Thursday, July 27, 2017

Israeli public among the most supportive of the Trump Wall

Via Pew (with a heads-up from Anatoly Karlin), the following table shows the percentage of each country's population that approves of Trump's US-Mexico border wall as a percentage of the percentage that disapproves it (not a typo!). Unsure/don't know responses are excluded. There isn't a single country where more say they approve than disapprove, but it breaks almost evenly in a couple countries.

The higher the percentage, then, the greater the public approval for the Trump Wall is:

CountryA/D
Jordan95.7%
Israel95.5%
India86.2%
Nigeria76.0%
Russia74.5%
Hungary71.4%
Vietnam71.4%
South Africa60.0%
Kenya54.1%
Tanzania52.5%
Ghana48.4%
Philippines45.9%
Senegal37.7%
Indonesia33.3%
Tunisia33.3%
Poland28.6%
Australia24.4%
Italy23.3%
Greece23.1%
Lebanon21.2%
Brazil19.7%
Japan19.2%
Turkey19.0%
Venezuela17.7%
Canada15.5%
Peru15.4%
United Kingdom14.5%
South Korea14.5%
Argentina13.3%
Chile11.6%
France11.2%
Netherlands10.2%
Germany9.0%
Colombia9.0%
Spain7.6%
Sweden5.3%
Mexico5.3%

The goyim neighbors of the Palestinians know.

(((Americans))) who put Israel's interests ahead of everything else have objectives orthogonal to our own at best and fatally hostile at worst. They're not our allies. Israeli nationalists, on the other hand, are. Credit where credit is due.
As a continent, Europe is the least supportive of the wall. Even Latin America (including Mexico!) is modestly more supportive than Europeans are. Alaric is at the gate but Honorius is preoccupied with one-upping Stilicho. The Occident's internecine squabbling is going to be painful for future students of history to read about.

The question of whether or not the West has the will to survive is especially applicable to the Old Continent. I have more confidence in the diaspora--the US and Australia, anyway--than Europe proper, but our backs have been up against the wall for longer, so it's conceivable Europe could turn it around. Sweden, however, is lost. Utterly lost.

On a mildly happier note, only 3 of the 10 surveyed countries are in central Europe, and two of the three are the two most supportive (Hungary and Poland, respectively).

As for the finding that in every country disapproval exceeds approval, let that dissuade Trump as much as the global pressure to stay member to the Paris Agreement did. It's not their business.

31 comments:

legateofjudea said...

Ben Shapiro is an idiot and does not speak for (((us))). Netanyahu and the Israeli right (at least the vast majority of the Israeli right) are not calling for expulsion of Israeli Arabs. They are calling for land swaps of their areas for the Israeli areas east of the green line.
http://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/Netanyahu-to-US-Transfer-major-Arab-area-to-PA-in-exchange-for-annexation-500957

This Bret Stephens piece is satire:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/16/opinion/only-mass-deportation-can-save-america.html

I'm sure if Mexicans were blowing / shooting things up in the United States there would be much more support for the wall in the United States. If the Jews in the United States were so concerned about Israel's interests, they wouldn't have voted for Obama. Since the decline of the West is due to low fertility, which is due to obesity, there are a lot of Jewish doctors and scientists working to reverse it. I'm one of them.

Remember, regression analysis shows that even the limited GSS obesity data of women past their childbearing age shows a (-0.42) regression coefficient of perceived obesity with fertility. You are misidentifying the source of your problem:
https://draft.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=12806804&postID=8699332061550850018&bpli=1

Anonymous said...

Our news about America (I am Austrian) are literally translated US domestic pieces from Washington Post, HuffPo, Economist, &c. I used to track down the original sources for fun and see which parts had been omitted and which parts had been overemphasized, but it gets old.
The translations usually include a couple of errors or linguistic "false friends", sometimes outright quotes in English when the editorial dummies couldn't even be bothered to come up with a botched translation.
Because there is no longer a genuine National Perspective (the "European" perspective is 100% globalist and therefore not in any way particularly European), it doesn't occur to the press to even attempt a subjective interpretation of events.
Thus all you see is the same pattern as in the US: Democrat Presidents get praise, Republican presidents get blame
Lastly, there is of course the influence from the virulent european anti-americanism. It's so pronounced here because from Reactionary to Progressive, everyone can find reasons to resent the US. on one side the dumb brute Amis are hated for intervening in the World Wars and destroying our old order, and on the other side the dumb brute Amis are never progressive enough.
The sane, reconciliatory thing would of course be for everyone to formulate their own interests and perspective and put them first, but the job of the International Press is to make sure nobody entertains such evil propositions

Jim Bowery said...

The headline isn't surprising to me since I've publicly conjectured, ever since Trump's "Mexican rapist" speech that kicked off his campaign, that he was "The Likud Candidate". However, something that makes me suspicious of the methodology is the stark difference between Hungary and Poland. Hungary's moderately high approval of The Trump Wall isn't surprising but what's going on with Poland?

Feryl said...

In SovietsRtheRealNazis matters, hold your horses. Kathryn Bigelow's newest movie, about Detroit's 1967 riots, gives pseudonyms to characters based on real people. The most villainous cop is named....wait for it.....Krauss. The three dirty white cops in real life had, as far as I can tell, names that weren't obviously Germanic.

More often than not, liberals want white villains with British and German names. I needn't tell you why. A big problem with liberals supposedly trying to retroactively make Russians look bad is that very few Americans, or Westerners in general, our Russian. White Western liberals are parasites who despise their Western hosts. Russians have never been the host in any Western country. You can give a white Detroit cop a German name to reinforce the meme that Western Europeans are uniquely and singularly and unforgivably evil. But that's 'cuz Germany is a Western country which introduced it's people to America in large numbers.

Liberals, for all their delusion, can't hate on Russia like they do Germans or other Westerners. 'Cuz Russia ain't the West. Liberals in effect hate themselves; few Western liberals are Russian.

Audacious Epigone said...

Legate,

The specifics are, of course. The disdain is not.

By all means fix obesity. Good on every front, aesthetic, fertility, health care costs, etc.

I could have more children than I'll end up having, though. It has nothing to do with obesity, which neither my wife nor I are anything close to. It's something else, and we are intentionally going to be above replacement.

Anon,

At least it makes it easy to identify what our enemies Are thinking. Literal translations, though? Byline credits or do they say it's by Herman albrecht?

Jim,

Same thought occurred to me. Don't know. Noise? Merhodology? Wider Overton window in Austria on account of Orban?

Feryl,

My stallions never left the gate, but the point is duly noted.

legateofjudea said...

AE - now everyone disdains everyone they disagree with. Its a widespread problem these days. It is not specific to one group. There are even a few posts on this blog that could be interpreted by an uncharitable observer as disdainful towards blacks. I think a medical revolution that improves everyones standard of living will go a long way towards improving our civil discourse.

I will try to fix obesity. I have been trying to fix it for a long time. It is a surprisingly difficult problem, and has greatly humbled many people. To paraphrase Bill Gates, success is a horrible teacher. It makes you believe you are invincible. It makes you believe that you cannot fail.

The fact that you are married and achieving your ideal family size likely could have been inhibited if you or your wife had metabolic problems or obesity in the current environment. There is nothing wrong with your family size. The silent generation was used to much higher child mortality and planned their pregnancies on the assumption that they would have fewer surviving children than they actually did. They lived through a period of great improvement in medicine that meant they had many more surviving children than they intended to, or were able to care for as well as many of them wanted.

The subsequent generations adjusted their ideal family size accordingly. You have that adjusted ideal. What is different about you is that you now live an environment where you expect all of your children to survive. I do not define this, or your behavior in response to it, as a problem. My efforts are focused elsewhere.

Sid said...

Films tend to reflect the zeitgeist of 3-5 years ago, because it takes so long to make films now.

There may have been stupid you-go-grllll films back in 2012, but you can really see the influence of the 2012 War on Women narrative on films that were released years later, like Disney Star Wars, the female Ghostbusters, and Wonder Woman.

I'm betting there will be a lot of movies in 2020 that deal with themes like foreign espionage and subversion, international hackers, a candidate being a puppet for a foreign power, and so forth. There may not be Cold War movies per se, because only franchise films enjoy big budgets now, but those franchise films will adopt the themes mentioned earlier. You'll see more classic Cold War comic book villains, the baddies in Disney Star Wars will be clear allusions to Trumputin, and the like.

It'll be a way to rally Millennials who grew up with no real art, just pop culture, and get them voting for Kamala Harris.

Feryl said...

Heads up: using the class and cohort variable reveals that white G.I.s, Silents, and early Boomers are far more likely to self-identify as "middle-class". Those born in 1952 and thereafter are more likely to identify as working-class; fascinating, as Spock would say. Entering the workforce as an adult literally in 1970 or thereafter meant that you'd get the shaft. I'd say that economically, we really do owe later Boomers an apology and Silents don't get anywhere near enough shit for how they squandered their privilege.

In America, class is more based on culture and affect than it is on the strict nature of your profession; in many other societies (the U.K., for one) the nature of American class seems bizarre and inscrutable. When egalitarianism begin to die in the 70's, things got much tougher for younger generations of workers; you start out at the bottom and it's extremely difficult to cultivate an income and lifestyle that G.I.s, Silents, and early Boomers took for granted in the 40's-present day. Younger generations are too busy trying to pay the bills to be able to conform to the bourgeois image and culture that huge chunks of Americans once comfortably maintained. Silents could, in all honesty, say they were middle-class practically the moment they left high school, in the 40's and 50's when immigration was low, entry level wages were high, women "settled" for prole home town men, pensions were generous, lots of new housing stock was built (for a small generation of adults with no immigrants or foreign landlords to drive up costs).

Feryl said...

"Films tend to reflect the zeitgeist of 3-5 years ago, because it takes so long to make films now."

Changing the script's names is a no-brainer, though. Giving a villain a German (but not too Jewish sounding) name still gives Hollywood liberals and Jews (but I repeat myself) a woody. But I do get your point about attempts to create the cold war all over again; but like said above, The West's modern white liberals hate their co-ethnics and co-regionalists most of all. Liberals hate Westerner Trump and the Western white proles who voted for him; they resent Westerner Hillary for not inspiring better turnout, they resent Westerner Bernie for reminding the populace that the Dems sold out on economic issues ages ago.

Another not so minor issue is that by the 1940's most Americans hated the Nazis, while we begrudgingly allied with the Soviets in WW2. Subsequent to WW2, most Americans in principle opposed godless Communism though their was debate as how to stop it and how much resources needed to be expended to deal with. Right now, at least 40-50% of America supports Trump and at least Detente with Russia if not a full blown alliance to protect white countries.The globalists have tried to bolster the case against Putin's Russia with nonsense about the Russian"invasion" of Georgia (that was a retaliation for encroachment by Georgia itself) and the Crimea annexation (a country that's highly ethnically Russian and historically was a part of Russia itself. Much of the public smells bullshit and isn't biting; there's a limit to just how popular an obvious neo-liberal/swpl scheme can be. Remember how people turned on the Iraq war by 2006? And we turned on Vietnam by 1970. There has to be a palpable sense of a threat that needs to be contained, and our goals and tactics need clarity. As Agnostic would point out, the neo-con war machine has faced more and more diminishing returns and skepticism since our ability to identify a real threat and handle it accordingly has declined ever since WW2 ended. Putin aims to protect historic Russia and the Russian people; he's not trying to push a brain dead ideology or build an empire; his actions in the middle east aim to stabilize the area and reduce terrorism. He's a terrible stand-in for Hitler or Stalin. Russophobic media might be celebrated in the Pentagon and swpl land, but the heartland doesn't care.

Sid said...

"I'd say that economically, we really do owe later Boomers an apology and Silents don't get anywhere near enough shit for how they squandered their privilege."

I'm biased because I love my parents, but Baby Boomers born in the 1950s are an order of magnitude less narcissistic than those born in the 40s. They're similarly hopeful, idealistic, and naive, but they're less inclined to believe that all of world history has taken and will take place over their lifetimes.

"In America, class is more based on culture and affect than it is on the strict nature of your profession..."

SWPLs order capicola, proles gabagool.

"The West's modern white liberals hate their co-ethnics and co-regionalists most of all."

Somewhat agreed. White liberals see their fellow white Americans as their chief competitors. While they never hide their disdain for red-state whites, they also are engaged in weird, snarky games with each other, in which they actively seeking out "microaggressions" or "problematic" statements in each other's speech. Great example: https://twitter.com/charlesmurray/status/890633150396862464

That said, Putin has emerged as the boogyman for the left since around 2013, with their animosity to him only rising each year. The Senate just passed a bill to lob sanctions at Russia, not Germany. (Though it's angering the Eurocrats because the sanctions target things like the Nord Stream, apparently!)

The left still hates the German ethnicity, but ever since Merkel and the German state decided to abolish and replace ethnic Germans in 2015, the left has proudly declared that Merkel is the "leader of the free world." You're subtly seeing the charge of "Hitler and Nazism" associated ever less with Germany than with East-Central Europe, Russia, and traditional American "white supremacy."

This is why Dunkirk is such a dud with leftists - it turns out that the historical Nazis actually were a menace to other white countries, rather than oppressors of black and brown people.

"Right now, at least 40-50% of America supports Trump and at least Detente with Russia if not a full blown alliance to protect white countries."

I agree that most Americans don't care about Russia, but SWPLs enjoy having Russia being their Hegelian "antithesis." One reason why liberals were furious about Russia's gay propaganda law was that they understood they could more easily make gay marriage an "American" civil right was to associate opposition to gay marriage with Russia.

The American deep state and military-industrial complex was also carefully constructed after WWII to be primarily anti-USSR, so once they see a chance to be alarmed about Russia, they jump on the chance because that's what they were set up to do.

For the left, Hitler and Nazism is the greatest evil of all time, but Merkel and the German state are now good, so it's more apposite to accuse Trump of being in bed with Putin, and to associate Nazism with Poland, Hungary, and Russia (the Bloodlands make for some malevolent Tragic Dirt!) rather than Germany.

Granted, I know my observation is illogical, but who's to say that the left must rigorously adhere to logical systems? This is why you're seeing movies where guys who were probably corrupt Irish cops are given German names, so that you'll associate them with the Gestapo, while in 2020 you'll probably see a bunch of comic book and Star Wars movies with Cold War villains, Russian spy tropes, and once "archetypal" villains becoming allusions to Trumputin.

Sid said...

As an addendum, liberals might despise American culture, but they still say that a reasonable policy which goes against the latest fad "IS NOT WHO WE ARE." To make gay marriage "who we are," it was useful, maybe even necessary, to identify opposition to gay marriage with someone else in order to appeal to people who were undecided or conflicted about gay marriage.

Granted, they could have selected Islamic countries, but condemning what Muslims do also is "not who we are." Having a former adversary of the US with a majority white population, like Russia, was absolutely ideal.

Feryl said...

"Somewhat agreed. White liberals see their fellow white Americans as their chief competitors. While they never hide their disdain for red-state whites, they also are engaged in weird, snarky games with each other, in which they actively seeking out "microaggressions" or "problematic" statements in each other's speech. Great example: https://twitter.com/charlesmurray/status/890633150396862464"

Leftists in non-egalitarian times are insufferable. So are conservatives, too, just for different reasons. Liberals are still trying to out-PC each other while civilization crumbles. Meanwhile, too many conservatives are still stuck in muh small government principles and muh free market when that has nothing to do with preserving a nation's ethnic stock and thus culture. Even when deep red institutions like the police and the military allow themselves to be battered by PC busybody lawyers, activists, and parasite bureaucrats, etc., you know that we've lost way too many battles. Ass kicker leaders have to be more Trump; cut the crap, don't apologize, boast about getting the job done. In the 90's, there was a backlash to PC/immigration/affirmative action among whites and we should've had the balls to tell liberal lawyers and activists to go to hell and not come back; not doing so set us up for the current PC spike which has managed to top what came before, somehow. Everyone has a right to come to America/the West, trannies should be valorized, blacks are hunted down by white cops, etc.

Not who we are? It's not who LIBERALS are, at the moment. That's a rhetorical leg chain applied to listeners. It shuts down any kind of critical or independent thought. You must serve whatever contempo. liberalism stands for at the moment; it's uh, deplorable to disobey it.

Feryl said...

"The American deep state and military-industrial complex was also carefully constructed after WWII to be primarily anti-USSR, so once they see a chance to be alarmed about Russia, they jump on the chance because that's what they were set up to do."

Too bad they shot their credibility wad decades ago. Besides, Western leaders led barbarians inside the gates. The Western countries had much greater ethnic and cultural homogeneity before the dissolution of the Soviets. Because of economic and/or demographic calamities set in motion by two generations that failed to produce a single great Western leader, soon the Western countries are going to be too beset by internal conflict to mount another successful cold war, let alone unite the populace to fight another large scale normal war. It looks like Brexit shenanigans are undermining what UK voters indisputably chose, with English proles being the most pro-Brexit. It wouldn't surprise me if the UK was the first shoe to drop, in a populist revolt against corrupt elites and their third world pets. Let's not forget that as recently as the 80's, violent regional/ethnic squabbling happened there and that area just doesn't have the breathing room that the other english speaking countries do.

Boomers who wish to revive the foreign policy of the 50's-80's are delusional. They grew up in a homogeneous country with shared goals and heroes. Good luck telling cynical and diverse X-ers and Millennials that there is even such a thing as an "American" side anymore.

Feryl said...

I have to tell my Boomer did, when he complains about Putin/Trump, "like we're that great"? We lost whatever moral high ground we had ages ago. We outlasted several terrible regimes/ideologies, then set about throwing away our future for the sake of better profit margins and "diversity". And needless non-stop warmongering and meddling in other's affairs.

Sid said...

My own view is that the collapse of the USSR had for us what the destruction of Carthage had for the Romans. Without a rival empire to keep us in check, we turned against ourselves to acquire the most booty, and indulged our "ideals" and "principles" without any regard for objective reality. Ultimately, Wall Street and the Silicon Valley prevailed over industrial, working class America, and social liberalism prevailed over social conservatism.

There was a very brief period of unity following 9/11, but Al-Qaeda was ultimately no rival for us and we went off into Iraq in search of a dragon to slay. And for whatever reason, we learned the exact opposite lessons as we should have: more Muslim immigration in the 15 years following 9/11 than the 15 years before it; urging "moderate rebels" to overthrow secular dictators if we weren't doing it ourselves. Both Bush and Obama committed similar errors, though Obama was ultimately less brazen.

While I support Trump, I ultimately don't think he'll be able to enact important legislative reforms, seeing the ongoing fiasco of an effort to repeal Obamacare. What I do see him capable of doing is keeping us out of unnecessary Middle East wars, or at least being more shrewd in whom we will target, and I do see him enforcing our immigration laws. While I don't think he'll be able to craft an economic doctrine or system for bringing jobs back, I do think the economy will improve under his presidency and I think he'll be able to barter for more jobs to come to the US. Trump's personal negotiating talent isn't a long term system, but it can allay some of the damage and disregard wrought on the working class.

My big hope is that the Democrats will lose in 2020 decisively, and their brain trust will reexamine their political positions. As the GWAS studies come out, I hope American elites will reach a new understanding about race: they won't be too public about the science, but they won't push disastrous policies that vainly shove against what our scientific understanding of HBD is telling us. After all, we're losing more and more ground to China each year, so we need to up our game.

Here's to hoping we get shrewd politicians proposing smart policies in 2024, but until then, we need to pull for Trump as we can. And of course, I'm not saying these hopes will inevitably prevail - any number of other outcomes are just as likely.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

> Here's to hoping we get shrewd politicians proposing smart policies in 2024, but until then, we need to pull for Trump as we can. And of course, I'm not saying these hopes will inevitably prevail - any number of other outcomes are just as likely.

Trump buys us time. Regardless of what he is able to get done, he gives us a space to operate in that no other Democrat or Republican will. I do think that he will be in office for eight years and that also gives him a chance to elect two or three more Supreme Court justices that could provide a generation of conservatism, versus the Warren 2.0 hellscape that we would be looking at if Hillary won. I also think that him enforcing immigration policies will pay off in terms of demographics because we have to spend much less than anticipated for social programs because of all of the "New Americans" who will be trying their luck in Europe or Canada instead.

Audacious Epigone said...

Just leaving he AmRen conference now. Peter brimelow explained Trump's seemingly abrupt tranny ban tweet as a concession for the minibus spending bill that just passed the house authorizing 1.6b for the wall. There was a contingent of tradcon reps who were planning on voting against the bill unless the provision to pay for military sex reassignment was removed. Trump got them on board by taking the issue off the table entirely. Will share more observations I think you'll enjoy later.

Sid said...

Random Dude -

I agree. While it's been disappointing to see the Republican fiasco over healthcare this month, in the long run, healthcare will be an easier issue to solve if we're not bleeding out cash for emergency room visits for illegals. Ditto education, housing, employment, etc.

AE,

I had heard similar rumors. The trans ban is something I approve of in isolation, but if it also links to Wall funding, all the better! Here's to hoping the tradcons live up to their end of the deal.

Audacious Epigone said...

Legate,

The reason for the sub-replacement gap is on account of those able to have children having 2-3 while an increasing number are unable to conceive, then? A lot of that should show up in an increasing percentage of childless people rather than primarily as an increase in number of people having 1-2 children and a corresponding decrease in the number who have 3+.

Feryl,

Interesting find. The CLASS variable has been used since the survey's inception. I wonder if that difference shows up even when the different generational cohorts were the same age. I'll look if you haven't.

Sid,

Derb's talk (which was genuinely very good and I'm not just saying that as a fanboy) was entitled ~ "Race denialism has a past--does it have a future?" To the extent that it is does is to the extent that the left becomes increasingly anti-science.

Random Dude,

I was given assurance by serious people who breathe the National Question that Trump is sincere on it. He's pushing health care as a means of fighting party resistance in congress. DAPA went and it looks like DACA will, too. When a state (Texas+, probably) sues the federal government on DACA just like on DAPA, Sessions will make zero effort to defend against it and the Obama EO will die.

Anonymous said...

Legate,

I respectfully consider you an utter fool. Landswaps with Palestinians? Will Sweden solve their terrorism problem with Somali landswaps? Muslims pray to a conquering pedophile (Aloha snack bar, Reese's Pieces be upon him). Any land swapped to any Muslim anywhere on Earth is merely a staging ground for the next Jihad.

After the victory against the Muslim invasion of Austria in the 1520's, the Christian just pushed the Muslims back into their own lands. Thus, their grandkids were in the same situation a century later.

Also, you don't solve the birthrate problem with science or economics. Every attempt has been a failure. You solve it by getting young women to hold babies. Literally, handing a baby to a young white woman to hold will convince her to have kids. You cannot grit your teeth and succeed at losing weight; you need a REASON to change your life. Give women a WHY and then they will be open to your medical advice as a HOW.

Cheers,
Scotty

Feryl said...

"elect two or three more Supreme Court justices that could provide a generation of conservatism"

Just read a AmCon article about neo-cons first trying almost anything to block Trump before he was officially voted in, then how the legion of insiders and their foreign policy "experts" (almost all of whom are neo-cons regardless of their past or current party affiliations) begrudgingly "allowed" Trump to be president knowing that they could use their vast numbers and power to block at least some of Trump's America First personnel. And that's exactly what's happened. Throughout Trump's run, the neo-cons let it be known that Hillary was preferable. That's a pisser. "Conservatives" (my ass) would've let possibly 2/3 of the court be selected by a Dem president in the cultural Marxist proper Obama era and in the immediate continuation of the Obama era (Scalia had to be replaced, and the possible death or retirement of Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Breyer).

The vast majority of establishment conservative ideologues are nothing of the sort. They're fundamentally Leftist in their utopian fantasies. They envision the US as a force for continual American hegemony over regions deemed vital to US interests. They admit no limitations to their abilities or goals and they rationalize mass death, destruction, and squalor. As is essential to utopian Leftism, they never balance costs and benefits fairly since The Struggle for perfection doesn't allow for such things. The snipe that commmie symps stuck up for the commies because even though they did bad things, at least they had the right idea, could be thrown at neo-cons too.

When Americans were more culturally conservative in the 80's and 90's, and the neo-cons hadn't totally flexed their muscles yet, quite a few establishment Republicans would've never supported a cultural Marxist liberal Dem, even if they were Neo-con friendly. Not so, anymore.

It really does look like the swamp is not really a swamp. Relatively successful opposition to many widely popular Trump policies like isolationism, with no accountability provided by the courts or the media against people proven to be dangerous and corrupt, reveals that there is no swamp. Nobody has to hide and there's widespread cooperation against interlopers rather than every man for himself conflict.

It seems like we've got two outcomes: First: Trump, who they will never trust, is couped by impeachment/resignation (likely due to proceedings against financial/career misdeeds) or an assassin. Second: The GOP loses the White House in 2020 or 2024 due to swpls, changing demographics, and ever lower white testosterone levels. The new light-skinned minority Dem president swings open The Wall's gates as wide as possible or demolishes large sections of it. Trump's other victories are gutted, due to corruption of the Senate, increasingly scarce super majority vote requirements, and ever expanding executive powers (which the Deep state has denied Trump after letting Obama run amok). Our one redoubt will be the Surpreme Court, which thus far in American history has mostly proven resistant to meddling and sour grapes ret-conning. But that's not to say a future Dem president won't just tell the SC to fuck off in service to Marxism and one-world ideology.

Feryl said...

Depressed yet? Well, look what they did to Nixon and Reagan. As Put Buchanan can attest to, the establishment didn't Trust Nixon, and the CIA astutely used distaste of Nixon to get media and political power centers to unite for a campaign to undermine Nixon's credibility. Nixon played into the enemy's hands by trying to cover-up and rationalize Watergate (imagine if Reagan actively tried to obstruct investigation into Iran-Contra, a much bigger scandal, in any event, than Watergate could ever be). Nixon's credibility was torched, and virtually no one questioned the motives of the media/the investigators, seeming to think that Nixon was basically just a bad guy, so who really cared how they got him out?

Thinking that Bush was a shoo-in for 1980 (he helped start the ClA, after all), Reagan came outta nowhere to "steal" the nom away from Bush. The Bush/establishment faction threatened to derail the process unless they got concessions. Chief of which was imposing Bush, who obviously detested Reagan, on the Reagan ticket. As if that wasn't brash enough, the Deep State then had the temerity to shoot Reagan, evidently not being patient enough to negotiate with him or just wait his term out. Ultimately they inadvertently made Reagan more popular, the culture changed to be less accepting of radical politics and general disorder, and years down the road the cuck GOP would ret-con Reagan into an establishment figure, conservative hero and icon, even though he once was feared and detested by a fair number of elites, esp. in the Beltway (in 1980, Reagan did much better among less educated people, sound familiar?) Let's not forget that the CIA tried to manipulate Reagan into believing that various countries, Russia included, were much more rich, well-organized, and powerful than they actually were. Reagan's faction picked the CIA's reports apart, helping head off greater and unnecessary conflict.

The Deep State (as best represented by the CIA)feels particularly entitled to run the GOP's foreign policy, and at this point probably the Dems too. Certainly, beginning with Nixon if not earlier, the Deep State will have it's way with you if you're an interloper and/or not a team player. They'll market you as sleazy (Nixon, Trump), stupid (Reagan, Trump) or both (Trump). After he survived the shooting, Reagan proved to be too virtuous (at least in intent if not always in practice) and likeable to make public and political impeachment feasible. Nixon was too sweaty and paranoid to keep the public on side, and he quickly lost them. Trump is a mixed bag; his brashness means that he'll never have the approval that Reagan did, but on the plus side, he never affected to be an angel so you can't really lose what you never had in the first place (whereas people put up with Nixon's sanctimony to at least some degree before Watergate). Put another way: Trump is sort of an outlaw figure among his supporters, whereas Reagan and Nixon were part of the "Greatest Gen." who were held to a high degree of moral accountability by both friend and foe.

One senses that liberals and cucks are frustrated that the GOP doesn't have a sanctimonious standard bearer to punch around. Liberals are accustomed to griping about how self-righteous Repubs. fail to live up to their lofty image. With Trump, there's no moral image to puncture. Trump puts his policy goals out there and says, take it or leave it. Agnostic said that elites hated the 2016 election campaign since the pretense and theater of moral grandstanding was diminished by Trump going off the reservation and bringing up embarrassing facts (like the GOP's foreign policy being a joke for far too long) instead of doing the usual preening.

Audacious Epigone said...

Scotty,

Great to hear from you! Legate is our resident gadfly as of late.

Feryl,

The never-ending Russia nonsense is obviously now functioning as a perjury trap (in addition to a smoky haze of uncertainty--I heard the charlatan Sam Harris hand-waving in a recent podcast about (paraphrasing) "all the Russia stuff floating around out there" as an indictment of Trump). No one cares what Trump did wrt Russia. Avoid falling into that trap and he's safe from impeachment through the mid-terms and probably through the duration of the first term. The wrath visited on any GOP congress cuck who voted for impeachment would be devastating.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

There's a sizable contingent of the electorate, ~40%, who aren't going to be budged from backing Trump no matter how absurdly hostile dinosaur media outlets and other deep state apparatuses become. These are people who are plugged into Trump directly. They're not going to be shaken.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

It's different than Nixon and Reagan in that regard. That 40% does not think of Trump as an angel. They are the ones who chuckled and shook their heads when the pussy tape came out. And they can't be isolated because their connected through Trump and their connected to one another electronically. I suspect his popular support (his real popular support, not the rigged popular support of polling outlets that are over-polling Democrats by double-digit figures) will bounce around the low- to mid-forties through the duration of his presidency.

legateofjudea said...

AE - "The reason for the sub-replacement gap is on account of those able to have children having 2-3 while an increasing number are unable to conceive, then? A lot of that should show up in an increasing percentage of childless people rather than primarily as an increase in number of people having 1-2 children and a corresponding decrease in the number who have 3+"

This is close to what we see. It is not that people are unable to conceive on average, although there has been an increase in fertility problems and need for fertility treatment. What we are seeing on average is that obese women are much less likely to marry, and as a consequence they have fewer children. Many of them have no children, they are also more likely to be single mothers who can only afford one child. I believe the last study I looked at had their average TFR as 1.4 children. I'm afraid I don't currently have access to that citation. However, if obesity causes a ~40% decrease in fertility, then non-obese TFR of 2.5 * (1 - 0.4) ~ 1.5 TFR puts us in the ballpark.

While it is a lesser problem, not all of the non-obese are not escaping all of the health problems the obese are experiencing. They have more resistance to the current environment, but we can see they are having health problems as well, just to a lesser extent. It is possible this could be reducing the number of Americans having 3+ children, and that curing obesity might increase the TFR of currently normal weight Americans closer to their stated ideal of 2.75. However, they are already within ~10% of that number.

Metabolic Syndrome in Normal-Weight Americans
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/27/9/2222.short

legateofjudea said...

Scotty - "I respectfully consider you an utter fool." If you respectfully considered me an utter fool, you would have done so in silence. The act of stating disrespect is tautologically disrespectful.

"Landswaps with Palestinians? Will Sweden solve their terrorism problem with Somali landswaps?" I did not advocate this position. I was stating that this is a position advocated by Israeli Defense Minister and now apparently by Prime Minister Netanyahu. Frequently ideas expressed in the Israel are mistranslated into the English news. I was just offering a clarification on something that is often not correctly translated into English.

"Also, you don't solve the birthrate problem with science or economics. Every attempt has been a failure." I hope the world will be shown something it hasn't seen before. Edison made over 1,000 attempts to create a filament for the practical electric lightbulb before finding an appropriate material. Every one of those attempts before the final success was a failure. IInnovation and discovery require persistence in the face of repeated failure.

"You solve it by getting young women to hold babies. Literally, handing a baby to a young white woman to hold will convince her to have kids." Well look, we don't have anything to lose by trying both of our approaches, right? You can focus on this method, and I will focus on improving heath. The statistical and medical data strongly suggests that obesity is preventing young women from marrying, and its a major health problem. It doesn't really hurt to try and cure it, does it?

"You cannot grit your teeth and succeed at losing weight; you need a REASON to change your life. Give women a WHY and then they will be open to your medical advice as a HOW." I'm not looking for a method that requires effort. For the vast majority of human history, we were effortlessly a normal weight. I'm looking for a solution that does not require a "grit your teeth" effort. There seems to be a very high motivation to be thin. I don't anticipate difficulty in motivating women to take advantage of a successful treatment once it becomes available.

Audacious Epigone said...

Legate,

Thanks for expounding. You make a compelling case. There's certainly nothing to lose (besides soul-killing--and maybe civilization-killing poundage!)

Scotty is in the medical field as well, I believe.

Feryl said...

It's different than Nixon and Reagan in that regard. That 40% does not think of Trump as an angel. They are the ones who chuckled and shook their heads when the pussy tape came out. And they can't be isolated because their connected through Trump and their connected to one another electronically. I suspect his popular support (his real popular support, not the rigged popular support of polling outlets that are over-polling Democrats by double-digit figures) will bounce around the low- to mid-forties through the duration of his presidency. "

I suspect that the tape had several angles by which to attack Trump. Besides the obvious predator and sexist narrative, moralistic Boomers probably thought it would shock people. *buzzer* wrong. These our people who remember a toilet in Psycho being a big deal, and remember Elvis being shot from the waist up. Boomers don't realize that the tape's coarse bragging means nothing to X-ers and Millennials who grew up in a anything goes liberal culture. And as Agnostic would point out, Boomers have cognitive and moral dissonance; they bitch endlessly about things being corrupted and "worse" than they used to be, while conveniently ignoring how the Boomer's actual behavior belies the stances they've taken (Boomers were quicker to embrace every decadent trend that came down the pike than other generations).

Feryl said...

"The never-ending Russia nonsense is obviously now functioning as a perjury trap "

The Deep State/most elites are trying to make something so. *Snaps fingers*Putin is the enemy. Trump is connected to Putin. Trump likes and encourages Putin. Trump doesn't fear and hate Putin like he's supposed to. Ad nauseum, until the desired result is achieved (smaller supporter base, impeachment, resignation, assassination, one-term presidency). They of all people, however, are not going to persuade his existing base away from him. It's all preaching to the choir, of which the younger section sings the parts written by the "comedians" and HoPuff, while the graying section gets the parts written by TV news and the CIA's print outlets, the NY Times and Bezos Post.

Bee (or one of her writers) said that they get tired of coming up with different ways to say the same things. They're not feeling any true sort of righteous anger or justice because they're dupes of the globalists. Real populism clashes against what the CEOs and warmongers want. Real populist energy is not coursing through the establishment Left right now. That's why they're getting tired; being a crook, a liar, and a toady for scumbags gets old after a while

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

Are they going to be able to maintain the adrenaline-fueled hysteria for another 3.5 years?