The depressive cucks and glib libs who constantly harp on the doom-and-gloom (or baseless enthusiasm) about how "demography is destiny" will be pleasantly surprised by Trump's performance in a number of major demographic groups. (All Bush data from the General Social Survey, using most recent year after the election.)
Race
George W. Bush got in the high 50s with whites, and the USC poll shows Trump already there. Bush got in the low 40s with Hispanics, and Trump is already there too. Among blacks, Bush got about 10%, and although Trump is currently around 5%, he was around 15% for an entire month recently. He does well in the Emerson polls with blacks, so I take the 15% to be the ceiling he'll reach.
In any event, the non-white electorate this year will be more Hispanic and less black than it was in 2000 and '04, so we'll do better than Bush did overall.
Age
Bush only got 48% of voters 65+ in '00, and 53% of them in '04. Trump is currently at 55% and surging -- hammering home the word "Watergate" is working wonders to remind older voters just how corrupt, ungovernable, and shameful a hypothetical Clinton White House would be. Since the electorate skews older, this group matters most -- Bush himself actually won the popular vote in '04 because he improved his numbers with old people by 5 points.
Among 35-64 year-olds, Bush got in the mid-50s both times, while Trump is topping out in the high 40s, maybe low 50s if enough cucks switch from Johnson. This is the only age group that he may not do as well as Bush with, because the helicopter parents are concerned with their children rather than the broader community and nation, and Trump hasn't been pushing "family values" at all. He's still winning this group, just not by as much as Bush did.
Among 18-34 year-olds, Bush got around 47% each time. Trump is currently in the mid-40s and steadily rising, so he'll probably do as well in the young group.
Given how much older this electorate will be than before, and how much greater he's doing with the older groups, Trump is easily going to do better than Bush.
Sex
Bush got in the high 40s with women both times, while Trump is in the low 40s and steadily rising. He could get to where Bush was, but I'm thinking in the mid-40s is looking more realistic. However, the would-be First Female President is not getting as much of the womens vote as Gore or Kerry did -- they got in the high 40s, while Crooked Hillary is at 48% and falling. The third party vote among women will be much greater this time.
Among men, Bush got 55% both times, and that's right where Trump is. Perhaps he could go up another point or two, but his ceiling has consistently been 55-56%. Gore only got 38% of men, which is where Hillary is now -- and her long-term ceiling is 40%. Kerry did even better at 43%, and he still lost.
Education
This is by far the biggest shift since the Bush wins. He got in the low 50s with people who had a H.S. degree or less, whereas Trump is going to end up at least 5 points higher.
For those with some college, Bush got 54% in '00 and 51% in '04, and Trump will get 51% as well.
For college degree-holders, Bush got around 50% both times, and the Democrats a few points lower, with not much third party support. Now, Hillary is getting 50%, with Trump's ceiling at 40%. That assumes 10% of the college-educated will vote third party, and I don't see that happening. So Trump could end up getting into the mid-40s, though still losing this group.
Summing up
The demographics that are relevant for the national popular vote are age and sex, which don't vary so much across the states. Trump is doing much better than Bush on both of these dimensions.
The relevance of race varies a lot by state, although here too Trump is poised to do as well or slightly better than Bush.
Education also varies in importance a lot by state, since some metro areas attract most of the college grads, while other entire states are not so heavily burdened with credentialist strivers. This is what makes Colorado the hardest to get for a Republican among the white Mountain states (excluding NM), or the West Coast, or the ACELA corridor along the East Coast.
Not as much of a problem in the Rust Belt, however, which is where the blue states that Trump is actually fighting for are located. Losing the post-grad vote will not deprive him of Michigan, although it would Massachusetts.
The Rust Belt also tends toward the whiter side and the older side (younger people leave in search of greener pastures, and there's not enough of a local boom to attract replacements from outside).
So not only is Trump going to do better in the popular vote, he's going to do better in the Electoral College than the last Republican President. No one can look at the numbers, and the geography, and conclude that Trump will do worse than Bush. And Bush won, so Trump will win -- even more big-league.
November 6, 2016
November 5, 2016
Trump's effect on the Left: Revealing true progressives vs. moralistic posers
Democrats are becoming resigned to the inevitability of a Trump administration. Are the progressives among them at least cautiously optimistic about the major gains that could be made in all the areas where Trump is "to the left" of Crooked Hillary? These include:
- Cleaning up corruption
- Ending the revolving door between lobbying and working for the government
- Trade, tariffs, bringing back manufacturing base
- Anti-interventionism, especially in Middle East
- Detente with Russia
- Leaving major entitlements alone
You'd think that the re-alignment under way would bring most of the progressive Democrats over to the Trump side, even if they didn't accept the label Republican or indeed vote for any other R aside from Trump. Hillary and the Establishment Democrats are simply too "far right" on all of these major issues, and are not any better on issues where Trump is not worlds apart from Clinton, such as climate change and environmental policy. (All of the enviro-inspired DNC platform items were squashed in committee by the Clintonites.)
Trump will get about 20% of the Bernie primary voters, but something tells me most of them would not identify as "progressive". What about the Bernie sympathizers who do identify as progressive?
There are a handful of exceptions like Slavoj Zizek and Michael Tracey (cautiously optimistic), and Cassandra Fairbanks (Bernie-to-Trump supporter), but for the most part the progressives are striving to distance themselves from Trump -- and therefore, from the issues where he commands the high ground over the Dem Establishment.
Jordan Chariton and Emma Vigeland from The Young Turks: Politics, the regular Young Turks crew, David Sirota, Rania Khalek, Nomiki Konst, etc. -- I've looked into where they're at, and their general response is embarrassment. They're embarrassed that Trump and the Trump supporters now own their pet issues.
For awhile, they tried to deny that their issues were now Trump's issues, like maybe he wasn't really going to gut NAFTA, or terminate the program of regime change, or demote Saudi Arabia from high-ranking ally to hostile terror state. By now they've accepted that he means to do those things.
Now they're in the bind of a teenager who thinks they're cooler than everyone else, who suddenly learns that their parents are really into the same music they are -- and worse, the prole neighbors are into their favorite bands too! They can no longer maintain their counter-cultural affectation by railing against the TPP, protesting against pointless wars in the Middle East, and decrying how mega-donors and Wall Street lobbyists control the White House.
So just like the try-hard teenager who frantically searches for a new band that their parents and neighbors haven't heard of, suddenly the progressives are 100% focused on climate change, environmentalism, and specifically the Dakota Pipeline and the protests there. Finally, a set of issues where Trump -- and those lowly Trump supporters -- are nowhere to be seen! At last we can relax together in our little progressive purity circle and resume our counter-cultural poses against President Drumpf and his anti-progressive environmental policies.
The fact that just about all of these people are converging on the same solution, without any of them orchestrating it or handing out talking points (or even commenting on it), shows that it springs organically from the mindset of the average progressive.
If their mindset were concerned with certain issues, they would at least be cautiously optimistic. "Sure, Trump may not be great on environmentalism, but at least we're finally going to see an end to NAFTA. Awesome sauce!" They would be treating him as a strategic ally rather than a 100% fellow traveler, but not as an enemy.
No: it turns out their main concern was affecting a counter-cultural persona for status points within their peer group of professional progressives. If the Trump movement champions the existing set of pet topics for progs, they will simply dump them and pick up a new set that the Trumpians will not touch with a 10-foot pole. Right now that means hardcore environmentalism, but if Trump takes that up, too, they'll drop that as well and move on to yet another topic, like opening the prisons -- let's see Mr. Law-and-Order take over that policy.
No matter what, the over-arching stance toward Trump is that he is the enemy, and can never be a strategic ally. These people are not interested in achieving goals, which will usually require allying with others who share those goals, but in maintaining (counter-)cultural purity. It's not ideological purity, else they'd be in the cautiously optimistic mindset.
This divide is longstanding within the progressive / activist / radical world. The most recent polemic to highlight the divide and tell the persona-obsessed side to either wake up or GTFO, was Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism: An Unbridgeable Chasm by Murray Bookchin (1995). He was an old-school left-anarchist whose goal was organizing federations of workers' councils, while the '90s flavor of anarchist was more concerned with living the change you want to be.
That meant: Don't work for The Man, don't associate with non-revolutionaries (sheeple), follow a radical diet (vegetarian or vegan), and so on and so forth. It was therefore a movement focused on purity of daily routines and rituals, sealed off from the polluting normal world, akin to the Essenes during the time of Jesus. They changed absolutely nothing, and neither will today's persona progressives, although they might at least leave behind some equivalent of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Back in the '90s, it was understandable if neither kind of radical or progressive wanted to support a major political party or candidate. Who was there? Now that Trump is offering them so many of the policies that they have been clamoring for over the last 20-30 years, they can no longer claim that both major party candidates for president are the enemy, and equally so.
Something tells me that if Murray Bookchin were alive today, he would be strategically supporting Trump like Zizek is, without being a hardcore fan of course. Although Zizek is Slavic (pro-Trump) and Bookchin was Jewish (anti-Trump), so perhaps not.
At any rate, I think the progs' gut-level reflex to demonize a Republican president will make them even more irrelevant in the near-to-middle term. For awhile it looked like they might stage their own takeover of their party, akin to the Trump movement taking over the GOP. Then in future elections we would have something like Bernie vs. Trump -- a worthy fuckin' adversary, for both sides.
But if the progs' main goal was just to pose as counter-cultural superiors, they will flee into the desert since the Trumpians have taken over their supposed major issues. In the desert, they will complain about increasingly more radical and off-putting topics, to ensure that the normies never ideologically overlap with them ever again.
Rather than the corporate globalist elitists getting shoved out of the Democrat party, they will more fully take it over. Bernie himself has already surrendered long ago and shilled for everything he stood against. The next tier down are abandoning their major issues entirely. Taking their cues from what the professional progs are doing, the grassroots progs will do anything to keep Trump framed as the enemy. There will be no base for progressive policies in the Democrat party.
That's not to say that it'll stay that way forever -- maybe just 30-40 years, like the original Progressive Era when the Republicans dominated the White House. During that time, the Democrats were still dominated by Tammany Hall -- only when the corrupt Establishment lost a fight against FDR did it disappear.
For the next generation, then, we won't have any business making allies with the average progressive. The ones who are policy-oriented we can work with, and may even convert. But it's being revealed that a larger and larger majority of progs are just persona-oriented posers who view our brand as toxic to theirs.
Hey, that's OK: we're going to Make America Great Again, and we don't need the permission of airheads obsessed with the radical lifestyle.
- Cleaning up corruption
- Ending the revolving door between lobbying and working for the government
- Trade, tariffs, bringing back manufacturing base
- Anti-interventionism, especially in Middle East
- Detente with Russia
- Leaving major entitlements alone
You'd think that the re-alignment under way would bring most of the progressive Democrats over to the Trump side, even if they didn't accept the label Republican or indeed vote for any other R aside from Trump. Hillary and the Establishment Democrats are simply too "far right" on all of these major issues, and are not any better on issues where Trump is not worlds apart from Clinton, such as climate change and environmental policy. (All of the enviro-inspired DNC platform items were squashed in committee by the Clintonites.)
Trump will get about 20% of the Bernie primary voters, but something tells me most of them would not identify as "progressive". What about the Bernie sympathizers who do identify as progressive?
There are a handful of exceptions like Slavoj Zizek and Michael Tracey (cautiously optimistic), and Cassandra Fairbanks (Bernie-to-Trump supporter), but for the most part the progressives are striving to distance themselves from Trump -- and therefore, from the issues where he commands the high ground over the Dem Establishment.
Jordan Chariton and Emma Vigeland from The Young Turks: Politics, the regular Young Turks crew, David Sirota, Rania Khalek, Nomiki Konst, etc. -- I've looked into where they're at, and their general response is embarrassment. They're embarrassed that Trump and the Trump supporters now own their pet issues.
For awhile, they tried to deny that their issues were now Trump's issues, like maybe he wasn't really going to gut NAFTA, or terminate the program of regime change, or demote Saudi Arabia from high-ranking ally to hostile terror state. By now they've accepted that he means to do those things.
Now they're in the bind of a teenager who thinks they're cooler than everyone else, who suddenly learns that their parents are really into the same music they are -- and worse, the prole neighbors are into their favorite bands too! They can no longer maintain their counter-cultural affectation by railing against the TPP, protesting against pointless wars in the Middle East, and decrying how mega-donors and Wall Street lobbyists control the White House.
So just like the try-hard teenager who frantically searches for a new band that their parents and neighbors haven't heard of, suddenly the progressives are 100% focused on climate change, environmentalism, and specifically the Dakota Pipeline and the protests there. Finally, a set of issues where Trump -- and those lowly Trump supporters -- are nowhere to be seen! At last we can relax together in our little progressive purity circle and resume our counter-cultural poses against President Drumpf and his anti-progressive environmental policies.
The fact that just about all of these people are converging on the same solution, without any of them orchestrating it or handing out talking points (or even commenting on it), shows that it springs organically from the mindset of the average progressive.
If their mindset were concerned with certain issues, they would at least be cautiously optimistic. "Sure, Trump may not be great on environmentalism, but at least we're finally going to see an end to NAFTA. Awesome sauce!" They would be treating him as a strategic ally rather than a 100% fellow traveler, but not as an enemy.
No: it turns out their main concern was affecting a counter-cultural persona for status points within their peer group of professional progressives. If the Trump movement champions the existing set of pet topics for progs, they will simply dump them and pick up a new set that the Trumpians will not touch with a 10-foot pole. Right now that means hardcore environmentalism, but if Trump takes that up, too, they'll drop that as well and move on to yet another topic, like opening the prisons -- let's see Mr. Law-and-Order take over that policy.
No matter what, the over-arching stance toward Trump is that he is the enemy, and can never be a strategic ally. These people are not interested in achieving goals, which will usually require allying with others who share those goals, but in maintaining (counter-)cultural purity. It's not ideological purity, else they'd be in the cautiously optimistic mindset.
This divide is longstanding within the progressive / activist / radical world. The most recent polemic to highlight the divide and tell the persona-obsessed side to either wake up or GTFO, was Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism: An Unbridgeable Chasm by Murray Bookchin (1995). He was an old-school left-anarchist whose goal was organizing federations of workers' councils, while the '90s flavor of anarchist was more concerned with living the change you want to be.
That meant: Don't work for The Man, don't associate with non-revolutionaries (sheeple), follow a radical diet (vegetarian or vegan), and so on and so forth. It was therefore a movement focused on purity of daily routines and rituals, sealed off from the polluting normal world, akin to the Essenes during the time of Jesus. They changed absolutely nothing, and neither will today's persona progressives, although they might at least leave behind some equivalent of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Back in the '90s, it was understandable if neither kind of radical or progressive wanted to support a major political party or candidate. Who was there? Now that Trump is offering them so many of the policies that they have been clamoring for over the last 20-30 years, they can no longer claim that both major party candidates for president are the enemy, and equally so.
Something tells me that if Murray Bookchin were alive today, he would be strategically supporting Trump like Zizek is, without being a hardcore fan of course. Although Zizek is Slavic (pro-Trump) and Bookchin was Jewish (anti-Trump), so perhaps not.
At any rate, I think the progs' gut-level reflex to demonize a Republican president will make them even more irrelevant in the near-to-middle term. For awhile it looked like they might stage their own takeover of their party, akin to the Trump movement taking over the GOP. Then in future elections we would have something like Bernie vs. Trump -- a worthy fuckin' adversary, for both sides.
But if the progs' main goal was just to pose as counter-cultural superiors, they will flee into the desert since the Trumpians have taken over their supposed major issues. In the desert, they will complain about increasingly more radical and off-putting topics, to ensure that the normies never ideologically overlap with them ever again.
Rather than the corporate globalist elitists getting shoved out of the Democrat party, they will more fully take it over. Bernie himself has already surrendered long ago and shilled for everything he stood against. The next tier down are abandoning their major issues entirely. Taking their cues from what the professional progs are doing, the grassroots progs will do anything to keep Trump framed as the enemy. There will be no base for progressive policies in the Democrat party.
That's not to say that it'll stay that way forever -- maybe just 30-40 years, like the original Progressive Era when the Republicans dominated the White House. During that time, the Democrats were still dominated by Tammany Hall -- only when the corrupt Establishment lost a fight against FDR did it disappear.
For the next generation, then, we won't have any business making allies with the average progressive. The ones who are policy-oriented we can work with, and may even convert. But it's being revealed that a larger and larger majority of progs are just persona-oriented posers who view our brand as toxic to theirs.
Hey, that's OK: we're going to Make America Great Again, and we don't need the permission of airheads obsessed with the radical lifestyle.
November 4, 2016
Child sex rings run by Clinton world? If so, Establishment is finished
This is about as fucked up as it can get.
Right now there's too much work across too many sites to sum up efficiently, but here is one post at TheDonald on Reddit, and re-tweeted by WikiLeaks. The Clintons are connected to a child trafficker who tried to smuggle some pre-pubescent kids out of Haiti in the wake of the earthquake. Hillary negotiated her release, and the attorney involved is a convicted sex trafficker.
It looks like part of a broader child sex ring that Clinton world, and perhaps the broader political Establishment, is involved in. See the various posts at /pol/ that are linked in the top comment in the Reddit post above.
There is a lot to comb through, but there is a lot of damning evidence. Coded language in WikiLeaks emails about child pornography and child prostitution (pizza, cheese, meat, egg, bacon, other food terms), as well as snuff-like video ads for the child sex bordellos operating as pizza parlors (in one for Comet Ping-Pong [CP] Pizza, the manager reassures the customer that they can trust him to protect their interests -- odd thing for a pizza parlor manager to say).
Trump made a bizarre remark at the Al Smith dinner, about how Hillary once said it takes a village... "like in Haiti, where you've taken a number of them." I thought he meant she'd taken a number of villages, like taken them for a ride and split with the charity money. But he meant she'd tried to take a number of children -- literally, as her connection to the child trafficker in Haiti reveals.
Many, many more are implicated than just the Clintons themselves -- Podesta, Brock, Obama, and scores of others. It would be remarkable if no Republicans were involved -- so they are too, just operating out of a different ring of non-existent orphanages, pizza parlors, pizza parties with no pizza served, that are described as "pizza extravaganzas".
The other angle is that one of the women involved is a dark arts performing artist, although I don't think the occultist side is the really disturbing stuff. Just some weird flake from the art world trying to out-goth the others.
The truly Satanic activity is the operation of these child sex rings by the political Establishment.
I wouldn't be surprised if Trump is planning to bring down the many pedo rings that operate with impunity in Hollywood.
Not only does it fit into the larger plan of draining the swamp, it exposes the hypocrisy of the moralistic Left that puts out the endless attack ads against Trump about "What will our pure innocent children think when they hear Trump say a curse word?"
The Catholic Church is still reeling from the early 2000s airing of its history of underage sexual abuse during the 1970s and '80s. Now the shoe will be on the other foot, with the Establishment liberals being exposed, prosecuted, jailed, and even executed for far greater sexual crimes against children.
With Attorney General Preet Bharara in charge, no one, Democrat or Republican, will be spared.
And after such horrifying crimes come to light, no one even remotely connected to the politicians, lobbyists, and donors will ever be able to play a role in politics again. Just as Catholicism and Christianity per se came under suspicion after the sex scandals came to light, the whole brand of turn-of-the-century liberalism will become permanently stained and will have to be thrown out.
That ought to make it easier for the Bernie Sanderses and the Tulsi Gabbards to re-shape the Democrat Party into one based on populism rather than liberal identity politics. In the public eye, they will not be part of the guilty.
Likewise the corporate globalist Republicans who have any blood on their hands will be immediately swept into the dustbin of history, and the Trump voters' takeover of the GOP will proceed even faster and more smoothly.
It's sad that this is what it takes to bring about the rapid collapse of the Establishment, but in an age that is so decadent and corrupt, it was never going to be something minor and stomach-able that brought the whole rigged system down.
Right now there's too much work across too many sites to sum up efficiently, but here is one post at TheDonald on Reddit, and re-tweeted by WikiLeaks. The Clintons are connected to a child trafficker who tried to smuggle some pre-pubescent kids out of Haiti in the wake of the earthquake. Hillary negotiated her release, and the attorney involved is a convicted sex trafficker.
It looks like part of a broader child sex ring that Clinton world, and perhaps the broader political Establishment, is involved in. See the various posts at /pol/ that are linked in the top comment in the Reddit post above.
There is a lot to comb through, but there is a lot of damning evidence. Coded language in WikiLeaks emails about child pornography and child prostitution (pizza, cheese, meat, egg, bacon, other food terms), as well as snuff-like video ads for the child sex bordellos operating as pizza parlors (in one for Comet Ping-Pong [CP] Pizza, the manager reassures the customer that they can trust him to protect their interests -- odd thing for a pizza parlor manager to say).
Trump made a bizarre remark at the Al Smith dinner, about how Hillary once said it takes a village... "like in Haiti, where you've taken a number of them." I thought he meant she'd taken a number of villages, like taken them for a ride and split with the charity money. But he meant she'd tried to take a number of children -- literally, as her connection to the child trafficker in Haiti reveals.
Many, many more are implicated than just the Clintons themselves -- Podesta, Brock, Obama, and scores of others. It would be remarkable if no Republicans were involved -- so they are too, just operating out of a different ring of non-existent orphanages, pizza parlors, pizza parties with no pizza served, that are described as "pizza extravaganzas".
The other angle is that one of the women involved is a dark arts performing artist, although I don't think the occultist side is the really disturbing stuff. Just some weird flake from the art world trying to out-goth the others.
The truly Satanic activity is the operation of these child sex rings by the political Establishment.
I wouldn't be surprised if Trump is planning to bring down the many pedo rings that operate with impunity in Hollywood.
Not only does it fit into the larger plan of draining the swamp, it exposes the hypocrisy of the moralistic Left that puts out the endless attack ads against Trump about "What will our pure innocent children think when they hear Trump say a curse word?"
The Catholic Church is still reeling from the early 2000s airing of its history of underage sexual abuse during the 1970s and '80s. Now the shoe will be on the other foot, with the Establishment liberals being exposed, prosecuted, jailed, and even executed for far greater sexual crimes against children.
With Attorney General Preet Bharara in charge, no one, Democrat or Republican, will be spared.
And after such horrifying crimes come to light, no one even remotely connected to the politicians, lobbyists, and donors will ever be able to play a role in politics again. Just as Catholicism and Christianity per se came under suspicion after the sex scandals came to light, the whole brand of turn-of-the-century liberalism will become permanently stained and will have to be thrown out.
That ought to make it easier for the Bernie Sanderses and the Tulsi Gabbards to re-shape the Democrat Party into one based on populism rather than liberal identity politics. In the public eye, they will not be part of the guilty.
Likewise the corporate globalist Republicans who have any blood on their hands will be immediately swept into the dustbin of history, and the Trump voters' takeover of the GOP will proceed even faster and more smoothly.
It's sad that this is what it takes to bring about the rapid collapse of the Establishment, but in an age that is so decadent and corrupt, it was never going to be something minor and stomach-able that brought the whole rigged system down.
Did the FBI jailbreak Julian Assange before the CIA got him?
A few weeks ago Julian Assange had his internet cut off in the Ecuadorean embassy in London, and many were worried that US government forces hostile to his WikiLeaks activity had gotten him somehow -- locked him up somewhere, tortured him, killed him off, something.
Those fears got worse as the WikiLeaks twitter began making cryptic psy-ops kinds of remarks, obviously not in Assange's voice, in fact not in the voice of anyone sympathetic to his organization.
After awhile, though, things seem to have returned to normal there, with anti-Hillary stuff coming out all the time, both from their own leaks and from articles that they re-tweet. No more dark cryptic remarks.
An emerging theme in this electoral battle is the opposing stances of the FBI and other government agencies like the CIA, the DoJ, the White House, and so on. In particular FBI agents, rather than the top brass like Director Comey, were the ones pushing to re-open the Clinton email server investigation, making everyone aware of the Clinton Foundation being under investigation for corruption, and pointing the public toward anti-Hillary documents via their FBI Records Vault twitter.
The CIA Directors have come out strongly against Trump and pro-Clinton, attempted spoiler Evan McCuckin is ex-CIA, and of course the #NeverTrump Bush clan has roots in the CIA with H.W. being its former Director.
Given Assange's crucial role on the anti-Hillary side of the battle, both the FBI and CIA would have known that it was only a matter of time before one of them tried to help or harm him. The FBI has proven to take the initiative more decisively in the battle, and they are more cohesive as a group. The best that the CIA has come up with so far is to try to deprive Trump of Utah's six votes with McCuckin, who is trailing pathetically in the polls and will fail at his brazenly anti-democratic mission.
So perhaps, rather than the CIA getting to Assange ahead of a potentially damning release from WikiLeaks, it was the FBI who got to him -- not to harm him, but to make sure he was safe. Unless they stationed their own men inside a foreign embassy in a separate foreign country, that would have meant smuggling him out to safe obscurity.
Ecuador is glad to finally be rid of what was becoming a greater liability, with the White House and Secretary of State breathing down their neck to do something about him. Assange is happy to no longer be a sitting duck in a known location, after hearing that Hillary had joked about droning him, and after someone scaled the embassy walls and tried to break in before being chased away. And the FBI is happy to have their brother in arms safely hidden from the searchlight.
And yes, the FBI does have international agents at the US embassy in London.
The only obstacle would have been the British government / intelligence agencies, who have been waiting to arrest Assange. But the main reason for them to arrest him is to extradite him to the US. So perhaps the FBI agents put one over on the Brits, making it seem like they were going to extradite him themselves, and that he would get his comeuppance back in America. British intelligence gives them a wink and a nod, unaware that the arrest is actually a jailbreak.
During a transition period, Assange lies low in the new and different hide-out, while the FBI directly or indirectly posts the dark cryptic tweets on the WikiLeaks twitter, to fool the White House, DoS, CIA, etc. The anti-Assange forces rest assured that someone somewhere has gotten him, and thank God that that particular threat has been neutralized (for the time being, or for good, who cares?).
As the globalist forces begin to pack it up after an apparent victory, Assange, WikiLeaks, and the FBI resume normal activity to stop Crooked Hillary -- just as before, only now with Assange under far greater security.
Call it just a crazy conspiracy theory, but in 2016 nothing sounds inconceivable anymore.
It's also possible that the FBI helped Assange's mentor / WikiLeaks founder Gavin MacFadyen fake his own death. He would have been a natural target of the globalists, not only for his own role, but for the value he would have to Assange -- they torture his mentor, Assange becomes more willing to cooperate if they leave his mentor alone. Remove MacFadyen (apparently) from the picture, and the globalists have no reason to pursue him anymore.
Of course it's still possible that the CIA killed both MacFadyen and Assange, and that the FBI and WikiLeaks are continuing the battle without those two leaders. Or that they killed only MacFadyen as an initial warning, and that triggered the FBI to swoop in and spirit Assange away from the embassy.
Of the two groups, the FBI has proven more competent, cohesive, and aggressive. So as crazy as it sounds, I think Assange is safe and that the FBI is actively looking out for his safety. This is the year of the insurgents tackling the decadent corrupt incompetent Establishment, and it just wouldn't fit the narrative if the CIA bumped off Assange right when the WikiLeaks sub-plot was getting good.
And if this is all off-base, someone still needs to make this movie! "Inspired by true events..."
Those fears got worse as the WikiLeaks twitter began making cryptic psy-ops kinds of remarks, obviously not in Assange's voice, in fact not in the voice of anyone sympathetic to his organization.
After awhile, though, things seem to have returned to normal there, with anti-Hillary stuff coming out all the time, both from their own leaks and from articles that they re-tweet. No more dark cryptic remarks.
been hearing for weeks anecdotally about the CIA-FBI divide over this election.— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) November 4, 2016
An emerging theme in this electoral battle is the opposing stances of the FBI and other government agencies like the CIA, the DoJ, the White House, and so on. In particular FBI agents, rather than the top brass like Director Comey, were the ones pushing to re-open the Clinton email server investigation, making everyone aware of the Clinton Foundation being under investigation for corruption, and pointing the public toward anti-Hillary documents via their FBI Records Vault twitter.
The CIA Directors have come out strongly against Trump and pro-Clinton, attempted spoiler Evan McCuckin is ex-CIA, and of course the #NeverTrump Bush clan has roots in the CIA with H.W. being its former Director.
Given Assange's crucial role on the anti-Hillary side of the battle, both the FBI and CIA would have known that it was only a matter of time before one of them tried to help or harm him. The FBI has proven to take the initiative more decisively in the battle, and they are more cohesive as a group. The best that the CIA has come up with so far is to try to deprive Trump of Utah's six votes with McCuckin, who is trailing pathetically in the polls and will fail at his brazenly anti-democratic mission.
So perhaps, rather than the CIA getting to Assange ahead of a potentially damning release from WikiLeaks, it was the FBI who got to him -- not to harm him, but to make sure he was safe. Unless they stationed their own men inside a foreign embassy in a separate foreign country, that would have meant smuggling him out to safe obscurity.
Ecuador is glad to finally be rid of what was becoming a greater liability, with the White House and Secretary of State breathing down their neck to do something about him. Assange is happy to no longer be a sitting duck in a known location, after hearing that Hillary had joked about droning him, and after someone scaled the embassy walls and tried to break in before being chased away. And the FBI is happy to have their brother in arms safely hidden from the searchlight.
And yes, the FBI does have international agents at the US embassy in London.
The only obstacle would have been the British government / intelligence agencies, who have been waiting to arrest Assange. But the main reason for them to arrest him is to extradite him to the US. So perhaps the FBI agents put one over on the Brits, making it seem like they were going to extradite him themselves, and that he would get his comeuppance back in America. British intelligence gives them a wink and a nod, unaware that the arrest is actually a jailbreak.
During a transition period, Assange lies low in the new and different hide-out, while the FBI directly or indirectly posts the dark cryptic tweets on the WikiLeaks twitter, to fool the White House, DoS, CIA, etc. The anti-Assange forces rest assured that someone somewhere has gotten him, and thank God that that particular threat has been neutralized (for the time being, or for good, who cares?).
As the globalist forces begin to pack it up after an apparent victory, Assange, WikiLeaks, and the FBI resume normal activity to stop Crooked Hillary -- just as before, only now with Assange under far greater security.
Call it just a crazy conspiracy theory, but in 2016 nothing sounds inconceivable anymore.
It's also possible that the FBI helped Assange's mentor / WikiLeaks founder Gavin MacFadyen fake his own death. He would have been a natural target of the globalists, not only for his own role, but for the value he would have to Assange -- they torture his mentor, Assange becomes more willing to cooperate if they leave his mentor alone. Remove MacFadyen (apparently) from the picture, and the globalists have no reason to pursue him anymore.
Of course it's still possible that the CIA killed both MacFadyen and Assange, and that the FBI and WikiLeaks are continuing the battle without those two leaders. Or that they killed only MacFadyen as an initial warning, and that triggered the FBI to swoop in and spirit Assange away from the embassy.
Of the two groups, the FBI has proven more competent, cohesive, and aggressive. So as crazy as it sounds, I think Assange is safe and that the FBI is actively looking out for his safety. This is the year of the insurgents tackling the decadent corrupt incompetent Establishment, and it just wouldn't fit the narrative if the CIA bumped off Assange right when the WikiLeaks sub-plot was getting good.
And if this is all off-base, someone still needs to make this movie! "Inspired by true events..."
November 3, 2016
November 2, 2016
Ricky Vaughn back on Twitter after suspension
UPDATE: he's back at ReturnofRV. Fags.
Once again the censors at Twitter have shut down Ricky Vaughn's account, probably related to lighthearted remarks about having traitors swinging from ropes.
He has a Facebook page (Deplorable Vaughn) and a "fan account" on Twitter (Ricky Feed). Watch there, and here, for updates.
Ricky, I'd say the easiest thing is to switch over to RickyFeed, which already has over 2000 followers, and the rest of us will get the word out ASAP.
In the meantime, don't give the gay Jews at the censor boards a flimsy pretext for banning again -- they don't care about racial slurs, bullyciding cuckservatives, revealing corruption, etc.
It's the "incitement to violence" that they always fall back on. You can get people righteously angry without calling for traitors to be swinging from the ropes (your fans can make those calls in the comments).
It's a gay bind to be in, but with less than a week until the big night, we'll have to save the #StringThemUp hashtag until President Trump is inaugurated.
Just let us know where the new place to be is, and we'll be there.
Onward!
Once again the censors at Twitter have shut down Ricky Vaughn's account, probably related to lighthearted remarks about having traitors swinging from ropes.
He has a Facebook page (Deplorable Vaughn) and a "fan account" on Twitter (Ricky Feed). Watch there, and here, for updates.
Ricky, I'd say the easiest thing is to switch over to RickyFeed, which already has over 2000 followers, and the rest of us will get the word out ASAP.
In the meantime, don't give the gay Jews at the censor boards a flimsy pretext for banning again -- they don't care about racial slurs, bullyciding cuckservatives, revealing corruption, etc.
It's the "incitement to violence" that they always fall back on. You can get people righteously angry without calling for traitors to be swinging from the ropes (your fans can make those calls in the comments).
It's a gay bind to be in, but with less than a week until the big night, we'll have to save the #StringThemUp hashtag until President Trump is inaugurated.
Just let us know where the new place to be is, and we'll be there.
Onward!
It's officially over for Crooked Hillary
USC panel poll for 11/1: Trump 48, Clinton 42.
This is the third time that Trump's lead has placed clearly outside of the 95% confidence interval (gray area), the earlier times being his Convention bump, and the wicked witch's collapse on 9/11 making people think that she would die before hypothetically taking office.
Notice that her lead, even when she's had it, has never placed outside of the 95% CI, although it came close during her post-Convention bump. She has quite simply never been the decisive favorite in the race.
Now with the re-opening of the FBI investigation into her email server, and the public awareness that the FBI is also investigating the Clinton Foundation -- and by extension, everyone connected to Clinton world -- people are again thinking that she'd be effectively dead on arrival.
The historical models (Norpoth, Lichtman) had already predicted a win for the opposition party, so what these key events do -- Convention, collapse, FBI investigations -- is give people a rationalization to latch onto, in order to consciously justify their gut-level intuition that they don't want four more years of the incumbent party and its failures (Obamacare, ISIS, TPP, etc.).
This latest development could be making things worse than just providing a rationalization for pre-existing anxieties, though, as it is bringing to light a catastrophic failure that people had not even been aware of over the past four years -- the corruption galore at the highest levels of government, with the incumbent party's nominee herself being at the very center of it all.
After the last surge relating to Clinton's collapse, there was a correction when people saw her somewhat out-and-about and not on life support in a hospital bed. Will people correct their initial panic this time? It seems hard to believe that it will come back down to where it was, since Clinton -- and Clinton Inc. -- will be under FBI investigation indefinitely, and any news will be bad news.
This time there's no way they can just shoot her up full of drugs and parade her around in public for a debate to assuage the fears of the voters. She's been knocked down, and she won't be getting back up anytime soon (if at all).
It's also hard to believe there won't be any recovery -- don't underestimate the extremely partisan polarization that exists in the electorate today, where her supporters could wave away Hillary going on a shooting spree in a mosque using bullets smeared in bacon grease.
Still, this latest disaster may have shaved a full point off of her ceiling of 45%.
The best part lately has been all of the pouty exasperated pleas for civility and decorum from the side that has been running the dirtiest, foulest, emptiest campaign in history.
Welcome to the jungle, baby -- you're gonna DIIIIIEEEEE
This is the third time that Trump's lead has placed clearly outside of the 95% confidence interval (gray area), the earlier times being his Convention bump, and the wicked witch's collapse on 9/11 making people think that she would die before hypothetically taking office.
Notice that her lead, even when she's had it, has never placed outside of the 95% CI, although it came close during her post-Convention bump. She has quite simply never been the decisive favorite in the race.
Now with the re-opening of the FBI investigation into her email server, and the public awareness that the FBI is also investigating the Clinton Foundation -- and by extension, everyone connected to Clinton world -- people are again thinking that she'd be effectively dead on arrival.
The historical models (Norpoth, Lichtman) had already predicted a win for the opposition party, so what these key events do -- Convention, collapse, FBI investigations -- is give people a rationalization to latch onto, in order to consciously justify their gut-level intuition that they don't want four more years of the incumbent party and its failures (Obamacare, ISIS, TPP, etc.).
This latest development could be making things worse than just providing a rationalization for pre-existing anxieties, though, as it is bringing to light a catastrophic failure that people had not even been aware of over the past four years -- the corruption galore at the highest levels of government, with the incumbent party's nominee herself being at the very center of it all.
After the last surge relating to Clinton's collapse, there was a correction when people saw her somewhat out-and-about and not on life support in a hospital bed. Will people correct their initial panic this time? It seems hard to believe that it will come back down to where it was, since Clinton -- and Clinton Inc. -- will be under FBI investigation indefinitely, and any news will be bad news.
This time there's no way they can just shoot her up full of drugs and parade her around in public for a debate to assuage the fears of the voters. She's been knocked down, and she won't be getting back up anytime soon (if at all).
It's also hard to believe there won't be any recovery -- don't underestimate the extremely partisan polarization that exists in the electorate today, where her supporters could wave away Hillary going on a shooting spree in a mosque using bullets smeared in bacon grease.
Still, this latest disaster may have shaved a full point off of her ceiling of 45%.
The best part lately has been all of the pouty exasperated pleas for civility and decorum from the side that has been running the dirtiest, foulest, emptiest campaign in history.
Welcome to the jungle, baby -- you're gonna DIIIIIEEEEE
November 1, 2016
Paging Trump to NJ's 3rd and 6th Cong. districts
As Trump's blue-state tour heads back East, it would be worth a stop in New Jersey, where he was only down 4 points in early September according to the Emerson poll.
Of course, that series also had him down only 3 in Rhode Island, which a more recent poll from Emerson shows has widened into a 20-point lead for Clinton. Something similar may have happened in New Jersey in the meantime, but unlike RI, a stop in NJ could have influence in neighboring eastern PA.
Emerson broke down support by Congressional district, and Trump's greatest margin in districts with large populations, and that are blue counties needed to flip the state, is in the 3rd district (50 to 38) and 6th district (60 to 32).
The 3rd is mainly Burlington County, which is part of the Philadelphia metro area and about 70% white. A rally here could draw people and media interest from the PA side of the Philly metro.
The 6th lies along the northern Shore and lower Gateway regions. It contains New Brunswick and Middletown. District is over 60% white. A rally in the western part of this district would draw fans from the northern red county of Morris, along with nearby red counties in Monmouth and Ocean. Unfortunately not as close to PA.
The make-up and appeal would be highly similar to eastern PA, so the same speech could be given. It's filled with groups who love Trump: white ethnic, Catholic, downsized blue-collars and a nervous suburban middle class that isn't so obsessed with liberal culture war issues, is weary of government corruption, and dreads tax increases. (Earlier post showing that the Mid-Atlantic is the most tax-hating region of the country, and has been since at least the '70s.)
At this point, there's only so much more blood that can be squeezed out of the stones that Trump has visited dozens of times already. It would be worth at least one rally in NJ during a tour of eastern PA.
Downside is a waste of a few hours of Trump's time, upside is boosting support in eastern PA to win that state, and converting NJ into a close state rather than a solid blue state (mandate). And regardless of the Electoral College outcome, a boost to the national popular vote coming from NJ.
Of course, that series also had him down only 3 in Rhode Island, which a more recent poll from Emerson shows has widened into a 20-point lead for Clinton. Something similar may have happened in New Jersey in the meantime, but unlike RI, a stop in NJ could have influence in neighboring eastern PA.
Emerson broke down support by Congressional district, and Trump's greatest margin in districts with large populations, and that are blue counties needed to flip the state, is in the 3rd district (50 to 38) and 6th district (60 to 32).
The 3rd is mainly Burlington County, which is part of the Philadelphia metro area and about 70% white. A rally here could draw people and media interest from the PA side of the Philly metro.
The 6th lies along the northern Shore and lower Gateway regions. It contains New Brunswick and Middletown. District is over 60% white. A rally in the western part of this district would draw fans from the northern red county of Morris, along with nearby red counties in Monmouth and Ocean. Unfortunately not as close to PA.
The make-up and appeal would be highly similar to eastern PA, so the same speech could be given. It's filled with groups who love Trump: white ethnic, Catholic, downsized blue-collars and a nervous suburban middle class that isn't so obsessed with liberal culture war issues, is weary of government corruption, and dreads tax increases. (Earlier post showing that the Mid-Atlantic is the most tax-hating region of the country, and has been since at least the '70s.)
At this point, there's only so much more blood that can be squeezed out of the stones that Trump has visited dozens of times already. It would be worth at least one rally in NJ during a tour of eastern PA.
Downside is a waste of a few hours of Trump's time, upside is boosting support in eastern PA to win that state, and converting NJ into a close state rather than a solid blue state (mandate). And regardless of the Electoral College outcome, a boost to the national popular vote coming from NJ.
Clinton campaign finally undone by lack of solidarity among elites
A post from early in the primary season discussed how our era of hyper-competitiveness among the elites was going to undo itself.
For decades, this soaring competitiveness has bloated the elites' ranks and made them richer and more powerful. The absence of a united opposition force to the elites allowed them to maintain the illusion that higher and higher levels of competitiveness would make them ever more wealthy and powerful.
Now a cohesive opposition has arisen, and it has knocked out the fragmented elites. First was on the GOP side, with the Trump movement bulldozing over the various party leaders and candidates -- none of whom wanted to bow out, and none of whom wanted to assume sole responsibility for leading the counter-revolution. The Bush family, Romney, Ryan, Priebus on the leadership side, and the dozen Governors and Senators on the candidate side.
On the Democrat side, the opposition did not come from the voters, who were fewer in number than the supporters of the status quo. Unlike the Republicans, there was only one counter-revolutionary candidate to present a united front for the Establishment.
Opposition on their side needed to come from within the elites, like Obama and Hillary getting into a feud over her email server, or whatever.
But what united force could compel a stand-off between those two? It turns out it was the FBI agents, from the lowest level up through most of the brass, who were about to mutiny over how scot-free Crooked Hillary had gotten off, despite mounting evidence of how numerous and serious her criminal enterprises have been.
That united front within the FBI forced their director Comey's hand, and that made Obama choose sides between a united mutinous FBI plus the single-minded mob of the American electorate, or Crooked Hillary and Clinton world. He's chosen to let her fend for herself, and that has set the rest of the fractures going throughout the Democrat Establishment, the media, the voters, and perhaps even within Clinton world itself.
Who knows how badly Anthony Weiner is selling out his groomers and patrons the Clintons, as he's faced with jail time and prison rape for sexting an underage girl?
One of the greatest misunderstandings of class dynamics in a period of soaring inequality is the notion of "class war". Certainly the wealthy and powerful are screwing over the working class in order to line their own pockets, for example by off-shoring manufacturing jobs to countries with cheaper labor costs. But it's not their goal to screw them over, and their heart is not in that fight. They don't actually compete with the working class for status.
Most of the warfare and tension takes place within the elite class itself, among individuals or at best small networks. What may look like a large faction, like Clinton world, may prove to be a fragile coalition whose mini-groups will turn on each other upon the slightest stress. The largest unit is probably just a nuclear family (extended in other societies), like the Clintons or the Obamas (or the Bushes or the Trumps).
The hyper-competitiveness and me-first motivation leaves the elite class highly vulnerable to an even modest united force against it. We didn't even have to take up arms, or torches and pitchforks. They can tell we're coming after them, and they're all breaking formation and stampeding toward the exits.
After the election is won, our debt goes to the FBI -- not Comey himself, who acted like a rat at first, and who, as Roger Stone reminds us, has worked to get the Clintons off before when he was in the DoJ (Sandy Berger affair, Marc Rich pardon). Rather, to the united front of agents who threatened to mutiny, go public, or whatever, if Comey didn't take real action.
For decades, this soaring competitiveness has bloated the elites' ranks and made them richer and more powerful. The absence of a united opposition force to the elites allowed them to maintain the illusion that higher and higher levels of competitiveness would make them ever more wealthy and powerful.
Now a cohesive opposition has arisen, and it has knocked out the fragmented elites. First was on the GOP side, with the Trump movement bulldozing over the various party leaders and candidates -- none of whom wanted to bow out, and none of whom wanted to assume sole responsibility for leading the counter-revolution. The Bush family, Romney, Ryan, Priebus on the leadership side, and the dozen Governors and Senators on the candidate side.
On the Democrat side, the opposition did not come from the voters, who were fewer in number than the supporters of the status quo. Unlike the Republicans, there was only one counter-revolutionary candidate to present a united front for the Establishment.
Opposition on their side needed to come from within the elites, like Obama and Hillary getting into a feud over her email server, or whatever.
But what united force could compel a stand-off between those two? It turns out it was the FBI agents, from the lowest level up through most of the brass, who were about to mutiny over how scot-free Crooked Hillary had gotten off, despite mounting evidence of how numerous and serious her criminal enterprises have been.
That united front within the FBI forced their director Comey's hand, and that made Obama choose sides between a united mutinous FBI plus the single-minded mob of the American electorate, or Crooked Hillary and Clinton world. He's chosen to let her fend for herself, and that has set the rest of the fractures going throughout the Democrat Establishment, the media, the voters, and perhaps even within Clinton world itself.
Who knows how badly Anthony Weiner is selling out his groomers and patrons the Clintons, as he's faced with jail time and prison rape for sexting an underage girl?
One of the greatest misunderstandings of class dynamics in a period of soaring inequality is the notion of "class war". Certainly the wealthy and powerful are screwing over the working class in order to line their own pockets, for example by off-shoring manufacturing jobs to countries with cheaper labor costs. But it's not their goal to screw them over, and their heart is not in that fight. They don't actually compete with the working class for status.
Most of the warfare and tension takes place within the elite class itself, among individuals or at best small networks. What may look like a large faction, like Clinton world, may prove to be a fragile coalition whose mini-groups will turn on each other upon the slightest stress. The largest unit is probably just a nuclear family (extended in other societies), like the Clintons or the Obamas (or the Bushes or the Trumps).
The hyper-competitiveness and me-first motivation leaves the elite class highly vulnerable to an even modest united force against it. We didn't even have to take up arms, or torches and pitchforks. They can tell we're coming after them, and they're all breaking formation and stampeding toward the exits.
After the election is won, our debt goes to the FBI -- not Comey himself, who acted like a rat at first, and who, as Roger Stone reminds us, has worked to get the Clintons off before when he was in the DoJ (Sandy Berger affair, Marc Rich pardon). Rather, to the united front of agents who threatened to mutiny, go public, or whatever, if Comey didn't take real action.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)