Tuesday, September 25, 2018

Harrying harpy Harris

Imagine supporting the civil rights movement and all its ructions, affirmative action at the expense of your own posterity, an ever-expanding welfare state transferring an ever-increasing amount of resources from you and your posterity to them and theirs, the cultural poz, miscegenation in every other media ad, the stifling intellectual oppression of political correctness, the treating with reverence the vigilant sentinels who scan every thought, word and deed for signs of 'hate', a lower material standard of living, the retardation of technological progress, the reintroduction of atavistic diseases into first-world nations that had eradicated them, the drop in social capital as people everywhere in society hunker down--and for all your trouble, having this in the Oval Office as a nurse from Nigeria giggles as she watches you die:

Thanks, boomers.

Kamala Harris will be the Democrat nominee in 2020. How do Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders respond to this when it comes from her? If they challenge it--LOL!--they lose explicitly with primary voters. When they refuse to challenge it, opting instead to nod along and agree, they lose implicitly with those same voters. She's a POC ascendancy champion. They, like Capuano and Crowley, are anachronisms--and they're in the way. Sure, they should vote for someone like her, but they shouldn't be sitting in the the seats of power that bend towards social justice!

It's all identity now:
Americans' concern about the state of the U.S. economy is at its lowest level on record, according to a new survey that's been tracking the issue for decades.

Gallup research this month found just 12 percent of Americans said an issue related to the economy is the most important problem facing the country.
Wrong Kamala
The various factions in the Coalition of the Fringes know that before fighting for supremacy amongst themselves they must first vanquish the enemy that unites them--straight white men and their allies, their wives--and as the clip above illustrates, no one on the national stage is better positioned to do this than Harris is.

The sex tapes won't derail her. MeToo is about punishing putative perpetrators of sexual abuse and deifying the victims of it. Victim Harris doing what a powerful, older man tells her to do because he has the ability to take her career out at the knees if she refuses? Nope. Hell, they may even help her.

The Treasury has made several changes to US currency over the last couple of decades to make US dollar bills difficult to counterfeit. That's well and good as far as it goes, but the old bills are still in circulation. Those are the ones to counterfeit.

Well, the fuggernaught has stumbled onto a successful method of counterfeiting accusations against demographic enemies in the Roy Moore and Brett Kavanaugh cases. Fabricated sexual misconduct allegations that are recent as susceptible to all kinds of new technological innovations that make them disprovable (ie the Duke Lacrosse lie, the UVA rape hoax, etc). But old ones existing before the age of ubiquitous digital time stamps? Those are easy to lie about and almost impossible to positively refute.

Guilty until proven innocent, with no repercussions to the accuser even if the thing is mendacious slander from top to bottom.

Congressional Republicans should've laughed at the absurdity of this charge from the get-go, told the lady to take it up with the local police department of whatever city she finally decided it occurred in, and refused to waste anymore of the august body's time with such tawdry gossip.

Instead, even if the Stupid Party wins this battle and Kavanaugh is confirmed, it's a Pyrrhic victory of sorts, the only kind of victory cuckservatives ever win. The fuggernaught is the real winner here. It used the tactic with Roy Moore and it worked, they're using it with Kavanaugh and it's almost done the trick, and they'll use it again and again in the future with varying degrees of success and no drawbacks.

They also win with it in the same way they're winning with the never-ending Fake Russia Story. Yeah, the whole thing is laughably false, but it is having the effect of scaring people away from working for the Trump administration, and this new accuse-from-the-hip will scare people on the right more generally from wanting to do anything in an official capacity.

Parenthetically, the putative war on women is really a war on marriage. One of Steve Sailer's many great insights over the years has been noting how the much talked about gender gap is reliably dwarfed by the much larger marriage gap.

So it is with the Kavanaugh calumny. The following graphs show firstly the percentages of respondents, by sex and marital status, who support Kavanaugh's nomination with "don't know" responses excluded, and secondly the gap in support by sex and then the gaps in support between married and never-married members of the same sex (N = 19,561):

The gap in support for Kavanaugh between married and never-married members of the same sex is more than twice as large as it is between men and women in general.

The imposition of same-sex marriage wasn't just gratuitous leftism, it had a very precise and very predictable political purpose.


thekrustykurmudgeon said...

the reason why kamala harris is so grating is because she is the embodiment of what you dislike. I mean Obama was at least the cool black guy who could play basketball. Harris has none of the likable attributes that barry had. But moreover, I feel that the democrats used to have brakes to prevent people like Harris from climbing the ladder in the party.

Maybe the factor is the loss of the blue dogs. As late as 2009-2010, there were some democrats representing pretty conservative turf like Bart Gordon or Chet Edwards. The 2010 tea party wave disproportionately got rid of those types from the party and acted as a sort of "bottleneck" in the party. The remaining democrats were a more distilled brand of poz.

Maus said...

Kamala was a year behind me at law school. She was clearly an AA admit and dumb as a stump. She was reputed to be a terrible trial attorney at the Alameda D.A. Office. Her star only began to rise when she entwined herself with Willie Brown. But now she is the flavor of the month. If the Dems want to align with her, they can suffer for their choice. If America prefers her to other canidates, then they learned nothing from the travesty of the Obama debacle. Never again another ni**er!

Philippe le Bel said...

dear lovers of data, graph and maps.

Here's are my (quite,I admit) optimistic views for the next elections.

I have studied all competitive seats, and give them to GOP if polls are close to +2D or +1D or 50/50

I don't think it's a foolish theory to admit than +2D in a red state is not a guarantee, as opposite as CNN/538 experts can say

all pick-up are in light color

house :


D 15 pick-up, R 3 pick-up, total 12 seats for D.

senate :

R 5 pu, D 1 pu. I admit here it's maybe too optimistic,I'm not so confident for AZ or FL, but in any way, even a 4R/2D pu don't make change : senate will stay red.

PS: and can we put a D sticker to Joe Manchin ? Really ?

(btw, WHO is the mongoloid wich decided one day to give red to R and blue to D ? In every others parts of the world, red is for leftist parties. I'll never understand you, folks^^ -same story for farenheit or american football ^^)

governors :


D 5 pu, R 2 (but for Oregon, that's probably more my optimistic side wich speak). Anyway, D would have a success in those races, but I don't know really wich powers have a state governor, and if they are more stronger than the state legislature.And this one will probably stay red, even if less than 2016.

I can't wait to election night,and to watch again my beloved John King and his funny and exciting maps !
I can't wait too and even more to see the desappointment on all those experts !

dear AE, I would love to see you write your own predictions for those elections :)

Philippe le Bel said...

(how put an hyperlink ?)

indocon said...

Philippe le Bel, I think your prediction is right on, most democratic pick ups in the house will be upper crossed white seats in the north, in the Senate I think we will exceed your prediction, most close Senate races over last few cycles have all gone one way, I just don't see all these races going against us.

Anonymous said...

As to the team colors, my understanding was that the TV networks flipflopped each election - one year red was Democrats and blue was Republicans, switch it the next. It wasn't until the 2000 election and ensuing shitshow that the colors ossified (with of course red for Rs and blue for Ds). Someone is welcome to correct me if I am mistaken.

Passer by said...

This comes together with my theory that countries with higher marriage rate are generally more conservative than countries with low marriage rate and that the move towards liberalism is partly caused by the decline of marriage.

Divorce rates exploded in the 70s and thus liberalism exploded too.

By the way Israel has very high marriage rate, almost everyone there marries. Only 5 percent of jewish children in Israel are born to unmarried mothers, compared to 40 - 50 percent in the West.

Passer by said...


AE i just answered you on the question of sex differences in vocabulary in the Variability article, i can provide you with data if you are interested.

216 said...

O/T Drive by


Table 9 is interesting, IRR drew the wrong conclusion and asked the wrong question. They should of asked if whites should take "last place", which is what BEE actually does. That would probably explain why blacks showed otherwise higher than expected preference for the "meritocratic" answer. Also notable that the anti-white sentiment of Indians is revealed.

Table 11 and Table 12 indicate that the "based" percentage of whites is rather small.

216 said...


30% of South African blacks probably living under a rock (Table 1), another hint that the opposition "success" in 2016 was from blacks not showing up, rather than blacks being fed up with the ANC corruption.


MBlanc46 said...

Please, Dems, please give us Kamala Harris in 2020. It’s hard to imagine anything more likely to build white consciousness than her.

Kipling said...

It's all to the good, makes everything more clear. My wife was never pozzed (we homeschool for goodness' sake), but this has been a red-pill week for her. I've been gently showing her Handle's Haus and other calm members of the dissident. She's infuriated by her friends' blind acceptance of Ford's accusations. The sides become ever clearer.

Of course, we have a son. That makes all the difference in the world.

DissidentRight said...

Kamala Harris will be the Democrat nominee in 2020.


Audacious Epigone said...


That ratchet is one that is NOT turning back the other direction. There is nowhere else for non-whites to go and there is no reason for non-whites not to use the power of the state to fleece whites. Retrospectively it seems so obvious that this would be the eventuality.

That said, I'll amend the post a bit by saying that I'm very confident Harris will be on the ticket, though it's conceivable that, with a couple of white states to let someone else get out in front, that she's the VP of an old one-term white man like Biden or Sanders, setting her up for 2024.


Yeah, I pulled a couple of youtube media interviews with her and that shines through. Obama is terrible at interviews--at speaking at all when he's not reading a cue card, actually--but that didn't stop him.


Regular html hyperlinking.

Have you played around on PredictIt yet? There's an opportunity for skin in the game if you're confident enough!

I think it'll be D+15 in the House when the dust settles and the Senate willl stay +/-1, so effectively unchanged.


Yes, I think that's correct.

Passer by,

Yep, I saw it, and I trust you on it. The artificial ceiling makes sense--I vaguely recall getting into a similar discussion years ago. That seems to be about the only plausible explanation to me, though, sense the GSS has been running Wordsum tests for forty years now and women consistently outscore men (on average).


Yeah, 40% of whites say race relations have deteriorated, but it's like no one can figure out why beyond "corrupt politicians" deflecting.


Indeed. We want every election, especially the presidential ones, from here on out to be as clarifying as possible.

216 said...


The first IRR poll is from 2016, ConCaracal reposted it yesterday. The "race relations" question would probably be more negative now, given the rise of the EFF and the Ramaphosa land grab.

Whites complained about corruption at three times the rate of the other groups (Table 1), even the Indians. Cultures outside of the Blue Banana don't immediately link corruption with other social problems, to a degree it is accepted as "overhead". That whites had the lowest complaint about unemployment would be taken as a sign of privilege. Blacks will also look at Table 6 and complain that it is "white privilege" despite most whites taking the civicuck position.

The second poll confirms the general pattern that blacks (worldwide) take relatively conservative stands on issues, but never vote conservative because of the demand for gibs. They only express these stances where there are no whites to blame. The EFF in particular is best described as Afrofascist, rather than the Communism that it claims to be.

Anonymous said...

My attempt at a linguistic killshot:

Women who are married or want to be vote Republican.
Sluts, spinsters and divorcees vote Democrat.

aNanyMouse said...

And, Anon, women who are none of the above (e.g. unmarried, but stable with-a-guy non-sluts) are often Uncommitted to a party.
They may not be many, but they can swing elections.

216 said...

Our people are so committed to "fair play" that they would rather die than think a racist thought.


Random Dude on the Internet said...

Kamala would be a disaster for the Democrats but as we see with Kavanaugh, we should never underestimate the GOP's ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Nevertheless the Democrats are in a difficult spot and they are marginally aware of this, at least the upper echelons of the party who have been spending the last three months desperately trying to walk back the #AbolishICE sentiment along with woke browns who want Venezuela yesterday. An incompetent black women will continue to drive the exodus of white moderates and independents. However if they go with someone like Joe Biden, then minorities aren't going to show up.

I suspect this is the Democrat conundrum that they will continue to face until Texas and Florida turn blue with a mix demographics and good old fashioned voter fraud. That might be as early as 2028 if the GOP doesn't take meaningful steps with Voter ID laws and true immigration reform.

Audacious Epigone said...


The second poll confirms the general pattern that blacks (worldwide) take relatively conservative stands on issues, but never vote conservative because of the demand for gibs. They only express these stances where there are no whites to blame.

This is largely true for Muslims as well, isn't it?

Re: fair play, in Derb's words, for goodwhites is "better dead than rude [to non-whites]".


Yeah, compare and contrast the aspirational loving wife and caring mother (R) with the fat, barren blue-haired cat ladies (D).

Random Dude,

Agree. We're getting to the point now though where whites have to put something close to a united front together on the National Question or the country is gone. This 58%-42% among whites with almost all the non-whites aligned with the 42% of whites can't cut it in a democratic system.

No Dem, included 'moderate' white guys like Biden, are ever going to lift a finger to slow down the demographic transformation. Time is not on our side. The worst thing that can happen for our future prospects is for someone like Biden to turn the temperature down a little so that enough people forget the burners are still on.

But Bernie Sanders couldn't even stand up to a couple of land whales who ran up on stage with him and took his microphone. How is he going to stand up to Harris in a debate? He's already shown he won't say a thing against identity politics, but if he won't do that, he's not going to beat a three-fer like her.

Georgia may well have flipped by 2028, too.

216 said...


I don't think Muslims are especially committed to socialism, while blacks almost always are. Their allegiance in Europe to the socialist parties is one of convenience, and it won't last much longer. Sadiq Khan has pro-market views compared to most of his fellow Labour Party members. Muslims bailed on the PS in France in favor of Macron's new party.

"Manners maketh man" is of vital importance, median voters are displeased that Trump has not "grown in the office", just as they are upset at the Right's (well founded) indifference to sexual assault, and even non-blacks are upset at our "bullying" of Kapernick & Co. We either must find a way to present with decorum, and if this still proves impossible to win with, skulls will be cracked.

Random Dude,

With the economy perceived as doing well, American moderates feel free to exercise their revealed preference for social liberalism. Our stances are far less popular, and rarely even as populist, as we might wish they are. We have women mad that they aren't earning as much as men, blacks mad they aren't earning as much as whites, and moderates of all stripes wondering why the US is the reactionary outlier among the other developed countries. These are structural disadvantages we've been struggling with since 1988, and they continuously get worse.

It's not as if people don't know that Starbucks is liberal, but they keep going there anyways.

Philippe le Bel said...

Even if Texas AND Florida AND Georgia turn blue, it's a possibility than white states as Oregon, Washington, Vermont, NH, Maine and Minnesota turn red.

It will be so a 270 to 268 for R.

Kirk Forlatt said...

First time reading and commenting here, and glad to have found the site.

Reading an account like this actually encourages me. The day the whitish males like Biden, Sanders, etc. are pushed off the Dem stage will be a good day. The lines will be more clearly drawn then, and perhaps polite normies will finally believe what their lying eyes have been telling them for some time now.

All the bad stuff that's coming IS coming. Might as well help it along a bit, and Mx. Harris and her ilk are invaluable in their roles as cattle prods.

216 said...

Ask and you shall receive


Jim Bowery said...

The burden of proof on an accuser against a person occupying a position of trust and authority is less than in a civil suit which is less than in a criminal trial. Does this mean that someone is disqualified from occupying a position of trust and authority by a "credible accuser"? Obviously, it depends on the meaning of "credible" and we can argue that all day but two things are manifestly true:

1) The credibility of the accuser of a person in public trust and authority, unburned of proof, is not to be protected from equally incisive suspicion and investigation -- even if a purported "victim".

2) Society collapses as its general level of trust diminishes because the group that most aggressively "credibly accuses" authorities from other groups, wins a de facto war of mendacity.

Now, some of us would argue that the evidence points to a decrease in social trust with an increase in heterogeneity (proximal diversity) and that this decrease is sufficient to justify a reduction in heterogeneity after a period of unprecedented experimentation with its increase. Others would "credibly accuse" us of .... fill in the blank. In this "credible accusation" they will outlaw our escape from their imposition of heterogeneity, and its war of mendacity on us -- even though the only position of trust and authority to which we aspire is a country of our own.

This is why we will have to kill them.

Anonymous said...

Is it bad that I'm tempted to move to Alaska, breed like the Amish do, and sit this all out?

Barring some sort of instant racial awakening among whites, things are just going to get worse and worse until everything erupts into bloodshed and the nation fixes itself one way or another, and I don't see why aware whites should have to pay for degenerate white mistakes.

The worst part is by the time bloodshed becomes inevitable, I'll probably be in my 60s or 70s (I'm 30 now). It's depressing knowing what's going on, and also knowing you're too un-charismatic to do anything about it yourself. Sure I'll vote and try to convince personal friends and family, but there isn't that much else the average person can do.

The democrats are alienating whites, I'm just concerned they aren't doing it fast enough for it to help us in time to avoid catastrophe.

216 said...


Belarus or Bust

Feryl said...

"With the economy perceived as doing well, American moderates feel free to exercise their revealed preference for social liberalism. Our stances are far less popular, and rarely even as populist, as we might wish they are. We have women mad that they aren't earning as much as men, blacks mad they aren't earning as much as whites, and moderates of all stripes wondering why the US is the reactionary outlier among the other developed countries. These are structural disadvantages we've been struggling with since 1988, and they continuously get worse.

It's not as if people don't know that Starbucks is liberal, but they keep going there anyways."

There's I think a bit of misconception about the nation's "temperature" right now. The hardcore political devotees mistakenly think that vast numbers of Americans are earnestly invested in activism or "resistance". Nothing could be further from the truth. I recall the 1990's being a decade when many Americans were angry at NAFTA, Walmart, et al for ripping us off. Populist consumer sentiment these days isn't what it was back then; I tell people that I don't shop at Walmart or Amazon because their business practices are terrible, and I usually just get blank stares in response to that. Whereas in the late 60's-late 90's, it was common for people to be hostile towards sell-out companies. Of course modern SJWs bitch about certain companies for "woke" reasons, but that's a niche thing with no basis in populism.

We all know that stages of grief; what I'm afraid of is that, if you look at the index of popular sentiment on Agnostic's blog, we've been in a downward spiral since the late 60's. In the early stages (e.g., the 60's-90's) there's anger; but what about the later stages? Depression? Apathy? Acceptance? I think that the lion's share of Americans, esp. younger ones, are closer to the latter stages than they are to anger. In the Civil War era, most of the bickering was between older adults; the younger generations (and less partisan older people) eventually resigned themselves to America being a fractious country where people felt like shit. Right now less partisan people are succumbing to a "just get out of the way" mentality, which lets the lunatics continue to run the asylum. I do think we are heading towards a climax of partisan hostility, to be followed by a period of lingering bitterness and lack of faith in leaders and the "system".

The cycles of good or bad feeling, and the cycles of low or high corruption, have to run their course and there's just not a whole lot you can do to avoid it. 50 years of a declining national mood, +40 years of rising corruption. So there's 30-40 years to go before either can be reversed. And although collectivism is rising, it's liable to be abused by arrogant Boomers and nihilistic Gen X-ers for the most base and destructive ends. Look, I wish we'd all look at stats of vastly declining crime, domestic violence, and animal cruelty compared to what they were in the 1970's-1990's, which has happened because Millennials do not tolerate disorder and abuse, and begin the process of healing all of the remaining political and cultural wounds that the Boomers gashed open. But that's contingent on Boomers and Gen X-ers finally getting their shit together. Will that happen? If I heard more objective and lass partisan statements from those generations, I'd be more optimistic.

Audacious Epigone said...


Don't show that poll to cuckservatives, good lord (assuming I'm reading it correctly--a big move of Turkish 'Germans' away from SPD to CDU--natural conservatives, you see!).

As for decorum, that is a recipe for failure. Trump won when he lacked decorum. Now that he's slowly tried to instate some of it, he's losing everywhere. That Kavanaugh will likely come this close to being kept off the court with congressional control, the WH, and a unique uniting of the cuck, tradcon, and alt-right/light coalitions of Republicans behind him shows how ineffective the conciliatory approach of the last three decades has been.

We're in Nietzsche's world now. God is dead and the will for power is everything. Either the West, collectively, realizes this soon or we're done.

Trump's speech in Poland (written by Stephen Miller, of course) is one of the most important speeches and American president has ever made. The fundamental question of the 21st century is whether or not the West has the will to survive.



Yeah, the frog in the boiler is a tired (and not literally accurate) metaphor, but it's applicable here.


This Pollyanna still hopes for a gentle landing in the form of political dissolution. That probably just buys time until the same issues reemerge, though.


Have kids. Network locally. There are groups like IE and splinter groups that are less doxxable forming all over the country. I've been stunned at how it's happening right here in the cuck corridor. If you're in your sixties and alone, you're in trouble. If you're in your sixties and you're networked with a bunch of other based whites who each had four kids, things start looking a lot better.

Aeoli said...

"The gap in support for Kavanaugh between married and never-married members of the same sex is more than twice as large as it is between men and women in general."

MOAR collij for wimminz

216 said...


The interesting thing is that the poll was also asked of Germans from the former Soviet Union. The CDU is wildly supported by them, apparently out of love for Helmut Kohl. Kohl was not a bad guy, he had plans to kick the Turks out, sadly our "friends" Reagan, Bush and Thatcher are said to have talked/threatened him out of it.

Not going to agree with you on decorum, Trump was an Auster "unprincipled exception", as a unique celebrity candidate he was able to defy ordinary political conventions. It also helped that he got tons of free media coverage, from the same media that thought he would be both easy to defeat, and would give them higher ratings and thus income. That advantage has now been taken away.

Trump has done best in polling right after he gives a well-received speech, and when he announces a foreign policy success. He suffers when aides are convicted, forced out, and another sex scandal drops. Charlottesville was the nadir. And it really doesn't help that Trump is too old for the job, and plays far too much golf instead of calling Congressmen into the Oval and browbeating them. Nor has he ditched Twitter for Gab.

One of Obama's better verbal finesses was when he said "Obamacare, I like that, because I do care". Can anyone take a serious look at the Republicans and think that they "care about people like me"???

Feryl said...

That Kavanaugh will likely come this close to being kept off the court with congressional control, the WH, and a unique uniting of the cuck, tradcon, and alt-right/light coalitions of Republicans behind him shows how ineffective the conciliatory approach of the last three decades has been.

Kavanaugh is another neo-liberalite. No loss if he gets kicked to the curb. He helped write a decision that denied union rights to illegals, thereby giving business owners more reason to hire illegals. Remember: that which is good for management is manifestly not good for the native masses. Protecting the financial interests of elites for the last 40 years has given us rampant immigration, stagnant wages, spiraling housing costs, mass legal drugging of the populace with opioids and SSRIs, and so forth. Reaganite conservatives can do moderately well on social issues, while the havoc they wreak on economic fundamentals (soaring inequality, monopolies, unsustainable bubbles) and demographics (less AFF for natives and high immigration levels) ultimately create a dystopian level of inequality, diversity, and cynicism. Reagan himself, as part of reducing CA's spending back in the late 60's/early 70's, shut down numerous facilities for the mentally ill which quickly caused the street population of bums and drug addicts to surge, in a preview of the dystopian conditions which would gradually spread to more and more of America as time went by.

Be careful who you hitch your wagon to. We still don't know if either the Left or Right can successfully reinvent itself in the coming years. We also don't know if good changes will be thwarted by one side or the other (for example, a fully restrictionist GOP president is abandoned by his party's trad. sectors like the Pentagon, and is opened up to impeachment). And while guys like Kavanaugh can satisfy conservatives on a base and cheap level (via gun rights, abortion, keeping the government smaller, etc.), I don't expect him to restore the fundamentals of a fair, just, and happy society. The Reaganites by default are fatalistic about accepting the Darwinian precept that life is brutish and nasty for most, but it's not our responsibility to change that.

As culturally whacko as the Left has become in the Reaganite era, Leftists on the supreme court are much more likely to fight back against the nihilism and utter cruelty of Reaganite economic norms....Which we can't excuse or forgive, on the grounds of the sickening sentimental sophistry of giving full elite approval to Tower of Babel-type demographic crises.

Feryl said...

Clarification: I mean that Reaganism can't be defended anymore, because it introduced the current "tradition" of using gooey sentimental slop to mask the real motivation for high immigration levels: corrupt elites wanting cheap labor. The Reaganite Right has never fully rejected the nation-wrecking pro-immigrant memes that went viral in the late 80's and 90's. The reckless flirtation with higher immigration levels in the 1970's should've provided enough evidence of the drawbacks of high immigration, but our ability to rationally deal with these issues was destroyed in the 80's by a growing legion of corrupt elites who couldn't care less about protecting the masses on measures of sound economic fundamentals.

Feryl said...

Not going to agree with you on decorum, Trump was an Auster "unprincipled exception", as a unique celebrity candidate he was able to defy ordinary political conventions. It also helped that he got tons of free media coverage, from the same media that thought he would be both easy to defeat, and would give them higher ratings and thus income. That advantage has now been taken away.

I've come to understand Trump as an ADD-addled mercurial personality, who loves being the center of attention and does want to amuse his audience. Contrary to what the 25th amendment idiots would have you believe, Trump does in fact have a solid grasp of certain common sense/populist stances (like, what the hell are we still doing in the Afghan/Iraq war). Trump, were it possible, would've sheperdhed some long overdue financial and military reforms, the likes of which aren't even popular in elite Dem circles, let alone within the GOP. But Trump has to juggle pleasing his elite handlers with pleasing his popular fan base....An act full of tension and contradiction. As I've said before, Jimmy Carter also had to do this act to some degree, but Carter had a rather dour and retiring personality, so he often chose to grimace and sulk, often quite publicly. Whereas Trump is much more agreeable and confident, so whichever path he's on he tries to sell it with gusto to anyone who will listen. I hate to say, but Trump's glibness is why the dreaded 1946 cohort, that's given us Bill Clinton, GW Bush, and Trump, shows us exactly everything that's wrong with Boomers.

216 said...


I've come to understand that immigration is not viewed at all as a "domestic" or "economy" issue. It either functions as "foreign policy" or as "human rights", both of which are considered unreviewable except as by the permanent class of "experts".

We have "refugees" because the MIC told people in the 1970s that they would emulate the upper-class Cubans and be anti-Communist. What we were told less of was that we needed to pay back the people on the losing side of the wars we fought in. It's also relevant that whenever we go to war somewhere else, "war brides" tend to come back.

That immigration serves to cause wage stagnation, and provides pliable labor, is but a salutary effect that is just icing on the cake for the ruling class. Low white middle class fertility has been observed for several decades, but nothing was ever done. There has been plenty of time to induce fertility higher, but there is a clear sentiment that this is not to be done, but rather than feminism should be intensified.

We have all these H-1B Indians here not because the tech sector needs them, nor even that it can't afford more labor costs, otherwise the functions would just be outsourced to India. It exists because we don't want India to repeat the Indira Gandhi years where it nearly "flipped" slides in the Cold War. Think of what happened to Wilhelm II when Russia flipped and allied with France.

216 said...

Contd: Germany

AFD hit new highs (18%) in several polls today. Should be interesting to see if they can maintain discipline up to the next election. I think they face a ceiling of 25%, but they could easily get into the 30s in the Ost.

One disturbing trend in the polling has been the rise of "full cuck" Greens. German Boomers continue stupidly supporting Mutti for muh pension.


Outrageous gender gap, and out of historical context for the fearmongering neoliberals keeping score at home. Weimar had a gender imbalance in females favor as a result of WW1 losses, it was these women that tipped the balance for Hitler. Men actually favored the SPD.

Feryl said...

I've come to understand that immigration is not viewed at all as a "domestic" or "economy" issue. It either functions as "foreign policy" or as "human rights", both of which are considered unreviewable except as by the permanent class of "experts"."

I already noted that above; these corrupt elites put a gloss on their real motives. Why expect otherwise? They can't stand a country that discourages greed, rootlessness, and cultural instability. They may rationalize their sociopathy, but that's all they've got: rationalization, not goodness in their hearts.

RE: India, that's all news to me. But at the same time, trying to "curry" favor with foreign nations/rulers, if done so excessively, can and will backfire on you. I also am well aware of Anglo elites accepting large numbers of foreigners for the reason of having greater human resources for various kinds of foreign activities/intrigue. No American person can ever be taught to have the cultural understanding, and local connections, that a foreigner has of his own country and people. Of course, placing trust in foreigners to do things on our behalf can often backfire, since most foreigners never will really love America over their motherland.

216 said...


The rise of Joe McCarthy was fueled by China flipping from KMT to CPC, switching the biggest population block into the Communist camp. This understandably scared people, and we found out that much of the State Department and the journalists were outright shills for Mao.

In a geopolitical sense, the loss of India splits the Western block in two, isolating Australia and Taiwan/Korea/Japan from Europe. This is why the UK went to war for the Suez Canal in Egypt, rather than simply pay a higher rent, it also explains part of the reason why the Suez Canal exists in the first place, and why the Boer Wars were launched even before the gold was found.

By its demographics, India is a highly unstable country, and according to meme-tier alt-right logic it should not exist at all. That it does is a testament to a government designed to be as inefficient as possible (Google: INSAS rifle). The Emergency came close to changing all of that, Indira Gandhi was going to create an authoritarian police state.

So to keep India stable, we allowed the boiling off to the Anglo Five of the most talented that would be the leaders of a revolution, and pressured the Gulf oil states to take in some of their underclass as serfs. Considering the counter-example of Sri Lanka, this policy was an unqualified success.

Audacious Epigone said...


Per the decreasing emphasis on material concerns and the skyrocketing concern people express over immigration, how much of a factor is the labor-management dynamic? If the country looks like Mexico in a generation--or Brazil, i.e. president Harris waves in asylum seekers from s-S Africa--none of this matters. Everything else is downstream of immigration.


Who is the archetype to emulate, if not Trump (or more precisely, someone with Trump's presentation but Kris Kobach's command of the details)?

The ebb and flow in his approval rating has been pretty gentle, almost exclusively among always-waffling 'independents'.

Agree wholeheartedly with you re Gab. The amount of traffic he would drive to that platform would be staggering because all the blue check marks who live to hate him (and the few who live to praise him) would be forced to migrate there, too.

216 said...


On a style basis, I prefer Mike Pence, who is an American version of former Canadian PM Stephen Harper. As Theresa May infamously said back in 2003, the Conservatives were the "nasty party". Like it or not, it has a ring of truth behind it. The tinge of the Tea Party was a moral puritanism applied to public spending, which runs against the average American's historical respect for FDR and the New Deal. That's something we need to move away from just as much as we need to move away from neoconservatism.

Trump has found himself in a strange position. He is simultaneously accused of being an isolationist and a unilateralist. I'm not sure that we can ignore multilateralism, attacking Canada, the EU and China at the same time was a poor strategy. Most Americans like Canada and want the same healthcare system. The "NATO freeloaders" argument is a tough sell, most people would (ironic) want a unilateral cut in military spending.

Being called "haters" does not endear us to people as "lovable rogues", it gets us tagged as "antisocial" at best, "terrorists" at worst.

216 said...


H/t Karlin

Joe Suber said...

Great article, precedes a great day. Kav-meister destroys Dems. There is hope. Even Linsey Grahm is growing a pair. When Kavanaugh began to hate...

Anonymous said...

Ae, wondering what the gender gap vs marriage gap is within age cohorts. Like within people in their 20s, within their 30s etc

Passer by said...

AE, last week (Kavanaugh week) Reuters poll shows increase in gender gap. It causes white men (or all men) to become more supportive of republicans and white women (or all women) to become less supportive of republicans. Although it could be just fluctuations. But the same change shows in the Trump approval poll too. We will see.

Anonymous said...

O/T but the Left in Israel IMPLODED- because they offered National Suicide.




Jan Assman said...

216, your messages on Cold War politics are interesting. What books or other sources do you use to find this info?

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

She knows what to stand up for now because she knew who to lie down with then


Sadly, she IS the woman for our time

Audacious Epigone said...


A party that allows its SCOTUS nominee, and very obviously innocent man, to be called a serial rapist when the party controls both houses and the executive is a party that will never, ever be able to do anything to avoid being called "nasty". They can avoid being called cucks, though. And if they do, we'll have a chance.


Winning the battles and still managing to lose the war. I guess Trump is an improvement in that we win some battles now. The war, though, it's just lose lose lose.


The presumption is that at some point enough becomes enough. But then the ratchet turns again.


Yep, these things are features of her appeal, not bugs.

PV van der Byl said...


"I've come to understand Trump as an ADD-addled mercurial personality, who loves being the center of attention and does want to amuse his audience.......Trump does in fact have a solid grasp of certain common sense/populist stances"

I have long believed that Trump is a very high functioning dyslexic. He isn't the only one. A few have been CEO of Fortune 500 companies. I have met liberal women lawyers who have worked with him on complicated contractual matters. The don't like him but will not deny that he is very smart in a practical way and really can visualize a situation with many moving parts.

Dyslexia would also explain why Trump has few, if any, books at home and why his vocabulary is so limited.

Jontavious Lamarcus Jenkins IV said...

Abbot will be the last Republican governor of Texas, I think.

With Commiefornia's mass exodus, a great many of them are coming to Texas and turning Texas into the Commiefornian shithole they came from. (like most immigrants)Inflated housing market, especially in the suburban areas. Higher Taxes with more homelessness.

Demographically, Austin is becoming New Berkley. Fort Worth is trying desperately to become San Francisco (the police actually have an LGBTQRTSTUV liason) and fort worth isd was the first in the state to institute fag bathrooms. Dallas is decending into Oakland as the swpls move to suburban enclaves.

San Antonio is North Tiajuana. Houston will be the Detroit of Texas thanks to all the vibrancy left over from the New Orleans shit show from 2005.

Saving my money and I am getting out while the getting is good.