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
The Electoral Is-Ought Problem
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

The great polymath Razib Khan put together a fairly conventional Electoral College map prediction on social media that generated a lot of commentary:

https://twitter.com/razibkhan/status/1319783111144599552

In response, Razib noted:

https://twitter.com/razibkhan/status/1319873281625784320

Whether he is voting at all and if so for whom is unknown, but his observation is nevertheless a perspicacious one. The following graph shows who voters expect to win the election by whether they are voting for Trump or for Biden:

Objectivity is becoming impossible. Even when good faith attempts at it are made, they will be received cynically by nearly everyone whose priors they potentially challenge. It’s difficult to see how free speech survives this.

Separation is the way out of this if there is one. Political separation is an aspect of it, but it’s not everything. Virtual separation is becoming a necessity. If Biden/Harris wins, as we–members of the 4%–expect they will, Silicon Valley will own the next administration. Challenges to Section 230 protections aren’t going anywhere in that environment. They want the broad right off their platforms. They’re not going to stop pushing until we’re gone, so why not leave? That the alternatives are currently much weaker is in large part a function of the network effect, but that problem isn’t any easier to overcome by begging to be a second-class members of it.

 
Hide 74 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Separation is the way out of this if there is one. Political separation is an aspect of it, but it’s not everything. Virtual separation is becoming a necessity. If Biden/Harris wins, as we–members of the 4%–expect they will, Silicon Valley will own the next administration. Challenges to Section 230 protections aren’t going anywhere in that environment.

    Has Trump done anything about it over the last four years? No? Then why assume he’ll do something about it in the next four?

    • Agree: Realist
    • Replies: @AP
    @Alexander Turok

    He's too old to know much about it. But he at least wouldn't accelerate the process, and it seems now at the end he is starting to notice.

    , @Achmed E. Newman
    @Alexander Turok


    Has Trump done anything about it over the last four years? No? Then why assume he’ll do something about it in the next four?
     
    Because now it's personal. After his tweets regarding Biden's scandals were blocked, a very important thing right before this election, he seems to want to do something now with Section 230. I know, it's a shame that this is the way Trump operates, but I think he does only get really motivated when something is personal (to him, or to individual Americans whose stories he has heard).

    Replies: @MBlanc46

    , @Chrisnonymous
    @Alexander Turok

    Virtual separation is not so easy. If you have a non-political presence like a cooking channel on YouTube, you can't move it to BitChute or you'll lose all your blue state viewers. If you have an account on Gab, good luck getting a job at 50% of the employers in the country.

    It's a difficult situation.

  2. map looks plausible except for AZ, which Drumpf will carry. And,

    rhetoric aside, it does not matter which Zionist tool wins.

    • Agree: Kent Nationalist
    • Replies: @L. Guapo
    @Haxo Angmark

    Love your handle. I sent Sailer a copy of The Star King a year or two ago to try to convert him to JV fandom, which I thought he would be a natural for. I don't know if he ever read it.

    , @TomSchmidt
    @Haxo Angmark

    If Trump carries AZ and MN on that map, you have a tie. I'd like to see that.

    Replies: @The Alarmist

  3. There seem to be a lot of us 4%-ers on your blog.

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @Ash Williams
    @Almost Missouri

    UNZ punches above it's weight in engagements, one article alone had 30,000 words in the comments.

    This means there's plenty of spooks here trying to influence the conversation.

    Won't matter. A casual glance at the rally crowds for either candidate shows Trump is going to win bigly.

    Watch for the polls to miraculously tighten as we draw closer to the election. The lugenpresse has to do so to try and retain even a shred of credibility.

    Replies: @El Dato, @goldgettin

    , @MBlanc46
    @Almost Missouri

    A.E. appeals to guys (mostly guys, I’m pretty sure) who refer data to preferences.

  4. The great polymath Razib Khan put together a fairly conventional Electoral College map prediction on social media that generated a lot of commentary.

    Since we’re making maps, I’ll play, too. Biden 369, Trump 169.

    Actually, I have no idea what will happen, but here is my map. Since I am no great polymath like Razib Khan, my prediction is that my prediction will not generate a lot of commentary.

    For information, I mean to vote for Trump.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Actually, I have no idea what will happen, but here is my map.
     
    So you're saying Nebraska's 2nd will flip, and Maine's 2nd will flip back. Never have these two states split in the same election; indeed, each has only split once. Maine has had 11 elections in which to do so, and waited until 2016.

    NE-2 in 2008 gave Democrats their only elector in that strip of states from Texas to North Dakota in several decades. When was the Democrats' last contiguous electoral map? 1964?

    Nebraska's 2nd's representative has an interesting CV. He outperformed other Republicans in the last two elections, and has been endorsed by the incumbent Democrat he beat in 2016. This is a true swing district.



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Bacon_(politician)

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    , @The Alarmist
    @V. K. Ovelund

    We could also assume that the Dems have already stolen Pennsylvania, but not locked down Michigan and a Wisconsin: Trump 274 : Biden 264.

  5. Trump has already won this with early voting.

    It appears some folks here will be the last to know.

    Here is one video for basic training on the early voting so far:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wf6yr_McIFs&feature=youtu.be

    Once you have passed basic training, then we can get into more (and updated detail on two big states).

    Texas–Trump won by nine percentage points in 2016. Democrats vote early–we know that. Therefore we would expect Trump to be leading by less than nine points, and if the polls were correct the race would be closer than that.

    https://www.toptradeguru.com/news/elections-2020/results/texas-early-ballot-returns-shows-polls-are-wrong/

    Trump by sixteen points based on registration (which is a _very_ solid proxy for voting preference). 55% of registered voters have already voted. Young voters had very low turnout (read for details).

    We are probably looking at close to a twenty point Texas Trump blowout.

    Florida is over–Trump will easily beat his 2016 numbers–details on early voting here:

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/10/breaking-early-results-florida-shocking-one-candidate-no-doubt-happy/

    The insiders already know this is an easy Trump victory:

    https://mobile.twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1319426654402379776

    Who will be the last to know?

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Justvisiting

    Does Barnes do anything else but stream on others' channels? This is 41 minutes, and his frequent appearances on Viva Frei much longer. He's very good, yes, but who has the time? Where does he get the time?

    Replies: @Justvisiting

    , @ThisIsAnon153Replying
    @Justvisiting

    Voter fraud, voter fraud, voter fraud

    Did I mention voter fraud?

    The elites hate orange man so much they came up with a huge scheme to frame him as a Russian agent. I totally think they'll rig the election

    So yeah, I'll believe it when I see it.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @MBlanc46

  6. Not counting blogs like this but in real life I don’t know any other Trump votet besides myself who thinks he’s going to lose. Trump voters don’t have an interest in any of the dynamics behind the race such as demographics. They just take it on blind faith that Trump will win “in a landslide” as they say.

    • Replies: @ThisIsAnon153Replying
    @Jay Fink

    Most trump voters mainly interact with white people. And white trump voters are very enthusiastic about trump

    But they don't realize how many millions of non-whites now live in the USA, who are markedly less enthusiastic about him

    In 2024 it'll be a big wakeup call to all "race blind" Republicans when it's mathematically impossible for an R to win. In fact this was already supposed to happen, but Trump boosted his share of working class white vote, so it staved off the Republican demographic collapse for 2 more elections.

  7. @Alexander Turok

    Separation is the way out of this if there is one. Political separation is an aspect of it, but it’s not everything. Virtual separation is becoming a necessity. If Biden/Harris wins, as we–members of the 4%–expect they will, Silicon Valley will own the next administration. Challenges to Section 230 protections aren’t going anywhere in that environment.
     
    Has Trump done anything about it over the last four years? No? Then why assume he'll do something about it in the next four?

    Replies: @AP, @Achmed E. Newman, @Chrisnonymous

    He’s too old to know much about it. But he at least wouldn’t accelerate the process, and it seems now at the end he is starting to notice.

  8. @V. K. Ovelund

    The great polymath Razib Khan put together a fairly conventional Electoral College map prediction on social media that generated a lot of commentary.
     
    Since we're making maps, I'll play, too. Biden 369, Trump 169.

    Actually, I have no idea what will happen, but here is my map. Since I am no great polymath like Razib Khan, my prediction is that my prediction will not generate a lot of commentary.

    For information, I mean to vote for Trump.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @The Alarmist

    Actually, I have no idea what will happen, but here is my map.

    So you’re saying Nebraska’s 2nd will flip, and Maine’s 2nd will flip back. Never have these two states split in the same election; indeed, each has only split once. Maine has had 11 elections in which to do so, and waited until 2016.

    NE-2 in 2008 gave Democrats their only elector in that strip of states from Texas to North Dakota in several decades. When was the Democrats’ last contiguous electoral map? 1964?

    Nebraska’s 2nd’s representative has an interesting CV. He outperformed other Republicans in the last two elections, and has been endorsed by the incumbent Democrat he beat in 2016. This is a true swing district.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Bacon_(politician)

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Reg Cæsar


    So you’re saying Nebraska’s 2nd will flip, and Maine’s 2nd will flip back.
     
    I'm not really saying anything, since admittedly I don't know much. That is, I know how I mean to vote and why, and I know how my parents and adult children mean to vote and why, and I hear some things from my in-laws, but that's not much of a sample.

    A Trump parade overtook me a few weeks ago. It looked like the men of MAGA were having fun.

    If you say that Nebraska's 2nd will not flip then that sounds like as good a prediction as any to me. (Apparently I clicked the wrong district on my map but you have it right: Nebraska's 2nd.) We shall find out in a couple of weeks.

    Thanks for the introduction to U.S. Rep. Don Bacon.

  9. @Almost Missouri
    There seem to be a lot of us 4%-ers on your blog.

    Replies: @Ash Williams, @MBlanc46

    UNZ punches above it’s weight in engagements, one article alone had 30,000 words in the comments.

    This means there’s plenty of spooks here trying to influence the conversation.

    Won’t matter. A casual glance at the rally crowds for either candidate shows Trump is going to win bigly.

    Watch for the polls to miraculously tighten as we draw closer to the election. The lugenpresse has to do so to try and retain even a shred of credibility.

    • Replies: @El Dato
    @Ash Williams



    This means there’s plenty of spooks here trying to influence the conversation.
     
    Fer sure, but maybe some are here on personal business rather than official business?

    Also, going too far in marketing:

    VIDEO of NYPD officers blaring ‘Trump 2020’ through patrol car loudspeaker SETS OFF liberals
    , @goldgettin
    @Ash Williams

    Spooks lives matter also.
    We're oops I mean they're people who sometimes vote too.
    Don't think you know everything.
    Isn't it far more complicated than that?
    I think trump wins as well,because well,I voted 4 him.You know
    It's not a democracy,right?Stay sharp...it's appreciated...

    Replies: @Ash Williams

  10. @Justvisiting
    Trump has already won this with early voting.

    It appears some folks here will be the last to know.

    Here is one video for basic training on the early voting so far:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wf6yr_McIFs&feature=youtu.be

    Once you have passed basic training, then we can get into more (and updated detail on two big states).

    Texas--Trump won by nine percentage points in 2016. Democrats vote early--we know that. Therefore we would expect Trump to be leading by less than nine points, and if the polls were correct the race would be closer than that.

    https://www.toptradeguru.com/news/elections-2020/results/texas-early-ballot-returns-shows-polls-are-wrong/

    Trump by sixteen points based on registration (which is a _very_ solid proxy for voting preference). 55% of registered voters have already voted. Young voters had very low turnout (read for details).

    We are probably looking at close to a twenty point Texas Trump blowout.

    Florida is over--Trump will easily beat his 2016 numbers--details on early voting here:

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/10/breaking-early-results-florida-shocking-one-candidate-no-doubt-happy/

    The insiders already know this is an easy Trump victory:

    https://mobile.twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1319426654402379776

    Who will be the last to know?

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @ThisIsAnon153Replying

    Does Barnes do anything else but stream on others’ channels? This is 41 minutes, and his frequent appearances on Viva Frei much longer. He’s very good, yes, but who has the time? Where does he get the time?

    • Replies: @Justvisiting
    @Reg Cæsar

    He has already done another video on the Biden tapes--compared it to The Wire (perhaps my favorite TV show ever). The guy is amazing.

  11. @Reg Cæsar
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Actually, I have no idea what will happen, but here is my map.
     
    So you're saying Nebraska's 2nd will flip, and Maine's 2nd will flip back. Never have these two states split in the same election; indeed, each has only split once. Maine has had 11 elections in which to do so, and waited until 2016.

    NE-2 in 2008 gave Democrats their only elector in that strip of states from Texas to North Dakota in several decades. When was the Democrats' last contiguous electoral map? 1964?

    Nebraska's 2nd's representative has an interesting CV. He outperformed other Republicans in the last two elections, and has been endorsed by the incumbent Democrat he beat in 2016. This is a true swing district.



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Bacon_(politician)

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    So you’re saying Nebraska’s 2nd will flip, and Maine’s 2nd will flip back.

    I’m not really saying anything, since admittedly I don’t know much. That is, I know how I mean to vote and why, and I know how my parents and adult children mean to vote and why, and I hear some things from my in-laws, but that’s not much of a sample.

    A Trump parade overtook me a few weeks ago. It looked like the men of MAGA were having fun.

    If you say that Nebraska’s 2nd will not flip then that sounds like as good a prediction as any to me. (Apparently I clicked the wrong district on my map but you have it right: Nebraska’s 2nd.) We shall find out in a couple of weeks.

    Thanks for the introduction to U.S. Rep. Don Bacon.

  12. Some form of separation is needed, but secession may not help much. In a sense political separation already exists. Canada, the USA, and the UK are separate geopolitical entities, but they have the same ruling elite. These three places on the map are really one empire. Any breakaway nation needs a new elite, and the old one must fall. Running away won’t work.

  13. @Reg Cæsar
    @Justvisiting

    Does Barnes do anything else but stream on others' channels? This is 41 minutes, and his frequent appearances on Viva Frei much longer. He's very good, yes, but who has the time? Where does he get the time?

    Replies: @Justvisiting

    He has already done another video on the Biden tapes–compared it to The Wire (perhaps my favorite TV show ever). The guy is amazing.

  14. Objectivity is becoming impossible. Even when good faith attempts at it are made, they will be received cynically by nearly everyone whose priors they potentially challenge.

    I agree and would add that it isn’t just emotional subjectivity which is causing these wildly different expectations, but also circumstances. That is, most Republicans live near many other Republicans, and so naturally do see massive pro-Trump enthusiasm and support. And similarly, most Democrats live around other Democrats, and so do see, with all honestly, a Democrat victory as almost certain. It’s hard to choose abstract theory over what you can see with your own eyes.

  15. @Haxo Angmark
    map looks plausible except for AZ, which Drumpf will carry. And,

    rhetoric aside, it does not matter which Zionist tool wins.

    Replies: @L. Guapo, @TomSchmidt

    Love your handle. I sent Sailer a copy of The Star King a year or two ago to try to convert him to JV fandom, which I thought he would be a natural for. I don’t know if he ever read it.

  16. @Haxo Angmark
    map looks plausible except for AZ, which Drumpf will carry. And,

    rhetoric aside, it does not matter which Zionist tool wins.

    Replies: @L. Guapo, @TomSchmidt

    If Trump carries AZ and MN on that map, you have a tie. I’d like to see that.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    @TomSchmidt

    My wife was reading a European rag this morning, and asked me if it was really possible for Biden to win POTUS and Pence to win Veep. Quels rêves ou cauchemars d'une jeune fille.

    What I’d really love to see is a Trump-Biden cage-match to the death, followed shortly by a Pence-Harris match for the Veep role.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

  17. Since big business has to put on an act of being anti Trump, is it not possible that even the polling companies feel the need to follow suit and make out that Trump is losing? Do the betting sites have to make Biden the favourite because they fear being called racist or sexist?

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @martin_2

    The following comment is for North Americans readers.

    A big business for which I once worked went bankrupt. It was a U.S. Chapter 11 bankruptcy, so operations proceeded and employees labored while the court determined the sequence in which creditors were to be paid.

    Addressing all hands, the CEO told us how excellent and fundamentally strong the company was, only another company had wickedly broken a contract, disrupting cash flow. All creditors would be paid. Meanwhile, stock had dropped 95 percent, so if we were smart we would buy.

    Naïvely, I bought, but the CEO had lied and my $10,000 vanished a few weeks later. My salary was generous so the blow hardly crippled me, but the experience taught me a lesson: in big business, CEOs do not get to be CEOs if they tell you what they really think.

    Which brings us to your observation:


    [B]ig business has to put on an act of being anti Trump....
     
    Is it indeed an act? More broadly, is big business's hostility to us heritage Americans and to our culture merely a stance and a pose, or does big business actually hate us?

    This strikes me as an important question. I would like to know the answer because if big business hates us then we are likely to start hating big business back. Significant consequences might ensue.

    Replies: @Justvisiting, @PhilK, @MBlanc46

  18. @Alexander Turok

    Separation is the way out of this if there is one. Political separation is an aspect of it, but it’s not everything. Virtual separation is becoming a necessity. If Biden/Harris wins, as we–members of the 4%–expect they will, Silicon Valley will own the next administration. Challenges to Section 230 protections aren’t going anywhere in that environment.
     
    Has Trump done anything about it over the last four years? No? Then why assume he'll do something about it in the next four?

    Replies: @AP, @Achmed E. Newman, @Chrisnonymous

    Has Trump done anything about it over the last four years? No? Then why assume he’ll do something about it in the next four?

    Because now it’s personal. After his tweets regarding Biden’s scandals were blocked, a very important thing right before this election, he seems to want to do something now with Section 230. I know, it’s a shame that this is the way Trump operates, but I think he does only get really motivated when something is personal (to him, or to individual Americans whose stories he has heard).

    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    @Achmed E. Newman

    If he hadn’t waited until three months before he’s going to be turfed out of office, he might have accomplished so ething.

  19. Please, if all the right-wingers separate off and form their own country, who is going to pay the taxes in all the blue states? Where will all the wealthy white allies flee to now that so many cities are in flames if the border with Idaho and Texas is closed? Who is going to get shipped off to fight the next war for democracy? Strike up that Union Band!

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Tulip


    Please, if all the right-wingers separate off and form their own country, who is going to pay the taxes in all the blue states?
     
    But all the right-wingers won't separate off and form their own country. Most of the mainstream Right has zero interest in doing any such thing. And even if Trump loses they will still have zero interest in doing any such thing.

    If the MAGA hat wearers and the alt-righters separate off and form their own country it will collapse within a fortnight.
  20. @Almost Missouri
    There seem to be a lot of us 4%-ers on your blog.

    Replies: @Ash Williams, @MBlanc46

    A.E. appeals to guys (mostly guys, I’m pretty sure) who refer data to preferences.

  21. @Achmed E. Newman
    @Alexander Turok


    Has Trump done anything about it over the last four years? No? Then why assume he’ll do something about it in the next four?
     
    Because now it's personal. After his tweets regarding Biden's scandals were blocked, a very important thing right before this election, he seems to want to do something now with Section 230. I know, it's a shame that this is the way Trump operates, but I think he does only get really motivated when something is personal (to him, or to individual Americans whose stories he has heard).

    Replies: @MBlanc46

    If he hadn’t waited until three months before he’s going to be turfed out of office, he might have accomplished so ething.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
  22. @Tulip
    Please, if all the right-wingers separate off and form their own country, who is going to pay the taxes in all the blue states? Where will all the wealthy white allies flee to now that so many cities are in flames if the border with Idaho and Texas is closed? Who is going to get shipped off to fight the next war for democracy? Strike up that Union Band!

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Please, if all the right-wingers separate off and form their own country, who is going to pay the taxes in all the blue states?

    But all the right-wingers won’t separate off and form their own country. Most of the mainstream Right has zero interest in doing any such thing. And even if Trump loses they will still have zero interest in doing any such thing.

    If the MAGA hat wearers and the alt-righters separate off and form their own country it will collapse within a fortnight.

  23. @Alexander Turok

    Separation is the way out of this if there is one. Political separation is an aspect of it, but it’s not everything. Virtual separation is becoming a necessity. If Biden/Harris wins, as we–members of the 4%–expect they will, Silicon Valley will own the next administration. Challenges to Section 230 protections aren’t going anywhere in that environment.
     
    Has Trump done anything about it over the last four years? No? Then why assume he'll do something about it in the next four?

    Replies: @AP, @Achmed E. Newman, @Chrisnonymous

    Virtual separation is not so easy. If you have a non-political presence like a cooking channel on YouTube, you can’t move it to BitChute or you’ll lose all your blue state viewers. If you have an account on Gab, good luck getting a job at 50% of the employers in the country.

    It’s a difficult situation.

  24. Twitter & Facebook aren’t going to get rid of conservatives, who make up a large chunk of their core users. If you type in anything related to US politics into Twitter’s search function, most of the “top” tweets are from right-wingers. It’s a myth that conservatives are being censored on major social media platforms.

    • Disagree: Chrisnonymous
    • LOL: Justvisiting
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @Nodwink

    It can be simultaneously true that right-wing content is shadowbanned and often outright censored and still be more organically popular. Every media organization that has a comments section has known this since the dawn of the internet.

  25. We are never allowed anything

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
  26. @V. K. Ovelund

    The great polymath Razib Khan put together a fairly conventional Electoral College map prediction on social media that generated a lot of commentary.
     
    Since we're making maps, I'll play, too. Biden 369, Trump 169.

    Actually, I have no idea what will happen, but here is my map. Since I am no great polymath like Razib Khan, my prediction is that my prediction will not generate a lot of commentary.

    For information, I mean to vote for Trump.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @The Alarmist

    We could also assume that the Dems have already stolen Pennsylvania, but not locked down Michigan and a Wisconsin: Trump 274 : Biden 264.

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
  27. As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron. – H. L. Mencken

    Do we have to wait for Biden or has Trump satisfied the prediction?

  28. @TomSchmidt
    @Haxo Angmark

    If Trump carries AZ and MN on that map, you have a tie. I'd like to see that.

    Replies: @The Alarmist

    My wife was reading a European rag this morning, and asked me if it was really possible for Biden to win POTUS and Pence to win Veep. Quels rêves ou cauchemars d’une jeune fille.

    What I’d really love to see is a Trump-Biden cage-match to the death, followed shortly by a Pence-Harris match for the Veep role.

    • LOL: Jay Fink, TomSchmidt
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @The Alarmist

    So we get four more years of Trump/Pence, then.

  29. @Justvisiting
    Trump has already won this with early voting.

    It appears some folks here will be the last to know.

    Here is one video for basic training on the early voting so far:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wf6yr_McIFs&feature=youtu.be

    Once you have passed basic training, then we can get into more (and updated detail on two big states).

    Texas--Trump won by nine percentage points in 2016. Democrats vote early--we know that. Therefore we would expect Trump to be leading by less than nine points, and if the polls were correct the race would be closer than that.

    https://www.toptradeguru.com/news/elections-2020/results/texas-early-ballot-returns-shows-polls-are-wrong/

    Trump by sixteen points based on registration (which is a _very_ solid proxy for voting preference). 55% of registered voters have already voted. Young voters had very low turnout (read for details).

    We are probably looking at close to a twenty point Texas Trump blowout.

    Florida is over--Trump will easily beat his 2016 numbers--details on early voting here:

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/10/breaking-early-results-florida-shocking-one-candidate-no-doubt-happy/

    The insiders already know this is an easy Trump victory:

    https://mobile.twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1319426654402379776

    Who will be the last to know?

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @ThisIsAnon153Replying

    Voter fraud, voter fraud, voter fraud

    Did I mention voter fraud?

    The elites hate orange man so much they came up with a huge scheme to frame him as a Russian agent. I totally think they’ll rig the election

    So yeah, I’ll believe it when I see it.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @ThisIsAnon153Replying


    Did I mention voter fraud?
     
    Immigration and naturalization is the principal form of voter fraud today.

    Individual immigrants are not to blame but, as far as I can tell, immigration policy's chief intent is to defraud the U.S. voter of the effect of his or her vote. Unfortunately, the policy is working.

    Remarkably, immigration policy is not fraudulent enough for the Democratic Party. Apparently, Democrats require yet more fraud.

    Yet more remarkably, Democrats seem to believe that they are protecting democracy by doing this. They protect democracy against our votes, apparently.

    The world can be a strange place.

    , @MBlanc46
    @ThisIsAnon153Replying

    They were planning to rig it starting the morning after the election in 2016. They might have started before midnight.

  30. @Jay Fink
    Not counting blogs like this but in real life I don't know any other Trump votet besides myself who thinks he's going to lose. Trump voters don't have an interest in any of the dynamics behind the race such as demographics. They just take it on blind faith that Trump will win "in a landslide" as they say.

    Replies: @ThisIsAnon153Replying

    Most trump voters mainly interact with white people. And white trump voters are very enthusiastic about trump

    But they don’t realize how many millions of non-whites now live in the USA, who are markedly less enthusiastic about him

    In 2024 it’ll be a big wakeup call to all “race blind” Republicans when it’s mathematically impossible for an R to win. In fact this was already supposed to happen, but Trump boosted his share of working class white vote, so it staved off the Republican demographic collapse for 2 more elections.

    • Agree: Jay Fink
  31. Trump may well carry PA, WI, MI and perhaps MN

  32. @martin_2
    Since big business has to put on an act of being anti Trump, is it not possible that even the polling companies feel the need to follow suit and make out that Trump is losing? Do the betting sites have to make Biden the favourite because they fear being called racist or sexist?

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    The following comment is for North Americans readers.

    A big business for which I once worked went bankrupt. It was a U.S. Chapter 11 bankruptcy, so operations proceeded and employees labored while the court determined the sequence in which creditors were to be paid.

    Addressing all hands, the CEO told us how excellent and fundamentally strong the company was, only another company had wickedly broken a contract, disrupting cash flow. All creditors would be paid. Meanwhile, stock had dropped 95 percent, so if we were smart we would buy.

    Naïvely, I bought, but the CEO had lied and my $10,000 vanished a few weeks later. My salary was generous so the blow hardly crippled me, but the experience taught me a lesson: in big business, CEOs do not get to be CEOs if they tell you what they really think.

    Which brings us to your observation:

    [B]ig business has to put on an act of being anti Trump….

    Is it indeed an act? More broadly, is big business’s hostility to us heritage Americans and to our culture merely a stance and a pose, or does big business actually hate us?

    This strikes me as an important question. I would like to know the answer because if big business hates us then we are likely to start hating big business back. Significant consequences might ensue.

    • Replies: @Justvisiting
    @V. K. Ovelund

    The question of whether "big business hates us" is a good one.

    What is happening now is that certain attitudes and beliefs are held by the elites and they are being rammed down the throats of their employees.

    This does not affect a janitor or other blue collar workers, but a senior executive needs to "tow the line" or they become an outcast and their career crashes and burns.

    So, the answer is that the owners of the big international businesses hate us. They want to continue to dominate kleptocracies around the world and freeze out new competitors with laws, regulations, crooked courts, etc.

    Trust-busting is the only answer imho--the large corporations must be crushed by the plebes or the plebes will be crushed by the large corporations.

    , @PhilK
    @V. K. Ovelund

    . . . or does big business actually hate us?

    I'd say so, and so does TC.

    Tucker Carlson: Big Business Hates Your Family

    , @MBlanc46
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Some, perhaps many, corporate types are true believers. Many of the others are betting that PoC are the future.

  33. @V. K. Ovelund
    @martin_2

    The following comment is for North Americans readers.

    A big business for which I once worked went bankrupt. It was a U.S. Chapter 11 bankruptcy, so operations proceeded and employees labored while the court determined the sequence in which creditors were to be paid.

    Addressing all hands, the CEO told us how excellent and fundamentally strong the company was, only another company had wickedly broken a contract, disrupting cash flow. All creditors would be paid. Meanwhile, stock had dropped 95 percent, so if we were smart we would buy.

    Naïvely, I bought, but the CEO had lied and my $10,000 vanished a few weeks later. My salary was generous so the blow hardly crippled me, but the experience taught me a lesson: in big business, CEOs do not get to be CEOs if they tell you what they really think.

    Which brings us to your observation:


    [B]ig business has to put on an act of being anti Trump....
     
    Is it indeed an act? More broadly, is big business's hostility to us heritage Americans and to our culture merely a stance and a pose, or does big business actually hate us?

    This strikes me as an important question. I would like to know the answer because if big business hates us then we are likely to start hating big business back. Significant consequences might ensue.

    Replies: @Justvisiting, @PhilK, @MBlanc46

    The question of whether “big business hates us” is a good one.

    What is happening now is that certain attitudes and beliefs are held by the elites and they are being rammed down the throats of their employees.

    This does not affect a janitor or other blue collar workers, but a senior executive needs to “tow the line” or they become an outcast and their career crashes and burns.

    So, the answer is that the owners of the big international businesses hate us. They want to continue to dominate kleptocracies around the world and freeze out new competitors with laws, regulations, crooked courts, etc.

    Trust-busting is the only answer imho–the large corporations must be crushed by the plebes or the plebes will be crushed by the large corporations.

  34. @Ash Williams
    @Almost Missouri

    UNZ punches above it's weight in engagements, one article alone had 30,000 words in the comments.

    This means there's plenty of spooks here trying to influence the conversation.

    Won't matter. A casual glance at the rally crowds for either candidate shows Trump is going to win bigly.

    Watch for the polls to miraculously tighten as we draw closer to the election. The lugenpresse has to do so to try and retain even a shred of credibility.

    Replies: @El Dato, @goldgettin

    This means there’s plenty of spooks here trying to influence the conversation.

    Fer sure, but maybe some are here on personal business rather than official business?

    Also, going too far in marketing:

    VIDEO of NYPD officers blaring ‘Trump 2020’ through patrol car loudspeaker SETS OFF liberals

  35. @V. K. Ovelund
    @martin_2

    The following comment is for North Americans readers.

    A big business for which I once worked went bankrupt. It was a U.S. Chapter 11 bankruptcy, so operations proceeded and employees labored while the court determined the sequence in which creditors were to be paid.

    Addressing all hands, the CEO told us how excellent and fundamentally strong the company was, only another company had wickedly broken a contract, disrupting cash flow. All creditors would be paid. Meanwhile, stock had dropped 95 percent, so if we were smart we would buy.

    Naïvely, I bought, but the CEO had lied and my $10,000 vanished a few weeks later. My salary was generous so the blow hardly crippled me, but the experience taught me a lesson: in big business, CEOs do not get to be CEOs if they tell you what they really think.

    Which brings us to your observation:


    [B]ig business has to put on an act of being anti Trump....
     
    Is it indeed an act? More broadly, is big business's hostility to us heritage Americans and to our culture merely a stance and a pose, or does big business actually hate us?

    This strikes me as an important question. I would like to know the answer because if big business hates us then we are likely to start hating big business back. Significant consequences might ensue.

    Replies: @Justvisiting, @PhilK, @MBlanc46

    . . . or does big business actually hate us?

    I’d say so, and so does TC.

    Tucker Carlson: Big Business Hates Your Family

  36. Blue State governors tried to kill the BIG TEN football season. Trump advocated for BIG TEN football, and won the battle. That generated a great deal of positive traction in:
    — Michigan (UM & MSU)
    — Pennsylvania (PSU)
    — Wisconsin (UW)

    This is a much more plausible map.
      
    With 330 Electoral Votes, Trump will still be safely ahead even if the Biden coup effort manages to corrupt the process in one of these states.
    ___

    Pennsylvania is heading towards a train wreck if they are not careful.

    The junior court decision allows counting of ballots that do not pass signature & postmark validation, and the first attempt at a SCOTUS review failed 4-4. After ACB is confirmed, the case is likely to return in search of a definitive 5-4 ruling. The state & local election officials need to keep those defective ballots separate so they can be excluded after the highest court in the land rules against them.

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @Justvisiting
    @A123

    Your map is exactly the way I think this is going to go.

    The pollsters that I trust (who do not publish in mass media) give Trump a chance for the big upset in Virginia and Oregon as well. The riots got the suburbanites nervous, CV will depress Democratic turnout, the libertarians are scared of Biden tax increases, black and hispanic males think Biden is a senile joke, and the undecideds traditionally break for the incumbent.

  37. @A123
    Blue State governors tried to kill the BIG TEN football season. Trump advocated for BIG TEN football, and won the battle. That generated a great deal of positive traction in:
    -- Michigan (UM & MSU)
    -- Pennsylvania (PSU)
    -- Wisconsin (UW)

    This is a much more plausible map.
     
    https://i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2020/10/APP-101220-McCullough-MAP.jpg
     
    With 330 Electoral Votes, Trump will still be safely ahead even if the Biden coup effort manages to corrupt the process in one of these states.
    ___

    Pennsylvania is heading towards a train wreck if they are not careful.

    The junior court decision allows counting of ballots that do not pass signature & postmark validation, and the first attempt at a SCOTUS review failed 4-4. After ACB is confirmed, the case is likely to return in search of a definitive 5-4 ruling. The state & local election officials need to keep those defective ballots separate so they can be excluded after the highest court in the land rules against them.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @Justvisiting

    Your map is exactly the way I think this is going to go.

    The pollsters that I trust (who do not publish in mass media) give Trump a chance for the big upset in Virginia and Oregon as well. The riots got the suburbanites nervous, CV will depress Democratic turnout, the libertarians are scared of Biden tax increases, black and hispanic males think Biden is a senile joke, and the undecideds traditionally break for the incumbent.

  38. Why can the great polymath not be bothered to spell or punctuate correctly?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @Intelligent Dasein

    In formal posting, he can and does.

  39. I must be the new-age Nostradamus, because 2 months ago I said that all the Covid “hot-spots” will magically be in battleground states right at election time… and doggonit I’m right!

    I think the only numbers more skewed and political than polling numbers are Covid numbers.

  40. @ThisIsAnon153Replying
    @Justvisiting

    Voter fraud, voter fraud, voter fraud

    Did I mention voter fraud?

    The elites hate orange man so much they came up with a huge scheme to frame him as a Russian agent. I totally think they'll rig the election

    So yeah, I'll believe it when I see it.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @MBlanc46

    Did I mention voter fraud?

    Immigration and naturalization is the principal form of voter fraud today.

    Individual immigrants are not to blame but, as far as I can tell, immigration policy’s chief intent is to defraud the U.S. voter of the effect of his or her vote. Unfortunately, the policy is working.

    Remarkably, immigration policy is not fraudulent enough for the Democratic Party. Apparently, Democrats require yet more fraud.

    Yet more remarkably, Democrats seem to believe that they are protecting democracy by doing this. They protect democracy against our votes, apparently.

    The world can be a strange place.

  41. A classic trope in color revolutions is “the opposition party was leading in the polls, and then the evil dictator ended up winning in a landslide”.

    My prediction is Trump wins and they go for the blatant coup attempt.

    Biden is cancelling all IRL events with 9 days to go, so either they are very confident in their fraud operation or they aren’t interested in the voting outcome.

    Trying to be optimistic and hope that all the memes about refusing to concede and total war, and etc were just talk – posturing by the establishment DNC to avoid getting overthrown in the internal power struggle that will definitely explode after a biden loss.

    • Replies: @Justvisiting
    @Not My Economy

    The latest Trump ad on TV during the "Walking Dead":

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5KNJrt_DTo

    This is how you target young voters--omg, omg, omg.

    F^%ing brilliant.

  42. @Not My Economy
    A classic trope in color revolutions is "the opposition party was leading in the polls, and then the evil dictator ended up winning in a landslide".

    My prediction is Trump wins and they go for the blatant coup attempt.

    Biden is cancelling all IRL events with 9 days to go, so either they are very confident in their fraud operation or they aren't interested in the voting outcome.

    Trying to be optimistic and hope that all the memes about refusing to concede and total war, and etc were just talk - posturing by the establishment DNC to avoid getting overthrown in the internal power struggle that will definitely explode after a biden loss.

    Replies: @Justvisiting

    The latest Trump ad on TV during the “Walking Dead”:

    This is how you target young voters–omg, omg, omg.

    F^%ing brilliant.

  43. @ThisIsAnon153Replying
    @Justvisiting

    Voter fraud, voter fraud, voter fraud

    Did I mention voter fraud?

    The elites hate orange man so much they came up with a huge scheme to frame him as a Russian agent. I totally think they'll rig the election

    So yeah, I'll believe it when I see it.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @MBlanc46

    They were planning to rig it starting the morning after the election in 2016. They might have started before midnight.

  44. @V. K. Ovelund
    @martin_2

    The following comment is for North Americans readers.

    A big business for which I once worked went bankrupt. It was a U.S. Chapter 11 bankruptcy, so operations proceeded and employees labored while the court determined the sequence in which creditors were to be paid.

    Addressing all hands, the CEO told us how excellent and fundamentally strong the company was, only another company had wickedly broken a contract, disrupting cash flow. All creditors would be paid. Meanwhile, stock had dropped 95 percent, so if we were smart we would buy.

    Naïvely, I bought, but the CEO had lied and my $10,000 vanished a few weeks later. My salary was generous so the blow hardly crippled me, but the experience taught me a lesson: in big business, CEOs do not get to be CEOs if they tell you what they really think.

    Which brings us to your observation:


    [B]ig business has to put on an act of being anti Trump....
     
    Is it indeed an act? More broadly, is big business's hostility to us heritage Americans and to our culture merely a stance and a pose, or does big business actually hate us?

    This strikes me as an important question. I would like to know the answer because if big business hates us then we are likely to start hating big business back. Significant consequences might ensue.

    Replies: @Justvisiting, @PhilK, @MBlanc46

    Some, perhaps many, corporate types are true believers. Many of the others are betting that PoC are the future.

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
  45. @Ash Williams
    @Almost Missouri

    UNZ punches above it's weight in engagements, one article alone had 30,000 words in the comments.

    This means there's plenty of spooks here trying to influence the conversation.

    Won't matter. A casual glance at the rally crowds for either candidate shows Trump is going to win bigly.

    Watch for the polls to miraculously tighten as we draw closer to the election. The lugenpresse has to do so to try and retain even a shred of credibility.

    Replies: @El Dato, @goldgettin

    Spooks lives matter also.
    We’re oops I mean they’re people who sometimes vote too.
    Don’t think you know everything.
    Isn’t it far more complicated than that?
    I think trump wins as well,because well,I voted 4 him.You know
    It’s not a democracy,right?Stay sharp…it’s appreciated…

    • Replies: @Ash Williams
    @goldgettin

    So, this is just a Hail Mary attempt to regain legitimacy for the system?

    Sounds about right.

  46. Have you played around with the Cook Political Report Swingometer?: https://cookpolitical.com/index.php/swingometer

    See what happens when you lower black and Hispanic turnout a couple percent (HBD effects on mail-in ballots) and then raise Trump’s share of their vote slightly, say, to 13% for blacks and 36% for Hispanics.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @Dave Pinsen

    Shift the black vote from 8% Trump to 12% Trump and the map has Trump narrowly winning the EC if everything else stays the same as 2016. Wow.

  47. “Separation is the way out of this if there is one”.

    LOL, no. It is highly doubtful the United States is going to break up in our lifetime. Note that when nations fractured in the 20th century, there were always deep underlying fault lines of language, religion, or ethnicity. Moreover, there is no substantial, consistent groundswell of support for dividing into several separate regions. Policy wonks across the spectrum have entertained secession, but they are not actively promoting the cause. Besides, if you look at the history of nation-states, partisan homogeneity is a feature, not a bug, and thus does not require a “divorce”. The normies want to make reforms within the system, not blow it up. Despite the fatalism among some people, there is not an obvious way to dissolve our union. Moreover, rewriting our Constitution requires levels of political coordination far beyond the country’s existing leadership. Several questions would have to be answered:

    “How in the world would the people ‘hammer out details’ when we have difficulty getting things done now?”

    “How would rights be delineated?”

    “How would trade deals with foreign nations be reconstituted?”

    “How would our national debt be dealt with?”

    “How would we address legal decisions made by the Supreme Court”?

    “Would people be willing to move from your current place of residence to achieve such a goal?”

    “Would people support efforts made by the new government to coerce or force others to move?”

    “How would the people respond if forced to move merely due to one’s ideology?”

    And those who support dissolution are foolish to believe this arrangement would remain peaceful. Refer to the break-up of the Soviet Union. Some parts of the old empire are more powerful than others despite keeping the balance of power in mind. Then the greatest remaining State constantly conspires against the weaker states surrounding it. Perhaps a “New Confederacy” and “Midwest Republic” would get along, but they would find themselves being mauled by the East Coast and West Coast blocs which have the concentration of ports and financial institutions. Furthermore, powers from other continents would have their proxy machinations in the divided states of America. They would more likely support the Coastal Regions since their myriad of investments are located in its urban areas and since the people living there are acolytes of the Global Empire.

    • Agree: Buzz Mohawk, dfordoom
    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    @Corvinus

    Buzz Mohawk agrees with Corvy?  What IS the world coming to?

    Especially that BM even READS the crap that troll Corvy writes?

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    , @V. K. Ovelund
    @Corvinus


    Several questions would have to be answered....
     
    I am not sure that the questions you list would have to be answered. Lots of things are done before questions are answered. Angry employees quit jobs before questions are answered, drunken individuals acquire tattoos before questions are answered, unhappy couples divorce before questions are answered, and so on.

    Moreover, there is no substantial, consistent groundswell of support for dividing into several separate regions.
     
    There was no substantial, consistent groundswell of support for starting the great wars of the 20th century, either, yet those wars still occurred.

    Support to divide the U.S. seems to be rising, so “consistent” might not be the word I would choose.


    Note that when nations fractured in the 20th century, there were always deep underlying fault lines of language, religion, or ethnicity.
     
    Excellent point. Interesting. Probably right.

    It is highly doubtful the United States is going to break up in our lifetime.
     
    Strange events often occur, though, such as (for instance) the risible advent of non-binary in official documents as a putative sex; so I would be less sure of what is “highly doubtful” and what is not. Nevertheless, I hope and believe that you are right.

    Replies: @Justvisiting, @Intelligent Dasein, @Corvinus, @Audacious Epigone

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @Corvinus

    The broad problem with this stronger-regions-would-dominate-weaker-ones is that it isn't the case with the US and Canada right now. Why not? Who protects Canada from American dominance? If Canada's position vis-a-vis the US is the kind of "dominance" a mountain west region would have to contend with, it doesn't seem like a deal breaker.

    In the meantime, though, there are federalist solutions that move us in a de facto direction towards separation. Look at the many blue states that simply ignore federal laws on drugs and immigration.

  48. @Corvinus
    "Separation is the way out of this if there is one".

    LOL, no. It is highly doubtful the United States is going to break up in our lifetime. Note that when nations fractured in the 20th century, there were always deep underlying fault lines of language, religion, or ethnicity. Moreover, there is no substantial, consistent groundswell of support for dividing into several separate regions. Policy wonks across the spectrum have entertained secession, but they are not actively promoting the cause. Besides, if you look at the history of nation-states, partisan homogeneity is a feature, not a bug, and thus does not require a "divorce". The normies want to make reforms within the system, not blow it up. Despite the fatalism among some people, there is not an obvious way to dissolve our union. Moreover, rewriting our Constitution requires levels of political coordination far beyond the country’s existing leadership. Several questions would have to be answered:

    "How in the world would the people 'hammer out details' when we have difficulty getting things done now?"

    "How would rights be delineated?"

    "How would trade deals with foreign nations be reconstituted?"

    "How would our national debt be dealt with?"

    "How would we address legal decisions made by the Supreme Court"?

    "Would people be willing to move from your current place of residence to achieve such a goal?"

    “Would people support efforts made by the new government to coerce or force others to move?"

    "How would the people respond if forced to move merely due to one's ideology?"

    And those who support dissolution are foolish to believe this arrangement would remain peaceful. Refer to the break-up of the Soviet Union. Some parts of the old empire are more powerful than others despite keeping the balance of power in mind. Then the greatest remaining State constantly conspires against the weaker states surrounding it. Perhaps a "New Confederacy" and "Midwest Republic" would get along, but they would find themselves being mauled by the East Coast and West Coast blocs which have the concentration of ports and financial institutions. Furthermore, powers from other continents would have their proxy machinations in the divided states of America. They would more likely support the Coastal Regions since their myriad of investments are located in its urban areas and since the people living there are acolytes of the Global Empire.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational, @V. K. Ovelund, @Audacious Epigone

    Buzz Mohawk agrees with Corvy?  What IS the world coming to?

    Especially that BM even READS the crap that troll Corvy writes?

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    @Mr. Rational

    LOL. He used the •Troll button on me for no reason in another thread yesterday, so instead of retaliating, I decided to cause a rip in the time-space continuum by giving him an •Agree. I actually do think talk of separation is unrealistic.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  49. @Mr. Rational
    @Corvinus

    Buzz Mohawk agrees with Corvy?  What IS the world coming to?

    Especially that BM even READS the crap that troll Corvy writes?

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    LOL. He used the •Troll button on me for no reason in another thread yesterday, so instead of retaliating, I decided to cause a rip in the time-space continuum by giving him an •Agree. I actually do think talk of separation is unrealistic.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Buzz Mohawk


    LOL. He used the •Troll button on me for no reason in another thread yesterday, so instead of retaliating, I decided to cause a rip in the time-space continuum by giving him an •Agree. I actually do think talk of separation is unrealistic.
     
    I have to say that on this subject I agree with Corvinus as well.
  50. @Buzz Mohawk
    @Mr. Rational

    LOL. He used the •Troll button on me for no reason in another thread yesterday, so instead of retaliating, I decided to cause a rip in the time-space continuum by giving him an •Agree. I actually do think talk of separation is unrealistic.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    LOL. He used the •Troll button on me for no reason in another thread yesterday, so instead of retaliating, I decided to cause a rip in the time-space continuum by giving him an •Agree. I actually do think talk of separation is unrealistic.

    I have to say that on this subject I agree with Corvinus as well.

  51. @goldgettin
    @Ash Williams

    Spooks lives matter also.
    We're oops I mean they're people who sometimes vote too.
    Don't think you know everything.
    Isn't it far more complicated than that?
    I think trump wins as well,because well,I voted 4 him.You know
    It's not a democracy,right?Stay sharp...it's appreciated...

    Replies: @Ash Williams

    So, this is just a Hail Mary attempt to regain legitimacy for the system?

    Sounds about right.

  52. @Corvinus
    "Separation is the way out of this if there is one".

    LOL, no. It is highly doubtful the United States is going to break up in our lifetime. Note that when nations fractured in the 20th century, there were always deep underlying fault lines of language, religion, or ethnicity. Moreover, there is no substantial, consistent groundswell of support for dividing into several separate regions. Policy wonks across the spectrum have entertained secession, but they are not actively promoting the cause. Besides, if you look at the history of nation-states, partisan homogeneity is a feature, not a bug, and thus does not require a "divorce". The normies want to make reforms within the system, not blow it up. Despite the fatalism among some people, there is not an obvious way to dissolve our union. Moreover, rewriting our Constitution requires levels of political coordination far beyond the country’s existing leadership. Several questions would have to be answered:

    "How in the world would the people 'hammer out details' when we have difficulty getting things done now?"

    "How would rights be delineated?"

    "How would trade deals with foreign nations be reconstituted?"

    "How would our national debt be dealt with?"

    "How would we address legal decisions made by the Supreme Court"?

    "Would people be willing to move from your current place of residence to achieve such a goal?"

    “Would people support efforts made by the new government to coerce or force others to move?"

    "How would the people respond if forced to move merely due to one's ideology?"

    And those who support dissolution are foolish to believe this arrangement would remain peaceful. Refer to the break-up of the Soviet Union. Some parts of the old empire are more powerful than others despite keeping the balance of power in mind. Then the greatest remaining State constantly conspires against the weaker states surrounding it. Perhaps a "New Confederacy" and "Midwest Republic" would get along, but they would find themselves being mauled by the East Coast and West Coast blocs which have the concentration of ports and financial institutions. Furthermore, powers from other continents would have their proxy machinations in the divided states of America. They would more likely support the Coastal Regions since their myriad of investments are located in its urban areas and since the people living there are acolytes of the Global Empire.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational, @V. K. Ovelund, @Audacious Epigone

    Several questions would have to be answered….

    I am not sure that the questions you list would have to be answered. Lots of things are done before questions are answered. Angry employees quit jobs before questions are answered, drunken individuals acquire tattoos before questions are answered, unhappy couples divorce before questions are answered, and so on.

    Moreover, there is no substantial, consistent groundswell of support for dividing into several separate regions.

    There was no substantial, consistent groundswell of support for starting the great wars of the 20th century, either, yet those wars still occurred.

    [MORE]

    Support to divide the U.S. seems to be rising, so “consistent” might not be the word I would choose.

    Note that when nations fractured in the 20th century, there were always deep underlying fault lines of language, religion, or ethnicity.

    Excellent point. Interesting. Probably right.

    It is highly doubtful the United States is going to break up in our lifetime.

    Strange events often occur, though, such as (for instance) the risible advent of non-binary in official documents as a putative sex; so I would be less sure of what is “highly doubtful” and what is not. Nevertheless, I hope and believe that you are right.

    • Replies: @Justvisiting
    @V. K. Ovelund

    This is the real fault line:

    https://news.gallup.com/poll/321116/americans-remain-distrustful-mass-media.aspx

    The problem is that in many areas (mostly suburban) neighbors do not agree on this critical point.

    There is no fix for this problem--and drawing new maps just makes the problem more complicated.

    , @Intelligent Dasein
    @V. K. Ovelund

    I don't think separation is either likely or advisable. What would be both possible and beneficial, on the other hand, is some kind of American autarky. We have enough resources on this blessed continent to be self-sufficient in everything; there is no need to trade or even to interact much with the rest of the world. The key is finding something wherewith to oppose the great financial powers. This is why they hate and fear Trump, the populist. As feckless as he is, he represents the one thing that, if it were to get its legs underneath it, would bring about the end of their power. He truly is Julius Caesar---"Orange Julius," as I coined several years ago.

    It is a mistake to think of The Wokeness as essentially an ideological phenomenon and to oppose it on that front. It is in fact a financial phenomenon; the whole thing, including contemporary race relations, is downstream from neoliberal economics. This is where the battle needs to be concentrated if anyone is sincerely interested in bringing progressivism down.

    Replies: @Corvinus, @dfordoom, @Audacious Epigone

    , @Corvinus
    @V. K. Ovelund

    "I am not sure that the questions you list would have to be answered. Lots of things are done before questions are answered."

    Except something as monumental like a nation breaking up on behalf of its citizens in this specific instance would more than likely demand answers.

    "Angry employees quit jobs before questions are answered, drunken individuals acquire tattoos before questions are answered, unhappy couples divorce before questions are answered, and so on."

    Those situations you listed pale in comparison in terms of scope and sequence.

    "There was no substantial, consistent groundswell of support for starting the great wars of the 20th century, either, yet those wars still occurred."

    Certainly for WW1 there had been a tremendous upsurge in nationalism in the decade leading up to 1914. There was a distinct willingness on the part of those under the thumb of the Austria-Hungary Empire, as well as the French, who desired payback for losing the Franco-Prussian War.

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Are we arguing that the contemporary US does NOT have deep underlying fault lines of language, religion, and ethnicity?

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  53. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Corvinus


    Several questions would have to be answered....
     
    I am not sure that the questions you list would have to be answered. Lots of things are done before questions are answered. Angry employees quit jobs before questions are answered, drunken individuals acquire tattoos before questions are answered, unhappy couples divorce before questions are answered, and so on.

    Moreover, there is no substantial, consistent groundswell of support for dividing into several separate regions.
     
    There was no substantial, consistent groundswell of support for starting the great wars of the 20th century, either, yet those wars still occurred.

    Support to divide the U.S. seems to be rising, so “consistent” might not be the word I would choose.


    Note that when nations fractured in the 20th century, there were always deep underlying fault lines of language, religion, or ethnicity.
     
    Excellent point. Interesting. Probably right.

    It is highly doubtful the United States is going to break up in our lifetime.
     
    Strange events often occur, though, such as (for instance) the risible advent of non-binary in official documents as a putative sex; so I would be less sure of what is “highly doubtful” and what is not. Nevertheless, I hope and believe that you are right.

    Replies: @Justvisiting, @Intelligent Dasein, @Corvinus, @Audacious Epigone

    This is the real fault line:

    https://news.gallup.com/poll/321116/americans-remain-distrustful-mass-media.aspx

    The problem is that in many areas (mostly suburban) neighbors do not agree on this critical point.

    There is no fix for this problem–and drawing new maps just makes the problem more complicated.

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
  54. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Corvinus


    Several questions would have to be answered....
     
    I am not sure that the questions you list would have to be answered. Lots of things are done before questions are answered. Angry employees quit jobs before questions are answered, drunken individuals acquire tattoos before questions are answered, unhappy couples divorce before questions are answered, and so on.

    Moreover, there is no substantial, consistent groundswell of support for dividing into several separate regions.
     
    There was no substantial, consistent groundswell of support for starting the great wars of the 20th century, either, yet those wars still occurred.

    Support to divide the U.S. seems to be rising, so “consistent” might not be the word I would choose.


    Note that when nations fractured in the 20th century, there were always deep underlying fault lines of language, religion, or ethnicity.
     
    Excellent point. Interesting. Probably right.

    It is highly doubtful the United States is going to break up in our lifetime.
     
    Strange events often occur, though, such as (for instance) the risible advent of non-binary in official documents as a putative sex; so I would be less sure of what is “highly doubtful” and what is not. Nevertheless, I hope and believe that you are right.

    Replies: @Justvisiting, @Intelligent Dasein, @Corvinus, @Audacious Epigone

    I don’t think separation is either likely or advisable. What would be both possible and beneficial, on the other hand, is some kind of American autarky. We have enough resources on this blessed continent to be self-sufficient in everything; there is no need to trade or even to interact much with the rest of the world. The key is finding something wherewith to oppose the great financial powers. This is why they hate and fear Trump, the populist. As feckless as he is, he represents the one thing that, if it were to get its legs underneath it, would bring about the end of their power. He truly is Julius Caesar—“Orange Julius,” as I coined several years ago.

    It is a mistake to think of The Wokeness as essentially an ideological phenomenon and to oppose it on that front. It is in fact a financial phenomenon; the whole thing, including contemporary race relations, is downstream from neoliberal economics. This is where the battle needs to be concentrated if anyone is sincerely interested in bringing progressivism down.

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Intelligent Dasein

    "We have enough resources on this blessed continent to be self-sufficient in everything; there is no need to trade or even to interact much with the rest of the world."

    Not when it comes to rare earth minerals which powers our technology. And, Americans overall prefer very much to be social with their neighbors around the world. Perhaps you seek to become more isolated.

    "This is why they hate and fear Trump, the populist."

    He is a showman masquerading as a populist. Remember, everything he does is transactional.

    "This is where the battle needs to be concentrated if anyone is sincerely interested in bringing progressivism down."

    It was progressivism that enabled major reforms to address monopolistic practices in the late 1800's/early 1900's, as well as to guarantee standards for health/food production and protect worker rights.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @dfordoom
    @Intelligent Dasein


    It is a mistake to think of The Wokeness as essentially an ideological phenomenon and to oppose it on that front. It is in fact a financial phenomenon; the whole thing, including contemporary race relations, is downstream from neoliberal economics.
     
    I'm inclined to think that there's quite a bit of truth in that.

    We need to move away from an obsession with the ideological battles of the past. The threat to civilisation today is not coming from fascists or communists or old-school liberals or old-school progressives. Neoliberalism is the threat and it's a new ideology and it's a new kind of menace.

    The struggle against neoliberalism is not like the struggles against fascism or communism - it's a whole new ball game. Searching for commies under the bed is not going to help.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Orange Julius

    Hah, sorry I must've missed it at the time. That's great.

  55. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Corvinus


    Several questions would have to be answered....
     
    I am not sure that the questions you list would have to be answered. Lots of things are done before questions are answered. Angry employees quit jobs before questions are answered, drunken individuals acquire tattoos before questions are answered, unhappy couples divorce before questions are answered, and so on.

    Moreover, there is no substantial, consistent groundswell of support for dividing into several separate regions.
     
    There was no substantial, consistent groundswell of support for starting the great wars of the 20th century, either, yet those wars still occurred.

    Support to divide the U.S. seems to be rising, so “consistent” might not be the word I would choose.


    Note that when nations fractured in the 20th century, there were always deep underlying fault lines of language, religion, or ethnicity.
     
    Excellent point. Interesting. Probably right.

    It is highly doubtful the United States is going to break up in our lifetime.
     
    Strange events often occur, though, such as (for instance) the risible advent of non-binary in official documents as a putative sex; so I would be less sure of what is “highly doubtful” and what is not. Nevertheless, I hope and believe that you are right.

    Replies: @Justvisiting, @Intelligent Dasein, @Corvinus, @Audacious Epigone

    “I am not sure that the questions you list would have to be answered. Lots of things are done before questions are answered.”

    Except something as monumental like a nation breaking up on behalf of its citizens in this specific instance would more than likely demand answers.

    “Angry employees quit jobs before questions are answered, drunken individuals acquire tattoos before questions are answered, unhappy couples divorce before questions are answered, and so on.”

    Those situations you listed pale in comparison in terms of scope and sequence.

    “There was no substantial, consistent groundswell of support for starting the great wars of the 20th century, either, yet those wars still occurred.”

    Certainly for WW1 there had been a tremendous upsurge in nationalism in the decade leading up to 1914. There was a distinct willingness on the part of those under the thumb of the Austria-Hungary Empire, as well as the French, who desired payback for losing the Franco-Prussian War.

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
  56. @Intelligent Dasein
    @V. K. Ovelund

    I don't think separation is either likely or advisable. What would be both possible and beneficial, on the other hand, is some kind of American autarky. We have enough resources on this blessed continent to be self-sufficient in everything; there is no need to trade or even to interact much with the rest of the world. The key is finding something wherewith to oppose the great financial powers. This is why they hate and fear Trump, the populist. As feckless as he is, he represents the one thing that, if it were to get its legs underneath it, would bring about the end of their power. He truly is Julius Caesar---"Orange Julius," as I coined several years ago.

    It is a mistake to think of The Wokeness as essentially an ideological phenomenon and to oppose it on that front. It is in fact a financial phenomenon; the whole thing, including contemporary race relations, is downstream from neoliberal economics. This is where the battle needs to be concentrated if anyone is sincerely interested in bringing progressivism down.

    Replies: @Corvinus, @dfordoom, @Audacious Epigone

    “We have enough resources on this blessed continent to be self-sufficient in everything; there is no need to trade or even to interact much with the rest of the world.”

    Not when it comes to rare earth minerals which powers our technology. And, Americans overall prefer very much to be social with their neighbors around the world. Perhaps you seek to become more isolated.

    “This is why they hate and fear Trump, the populist.”

    He is a showman masquerading as a populist. Remember, everything he does is transactional.

    “This is where the battle needs to be concentrated if anyone is sincerely interested in bringing progressivism down.”

    It was progressivism that enabled major reforms to address monopolistic practices in the late 1800’s/early 1900’s, as well as to guarantee standards for health/food production and protect worker rights.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Corvinus


    It was progressivism that enabled major reforms to address monopolistic practices in the late 1800’s/early 1900’s, as well as to guarantee standards for health/food production and protect worker rights.
     
    People these days seem to find it more and more difficult to accept that their political opponents are not necessarily wrong about everything. Over the past century the political Left (the progressives if you like) has been correct about quite a few things. They've been wrong about a lot of things and they've been right about a lot of things.

    And the Right has been correct on some issues and dead wrong on others. The Right was certainly wrong in destroying the power of labour unions.

    Even environmentalists (whom I generally despise) have not been wrong about everything. They were correct when they claimed that air pollution was a major problem and when they forced auto manufacturers to make car engines cleaner and less polluting. We now have cleaner air than we had half a century ago and that has been a definite benefit.
  57. @Corvinus
    @Intelligent Dasein

    "We have enough resources on this blessed continent to be self-sufficient in everything; there is no need to trade or even to interact much with the rest of the world."

    Not when it comes to rare earth minerals which powers our technology. And, Americans overall prefer very much to be social with their neighbors around the world. Perhaps you seek to become more isolated.

    "This is why they hate and fear Trump, the populist."

    He is a showman masquerading as a populist. Remember, everything he does is transactional.

    "This is where the battle needs to be concentrated if anyone is sincerely interested in bringing progressivism down."

    It was progressivism that enabled major reforms to address monopolistic practices in the late 1800's/early 1900's, as well as to guarantee standards for health/food production and protect worker rights.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    It was progressivism that enabled major reforms to address monopolistic practices in the late 1800’s/early 1900’s, as well as to guarantee standards for health/food production and protect worker rights.

    People these days seem to find it more and more difficult to accept that their political opponents are not necessarily wrong about everything. Over the past century the political Left (the progressives if you like) has been correct about quite a few things. They’ve been wrong about a lot of things and they’ve been right about a lot of things.

    And the Right has been correct on some issues and dead wrong on others. The Right was certainly wrong in destroying the power of labour unions.

    Even environmentalists (whom I generally despise) have not been wrong about everything. They were correct when they claimed that air pollution was a major problem and when they forced auto manufacturers to make car engines cleaner and less polluting. We now have cleaner air than we had half a century ago and that has been a definite benefit.

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
  58. @Intelligent Dasein
    @V. K. Ovelund

    I don't think separation is either likely or advisable. What would be both possible and beneficial, on the other hand, is some kind of American autarky. We have enough resources on this blessed continent to be self-sufficient in everything; there is no need to trade or even to interact much with the rest of the world. The key is finding something wherewith to oppose the great financial powers. This is why they hate and fear Trump, the populist. As feckless as he is, he represents the one thing that, if it were to get its legs underneath it, would bring about the end of their power. He truly is Julius Caesar---"Orange Julius," as I coined several years ago.

    It is a mistake to think of The Wokeness as essentially an ideological phenomenon and to oppose it on that front. It is in fact a financial phenomenon; the whole thing, including contemporary race relations, is downstream from neoliberal economics. This is where the battle needs to be concentrated if anyone is sincerely interested in bringing progressivism down.

    Replies: @Corvinus, @dfordoom, @Audacious Epigone

    It is a mistake to think of The Wokeness as essentially an ideological phenomenon and to oppose it on that front. It is in fact a financial phenomenon; the whole thing, including contemporary race relations, is downstream from neoliberal economics.

    I’m inclined to think that there’s quite a bit of truth in that.

    We need to move away from an obsession with the ideological battles of the past. The threat to civilisation today is not coming from fascists or communists or old-school liberals or old-school progressives. Neoliberalism is the threat and it’s a new ideology and it’s a new kind of menace.

    The struggle against neoliberalism is not like the struggles against fascism or communism – it’s a whole new ball game. Searching for commies under the bed is not going to help.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    Neoliberalism is the threat and it’s a new ideology and it’s a new kind of menace.
     
    One reads the word neoliberalism recently. What does it mean?

    Definitions I find online seem to give the word no very precise meaning apart from libertarianism or laissez-faire capitalism, but the word as you and others use it seems to carry some further portent.

    Is neoliberalism merely a pejorative for libertarianism/laissez-faire?

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein

  59. @dfordoom
    @Intelligent Dasein


    It is a mistake to think of The Wokeness as essentially an ideological phenomenon and to oppose it on that front. It is in fact a financial phenomenon; the whole thing, including contemporary race relations, is downstream from neoliberal economics.
     
    I'm inclined to think that there's quite a bit of truth in that.

    We need to move away from an obsession with the ideological battles of the past. The threat to civilisation today is not coming from fascists or communists or old-school liberals or old-school progressives. Neoliberalism is the threat and it's a new ideology and it's a new kind of menace.

    The struggle against neoliberalism is not like the struggles against fascism or communism - it's a whole new ball game. Searching for commies under the bed is not going to help.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    Neoliberalism is the threat and it’s a new ideology and it’s a new kind of menace.

    One reads the word neoliberalism recently. What does it mean?

    Definitions I find online seem to give the word no very precise meaning apart from libertarianism or laissez-faire capitalism, but the word as you and others use it seems to carry some further portent.

    Is neoliberalism merely a pejorative for libertarianism/laissez-faire?

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Is neoliberalism merely a pejorative for libertarianism/laissez-faire?
     
    Not at all. Neoliberalism is globalism, crony capitalism, too big to fail banks, hyper-Keynesianism, and the marriage of big business to woke government bureaucracy.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  60. @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    Neoliberalism is the threat and it’s a new ideology and it’s a new kind of menace.
     
    One reads the word neoliberalism recently. What does it mean?

    Definitions I find online seem to give the word no very precise meaning apart from libertarianism or laissez-faire capitalism, but the word as you and others use it seems to carry some further portent.

    Is neoliberalism merely a pejorative for libertarianism/laissez-faire?

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein

    Is neoliberalism merely a pejorative for libertarianism/laissez-faire?

    Not at all. Neoliberalism is globalism, crony capitalism, too big to fail banks, hyper-Keynesianism, and the marriage of big business to woke government bureaucracy.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Intelligent Dasein



    Is neoliberalism merely a pejorative for libertarianism/laissez-faire?

     

    Not at all. Neoliberalism is globalism, crony capitalism, too big to fail banks, hyper-Keynesianism, and the marriage of big business to woke government bureaucracy.
     
    In practice it seems to amount to that, although that's not what neoliberals claim to stand for. They're definitely hostile to the welfare state.

    Neoliberals do talk a lot about free markets but in practice they prefer markets that are rigged in favour of mega-corporations. In practice it means corporations being free to loot the public sector. And banks being free to do whatever the hell they like, and then getting bailed out by the taxpayers when they screw up.

    Neoliberalism also invariably associated with aggressive imperialist foreign policy. Neoliberals intend to impose neoliberalism on the entire planet, by force if necessary.

    As is the case with so many political ideologues what neoliberals preach is not necessarily what they practice. In fact what they practice sometimes has no connection whatsoever with what they preach. They're the sorts who talk about bringing Freedom and Democracy to other countries when in fact what they intend to do is to install corrupt compliant pro-American regimes. In practice Freedom and Democracy means being a tame American vassal state.

    But neoliberalism is a bit like all other terms used to describe political ideologies. If you ask a supporter and a critic of neoliberalism to define it you'll get two completely different definitions.

    It's useful in the sense that at least it gives us a name for the current system that avoids using outdated terms like left/right and liberal/conservative which no longer have any real meaning.

    Another term that is starting to become popular is neofeudalism.

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @iffen

  61. @Intelligent Dasein
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Is neoliberalism merely a pejorative for libertarianism/laissez-faire?
     
    Not at all. Neoliberalism is globalism, crony capitalism, too big to fail banks, hyper-Keynesianism, and the marriage of big business to woke government bureaucracy.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Is neoliberalism merely a pejorative for libertarianism/laissez-faire?

    Not at all. Neoliberalism is globalism, crony capitalism, too big to fail banks, hyper-Keynesianism, and the marriage of big business to woke government bureaucracy.

    In practice it seems to amount to that, although that’s not what neoliberals claim to stand for. They’re definitely hostile to the welfare state.

    Neoliberals do talk a lot about free markets but in practice they prefer markets that are rigged in favour of mega-corporations. In practice it means corporations being free to loot the public sector. And banks being free to do whatever the hell they like, and then getting bailed out by the taxpayers when they screw up.

    Neoliberalism also invariably associated with aggressive imperialist foreign policy. Neoliberals intend to impose neoliberalism on the entire planet, by force if necessary.

    As is the case with so many political ideologues what neoliberals preach is not necessarily what they practice. In fact what they practice sometimes has no connection whatsoever with what they preach. They’re the sorts who talk about bringing Freedom and Democracy to other countries when in fact what they intend to do is to install corrupt compliant pro-American regimes. In practice Freedom and Democracy means being a tame American vassal state.

    But neoliberalism is a bit like all other terms used to describe political ideologies. If you ask a supporter and a critic of neoliberalism to define it you’ll get two completely different definitions.

    It’s useful in the sense that at least it gives us a name for the current system that avoids using outdated terms like left/right and liberal/conservative which no longer have any real meaning.

    Another term that is starting to become popular is neofeudalism.

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    @dfordoom


    Another term that is starting to become popular is neofeudalism.
     
    Yes, and I don't care for that one because I rather dislike it when people use feudalism (neo or otherwise) as a pejorative. Feudalism is natural, stable, and has produced more contentment and comity among all classes than any other economic arrangement on Earth.

    The reflexive disparagement of feudalism is a holdover from the revolutionary age. It is ignorant Whiggism, like the canards about the Church persecuting Galileo.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @iffen
    @dfordoom

    Do you know any public figures or politicians that claim to be neoliberals? Is there a think tank called The Neoliberal? A magazine called The American Neoliberal? Are there public fights over who gets to claim the label like there are among conservatives?

    This is a term made up by opponents along the lines of cultural Marxists. There are no people who claim to be in the group. It is definition by opposition.

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein

  62. @dfordoom
    @Intelligent Dasein



    Is neoliberalism merely a pejorative for libertarianism/laissez-faire?

     

    Not at all. Neoliberalism is globalism, crony capitalism, too big to fail banks, hyper-Keynesianism, and the marriage of big business to woke government bureaucracy.
     
    In practice it seems to amount to that, although that's not what neoliberals claim to stand for. They're definitely hostile to the welfare state.

    Neoliberals do talk a lot about free markets but in practice they prefer markets that are rigged in favour of mega-corporations. In practice it means corporations being free to loot the public sector. And banks being free to do whatever the hell they like, and then getting bailed out by the taxpayers when they screw up.

    Neoliberalism also invariably associated with aggressive imperialist foreign policy. Neoliberals intend to impose neoliberalism on the entire planet, by force if necessary.

    As is the case with so many political ideologues what neoliberals preach is not necessarily what they practice. In fact what they practice sometimes has no connection whatsoever with what they preach. They're the sorts who talk about bringing Freedom and Democracy to other countries when in fact what they intend to do is to install corrupt compliant pro-American regimes. In practice Freedom and Democracy means being a tame American vassal state.

    But neoliberalism is a bit like all other terms used to describe political ideologies. If you ask a supporter and a critic of neoliberalism to define it you'll get two completely different definitions.

    It's useful in the sense that at least it gives us a name for the current system that avoids using outdated terms like left/right and liberal/conservative which no longer have any real meaning.

    Another term that is starting to become popular is neofeudalism.

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @iffen

    Another term that is starting to become popular is neofeudalism.

    Yes, and I don’t care for that one because I rather dislike it when people use feudalism (neo or otherwise) as a pejorative. Feudalism is natural, stable, and has produced more contentment and comity among all classes than any other economic arrangement on Earth.

    The reflexive disparagement of feudalism is a holdover from the revolutionary age. It is ignorant Whiggism, like the canards about the Church persecuting Galileo.

    • LOL: iffen
    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Intelligent Dasein


    Yes, and I don’t care for that one because I rather dislike it when people use feudalism (neo or otherwise) as a pejorative. Feudalism is natural, stable, and has produced more contentment and comity among all classes than any other economic arrangement on Earth.
     
    I'm not sure that I'd go quite that far! But I do agree with you about the pejorative use of feudalism by people with zero understanding of how feudalism actually worked. And zero understanding of the positive aspects of feudalism.

    The reflexive disparagement of feudalism is a holdover from the revolutionary age.
     
    Yes, it's part of the all-encompassing disparagement of everything associated with the Middle Ages. It's depressing that so many people still assume that the medievals were ignorant superstitious bumpkins. Especially given that our modern age has produced such a flourishing crop of ignorant superstitious bumpkins.
  63. @Intelligent Dasein
    @dfordoom


    Another term that is starting to become popular is neofeudalism.
     
    Yes, and I don't care for that one because I rather dislike it when people use feudalism (neo or otherwise) as a pejorative. Feudalism is natural, stable, and has produced more contentment and comity among all classes than any other economic arrangement on Earth.

    The reflexive disparagement of feudalism is a holdover from the revolutionary age. It is ignorant Whiggism, like the canards about the Church persecuting Galileo.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Yes, and I don’t care for that one because I rather dislike it when people use feudalism (neo or otherwise) as a pejorative. Feudalism is natural, stable, and has produced more contentment and comity among all classes than any other economic arrangement on Earth.

    I’m not sure that I’d go quite that far! But I do agree with you about the pejorative use of feudalism by people with zero understanding of how feudalism actually worked. And zero understanding of the positive aspects of feudalism.

    The reflexive disparagement of feudalism is a holdover from the revolutionary age.

    Yes, it’s part of the all-encompassing disparagement of everything associated with the Middle Ages. It’s depressing that so many people still assume that the medievals were ignorant superstitious bumpkins. Especially given that our modern age has produced such a flourishing crop of ignorant superstitious bumpkins.

  64. @dfordoom
    @Intelligent Dasein



    Is neoliberalism merely a pejorative for libertarianism/laissez-faire?

     

    Not at all. Neoliberalism is globalism, crony capitalism, too big to fail banks, hyper-Keynesianism, and the marriage of big business to woke government bureaucracy.
     
    In practice it seems to amount to that, although that's not what neoliberals claim to stand for. They're definitely hostile to the welfare state.

    Neoliberals do talk a lot about free markets but in practice they prefer markets that are rigged in favour of mega-corporations. In practice it means corporations being free to loot the public sector. And banks being free to do whatever the hell they like, and then getting bailed out by the taxpayers when they screw up.

    Neoliberalism also invariably associated with aggressive imperialist foreign policy. Neoliberals intend to impose neoliberalism on the entire planet, by force if necessary.

    As is the case with so many political ideologues what neoliberals preach is not necessarily what they practice. In fact what they practice sometimes has no connection whatsoever with what they preach. They're the sorts who talk about bringing Freedom and Democracy to other countries when in fact what they intend to do is to install corrupt compliant pro-American regimes. In practice Freedom and Democracy means being a tame American vassal state.

    But neoliberalism is a bit like all other terms used to describe political ideologies. If you ask a supporter and a critic of neoliberalism to define it you'll get two completely different definitions.

    It's useful in the sense that at least it gives us a name for the current system that avoids using outdated terms like left/right and liberal/conservative which no longer have any real meaning.

    Another term that is starting to become popular is neofeudalism.

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @iffen

    Do you know any public figures or politicians that claim to be neoliberals? Is there a think tank called The Neoliberal? A magazine called The American Neoliberal? Are there public fights over who gets to claim the label like there are among conservatives?

    This is a term made up by opponents along the lines of cultural Marxists. There are no people who claim to be in the group. It is definition by opposition.

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    @iffen


    There are no people who claim to be in the group. It is definition by opposition.
     
    True, the neoliberals don't call themselves that. They are the ones calling themselves "fiscally conservative and socially liberal." Unlike the European far right parties, there really isn't any American political movement which is the other way around, socially conservative and fiscally liberal, but that is where I would place myself.
  65. @iffen
    @dfordoom

    Do you know any public figures or politicians that claim to be neoliberals? Is there a think tank called The Neoliberal? A magazine called The American Neoliberal? Are there public fights over who gets to claim the label like there are among conservatives?

    This is a term made up by opponents along the lines of cultural Marxists. There are no people who claim to be in the group. It is definition by opposition.

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein

    There are no people who claim to be in the group. It is definition by opposition.

    True, the neoliberals don’t call themselves that. They are the ones calling themselves “fiscally conservative and socially liberal.” Unlike the European far right parties, there really isn’t any American political movement which is the other way around, socially conservative and fiscally liberal, but that is where I would place myself.

  66. @Nodwink
    Twitter & Facebook aren't going to get rid of conservatives, who make up a large chunk of their core users. If you type in anything related to US politics into Twitter's search function, most of the "top" tweets are from right-wingers. It's a myth that conservatives are being censored on major social media platforms.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    It can be simultaneously true that right-wing content is shadowbanned and often outright censored and still be more organically popular. Every media organization that has a comments section has known this since the dawn of the internet.

  67. @The Alarmist
    @TomSchmidt

    My wife was reading a European rag this morning, and asked me if it was really possible for Biden to win POTUS and Pence to win Veep. Quels rêves ou cauchemars d'une jeune fille.

    What I’d really love to see is a Trump-Biden cage-match to the death, followed shortly by a Pence-Harris match for the Veep role.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    So we get four more years of Trump/Pence, then.

  68. @Intelligent Dasein
    Why can the great polymath not be bothered to spell or punctuate correctly?

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    In formal posting, he can and does.

  69. @Dave Pinsen
    Have you played around with the Cook Political Report Swingometer?: https://cookpolitical.com/index.php/swingometer

    See what happens when you lower black and Hispanic turnout a couple percent (HBD effects on mail-in ballots) and then raise Trump's share of their vote slightly, say, to 13% for blacks and 36% for Hispanics.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    Shift the black vote from 8% Trump to 12% Trump and the map has Trump narrowly winning the EC if everything else stays the same as 2016. Wow.

    • Agree: Dave Pinsen
  70. @Corvinus
    "Separation is the way out of this if there is one".

    LOL, no. It is highly doubtful the United States is going to break up in our lifetime. Note that when nations fractured in the 20th century, there were always deep underlying fault lines of language, religion, or ethnicity. Moreover, there is no substantial, consistent groundswell of support for dividing into several separate regions. Policy wonks across the spectrum have entertained secession, but they are not actively promoting the cause. Besides, if you look at the history of nation-states, partisan homogeneity is a feature, not a bug, and thus does not require a "divorce". The normies want to make reforms within the system, not blow it up. Despite the fatalism among some people, there is not an obvious way to dissolve our union. Moreover, rewriting our Constitution requires levels of political coordination far beyond the country’s existing leadership. Several questions would have to be answered:

    "How in the world would the people 'hammer out details' when we have difficulty getting things done now?"

    "How would rights be delineated?"

    "How would trade deals with foreign nations be reconstituted?"

    "How would our national debt be dealt with?"

    "How would we address legal decisions made by the Supreme Court"?

    "Would people be willing to move from your current place of residence to achieve such a goal?"

    “Would people support efforts made by the new government to coerce or force others to move?"

    "How would the people respond if forced to move merely due to one's ideology?"

    And those who support dissolution are foolish to believe this arrangement would remain peaceful. Refer to the break-up of the Soviet Union. Some parts of the old empire are more powerful than others despite keeping the balance of power in mind. Then the greatest remaining State constantly conspires against the weaker states surrounding it. Perhaps a "New Confederacy" and "Midwest Republic" would get along, but they would find themselves being mauled by the East Coast and West Coast blocs which have the concentration of ports and financial institutions. Furthermore, powers from other continents would have their proxy machinations in the divided states of America. They would more likely support the Coastal Regions since their myriad of investments are located in its urban areas and since the people living there are acolytes of the Global Empire.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational, @V. K. Ovelund, @Audacious Epigone

    The broad problem with this stronger-regions-would-dominate-weaker-ones is that it isn’t the case with the US and Canada right now. Why not? Who protects Canada from American dominance? If Canada’s position vis-a-vis the US is the kind of “dominance” a mountain west region would have to contend with, it doesn’t seem like a deal breaker.

    In the meantime, though, there are federalist solutions that move us in a de facto direction towards separation. Look at the many blue states that simply ignore federal laws on drugs and immigration.

  71. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Corvinus


    Several questions would have to be answered....
     
    I am not sure that the questions you list would have to be answered. Lots of things are done before questions are answered. Angry employees quit jobs before questions are answered, drunken individuals acquire tattoos before questions are answered, unhappy couples divorce before questions are answered, and so on.

    Moreover, there is no substantial, consistent groundswell of support for dividing into several separate regions.
     
    There was no substantial, consistent groundswell of support for starting the great wars of the 20th century, either, yet those wars still occurred.

    Support to divide the U.S. seems to be rising, so “consistent” might not be the word I would choose.


    Note that when nations fractured in the 20th century, there were always deep underlying fault lines of language, religion, or ethnicity.
     
    Excellent point. Interesting. Probably right.

    It is highly doubtful the United States is going to break up in our lifetime.
     
    Strange events often occur, though, such as (for instance) the risible advent of non-binary in official documents as a putative sex; so I would be less sure of what is “highly doubtful” and what is not. Nevertheless, I hope and believe that you are right.

    Replies: @Justvisiting, @Intelligent Dasein, @Corvinus, @Audacious Epigone

    Are we arguing that the contemporary US does NOT have deep underlying fault lines of language, religion, and ethnicity?

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Audacious Epigone


    Are we arguing that the contemporary US does NOT have deep underlying fault lines of language, religion, and ethnicity?
     
    I lack relevant experience to judge and I make no predictions, but here are a few thoughts:

    1. As far as I know, most persons in the U.S. speak adequate English.

    2. As far as I know, most children of U.S. immigrants speak English as a first language. (I am the last person here to defend immigration, but can acknowledge contrary facts.)

    3. Blacks probably cannot separate without reverting to Wakandan sub-Saharan/Liberian living conditions.

    4. Jews show zero interest in separation as far as I can tell.

    5. One remains skeptical that the catch-all Hispanic were a useful category, but I do not know why U.S. Mexicans should be more able (or willing) to separate from the United States than, for instance, Alsatians from France.

    6. The nearby example of Quebec suggests that separation is hard to achieve.

    I have no intelligent comment on the religion question.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  72. @Intelligent Dasein
    @V. K. Ovelund

    I don't think separation is either likely or advisable. What would be both possible and beneficial, on the other hand, is some kind of American autarky. We have enough resources on this blessed continent to be self-sufficient in everything; there is no need to trade or even to interact much with the rest of the world. The key is finding something wherewith to oppose the great financial powers. This is why they hate and fear Trump, the populist. As feckless as he is, he represents the one thing that, if it were to get its legs underneath it, would bring about the end of their power. He truly is Julius Caesar---"Orange Julius," as I coined several years ago.

    It is a mistake to think of The Wokeness as essentially an ideological phenomenon and to oppose it on that front. It is in fact a financial phenomenon; the whole thing, including contemporary race relations, is downstream from neoliberal economics. This is where the battle needs to be concentrated if anyone is sincerely interested in bringing progressivism down.

    Replies: @Corvinus, @dfordoom, @Audacious Epigone

    Orange Julius

    Hah, sorry I must’ve missed it at the time. That’s great.

  73. @Audacious Epigone
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Are we arguing that the contemporary US does NOT have deep underlying fault lines of language, religion, and ethnicity?

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    Are we arguing that the contemporary US does NOT have deep underlying fault lines of language, religion, and ethnicity?

    I lack relevant experience to judge and I make no predictions, but here are a few thoughts:

    1. As far as I know, most persons in the U.S. speak adequate English.

    2. As far as I know, most children of U.S. immigrants speak English as a first language. (I am the last person here to defend immigration, but can acknowledge contrary facts.)

    3. Blacks probably cannot separate without reverting to Wakandan sub-Saharan/Liberian living conditions.

    4. Jews show zero interest in separation as far as I can tell.

    5. One remains skeptical that the catch-all Hispanic were a useful category, but I do not know why U.S. Mexicans should be more able (or willing) to separate from the United States than, for instance, Alsatians from France.

    6. The nearby example of Quebec suggests that separation is hard to achieve.

    I have no intelligent comment on the religion question.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    6. The nearby example of Quebec suggests that separation is hard to achieve.
     
    Yes. And Catalonia and Scotland also suggest that even where there are obvious ethnic and cultural divides and long-standing popular support for separation it is still in practice almost impossible.

    The ethnic and cultural divides tend to be messy. Scotland for example is very complicated - lots of Scots don't live in Scotland and lots of people living in Scotland are not Scots.

    Class factors also complicate things. And when it seems that separation might actually be achieved, as in Scotland a few years back, you run into enormous economic and political complications. Even though Scotland already had a degree of self-government.

    In the US the ethnic and cultural divides seem to be even messier. And the class and ideological divides don't line up neatly with the ethnic and cultural divides.
  74. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Audacious Epigone


    Are we arguing that the contemporary US does NOT have deep underlying fault lines of language, religion, and ethnicity?
     
    I lack relevant experience to judge and I make no predictions, but here are a few thoughts:

    1. As far as I know, most persons in the U.S. speak adequate English.

    2. As far as I know, most children of U.S. immigrants speak English as a first language. (I am the last person here to defend immigration, but can acknowledge contrary facts.)

    3. Blacks probably cannot separate without reverting to Wakandan sub-Saharan/Liberian living conditions.

    4. Jews show zero interest in separation as far as I can tell.

    5. One remains skeptical that the catch-all Hispanic were a useful category, but I do not know why U.S. Mexicans should be more able (or willing) to separate from the United States than, for instance, Alsatians from France.

    6. The nearby example of Quebec suggests that separation is hard to achieve.

    I have no intelligent comment on the religion question.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    6. The nearby example of Quebec suggests that separation is hard to achieve.

    Yes. And Catalonia and Scotland also suggest that even where there are obvious ethnic and cultural divides and long-standing popular support for separation it is still in practice almost impossible.

    The ethnic and cultural divides tend to be messy. Scotland for example is very complicated – lots of Scots don’t live in Scotland and lots of people living in Scotland are not Scots.

    Class factors also complicate things. And when it seems that separation might actually be achieved, as in Scotland a few years back, you run into enormous economic and political complications. Even though Scotland already had a degree of self-government.

    In the US the ethnic and cultural divides seem to be even messier. And the class and ideological divides don’t line up neatly with the ethnic and cultural divides.

    • Agree: iffen
    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS