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
Kobach for Kansas 2018
🔊 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
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

The most important gubernatorial primary in the country takes place on Tuesday, August 7th, right in the middle American heartland. When Trump tapped Sam Brownback to convert the heathens, then-lieutenant governor Jeff Colyer inherited the spot.

Colyer is an open borders cuck. He’s in the farm lobby’s back pocket. Under Sebelius, Brownback, and now Colyer, Kansas has become the Midwestern state that coddles invaders more than any other:

That’s Colyer on the left, his mushroom button pressed tightly between his thighs. Here’s a side-by-side of Colyer and Kobach. ID the alpha:

Physiognomy is real
Physiognomy is real

If memory serves, Brownback earned a lifetime grade of D- from NumbersUSA, though his career grade is now unavailable. It was archived in 2002, though, at about the midway point of his congressional career. It was an abysmal 18% at the time. By comparison, John McCain earns a lifetime score of 27%. Yes, Brownback is even worse than McCain on the National Question, and so is Colyer.

Colyer, with the same nation-wrecking combination of aw-shucks religiously-influenced pathological altruism and plaid shirt pocket stuffed with agricultural lobby dollars as Brownback, has continued in the latter’s footsteps. His campaign site doesn’t mention immigration at all. The closest we get is this phrase:

We are going to fight to ensure our agriculture producers have the chance to grow their businesses

We know what that means–door’s wide open, muchachos!

Kobach, in contrast:

Strong borders are essential to our nation and to our State. They are essential to fighting terrorism, essential to fighting crime, and essential to protecting American workers. And the only way to combat a problem as severe as a lawless immigration system is to have action at both the federal and the state level.

Unfortunately, Kansas has become the sanctuary state of the Midwest. We are the only state in the 5-state area that has done nothing to discourage illegal immigration.

This hurts Kansas taxpayers. This puts Kansans’ jobs at risk. And it puts Kansans’ lives at risk. We can solve this problem in Kansas. But it takes leadership and political will. I’ll get the job done.

Not so much as even a verbal sop to invaders or their enablers about “comprehensive reform”, “compassion”, or “making the process fair”. Kobach, who owns 160 acres of farmland, even said at the debate that farmers are going to have to be okay with making less on their crops for the good of the MAGA agenda, both trade and immigration.

My first encounter with Kobach was in the mid-2000s when he debated the late Richard Nadler on… immigration. Nadler was one of those charlatans selling the Rovian lies about Hispanics being natural conservatives, the kind of cuckservatives who were everywhere in the Bush years.

Kobach was fighting this fight long before it was a cause celebre on the mainstream American right. Restrictionism is not something he’s just glomming onto now because it’s popular to do so. He was the primary author of Arizona’s SB 1070 in 2010, something that led the $PLC to characterize Kobach as a “hate group lawyer”.

This race has ramifications extending well beyond Kansas. The Trump administration is backing Kobach. Next week Don Jr. will be dispatched for a fundraiser in Wichita. This despite the fact that the state’s Republican party apparatus favors Colyer.

If the Trump-backed insurgent running on a MAGA agenda overthrows Cuckservatism, Inc’s marionette, it’ll be an indication that the revolution is alive and well. If Colyer staves off the challenger, it’ll be an indication to Team Trump that the pragmatic course of action is to play nice with the GOPe as it continues to sell the country out.

Incidentally, Kobach’s opposition to the invasion probably isn’t the biggest reason the party establishment despises him. Since being elected secretary of state for Kansas in 2010, he has reduced the office’s budget by $2.4 million, from $7 million when he came in to the $4.6 million it spent last year.

That’s not merely a baseline budgeting faux cut, it’s a real decrease in absolute expenditures. A big part of how he’s done it is by cutting the department’s staff by 25% over the last eight years. When a bureaucrat retires, Kobach doesn’t hire anyone to replace him.

This terrifies the porcine trough-feeders that make up the party establishment. A governor Kobach would not only expose how little the vast majority of government employees do, he’d phase out many of their sinecures through attrition.

The primary is going to be a close one. PredictIt currently handicaps it at 51%-49% in Kobach’s very marginal favor. For the less than 1% of the blog’s readers who are from Kansas (and registered Republican), get in gear on Tuesday, August 7th.

Everyone else, if you have a contact in Kansas, work it. I’ll never ask for a dime but I am asking for that. Thank you very much for the consideration.

(Republished from The Audacious Epigone by permission of author or representative)
Hide 43 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Kris Kobach is a Zionist who wants to put Israel First instead of America first.

  2. AE —

    Noted. I will pray for Kobach and donate to his campaign.

    I think support for restrictionism will rise when wages go down. I note that even in Trump's strong economy, wages are barely keeping up with inflation and we all know why.

    In a weaker economy, wages start heading down and keep heading down in America over the very long term. If we can hardly get wage growth now, this shows that the downdrafts (dysgenia, mass third world migration, workplace convergence) are severe.

    The difficulty squeezing blood from a stone goes with my claim that we are very near to The Top. As secular decline becomes gradually more apparent to more people, restrictionists will go from selling winter jackets in summer to selling winter jackets into the teeth of a blizzard. A thousand year blizzard.

    Conditions will worsen but at least more will see. The left will be particularly hit by high demand for social welfare, for which funds will not exist.

    I expect even Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg will come around in the fullness of time. The problems will grow and borders are the only reasonable solution. The alternative solution of overthrowing feminism, restoring Christianity, and raising first world fertility dramatically is a little bit harder, wouldn't you say?

    Absent one of these two solutions, civilization literally falls. Between here and there smart people who are not complete lunatics will have no choice but to see. I don't know if it will be too late, but I want to stay healthy long enough to witness when it all becomes clear (to the horror of those who didn't already SEE).

  3. 216 (I think….) at some point recently said that the GOP doesn't do (or didn't do) ID politics, at least as defined by race. I disagree, but forgot to respond until now.

    I would agree that the GOP (and DLC Left) downplaying ID politics became more common in a corrupt era (1970-present). Whereas in the Progressive and reform era of circa 1900-1960, The GOP became the party of WASP elites in the Northeast, who accepted lower immigration levels on an identitarian basis even though the public demanded lower immigration levels for economic reasons. Secondarily was the GOP the party of Plains farmers and Western libertarians, who in the early-mid 20th century were not powerful enough to be granted the cheap labor they so desired. Remember when Trump described himself as a "Rockefeller" Republican? Memo to Millennials: The GOP before the mid-1990's had substantial support from higher income WASPy, culturally moderate Northeastern gentiles who were primarily concerned with classical liberal principles that were applied with common sense (e.g., not runaway and lawless libertarianism that was more popular in the central and Western US). But these Rockefeller Republicans weren't interested in Evangelical extremism, either.

    The GOP after circa 1970 became dominate by reckless gubmint haters, cheap labor importers, and bible thumping fruit cakes. When George HW Bush said he was having trouble with the "vision thing" in the early 90's, what he was probably getting at is that "old-school" (progressive era) Northeastern and Rust-Belt Republicans were dreadfully out of place in the modern GOP.

    BTW, since blacks and "white ethnics" (Ellis island people) were often blamed for the Republicans being shoved out of power from 1930-1980, it only stood to reason that the GOP was more identitarian back then, before deracinated libertarian Boomers (and Religious Right Boomer goofballs) suddenly thought of all white people as being virtually interchangeable in their ethnic and cultural ID. Remember that when the Boomers came of age in the 50's and 60's, everyone born between 1925 and 1967 was born in America, and unless you were in CA, TX, or NYC 90% of the Silents, Boomers, and Gen X-ers you'd encounter in the 60's and even 70's were American born. Not until the 1980's would substantial numbers of immigrants migrate to states outside the immigrant triad (CA, TX, and NYC) The 1950's and 60's were a time of overwhelming ethnic and cultural homogeneity in America. Old-school Republican fear of "white ethnics" had faded away by the 1990's, as the new class of "values" warrior Boomers had a much weaker sense of history and ethnic ID than older generations.

    BTW, remember Ted Cruz attacking "New York values". C'mon, guys, what did the Southwestern and libertarian values of TX and CA do to America? The "values" of New England, the Rust-belt, and Appalachia are going to have to become restored and newly respected if we want real progress. And if the GOP wants to appeal to more classes of people beyond Boomers of the Plains and inland West, and the evangelicucks of the South and Midwest..

  4. You know I’ll be there to vote for Kobach. A few family memebers of mine can be sort of cucky at times, but I’ve convinced them to vote for him too.

  5. Hate to say it, but what is there about Colyer that will deter the corporate cuck generation (Boomers) of GOP partisans from voting for him?

    Just do the usual song and dance about freedom, prosperity, Xtian values, etc. Our politics have become so phony, hollow, and debauched because we've had to pander to two generations (Silents and Boomers) who do not want to be reminded of their civic and fiscal responsibilities to their (native-born) man. Feed them the bloody raw meat of low taxes, de-regulation, "tough on crime" 'tude, and the "gospel of prosperity", and you're good to go.

    If the lion's share of Boomers (with the support of the Gen X-ers and Millennials who decide to show up) decide to finally tell the Koch Bros to fuck off, then that's great. But we'll have to wait and see….

  6. Anon,

    He's a sincere guy so I assume his support for Israel is genuine, too. It's also absolutely necessary to exist in the GOP here in the cuck corridor.

    Whether or not we halt the invasion is the question that dwarfs all others. Kobach is a big fan of Israel's wall and its anti-invasion strategies.

    His zionism is a suboptimal distraction, but it's just that, a distraction.


    You're more optimistic than I am about the Bezos and Zuckerbergs of the world. I don't see the 1% ever spearheading any restrictions on movements of people. The top 2%-20%, though? Yes, that's where we have the most opportunity for growth. "Merit" immigration will hit them a lot harder than the peasant invasion does.


    suddenly thought of all white people as being virtually interchangeable in their ethnic and cultural ID

    That's closer to where we are now, though, not only because of the white ethnic mixing–most white millennials and zyklons probably don't even know what their ethnic heritage is beyond a rough approximation–but also because the country is so much darker than it was two generations ago. The four folkways are also closer to one another than any are to those of Amerindians from central America or exploding mohammeds from Somalia.


    Thanks very much! It is going to be close. Every vote counts.

  7. 216 says:

    Lots of information in here as to why "Based Gen Z" is a myth, their entire forum is overeducated center-left.

    It's never fun remembering that we are 25% of the voters at best, and hated by the overwhelming majority of society.

  8. 216 says:

    Add-on, the preponderance of left-wing concern over global warming is never matched on the Right. Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Agreement was an own-goal, we'd have been better off remaining it (muh statesman) and just ignoring it like the other countries.

    Liberals, yes this includes classical liberals, really need to stop calling themselves conservatives. They aren't and never were.

  9. Kobach really is a referendum on immigration and the Trumpian takeover of the national party. Another angle is that Brownback's name-brand is tarnished by a national-level assault on the supposedly terrible results of his economic program. As dubious as I think those attacks mostly are, they are going to be re-hashed in the general election. They won't strike home against Kobach or the rest of Kansas nearly as readily. With Kobach we get the most proven guy in the nation on immigration, and we get to jettison the baggage of the "failed trickle-down experiment" (or whatever they want to call it).

    Oh and to the anon Semite who is claiming Kobach is a Zionist: If you had been to any evangelical church in the last 20 years you would know the conservative base here isn't ready for any real talk on the JQ.

  10. 216 says:


    You'd have a better chance of success at talking a Jew into moving to Israel, than talking an evangelical into BDS.

    For what its worth, none of the candidates in Ohio were anti-Trump, but the losing candidates claimed to be "more Trump than Trump". I wish Kasich had become as unpopular as Brownback, but he's actually more popular in the polls with Dems than he is with the GOP. It says a lot about the left that the only Republicans they ever approve of must completely stab their base in the back. Contrast that with the favorable treatment we give to those like Tulsi Gabbard that occasionally say things we agree with.

  11. Dad29 says: • Website

    We are going to fight to ensure our agriculture producers have the chance to grow their businesses

    Oh. So we'll have more Del Monte poison veggie trays (Kwik-Trip Midwest) and salads (McDonald's/Midwest)….you know, the kind where the food-handlers use all the toilet training they got back at home!

    Can we call these ……ahhh……interruptions…."SpanishSphincter?" Or Multi-Culti Quickstep?

  12. 216,

    It's unclear. Some of those comments are really uninformed. The idea that Gen Z is leading the charge against gun rights is ridiculous–they are quite possibly the most generation most supportive of gun rights since the American Revolution!

    They have no problem with identitarianism of all kinds. Mostly that aligns with leftist causes, but they are also more tolerant of white identitarianism than millennials were by a long shot.

    We're a good decade past Peak Global Warming alarmism. It doesn't have anywhere near the cache it did in the early 2000s. Nobody much cares anymore, and as whites dwindle as a percentage of the both the US population and the global population, that will continue to be the case.


    Well put. Here's a poll from back in February that asks Republican primary voters, among other things, to self-ID the kind of Republican they are. Those who say "traditional" (ie cuck) go big for Colyer over Kobach, 29%-6%. But among those who classify themselves as "Trump Republicans", Kobach beats Colyer 34%-19% (there are a lot of undecideds in there).


    In the future they dream about, it's haciendas as far as the eye can see.

  13. AE,

    Wrt to white Zeds or at-large? Most data indicates that non-whites except for Amerinds hate gun rights, and I have to wonder how many of them are just white Oklahomans with Indian ancestry.

    We're an urbanized society that is demanding a police state to stop microaggressions.

    Question 41 better explains sentiments than the earlier questions which show lower youth support for an AWB than from GenX and Boomers, which we've supposedly seen elsewhere.

    Question 47 explains why the Right is always losing.

  14. 216,

    All races, doesn't matter. Younger = more support for gun rights.

    Question 41 shows that those under 30, half of whom are non-white, dislike Trump. Many probably have no idea what his position is vis-a-vis guns. Question 47 shows that younger people don't care about gun bans–it's the schoolmarms who want them.

    Play around with this R-I poll. To really see the disparities, compare those aged 18-29 to those aged 65+.

    Percentages who want strong regulations:

    18-29: 38.8% (and for white men under 30 it's just 30.7%)
    65+: 48.4%

    18-29: 49.7%
    65+: 63.0%

  15. This means that even though the under 30 crowd is barely half white and the over 65 crowd is nearly 90% white, it's the over 65 white crowd that is more in favor of restrictions than the rainbow youth (49.8% to 44.5%). Even without taking race into account, the media can't spin the idea that the youth are anti-gun without blatantly lying (by commission, not just omission).

  16. AE,

    Youth, particularly non-whites, are the least likely to be gun owners, most Boomer gun owners have a hypocritical stance of thinking that bans won't affect them. I interpret Q41/42 as the revealed preference cutting through the non-gun public's general cluelessness about guns.

    Q32 is even worse when you see the "white college" crosstab.

    Q39 is the best evidence that shows a revealed preference in contrast with the "based GenZ" narrative.


    #3 shows the costs that the media imposes on us of not being respectable.

    Italy is the only country that indicates skepticism towards immigration, and just barely.

    The "integration" question shows the bankruptcy of liberalism, what the Right envisions by integration is quite distinct from what actually happens. If you come to a European society and practice Islam you are not integrating. Convert or repatriate.

  18. "This means that even though the under 30 crowd is barely half white and the over 65 crowd is nearly 90% white, it's the over 65 white crowd that is more in favor of restrictions than the rainbow youth"

    Has any other country ever voluntarily done this to itself, ever? There have been plenty of examples of a majority ethnic group permitting the entry and even settlement of (smallish) numbers of aliens, but has there ever been a majority ethnic group which saw clear signs of being displaced yet not only did not fight back via discrimination/expulsion measures towards minorities, but indeed literally paid aliens so that the aliens and their immediate descendants would engage in displacement as easily as possible?

    I find it bizarre that Agnostic rejects the notion that cucks and CultMarx liberals are deliberately overseeing the demographic seizures of the last 30 years. Fortunately Milo has recently begun saying that it was in the late 1980's that toxic anti-white Western culture started to be promoted in earnest. Those who graduated from college in the late 80's-present day (e.g., Gen X-ers and Millennials), if they are of the liberal persuasion, now often spout the most rank and debauched hatred of white Western Civ. Hopefully younger generation will appreciate just how recent the terror of PC is.

    Another big change of pace is that in the last corrupt era (1860-1910), elites brought in aliens for cheap labor yet at the same time these elites remained defensive of trad. culture and certainly did not give any quarter to aliens. Aliens and their immediate off spring were expected to fend for themselves. We didn't have programs to give them better housing, health care, reduced rate loans, affirmative action, and so forth. And there remained a very deliberate cultural and geographic seperation between whites and blacks, Jews and non Jews, Catholics and Protestants, etc. Had we bent that far over for blacks and Ellis Island peoples from 1860-1945, there's no doubt that it would have demoralized and reduced America's earlier ethnic stock while later arrivals would've been reproducing faster and living in more areas.

    I think there can be no doubt that the combination of the Holocaust and the beginning of modern mass media in the 1950's effectively made it impossible for gentile whites to be identitarian. American whites (really, all Western whites) were battered by constant sounds and images designed to make them feel guilty for contributing to fascist ideology. As the Soviet Union faded in the late 80's, the sting of being called a communist faded, and we were left with "Nazi" and "fascist" as the most effective political slurs. From 1946-early 80's, we already were playing with fire with racial egalitarian ideology, but at least back then you were permitted to question the purpose and and execution of these things. Then in the late 80's suddenly anyone who question modern racial dogma was a Nazi.

  19. Feryl says: • Website

    I think the GSS shows that gun ownership peaked around 1980. That was when America's population was like 40% Boomer.

    Younger people encounter more dangerous situations so are more likely to feel as though it's necessary to own a gun. Be that as it may, because of the crime declines of the last 25 years, Silents and Boomers are more likely to have owned guns. In addition, America was much less developed and crowded before the 1980's, and rural-ness tends to correlate with gun ownership. Americans are much more urbanized now than they were 30 or 40 years ago, let alone 50 or 60 years ago. A lot of the fields, swamps, and forests that used to surround many major metro areas have since been developed during the huge booms of suburban and exurban large lot development that happened from the mid-1980's thru mid-2000's.

    This does remind me of the paradox of cuck values, in which population growth and development is always welcomed with open arms even though it destroys nature/farm land/the rural character of an area, and thus creates conditions for resource scarcity liberalism to thrive (the general pattern is the closer you get to the center of a metro area, the more inequality prevails and high inequality is probably the number 1 factor in creating liberalism). You'd think that conservatives would want to, ya know, actually conserve the geographic character of an area by limiting population growth and development. After all, "classical liberalism" can only thrive with Hajnal line people who agree to limit reproduction so as to ensure that greater resources are available to the existing population. Every areas we think of as "liberal" once had a substantial number of conservatives, whether we're talking California or Massachusetts. But eventually physical or self-imposed limits to development come about because a certain level of density and inequality is reached, and Leftists take power partially by resenting "conservatives" who are often blamed for reckless development and resource squandering. As I often say, the myth promoted by conservatives is that liberals wallow in bitterness and ugliness because they are jealous losers. In fact, liberals often have good reason to detest conservatives for blithely celebrating a Norman Rockwell vision of America even as countless acres of rural land is paved over with roads, driveways, and parking lots. This while many "conservatives" often resort to simply moving to a less developed area as soon as too many people start to plague a once quiet area. Once too many people live in that area, the process then repeats itself.

    Conservatives need to recognize the dangers of reckless growth, and for the greater good of everyone ought to embrace some semblance of family planning and hard immigration limits. The development booms that have occurred since the mid-80's, spurred on heavily by stupid financial and zoning policies, have rendered much of the country unrecognizable compared to what it was when the Boomers grew up.

    None other than Saint Ronnie Raygun made a big show of celebrating the bucolic Western US lifestyle. Funny how his own immigration and financial policies ended up destroying the opportunities of other people to live the same way.

  20. Feryl says: • Website

    From a resource perspective, hard immigration limits are in face a Leftist viewpoint. Open borders supremacy which was initially broached by the Reaganite/agriculture lobby faction of the Right in the 70's and 80's, is a function of corporate cuck concern for endless "growth". Now that both the elite Right and elite Left are Open Borders fanatics, it's evident that both sides are in fact tireless cheerleaders for multi-nationals and developers. In other words, both sides are corrupt modern conservatives. From the 1920's-1990's, it was Leftists who attacked mindless growth programs.

    True Leftists would immediately understand that high immigration levels are ruinous for equality concerns, and also are a source of cheap labor for corrupt elites. And of course high immigration levels are bad for ecological concerns.

    Meanwhile, True Conservatives ought to understand that encouraging recklessly high levels of growth will alter the character of a nation and a landscape to the point that only those who understand the dynamics of resource scarcity (Leftists, and a long suffering generation(s) of people who may now be infiltrating the conservative party) will have any shot at long term relevance.

    The future of the GOP's viability is dependent on guys like Kobach and Stephen Miller frowning about signs of reckless growth, such as high immigration levels. That's a econ. Leftist approach that will play better with younger voters. The Reaganite GOP's celebration of a "free" and "propsperous" lifestyle that has been placed out of reach to most younger people by the GOP's own stupid policies can't go on forever. Thanks to the soaring immigration levels of the last 40 years, as well as permitting foreign elites to own Western property, many Millennials can't even find a decent and affordable place to live. Fuck the GOP, and fuck every last GOP voting fool who can't make the connection between America's corruption/youth poverty and Reaganite kumbaya horse shit. It hasn't been since the mid 1970's that a preponderance of Americans seriously thought about the long-term consequences of "growth".

  21. Feryl,

    I’d not particularly focused on it but Kobach really does not put much emphasis on economic growth. For example his issues page, linked to in the body of the post, doesn’t mention it at all. His focus is on ending corruption (especially the invasion) and protecting the 2a.

    As for the left, their power is based on inequality so what’s their incentive to reduce it? The stupid party on the other hand…

    You correctly identify that elites on both sides of the putative political divide want open borders. But what agnostic seems incapable of realizing is that grassroots on the left want them at least as much as leftist elites do. The only reservoir of strong opposition to the invasion is on the populist right.

  22. 216 says:


    The left loves mass immigration because invaders vote left, and they can rub our nose in it.

    We are currently in Alinsky Rule 6, we haven't reached Rule 7 where the tactic grows stale.

    Our anti-environmental stance limits the ability to use that argument against immigration in the US, but it could be used in other countries.

    I'll be the gadfly to suggest that pandering might cause the left some confusion. Nick Fuentes can have a bilingual show, and we start praising Muslims for their "traditional values". The oligarchs will easily see through it, but the grassroots won't.

  23. Feryl says: • Website

    "As for the left, their power is based on inequality so what’s their incentive to reduce it? The stupid party on the other hand…"

    Their "incentive", in a wholesome era, is to give their constituents what they want……And need. Looking after the vulnerable. You have to remember that contra conservative propaganda, Democrat power eroded from 1970-2000's. Many middle and even working class Boomers bought into the idea that rich people were taxed too much, regulations were too high, the gubmint was too involved in too much, etc. These are all fundamentally conservative positions, as defined by trad. Anglo-American values.

    Sure, a lot of Dems hung onto power in areas predisposed to Leftism (e.g,, areas that are expensive and have lots of inequality), but by the 90's the lion's share of Dems had essentially given up on the Robin Hood policies of the progressive and reform era of circa 1900-1970. Bill Clinton slashed welfare to degree not seen since the very early progressive era, and his "workfare" overhaul caused a lot of proles to take on shitty dead end jobs in the new "service economy" (seriously, the welfare benefits of 1960's-80's probably paid as well as, or better than, Wal-Mart).

    Is the onus on helping the vulnerable, or is it on incentivizing avaricious behavior? Since conservatives in a corrupt era (a non-Robin Hood era) buy into the notion that no large scale project or effort will ever work, all kinds of stuff starts to suck when they're in charge, yet these assholes then claim that it's not their fault, it's the fault of the evil Leftists. Ya know, the same Leftists who were tarred, feathered, and banished from mainstream (elite and middle class) culture by the late 1980's.

    It's the whole song and dance about "real" conservatives not getting their way. Yes, 40 years into the Reagan era and they still feel as if they haven't gotten their way. Taxes on the income and assets of the wealthy are at a far lower level than they were in the 1940's-1970's, unions have been decimated, the activity of FIRE is far more unregulated than it was in the 1930's-1970's, and the Dem party has not had an authentic econ. Leftist run for president since 1988. Yet we are to believe that a plauge of Leftist locusts has been feeding on us since the New Deal era.

    I must note that I'm talking about econ. issues here. The cultural Right whines endlessly about not getting their way, starting in earnest in the 1970's. But that's not what I'm talking about. Also, the cultural Right stinks at getting results because of the aloof and defeatist Reaganite mindset. The only thing that's spurred the Reganite Right to get results is crime and drugs, which of course are immediate threats to the children of Boomers. Less immediate threats (such as dangerous dogs, state sanctioned gambling, sugary food, etc.) have become a serious problem 40 years into the Reagan era because Reaganites are so inherently wary of pressuring The State to get more involved. Here we see that cultural Leftists have not had the same 'tude, so they've been effective at stuff such as pressuring cake bakers. The Right impotently whines that it's not fair that the cultural Left gets served, while completely failing to acknowledge that the cultural Right needs to take ownership of the consequences of an ascetic mentality, where you rarely unite as a team for a clean-up mission. And team-work under the auspices of The State is nothing to be ashamed of (as long as it's for a good cause…..). Yet Righty Boomers can only bring themselves to authorize state power for the purpose of street crime interdiction. Lately they've come around to the idea of using State power to stop immigrants. That's a step in the right direction, but we have a long way to go.

  24. Feryl says: • Website

    While it's true that overall, conservatives become happy in at least the middle stages of a corrupt era (e.g., the 1980's and 90's) because they can beggar off to the countryside and dive into their hobbies and/or money with little concern for the outside world, they also develop a kind of boiling resentment at what they perceive as a collapse in ethics and public morals…..Which are blamed on, you guessed it, liberals. Here we see a great deal of myopia and cherry picking. The same "conservatives" who don't want the government raiding gambling dens or banning unlicensed ownership of dangerous dogs are quick to complain about sex, drugs, crime, and a discernable decline in the overall integrity of human affairs.

    You can't simultaneously attack the idea of a more forceful government while expecting ethical standards to remain sound. As I recently noted, the "Rockefeller" Republicans of the 1930's-1980's neither wanted to totally tear down the government (like the now dominant Reagan faction), nor did they believe in sermonizing about a collapse in public morals (like the Religious Right/Evangelical wing who ascended in the late 70's and 80's). The lasting legacy of the Reagan era (and it's ideological cousins, the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama eras) is the simultaneous growth in hostility towards large public projects and collapse in ethical standards. We're well overdue to have large projects commence that attack the defeatist and decadent elements of the Reaganite era.

    The guiding principle of a wholesome era is not, and cannot be, "don't tell me how to live my life", or "don't tell me what I can do with my money".

  25. Feryl says: • Website

    "Well put. Here's a poll from back in February that asks Republican primary voters, among other things, to self-ID the kind of Republican they are. Those who say "traditional" (ie cuck) go big for Colyer over Kobach, 29%-6%. But among those who classify themselves as "Trump Republicans", Kobach beats Colyer 34%-19% (there are a lot of undecideds in there)."

    They need to hammer Colyer with identitarian/national security memes. It's hard to do this without invoking "racist" imagery and words, but they'll need to figure out how to do it. And after all, the defining trait of the cuck is playing every Conservative card so as long as one can dodge accusations of racism. Which feeds into the Reaganite mindset of wanting to spread "prosperity" and "freedom" around to anyone who can work hard enough to get it (meanwhile, in practice legions of "minorities" in the Reaganite era have learned to sponge off the system while at the same time prole white men have found it harder and harder to get any kind of redress). That's another embarrassing outcome of the Reagan era; "minorities" abuse AA, set-asides, and so forth, which comes at the expense of legitimately hard working legacy Americans (including native born blacks). Mainstream culture since the 1980's has generally bent over backwards to portray immigrants and foreigners as a positive force, who's presence is only opposed by brutish natives (for example, the late 80's VHS release of a movie involving Asian organized crime featured a box disclaimer that the studio was proud to recognize the "positive contributions of Asians to American society").

    Perhaps the legacy Right ought to take ownership of the fact that their own complicity in xenophilia helped create the climate that now rules today, in which a growing population of immigrants and non-whites (and their descendants) wishes to perpetuate and expand race based income transfers. Ya know, back when Nixon and Reagan welcomed Asians and Arabs into America, and even saw to it that dot Indians would be cleaved from white people for the sake of AA goodies, this all seemed like a such a noble idea……..

    And it's amazing how many middle aged conservatives still worship Asian people. Asians have trended Democratic, and are largely in the same boat as other non-whites in their lack of investment in trad. (white) Western culture. Asians aren't blacks, but they aren't whites either. People who look like Tom Cruise built America and the West. Sorry to inform the cucks out there that bringing in more Lees and Nguyens wasn't necessarily the hottest idea.

    Then again, I wonder if the autistic affair with Asians is just another sign of how detached from social norms conservatives are in the Reaganite era. Granted, by this point most GOP'ers have realized just what a retarded idea it was to bring in ostensibly "hard working" non-whites. But that's a sign that Reaganite values are being rejected.

  26. Perhaps if we like to say that the Dems are fools for blacks, maybe we need to meme the idea of the GOP being fools for Asians into popularity.

  27. 216 says:


    Part of the Asian shift was religious in nature. 1980s Vietnamese boat people were from the Catholic minority and anti-communist. Most of the legacy Chinese/Japanese joined WASP churches.

    The newer groups were Hindu, Muslim and Sikh or secular. Any public affirmation of Christianity appears as a personal offense to them. Boorish insults against them all being Mooslimes has hurt as well. The evangelical wing sees no expediency in shutting their traps for fear of offending others, there was a noticeable turnout drop among them with Romney in 2012.

    What I really want to see happen, though it probably never will, is for the Ben Shapiro cuck types to start calling non-whites out for being anti-white. They love punching right, but if they really want to shill the civic creed, they need to shame the left out of its anti-white nature.

  28. Feryl says: • Website

    The whole "religious" veneer put on this stuff is a bunch of dross. The corporate Right saw declining birth rates in the West and the increasingly "bad attitude" of white and black native proles. So let's import a bunch of "hard working" foreigners from Asian and Central America who won't complain as much, and will also be a boon to FIRE and agriculture, which is what the Reaganite era elevated above everything else.

    After the Christian immigrants elicited very little push back in the 1980's, that freed up the importation of other groups in the late 80's and subsequent decades.

    Effectively the Reaganite push to flood the country with cheap labor and more consumers is precisely what has screwed so much up on this country. White and black liberals could've and would've done their thing in the presence or absence of high numbers of foreigners, but so what? The GOP decision to retaliate against liberal and working class American natives by kicking off the demographic tidal wave that's since crashed over everyone, the GOP included, turned out to be a disastrous own goal. Our elections were once heavily based on what middle and working class whites wanted, and the Democrats were fine with that…….Until the late 2000's when it became clear many Dem areas were ceasing to have lower class whites…..Precisely because of the GOP sparked higher immigration decades of the 70's-2000's.

    It's no exaggeration to say that with the exception of a Pat Buchanan or Peter Brimelow, 99% of Republicans had absolutely no idea just how terrible a decision it was to pander to greedy business owners. Even with the above mentioned exceptions, it wasn't until the early 1990's backlash towards greedy elites that the GOP populists felt comfortable questioning high immigration levels.

  29. 216 says:


    Wrt to birth rates, the US has a higher birth rate than the EU countries, and even on a like-for-like racial basis we probably beat countries that mandate 2 years of paid maternity leave.

    I think you underestimate how much the "personal is political". We are always tut-tutted that the Republicans lose votes because we aren't welcoming. In a social media world where any petty racist incident is broadcast worldwide in seconds, I have to think there is some truth to that.

    For 2020 it looks like the best path to victory is reclaiming the Gary Johnson voters into the GOP column, how do you think we can do this? Can the wwc turnout be spiked to record levels like Erdogan and Orban seem to have accomplished this year?

  30. 216 says:

    Interesting graph showing the labor rates in the US/EU

    That large sea of red in Eastern Europe is what the Chamber craves here. The main comparison of quality of life in US/EU has usually focused on healthcare, and a lesser extent on public transit. How many Eastern Euros would have moved to the US post-1991 if we had chosen them over the Third World? From the looks of the map, there is still some incentive for several million of them to come here (which I don't want).

    What is always recognizable by Euros is that in the US there is no restrictions on firing anyone. At-will is beloved by the "law and economics" FedSoc, but causes tremendous psychological harm via insecurity. Hard to measure that in an infographic.

  31. Feryl says: • Website

    "I think you underestimate how much the "personal is political". We are always tut-tutted that the Republicans lose votes because we aren't welcoming. In a social media world where any petty racist incident is broadcast worldwide in seconds, I have to think there is some truth to that. "

    I wouldn't vote Republican, either, not when they cuck like crazy for greedy developers and business owners.

    I think that we're perilously close to one or more Western countries experiencing some kind of social and political calamity, likely induced by the combination of an economic crisis along with conflict between non-whites/globalists/urbanites/CultMarxists and whites/nationalists/heartlanders/traditionalists.

    Populists and traditionalists (defined here as wanting to break from the "innovations" that began in the 1960's-1980's, which produced the most wasteful and narcissistic generation in known history, the Boomers) from historical Western ethnic majorities are still finding it mighty difficult to find parties which are ideologically appealing and have or will get a lot of political power. In America, the ruling class Dems and GOP-ers are both ideologically committed to some combination of neo-liberalism/American imperalism/globalism. Neither side can (and maybe never will in the lifetimes of the generations who created this mess) find fault in the worst excesses of each side's ideology.

  32. 216,

    We tried that through the 2000s with appeals to Hispanics as "natural conservatives". Not sure how old you are, but I was cutting my HBD teeth then and it was everywhere. Hard to appreciate how much effort Conservatism, Inc put into that line of reasoning even though it was both obviously wrong and didn't do anything to move the Hispanic needle–McCain (as open borders as it gets), Romney (a cuck who said a few good things about stopping the illegal part of the invasion), and Trump (immigration as central issue, tough on stopping it) all got basically the same sure of the Hispanic vote.


    And after all, the defining trait of the cuck is playing every Conservative card so as long as one can dodge accusations of racism.

    Colyer epitomizes that. On a scale from 1 to 10, he takes it up to an 11. I went with my brother to the debate these pictures came from last week and we kept noting how cringeworthy everything he said was. Two of his answers ended with "God bless you".

  33. "Strong borders are essential to our nation and to our State. They are essential to fighting terrorism, essential to fighting crime, and essential to protecting American workers."

    It sure would be nice to see him add in something like, "essential to protecting our culture." Too often overlooked is the damage done to our basic everyday culture. But I think that would resonate with many people, as they watch more neighborhoods turn into barrios.

    Ideally he'd also say "essential to protecting real Americans", but that of course is a bridge too far, just yet.

  34. Yeah, that's not something Im thrilled about, but being a Southerner in the Deepest South, pro-closed borders and Zionism is pretty hot and heavy.
    I've come to accept we may have to accept we will have to tackle the immigration issue with who we can, then deal w/ the Zionists.
    I fully support Kris & am pushing my 20 family members in KS to vote for him.

  35. Agree w/this. The Christian Zionists here in the South are so philo-semitic they have a bad case of Jew envy.
    It's frustrating.

  36. Yet, there are more guns in the country than ever before. That tells you that less ppl own more guns.
    Which BTW, is way more than that 300 million number they've been dragging out for a decade now.
    I think the number is closer to 500 million.

  37. I saw an estimate of as many as 640-odd million guns in the USA now, based on cumulative production figures.

  38. Colyer epitomizes that. On a scale from 1 to 10, he takes it up to an 11. I went with my brother to the debate these pictures came from last week and we kept noting how cringeworthy everything he said was. Two of his answers ended with "God bless you".

    These people are finished. America is rapidly becoming less religious, which I put down to declining social captial and the Religious Right being such a pain in the ass during the early lives of Gen X-ers and Millennials. Note also that Reaganite neglect of AFF is pushing America down the road of Western Europe; likewise, it's a fair bet that the Anglo diaspora in general is quickly adopting Western European values (which ideally will also include stronger protections for workers and greater hostility towards corporate monopolies).

    Religion is highly correlated to rural-ness, and a slip in religiosity was already noted with Boomers (who affect to be "spiritual" but often don't regularly attend church), who in North America and Australia were far more likely to grow up in cities and suburbs than previous generations. Remember that in small towns churches are often the glue that holds the community together; in more developed areas, people have other things to do than go to church.

    As the Anglo disapora's population grew and development intensified, AFF is harder and hedonism is easier (there's only so much trouble you can get into in a small town where everybody knows you). Western Europe, as longevity soared beginning in the 60's (so too did elder entitlements grow), birth rates flat-lined and AFF throughout Western Europe has been in a free fall for many decades.

    A culture of nihilism pervaded among Europe's Boomers, who have been complete failures at reproduction (remember the often noted fact that the EU is full of childless elites). This sort of nihilism largely passed the Anglo diaspora's Boomers by, but by the time you get to Gen X-ers it's apparent.

    One commonality throughout the West is that Boomers embrace hedonism and often gussy it up, often via the tired axiom that their "parent's generation" were squares who didn't have fun. Whereas Gen X-ers throughout the world loath the glibness of Boomers.

    If immigration was halted in the West, the combination of Silents and Boomers finally dying off (or at least retiring and shuffling off to the old folk's homes), and Gen X-ers and Millennials having few children, would indeed eventually cause population levels to decrease. Which in turn would open up job opportunities and more affordable housing for younger generations. But since the late 1980's the entire Western world has promoted high immigration levels as an obvious sop to property owners/investors (who of course make more money from higher competition for housing) and those who create, market, and sell various goods, who can't countenance even a momentary drop in the population.

  39. The annoyingly repetitive and hysterical claims that Japan, as the only aging first world country in the world to not accept immigrants, is always on the verge of some kind of demographic and financial calamity are absurd. Unless Japan falls into the ocean or is invaded by a hostile power, Japan will always remain the homeland of Japanese people. It's fortunes may rise and fall and rise again; but it's still the same culture and the same people for generations to come. Here I will remind you again that a presumed decline in the population is self-correcting anyway; it's often been noted that following devastating wars and plagues, people tend to get really horny. It's built into the human psyche: zip up during times of distress, whip it out later. E.g., the birth rate fell during the 1920's-early 1940's, when we went through a series of political, war, and financial crises. Likewise, after JFK was shot birth rates soon fell, and reached extremely low levels after Watergate.

    Due to the sheer number of people now living in the West, and their resistance to overcrowding,modern birth rates have never even come anywhere close to what they were per capita in the 1940's-1960's. Even black people aren't having kids anymore (birth rates have been declining almost on a yearly basis since about 1995). Black areas were full of rugrats during the crack epidemic of the mid 80's-mid 90's. Evidently blacks realized in the late 90's that popping out tons of kids was not doing anybody much good anymore.

    We've been dealing with increasing resource scarcity for the last 45 years, and the younger you are the harder things have been.

  40. Zeroh,

    Right. Stopping the "invite the world" is more important than stopping the "invade the world".


    The question is how an inverted age pyramid will work in a democratic society. We'll find out first with Japan.

  41. He supports protecting both nations from invaders. Is that a problem?

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS