May 21, 2016

Clinton machine's attacks on Bernie aren't working (bodes well for when Trump faces it)

The schism within the Democrats began to visibly widen last weekend at the Nevada Convention where the Establishment marginalized the Sanders supporters, who raised a great hue and cry at the Convention itself and during the past week.

The DNC and the Clinton machine responded by attacking the Bernie movement on cable news, political websites, and social media. His supporters went too far, they're inciting violence and intimidation, the process is not rigged by Hillary's surrogates, they need to beg forgiveness for acting so horribly, etc etc etc.

Sanders supporters gave the obligatory empty denunciations of violence (who will condone?), and stood their ground against the Dem Establishment. They aren't being transparent, they use arcane procedural rules to circumvent popular participation, they're treating the primaries as a coronation of Crooked Hillary, the major controllers of the process have been in favor of Clinton ever since the beginning, and so on and so forth.

This fight has been going on all day, every day for the past week, with unrelenting media propaganda boosting Hillary and telling Bernie to be quiet, lest the contest damage Hillary too much before she even goes one-on-one against Trump.

What has been the effect of all this anti-anti-Establishment "messaging" on those involved in the primary? Zero -- if anything, it has helped Bernie's numbers.

Reuters polling for the Democratic primary shows no down-turn for Bernie over the past week. In fact, from Monday through Friday his numbers rose day after day, standing now at 44%. Crooked Hillary's numbers have steadily fallen to 38%. Those saying they wouldn't vote for either of them have fallen as well, so the Clinton machine's propaganda has provoked some sitting on the sidelines to choose Bernie.

The past week's trends are part of a longer pattern over all of May, of Sanders rising and Clinton falling. So we can't say that the media shaming blitz backfired and caused his numbers to go up. That was already happening. Still, it does show that it didn't have much of a negative impact, although they didn't totally unload on him, let alone take out attack ads.

Trump will face a higher level of intensity from the Clinton propaganda machine when it's just the two of them. But if they are having zero effect on one anti-Establishment candidate, a higher intensity of zero will still equal zero on the other anti-Establishment candidate. Certainly that was the outcome of all the Trump-hating propaganda during the Republican primary season, much of which did not come from his Republican rivals but from the Clinton-friendly cable news channels and major newspapers and websites.

Trump keeps taunting Team Hillary that they still can't put Bernie away and close the deal. He's making a larger point, though, aside from demoralizing them -- they've proven to be weak and ineffective against a weaker opponent than they will face in Trump.

Trump may have a lot of work to do to persuade voters around the country that he's not the typical Republican candidate, a job he's been working on since the beginning (most notably on trade issues). But he will not have much to worry about from the Clinton machine, who are already proving how inept they are. One less major danger to worry that much about.

Now he can focus more on appealing directly to the voters in each of the states, and not have to do much defense. Onward to victory.

44 comments:

  1. If anyone else is in a swing state, you're no doubt seeing the Crooked Hillary Super PAC ads about the scolding schoolmarms being sourpussed about what Trump said back in the '90s on Howard Stern.

    It's not only highlighting how funny Trump can be, it reminds voters that he's authentic and spontaneous rather than a fake scripted shill for his donors. And it plays up his anti-PC attitude, in a climate where political correctness could not be more toxic to a candidate.

    I thought it was a pro-Trump ad at first -- "Do you hate scolding schoolmarms meddling in national politics when they should be baking birthday cakes for their grandchildren? Vote Trump!"

    I saw some of the internet ads, which also came off as pro-Trump, but I figured they'd learn from those failures and get serious once they hit swing-state television. Nope -- they doubled down on "How hilarious is it what Trump said that one time?"

    These ads will energize a good chunk of apathetic male voters who otherwise would have sat the election out. All we need is a bigger turnout among men, and it's over. They're already doing the recruiting for us -- and blowing millions of their own dollars!

    Folks, now that's what I call "under budget and ahead of schedule," do we agree?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I also wonder how much these ads are deprogramming male Democrats, who long for the Dems to be the iconoclastic and anti-authoritarian party again.

    The ads go out of their way to prove how uncucked Trump is, how totally opposite of the typical conservadad Republican he is.

    Scolding nags HATE HIM!
    This political REBEL is kicking ass and taking names
    Find out what Princess Sourpuss DOESN'T want you to know!

    Usually the "Fuck you, Mom!" vote would be going to the Dems, but not after these ads. I wouldn't be surprised to see the grunge demographic put Trump over the top in the Pacific NW. These ads are making it cool to vote for a Republican President.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The Democratic primaries have been fascinating due to how unpopular Hillary Clinton is in her own party. If it wasn't for elitist support, she would already be toast.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I noticed back in 2008 that Hillary Clinton's operation, while huge, was intellectually and even emotionally mediocre; I cannot remember what made me think that and come to the conclusion that it was a major liability against Obama.
    Then you started turning your eye to studying deeply and examining the behavior of gay men... When this election season began, the same ol' Hillary Clinton snafus and boneheadedness manifested themselves once again, but this time, the reasons were much clearer: she is herself mediocre and she attracts and surrounds herself with gay men. Or, another way to look at it: she is allergic to highly intelligent, normal adults.
    I know a woman like this. When she was managing stores, this dislike of intelligence and competence wasn't a fatal flaw. She spread herself thin "having to do everything" and was exhausted, but she loved nurturing her kinda feckless underlings though she'd never admit it.
    "If you want her to like you, get pregnant out of wedlock, and she'll be right over with a bunch of baby clothes and furniture and she's your new best friend. But if you're on the straight and narrow and are smart, she hates you." was the kind of thing often said about her.

    Then she decided to go independent and become an owner and it went downhill from the very beginning and never stopped. She had lots of $$$ and stubborness, so it took 4-5 years to burn through it all. The failure had everything to do with the two men she tasked to be the manager: she had one, took forever to fire him, and then replaced him with another guy exactly like him. Not gay, but rednecks who had zero, zero!, business in selling anything upscale to women.

    ReplyDelete
  5. We were told that the GOP was dousing itself with napalm when Trump hurtled one hack after another. Yet, as far as we can tell and assuming good faith on elites willing to finally listen to populism, a decent chunk of the GOP structure is now willing to champion Trump.

    Over the last several weeks it is now Bernie who is becoming a bigger pain in the ass to the Dem elites and grievance groups who are uniformly tethered to the Clinton syndicate.

    What's the difference between the two parties? As much shit as we give gun nuts and Judeo-Christo-Evangelical zealots, at least the Republicans by and large are white. Both in terms of pols., party officials, and voters. And with a bias towards men and hetero married (e.g. well-adjusted) women. In spite of the desperate efforts to be PC and "expand" the base by fast tracking the ambitions of towering black and conquistador-American figures like Herman Cain and Marco Rubio.

    Race is the most divisive force in existence. The Dems have essentially been promoting racial and sexual nihilism in earnest since the mid-late 80's. How was the coalition of feminist harpies, bratty college kids, atheists, homos/dykes, blacks, Mexicans/immigrants, and deracinated self-hating whites going to sustain itself, anyway?

    The populist approach to immigration, trade, PC feminist and racial screeching (if one defines populism as what appeals to the ordinary masses) is an easier sell to the GOP elites since, well, a substantial chunk of their base is white people who agree that the last 40 years were a big sellout of Regular Americans. On the other hand, the Dems are more threatened by a populist reversal of recent trends upon which modern cultural and racial liberals are dependent.

    Gen X liberals in particular are in a tizzy since PC and libertarian non-sense has been the norm throughout most of their lives. Ditto for millennials too who play the white guys are evil card.

    It's time to restore the standards and practices of a well-functioning nation. Like ethnic/national integrity, accountability/rule of law, defended and intact borders, and reasonably maintained physical and social infrastructure. This every man for himself dystopia has collapsed under the weight of it's decadence, corruption, and arrogance.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I should amend my comment about the Dems. One thing I left out was that it doesn't make much sense to go out your way to insult blue collar whites when they can still be mobilized to make a big electoral difference.

    The last several elections featured GOP figures who were either timid Silents or glib Boomers who couldn't bring themselves to do more to appeal to ordinary white guys. The Dems hatred of these guys grew yet some still voted Democrat due to the arrogance of the GOP who took their vote for granted while making lame as hell efforts to appeal to non-whites.

    Now that we've finally gotten a GOP candidate who understands where the GOP's bread is really buttered, the Dem's hostility towards the concerns of unpretentious white guys (many of whom have wives who don't want Muhammad blowing things up or Jose raping their daughter) is really coming back to bite them in the ass. Quite a few people who grew alienated are now getting the sense that, FINALLY, someone wants to accomplish something besides chest beating and status signalling.

    The Dems (and yes, some autistic GOPers) have been downplaying whites and cultural conservatives for years on account of the idea that with each passing American generation, we get less white and less conservative. Therefore, the Dems can continue with business as usual while the GOP can safely exit the rusting armor of the pre PC era so as to better appeal to the New America.

    Alas, Trump is polishing that armor and he wears it well.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "she is herself mediocre and she attracts and surrounds herself with gay men."

    It's funny how tone-deaf their whole machine is about the campaign's gayness levels being off the charts, apart from the Princess herself being a butch dyke.

    Their ads all have that snickering smugness and elitism found among faggies, but the worst was their recent (perhaps ongoing?) social media campaign called "Bros 4 Hillary". You see any of their pictures, and they've all got flaming gay-whoosh hair-do's.

    More like Homos 4 Hillary.

    I looked into the Reuters polling data, and while the gays definitely prefer their Fag Hag in Chief, the bisexual girls are all-in for Bernie, and so were the lesbians to a lesser extent.

    However, Bernie's campaign doesn't suggest "bipolar bisexual" in everything it does, like the Clinton campaign proclaims "a fag made this" no matter what it puts out. You do see the obligatory pink-haired lady-lover in the stands behind Bernie at the rallies, but it doesn't spread across the entire campaign brand.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "As much shit as we give gun nuts and Judeo-Christo-Evangelical zealots, at least the Republicans by and large are white."

    Conservative morality probably matters more than just being white -- conservatives have a stronger sense of loyalty and teamwork than liberals. And now that Dems are the liberal party, Dems are more likely to fracture.

    Conservatives can defect en masse, too, but it takes a lot more pushing -- like the inclusion of blacks and black interests into the Democrats' platform after WWII, antagonizing the Solid South element of the Dem coalition. Thurmond in '48 and Wallace in '68 were both huge splits within the party, and after that they said "no more" and joined the Republicans.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "it doesn't make much sense to go out your way to insult blue collar whites when they can still be mobilized to make a big electoral difference."

    They can be mobilized for a lot more than that:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain

    Deep down, white people aren't afraid of black people as an entire group, despite whites knowing about higher black levels of violence. Their violence is opportunistic and criminal, rather than orchestrated and warlike.

    Piss off black people, worst case scenario there's a riot that burns down their own neighborhoods and kills a few dozen whites.

    Piss off white folks, worst case scenario we'll exterminate the entire group that our enemy comes from.

    Blacks can organize that way, too, but only back in Africa where they are the majority. Here where they're a minority, they've never tried an African-style armed revolution or Rwandan-style genocide. They know they don't have the numbers.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Also, if any of the more radical leftists are secretly thinking of Rwandan-style aggression, they are making a big mistake. A conflict like that would last about ten minutes and there is no doubt about who the victor would be. If you were to pit 1,000 battle-hardened Crips against a group of pasty-faced white suburbanites (1) who work in cubicles; (2) have no military experience; and (3) have had no experience with violence beyond getting spanked in childhood, the cubicle workers would annihilate the gangastas. That's because whites can organize themselves, work as a team, and have future time orientation. Whites choose not to be violent, because we prefer to live in a civilized society where disputes are settled peaceably, but if violence is necessary, we play to win. Also, and sadly for our enemies, whites aren't interested living in a state of constant low-level conflict, we want wars to be OVER, and if we are provoked enough that is the outcome that we will bring about. It's how we dealt with the Japanese, the Germans, and the American Indians.

    Whites didn't want to deal with constant raids from Indians, so they annihilated the Indians. The Indians got the message, too, they allowed themselves to be herded onto reservations and haven't been heard from since. Germany and Japan were completely crushed and defeated.

    Fortunately we don't face any real danger of that kind of conflict in America. Blacks don't have the numbers, the desire, or the ability, and Hispanics are mostly peaceable. But in Europe there is a real danger that the Muslims will provoke this kind of reaction. In fact, it's probably inevitable at this point. I take no pleasure in saying that, but I don't see any alternative.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I, for one, am looking forward to the coming race wars.

    I'm just hoping I'll be able to participate!

    ReplyDelete
  12. advancedatheist5/22/16, 1:15 PM

    We can see a precedent for that in British history when King George II had had enough of the lawless clans in the Scottish Highlands, and he sent in his army to pacify them. The Highlanders have acted civilized and white since then.

    ReplyDelete
  13. advancedatheist5/22/16, 3:02 PM

    I grew up in Tulsa in the 1960's and 1970's, and from hindsight I can see that Tulsa avoided the racial troubles that afflicted much of the rest of the country.

    One, Tulsa's blacks knew they depended on the sufferance of all the rednecks in town who owned firearms, and many of them also had military experience and training like the World War II vets in my father's generation.

    And two, Tulsa's white population during its rowdy oil boom days had already attacked the black community in 1921. The surviving black elders in the 1960's probably played a role in keeping the young hotheads in line to prevent a repeat of that.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Rare that blacks organize beyond the street gang level.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Tulsa's white population during its rowdy oil boom days had already attacked the black community in 1921."

    Bingo. That was a big phenomenon in the late '10s and early '20s. And back then, the race riots were white people burning down the blacks' buildings and lynching the blacks, not the other way around.

    "Fortunately we don't face any real danger of that kind of conflict in America. Blacks don't have the numbers, the desire, or the ability, and Hispanics are mostly peaceable."

    Hispanics organize at a much higher level than blacks, and are about as impulsive and violent. They quickly organized gangs that cleansed the blacks out of California. Their homeland also supported gigantic population sizes, like the Aztecs, unlike what you find in the black regions of Africa.

    That's bad -- Aztecs pose more of a threat to our civilization than blacks do, because they can work in big teams of strangers who come from the same group.

    Ideally we want our non-white population to be one incapable of growing large in size, and incapable of forming large teams of strangers. Like the aborigines in Australia, who were hunter-gatherers and therefore geared to small closely knit groups.

    Horticulturalists are the next level up -- tropical places where slash-and-burn gardening is done. Blacks and jungle-dwelling Amerindians.

    Next level is pastoralists, and they're more selected for spite and cycles of vengeance. That includes the Muslim Belt.

    Highest level is sedentary agriculture, like the Aztecs, Chinese, and Indians. Under no circumstances can we allow them to become our non-white population, since they will slowly work to replace us, whether peacefully or violently.

    ReplyDelete
  16. BTW that's the total opposite of what the HBD spergs say about how diversity ought to take shape. They say that whatever diversity we have should be from relatively high-IQ, peaceful, civilized-ish peoples like the Mexicans, Chinese, and Indians.

    If that could be confined to a tiny ethnic caste that never grew in size, like the Parsis in India, no biggie.

    But we have no history of a caste system here or in our European homelands (except for Jews in Eastern Europe), so that won't play.

    Importing direct civilizational competitors is the easiest way for us to slowly dissolve and be driven out of business as a people.

    A handful of violent blacks in ghettos here and there is better than the West Coast becoming a mix of Mexico and China, where one of those non-white groups will eventually wipe out the other one, since they're not bound by Nordic codes against ethnocentrism.

    We're not going to let the whole West Coast turn into either Greater China or Greater Mexico.

    ReplyDelete
  17. It's wrong to put stewardship of the nation, people, and culture into the hands of the HBD-leaning crowd -- they're nerds who are too blinded by the fear of getting mugged, raped, or killed by some random ghetto thug who found his way into their nice middle-class suburb.

    They're focused personally on themselves, not dispassionately on the broader society.

    The big picture is minority management to preserve our way of life -- and that is most threatened by non-whites who can grow as big as we can, work in teams like we can, and work the jobs that we can.

    Under that big picture, blacks are relatively harmless compared to Mexicans, Chinese, and Indians. Ideally it would be just the white man, the red man, and the black man -- like it used to be back in the good ol' days.

    The HBD crowd wants a dystopian Blade Runner world where we're over-run by our civilizational competitors, just because the nerds wouldn't get mugged, raped, and murdered so easily if their suburb turned into a Chinatown rather than a Section 8 black ghetto.

    The "cognitive elite" worldview is fundamentally deracinated and multicultural. Working and middle-class people are less insecure about being perceived as provincial, so that's who needs to be the base of any political party -- not the upper-middle class or elite, who will favor the "cognitive elite" approach AT BEST to immigration.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The HBD dorks seem to believe that W Europeans and E Asians are great because they're dutiful beta, nerd workers. And that blax are scary and intimidating. There's always a place for nerds, but what made the West exceptional were men who took risks and pushed limits. Blacks have been enslaved by basically every group that's come into contact with them, and they were usually good slaves. One of the better expositions on the HBD cuckold phenomenon http://salo-forum.com/index.php?threads/hbd-wimp-centered-view-of-history.4050/

    ReplyDelete
  19. "since they're not bound by Nordic codes against ethnocentrism."
    They're some of the worst fraudsters, like dumber Jews. Indian computer repair scammers are notorious and over the past few years they've been trying to prey on the elderly during tax season, even pretending to be the IRS to extort money.

    ReplyDelete
  20. OT, but this is the first MSM article I've seen to argue points that you've been making for months, about the end of the culture wars clearing the way for a new political realignment that revolves around responses to nationalism.

    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/2016-election-realignment-partisan-political-party-policy-democrats-republicans-politics-213909

    ReplyDelete
  21. Do you think that Bernie would consider being Hillary's VP? I'd think not--the ultimate sellout to everything he says she stands for, but it's the one "coupling" that maybe could stop Trump. All those college students stumping for them as they did for Obama. Ugh.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Random Dude on the Internet5/23/16, 12:37 AM

    Hillary's VP is absolutely going to be a minority. A guy who has had difficulties getting the black vote will not sit well with black Democrats, who insist at having a seat at the table at all times. It could be someone like Cory Booker but I'm sure there are a number of fresh faced black politicians who would accept the VP role. The VP may be Latino as well but my money is on black.

    ReplyDelete
  23. No way she would name him, no way he would accept, and no way his supporters would be fooled into voting for Crooked Hillary.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "this is the first MSM article I've seen to argue points that you've been making for months, about the end of the culture wars clearing the way for a new political realignment that revolves around responses to nationalism."

    I don't see libertarianism changing parties in the near-to-medium term, even if the tiny handful of free market ideologues defect to the Dems. It looks more like laissez-faire is going out of business altogether.

    Last time there was a populist realignment away from laissez-faire, it was led by tariff-friendly Republicans (McKinley), but that didn't mean that the Dems campaigned on Making Free Markets Great Again. They were also populists and nationalists like William Jennings Bryan.

    I can see the Republicans emphasizing nationalism more than populism, and Dems the other way around, but nobody is going to be selling free markets, flat taxes, off-shored jobs, etc.

    Just like during the culture war era, both parties were identical on economic issues -- sending jobs out, letting corporations vertically integrate until 5 corporations control all of the media, busting labor unions, and so on and so forth.

    Last time the Republicans were the progressives, the Dems distinguished themselves over foreign policy -- idealistically multinational (Wilson's League of Nations). So perhaps the future Dems will want to keep us more in NATO, the UN, and similar orgs.

    But I don't see them being the anti-Trump party -- that would prevent them from appealing to the Trump electorate. They're going to have to accept a high degree of populism and nationalism, even if they are relatively less nationalist than the Trump Republicans.

    ReplyDelete
  25. It seems like the only way the Dems can survive in the new climate is to focus on the threat to blacks posed by unskilled foreigners flooding in, or enjoying off-shored jobs in their own lands.

    Blacks benefit from populism automatically since they're so thin in the middle-class and above.

    And nationalism protects them from Mexicans stealing their jobs, and therefore pricing them out of their homes, and sending them scrambling for relatively Aztec-free regions like the Deep South.

    They are historically part of this nation, so protecting them fits in with nationalism rather than open-borders multiculturalism. Blacks want "multicultural" to mean "pro-black" -- no pro-Mexican, pro-Chinese, pro-Indian, or even pro-African immigrants.

    They know that the free goodies pie and affirmative action slots are only so big. The more foreigners, the less the blacks get.

    And blacks are openly ethnocentric, so we don't have to persuade them away from being friendly toward other races, like we would with liberal white PhD's.

    The urban vs. suburban-and-rural split will persist, too. But it'll take a populist and nationalist focus. Urban populism meaning helping the homeless, the poor, and the blacks (if any). Protectionist nationalism for cities meaning that they'll look nice and clean like in the 1950s, and not like the dilapidated hellholes of the Gilded Age, when immigrants keep pouring in.

    Cosmopolitans will probably revert to expressing their cultural superiority by traveling to exotic places, rather than living among exotic people at home. Bumming around Paris, joining the jet set, etc. No need to bring the foreigners here -- then everyone could become a cosmopolitan, and we want to reserve that for ourselves, for whom international travel is a defining part of our lifestyle and persona.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Then there's the other chunk of the Dems who are black-friendly whites. They like thinking of themselves as having a bunch of cool black friends, by being in the same party as the black bloc. Joe Biden is their avatar -- the white guy who's the partner / friend of the black guy. An '80s buddy cop pair.

    How do you sell these black-seeking whites on populism and nationalism? Again by pointing out how endangered their favorite group will become with open borders and elitist economics.

    Populism benefits most blacks since they're lower in status.

    And if we have multicultural globalism, the blacks will get swamped in their own historical neighborhoods. Their jobs will be taken by immigrants, and without income they'll lose their homes and be priced out of most cities.

    Graphically illustrate the Hispanic gangs who ethnically cleanse the blacks, to the point where "south central LA" is no longer black but totally Mexican.

    Blacks feel just as alienated surrounded by foreigners as we do. Cut to a shot of Samuel L. Jackson shouting ENGLISH MUTHAFUCKA DO YOU SPEAK IT.

    The goal being to show black-friendly whites how open borders, and particularly from Latin America, is dissolving their beloved black community, and pretty soon the African-American heritage will be gone, and they'll have no pool of cool black friends to choose from.

    These whites are still sold on blacks as the cool non-white group. Republicans, if anyone, are those seeking to find cool Mexican friends.

    So it might not be as hard as it sounds for not-so-nationalist white Dems to favor immigration restrictions, if that protects and preserves the black community which disproportionately shoulders the burden of open borders.

    ReplyDelete
  27. From an NYT profile of two operatives in the Clinton vs. Trump campaigns. Guess whose side this one is on:

    "One takes a pint-size dog named Toby almost everywhere, smokes electronic cigarettes and wears his silver hair in a flowing pompadour [flaming gay whoosh]."

    David Brock is just the most visible example of the Homos 4 Hillary camp. No wonder their whole campaign is so out of touch.

    BTW, someone must have tipped them off because they changed their woman card ads again. This time, it's weepy piano music, and a pained Nancy Grace voice introducing all the woman-card things Trump has said.

    Still clueless about what matters this time around -- not the culture war, in any way shape or form. Yet doubling down on woman-card crap.

    Even worse is the constant jerking in tone -- first in-your-face and snarky-satirical, now maudlin and overly empathetic.

    They don't understand that when you constantly shift the tone of your message, people can tell that you have nothing to say and are just throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks. People don't like being treated as guinea pigs -- you need to get the message right, and the tone consistent, *before* broadcasting it.

    It will give people the larger impression that Crooked Hillary stands for nothing, and has no real emotions, just aping what she thinks will get her a few more points, like the sociopathic chameleon that she and her AIDS brigades can't help but come off as.

    ReplyDelete
  28. advancedatheist5/23/16, 12:37 PM

    I wonder at what age the gay-graying of David Brock's hair started.

    ReplyDelete
  29. White leftists should be constantly reminded that the "cultures" they idealize are a) not vibrant b) deleterious to their pet causes like feminism, environmentalism, animal rights, etc. (think Chinese dog festivals or this http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3571066/Whipped-painted-blue-Smurfs-dressed-Donald-Trump-Inside-Mexico-s-cruel-donkey-fair-mules-fed-ALCOHOL-ridden-racecourse-fancy-dress-killed-meat.html)

    ReplyDelete
  30. "Then there's the other chunk of the Dems who are black-friendly whites. They like thinking of themselves as having a bunch of cool black friends, by being in the same party as the black bloc. Joe Biden is their avatar -- the white guy who's the partner / friend of the black guy. An '80s buddy cop pair.

    How do you sell these black-seeking whites on populism and nationalism? Again by pointing out how endangered their favorite group will become with open borders and elitist economics.

    Populism benefits most blacks since they're lower in status.

    Blacks feel just as alienated surrounded by foreigners as we do. Cut to a shot of Samuel L. Jackson shouting ENGLISH MUTHAFUCKA DO YOU SPEAK IT.

    The goal being to show black-friendly whites how open borders, and particularly from Latin America, is dissolving their beloved black community, and pretty soon the African-American heritage will be gone, and they'll have no pool of cool black friends to choose from.

    These whites are still sold on blacks as the cool non-white group. Republicans, if anyone, are those seeking to find cool Mexican friends."

    I dunno where to start. We've got to get whites back on board the cultural separatism that made the West capable of prosperity and stability. Liberal white doofuses still don't get what leads to Duhmarcus polar bear hunting. It isn't "oppression" or "poverty", it's 2nd and 3rd tier blacks being raised in an oppositional culture sorrounded by wimpy and deraceinated whites.

    Spree attacks, the mindless devotion to victimhood, and retarded tribalism (like cheering on O.J.) are all symptoms of a society that needs to wake up. The eighties were a brief respite from the civil rights (which quickly went from equal treatment to special treatment) onslaught that's cowed too many whites and emboldened too many blacks. But the eighties were an exception, not the rule. I'd be all for the agreeable 80's approach to race relations, but that's lightning in a bottle. Before the 60's, at most times, whites agreed that the best solution to race relations is to just keep the races at a safe distance from each other.

    And the sheer savagery of blacks in high inequality eras is precisely what causes a perhaps unconscious desire among the elites to flood America with yellows and browns. No matter the race, filling a white country with truculent blacks, taciturn mestizos, and venal Asians is a Faustian bargain. The Irish, Italians, Nords, and Poles we imported in the later 1800's/early 1900's may have been a source of consternation of varying degrees, but at least they're white. And right now we've come to recognize that, overall, they are net contributors to a solid Western country.

    Like Marcus said, simply repatriating blacks to Africa would correct a terrible mistake. The Indians have a moral argument for remaining in America (Hey, it's our turf), but slave descendants by and large are here mostly on account of junk high inequality culture that produces greedy SOB elites, over zealous missionaries who stick their noses where they don't belong, and glib rootless bohemians.

    Also, for the record, if a white man isn't by default nervous about his daughter associating with blacks, he can go run into traffic for all I care. At this point, most white guys at least off the record are still weirded out by miscegenation. Brazil type scenarios are fortunately the outlier, no matter how many storm front types push propaganda about the white race being mixed to death. More probable is that a lack of pushback against invading browns and yellows insidiously displaces whites who have fewer jobs, fewer children and fewer places to live because they feel almost strangely unwelcome among sneaky Asian grinders and the cultural desolation posed by Mestizos.

    ReplyDelete
  31. "I don't see libertarianism changing parties in the near-to-medium term, even if the tiny handful of free market ideologues defect to the Dems. It looks more like laissez-faire is going out of business altogether."

    When Joe sixpack is actually asked abut his stance regarding various econ. and social issues, it turns out that he usually isn't a "true" libertarian. The elites got away with libertarian crap for years by distracting people with culture stuff. Now that that era is over (as vividly illustrated by Hillary's zombie campaign presided over by goulish decadents begging to be thrown into the margins of the rising new era), the libertarian push will be fought back against ferociously. And then we can get on with restoring things.

    At a certain point declaring any kind of support for libertarianism will elicit derision. Targets will be on their heads. Nader running as either in independent or Green got more votes than whoever was running as the libertarian candidate in 3 straight elections. So even in the fucked up period of the last 16 years, the poor whittle Libertarian Party couldn't motivate anyone to vote for their creepy and callous stuff. Might as well be called the sociopath party.

    One of those ghoulish party hacks by the way, has got to be Paul Begala (Beghoula?). Dude makes my skin crawl, and you gotta wonder what this fixer has gotten himself into over the years. Go back to the shadows.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Paul Begala is another gayfaced sociopath. He's in charge of the Woman Card Super PAC. He takes every opportunity to creepily hit on Van Jones when they're seated next to each other on CNN panels. Speaks like a schizoid (AIDS got to the brain).

    ReplyDelete
  33. "Like Marcus said, simply repatriating blacks to Africa would correct a terrible mistake."

    Blacks aren't going anywhere, get real. The job now is clearly managing them.

    The recent flood of illegals can all get shipped back to wherever they came from, including the anchor babies and their families. Multiculturalists will abstractly be offended, but they won't feel like part of their country is being removed. There's no legends about Mexican, Chinese, or Indian influences on American culture, the way that multicultis mythologize black musical influences on rock 'n' roll, sports legends, movie stars, comedians, political heroes, etc.

    And as with the blacks, the "blacks are cool" whites aren't going anywhere anytime soon. We just have to make sure that the other side doesn't fuck things up worse than they are. They don't advocate importing hordes more blacks from Africa, and blacks themselves don't want those immigrants. That's a big step right there.

    But once they start embracing all the world's ethnic groups, then we're headed for the Tower of Babel.

    Somehow we have to help steer them back toward multiculturalism that is based on rooted groups rather than imported human zoos where whites gawk at the strange exotic foreigners. Blacks and whites have a longer involved history, for better or worse, while the other ones were recently imported for cheap labor and exotic culture bearers.

    ReplyDelete
  34. As SWPL's come face to face with the nasty realities of supposed vibrant cultures (brutal Muslim misogyny and pedophilia, Hindu caste violence, Chinese cruelty, Mexican animal cruelty and trashing of the environment, etc.) they'll realize that multiculturalism means an end to their beloved causes, not interesting foods. The few with any kind of backbone will side with a kind of nationalism that excludes the aforementioned groups.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Not to belabor the point, but past immigration restrictionists and segregationists were often progressives, with concerns that we now identify as "liberal." Think of Teddy Roosevelt or Madison Grant.

    ReplyDelete
  36. "White leftists should be constantly reminded that the "cultures" they idealize are a) not vibrant b) deleterious to their pet causes like feminism, environmentalism, animal rights, etc."

    They seem highly resistant to that argument -- they believe cultural values are malleable, and the initially non-Western immigrants can be Westernized in the right ways (feminist, enviro, etc.) without having to surrender their heritage (Muslim, headscarves, etc.).

    If they are still culturally backward, then we just haven't tried hard enough and poured enough money into re-educating, I mean assimilating them. They'll never accept that their efforts have failed.

    And at any rate, they'll willing to be more culturally pluralistic, and allow a cacophony of norms related to women's rights, etc.

    It's harder to rationalize that immigrants stealing black people's jobs, housing, etc., is actually an OK thing and we can be pluralistic about it. It harms the blacks, and that's bad per se, in their mind. Failing to assimilate to Western norms only harms the white majority, which is OK in their mind.

    Either the immigrant or the black gets the job, apartment, etc. Direct competition for material resources means we have to pick sides in who we favor.

    Especially when we open the floodgates, the blacks are really going to get swamped. Look at how non-black California became in less than a generation.

    We ought to make them choose between which non-white group they favor, and shame the hell out of them if they say anyone other than black -- legacy of slavery, roots in the country, contribution to shared culture, whatever it takes using their own buzzwords.

    Buh-lieve me, it will not be hard to get black people on board with dissing the other minorities and telling them to go back to their own country. "I EARNED my place here from my ancestors being brought to America against their will, you no-speaky-English immigrant muthafucka."

    As long as blacks feel like whites will protect them, they'll be on board. They'll only refuse if they think that the deportations are the first step toward their hysterical delusions about the KKK coming back.

    ReplyDelete
  37. "They seem highly resistant to that argument -- they believe cultural values are malleable, and the initially non-Western immigrants can be Westernized in the right ways (feminist, enviro, etc.) without having to surrender their heritage (Muslim, headscarves, etc.)."

    Yeah the results so far aren't great, and immigrants can outflank leftist criticism of their practices with the "racist" card. However, I hold out some hope that saturation will do the trick. Take this for example (doubtless it was written by a leftist, who else cares about soccer?): http://withleather.uproxx.com/2011/06/mexican-soccer-fans-are-boorish-animals-a-first-hand-account

    ReplyDelete
  38. "There's no legends about Mexican, Chinese, or Indian influences on American culture, the way that multicultis mythologize black musical influences on rock 'n' roll, sports legends, movie stars, comedians, political heroes, etc."

    Sure, when one wants to be entertained, blacks are alright. Sports writers love their garrulous tendencies. They wouldn't have much material without the big mouth blacks. I guess charisma alone goes a long way. But overall, black impulsiveness, recklessness, and narcissism make them more trouble than their worth. Also, in cocooning periods black artists suck as much as anyone else does. Asians can't make music for shit, like ever, though.

    When the transition away from decadence is firm, I guess we can count on victim politics and crime sprees declining. Maybe blacks could be more of an asset. But we're still knee deep in ID politics, and right now it seems like non-whites of all ages are enthusiastic about hating on whitey for the time being. WRT to using economic appeals to blacks, well, we've been giving them jobs and welfare for ages to shut them up. It worked in the 80's when people were to busy having fun and being cheerful to bitch too much. It sure as hell hasn't worked over the last 25 years, not that the disgraceful white dominated media of the 90's helped by heaping abuse on whites (who begin dramatically losing their self-res and pandering to the most base entitlement of blacks. We really need a more noble era to begin so as to inspire people to stop finger pointing and demanding crap.

    Even whites have heavily fragmented over the last 25 years. We ought to try more things to persuade skeptical whites (lets not forget that most American whites, even the dopey ones who are more liberal or affluent stand to benefit from a Trump era) before we focus on blacks.

    I must admit that I'm paradoxically grateful to blacks (esp. the crooked "community leaders") for throwing the Dem race to Hillary. Thereby shoving Trump's biggest competitor (Sanders) out of the picture and clearing the way for Trump.

    ReplyDelete
  39. "Paul Begala is another gayfaced sociopath. He's in charge of the Woman Card Super PAC. He takes every opportunity to creepily hit on Van Jones when they're seated next to each other on CNN panels. Speaks like a schizoid (AIDS got to the brain)."

    Ha ha, to think that the most deranged people on the planet (fags) have any business attempting to recruit well-adjusted women into the Shillary Sheocracy.

    Obama had a much better team in the '08 election. No surprise he outlasted Hillary's mutual sociopath admiration society. Just how awful would someone have to be to lose to the lesser Clinton in the general election? Even her party nom. run has been rocky. Bernie nearly matched Hillary, rising from complete obscurity, done no favors by the DNC suppressing the Dem debates because they knew that the more Hillary opens her yap, the more trouble she gets into.

    Has there been a single candidate in our history THIS bad? Between nepotism, the established "scandals" (some of which our criminal),her utter lack of any sort of genuine empathy, and the degree to which she's reliant on the party machine, she sucks.

    ReplyDelete
  40. "black impulsiveness, recklessness, and narcissism make them more trouble than their worth."

    No shit, but what are you going to do about it? They're not going back to Africa, whether we like it or not. Sending back all the other non-white groups who just showed up in the past 30 years -- that is very do-able. And the reason for making an exception for blacks is crystal clear -- they're not recent immigrants.

    "we've been giving them jobs and welfare for ages to shut them up."

    We're not talking about Great Society pacification. We're talking about protecting them as a non-white group -- the alternative being opening the floodgates of immigration, and then they can fight for their own group survival, against the onslaught of Mexicans, Chinese, Indians, etc.

    In return, we're not promising free stuff to not murder. We're saying support the populist and nationalist direction that the country is heading in, including resetting our population to circa 1970 or '80, ethnic-wise.

    Protecting them is not making commitments or set-asides, like free stuff, it's just letting them know that we're not deporting the blacks who are descended from slaves back to Africa (F.O.B. illegals from Nigeria, though -- they've got to go back).

    ReplyDelete
  41. "Has there been a single candidate in our history THIS bad?"

    You'd almost think she was benefiting from Jewish nepotism, but as part of the ultimate strangeness in this election, it's the Jewish candidate who's being railroaded by the Dem Establishment (and voters -- Jews are way more in favor of Hillary than the one who they consider a "self-hating Jew").

    ReplyDelete
  42. I could never stand the guy, but Begala isn't gay.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Google image search his name -- he has extreme gayface.

    ReplyDelete
  44. theo the kraut5/24/16, 6:20 AM

    OT, fwiw:
    http://www.politico.eu/article/what-were-donald-trump-ties-to-mob-mafia-casino-atlantic-city-real-estate-investigation

    ReplyDelete

You MUST enter a nickname with the "Name/URL" option if you're not signed in. We can't follow who is saying what if everyone is "Anonymous."