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 Emergence of an Unwoke Left
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

Indulge a humble blogger by taking five minutes to watch this clip:

We’re witnessing an unWoke left in its seminal stages. After squirming and writhing, Dylan Ratigan and Jimmy Dore begrudgingly and implicitly concede that Wokeness + Power = Invincibility.

It’s not just the 19 year-old cashier at McDonald’s who liked an edgy 4chan meme that the neo-liberal establishment can crush (take that, capitalist scum!). Real progressives–Ratigan, Cenk Uygur, Bernie Sanders, to name a few–can also be dispatched at will by a well placed Woke shot. Meanwhile neo-liberals who’ve committed more serious sins of unWokeness–Joe Biden, Ralph Northam, Justin Trudeau, to name a few more–have to secure a cheap indulgence at most. They often get a free pass altogether.

The Bible of Woke is complex. It’s as ever-changing as the federal tax code. If the clerisy want to pin a violation on someone, they’ll be able to do it, no matter how steadfast and faithful the person’s devotion to the Church of Woke has been.

The unWokening will come in fits and starts. Dore’s full interview with Ratigan, which was released to podcatchers earlier in the week, doesn’t appear on the eponymous show’s YouTube page. A truncated version of the interview does, but it cuts out the above exchange. I had to rummage up an account with 35 subscribers to get the relevant clip.

Even after having been put through the wringer for what he described as the worst experience in his life, Ratigan still felt compelled to prostrate himself in front of the altar, insisting that though it chewed him up and spit him out–along with countless other faceless men of lesser prominence whose stories will never enter the public consciousness but who suffered all the same–he’s the strongest MeToo supporter of all. The process got corrupted is all–real MeToo has never been tried!

If and until progressives can dispense with Woke worship, serious challenges to the existing power structure will continue to come almost exclusively from the disaffected right.

 
Hide 60 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. anon[399] • Disclaimer says:

    Even after having been put through the ringer

    Wringer. “Put through the wringer“. After washing clothes then rinsing clothes, they must have the water removed by being “wrung out”. Here is an image of an older washer with a wringer on the top. To be put through the wringer would flatten things out.

    Ratigan still felt compelled to prostrate himself in front of the altar, insisting that though it chewed him up and spit him out–

    Of course he did. Because he has not totally been destroyed – he’s not a “white hispanic” – and therefore he still clearly believes he has something to lose….and he does not want to lose it. He likely still believes that he can use reason to speak to the Woke, which shows he does not understand who the Woke are.

    It’s not new. Here’s 2,000 words. History does not repeat but it can rhyme.

    If and until progressives can dispense with Woke worship, serious challenges to the existing power structure will continue to come almost exclusively from the disaffected right.

    FaceBook canceled the entire Unz.com site. YouTube will zero anyone who criticizes WHO.
    The WokeTard regime is scrambling to consolidate control over communications, in order to shut down any challenge or criticism from anyone.

    We live in interesting times.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Thanks for catching the typo.

    Comments closed on the previous post, but a brief response here: I didn't claim the sky was falling because oil futures went negative. That was yet another symptom in a series of them that reveal an increasing instability underlying the international credit system. The implosion of that system is the story.
  2. “Joe Biden killed #MeToo”

    lol

    “They’ve exposed themselves as craven power-seeking opportunistic hypocrites”

    lol

    Bill Clinton

  3. They used to allow Dylan Ratigan on MSNBC…

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
  4. A123 says:

    The Emergence of an Unwoke Left

    … If and until progressives can dispense with Woke worship, serious challenges to the existing power structure will continue to come almost exclusively from the disaffected right.

    What is Left? What is Right? Do they still exist in the U.S.?
    ___

    Trump is changing the GOP into a Populist party. It is still a work-in-progress, but the goals are clear. It will include:
    — “Left” Fair Trade (not free trade)
    — “Left” U.S. Citizen Labor (not foreign workers)
    — “Left” Prevention of new overseas combat missions
    — “Right” Traditional Christian values
    — “Right” Race Neutrality

    Because the U.S. is a 2-party system, the SJW Globalist DNC is consolidating these values:
    — “Right” Unrestricted trade, rigged for the benefit of multinational MegaCorporations.
    — “Right” Mass migration and outsourcing, reducing the earning potential of U.S. Citizen Workers.
    — “Right” NeoConDemocrats and foreign military interventionism.
    — “Left” Anti-Christian, Multiculturalism
    — “Left” Race based spoils systems (e.g. Affirmative Action)

    If a current DNC party member abandons SJW Globalist dogma, they will become an “Unwoke Deplorable”. The left positions of the Populist GOP are likely to be attractive to a significant chunk of these people.

    There will be some true Socialists/Communists that reject both the GOP and DNC. But, it is hard to see how they will generate sufficient numbers to supplant the DNC.

    PEACE 😷
    _______

    • Replies: @SFG
    It's trickier than you say, because the GOP is under heavy influence from donors who very much want globalization and immigration.

    Also, the hard left believes in all the SJW stuff, they just care about economics more. (In some cases they think race and gender are distractions and/or attempts to divide the working class, but they are still going to recoil from anyone they think is actually a racist.)

    I'd argue there's an elite that holds the 'globalist' positions you hold, and dominates both parties through donations. For the Dems, they demand prioritization of SJW issues to diminish economic populism that might cost them money. (A lot of rich ladies who write checks actually believe in this stuff, of course, and they may be fooling themselves to some degree.) For the GOP, they demand tax cuts (what did we actually get from Trump?) and occasionally a few nods to their base. Trump basically forced the party to move right on immigration, but don't expect a resurgence of Christianity promotion by the government or any attempts to dismantle affirmative action.

    Basically:

    R DONORS-->economic right R BASE-->social right
    D DONORS-->social left D BASE-->economic left

    The donors win, so we get economic royalism and 57 genders.

    The 'forbidden combo' of social conservatism and economic liberalism would gain many votes (https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publication/political-divisions-in-2016-and-beyond, scroll down a bit), but is (a) opposed by the commanding heights of both parties and (b) the two-party duopoly. Also it's pretty downscale economically, so you don't see intellectuals writing stuff from that viewpoint. (Probably the closest approximation is Catholic social thought, but they're usually pretty pro-immigration.)

    The Chapo Trap House guys are a little skeptical of woke, but they'll never sit down with the alt-right.
    , @Jim Bob Lassiter
    Pure unadulterated Trunptardism.
  5. The Bible of Woke is complex. It’s as ever-changing as the federal tax code. If the clerisy want to pin a violation on someone, they’ll be able to do it, no matter how steadfast and faithful the person’s devotion to the Church of Woke has been.

    So true.

    But one thing that should be noted here is that this tactic doesn’t seem to work very well on Republicans–think Clarence Thomas, Donald Trump, or Brett Kavanaugh. So it looks to me more like a tactic used by the DNC (and some of their donors, like George Soros) for keeping Democrats in line.

    • Agree: Rosie
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    All three of those men are bare-knuckled brawlers who won against long odds (literally in the case of the latter two, which I followed on the betting sites, and presumably so in the case of Clarence Thomas given how close in time he was to Robert Bork, though I can't say with certainty).

    On the other hand, it arguably worked against Romney (binders of women). When the right is able to reliably parry the tactic, the political landscape will have truly changed.
  6. SFG says:
    @A123

    The Emergence of an Unwoke Left

    ... If and until progressives can dispense with Woke worship, serious challenges to the existing power structure will continue to come almost exclusively from the disaffected right.
     
    What is Left? What is Right? Do they still exist in the U.S.?
    ___

    Trump is changing the GOP into a Populist party. It is still a work-in-progress, but the goals are clear. It will include:
    -- "Left" Fair Trade (not free trade)
    -- "Left" U.S. Citizen Labor (not foreign workers)
    -- "Left" Prevention of new overseas combat missions
    -- "Right" Traditional Christian values
    -- "Right" Race Neutrality

    Because the U.S. is a 2-party system, the SJW Globalist DNC is consolidating these values:
    -- "Right" Unrestricted trade, rigged for the benefit of multinational MegaCorporations.
    -- "Right" Mass migration and outsourcing, reducing the earning potential of U.S. Citizen Workers.
    -- "Right" NeoConDemocrats and foreign military interventionism.
    -- "Left" Anti-Christian, Multiculturalism
    -- "Left" Race based spoils systems (e.g. Affirmative Action)

    If a current DNC party member abandons SJW Globalist dogma, they will become an "Unwoke Deplorable". The left positions of the Populist GOP are likely to be attractive to a significant chunk of these people.

    There will be some true Socialists/Communists that reject both the GOP and DNC. But, it is hard to see how they will generate sufficient numbers to supplant the DNC.

    PEACE 😷
    _______

    http://i2.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2016/09/Les-Deplorables-copy.jpg

    It’s trickier than you say, because the GOP is under heavy influence from donors who very much want globalization and immigration.

    Also, the hard left believes in all the SJW stuff, they just care about economics more. (In some cases they think race and gender are distractions and/or attempts to divide the working class, but they are still going to recoil from anyone they think is actually a racist.)

    I’d argue there’s an elite that holds the ‘globalist’ positions you hold, and dominates both parties through donations. For the Dems, they demand prioritization of SJW issues to diminish economic populism that might cost them money. (A lot of rich ladies who write checks actually believe in this stuff, of course, and they may be fooling themselves to some degree.) For the GOP, they demand tax cuts (what did we actually get from Trump?) and occasionally a few nods to their base. Trump basically forced the party to move right on immigration, but don’t expect a resurgence of Christianity promotion by the government or any attempts to dismantle affirmative action.

    Basically:

    R DONORS–>economic right R BASE–>social right
    D DONORS–>social left D BASE–>economic left

    The donors win, so we get economic royalism and 57 genders.

    The ‘forbidden combo’ of social conservatism and economic liberalism would gain many votes (https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publication/political-divisions-in-2016-and-beyond, scroll down a bit), but is (a) opposed by the commanding heights of both parties and (b) the two-party duopoly. Also it’s pretty downscale economically, so you don’t see intellectuals writing stuff from that viewpoint. (Probably the closest approximation is Catholic social thought, but they’re usually pretty pro-immigration.)

    The Chapo Trap House guys are a little skeptical of woke, but they’ll never sit down with the alt-right.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Basically:

    R DONORS–>economic right R BASE–>social right
    D DONORS–>social left D BASE–>economic left

    The donors win, so we get economic royalism and 57 genders.
     
    Truth.


    The ‘forbidden combo’ of social conservatism and economic liberalism would but is ... opposed by the commanding heights of both parties and (b) the two-party duopoly. Also it’s pretty downscale economically, so you don’t see intellectuals writing stuff from that viewpoint.
     
    It not just downscale. It's eeeeeeeeeeevil!

    https://www.thenyindependent.com/wp-content/uploads/Hitler-Trump-Orban.jpg
    , @nebulafox
    > but is (a) opposed by the commanding heights of both parties and (b) the two-party duopoly.

    Considering the deep unpopularity of both parties and our elites in general, one would think that this would be an effective selling point. Who would die to defend these people?

    , @Mark G.

    Also it’s pretty downscale economically, so you don’t see intellectuals writing stuff from that viewpoint.
     
    Until the nineteen sixties, The Democrats may have been more populist (social conservatism rather than social liberalism) than the Republicans. There was no overall party difference in the voting patterns among the religious. Large numbers of urban Catholics and rural Protestant southerners voted for the Democrat party.

    The change may have actually come from the right. The intellectuals, many of them religious, at National Review magazine wanted to fuse social conservatism with free market economics. This fusionism came to dominate the conservative movement. In a two party system, one party usually responds to the other party by taking an opposite position on issues so once the Republicans became the socially conservative party the Democrats became the socially liberal party.

    A four party system would enable more people to vote according to their beliefs but the American political system seems to have been designed to avoid that. The Founders may have wanted the President to have broad support in the population. There have been attempts to have a populist party but they have been centered around one figure like George Wallace so they didn't survive past the political career of that particular individual. They have a shortage of intellectuals and money and haven't been able to develop the infrastructure of websites, magazines and think tanks that the two major parties and even the Libertarian party has.
    , @A123

    It’s trickier than you say, because the GOP is under heavy influence from donors who very much want globalization and immigration.
     
    If you take a snapshot of current conditions, Globalist donor influence on the new Populist GOP is declining but still exists. Some holdovers, like Mitt Romney, are GOP(e) Globalists who need to be retired or primaried to prevent them from undermining the Globalist shift. Once Romney is gone, the donors tied to Bain Capital will be rendered powerless.

    There are a number of intermediate steps along the road. Developing Populist Donors and using them drive out the scourge of Globalists will take time.

    Also, the hard left believes in all the SJW stuff, they just care about economics more. (In some cases they think race and gender are distractions and/or attempts to divide the working class
     
    Globalist economics are built on SJW values. Blind, faith based acceptance of mass migration is a necessary part of the Elite SJW Globalist business model. SJW values = Exploitable work force. Illegals and holders of restrictive H1B visas do more than suppress wages. The intentionally precarious legal status of non-Citizens employees allows Elite Corporations to keep the workforce submissive and silent.

    ... they are still going to recoil from anyone they think is actually a racist.)
     
    Of course, "SJW racism" is very different than "Actual racism".

    SJW Political Correctness uses accusations of racism as a club to create ethnic strife. On the merits, U.S. Citizen blacks should be part of the anti-immigration Populist movement. Elite SJW leaders dog-whistle false accusations of "SJW Racism" against Trump and the GOP. The DNC artificially fabricates ethnic fears to scare minorities into voting against their self interest.

    PEACE 😷
    , @Audacious Epigone
    If they'll sit down with someone like Steve Bannon, there is daylight. I'm hopeful. It's not just progressives who are beginning to knock the scales from their eyes--the section of the dissident right that has all the energy, enthusiasm, and attention right now is not the same segment that had it three years ago. Harking back to a regime of losers from eighty years ago has--mercifully in my view--increasingly become cringe-inducing. The alt right stalled out, replaced by an American populism with much wider appeal. Woke progressivism may also do so.
  7. Rosie says:
    @SFG
    It's trickier than you say, because the GOP is under heavy influence from donors who very much want globalization and immigration.

    Also, the hard left believes in all the SJW stuff, they just care about economics more. (In some cases they think race and gender are distractions and/or attempts to divide the working class, but they are still going to recoil from anyone they think is actually a racist.)

    I'd argue there's an elite that holds the 'globalist' positions you hold, and dominates both parties through donations. For the Dems, they demand prioritization of SJW issues to diminish economic populism that might cost them money. (A lot of rich ladies who write checks actually believe in this stuff, of course, and they may be fooling themselves to some degree.) For the GOP, they demand tax cuts (what did we actually get from Trump?) and occasionally a few nods to their base. Trump basically forced the party to move right on immigration, but don't expect a resurgence of Christianity promotion by the government or any attempts to dismantle affirmative action.

    Basically:

    R DONORS-->economic right R BASE-->social right
    D DONORS-->social left D BASE-->economic left

    The donors win, so we get economic royalism and 57 genders.

    The 'forbidden combo' of social conservatism and economic liberalism would gain many votes (https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publication/political-divisions-in-2016-and-beyond, scroll down a bit), but is (a) opposed by the commanding heights of both parties and (b) the two-party duopoly. Also it's pretty downscale economically, so you don't see intellectuals writing stuff from that viewpoint. (Probably the closest approximation is Catholic social thought, but they're usually pretty pro-immigration.)

    The Chapo Trap House guys are a little skeptical of woke, but they'll never sit down with the alt-right.

    Basically:

    R DONORS–>economic right R BASE–>social right
    D DONORS–>social left D BASE–>economic left

    The donors win, so we get economic royalism and 57 genders.

    Truth.

    The ‘forbidden combo’ of social conservatism and economic liberalism would but is … opposed by the commanding heights of both parties and (b) the two-party duopoly. Also it’s pretty downscale economically, so you don’t see intellectuals writing stuff from that viewpoint.

    It not just downscale. It’s eeeeeeeeeeevil!

    • Replies: @SFG
    Hitler is an interesting choice. He was actually similar to Trump in running a socially conservative, economically moderate, nationalist campaign and stabbing the workers in the back. (They diverged a bit on invade-the-world and Jewish issues, of course.)

    Of course, given that he's probably the least popular human being outside the alt-right I might have picked, say, whoever's running Poland these days. Karlin's actually documented the axis goes perpendicular to the way it does here in Eastern Europe--can't find the link under his huge # of Corona posts, but he even explained it as arising from Communist policy (which neoliberals/globalists then opposed).
    , @Audacious Epigone
    There are a lot of patriotic Americans who support the guy in the middle and hate the guy on the left not least of all because he killed their grandfathers and great uncles.
  8. SFG says:
    @Rosie

    Basically:

    R DONORS–>economic right R BASE–>social right
    D DONORS–>social left D BASE–>economic left

    The donors win, so we get economic royalism and 57 genders.
     
    Truth.


    The ‘forbidden combo’ of social conservatism and economic liberalism would but is ... opposed by the commanding heights of both parties and (b) the two-party duopoly. Also it’s pretty downscale economically, so you don’t see intellectuals writing stuff from that viewpoint.
     
    It not just downscale. It's eeeeeeeeeeevil!

    https://www.thenyindependent.com/wp-content/uploads/Hitler-Trump-Orban.jpg

    Hitler is an interesting choice. He was actually similar to Trump in running a socially conservative, economically moderate, nationalist campaign and stabbing the workers in the back. (They diverged a bit on invade-the-world and Jewish issues, of course.)

    Of course, given that he’s probably the least popular human being outside the alt-right I might have picked, say, whoever’s running Poland these days. Karlin’s actually documented the axis goes perpendicular to the way it does here in Eastern Europe–can’t find the link under his huge # of Corona posts, but he even explained it as arising from Communist policy (which neoliberals/globalists then opposed).

    • Replies: @Curmudgeon

    stabbing the workers in the back.
     
    Beyond the usual reference to abolishing trade unions (replacing them with worker councils that the employer didn't want), how were the workers stabbed in the back?
  9. @SFG
    It's trickier than you say, because the GOP is under heavy influence from donors who very much want globalization and immigration.

    Also, the hard left believes in all the SJW stuff, they just care about economics more. (In some cases they think race and gender are distractions and/or attempts to divide the working class, but they are still going to recoil from anyone they think is actually a racist.)

    I'd argue there's an elite that holds the 'globalist' positions you hold, and dominates both parties through donations. For the Dems, they demand prioritization of SJW issues to diminish economic populism that might cost them money. (A lot of rich ladies who write checks actually believe in this stuff, of course, and they may be fooling themselves to some degree.) For the GOP, they demand tax cuts (what did we actually get from Trump?) and occasionally a few nods to their base. Trump basically forced the party to move right on immigration, but don't expect a resurgence of Christianity promotion by the government or any attempts to dismantle affirmative action.

    Basically:

    R DONORS-->economic right R BASE-->social right
    D DONORS-->social left D BASE-->economic left

    The donors win, so we get economic royalism and 57 genders.

    The 'forbidden combo' of social conservatism and economic liberalism would gain many votes (https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publication/political-divisions-in-2016-and-beyond, scroll down a bit), but is (a) opposed by the commanding heights of both parties and (b) the two-party duopoly. Also it's pretty downscale economically, so you don't see intellectuals writing stuff from that viewpoint. (Probably the closest approximation is Catholic social thought, but they're usually pretty pro-immigration.)

    The Chapo Trap House guys are a little skeptical of woke, but they'll never sit down with the alt-right.

    > but is (a) opposed by the commanding heights of both parties and (b) the two-party duopoly.

    Considering the deep unpopularity of both parties and our elites in general, one would think that this would be an effective selling point. Who would die to defend these people?

    • Replies: @SFG
    Policemen and soldiers following orders, of course.

    I agree, everyone hates our current ruling class.

    Thing is, the commoners are divided on who the problem is and pretty divided themselves. Forget Richard Spencer and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez--do you think an unemployed coal miner in West Virginia, a checkout cashier in Iowa, a black guy doing deliveries in Detroit, and a Latino landscaper in Florida blame the same people for their problems?
    , @Almost Missouri

    "Who would die to defend these people?"
     
    Good question, with an implied understood (and correct) answer: No one.

    So why is the universally detested establishment still the establishment? For the simple reason that it has not yet come to dying for one's cause. But that is the only reason. And I don't think they realize it.
  10. SFG says:
    @nebulafox
    > but is (a) opposed by the commanding heights of both parties and (b) the two-party duopoly.

    Considering the deep unpopularity of both parties and our elites in general, one would think that this would be an effective selling point. Who would die to defend these people?

    Policemen and soldiers following orders, of course.

    I agree, everyone hates our current ruling class.

    Thing is, the commoners are divided on who the problem is and pretty divided themselves. Forget Richard Spencer and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez–do you think an unemployed coal miner in West Virginia, a checkout cashier in Iowa, a black guy doing deliveries in Detroit, and a Latino landscaper in Florida blame the same people for their problems?

    • Replies: @Mark G.

    Forget Richard Spencer and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez–do you think an unemployed coal miner in West Virginia, a checkout cashier in Iowa, a black guy doing deliveries in Detroit, and a Latino landscaper in Florida blame the same people for their problems?
     
    Poor whites, blacks and Latinos often share a similar political ideology. Most of them don't really believe in free market economics or social liberalism. The problem with the future populist party suggested by many white populists is that it often also has a white racialist aspect. This type of "welfare programs but for poor whites only" party isn't going to attract nonwhites. It also isn't going to attract middle class or upper class whites who have to pay the increased taxes for the welfare programs.

    Populists make up a large percentage of the population and whites make up a large percentage of the population but the percentage that is both white and populist is much smaller. So white populists have to decide whether their populism is the most important to them and then form a coalition with nonwhite populists or their white identity is the most important to them and then form a coalition with other whites, many of whom are not populists.
    , @nebulafox
    I was pretty intoxicated when I made that comment, so I didn't clarify: their position in power pretty much depends on inertia, already possessing "incumbency" in power. That doesn't mean their legitimacy is healthy. This relies on nothing disastrous happening. If actively tested, they'd need the loyalty of the armed forces, police, etc: and that's an open bet given the alienation that much of the military has toward the civilian world.

    Not an impossible bet, especially if the alternative promises to be worse. But they'd have to successfully dress their appeals up in the spirit of public order and nationalism that they've simultaneously openly bashed or subtly hollowed out for decades, rather than defending them out of their own merits.

    >Forget Richard Spencer and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez–do you think an unemployed coal miner in West Virginia, a checkout cashier in Iowa, a black guy doing deliveries in Detroit, and a Latino landscaper in Florida blame the same people for their problems?

    Who cares? They can all agree that Wall Street, the Beltway, and Silicon Valley likely aren't to be trusted. They might not primarily blame the same people, but they don't have to: it is enough that they lack active affection for the people that the other people blames primarily. And remember the competition: our elites are politically *stupid*. Have you seen their propaganda? It completely lacks any self-awareness. They've forgotten that they've thrown their legitimacy around like confetti over the past 30 years and aren't giving our structures time to recover from that so that they can continue their project long-term. It wouldn't take a political genius for the century to pull this off, just someone with a modicum of competence and an active disdain for ideology.

    The real issue is the resources needed to launch, not the skill.

  11. @SFG
    It's trickier than you say, because the GOP is under heavy influence from donors who very much want globalization and immigration.

    Also, the hard left believes in all the SJW stuff, they just care about economics more. (In some cases they think race and gender are distractions and/or attempts to divide the working class, but they are still going to recoil from anyone they think is actually a racist.)

    I'd argue there's an elite that holds the 'globalist' positions you hold, and dominates both parties through donations. For the Dems, they demand prioritization of SJW issues to diminish economic populism that might cost them money. (A lot of rich ladies who write checks actually believe in this stuff, of course, and they may be fooling themselves to some degree.) For the GOP, they demand tax cuts (what did we actually get from Trump?) and occasionally a few nods to their base. Trump basically forced the party to move right on immigration, but don't expect a resurgence of Christianity promotion by the government or any attempts to dismantle affirmative action.

    Basically:

    R DONORS-->economic right R BASE-->social right
    D DONORS-->social left D BASE-->economic left

    The donors win, so we get economic royalism and 57 genders.

    The 'forbidden combo' of social conservatism and economic liberalism would gain many votes (https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publication/political-divisions-in-2016-and-beyond, scroll down a bit), but is (a) opposed by the commanding heights of both parties and (b) the two-party duopoly. Also it's pretty downscale economically, so you don't see intellectuals writing stuff from that viewpoint. (Probably the closest approximation is Catholic social thought, but they're usually pretty pro-immigration.)

    The Chapo Trap House guys are a little skeptical of woke, but they'll never sit down with the alt-right.

    Also it’s pretty downscale economically, so you don’t see intellectuals writing stuff from that viewpoint.

    Until the nineteen sixties, The Democrats may have been more populist (social conservatism rather than social liberalism) than the Republicans. There was no overall party difference in the voting patterns among the religious. Large numbers of urban Catholics and rural Protestant southerners voted for the Democrat party.

    The change may have actually come from the right. The intellectuals, many of them religious, at National Review magazine wanted to fuse social conservatism with free market economics. This fusionism came to dominate the conservative movement. In a two party system, one party usually responds to the other party by taking an opposite position on issues so once the Republicans became the socially conservative party the Democrats became the socially liberal party.

    A four party system would enable more people to vote according to their beliefs but the American political system seems to have been designed to avoid that. The Founders may have wanted the President to have broad support in the population. There have been attempts to have a populist party but they have been centered around one figure like George Wallace so they didn’t survive past the political career of that particular individual. They have a shortage of intellectuals and money and haven’t been able to develop the infrastructure of websites, magazines and think tanks that the two major parties and even the Libertarian party has.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Until the nineteen sixties, The Democrats may have been more populist (social conservatism rather than social liberalism) than the Republicans. There was no overall party difference in the voting patterns among the religious.
     
    It was like that throughout the Anglosphere. The left parties were generally social conservative. And in Australia the very large Catholic population definitely tended strongly towards the left. Catholics tended to be very anti-communist but still definitely left-leaning.

    The change may have actually come from the right. The intellectuals, many of them religious, at National Review magazine wanted to fuse social conservatism with free market economics.
     
    Both the left and the right were re-inventing themselves, with disastrous consequences.

    A four party system would enable more people to vote according to their beliefs but the American political system seems to have been designed to avoid that.
     
    Rigid two-party systems are the worst idea ever.
  12. So according to this beacon of progress, the “very real problems” of the left’s war on reality, like the dreaded “wage gap”, are being held back from Progress because the social jihadi is too focused on his white maleness?

    Does he think it is okay to be white (and male) or something?

    History is full of examples in which traitors are treated rather poorly by the enemies with which they collaborate. Sooner or later they are put on the pike.

    While his choking on the way to articulate the identity politik that defines his side was amusing, it is a bit of a mystery to me how we fails to understand his position on the identity totem.

    I get it when some white lady gets owned by a diversity because her ‘gina means she has at least some standing. But old white male?

    Or I am missing something?

    In his defense he was raised by a single mother. So maybe his maleness is an abstraction. And maybe he isn’t exactly “white”, so he is chapped about being treated as a badwhite just because skin color.

  13. A123 says:
    @SFG
    It's trickier than you say, because the GOP is under heavy influence from donors who very much want globalization and immigration.

    Also, the hard left believes in all the SJW stuff, they just care about economics more. (In some cases they think race and gender are distractions and/or attempts to divide the working class, but they are still going to recoil from anyone they think is actually a racist.)

    I'd argue there's an elite that holds the 'globalist' positions you hold, and dominates both parties through donations. For the Dems, they demand prioritization of SJW issues to diminish economic populism that might cost them money. (A lot of rich ladies who write checks actually believe in this stuff, of course, and they may be fooling themselves to some degree.) For the GOP, they demand tax cuts (what did we actually get from Trump?) and occasionally a few nods to their base. Trump basically forced the party to move right on immigration, but don't expect a resurgence of Christianity promotion by the government or any attempts to dismantle affirmative action.

    Basically:

    R DONORS-->economic right R BASE-->social right
    D DONORS-->social left D BASE-->economic left

    The donors win, so we get economic royalism and 57 genders.

    The 'forbidden combo' of social conservatism and economic liberalism would gain many votes (https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publication/political-divisions-in-2016-and-beyond, scroll down a bit), but is (a) opposed by the commanding heights of both parties and (b) the two-party duopoly. Also it's pretty downscale economically, so you don't see intellectuals writing stuff from that viewpoint. (Probably the closest approximation is Catholic social thought, but they're usually pretty pro-immigration.)

    The Chapo Trap House guys are a little skeptical of woke, but they'll never sit down with the alt-right.

    It’s trickier than you say, because the GOP is under heavy influence from donors who very much want globalization and immigration.

    If you take a snapshot of current conditions, Globalist donor influence on the new Populist GOP is declining but still exists. Some holdovers, like Mitt Romney, are GOP(e) Globalists who need to be retired or primaried to prevent them from undermining the Globalist shift. Once Romney is gone, the donors tied to Bain Capital will be rendered powerless.

    There are a number of intermediate steps along the road. Developing Populist Donors and using them drive out the scourge of Globalists will take time.

    Also, the hard left believes in all the SJW stuff, they just care about economics more. (In some cases they think race and gender are distractions and/or attempts to divide the working class

    Globalist economics are built on SJW values. Blind, faith based acceptance of mass migration is a necessary part of the Elite SJW Globalist business model. SJW values = Exploitable work force. Illegals and holders of restrictive H1B visas do more than suppress wages. The intentionally precarious legal status of non-Citizens employees allows Elite Corporations to keep the workforce submissive and silent.

    … they are still going to recoil from anyone they think is actually a racist.)

    Of course, “SJW racism” is very different than “Actual racism”.

    SJW Political Correctness uses accusations of racism as a club to create ethnic strife. On the merits, U.S. Citizen blacks should be part of the anti-immigration Populist movement. Elite SJW leaders dog-whistle false accusations of “SJW Racism” against Trump and the GOP. The DNC artificially fabricates ethnic fears to scare minorities into voting against their self interest.

    PEACE 😷

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Developing Populist Donors and using them drive out the scourge of Globalists will take time.
     
    Is replacing one set of donors who corrupt politicians with a different set of donors who corrupt politicians really much of an improvement. Your suggestion would simply amount to switching to a new set of gangsters.

    Political donations are quite simply out-and-out open bribery. You cannot have competent even vaguely honest governments as long as politicians and political parties can be bought on the open market.

    You will never get true populism as long as the political system is owned lock, stock and barrel by donors.
  14. Thomm says:

    “The Emergence of an Unwoke Left”

    Fat chance. The Nationalist-Leftist ideology (also known as ‘White Tr***ionalism’) is at its weakest in at least the last 56 years.

    Race Nationalism has always been, and always will be, an ideology with left-wing economic views.

    It can only be Unwoke if the economic views are not outright left-wing either. In other words, Trump.

    • Agree: Curmudgeon
  15. @A123

    The Emergence of an Unwoke Left

    ... If and until progressives can dispense with Woke worship, serious challenges to the existing power structure will continue to come almost exclusively from the disaffected right.
     
    What is Left? What is Right? Do they still exist in the U.S.?
    ___

    Trump is changing the GOP into a Populist party. It is still a work-in-progress, but the goals are clear. It will include:
    -- "Left" Fair Trade (not free trade)
    -- "Left" U.S. Citizen Labor (not foreign workers)
    -- "Left" Prevention of new overseas combat missions
    -- "Right" Traditional Christian values
    -- "Right" Race Neutrality

    Because the U.S. is a 2-party system, the SJW Globalist DNC is consolidating these values:
    -- "Right" Unrestricted trade, rigged for the benefit of multinational MegaCorporations.
    -- "Right" Mass migration and outsourcing, reducing the earning potential of U.S. Citizen Workers.
    -- "Right" NeoConDemocrats and foreign military interventionism.
    -- "Left" Anti-Christian, Multiculturalism
    -- "Left" Race based spoils systems (e.g. Affirmative Action)

    If a current DNC party member abandons SJW Globalist dogma, they will become an "Unwoke Deplorable". The left positions of the Populist GOP are likely to be attractive to a significant chunk of these people.

    There will be some true Socialists/Communists that reject both the GOP and DNC. But, it is hard to see how they will generate sufficient numbers to supplant the DNC.

    PEACE 😷
    _______

    http://i2.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2016/09/Les-Deplorables-copy.jpg

    Pure unadulterated Trunptardism.

    • Troll: A123
  16. Many writers here eliminate comments they don’t like, Mercer Unz, Sailer…Roberts sometime back had a hissy fit and Unz allowed him to eliminate the reply section…it was reinstated and again Roberts wants people with a nom de plume to be banned. I have also noticed that replies to comments are not always emailed to the commenter…even when the box is checked.

    I see Unz has eliminated posting my comments.

    • Replies: @Realist
    Perhaps there was just a problem with the software. I tried to post a second comment this morning and I received a message that I had posted too much and should take a break...but it obviously works now.
  17. @SFG
    Policemen and soldiers following orders, of course.

    I agree, everyone hates our current ruling class.

    Thing is, the commoners are divided on who the problem is and pretty divided themselves. Forget Richard Spencer and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez--do you think an unemployed coal miner in West Virginia, a checkout cashier in Iowa, a black guy doing deliveries in Detroit, and a Latino landscaper in Florida blame the same people for their problems?

    Forget Richard Spencer and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez–do you think an unemployed coal miner in West Virginia, a checkout cashier in Iowa, a black guy doing deliveries in Detroit, and a Latino landscaper in Florida blame the same people for their problems?

    Poor whites, blacks and Latinos often share a similar political ideology. Most of them don’t really believe in free market economics or social liberalism. The problem with the future populist party suggested by many white populists is that it often also has a white racialist aspect. This type of “welfare programs but for poor whites only” party isn’t going to attract nonwhites. It also isn’t going to attract middle class or upper class whites who have to pay the increased taxes for the welfare programs.

    Populists make up a large percentage of the population and whites make up a large percentage of the population but the percentage that is both white and populist is much smaller. So white populists have to decide whether their populism is the most important to them and then form a coalition with nonwhite populists or their white identity is the most important to them and then form a coalition with other whites, many of whom are not populists.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    An immigration moratorium is the most plausible way of squaring this apparent circle.
    , @Daniel H
    This type of “welfare programs but for poor whites only” party isn’t going to attract nonwhites. It also isn’t going to attract middle class or upper class whites who have to pay the increased taxes for the welfare programs.

    I despair of middle class/upper-middle class whites ever working to support measures that help poor Americans (white, latino, black, whatever). Middle class whites on the left side of the "progressive" spectrum are Bobo, Bourgeois neo-Liberal. Yeah, they are down with the sex issues (womyns, abortions, trannies, gays) and identity issues when they don't directly discomfit them, but are entirely dismissive of campaigns for economic equity/justice. They just don't care. They have had theirs and it has been pretty good. They hate Bernie with a passion. They are the greatest impediment to universal health care and immigration moratorium. They despise the poor.

    So, what to do. I will do my damndest praying, hoping that many/most of these Bourgeois neo-Liberal whites and their spawn move as rapidly and completely into the ranks of the impoverished. And praying and hoping might be good enough because the plutocracy is determined to continue pilfering and pillaging what is left of the productive American economy, consequences be damned. Poverty will drop into the laps of the Bobo Boourgeois left like a ripe plum.

    I want to see the comfy world of the Bobo Bourgeois neo-left end. I want them to suffer. For the simple reason that only when they, themselves, have joined the ranks of the poor will we acquire the human capital to make a movement for economic justice. And anecdotal evidence is telling me that this is fitfully happening. When the plutocracy's pilfering is complete enough (soon) it almost certain that 10s of millions of these Bobos will join the ranks. of the poorer, where the travails of trannies, gays, immigrants won't seem so pressing any more. I am hearing stories of men and women who never dreamed that they would lose their home, their lucrative, career-job, really facing desperate times. This thrills my heart. But I want to see more of this, and rapidly. So, you, your friends, your family, your neighbors in the Bourgeois neo-liberal white must-needs suffer for any progress to be made. I want bad things for y'all, but understand, it is nothing personal, and that is the truth.

  18. I don’t see how anyone can see green shoots anywhere. Trump was the last possible chance to mold the US “right” into something that could enforce a line of demarcation that could halt progressivism and allow the US to digest what it had bitten off for a few decades, and he failed to be the genius 3d chess player that was needed to accomplish that. He’s the last Republican president. The only consolation will be that Republican politicians will get less obscene when they’re so powerless that there’s no money in being the kind of worthless pig that dominates the type right now.

    The two party system will eventually reemerge from the Democrat’s left, not its right and it will be about securing bags of cornmeal and torturing rural whites to death.

  19. @SFG
    Hitler is an interesting choice. He was actually similar to Trump in running a socially conservative, economically moderate, nationalist campaign and stabbing the workers in the back. (They diverged a bit on invade-the-world and Jewish issues, of course.)

    Of course, given that he's probably the least popular human being outside the alt-right I might have picked, say, whoever's running Poland these days. Karlin's actually documented the axis goes perpendicular to the way it does here in Eastern Europe--can't find the link under his huge # of Corona posts, but he even explained it as arising from Communist policy (which neoliberals/globalists then opposed).

    stabbing the workers in the back.

    Beyond the usual reference to abolishing trade unions (replacing them with worker councils that the employer didn’t want), how were the workers stabbed in the back?

  20. @anon
    Even after having been put through the ringer

    Wringer. "Put through the wringer". After washing clothes then rinsing clothes, they must have the water removed by being "wrung out". Here is an image of an older washer with a wringer on the top. To be put through the wringer would flatten things out.

    https://i.pinimg.com/736x/9d/79/9a/9d799a3eb73842876a68a5a14198534f.jpg

    Ratigan still felt compelled to prostrate himself in front of the altar, insisting that though it chewed him up and spit him out–

    Of course he did. Because he has not totally been destroyed - he's not a "white hispanic" - and therefore he still clearly believes he has something to lose....and he does not want to lose it. He likely still believes that he can use reason to speak to the Woke, which shows he does not understand who the Woke are.

    It's not new. Here's 2,000 words. History does not repeat but it can rhyme.

    https://www.newyorker.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Osnos-TheCostofChinasCulturalRevolution2-1200.jpg

    https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-wpUI3MTTMuk/UQD3X1a9cMI/AAAAAAACTXo/tV5ZUOeVUl0/s640/Beijing+of+the+Cultural+Revolution+1966+(13).jpg


    If and until progressives can dispense with Woke worship, serious challenges to the existing power structure will continue to come almost exclusively from the disaffected right.

    FaceBook canceled the entire Unz.com site. YouTube will zero anyone who criticizes WHO.
    The WokeTard regime is scrambling to consolidate control over communications, in order to shut down any challenge or criticism from anyone.

    We live in interesting times.

    Thanks for catching the typo.

    Comments closed on the previous post, but a brief response here: I didn’t claim the sky was falling because oil futures went negative. That was yet another symptom in a series of them that reveal an increasing instability underlying the international credit system. The implosion of that system is the story.

  21. @Digital Samizdat

    The Bible of Woke is complex. It’s as ever-changing as the federal tax code. If the clerisy want to pin a violation on someone, they’ll be able to do it, no matter how steadfast and faithful the person’s devotion to the Church of Woke has been.
     
    So true.

    But one thing that should be noted here is that this tactic doesn't seem to work very well on Republicans--think Clarence Thomas, Donald Trump, or Brett Kavanaugh. So it looks to me more like a tactic used by the DNC (and some of their donors, like George Soros) for keeping Democrats in line.

    All three of those men are bare-knuckled brawlers who won against long odds (literally in the case of the latter two, which I followed on the betting sites, and presumably so in the case of Clarence Thomas given how close in time he was to Robert Bork, though I can’t say with certainty).

    On the other hand, it arguably worked against Romney (binders of women). When the right is able to reliably parry the tactic, the political landscape will have truly changed.

  22. @SFG
    It's trickier than you say, because the GOP is under heavy influence from donors who very much want globalization and immigration.

    Also, the hard left believes in all the SJW stuff, they just care about economics more. (In some cases they think race and gender are distractions and/or attempts to divide the working class, but they are still going to recoil from anyone they think is actually a racist.)

    I'd argue there's an elite that holds the 'globalist' positions you hold, and dominates both parties through donations. For the Dems, they demand prioritization of SJW issues to diminish economic populism that might cost them money. (A lot of rich ladies who write checks actually believe in this stuff, of course, and they may be fooling themselves to some degree.) For the GOP, they demand tax cuts (what did we actually get from Trump?) and occasionally a few nods to their base. Trump basically forced the party to move right on immigration, but don't expect a resurgence of Christianity promotion by the government or any attempts to dismantle affirmative action.

    Basically:

    R DONORS-->economic right R BASE-->social right
    D DONORS-->social left D BASE-->economic left

    The donors win, so we get economic royalism and 57 genders.

    The 'forbidden combo' of social conservatism and economic liberalism would gain many votes (https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publication/political-divisions-in-2016-and-beyond, scroll down a bit), but is (a) opposed by the commanding heights of both parties and (b) the two-party duopoly. Also it's pretty downscale economically, so you don't see intellectuals writing stuff from that viewpoint. (Probably the closest approximation is Catholic social thought, but they're usually pretty pro-immigration.)

    The Chapo Trap House guys are a little skeptical of woke, but they'll never sit down with the alt-right.

    If they’ll sit down with someone like Steve Bannon, there is daylight. I’m hopeful. It’s not just progressives who are beginning to knock the scales from their eyes–the section of the dissident right that has all the energy, enthusiasm, and attention right now is not the same segment that had it three years ago. Harking back to a regime of losers from eighty years ago has–mercifully in my view–increasingly become cringe-inducing. The alt right stalled out, replaced by an American populism with much wider appeal. Woke progressivism may also do so.

    • Thanks: Big Dick Bandit
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    Neo-Nazism isn't just stupidly fetishizing perhaps the most failed ideology of all time. It is also deeply, deeply irrelevant to the political world of the 21st Century, something both the SPLC types and the Dick Spencers spectacularly fail to appreciate.

    Hitler was a German ultra-nationalist first, a white supremacist a (very distant) second. He was also a product of the dying Central European bourgeois age of the late 19th and early 20th Century, with a completely different set of political and social concerns. As such, he targeted tens of millions of perfectly white Slavic peoples for genocide while holding Muslim and East Asian cultures as alien, perhaps, but worthy of a certain degree of respect.

    This does not map onto modern "alt-right" ideology at all, which even a guy like Breivik understood. And while I can only speculate on this, I suspect a produce of WWI and the subsequent shady underground world of post-war German ultranationalism like Adolf Hitler would have held guys like Donald Trump in total, complete contempt, as a fundamentally unserious person.

  23. @Rosie

    Basically:

    R DONORS–>economic right R BASE–>social right
    D DONORS–>social left D BASE–>economic left

    The donors win, so we get economic royalism and 57 genders.
     
    Truth.


    The ‘forbidden combo’ of social conservatism and economic liberalism would but is ... opposed by the commanding heights of both parties and (b) the two-party duopoly. Also it’s pretty downscale economically, so you don’t see intellectuals writing stuff from that viewpoint.
     
    It not just downscale. It's eeeeeeeeeeevil!

    https://www.thenyindependent.com/wp-content/uploads/Hitler-Trump-Orban.jpg

    There are a lot of patriotic Americans who support the guy in the middle and hate the guy on the left not least of all because he killed their grandfathers and great uncles.

    • Agree: Big Dick Bandit
    • Replies: @Rosie

    There are a lot of patriotic Americans who support the guy in the middle and hate the guy on the left not least of all because he killed their grandfathers and great uncles.
     
    I get that, or at least, I understand that people see it that way. Personally, I'm agnostic (and skeptical) about the official WWII narrative.

    Still, somehow or another, we've got to deal with the fact that the policies that most people prefer, and would prevail in a truly representative democracy, have been successfully associated with the demonic in elite circles.

    I don't claim to have any answers, but what we've been doing so far hasn't been working. I am very skeptical that Whites can ever thrive in an atmosphere where the argumentum ad hitlerum continues to hold the power that it has now.

  24. @Mark G.

    Forget Richard Spencer and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez–do you think an unemployed coal miner in West Virginia, a checkout cashier in Iowa, a black guy doing deliveries in Detroit, and a Latino landscaper in Florida blame the same people for their problems?
     
    Poor whites, blacks and Latinos often share a similar political ideology. Most of them don't really believe in free market economics or social liberalism. The problem with the future populist party suggested by many white populists is that it often also has a white racialist aspect. This type of "welfare programs but for poor whites only" party isn't going to attract nonwhites. It also isn't going to attract middle class or upper class whites who have to pay the increased taxes for the welfare programs.

    Populists make up a large percentage of the population and whites make up a large percentage of the population but the percentage that is both white and populist is much smaller. So white populists have to decide whether their populism is the most important to them and then form a coalition with nonwhite populists or their white identity is the most important to them and then form a coalition with other whites, many of whom are not populists.

    An immigration moratorium is the most plausible way of squaring this apparent circle.

    • Replies: @Mark G.

    An immigration moratorium is the most plausible way of squaring this apparent circle.
     
    Yes, something along those lines. Steve Sailer here at Unz.com has come up with the idea of citizenism, a nationalism based on the government showing a preference for citizens over non-citizens. Leaving race and class out of it would be more likely to attract widespread political support here in this country.

    For example, welfare benefits could be limited to citizens. Non-citizens would be ineligible. An immigrant could receive citizenship after a certain number of years of paying taxes and staying off welfare. Any immigrants unable to support themselves could be deported. If their home country refused to take them back, the U.S. government could threaten to ban all future immigration from that country.

    If something like this had been in place for the last fifty years we would have had many fewer immigrants while improving the quality of the remaining ones. We have had so many immigrants in recent years that a very good case could be made we need a moratorium now in order to absorb the recent immigrants, as was done between 1924 and 1965.
  25. Rosie says:
    @Audacious Epigone
    There are a lot of patriotic Americans who support the guy in the middle and hate the guy on the left not least of all because he killed their grandfathers and great uncles.

    There are a lot of patriotic Americans who support the guy in the middle and hate the guy on the left not least of all because he killed their grandfathers and great uncles.

    I get that, or at least, I understand that people see it that way. Personally, I’m agnostic (and skeptical) about the official WWII narrative.

    Still, somehow or another, we’ve got to deal with the fact that the policies that most people prefer, and would prevail in a truly representative democracy, have been successfully associated with the demonic in elite circles.

    I don’t claim to have any answers, but what we’ve been doing so far hasn’t been working. I am very skeptical that Whites can ever thrive in an atmosphere where the argumentum ad hitlerum continues to hold the power that it has now.

    • Replies: @Anon

    Still, somehow or another, we’ve got to deal with the fact that the policies that most people prefer, and would prevail in a truly representative democracy, have been successfully associated with the demonic in elite circles.
     
    Hitler's economic policies primarily consisted of the government printing money and spending it on armaments production and infrastructure. This led to a short term boom but was mostly wasteful unless the armaments were to be used to try to steal valuable assets elsewhere, which is of course what happened when Hitler embarked on a campaign to steal farmland and energy supplies in the East.

    It would be sort of like if the US government started printing money to build new tank factories in the US. It would put money in people's pockets and lead to a short run boom, but it would produce a useless product in the tanks. The tanks would be useless unless they were to be used in an invasion of Canada to seize Canadian farmland and energy supplies, in which case the tank production could be seen as "investment" with a "return" of stolen Canadian farmland and energy.

    I don't know if people would necessarily prefer this sort of policy if they understood its full costs and ramifications.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    I am very skeptical that Whites can ever thrive in an atmosphere where the argumentum ad hitlerum continues to hold the power that it has now.

    That may be correct. My personal antagonisms towards 1930s/40s Germany aside, to put it mildly I don't think the best way to go about that is by trying to rehabilitate Hitler's image. The "where's your KKK hood?" attack doesn't land and so has largely been abandoned by the Woke because there are vanishingly few klansman larpers out there to make it effective. Ideally the same will become true re: nazism.
  26. … serious challenges to the existing power structure will continue to come almost exclusively from the disaffected right.

    Really? They’ve all been de-platformed, and any potential recruits are limited to gathering in groups no larger than ten, all two metres apart. No mass rallies, no problem … right?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    The establishment has overplayed its hand. People are occupying state capitols for heaven's sake, and it's going to get worse as the extent of the economic carnage becomes clear.

    We're easy to control as long as the soma keeps flowing, but if the ruling class runs out and we dirt people realize we have nothing to lose because compliance means penury--well, that's how revolutions begin.
  27. @Audacious Epigone
    An immigration moratorium is the most plausible way of squaring this apparent circle.

    An immigration moratorium is the most plausible way of squaring this apparent circle.

    Yes, something along those lines. Steve Sailer here at Unz.com has come up with the idea of citizenism, a nationalism based on the government showing a preference for citizens over non-citizens. Leaving race and class out of it would be more likely to attract widespread political support here in this country.

    For example, welfare benefits could be limited to citizens. Non-citizens would be ineligible. An immigrant could receive citizenship after a certain number of years of paying taxes and staying off welfare. Any immigrants unable to support themselves could be deported. If their home country refused to take them back, the U.S. government could threaten to ban all future immigration from that country.

    If something like this had been in place for the last fifty years we would have had many fewer immigrants while improving the quality of the remaining ones. We have had so many immigrants in recent years that a very good case could be made we need a moratorium now in order to absorb the recent immigrants, as was done between 1924 and 1965.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Yes, something along those lines. Steve Sailer here at Unz.com has come up with the idea of citizenism, a nationalism based on the government showing a preference for citizens over non-citizens. Leaving race and class out of it would be more likely to attract widespread political support here in this country.
     
    I'm skeptical that this will go anywhere.

    Once you've conceded that it's wrong to exclude anyone from a school, neighborhood, or country on racial grounds, you're not going to be able to convince them that it's okay to exclude them on the basis of something as trivial as their place of birth. The logical implication is that we have an obligation to admit as many foreigners desiring to live here as our economy can absorb.
  28. @Mark G.

    Forget Richard Spencer and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez–do you think an unemployed coal miner in West Virginia, a checkout cashier in Iowa, a black guy doing deliveries in Detroit, and a Latino landscaper in Florida blame the same people for their problems?
     
    Poor whites, blacks and Latinos often share a similar political ideology. Most of them don't really believe in free market economics or social liberalism. The problem with the future populist party suggested by many white populists is that it often also has a white racialist aspect. This type of "welfare programs but for poor whites only" party isn't going to attract nonwhites. It also isn't going to attract middle class or upper class whites who have to pay the increased taxes for the welfare programs.

    Populists make up a large percentage of the population and whites make up a large percentage of the population but the percentage that is both white and populist is much smaller. So white populists have to decide whether their populism is the most important to them and then form a coalition with nonwhite populists or their white identity is the most important to them and then form a coalition with other whites, many of whom are not populists.

    This type of “welfare programs but for poor whites only” party isn’t going to attract nonwhites. It also isn’t going to attract middle class or upper class whites who have to pay the increased taxes for the welfare programs.

    I despair of middle class/upper-middle class whites ever working to support measures that help poor Americans (white, latino, black, whatever). Middle class whites on the left side of the “progressive” spectrum are Bobo, Bourgeois neo-Liberal. Yeah, they are down with the sex issues (womyns, abortions, trannies, gays) and identity issues when they don’t directly discomfit them, but are entirely dismissive of campaigns for economic equity/justice. They just don’t care. They have had theirs and it has been pretty good. They hate Bernie with a passion. They are the greatest impediment to universal health care and immigration moratorium. They despise the poor.

    So, what to do. I will do my damndest praying, hoping that many/most of these Bourgeois neo-Liberal whites and their spawn move as rapidly and completely into the ranks of the impoverished. And praying and hoping might be good enough because the plutocracy is determined to continue pilfering and pillaging what is left of the productive American economy, consequences be damned. Poverty will drop into the laps of the Bobo Boourgeois left like a ripe plum.

    I want to see the comfy world of the Bobo Bourgeois neo-left end. I want them to suffer. For the simple reason that only when they, themselves, have joined the ranks of the poor will we acquire the human capital to make a movement for economic justice. And anecdotal evidence is telling me that this is fitfully happening. When the plutocracy’s pilfering is complete enough (soon) it almost certain that 10s of millions of these Bobos will join the ranks. of the poorer, where the travails of trannies, gays, immigrants won’t seem so pressing any more. I am hearing stories of men and women who never dreamed that they would lose their home, their lucrative, career-job, really facing desperate times. This thrills my heart. But I want to see more of this, and rapidly. So, you, your friends, your family, your neighbors in the Bourgeois neo-liberal white must-needs suffer for any progress to be made. I want bad things for y’all, but understand, it is nothing personal, and that is the truth.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    The explosion of the upper-middle class over the last 30 years is one of those things that really should be emphasized more, for all the talk about the 1%. Structurally, that's a huge part of why the US is the way it is. Not least because you have to work hard to maintain your position in that upper-middle class, hence the honest psychological views of the bien-pensants that they've earned what they have: and because the drop down for the declassed is a lot rougher than it has to be, meaning that parents will go to whatever lengths needed to prevent their children from slipping in the cracks. If the necessary downward mobility to deflate the UMC is ever going to happen, making it less traumatic by rebuilding a solid middle class is vital.

    A potent argument that can reach vast swathes of the populace across race and region should be that those who profited primarily from the policies of the past few decades ought to also bear the main burdens for the downsides, such as the costs of recovering from this pandemic. I don't think this would be an unpopular view among the majority of the populace. But this can be expanded more broadly. If Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg insist that H1-B visas will create tons more jobs for Americans, they are welcome to argue their case in the court of public opinion. But if that's the case, the obvious question arises: why shouldn't they be willing to pay more money for those visas, money that can be used to compensate and retrain Americans? It'd be easily affordable for them. No? Then maybe the data showing that they supposedly create jobs and are a net benefit should be investigated a bit more.

    (These kinds of arguments that revolve around basic questions of fairness and square treatment-the gut understanding that people who work hard, who work honestly should not find it increasingly impossible to create and maintain family units on at least a basic level-are what resonate in the American psychological DNA, not talking about the abstract rights of man or the moral noblesse oblige to the downtrodden. It's no accident that our elites want to change this so they can get a more neo-feudal friendly order.)

  29. This is a much better woke crusher. Start at 7-minutes for the meat.

    • Agree: Jazman
  30. @nebulafox
    > but is (a) opposed by the commanding heights of both parties and (b) the two-party duopoly.

    Considering the deep unpopularity of both parties and our elites in general, one would think that this would be an effective selling point. Who would die to defend these people?

    “Who would die to defend these people?”

    Good question, with an implied understood (and correct) answer: No one.

    So why is the universally detested establishment still the establishment? For the simple reason that it has not yet come to dying for one’s cause. But that is the only reason. And I don’t think they realize it.

  31. @Realist
    Many writers here eliminate comments they don't like, Mercer Unz, Sailer...Roberts sometime back had a hissy fit and Unz allowed him to eliminate the reply section...it was reinstated and again Roberts wants people with a nom de plume to be banned. I have also noticed that replies to comments are not always emailed to the commenter...even when the box is checked.

    I see Unz has eliminated posting my comments.

    Perhaps there was just a problem with the software. I tried to post a second comment this morning and I received a message that I had posted too much and should take a break…but it obviously works now.

  32. Dylan Ratigan isn’t just unwoke. The other day on The Jimmy Dore Show he was paraphrasing Hitler’s “small rootless international clique” line while describing the EU. I can only hope that more regular working class people are paying attention.

  33. Anon[146] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    There are a lot of patriotic Americans who support the guy in the middle and hate the guy on the left not least of all because he killed their grandfathers and great uncles.
     
    I get that, or at least, I understand that people see it that way. Personally, I'm agnostic (and skeptical) about the official WWII narrative.

    Still, somehow or another, we've got to deal with the fact that the policies that most people prefer, and would prevail in a truly representative democracy, have been successfully associated with the demonic in elite circles.

    I don't claim to have any answers, but what we've been doing so far hasn't been working. I am very skeptical that Whites can ever thrive in an atmosphere where the argumentum ad hitlerum continues to hold the power that it has now.

    Still, somehow or another, we’ve got to deal with the fact that the policies that most people prefer, and would prevail in a truly representative democracy, have been successfully associated with the demonic in elite circles.

    Hitler’s economic policies primarily consisted of the government printing money and spending it on armaments production and infrastructure. This led to a short term boom but was mostly wasteful unless the armaments were to be used to try to steal valuable assets elsewhere, which is of course what happened when Hitler embarked on a campaign to steal farmland and energy supplies in the East.

    It would be sort of like if the US government started printing money to build new tank factories in the US. It would put money in people’s pockets and lead to a short run boom, but it would produce a useless product in the tanks. The tanks would be useless unless they were to be used in an invasion of Canada to seize Canadian farmland and energy supplies, in which case the tank production could be seen as “investment” with a “return” of stolen Canadian farmland and energy.

    I don’t know if people would necessarily prefer this sort of policy if they understood its full costs and ramifications.

  34. @Rosie

    There are a lot of patriotic Americans who support the guy in the middle and hate the guy on the left not least of all because he killed their grandfathers and great uncles.
     
    I get that, or at least, I understand that people see it that way. Personally, I'm agnostic (and skeptical) about the official WWII narrative.

    Still, somehow or another, we've got to deal with the fact that the policies that most people prefer, and would prevail in a truly representative democracy, have been successfully associated with the demonic in elite circles.

    I don't claim to have any answers, but what we've been doing so far hasn't been working. I am very skeptical that Whites can ever thrive in an atmosphere where the argumentum ad hitlerum continues to hold the power that it has now.

    I am very skeptical that Whites can ever thrive in an atmosphere where the argumentum ad hitlerum continues to hold the power that it has now.

    That may be correct. My personal antagonisms towards 1930s/40s Germany aside, to put it mildly I don’t think the best way to go about that is by trying to rehabilitate Hitler’s image. The “where’s your KKK hood?” attack doesn’t land and so has largely been abandoned by the Woke because there are vanishingly few klansman larpers out there to make it effective. Ideally the same will become true re: nazism.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    The “where’s your KKK hood?” attack doesn’t land and so has largely been abandoned by the Woke because there are vanishingly few klansman larpers out there to make it effective. Ideally the same will become true re: nazism.
     
    Yes, nazi larping is ridiculous and counterproductive.

    The problem I see is that, when Leftists call people "nazi," they're not talking about larping costume nazis. They're not talking about Jew-haters, either. They're talking about White people who care about White survival, i.e. pro-White immigration restrictionists and economic protectionists. From their point of view, it's not hyperbole.

    And ultimately, even if we can defend against the charge, you know what they say. In politics, if you're defending, you're losing.

    Still, if people are abandoning the old guilt-by-association sophistry, that's awesome.

  35. @The Alarmist

    ... serious challenges to the existing power structure will continue to come almost exclusively from the disaffected right.
     
    Really? They've all been de-platformed, and any potential recruits are limited to gathering in groups no larger than ten, all two metres apart. No mass rallies, no problem ... right?

    The establishment has overplayed its hand. People are occupying state capitols for heaven’s sake, and it’s going to get worse as the extent of the economic carnage becomes clear.

    We’re easy to control as long as the soma keeps flowing, but if the ruling class runs out and we dirt people realize we have nothing to lose because compliance means penury–well, that’s how revolutions begin.

    • Replies: @Daniel H
    The establishment has overplayed its hand. People are occupying state capitols for heaven’s sake, and it’s going to get worse as the extent of the economic carnage becomes clear.

    Tea party redux. Discombobulated, directionless, leaderless proles are all riled up, to no good effect. Much of the middle class+ loathes them. Won't help. For long term strategy better that this thing hardens and proles get used to the $600/week UBI. And why not, if Wall Street can get a guaranteed $ billions in UBA certainly America an afford a modest UBI for the working man.
  36. What would an unWokening look like? I have trouble imagining any sort of self-correction. I don’t think Bioleninism is a self-correcting phenomenon, unless we can anticipate Stalin II and I’m not sure that we can.

    The way I see it they can’t drop trannies because they can’t drop gays. They can’t drop gays because they need to support them in order to signal their support for free sexual license. There are multiple reasons for this, but the biggest one is that they need single mothers and can’t afford to be judgmental about them.

    Wokeness is kind of like a snowball rolling downhill – I don’t think it can unroll. But who knows? Maybe, the economy will cause it to unroll, or maybe, without any sort of collapse, differential fertility will move things in a slightly less woke direction.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    It will look like this in the its seminal stages, I hope!

    The expectation shouldn't be race realism. That probably isn't in the cards, at least not until CRISPR becomes perfected. The expectation should be race neutrality.
    , @anon
    It is Sailers "coalition of the fringes", and they do not dare push any other element out of their clubhouse. Therefore trannies must be included and Drag Queen Story Hour is "who we are", plus Antifa has to be protected at all costs. As long as the Woke can call out a Twitter mob of flying monkies, the Trigglypuff wing has veto power over the US left

    Not afraid to use it, either.

    https://thumbs.gfycat.com/FeminineKindAmethystgemclam-size_restricted.gif
  37. Rosie says:
    @Audacious Epigone
    I am very skeptical that Whites can ever thrive in an atmosphere where the argumentum ad hitlerum continues to hold the power that it has now.

    That may be correct. My personal antagonisms towards 1930s/40s Germany aside, to put it mildly I don't think the best way to go about that is by trying to rehabilitate Hitler's image. The "where's your KKK hood?" attack doesn't land and so has largely been abandoned by the Woke because there are vanishingly few klansman larpers out there to make it effective. Ideally the same will become true re: nazism.

    The “where’s your KKK hood?” attack doesn’t land and so has largely been abandoned by the Woke because there are vanishingly few klansman larpers out there to make it effective. Ideally the same will become true re: nazism.

    Yes, nazi larping is ridiculous and counterproductive.

    The problem I see is that, when Leftists call people “nazi,” they’re not talking about larping costume nazis. They’re not talking about Jew-haters, either. They’re talking about White people who care about White survival, i.e. pro-White immigration restrictionists and economic protectionists. From their point of view, it’s not hyperbole.

    And ultimately, even if we can defend against the charge, you know what they say. In politics, if you’re defending, you’re losing.

    Still, if people are abandoning the old guilt-by-association sophistry, that’s awesome.

    • Replies: @anon
    There is no rehabilitating Hitler, for the same reason there is no rehabilitating Stalin. But this academic fight needs to be fought, since Hitler casts a long philosophical shadow.

    1) First and foremost, World War 2 was an obvious pyrrhic victory for the West. There is no serious debate to this. The British Empire imploded. In the subsequent Cold War, the planet was nearly blown up multiple times. We are currently facing off with a communist regime, leading the most populace nation on earth. Our universities have professors whose nihilism and leftism would demoralize even hardcore 1920’s communists. So what exactly did the Allies win in 1945? We’re still fighting in 2020.

    2) The fact that World War 2 even occurred, and was not separated into two separate regional European and Pacific conflicts, is a testament to a massive Ango geopolitical fuck up in the 1930’s. In a more rational world, the Anglos would have been arming Hitler to go to war with the Soviets, or more realistically, arming both sides. The Anglos — largely driven by centuries of British diplomacy — viewed Hitler a greater threat, since he could control the continent, and could, in theory, cross the English Channel. As it turns out, this was a colossal blunder. This assessment did not account for Marxist Jewish intellectuals’ ability to hollow out the West from within, and the ability for Communism to captivate thought-leaders throughout the West. National Socialism, by its very nature, never had this appeal.

    Will these arguments ever appeal to the masses? No, and certainly not Boomers. But these arguments can sway the top 5-10% of young intellectuals, who shape how the rest of society thinks in the long-term. Knocking out the “Nazi” rhetorical sledgehammer among intellectuals is a definite starting point. There simply needs to be an easily understood thesis for people to grasp. Put plainly, Hitler and Stalin were both bad, but we mistakenly sided with the greater of two evils, by any rational measure.
  38. @songbird
    What would an unWokening look like? I have trouble imagining any sort of self-correction. I don't think Bioleninism is a self-correcting phenomenon, unless we can anticipate Stalin II and I'm not sure that we can.

    The way I see it they can't drop trannies because they can't drop gays. They can't drop gays because they need to support them in order to signal their support for free sexual license. There are multiple reasons for this, but the biggest one is that they need single mothers and can't afford to be judgmental about them.

    Wokeness is kind of like a snowball rolling downhill - I don't think it can unroll. But who knows? Maybe, the economy will cause it to unroll, or maybe, without any sort of collapse, differential fertility will move things in a slightly less woke direction.

    It will look like this in the its seminal stages, I hope!

    The expectation shouldn’t be race realism. That probably isn’t in the cards, at least not until CRISPR becomes perfected. The expectation should be race neutrality.

  39. Rosie says:
    @Mark G.

    An immigration moratorium is the most plausible way of squaring this apparent circle.
     
    Yes, something along those lines. Steve Sailer here at Unz.com has come up with the idea of citizenism, a nationalism based on the government showing a preference for citizens over non-citizens. Leaving race and class out of it would be more likely to attract widespread political support here in this country.

    For example, welfare benefits could be limited to citizens. Non-citizens would be ineligible. An immigrant could receive citizenship after a certain number of years of paying taxes and staying off welfare. Any immigrants unable to support themselves could be deported. If their home country refused to take them back, the U.S. government could threaten to ban all future immigration from that country.

    If something like this had been in place for the last fifty years we would have had many fewer immigrants while improving the quality of the remaining ones. We have had so many immigrants in recent years that a very good case could be made we need a moratorium now in order to absorb the recent immigrants, as was done between 1924 and 1965.

    Yes, something along those lines. Steve Sailer here at Unz.com has come up with the idea of citizenism, a nationalism based on the government showing a preference for citizens over non-citizens. Leaving race and class out of it would be more likely to attract widespread political support here in this country.

    I’m skeptical that this will go anywhere.

    Once you’ve conceded that it’s wrong to exclude anyone from a school, neighborhood, or country on racial grounds, you’re not going to be able to convince them that it’s okay to exclude them on the basis of something as trivial as their place of birth. The logical implication is that we have an obligation to admit as many foreigners desiring to live here as our economy can absorb.

    • Replies: @Mark G.
    Daniel H in comment 28 advocates white populists joining with nonwhite populists in a class based party with upper class whites on the other side. You think a populist party that is explicitly pro-white and cares about white survival is the way to go. I am a libertarian and I care about white survival so I might be persuaded to go along with that, especially if the other party seems to be anti-white as the Democrat party seems to increasingly be. I think, though, that I am pretty atypical as far as libertarians go.

    Most libertarians say that any racial differences are cultural and have no genetic basis at all. The mainstream right and most upper class white liberals also say that. It would be hard to get them to join a party that identifies as pro-white.

    I think your best hope might be to have a pro-white party that doesn't identify as pro-white. A lot of whites are somewhat hypocritical when it comes to racial issues. They say that race doesn't matter but live in mostly white neighborhoods and send their kids to mostly white schools. The schools might have a few well behaved non-whites mixed in because a 100% white school would be a bit gauche. You want to keep up the appearance you aren't a racist by engaging in tokenism. If you are a rich white liberal you can keep nonwhites away by zoning your city to block low cost housing while sneering at lower class whites who don't want to live next to misbehaving blacks. I think a party that claims it isn't racist while actually following pro-white policies would actually attract more followers.
  40. @SFG
    Policemen and soldiers following orders, of course.

    I agree, everyone hates our current ruling class.

    Thing is, the commoners are divided on who the problem is and pretty divided themselves. Forget Richard Spencer and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez--do you think an unemployed coal miner in West Virginia, a checkout cashier in Iowa, a black guy doing deliveries in Detroit, and a Latino landscaper in Florida blame the same people for their problems?

    I was pretty intoxicated when I made that comment, so I didn’t clarify: their position in power pretty much depends on inertia, already possessing “incumbency” in power. That doesn’t mean their legitimacy is healthy. This relies on nothing disastrous happening. If actively tested, they’d need the loyalty of the armed forces, police, etc: and that’s an open bet given the alienation that much of the military has toward the civilian world.

    Not an impossible bet, especially if the alternative promises to be worse. But they’d have to successfully dress their appeals up in the spirit of public order and nationalism that they’ve simultaneously openly bashed or subtly hollowed out for decades, rather than defending them out of their own merits.

    >Forget Richard Spencer and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez–do you think an unemployed coal miner in West Virginia, a checkout cashier in Iowa, a black guy doing deliveries in Detroit, and a Latino landscaper in Florida blame the same people for their problems?

    Who cares? They can all agree that Wall Street, the Beltway, and Silicon Valley likely aren’t to be trusted. They might not primarily blame the same people, but they don’t have to: it is enough that they lack active affection for the people that the other people blames primarily. And remember the competition: our elites are politically *stupid*. Have you seen their propaganda? It completely lacks any self-awareness. They’ve forgotten that they’ve thrown their legitimacy around like confetti over the past 30 years and aren’t giving our structures time to recover from that so that they can continue their project long-term. It wouldn’t take a political genius for the century to pull this off, just someone with a modicum of competence and an active disdain for ideology.

    The real issue is the resources needed to launch, not the skill.

  41. @Daniel H
    This type of “welfare programs but for poor whites only” party isn’t going to attract nonwhites. It also isn’t going to attract middle class or upper class whites who have to pay the increased taxes for the welfare programs.

    I despair of middle class/upper-middle class whites ever working to support measures that help poor Americans (white, latino, black, whatever). Middle class whites on the left side of the "progressive" spectrum are Bobo, Bourgeois neo-Liberal. Yeah, they are down with the sex issues (womyns, abortions, trannies, gays) and identity issues when they don't directly discomfit them, but are entirely dismissive of campaigns for economic equity/justice. They just don't care. They have had theirs and it has been pretty good. They hate Bernie with a passion. They are the greatest impediment to universal health care and immigration moratorium. They despise the poor.

    So, what to do. I will do my damndest praying, hoping that many/most of these Bourgeois neo-Liberal whites and their spawn move as rapidly and completely into the ranks of the impoverished. And praying and hoping might be good enough because the plutocracy is determined to continue pilfering and pillaging what is left of the productive American economy, consequences be damned. Poverty will drop into the laps of the Bobo Boourgeois left like a ripe plum.

    I want to see the comfy world of the Bobo Bourgeois neo-left end. I want them to suffer. For the simple reason that only when they, themselves, have joined the ranks of the poor will we acquire the human capital to make a movement for economic justice. And anecdotal evidence is telling me that this is fitfully happening. When the plutocracy's pilfering is complete enough (soon) it almost certain that 10s of millions of these Bobos will join the ranks. of the poorer, where the travails of trannies, gays, immigrants won't seem so pressing any more. I am hearing stories of men and women who never dreamed that they would lose their home, their lucrative, career-job, really facing desperate times. This thrills my heart. But I want to see more of this, and rapidly. So, you, your friends, your family, your neighbors in the Bourgeois neo-liberal white must-needs suffer for any progress to be made. I want bad things for y'all, but understand, it is nothing personal, and that is the truth.

    The explosion of the upper-middle class over the last 30 years is one of those things that really should be emphasized more, for all the talk about the 1%. Structurally, that’s a huge part of why the US is the way it is. Not least because you have to work hard to maintain your position in that upper-middle class, hence the honest psychological views of the bien-pensants that they’ve earned what they have: and because the drop down for the declassed is a lot rougher than it has to be, meaning that parents will go to whatever lengths needed to prevent their children from slipping in the cracks. If the necessary downward mobility to deflate the UMC is ever going to happen, making it less traumatic by rebuilding a solid middle class is vital.

    A potent argument that can reach vast swathes of the populace across race and region should be that those who profited primarily from the policies of the past few decades ought to also bear the main burdens for the downsides, such as the costs of recovering from this pandemic. I don’t think this would be an unpopular view among the majority of the populace. But this can be expanded more broadly. If Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg insist that H1-B visas will create tons more jobs for Americans, they are welcome to argue their case in the court of public opinion. But if that’s the case, the obvious question arises: why shouldn’t they be willing to pay more money for those visas, money that can be used to compensate and retrain Americans? It’d be easily affordable for them. No? Then maybe the data showing that they supposedly create jobs and are a net benefit should be investigated a bit more.

    (These kinds of arguments that revolve around basic questions of fairness and square treatment-the gut understanding that people who work hard, who work honestly should not find it increasingly impossible to create and maintain family units on at least a basic level-are what resonate in the American psychological DNA, not talking about the abstract rights of man or the moral noblesse oblige to the downtrodden. It’s no accident that our elites want to change this so they can get a more neo-feudal friendly order.)

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    The explosion of the upper-middle class over the last 30 years is one of those things that really should be emphasized more, for all the talk about the 1%.
     
    Yep. The problem is not the elites, the 1%. The problem is the wannabe elites, and the people who are dependent on the elites (such as journalists and academics and senior bureaucrats and the military and the police), and the people who see it as being in their interests to blindly support the elites (schoolteachers, mid-ranking bureaucrats etc).

    So it's not a 1% that you're dealing with. It's a much much larger proportion of the population composed of elites and loyal allies of the elites. The proportion is even higher among whites which is one of the reasons white identity politics and white nationalism are complete non-starters.
    , @Daniel H
    If Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg insist that H1-B visas will create tons more jobs for Americans, they are welcome to argue their case in the court of public opinion. But if that’s the case, the obvious question arises: why shouldn’t they be willing to pay more money for those visas, money that can be used to compensate and retrain Americans?

    What is wrong with you? There has never been a good case for H1B. The case is bogus. There has never been a shortage of native talent to do any IT job. The H1B is all about replacing the American worker with a pliant workforce that is beholden to the H1B sponsor. You talk as if you could engage in good faith with these people, as if you could nail down some agreement that they be truthful and forthcoming, and will retrain the American worker for more suitable jobs, will look out for the American worker. There is no retraining. Just to what do you retrain a software engineer? Do you tell the Java developer that he is going to retrain to become a Wall Street Quant? What is wrong with you? Have you had your head up your a** for these past 30 years. If you give capital/management an inch in this matter they will take you for all you are worth. They are smarter than you, more cunning, ruthless. They never lose, the American people ALWAYS lose with this H1B thing. The only good H1B program is no H1B program. It is all about immiserating the American worker for the benefit of management and capital. What is wrong with you? You are clearly in way over your head with this H1B thing.

  42. @Audacious Epigone
    If they'll sit down with someone like Steve Bannon, there is daylight. I'm hopeful. It's not just progressives who are beginning to knock the scales from their eyes--the section of the dissident right that has all the energy, enthusiasm, and attention right now is not the same segment that had it three years ago. Harking back to a regime of losers from eighty years ago has--mercifully in my view--increasingly become cringe-inducing. The alt right stalled out, replaced by an American populism with much wider appeal. Woke progressivism may also do so.

    Neo-Nazism isn’t just stupidly fetishizing perhaps the most failed ideology of all time. It is also deeply, deeply irrelevant to the political world of the 21st Century, something both the SPLC types and the Dick Spencers spectacularly fail to appreciate.

    Hitler was a German ultra-nationalist first, a white supremacist a (very distant) second. He was also a product of the dying Central European bourgeois age of the late 19th and early 20th Century, with a completely different set of political and social concerns. As such, he targeted tens of millions of perfectly white Slavic peoples for genocide while holding Muslim and East Asian cultures as alien, perhaps, but worthy of a certain degree of respect.

    This does not map onto modern “alt-right” ideology at all, which even a guy like Breivik understood. And while I can only speculate on this, I suspect a produce of WWI and the subsequent shady underground world of post-war German ultranationalism like Adolf Hitler would have held guys like Donald Trump in total, complete contempt, as a fundamentally unserious person.

  43. @Rosie

    Yes, something along those lines. Steve Sailer here at Unz.com has come up with the idea of citizenism, a nationalism based on the government showing a preference for citizens over non-citizens. Leaving race and class out of it would be more likely to attract widespread political support here in this country.
     
    I'm skeptical that this will go anywhere.

    Once you've conceded that it's wrong to exclude anyone from a school, neighborhood, or country on racial grounds, you're not going to be able to convince them that it's okay to exclude them on the basis of something as trivial as their place of birth. The logical implication is that we have an obligation to admit as many foreigners desiring to live here as our economy can absorb.

    Daniel H in comment 28 advocates white populists joining with nonwhite populists in a class based party with upper class whites on the other side. You think a populist party that is explicitly pro-white and cares about white survival is the way to go. I am a libertarian and I care about white survival so I might be persuaded to go along with that, especially if the other party seems to be anti-white as the Democrat party seems to increasingly be. I think, though, that I am pretty atypical as far as libertarians go.

    Most libertarians say that any racial differences are cultural and have no genetic basis at all. The mainstream right and most upper class white liberals also say that. It would be hard to get them to join a party that identifies as pro-white.

    I think your best hope might be to have a pro-white party that doesn’t identify as pro-white. A lot of whites are somewhat hypocritical when it comes to racial issues. They say that race doesn’t matter but live in mostly white neighborhoods and send their kids to mostly white schools. The schools might have a few well behaved non-whites mixed in because a 100% white school would be a bit gauche. You want to keep up the appearance you aren’t a racist by engaging in tokenism. If you are a rich white liberal you can keep nonwhites away by zoning your city to block low cost housing while sneering at lower class whites who don’t want to live next to misbehaving blacks. I think a party that claims it isn’t racist while actually following pro-white policies would actually attract more followers.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    I think a party that claims it isn’t racist while actually following pro-white policies would actually attract more followers.
     
    I dunno. People seem to have excellent bullshit detectors when it comes to that sort of thing. The hypocrisy is usually pretty obvious, and this approach has a very bad track record of failure.

    I don't have very strong feelings about this. I know I'm not a tactician. I would really just prefer to give the truth a chance and be honest for a change. Trying to conceal your motives (1) doesn't really work, and (2) evinces a guilty conscience, thus reinforcing the enemy's claim to moral high ground.
  44. I’m 72 years old and have been retired for 13 years.
    I’m a working class guy, defined as an unskilled individual who has one and only one skill to sell. Namely his labor. The sweat of his brow. If you think electricians, carpenters, plumbers and others with actual skills to sell feel much solidarity with the likes of me you’re very much mistaken.

    I think a large portion of the skilled working class would stick with the status quo, with all its worts, if push came to shove.

    If that is the case the unskilled working class to have any influence at all must join forces with other unskilled ethnicities,. Which means letting go of the fantasy world many white ” working class” men (it is mainly men with this fantasy) have that somehow puts them at a higher level than their peers. For one thing we’re not, and that fact is very appearant to everyone.

    As always hope is just over the horizon, or when the Boomers all die off which ever comes first.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    I think a large portion of the skilled working class would stick with the status quo, with all its worts, if push came to shove.
     
    Most people will support the status quo because they fear, quite rightly, that overthrowing the status quo would lead to chaos, economic ruin and bloodbaths. They also fear, quite rightly, that whatever replaces the current status quo could be much much worse.

    When push comes to shove the only people who will support overthrowing the status quo are people who genuinely believe their situation is so bad that they have nothing to lose, the mentally unstable, misguided idealists and even more misguided fanatics. Most normal sane people are pretty sceptical about the whole overturning the status quo thing.

    And it usually does end badly.

    "Let's overthrow the Tsar! I mean seriously, how much worse could things get?"

    "Let's get rid of the Weimar Republic! Anything would be an improvement. What have we got to lose?"
  45. anon[319] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    The “where’s your KKK hood?” attack doesn’t land and so has largely been abandoned by the Woke because there are vanishingly few klansman larpers out there to make it effective. Ideally the same will become true re: nazism.
     
    Yes, nazi larping is ridiculous and counterproductive.

    The problem I see is that, when Leftists call people "nazi," they're not talking about larping costume nazis. They're not talking about Jew-haters, either. They're talking about White people who care about White survival, i.e. pro-White immigration restrictionists and economic protectionists. From their point of view, it's not hyperbole.

    And ultimately, even if we can defend against the charge, you know what they say. In politics, if you're defending, you're losing.

    Still, if people are abandoning the old guilt-by-association sophistry, that's awesome.

    There is no rehabilitating Hitler, for the same reason there is no rehabilitating Stalin. But this academic fight needs to be fought, since Hitler casts a long philosophical shadow.

    1) First and foremost, World War 2 was an obvious pyrrhic victory for the West. There is no serious debate to this. The British Empire imploded. In the subsequent Cold War, the planet was nearly blown up multiple times. We are currently facing off with a communist regime, leading the most populace nation on earth. Our universities have professors whose nihilism and leftism would demoralize even hardcore 1920’s communists. So what exactly did the Allies win in 1945? We’re still fighting in 2020.

    2) The fact that World War 2 even occurred, and was not separated into two separate regional European and Pacific conflicts, is a testament to a massive Ango geopolitical fuck up in the 1930’s. In a more rational world, the Anglos would have been arming Hitler to go to war with the Soviets, or more realistically, arming both sides. The Anglos — largely driven by centuries of British diplomacy — viewed Hitler a greater threat, since he could control the continent, and could, in theory, cross the English Channel. As it turns out, this was a colossal blunder. This assessment did not account for Marxist Jewish intellectuals’ ability to hollow out the West from within, and the ability for Communism to captivate thought-leaders throughout the West. National Socialism, by its very nature, never had this appeal.

    Will these arguments ever appeal to the masses? No, and certainly not Boomers. But these arguments can sway the top 5-10% of young intellectuals, who shape how the rest of society thinks in the long-term. Knocking out the “Nazi” rhetorical sledgehammer among intellectuals is a definite starting point. There simply needs to be an easily understood thesis for people to grasp. Put plainly, Hitler and Stalin were both bad, but we mistakenly sided with the greater of two evils, by any rational measure.

  46. anon[110] • Disclaimer says:
    @songbird
    What would an unWokening look like? I have trouble imagining any sort of self-correction. I don't think Bioleninism is a self-correcting phenomenon, unless we can anticipate Stalin II and I'm not sure that we can.

    The way I see it they can't drop trannies because they can't drop gays. They can't drop gays because they need to support them in order to signal their support for free sexual license. There are multiple reasons for this, but the biggest one is that they need single mothers and can't afford to be judgmental about them.

    Wokeness is kind of like a snowball rolling downhill - I don't think it can unroll. But who knows? Maybe, the economy will cause it to unroll, or maybe, without any sort of collapse, differential fertility will move things in a slightly less woke direction.

    It is Sailers “coalition of the fringes”, and they do not dare push any other element out of their clubhouse. Therefore trannies must be included and Drag Queen Story Hour is “who we are”, plus Antifa has to be protected at all costs. As long as the Woke can call out a Twitter mob of flying monkies, the Trigglypuff wing has veto power over the US left

    Not afraid to use it, either.

    • Agree: songbird
  47. Rosie says:
    @Mark G.
    Daniel H in comment 28 advocates white populists joining with nonwhite populists in a class based party with upper class whites on the other side. You think a populist party that is explicitly pro-white and cares about white survival is the way to go. I am a libertarian and I care about white survival so I might be persuaded to go along with that, especially if the other party seems to be anti-white as the Democrat party seems to increasingly be. I think, though, that I am pretty atypical as far as libertarians go.

    Most libertarians say that any racial differences are cultural and have no genetic basis at all. The mainstream right and most upper class white liberals also say that. It would be hard to get them to join a party that identifies as pro-white.

    I think your best hope might be to have a pro-white party that doesn't identify as pro-white. A lot of whites are somewhat hypocritical when it comes to racial issues. They say that race doesn't matter but live in mostly white neighborhoods and send their kids to mostly white schools. The schools might have a few well behaved non-whites mixed in because a 100% white school would be a bit gauche. You want to keep up the appearance you aren't a racist by engaging in tokenism. If you are a rich white liberal you can keep nonwhites away by zoning your city to block low cost housing while sneering at lower class whites who don't want to live next to misbehaving blacks. I think a party that claims it isn't racist while actually following pro-white policies would actually attract more followers.

    I think a party that claims it isn’t racist while actually following pro-white policies would actually attract more followers.

    I dunno. People seem to have excellent bullshit detectors when it comes to that sort of thing. The hypocrisy is usually pretty obvious, and this approach has a very bad track record of failure.

    I don’t have very strong feelings about this. I know I’m not a tactician. I would really just prefer to give the truth a chance and be honest for a change. Trying to conceal your motives (1) doesn’t really work, and (2) evinces a guilty conscience, thus reinforcing the enemy’s claim to moral high ground.

  48. @Mark G.

    Also it’s pretty downscale economically, so you don’t see intellectuals writing stuff from that viewpoint.
     
    Until the nineteen sixties, The Democrats may have been more populist (social conservatism rather than social liberalism) than the Republicans. There was no overall party difference in the voting patterns among the religious. Large numbers of urban Catholics and rural Protestant southerners voted for the Democrat party.

    The change may have actually come from the right. The intellectuals, many of them religious, at National Review magazine wanted to fuse social conservatism with free market economics. This fusionism came to dominate the conservative movement. In a two party system, one party usually responds to the other party by taking an opposite position on issues so once the Republicans became the socially conservative party the Democrats became the socially liberal party.

    A four party system would enable more people to vote according to their beliefs but the American political system seems to have been designed to avoid that. The Founders may have wanted the President to have broad support in the population. There have been attempts to have a populist party but they have been centered around one figure like George Wallace so they didn't survive past the political career of that particular individual. They have a shortage of intellectuals and money and haven't been able to develop the infrastructure of websites, magazines and think tanks that the two major parties and even the Libertarian party has.

    Until the nineteen sixties, The Democrats may have been more populist (social conservatism rather than social liberalism) than the Republicans. There was no overall party difference in the voting patterns among the religious.

    It was like that throughout the Anglosphere. The left parties were generally social conservative. And in Australia the very large Catholic population definitely tended strongly towards the left. Catholics tended to be very anti-communist but still definitely left-leaning.

    The change may have actually come from the right. The intellectuals, many of them religious, at National Review magazine wanted to fuse social conservatism with free market economics.

    Both the left and the right were re-inventing themselves, with disastrous consequences.

    A four party system would enable more people to vote according to their beliefs but the American political system seems to have been designed to avoid that.

    Rigid two-party systems are the worst idea ever.

  49. @A123

    It’s trickier than you say, because the GOP is under heavy influence from donors who very much want globalization and immigration.
     
    If you take a snapshot of current conditions, Globalist donor influence on the new Populist GOP is declining but still exists. Some holdovers, like Mitt Romney, are GOP(e) Globalists who need to be retired or primaried to prevent them from undermining the Globalist shift. Once Romney is gone, the donors tied to Bain Capital will be rendered powerless.

    There are a number of intermediate steps along the road. Developing Populist Donors and using them drive out the scourge of Globalists will take time.

    Also, the hard left believes in all the SJW stuff, they just care about economics more. (In some cases they think race and gender are distractions and/or attempts to divide the working class
     
    Globalist economics are built on SJW values. Blind, faith based acceptance of mass migration is a necessary part of the Elite SJW Globalist business model. SJW values = Exploitable work force. Illegals and holders of restrictive H1B visas do more than suppress wages. The intentionally precarious legal status of non-Citizens employees allows Elite Corporations to keep the workforce submissive and silent.

    ... they are still going to recoil from anyone they think is actually a racist.)
     
    Of course, "SJW racism" is very different than "Actual racism".

    SJW Political Correctness uses accusations of racism as a club to create ethnic strife. On the merits, U.S. Citizen blacks should be part of the anti-immigration Populist movement. Elite SJW leaders dog-whistle false accusations of "SJW Racism" against Trump and the GOP. The DNC artificially fabricates ethnic fears to scare minorities into voting against their self interest.

    PEACE 😷

    Developing Populist Donors and using them drive out the scourge of Globalists will take time.

    Is replacing one set of donors who corrupt politicians with a different set of donors who corrupt politicians really much of an improvement. Your suggestion would simply amount to switching to a new set of gangsters.

    Political donations are quite simply out-and-out open bribery. You cannot have competent even vaguely honest governments as long as politicians and political parties can be bought on the open market.

    You will never get true populism as long as the political system is owned lock, stock and barrel by donors.

    • Replies: @A123

    You will never get true populism as long as the political system is owned lock, stock and barrel by donors.
     
    The Fake Stream Media (e.g. CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo) is corrupt and pushes the SJW Globalist agenda.

    Therefore, true Populist candidates need money to push accurate information to voters. Taking that money from donors is a regrettable necessity.

    PEACE 😷
  50. @nebulafox
    The explosion of the upper-middle class over the last 30 years is one of those things that really should be emphasized more, for all the talk about the 1%. Structurally, that's a huge part of why the US is the way it is. Not least because you have to work hard to maintain your position in that upper-middle class, hence the honest psychological views of the bien-pensants that they've earned what they have: and because the drop down for the declassed is a lot rougher than it has to be, meaning that parents will go to whatever lengths needed to prevent their children from slipping in the cracks. If the necessary downward mobility to deflate the UMC is ever going to happen, making it less traumatic by rebuilding a solid middle class is vital.

    A potent argument that can reach vast swathes of the populace across race and region should be that those who profited primarily from the policies of the past few decades ought to also bear the main burdens for the downsides, such as the costs of recovering from this pandemic. I don't think this would be an unpopular view among the majority of the populace. But this can be expanded more broadly. If Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg insist that H1-B visas will create tons more jobs for Americans, they are welcome to argue their case in the court of public opinion. But if that's the case, the obvious question arises: why shouldn't they be willing to pay more money for those visas, money that can be used to compensate and retrain Americans? It'd be easily affordable for them. No? Then maybe the data showing that they supposedly create jobs and are a net benefit should be investigated a bit more.

    (These kinds of arguments that revolve around basic questions of fairness and square treatment-the gut understanding that people who work hard, who work honestly should not find it increasingly impossible to create and maintain family units on at least a basic level-are what resonate in the American psychological DNA, not talking about the abstract rights of man or the moral noblesse oblige to the downtrodden. It's no accident that our elites want to change this so they can get a more neo-feudal friendly order.)

    The explosion of the upper-middle class over the last 30 years is one of those things that really should be emphasized more, for all the talk about the 1%.

    Yep. The problem is not the elites, the 1%. The problem is the wannabe elites, and the people who are dependent on the elites (such as journalists and academics and senior bureaucrats and the military and the police), and the people who see it as being in their interests to blindly support the elites (schoolteachers, mid-ranking bureaucrats etc).

    So it’s not a 1% that you’re dealing with. It’s a much much larger proportion of the population composed of elites and loyal allies of the elites. The proportion is even higher among whites which is one of the reasons white identity politics and white nationalism are complete non-starters.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  51. @Audacious Epigone
    The establishment has overplayed its hand. People are occupying state capitols for heaven's sake, and it's going to get worse as the extent of the economic carnage becomes clear.

    We're easy to control as long as the soma keeps flowing, but if the ruling class runs out and we dirt people realize we have nothing to lose because compliance means penury--well, that's how revolutions begin.

    The establishment has overplayed its hand. People are occupying state capitols for heaven’s sake, and it’s going to get worse as the extent of the economic carnage becomes clear.

    Tea party redux. Discombobulated, directionless, leaderless proles are all riled up, to no good effect. Much of the middle class+ loathes them. Won’t help. For long term strategy better that this thing hardens and proles get used to the $600/week UBI. And why not, if Wall Street can get a guaranteed $ billions in UBA certainly America an afford a modest UBI for the working man.

  52. @nebulafox
    The explosion of the upper-middle class over the last 30 years is one of those things that really should be emphasized more, for all the talk about the 1%. Structurally, that's a huge part of why the US is the way it is. Not least because you have to work hard to maintain your position in that upper-middle class, hence the honest psychological views of the bien-pensants that they've earned what they have: and because the drop down for the declassed is a lot rougher than it has to be, meaning that parents will go to whatever lengths needed to prevent their children from slipping in the cracks. If the necessary downward mobility to deflate the UMC is ever going to happen, making it less traumatic by rebuilding a solid middle class is vital.

    A potent argument that can reach vast swathes of the populace across race and region should be that those who profited primarily from the policies of the past few decades ought to also bear the main burdens for the downsides, such as the costs of recovering from this pandemic. I don't think this would be an unpopular view among the majority of the populace. But this can be expanded more broadly. If Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg insist that H1-B visas will create tons more jobs for Americans, they are welcome to argue their case in the court of public opinion. But if that's the case, the obvious question arises: why shouldn't they be willing to pay more money for those visas, money that can be used to compensate and retrain Americans? It'd be easily affordable for them. No? Then maybe the data showing that they supposedly create jobs and are a net benefit should be investigated a bit more.

    (These kinds of arguments that revolve around basic questions of fairness and square treatment-the gut understanding that people who work hard, who work honestly should not find it increasingly impossible to create and maintain family units on at least a basic level-are what resonate in the American psychological DNA, not talking about the abstract rights of man or the moral noblesse oblige to the downtrodden. It's no accident that our elites want to change this so they can get a more neo-feudal friendly order.)

    If Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg insist that H1-B visas will create tons more jobs for Americans, they are welcome to argue their case in the court of public opinion. But if that’s the case, the obvious question arises: why shouldn’t they be willing to pay more money for those visas, money that can be used to compensate and retrain Americans?

    What is wrong with you? There has never been a good case for H1B. The case is bogus. There has never been a shortage of native talent to do any IT job. The H1B is all about replacing the American worker with a pliant workforce that is beholden to the H1B sponsor. You talk as if you could engage in good faith with these people, as if you could nail down some agreement that they be truthful and forthcoming, and will retrain the American worker for more suitable jobs, will look out for the American worker. There is no retraining. Just to what do you retrain a software engineer? Do you tell the Java developer that he is going to retrain to become a Wall Street Quant? What is wrong with you? Have you had your head up your a** for these past 30 years. If you give capital/management an inch in this matter they will take you for all you are worth. They are smarter than you, more cunning, ruthless. They never lose, the American people ALWAYS lose with this H1B thing. The only good H1B program is no H1B program. It is all about immiserating the American worker for the benefit of management and capital. What is wrong with you? You are clearly in way over your head with this H1B thing.

  53. @Partic
    I'm 72 years old and have been retired for 13 years.
    I'm a working class guy, defined as an unskilled individual who has one and only one skill to sell. Namely his labor. The sweat of his brow. If you think electricians, carpenters, plumbers and others with actual skills to sell feel much solidarity with the likes of me you're very much mistaken.

    I think a large portion of the skilled working class would stick with the status quo, with all its worts, if push came to shove.

    If that is the case the unskilled working class to have any influence at all must join forces with other unskilled ethnicities,. Which means letting go of the fantasy world many white " working class" men (it is mainly men with this fantasy) have that somehow puts them at a higher level than their peers. For one thing we're not, and that fact is very appearant to everyone.

    As always hope is just over the horizon, or when the Boomers all die off which ever comes first.

    I think a large portion of the skilled working class would stick with the status quo, with all its worts, if push came to shove.

    Most people will support the status quo because they fear, quite rightly, that overthrowing the status quo would lead to chaos, economic ruin and bloodbaths. They also fear, quite rightly, that whatever replaces the current status quo could be much much worse.

    When push comes to shove the only people who will support overthrowing the status quo are people who genuinely believe their situation is so bad that they have nothing to lose, the mentally unstable, misguided idealists and even more misguided fanatics. Most normal sane people are pretty sceptical about the whole overturning the status quo thing.

    And it usually does end badly.

    “Let’s overthrow the Tsar! I mean seriously, how much worse could things get?”

    “Let’s get rid of the Weimar Republic! Anything would be an improvement. What have we got to lose?”

    • Replies: @iffen
    “Let’s overthrow the Tsar! I mean seriously, how much worse could things get?”

    Let's get rid of the Pharaoh!

    Let's do away with the king and divine right!

    Let's do away with theocracy!

    Let's do away with slavery!

    Let's do away with serfdom!

  54. @dfordoom

    I think a large portion of the skilled working class would stick with the status quo, with all its worts, if push came to shove.
     
    Most people will support the status quo because they fear, quite rightly, that overthrowing the status quo would lead to chaos, economic ruin and bloodbaths. They also fear, quite rightly, that whatever replaces the current status quo could be much much worse.

    When push comes to shove the only people who will support overthrowing the status quo are people who genuinely believe their situation is so bad that they have nothing to lose, the mentally unstable, misguided idealists and even more misguided fanatics. Most normal sane people are pretty sceptical about the whole overturning the status quo thing.

    And it usually does end badly.

    "Let's overthrow the Tsar! I mean seriously, how much worse could things get?"

    "Let's get rid of the Weimar Republic! Anything would be an improvement. What have we got to lose?"

    “Let’s overthrow the Tsar! I mean seriously, how much worse could things get?”

    Let’s get rid of the Pharaoh!

    Let’s do away with the king and divine right!

    Let’s do away with theocracy!

    Let’s do away with slavery!

    Let’s do away with serfdom!

  55. The authoritarian left has utilitarian “allies” in its pursuit of power and accompanying destruction of its enemies. It is very adept at identifying those enemies and is ruthless in pursuit of their destruction. When an ally no longer has utility he will no longer be cultivated. They formally deny human nature and the existence of race, but are virtuosos in the use of both for political effect. They “know” that the ends justifies the means to such an extent that it is not even a subject of debate for them. They have the cosmic goal of achieving and exercising power which allows them to evaluate everything and everyone against this goal, thereby achieving unity of action and purpose.

    The non-allies, on the other hand …

  56. A123 says:
    @dfordoom

    Developing Populist Donors and using them drive out the scourge of Globalists will take time.
     
    Is replacing one set of donors who corrupt politicians with a different set of donors who corrupt politicians really much of an improvement. Your suggestion would simply amount to switching to a new set of gangsters.

    Political donations are quite simply out-and-out open bribery. You cannot have competent even vaguely honest governments as long as politicians and political parties can be bought on the open market.

    You will never get true populism as long as the political system is owned lock, stock and barrel by donors.

    You will never get true populism as long as the political system is owned lock, stock and barrel by donors.

    The Fake Stream Media (e.g. CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo) is corrupt and pushes the SJW Globalist agenda.

    Therefore, true Populist candidates need money to push accurate information to voters. Taking that money from donors is a regrettable necessity.

    PEACE 😷

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    The Fake Stream Media (e.g. CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo) is corrupt and pushes the SJW Globalist agenda.

    Therefore, true Populist candidates need money to push accurate information to voters. Taking that money from donors is a regrettable necessity.
     
    It's not like corruption is inherently bad or anything.

    It's like organised crime. You don't get rid of organised crime, you just make sure that you're one of the people getting paid off. When other people get paid off by Big Jim's mob that's a social evil. When I take bribes from Fat Tony's mob that's good for everybody.

    When people I don't approve of behave corruptly, that's bad. When people I do approve of behave corruptly, that's good.
  57. @A123

    You will never get true populism as long as the political system is owned lock, stock and barrel by donors.
     
    The Fake Stream Media (e.g. CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo) is corrupt and pushes the SJW Globalist agenda.

    Therefore, true Populist candidates need money to push accurate information to voters. Taking that money from donors is a regrettable necessity.

    PEACE 😷

    The Fake Stream Media (e.g. CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo) is corrupt and pushes the SJW Globalist agenda.

    Therefore, true Populist candidates need money to push accurate information to voters. Taking that money from donors is a regrettable necessity.

    It’s not like corruption is inherently bad or anything.

    It’s like organised crime. You don’t get rid of organised crime, you just make sure that you’re one of the people getting paid off. When other people get paid off by Big Jim’s mob that’s a social evil. When I take bribes from Fat Tony’s mob that’s good for everybody.

    When people I don’t approve of behave corruptly, that’s bad. When people I do approve of behave corruptly, that’s good.

    • Replies: @A123

    It’s not like corruption is inherently bad or anything.
     
    The corrupt Fake Stream Media is inherently bad. Opposing the badly corrupt FSM is inherently necessary to defeat SJW Globalism.

    In your idealistic world view, starting from the situation as it stands today -- How does Populism defeat corrupt SJW Globalism?

    PEACE 😷
  58. A123 says:
    @dfordoom

    The Fake Stream Media (e.g. CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo) is corrupt and pushes the SJW Globalist agenda.

    Therefore, true Populist candidates need money to push accurate information to voters. Taking that money from donors is a regrettable necessity.
     
    It's not like corruption is inherently bad or anything.

    It's like organised crime. You don't get rid of organised crime, you just make sure that you're one of the people getting paid off. When other people get paid off by Big Jim's mob that's a social evil. When I take bribes from Fat Tony's mob that's good for everybody.

    When people I don't approve of behave corruptly, that's bad. When people I do approve of behave corruptly, that's good.

    It’s not like corruption is inherently bad or anything.

    The corrupt Fake Stream Media is inherently bad. Opposing the badly corrupt FSM is inherently necessary to defeat SJW Globalism.

    In your idealistic world view, starting from the situation as it stands today — How does Populism defeat corrupt SJW Globalism?

    PEACE 😷

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    How does Populism defeat corrupt SJW Globalism?
     
    If it's populism enacted by corrupt politicians financed by billionaire donors then it ain't gonna be populism.
  59. @A123

    It’s not like corruption is inherently bad or anything.
     
    The corrupt Fake Stream Media is inherently bad. Opposing the badly corrupt FSM is inherently necessary to defeat SJW Globalism.

    In your idealistic world view, starting from the situation as it stands today -- How does Populism defeat corrupt SJW Globalism?

    PEACE 😷

    How does Populism defeat corrupt SJW Globalism?

    If it’s populism enacted by corrupt politicians financed by billionaire donors then it ain’t gonna be populism.

    • Replies: @A123


    How does Populism defeat corrupt SJW Globalism?
     
    If it’s populism enacted by corrupt politicians financed by billionaire donors then it ain’t gonna be populism.
     
    You are ducking the question. Try answering it.

    Based on your world view & starting from the situation as it stands today -- How does Populism defeat corrupt SJW Globalism?

    PEACE 😷
  60. A123 says:
    @dfordoom

    How does Populism defeat corrupt SJW Globalism?
     
    If it's populism enacted by corrupt politicians financed by billionaire donors then it ain't gonna be populism.

    How does Populism defeat corrupt SJW Globalism?

    If it’s populism enacted by corrupt politicians financed by billionaire donors then it ain’t gonna be populism.

    You are ducking the question. Try answering it.

    Based on your world view & starting from the situation as it stands today — How does Populism defeat corrupt SJW Globalism?

    PEACE 😷

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS