The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Californians of Every Race Say Trump Thinks Less of Black People
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Looking through past polling on Calexit over the last couple of years led to a poll from SurveyUSA with some interesting results. The range of questions the organization puts forward is laudable, though the sample sizes are small. Reuters-Ipsos’ huge samples have spoiled me. In this particular survey, questions focus less on perceptions of Trump than on perceptions of the deplorables who voted for him.

– A plurality of Californians who did not vote for Trump think those who did are “bad people”:

When Hillary Clinton assigned 30+ million Americans to the deplorable basket, she was channeling a common sentiment in Bluestatistan. We’re not talking about disagreements between fellow countrymen here. We’re talking about burning hatreds between rival factions inside of an irreconcilably disunited empire. Yet another reason to be bullish on the long-term prospects of political dissolution.

– Validating another stereotype, women are less likely (capable?) of separating political beliefs from presumed moral worth. While Californian men who did not vote for Trump are split, with 37% seeing Trump voters as “good people” and 38% seeing them as “bad people”, women are more conclusive in their condemnation. Just 23% say Trump voters are “good people” to 42% who see us as “bad people”.

– While 40% of non-Trump voters say those who voted for Trump are “bad people”, 55% of them say Trump voters are “racist”.

How about that white pill!? Some 15% of those on the left allow that it is at least theoretically possible for someone to be racist without necessarily being a bad person. They’re more nuanced than we give them credit for!

– An outright majority of non-Trump voters, 55%, see Trump voters as racists. Only 23% do not see them that way, while the remainder are unsure. Some 49% of non-Trump voters see Trump voters as sexist compared to 25% who do not. The rest are unsure. So by more than a 2-to-1 margin, those who oppose Trump think those who support him are racists and sexists, two of the worst things people can be in The Current Year. Bye bye, Mx American pie!

– During his presidential campaign, Trump went out of his way to pander to blacks. The only criticisms he leveled in the general direction of “the black community” were of president Obama (duh) and Black Lives Matter. He brought in Steve Harvey, lots of black preachers, touted good things being said about him by black celebrities like Dennis Rodman and Mike Tyson, turned Jamiel Shaw into a household name, took Ben Carson under his wing, had ‘Diamond and Silk’ do warmup at some of his rallies, etc etc ad nauseum.

All for naught. The percentages, by race, of all Californians–not just non-Trump voters–who say Trump thinks less of black people. “Not sure” responses, constituting 16% of the total, are excluded:

Conciliatory gestures are for cucks. Dignity-destroying grovels have no purchase. This is war. Race war. The war remains mostly figurative for now. It’s not guaranteed to stay that way. We should separate while doing so with some degree of amicability remains viable.

The current political arrangement in the US delenda est!

(Republished from The Audacious Epigone by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 40 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Doesn't everybody?

  2. I'm pretty sure not very deep down inside a plurality of black people think bad about black people.

  3. Nothing undignified about reducing black turnout and winning an election.

    The sole Republican upset of the midterm election – Florida – probably doesn't happen without outreach to non-whites.

  4. What's surreal about "orange man bad" is that Trump ran on a platform of wholesome/common sense/restrained reforms (regarding immigration excess, military excess, and corporate welfare excess) not unlike what Ralph Nader or Ross Perot ran on during the 1990's, when populism was on the ropes but not yet dead.

    Trump in fact sounded a lot more liberal than Hilary did. The coastal/"well-educated" elites are so invested in full retard cultural liberalism (and anti-white ID politics) that they are utterly blind to the fact that modern Democrats, on an elite level, have almost completely abandoned the traditional mid-late 20th century tenets of American liberalism (bargaining power and security for workers, military restraint, trade protectionism, progressive taxes).

    It's hard to discern a "key" issue that will ignite…..Anything at this point. Every crisis phase has to turn on one or two issues that must be reckoned with. In the American Revolution phase, it was about remaining British subjects or not. In the Civil War, it was slavery. In the 1930's and early 40's, the first major issue was recovering from the Depression followed by fighting the Axis.

    What issue at the moment does, or could, surge ahead of everything else to galvanize each side together or each side apart? I can't think of the exact issue, and to me we will have to wait for one or both of the following to happen:
    – A foreign power commits to a large scale attack on America, or perhaps a fellow English speaking country (ala Pearl Harbor)
    – A economic crisis that can't be solved under Reaganite norms finally rears it's head

    Until this happens, we'll have to bide our time as each offers only the most token, and ultimately useless, reform measures (such as the GOP promising to punish "criminal" illegals and slap tariffs combatively on certain countries , and the Dems offering to raise up the minimum wage to a slightly less laughable level and tentatively taking steps to stop health"care" rape of middle class people). Perot, Nader, and Trump, in an ideal world, would've been allowed to to install a full reform of our political and economic culture, but the timing just wasn't right (and according to Neil Howe, it's generally a blessing for a president to take office during a time of public angst and dysfunction, so that his attempts at reform are more readily accepted (as we saw with FDR, Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton). Presidents who start off in (relatively) good times (Hoover, LBJ, both Bushes, Trump) are apt to eventually encounter something that sours the public, and for which they will take blame (Hoover and the Depression, LBJ and urban riots/Vietnam going bad, the early 90's recession and the late 80's dystopian immigration surge for Bush 1, Iraq going bad and the housing bubble popping under Bush 2, the economic crisis that's liable to happen at the end of Trump's first term, or perhaps the beginning of his second term (the likelihood of which ought to make Trump consider passing up running again, similar to how a lot of Dems wanted Jimmy Carter to step down after his first term).

  5. As one of those, I agree.
    That 77% of blacks who think Trump's a "hater" was probably a higher number (85-87%) a couple years ago (and maybe even worse for Romney/McCain/W).

    The problem is that the minority Republicans tend to be Rubio-style Chamber of Commerce, R-forever lobbyist types, if not libertarians with good ideas that get too abstract, like Dr. Sowell. On one hand it's ideal to push minority entrepreneurs for their communities not to depend on the state; on the other hand, these entrepreneurs tend to be ineffective in the face of massive corporations and white-Asian startups (which tend to stick closer to establishment).

    Ideally there would be lower- to middle-class minorities who don't buy the soft cuckservative nor the Dem-left agendas out of desiring peace, prosperity, and specially law and order (Bolsonaro and Duterte show the way there).
    This may not show now, but it may happen eventually, as browner and browner waves are starting to upset some of the earlier waves (usually whiter and/or English speaking). Specially I speak of some members of those waves who suffered under leftwing guerrillas like in Colombia, or the more recent Venezuelan (and other) emigrés fleeing a la Cubans from the mass socialismo of the 21st century*… those may turn around eventually from the Univision mass-Chicanization programming, as they notice America getting browner and resembling more and more the countries they fled, even amidst (some) technological/economic advancement.

    *Worth noting that the left-brown uprising of 21st century LatAm was virtually yawned at by both Bush, who cared more about the Mideast, unpopular free trade agreements, unpopular Latin elite-right politicians, and importing migrants; and by Obama, who not only wanted even browner and more numerous migrant-voter imports for his party, but also probably empathized in his heart with the brown leftism. After all, 90s Clintonian globopolicies of free trade and debt and bureaucracy enforced by local whitish Latin elites had ravaged Latin America, turning what was a right wing wave at the fall of the Soviet Union into the reverse… Sure, both Bush and Obama suffered high oil prices, while those left-brown Latin countries celebrated for a while (today austerity reigns, and Bolsonaro may have growing fans, across the region)… but that these elites didn't mind even that basic popular economic marker and its volatility's impact upon the national masses, shows a lot how much the Establishment really cares.

  6. Also, speaking of blacks more as initially was intended (lol), it's a tougher battle as black and Democrat are near synonyms. However, and as inept as it may sound, the pandering of Kanye, Candace Owens et al may have some effect, as shown in the percentages and perhaps in the way the arguments of minority right wingers are getting deeper than tax cuts and open borders. That said, this might truly only be seen in the long run, as the thousand flowers bloom due to the increased Hispanic presence pushing back blacks, maybe even faster than whites.

    (And true, some Hispanics become ebonified here -see reggaeton, and even salsa to a degree- as some are indeed mixed with black; but not all behave like this, and certainly less so as the larger waves speak less English; for example, compared to when I came to America 15 years ago, Hispanics today somewhat listen to more rap, but are somewhat less into looking "ratchet"/blackish… and we all have seen brown Hispanic ladies who dye their hair blonde…
    Furthermore, all ethnic groups show more of their true selves only amongst their kind, so the behavior of blacks or Hispanics or whatever is different when whitey isn't around or cannot understand the language… and viceversa, I assume?)

  7. I don't think blacks can be "converted". They're tribal foes of white Republicans and the Democratic party is their party. What I think is that often too much is made of that fact. It's a lot more normal than many Americans realize. Everywhere around the world, for all of history, tribes who will swear to you that the tribe next door are total scum have lived cheek by jowl. Sometimes it's ugly, but usually it works out. Deals are cut, an acceptable status quo is hashed out. In the American South, that's been the implicit deal where whites retain overall control in exchange for giving safe gerrymandered seats to their large African-American minority.

  8. Black people have a pretty good understanding of who is going to be better for the blacks. More gibs, more money for dem programs, and criminal reform to let Cousin Pookie out early, even if they think he is a knucklehead. Of course, there is the ultimate trap card of reparations. Deep down, the average black man knows that he's going to have it better under the Democrats than under the Republicans. No matter how hard you pander to Kanye West, blacks are going to vote for the big D when it comes down to it. The idea of getting blacks out of the Democratic plantation is ridiculous because no matter how many measures Trump or the GOP may pass, the Democrats will always offer more and there is that entrenched history of voting for Democrats.

    Hard to blame them. White Catholics and WASPs can learn a lesson or two about having their needs met instead of always just bending over for the nearest crying minority or (((levantine)))

  9. IHTG,

    A lot will depend on Dem temperament. They pushed hard for Black Lives Matter, only for it to backfire. Non-blacks turned against the rioting, while black turnout was depressed in '16. The longer push for feminism has proven more successful, as unmarried men are not as polarized as unmarried women.

    It's a difficult task for the GOP to become the "Men's Party", but the Kavanagh hearings moved it in that direction. Men tend to (wisely) not see most (or even any) issues as "mens issues". By contrast, everyone knows what "women's issues" are.

    It's become something of a truism for men of most ethno-cultural groups in developed societies to complain about women from the same group, while operating on a grass is greener on the other side attitude. So a non-white female like Kamala would be off putting towards men, as she exemplifies the worst of female behavior, the fact she's married at all is only for the fact that an unmarried person has reduced chances for the Presidency.

  10. Random Dude,

    One thing to ponder is what is the likely result if Blacks are facing off in an intra-Dem battle against Hispanics and Asians. Their victim card doesn't work in that environment.

    In "Bluestan(s)" the GOP would in short order no longer exist, as it already is in most large cities. Would blacks favor a DSA/Green party or stick with the moderate legacy Dems? My bet is on the latter, over the former. Blacks are the least environmentalist of all racial groups in the US, and they have the least amount of gripes at "corporate power". That's the hint to how the GOP can gain black votes while the US is still intact.

    Or the GOP can take the other option, and shift left on the environment and shifting left on any social issue that the corporate funding class wants. The odds on are that this is what probably occurs, and we die with a whimper. White tribalism may not be able to exceed the 65% or so that Reagan got. And things will have to get bad before even most white conservatives are willing to accept "Redstan" otherwise known as "Belarus North America"

  11. Have a look at the full measure of the disgusting results in CA. McCarthy is the only R that won his district by a sizeable margin. The other seats will be lost in two more cycles assuming constant trends.

    The GOP turns around and names McCarthy the new leader to replace Ryan. Yet who else is more responsible for the debacle? How much to we need to pay off McCarthy to give a career-ending speech on the House floor explaining that the demographic oblivion of whites and anti-white racism is responsible for what can only be described as "election cleansing"?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_California,_2018#District_28

  12. The woman thing is funny. Anecdotally, I was dating a professional chick (young, hindu, CPA, and I'm in Canada, so it's a 'blue state' if you will) and while initially my MAGA hat and 'racist' and 'sexist' deplorable attitude was a turn on for her (she was being bad, after all) as time went on she would nag me about 'being a bad person' and eventually it ended because of that. Just another data point.

  13. DB,

    I've dated a number of girls over the years, quite a bit of them were thots even though they considered themselves professional career women. Most of them had basic bitch left wing viewpoints but many of them didn't know much about them or why they felt so strongly about the outrage of the day that the media conjured up. Most of them turned into shitlords but wouldn't dare espouse those views because ultimately it was a status thing to many of them. They may not know why gay marriage is so important to them but no way were they going to say how "gross" (in many of their words) it was at the thought of two dudes having sex to their friends.

    While I enjoy that white women are increasingly becoming our allies, I think we have to be careful and not assume that they're always going to be in our corner. The DNC is acutely aware of this and whoever they end up pushing in future election is going to be designed to be as white girl-friendly as possible. It's an uphill battle for sure.

  14. 216,

    The 8th is even safer than McCarthy's but the point is well taken. To their credit, the Democrats have the sense to name a speaker who dominates her district and who is ensconced in friendly territory more broadly.

    As for Asians and Hispanics facing off against blacks, on a small scale maybe the dynamics aren't the same, but when everyone is watching, blacks trump everyone else. Obama was elected and reelected. Bill Richardson and the mayor of San Antonio, whoever Castro, didn't go anywhere. Kamala Harris will primarily identify as black rather than Asian/Indian because there is so much more cred in doing so.

    Random Dude,

    One of the things I learned campaigning for Kobach is that conversion is a fool's errand. The name of the game is getting your side to cast ballots. This is only going to become more and more true in the future. Trump doesn't need to swing a couple percentage points among blacks. He doesn't even need to depress black turnout (to the extent that it can be depressed by the opposition as opposed to Ds running a non-black instead of a black). What he needs to do is to keep the base fired up through 2020.

    IHTG,

    That compromise is viable as long as whites are a majority. Once they lose that majority, the strategy won't work. The difference between Alabama and South Africa is 70%-30% vs 10%-90% (roughly).

    Disordered,

    Based blacks (and based non-whites more generally) as a moral force that is able to drive the de facto white party to do whatFery it needs to do to preserve itself (and the country). I'm not opposed.

    Feryl,

    Could not agree more regarding the impetus. If the first one doesn't strike like a bolt of lightning, the second one is going to get us in the not-too-distant future.

  15. Random Dude,

    Until she is tied down in marriage/LTR with a man–not merely a biological male, but a man–she is an untrustworthy ally at best.

  16. AE,

    Disagree with you about "keeping the base fired up", that strategy does nothing but keep the rage of the center-left white-hot. The strategy that works best is defeating the Dems by attrition and eventual exhaustion, presuming that recession doesn't set in by 2020. The Dem Congress is full of ambitious personalities, and the stage is set for presidential grandstanding. There's also the non-insignificant chance that Trump draws a major primary challenger such as Ben Sasse. Incumbent Presidents that draw a challenger typically lose. Going "base-heavy" ensures a challenger, and does nothing to regain the Gary Johnson voters from 2016. Reagan was able to scoop up most of the John B Anderson voters.

    The Trump economic message of '16 has disappeared, the NAFTA renegotiation didn't move the needle. It might be too much for his Boomer brain to grasp, but the US should rejoin the Paris Agreement and he should shut it about these weather jokes while a large portion of California was burned to the ground. Even if Trump wins another term, a Dem majority Senate is likely.

  17. Anonymous[] • Disclaimer says:

    I understand that, at least here in Georgia, blacks turn out to vote at a higher rate than whites.

    Has anyone looked state-by-state at what elections would look like if:

    1) Non-Hispanic whites turned out to vote at at least the same rate as blacks?

    2) Non-Hispanic whites voted 90 percent or more for the GOP? (Or even 80 percent or more for the GOP?)

  18. I understand that, at least here in Georgia, blacks turn out to vote at a higher rate than whites.

    I'd be suspicious of that.  There can be NO doubt that the same ballot-manufacturing shenanigans done by Brenda Snipes in Florida are also going on in Black-run districts in Georgia.

    If there were cameras in the polling places to count voters, I'm sure you'd see many fewer bodies than ballots counted.  If the law addressed this by e.g. throwing out counts from precincts where this went on, you'd see some real impact on voter fraud.

  19. "As for Asians and Hispanics facing off against blacks, on a small scale maybe the dynamics aren't the same, but when everyone is watching, blacks trump everyone else. Obama was elected and reelected. Bill Richardson and the mayor of San Antonio, whoever Castro, didn't go anywhere. Kamala Harris will primarily identify as black rather than Asian/Indian because there is so much more cred in doing so. "

    So far blacks are more rooted in America, vote more monolithically for one party than anyone else does, and are much more fearful of white devils than anyone else is. And this is why they vote much more frequently than their incomes would suggest, and why the Dems, in the face of the collapse of the white labor voting bloc outside of the Midwest and some of the Rust-belt Northeast, have increasingly pedestalized blacks. The fact that crime rates are now like 1/5 what they were in the early 90's has also made this possible.

    But as Steve Sailer likes to point out, the Western US's politics don't have the same black pandering opportunities that the East has. Elections out West are more about battles between SWPL whites and libertarian whites, with blacks/Asians/Hispanics/those of recent immigrant stock almost incidental to elections. Even California, in the general 2016 election (which attracts the most low income and therefore non-white voters), exit polls showed that 48% of voters were white, 31% were Hispanic, 12% were Asian, and 6% were black (!). Democrats publicly play up the importance of non-white voters to motivate higher turnout, which leads them to basically cover-up the reality that whites remain the most important voting bloc that one ought to appeal to. This is true even California, the least white state but one in which the usual voting realities apply:

    – People vote much more frequently when they have a sentimental stake in elections held in "their" country, which is generally caused by not being an immigrant or a recent descendant of an immigrant.
    – Older people vote way more frequently than younger people, and for at least the next 40 years older Americans are going to be heavily white (cohorts born in the 1970's are quite white)
    – Higher income people vote more frequently than low-income people; this is most apparent among whites (many blue collar whites are almost totally disinterested in politics, unless a populist is running) but less the case among blacks. Obviously, whites still form the lion's share of the affluent voting bloc.

  20. "Disagree with you about "keeping the base fired up", that strategy does nothing but keep the rage of the center-left white-hot. The strategy that works best is defeating the Dems by attrition and eventual exhaustion, presuming that recession doesn't set in by 2020.

    What "base"? The West Coast has always hated Trump and always will. Many moderate and blue collar voters in the Northeast and Midwest feel let down by Trump, while at the same time not seeing much reason to have faith in the Dems who still sound like airheads due to ID politics.

    Old-school GOP voters approve of Trump's current ideology (which ought to scare people seeing as how Trump BTFO'd Bush and Ted Cruz in 2016) vis a vis the Supreme Court, tax cuts, de-regulation, gun laws, abortion, etc. But that's not why Trump won in PA, MI, WI, and also pulled a coup by winning the GOP's first New England Electoral College point in 12 years (!) by winning a Maine district.

    There's three roads Trump can go down:
    – Cuck GOPism (check since the summer of 2017)
    – Overt appeals to ethnic nationalism (off and on since he first ran)
    – economic populism (check for his campaign, but largely non-existent since taking office)

    The first alienates 70-75% of the population (according to hiddentribes, only about 25% of the population falls into the hard conservative category).

    The second frightens numerous Americans, while appealing to particularly backward and ugly prole-middle class Boomer and Gen X-er whites, most of whom live in exurbs and small towns (which is to say, a fairly small portion of the population). There's also the fact that America has never had a full-blown fascist government, and is too stubbornly individualistic to ever succumb to having a junta ruling us, or giving a dictator power to sperg out over who "the real Americans are"

    The third route is ideal because it gives us concrete policies regarding pro-social reforms to labor protections, trade, foreign policy, and immigration. I maintain that if Trump would've kept his mouth shut about Muslims and Mexicans, he may have not gotten the support of a few neanderthals but he would've earned greater support from moderates and liberals.

    I work with two Gen X conservatives, one of them is an early X-er Xtian tradwife, the other is an umarried later Gen X-er who hates that his money goes to the government. Neither of them seem all that interested in ethnic nationalism, BTW, although they aren't happy about Muslims or Africans in their country (who is?). But then, neither of them are the type to sit and split hairs about Nords V Scots-Irish, or whatever. Ethnic purity sperg-outs are a hobby for a minority of Gen X and Millennial whites, since it's not in the nature of (white, at least) Americans to really give a shit about who is racially superior.

    I do think, sadly for the GOP cause, that their base is primarily made up of "values" cucks (that gal voted for Rubio in the primary) and selfish dickheads who's political consciousness mostly begins and ends with "get your hands off my money". On the local cuck talk radio station, the show host previewed the show by saying "here's 8 things that the government doesn't do right". Fuck the Reagan GOP. The government is actually bigger and more corrupt nowadays then it was in the 1940's-1970's, when the Democrats dominated.

  21. > The Trump economic message of '16 has disappeared, the NAFTA renegotiation didn't move the needle. It might be too much for his Boomer brain to grasp, but the US should rejoin the Paris Agreement and he should shut it about these weather jokes while a large portion of California was burned to the ground. Even if Trump wins another term, a Dem majority Senate is likely.

    What are you talking about? Reminds me of the stuff I heard years ago in the vein of "the GOP better pass amnesty or else it will lose power forever." The average GOP base voter per numerous polls wants immigration curbed or eliminated, wants good jobs, and wants affordable health care. They don't care about California and they would be openly hostile to Trump signing the Paris Agreement, which is basically kneecapping first world economies to ensure economic outflow to third world countries who don't have to be obligated to hold up their end, even when they are the source of pollution and significant outflow of plastics into the ocean.

    What you are saying makes no sense whatsoever unless you're just aiming for basic contrarianism. Even though Trump has made his share of mistakes, him doing what you're proposing is a surefire way to lose 2020.

  22. Random Dude,

    The heart of the "working class strategy" is to convince working class whites to bloc vote, but also to get a marginal number of working class non-white (males). Pandering to niche concerns like coal mining plays well in Appalachia, but moderate voters hate what they see as anti-intellectualism. Part of "rejoining" the Paris Agreement could include ignoring obtrusive parts of it. The US also hasn't generated enough manufacturing jobs to restore even the pre-2008 levels.

    There doesn't seem to be any clear grand strategy wrt to tariffs, as Trump has fewer cards to play against China than he did 2 years ago. The PRC could easily estimate that he will lose re-election, and then have a compliant Dem in the Oval. It's not like any of the leading Dem contenders for 2020 are going to antagonize Asian voters or corporate donors. No one in the Administration has to my knowledge ever suggested a concession on China's party to have the US join the Belt and Road initiative.

  23. The Paris Agreement is a nothingburger. There are heterodox moves that Trump can make but fixating on that seems strange.

  24. Anonymous[] • Disclaimer says:

    as peter brimelow has said, part of the problem in califoria is crazy european people.

    i wonder if this is a combination of:

    1) the europeans who hate the current situation are increasingly leaving, which shifts the general population towards those who are more accepting of extreme leftism.

    2) the remaining europeans are under continuous propaganda and brainwash assault from every side, so over time, this has some effect on those who have absorbed decades of it.

  25. IHTG,

    https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1066047990635397122

    Things like this are self-defeating, I despise the trans movement, but I'm a realist wrt to media power. I view the Paris Agreement in the same course. We need to turn down the volume on leftist anger. Neither issue rallies the GOP base, only immigration does, and only immigration as an "anti-trafficking" and "exploitative employers" can pass muster in a society where 90% of cultural power is in the hands of the Left.

  26. Not someone I agree with, but he gets it right here. Trump and the Dissident movements would do well to re-learn the point of humility. We're a movement with sympathy no more than 5% of white Americans according to the IFS study, one-third if you consider anyone that agreed to one of the white identity questions.

    https://angelusnews.com/voices/ruben-navarrette/mastering-the-art-of-humility

  27. Heresy: The Wall is a divisive, costly, stupid and pointless idea. Legal immigrants from all and sundry countries pose a threat to us via:
    – fewer jobs for natives
    – reduced wages
    – greater housing costs
    – more of our tax dollars going to support immigrants, in case we didn't have enough going to natives (hey Truecucks, do ya suppose it was a lot more sensible to expand the welfare state in the 1940's-1970's when America's population was much smaller due to low immigration levels?)
    – spying on us and stealing our ideas (see: the Chicoms)
    – forming ethnic grievance blocs (again, Truecucks, didn't we have enough of this with blacks in the 60's?)
    – committing terrorist attacks

    Building a wall on the Mexican border does almost nothing to stop the neo-liberal agenda of more immigration=more freedom and prosperity. The wall would still have a gate, and we still have 6 digits worth of immigrants coming here via air travel. Inept and corrupt regimes in the US would always be able to process large numbers of Mexicans through the wall's gate. You could cut down on the outright lawlessness of the present with a wall, but that's just the tip of the iceberg with our immigration situation. Splitting hairs over "illegal" and "legal" immigration is pedantic and fatuous; there's too many people coming here, period, and it's besides the point whether they came here legally or not.

    My 2c is that Trump is a big believer in symbolism and infrastructure, and he accurately sensed that promoting a wall would be a popular idea with his base. When Bannon/Sessions/Steve Miller would bring up minutiae related to immigration policy, I'm sure he'd usually nod his head, and say "gee, how did we end up like this", tell his guys to look forward to introducing modified legislation or executive orders designed to reform system, and then Trump would go back to Fox News. When the "travel ban" fiasco happened, it really had a chilling effect on coloring outside the typical GOP lines. Trump had neither party support, nor media support, nor hardly any legal support, to implement a full reform of our immigration policies. And even his centerpiece, The Wall, is never going to be built because of Trump's Carter-esque pariah status (Carter, in spite of working with a much less partisan and ideological climate, only succeeded at repealing a very small set of New Deal era policies, for which his party hated him and most of the public had cold feet about it too). And these days most of the public has reservations about a wall, too (whereas fining employers who mistreat workers, including immigrants, would be much more palatable).

    Regrettably, it looks like the modern Left can't be bothered to revive the stability of the mid-20th century, either. I think that Trump, like Carter, would've made more headway by, well, acting like a politician. Which is to say, trying to gain favor with the necessary parties and as much of the public as possible by listening to them and telling them what they'd like to hear, instead of stubbornly sticking to your gut and your sentiment and saying "to hell with the naysayers". FDR told the public that it wasn't their fault for being swindled by the banks. Reagan told the public that most people were inherently good, it was just that in the 1970's we'd done a poor job of keeping criminals locked up and discouraging harmful drug use. Clinton told the public that the Cold War was over, and we could rest easy again. Popular presidents harness public sentiment to their advantage. You don't win people over by ignoring or dissing them.

  28. The white nationalist Alt-Right is to Trump in 2018 what anti-New Deal Democrats were to Carter in 1978: a small minority of weirdos hated and feared by the general public.

    Both Trump and Carter had a bad habit of doing things (or saying things) that weirded out most normies, yet kept a set of misfits fairly optimistic. In practice, neither president would ever come anywhere close to fulfilling their idiosyncratic agenda, but the occasional brushes with implementing that agenda kept people naively optimistic. This being said, in the less partisan climate of the late 70's it was a lot harder to find anyone enthusiastically supportive of Carter than it is to find Trump supporters these days. Nowadays there's always going to be a cultish devotion, among about 30% of the population, to mindlessly supporting anyone who's sworn their allegiance to a given cause. Nothing could be more out of whack with the climate of the late 1970's, when 95% of people weren't ideological cranks, but rather, merely wanted their leaders to have common sense and be practically useful. It's like people like Paul Kersey constantly proclaiming doom when Democrats win elections, as if on the basis of our long-term well being, we ought to assume that supporting any Republican who's reasonably "woke" on race and nationalism will in practice translate to quality results. Bullshit.

    It's important to have leaders (and middle men) who actually know what the hell they are doing, on a practical and social level, as opposed to only judging people by ideological litmus tests. People in the late 70's just knew that Carter was a loser; they may not have known (or cared) about his stance on de-regulating the trucking industry, but they could tell that he was inept. With Carter and Trump, here you have two people who simultaneously don't fit in with what much of their party (or either party) wants, while both men also had no clue how to effectively sell and implement their vision. Carter came off as being a wimp and a sour whiner because he couldn't get what he wanted and ineffectually refused to relent, Trump comes off as off-the-charts uncouth, unfocused, and opportunistic because he didn't get what he wanted, but instead of sulking he capitulated gleefully to the standard GOP agenda.

  29. Alt-Right/Truecuck zombies: Trump won in '16 because he's a great troll, and he often sounds like your Boomer brother/uncle who had too much to drink at a family get-together, so he's embarrassing the in-laws and the kids by running his mouth about Mexicans and Muslims ruining America.

    Normies/moderates/independents/cross-overs: Trump win in '16 because he sounded like an old-school Democrat on trade and foreign policy, w/the added bonus of his immigration concerns sounding like an acknowledgment of the dystopia that the GOP started in the 1970's, by flooding Houston and Los Angeles (in the early 1970's, relatively conservative or at least moderate metro areas with lots of native born whites) with Spanish speakers so that Sun-belt elites could have cheaper year-round gardeners and lawn mowers.

    Trump can continue to appeal to the former, rather easily, by merely saying nasty things on Twitter about liebruls, and promising to stop abortion/make the government smaller (though the GOP has failed to do either of these things since Reagan).

    The latter group will only continue to vote GOP insofar as the Dems come off as being even more crassly indifferent to what most normies want.

  30. Hey Feryl, why not write all that on your own blog? Oh, I forgot, because no one reads it. But if anyone cared about your ranting, they would. Take a clue.

  31. "This is war. Race war."

    LOL. Sounds like an episode from the Chappelle Show.

    "We should separate while doing so with some degree of amicability remains viable."

    The devil is in the details. To try to convince the majority of normies, have a comprehensive plan that addresses each of my questions that I have posed previously.

    Best wishes!

  32. "Clinton said rightwing populists in the west met “a psychological as much as political yearning to be told what to do, and where to go, and how to live and have their press basically stifled and so be given one version of reality."

    “The whole American system was designed so that you would eliminate the threat from a strong, authoritarian king or other leader and maybe people are just tired of it. They don’t want that much responsibility and freedom. They want to be told what to do and where to go and how to live … and only given one version of reality."

    What are these people smoking? America, like any other place, has historical cycles of rising and falling individualism. The 80's and 90's had a surge of individualism, which the neo-liberals used to implement policies of "free" trade, mass incarceration, austerity budgets for social welfare and infrastructure, off-shoring, and open borders.

    As for the "freedom" buzzword, society grows tired of people who abuse that freedom at the expense of others. Our elites over the last 40 years allowed the financial/insurance industry and the medical industry to utterly rob non-elites. They also allowed business owners to freely import legions of cheap labor, which has damaged the quality of life for natives. In practice the freedom of low/middle class people to live comfortably has been stolen by the privileged and the powerful.

  33. I feel like its no longer ok to just pay your indulgence (voting for democrats, donating to the uncf or the naacp, marrying a black person). You don't get to choose if you're racist or not, they do. That's kind of the lesson of the proud boys (which I almost joined before my parents hit the roof).

  34. 216,

    That was the GOP's game plan from 2000 to 2016. Well, the plan was to go on like it indefinitely but Trump threw a huge wrench into the plan. Rejoining the climate accord, which is a joke? Are you angling for a perfectly worthless presidency where nothing of value at all is accomplished?!

    As for Sasse, I'd love to see him keep bitch-slapped in his own state, though it's highly unlikely he'd last that long since Nebraska is one of the latter primary states. The Republican electorate is thoroughly Republican. What Trump has done to lose independents since 2016 he has to some degree made up for in shoring up his support among Republicans.

    krusty,

    Exactly. That is what more and more white men who don't realize are going to increasingly realize. That lady from Idaho who ran for (unsuccessfully, of course) DNC chair is the only role for white Democrats in the future, at least publicly.

  35. AE,

    You have better ideas on how to get back "white college" voters that hate the anti-intellectualism and extremism that the media tells them the GOP is promoting?

    The Dems have the weather gauge, and no need to jettison moderate whites in order to please other swathes of the coalition. Presidential elections can't be won with GOP votes alone. If the administration doesn't move to the center it will be destroyed. It has played into the worst stereotypes of the Right, while purging any of the populists save Miller from the administration itself.

    We are to be bourgeois not boorish.

  36. "As for Sasse, I'd love to see him keep bitch-slapped in his own state, though it's highly unlikely he'd last that long since Nebraska is one of the latter primary states. The Republican electorate is thoroughly Republican. What Trump has done to lose independents since 2016 he has to some degree made up for in shoring up his support among Republicans. "

    What never ceases to amaze me is that with the exception of tax cuts for the rich (which are passed off as being good for everyone, when in reality sales taxes and payroll taxes get worse which hits lower income people harder)and Pentagon pork, the GOP has a stunning record of not actually delivering on it's promises. It's the same old song and dance:
    – we're gonna make the government smaller (never happens on an overall basis)

    – we're going to ban all, or nearly all, forms of abortion (has never come close to happening)

    – we're going to restore "family values". How? Silents and Boomers always play this card, and yet it's X-ers and Millennials who have voluntarily chosen to not get irresponsibly married, recklessly break up marriages, and have avoided unwanted pregnancies which has reduced abortion rates. All Generations lived conservatively in the 1930's-1960's due to the force of law and/or collectively enforced social norms/shaming. In practice, Silents and Boomers since the 70's have consistently opposed legislative measures to enforce responsible family formation/maintenance, while they may judge others for getting divorces or abortions, they still are hostile to the idea that they themselves be asked to be prudent with matters of marriage, divorce, and pregnancy. This is why morals have crumbled. Not because of atheism, or liberals, or stupid young generations, or whatever. It's because Silents and Boomers at the end of the day are avowed enemies of early-mid-20th century collective moral norms, in which people don't let "victimless crimes" slide.

    The whole topic of making divorce harder is something that almost never has come up since the rise of the religious right in the 80's, because so many Silents and Boomers desperately want their own (poor) decisions to be validated. You think I was wrong to get a divorce? Get outta here, ya fossil.

    X-ers and Millennials flat out not getting married is an understandable response to rising living expenses combined with their own parent's generations making such a mockery out of traditional Western norms WRT marriage. You should only get married to someone you can really stick with, and if you do, don't sulk that your spouse isn't perfect and look for reasons to wander off.

  37. Also, the GOP's flim-flam mostly doesn't work with later X-ers and Millennials (who've spent their lives in the neo-liberal/Christian Right era). Republicans promise to restore fiscal health and cultural stability……But it never happens, with the end result that yet more Republicans will make the same promises, ad nauseum. How dumb are the partisans out there? The Republicans, under the narcissistic aegis or Reaganism, aren't going to make divorce harder, they aren't going to ban abortion, they aren't going to balance the budget (what with so much of going to pork for the military and the police), and they sure as hell won't slash immigration, because that's not what greedy elites want.

    The neo-liberal is great for rich people, prisons, and the military, but it stinks for everyone and everything else. In the New Deal era, liberal minded Dems and Republicans saw to it that various sectors of society were run in everyone's mutual interest, and if that meant that companies couldn't quite make as much money, and rich people didn't have quite as many shiny toys, then so be it.

  38. "You have better ideas on how to get back "white college" voters that hate the anti-intellectualism and extremism that the media tells them the GOP is promoting?"

    Appealing to niche Xtian values really does grate on people….And it's not just well-educated people, either. Less educated X-ers and Millennials feel diffident to hostile towards overt religiosity. But again, you have to keep in mind that most devout GOP-ers can't let go of the playbook they used in the 1990's to great success.

    "The Dems have the weather gauge, and no need to jettison moderate whites in order to please other swathes of the coalition. Presidential elections can't be won with GOP votes alone. If the administration doesn't move to the center it will be destroyed. It has played into the worst stereotypes of the Right, while purging any of the populists save Miller from the administration itself. "

    I think that the modern Left and modern Right are caught in disastrous ideological extremity, which is why so many proles and moderates out there are fed up with politics and don't know where to turn. It's become a battle mostly involving the greatly wealthy, powerful, and the aged (Gilded Age part 2), who insist on having a firm ideological grip on those who set the parameters of acceptable discourse. There currently are more populists on the Left, yet unlike in prior wholesome eras, they aren't "allowed" to discuss certain kinds of elite corruption (like relying on cheap labor) w/o provoking the wrath of the elites and their shameless toadies (like Colbert and Jimmy Kimmel). Of course, distinct to corrupt eras is the belief (delusion?) among toadies that they themselves are a much bigger deal than they are. Remember, Gilded Ages have no time for modesty….Or Self-respect. Compare that to the roasting that status strivers and brown nosers were already getting in the 1920's, when people were starting to get sick of the naked corruption endemic to the first Gilded Age.

    The whole non-sense "psy-op" involving Q and Thomas Wictor etc. regarding Trump's Messianic mission to thwart the Deep State et al deserves nothing less than our suspicion that there's major astro-turfing going on by the Trump symps in the GOP. Trump at best is the attack dog of Pentagon off-white hats who don't want America to be sold out to China. But on the count of wholesome effective reform, Trump is merely a hapless victim of impossible circumstances, where no one at all can talk sense into the partisan legions pouring gas onto open flames. Also laughable is the Con.Treehouse people, and the other true believers, who think that some kind of holy order of crusaders is biding it's time within the FBI or wherever, just waiting for the pieces to fall into place so that we can cuff Hilary and Obama. Moronic. Power players, the real ones, always skate. At best, we might get a few small fish, or one medium sized fish. Those who amass the power of a Clinton or an Obama have far too many allies in high places to ever be called on the carpet. That's why the FBI helped destroy Clinton's e-mails, and refused to tape their interviews with her. It's also why in the initial stages of the E-mail investigation/C. Foundation investigation, they took so many steps to grant immunity to practically every bigger player in Clinton and Obama's orbit.

  39. As Feryl notes, nothing will change until the environment shifts so much that inertia no longer holds sway.

    (Pathological) social trust got us hundreds of trillions of dollars in IOU's (and most people, knowing or not, are dependent on fulfillment of those IOU's or count their face value as part of their "wealth"), tens of millions of alien invaders, a crushingly-dependent underclass and perhaps 1-in-3 decent jobs dependent on ever-growing debt-enabled spending.

    What happens when rising interest rates (a sign of declining trust in IOU-value) hit their Minsky Moment and a billion people try to rush a single-file exit? (And exit to what?)

    Trump is a transition figure. He has no coherent ideology or plan. His election was simply "Not More of the Same." I personally doubt he will avoid being blamed for the denouement of a bubble that grew these 40-60 years. What follows him will either be the last democrat elected in North America (and possibly the first one publicly hanged after a trial) or we skip that and go straight for a Pinochet or even a Charles The Great.

    I note that Karl Denninger finally grasps what he banned me for, namely that when the Medical Cartel (entirely dependent on borrowed money) detonates, 20% of America's decent-paying jobs will disappear for a lifetime and asset markets will fall 90% (I predict 98%, which is simply a -80%, +150% cycle that iterates four times. -80% simply retraces the last 9.5 years…the minimum "typical" bear market.

    When inertia fails, the world will glide like a brick.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS