Shortly after the USSR split up I predicted the split of the US. Though at the time I did not (of course) foresee how it would happen. But power is always bipolar, it cannot be any other way. Once the USSR fell, all that was left was a unipolar world. And just about the only way possible for a new bipolar world was either a US-China devision (which was prevented by the globalists) or a split through the US itself. The unipolar splitting to become bipolar.

Needless to say, I was laughed at by all.

The current mess can still be resolved by a US-China split, but time is running out. If china caves under the trade barriers, or china implodes, then the breakup of the US is unavoidable. But even if china does not cave or implodes and Trump manages to paint China like a kind of global enemy, the likelihood of a US split remains high.

In his latest book 'Game' (banned from amazon) RooshV writes how the increasing communication tools today warp the sexual market. Being hypergamous, girls will tend to overestimate their SMV based on the increased number of offers. Resulting in a large population of men that simply are no longer regarded as 'good candidates'. Even though these men would be top-of-the-list just 20 years ago. Result: disgruntled young men.
Now top that off with the "all sex is rape" movement, and it is not difficult to see why men simply give up.

Now think about the political implications of this: what happens when large numbers of young men are excluded from the sexual market?

Rather reluctantly I have come to the conclusion that all democracies are dysgenic in origin. Right from the very start.
This is both their strength in the initial phases (as the liberal aspect allows for great economic growth) and their weakness later on as it starts to devour itself.

Given the US political landscape and the real issues at hand, there are only two votes that count: Rep or Dem.

Maga voters may come to despise Trump, but they can never switch to the dems.

Ugly? yes. Alternatives? No.

"This will not end well"

Just spell it out man!

Option a) Unchecked growth: the sub saharans will eventually rule the world at 10 billion+. This collapses the world economy as there is no maintenance no new development, social unrest gives way to wars, nukes are used, plagues break out, and world population plummets to way below 1 billion. A slow rebuilding may occur if the world is still liveable for human beings.

Option b) Restricted growth: I call this the Chinese solution as westerners don't seem to want to go this way. A virus is developed that makes black sterile. Black population dwindles and possibly only survives in isolated spots at a few million here and there. The virus is eventually neutralised, but black population is kept in check (by other means, for example by letting them live in their own countries, with sealed borders (both directions).

"On the other hand, this is Reuters, an outfit that regularly inflates Democrat polling numbers."

The dems need to present themselves in the best possible light given the cash situation at the DNC. If they show weakness in polling numbers, they will be abandoned by the financiers. Hence the pools will be favourable all the way.

This illustrates the "ball and chain" function of conservatives. Without an ideology of their own, conservatives are relegated to slowing down the leftward move of society. But they are powerless to prevent it.

I am pretty sure you can find charts like this for _every_ political standpoint.

That is why the left fears the alt-right, because they will not only resist, they will also revert.

Is there any data on the woman involved? I wonder if the women that sleep with violent men are more likely to sleep around than the women that have less violent partners.