: I help my allies in need so we can all beat the enemy together.


Altruism is a deadly weapon. Wolves are at least as fierce predators as grizzly bears, despite being far smaller and lighter, because they cooperate against common foes, while bears largely live alone.

2. Just look at the videos of Trump supporters, and you'll see guys who played sports in high school, and now lift weights and eat steak as adults. Many of them are military veterans. They're genuinely tough guys, while also being wholesome people.

In contrast, the antifas are just low quality people. They're usually physically weak, have subpar intelligence, and generally do little but take drugs all day but still think they're better than normal people because they like unpopular rock bands. I went to a high school on the West Coast and met plenty of such people, and they weren't our best.

Just read about that antifa girl who wanted to "scalp 100 Nazis" but got a punch to the face. She's a degenerate who has made pornographic videos that some guys on 4chan found. And antifa men had women like that do the fighting!

3. Antifa stands for anti-fascism, whereas Trump supporters fight for Trump's vision, MAGA, etc. It's a lot easier to face pain for something, rather than just being against something and leaving chaos and destruction in your wake.

Antifa might try harder next time, using even more violent tactics aimed at elderly conservatives and Trump voters. But the more they escalate things, the more they'll find themselves outmatched. They want the Second Amendment outlawed, after all!

Days of Broken Arrows said...

Dehumanizing working class people as "Nazis" isn't fighting power. It's being a tool of globalist power.

Just the fact that that antifa woman went on about bringing back "Nazi scalps" shows a complete lack of understanding of just about every political issue. By the way, the phrase "Nazi scalps" comes from the movie "Inglourious Basterds" which confirms Random Dude on the Internet's assertion that these people are taking their cue first and foremost from pop culture.

Anonymous said...

Dehumanizing working class people as "Nazis" isn't fighting power. It's being a tool of globalist power.

You're wrong about this. They may be tools of globalist power but that's irrelevant. It's all about race. They're not communists or liberals or progressives, they're white-hating racists, and "power" is their ally in white-hating racism. To think that they are motivated by by leftist ideology instead of hate is to misread their program. That's why they advocate mass immigration by Muslims who are the polar opposites of progressivism. As long as whitey is exterminated they don't care what comes after. Thus attacking the white lower classes is logical - they're attacking the classes that might throw a brick or squeeze a trigger in defense of white existence. Eliminating that threat works toward accomplishing their real goal. And their allies at the top press down in a coordinated effort. Cops standing by while antifa beats their political opponents is perfectly symbolic of this relationship.

Feryl said...

42% of white male non injectors reported being Repub or Repub. leaner
33% of white male injectors reported being Repub or Repub. leaner
Evidu variable

43% of White male Republicans and Repub leaners don't smoke
35% of White male Republicans and Repub leaners smoke
Smoke variable ('77-'94)

Since cultural elites dominate liberal discourse, it makes it easy (for some) to forget that the Dems have the market cornered in terms of criminals, druggies, weirdos, etc. But that's not the kind of people you see on CNN or hear on NPR.

The GSS's arrested variable hasn't been used too many years. That's a shame because that's an event that is very revealing as to a person's character.

BTW, looking at the behavior of white men alone helps dispel the notion, sometimes voiced by some on the alt-right, that Dem sin can be put down to non-whites and and women.

Feryl said...

Drug injection, in case you're wondering.

Audacious Epigone said...

Random Dude,

They've spent their entire lives in the aquarium. That paired with their weird heroic complex makes that swim into open waters especially brutal.


Right. Escalating their tactics gives them an advantage for the very next engagement, but only that very next engagement. Over the longer term, it makes them even more vulnerable. At every level of violence, MAGA troops are better prepared both mentally and physically for violence than antifa is.

The police have rules of engagement and escalate their actions in accordance with those they are trying to detain. The harder you fight back, the more serious the physical response is going to be. If they take it to the point of lethality, it'll end in large numbers of antifa dead in the streets.

Days of Broken Arrows/Anonymous,

Quixotic naivete or nihilistic ethnomasochism? It's probably a mixed bag to some extent, but with the ones who take to the streets I think it's a lot more of the latter than the former.


Great point, though as you allude to I'm not sure how well it holds up over time now that the drug use and arrest variables are so dated.

Feryl said...

The overlap of the smoking variable (which has a venerable and large history on the GSS) and the drug injection variable tells me that the injection variable still has utility even though in a perfect world, the GSS would've asked the question from the start.

The arrest variable is so underasked that it doesn't really have much use. The incarceration variable, to the extent that one exists (I don't remember off the top of my head) probably doesn't have much value since I doubt the GSS has ever surveyed that many ex-cons.

Another frustration is that the GSS has a pretty stingy variable related to non-injection general drug use. Instead of asking, "did you ever do X?" or "did you have an addiction", I believe it narrows down the question to a window of any usage within the last 6 months or year. Why bother asking? It's not like 89% of people would report having once done pot or coke in their life. Seeing as how so much crap is asked on the survey, why not ask about individual drugs? They missed an opportunity to evaluate, say, those who did coke and those who didn't. Ancedotally, I've heard a lot of late Boomers say that they grew up around people who never recovered from big-time hard drug use in the 70's and 80's. But I've looked and it's been difficult to find any study/report on the life outcomes and attitudes of those who over-did a particular drug.

Drug-wise, the GSS's only strong variable (in both wording and sample size), is probably the drug injection variable. Should they continue to survey it as they've done from 2000-2016, it will gain even more value.

Feryl said...

I'd also love to see a well-written pot variable, and see how it correlates to behavior and outlook.

It would be cool to compare never smokers, to one-time light users, to heavy veteran pot heads. How much damage has been inflicted on the faculties of two generations (Boomers and X-ers)?

Feryl said...

Oops, AE, I just saw how limited the smoke variable is. Still, I think the political orientation overlap-between smokers (late 70's-early 90's) and druggies (2000-present) can't be a coincidence. We've know for well over 30 years that both activities are harmful, and it appears that more liberal minded people are prone to knowingly engaging in stupid things. As has often been pointed out, there does tend to be an association of liberalism and high social class, so it does seem that liberals are over represented among the most intelligent class of people. That being said, on account of behavior if not actual IQ, plenty of liberals appear to be reckless idiots.

Said idiots elect themselves to the margins, and that's why, as I believe you've pointed out, Dems (even when accounting for race and gender) draw so much from the fringes that on most election days, GOP voters tend to be smarter and better adjusted overall.

Audacious Epigone said...


The DRUNK variable is another one that spans that same late 70s to mid 90s time period.

The Add Health longitudinal study begins where the GSS leaves off but it covers people who are about our age now. It doesn't give us any insight into generations past, nor does it have the kind of cross-referential data that the GSS has (nothing does, which is why the GSS is so valuable, even if it's often shallow in its questions).

GOP voters are always better adjusted, though it's more of a toss up when it comes to white voters.

Feryl said...

Yeah, the GSS really blew a chance at better documenting an invaluable period for social/health research (the 1970's and at least the early 80's, if not further past that), since there were so many demographically homogeneous young people in the 70's and early 80's who were exposed to a level of hedonism perhaps not seen before or since.

The Great White Death, the obesity crisis among Boomers, STD rates, etc. tell us that our culture was at a nadir of irresponsibility in the later 70's. Still, you wish the GSS had done a better job of tackling drug issues.

BTW, the GSS seems to have lost interest in recreational substance questions to some degree (injection variable notwithstanding) in the mid-late 90's, and I suspect it's because we felt that we had finally put the culture of the Carter era behind us. Also, demographically speaking, America was aging a great deal even then while young post-Boomers were not as out of control as Boomers were. Also, much of the WW2/Korea generation was concerned about drugs as early as the 60's, but the consequences of them were not well understood to most people until the late 70's, which is also the peak period for drug use, partying, and general mayhem. As goes society, so goes the GSS.


One Boomer commenter sez that the later 70's were atrocious, ignominious. Liberals often fail to understand that it was the 70's that created Reagan and the accompanying cultural trends of the 80's. Decades don't come out of nowhere; they come from the previous decade. Modern liberals have taken to canonizing the 70's. Why not, when the passage of time makes nostalgia easier and younger generation either were too young to understand what was going on or weren't alive at all. It was all so simple, before Ronnie Raygun crashed the party. Yeah, sure, the decade that gave us Jim Jones, a permissive attitude towards sexual mores and urban decadence that ignited the Western Aids epidemic (incorrectly blamed on the 80's by liberals and Reagan haters, it was the summer-fall of 1976 when a lot of gays seemed to become mildly ill as early signs of HIV began to show up), the first wave of household name serial killers, and so on.

Audacious Epigone said...


I've heard the rise of serial killers attributed to modern media and the fame they receive and fear they inspire. It never seemed convincing to me. Thanks.

Feryl said...

According to research conducted by the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan, fewer young people in the 1980s were using illicit drugs.[14] High school seniors using cannabis dropped from 50.1% in 1978 to 36% in 1987,[14] to 12% in 1991[16] and the percentage of students using other drugs decreased similarly.[14] Psychedelic drug use dropped from 11% to 6%, cocaine from 12% to 10%, and heroin from 1% to 0.5%.[14]

When were these seniors born?

1978- c1960

1987- c1969

1991 - c1973

That huge cohort of late Boomer whites who now make up a huge part of the electorate, and thus are so influential to our policies and priorities, were stoned out of their gourd back in the day.

Back to the thread topic: "When Millennials are sending their agitators, they're not sending their best. They're sending cowards, mindless dupes, and potheads."

Whether it's the agitators, or more, um, genteel liberals....there's a lot of insecure lashing out right now. They feel under seige, like they're losing ground. Weak. Desperate. Scared.

Trump's victory and rule put a big dent in the egos and psyches of liberals. Instead of reckoning with the fact that they over-estimated their power, they instead have fortified the walls around their self-delusions and their safe spaces for the gatherings of liberals and expressions of their goals. Leftist talk channels and talk shows have yuge ratings right now. And the groupthink and outgroup hostility is something to behold. Yet.....hostility is not the go-to emotion of a confident and powerful person or group. Tough, strong people on a winning streak neatly brush off challengers. They don't have histrionic screaming/crying sessions about what evil seems to have emerged from the shadows to wrestle the throne away from the good guys.

Overnight, swpl dorks, sell out yuppies, and general reprobates have gone from smugness to infantile efforts to protect their tender egos.

Feryl said...


You are correct: Serial killers were highly isolated and unusual prior to the 60's. In the sixties, the number of them tripled compared to previous decades. It got worse: the already high number in the 60's tripled (!) in the seventies from which a template by which to judge degeneracy was created. This template got duplicated in the 80's and 90's, after which the number of first time killers diminished presumably due to an aging population and social trends discouraging risk taking (e.g., cocooning) and crime (broken windows, mass-incarceration, etc.). Liberals who try to spin the 80's and 90's numbers as being a judgement against conservatism are disingenuous; the 60's and 70's unleashed terrible forces which devastated two generations and took a lot of time to counteract (by the mid 90's, a huge chunk of the population was in prison).

We know, BTW, that it's not like pre-60's killers were unnoticed. Detectives and reporters in previous eras put two and two together when homicide victims had a similar profile, were clustered together, were murdered in similar ways, and so on. There were cases like the Cleveland torso murderer and New Orleans Axeman prior to the 60's. Furthermore, police methods and tech of the 40's and 50's were not dissimilar from what they had in the 60's, so it's not like cops were incapable of discerning serial killers before the 60's.

The Boomer pushed idea that TV is somehow culpable for a lot of changes seems like shallow navel gazing. Some Boomers I think would like to believe that their entrance into society coincided with greater sophistication, or at least a great deal of changes whether they feel good about them or not. I heard Stephen King blame TV for taking away people's accents; nah, accents change over time no matter what.

Dan said...

I am a little sad that I don't get any of this excitement here in the DC area. After inauguration day, when tons of them faced serious charges, they lost their mojo.

DC cops don't mess around. The Deploraball went off nicely, with a solid wall of muscular police lined up shoulder-to-shoulder (backs to the Press Club building) facing outward against the most unattractive and defective human specimens to be found.

Dan said...

At the March 4 rally there were a few protesters, but then there were a number of cops riding enormous horses, positioning their horses between the Trumpsters and the antifa.

California really is far gone. Trump had two rallies in Maryland, no problem. We defeated a sanctuary state bill recently. California passed their bill. In California meanwhile, attacking conservatives seems to be green-lit by the authorities.

Glad Coulter is not backing down at Berkeley. A violent masked antifa beating people with a metal bike lock was just outed as a Cal State professor. No wonder faculty are not protecting free speech: they are the ones clad in black!

Anonymous said...

Say hello to Berkeley's antifa organizers:


(scroll down the page)

Anonymous said...

More Berkeley antifa exposed: https://i.imgur.com/HR45sIq.jpg

Simon said...

Sneering at the already-battered Dr. Petit for trying to summon the cops instead of grabbing "a lead pipe" and taking on two armed intruders seems awfully harsh. At the time, it probably seemed like the most sensible, and least futile, thing to do. And who says there was a convenient lead pipe handy, anyway? Your contempt for a man who lost his wife and daughters seems downright bizarre.

Sid said...

Dan - the fact that the police have repeatedly stood down to let the violence commence (while arresting Kyle Chapman, the Based Stickman), and that members of Berkeley were involved in the violence, indicates that the powers that be in California are using lawless means to intimidate Trump supporters. Antifa is simply their unofficial means of intimidation.

It's well and good to beat up the antifas, but getting the DOJ to bring the authorities in California to heel will also be necessary.

Audacious Epigone said...


there's a lot of insecure lashing out right now. They feel under seige, like they're losing ground. Weak. Desperate. Scared.

Like cornered animals.


At least you're not in the middle of flyover country. At the Trump rally ahead of the MO primary I got into it two separate times with 'protesters'--only verbally--and it was enough to get me on news footage both times. That's the extent of the action we've had here!


That's the way to do it. There's the potential of ten years for these people who disguised themselves at any point during those antifa 'protests'. Sessions needs to throw the book at them, or at the very least the Trump administration needs to bring CA to heel by threatening to do so if the state won't.


No man leaves his family to be butchered while there is still air in his lungs. He was revealed to be a coward when it counted most. The ordeal lasted seven hours. At the very least you go to a neighbor's, tell him to call 911, and then go and try to save your daughters.


Agnostic had a good post recently on how antifa are essentially a CultMarx police force.

Audacious Epigone said...


His fucking up began long before that day, though. If you outsource your ability to protect your family entirely to the state, you're fucking up big time.

Sid said...

Before 2016, we all knew there was a Cathedral, with its interlocking interests and doctrines. We knew it was there, but we weren't sure how its various parts coexisted and worked with one another.

What Wikileaks taught is last year was that there was, and is, hard collusion between​ the DNC, the leftstream news media, the NGOs, etc.

Are there emails between the antifa ringleaders and the mayors, who then told the police chiefs to stand down? Maybe, maybe not, but you can't dismiss it as outrageous anymore.

Dan said...

AE -- You are right to savage the doctor. WTF was he there for anyway? Is there a Darwin award for someone who lets his family get murdered?

Gavin tweeted a screencap that seems to show that the Mayor of Berkeley is a member of BAMN on Facebook, which is antifa.

So there's that.


Sid said...

Dan, that's fairly astonishing. In my previous comment I suggested that the Mayor of Berkeley may had colluded with the antifas. That was understating it: he's actually one of them.

Antifa is just a mask the Berkeley Establishment wears.

Say what you will about Mike Cernovich, but he's right to consistently call for Jeff Sessions to crack down on the Berkeley Establishment. We need to make this an issue, because the leftstream media isn't going to do so on its own. Trump is a busy guy who responds to what's on his desk, what's on his TV, and God willing, what his supporters are tweeting about.

It might feel good to beat antifas on the streets, but we'll really advance our cause when we can openly discuss our ideas in public without fear of being Watsoned or Miloed.

Audacious Epigone said...


Trump breached the walls of the Cathedral and we followed him inside to see the house of horrors for ourselves. He may end up seduced by its power and its pleasures, but he revealed the inner workings all the same.


Is there a Darwin award for someone who lets his family get murdered?


It's a tragic thing that happened to his family. We can't calm the sea but we are responsible for steadying our own ships. He failed to do that and so he's deserving of contempt.

Mil-Tech Bard said...

Audacious Epigone,

Regards this --

>>Trump breached the walls of the Cathedral and we followed him inside to see the house of horrors for ourselves. He may end up seduced by its power and its pleasures, but he revealed the inner workings all the same.

I think you have a mistaken idea of what Trump is as a President.

President Trump is the most intensely American --National Security-- President since Ronald Reagan.

I am seeing the implementation of the Reagan-Bill Casey strategy of low oil prices (via support of domestic Fracking on Federal lands), disinformation aimed at American enemies and a stronger defense budget to exhaust the Russians and the Saudi/Opec Oil ticks.

I am also seeing the George W. Bush Axis of Evil regime elimination policy with two diplomatic demarcates laid out for North Korea and Iran, in that order.

The current Trump diplomacy offensive with VP Pence and Sec Def Mattis parallels the George H. W. Bush preparations prior to Desert Storm.

It now looks like the National Security Advisor kerfuffle between Flynn and Mac Master was an argument over whether Iran or North Korea would be the first target.

Flynn -- Iran First

Mac Master -- North Korea First

Domestic energy wise, the REAL CLEAR ENERGY web site has posted articles that fracking was approved for and is now being done on existing Alaskan oil leases. The US is now exporting liquefied natural gas in such volumes that there is now a hedge market for shipments world wide.

This absolutely kills the Russian energy position in Europe, as US LNG is price competitive and has a very low "political instability cost premium."

My read is that Trump chose Pence as an ambassador and mouth piece to both the American and foreign establishment'ss a'la VP George H.W. Bush, but without H.W. Bush's national security portfolio. As Pres. Trump is his own national security consigliere.

This is reflected administratively, as the National Security Council has been streamlined from a ponderous policy making body under Dubya and Obama into a very small operational outfit similar to the one in Reagan's first term.

Trump is pursuing a two tract regime change strategy WRT North Korea.

1. Buying a Regime Change from China without giving up Taiwan

2. Regime Change through superior firepower.

Next Rock

Mil-Tech Bard said...

Last rock

The first route is the preferred one as it will keep the Nork WMD genie in the bottle and out of Seoul.

The second route is a comprehensive non-nuclear pre-emptive first strike on Nork WMD sites/delivery systems and destruction of the Nork railway system. This would be combined with a concentration of Aegis ATBM capable surface combatants and carrier air power to mitigate the second strike by Dictator Un's Regime Security forces.

The second route would see the collapse of the North Korean state as mountain railway tunnels and bridges are hideously vulnerable to precision munition attacks and the Nork Regime utterly hollowed out by corruption.

Doubly so as the Nork rail system is all electrical, and 1991 era Tomahawk anti-electical transformer graphite wire can do the same to overhead rail power lines.

Additionally, a large number of both JDAM and Tomahawk missile warheads would be of the "E-Bomb" variety with high power microwave or non-nuclear electromagnetic pulse which would go with the graphite wire munitions. AKA once the rails go down, they would stay down. As nightly reseeding of rail line with graphite wire plus the burning out of DC power transformers necessary for the trains to move (via e-bomb) would exceed Nork ability to repair the rail lines.

No rails = no food for the Regime Security forces.

AKA the Lando Calrissian line from THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK -- "The Empire has arrived at the Facility. It is time to activate your escape plans."

Whether route 1. or 2. is chosen, we are going to see a huge American military build up off north Korea and a months long series of provocative American military exercises to wear down Nork watchfulness a'la the Egyptians Suez Canal crossing and the Israelis prior to the Yom Kippur War in 1973.

This would be useful setting up a Chinese regime change or an American one.

The cost of route two is an argument for the Chinese going route one, as a Nork 2nd strike could leave pools of Sarin gas in low lying areas of Seoul and several 20 KT divots in South Korea, Okinawa, Japan, and Guam -- And more important for the Chinese -- 3-to-5 million North Korean refugees in Manchuria for the next 10(+) years.

Mil-Tech Bard said...

Audacious Epigone,

In sum, we are seeing the opening play in several multi-dimensional campaigns fusing military pressure, political pressure, propaganda pressure and economic pressure.

A Trump Presidency is about America First Threat elimination.

North Korea and Iran are for the Ax.

Russia and the Oil ticks are to be left to wither on the vine of low oil prices.

And so, by the way, are the Democrats.

As working class white males will be the big beneficiary of an energy sector lead economic boom Trump is arranging...and that the Green Priest ridden Democrats will opposed to for primary fund raising reasons.

Audacious Epigone said...

Mil-Tech Bard,

The one area where there seems to be no legitimate criticism of Trump--not a peep--among his supporters is on the energy/climate change front. I'm obvious not as plugged into the geopolitical considerations and how they connect with energy production as you are, but this political reality meshes with what you perceive.

Mil-Tech Bard said...

Audacious Epigone,

Pres. Trump is going out of his way to create lots of energy sector "Facts on the Ground" in terms of infrastructure projects with lots of funding streams for deserving GOP politcians.

There are a lot of oil and gas energy projects in Pennsylvania and Ohio that have moved both states in the GOP direction.

This is why boh the NY and Maryland legislatures have banned fracking.

Mil-Tech Bard said...

Trump energy policy has 'geopolitical-economic' impacts elsewhere for reasons of local political culture.

The involvement of large numbers of working class Hispanics in the Texas energy sector will keep it GOP far longer than it's demographics indicate because 95% of the land there is privately held -- and unlike California -- private land holders make lots of money from oil & gas extraction under their land.

Mil-Tech Bard said...

Audacious Epigone,

A worthwhile link --


Because see:

Fracking Could Fuel Alaska's Next Oil Boom

Get Ready for the Next Natural Gas Boom

US Shale Working Smarter and Harder

Feryl said...

"The current Trump diplomacy offensive with VP Pence and Sec Def Mattis parallels the George H. W. Bush preparations prior to Desert Storm."

C'mon don't you miss the days of Obama delegating almost every foreign policy thing to the likes of Hillary while he cried about his godson Trayvon? It's getting harder to portray Trump as a feckless buffoon, a philistine, when he's clearly making great effort to at least communicate, often face to face, with much of the world's leadership. Scott Adams I'm sure is having a blast with his "movie" analogy. The movie marketed to liberals made Trump look like a cross between a toddler and a dictator. But this "movie" playing in anti-Trumpers heads keeps having to stretch suspension of disbelief to the point of breaking, since it's so at odds with the facts.

There's also the ignorance about honor, which comes as no surprise from a decadent elite and liberals in general. Trump is being magnanimous to some in a reciprocal two-way street kind of way. If the Sebastian Gorkas in his circle are to be believed, Trump is still hesitant to over-extend our forces, and his way of getting payback, if he feels it necessary, won't drag us into too much and the nature of it will depend on who he's dealing with and what it will get us. He'll give China a chance to do more to help us out, and if they renege or betray, he's got smart ways to get even.

One can only hope Trump is truly motivated by what's in our long term best interests, and as such, is judicious and cautious about foreign entanglements. As you say, we're probably not getting utter isolationism, but a return to the moderate intervention of Reagan/Bush 1 is at least better than the utopian grandiosity and greed that got progressively worse over the last 25 years. If nothing else, we know he's got at least several sensible people who are nationalist minded, in touch with non-elites, warning Trump that too much aggression too fast will destroy his base and send him packing on Jan. 2021. Agnostic pointed out that the Midwest is the most war shy region (going by polls regarding Syria) that is also receptive to Trump. It's a region with relatively little military engagement (not many bases) and as far back as Vietnam, was known for it's discontent with belligerence.

Also, we can only assume that off the mic, Trump/his main men are saying to the world's leaders, in good faith, "we've got to make an agreement to do the things that are in the best long-term mutual interests of both of our countries". Looking into their eyes, they know that it's sincere and means something. It's not just sociopathy designed to further enable the vultures who want to pick off every last bit of flesh from an ever rising number of victims.

Mil-Tech Bard said...

>>C'mon don't you miss the days of Obama delegating almost every foreign policy thing to the likes of Hillary while he cried about his godson Trayvon?

Reading the daily headlines and -NOT- feeling despair IS WONDERFUL.

The Obama Administrations were full on disasters from the national security perspective.

As you note, Feryl, the difference is pro-American competence.

silly girl said...

"The involvement of large numbers of working class Hispanics in the Texas energy sector will keep it GOP far longer than it's demographics indicate because 95% of the land there is privately held -- and unlike California -- private land holders make lots of money from oil & gas extraction under their land."

In Texas, there may be more hispanics who are both physically large enough for oilfield work and whose English reading level is high enough for an employer to trust them to comply with safety regulations. Whites dominate such industries because they are both physically stronger and read better than groups. It is not really that hard to screw stuff up pretty badly under dangerous conditions. Asians may score better overall on tests but they aren't as big and strong. Smart blacks and hispanics get AA benefits so they can work in safer conditions for just as good pay. Not quite smart enough for AA NAM's are a safety and productivity non-starter. That leaves white guys.