November 9, 2020

Democrat polarization fails when they're still the opposition party of the Reagan era

The increasingly doomed attempt by Democrats to steal the elections of 4 states (WI, MI, PA, GA) should serve as a bitter reminder to those among their ranks who LARP as though it were still the '60s and '70s, when their party was dominant (New Deal) and they could shove a Republican president out of office (Nixon, Watergate).

Since the Reagan realignment of 1980, they have isolated themselves further from the rest of the country, alienated their potential swing voters, and put all their elite-sector eggs in the basket of unproductive informational activity, such as the media, Silicon Valley, higher ed, and the intel agencies of the Deep State. Finance is the sole productive member of their coalition.

Today's Democrats fantasize about being a dictatorial party that imposes its will despite being the party that nobody wants. To move beyond their delusions, they have to win over states, regions, demographic groups, and sectors of the economy, that currently hate their guts. No amount of rioting, burning down cities, rigging state elections, censorship of the internet and social media, and contemptuous portrayals in entertainment, is going to accomplish that.

Indeed, it's only broadened Trump's appeal: his base is still there, but now buttressed by less-than-hardcore fans, who are thinking, "Whatever he may or may not have delivered from his 2016 campaign themes, at least he isn't hell-bent on our total and remorseless annihilation." Democrats have lowered the bar of acceptable political activities so much, they've allowed Trump to clear the bar with voters all the more easily in 2020 than in 2016.

Any Democrats who want a future where their party is dominant, rather than opposition, now have a whole 'nother topic to have to counter-signal. First it was just, "I don't think flyover country is a basket of deplorables." Then it was, "I don't think burning down cities is an acceptable way to whip urban votes for our candidate." Now it is, "I don't think impotent opposition parties should try to steal the national election by rigging the vote in a few cities that they control."

As I've said before, it seems like finance is the only elite sector using the Democrat party as its vehicle, which has not pulled out all the stops to wipe out their political enemies, at the elite or popular level. The media is the most compromised, followed closely by info-tech, the informational wings of the Deep State (CIA, rather than the Pentagon), and education / campuses. Entertainment is surprisingly not as propagandistic and contemptuous as the others, but it has no material force in society -- only supplying or depriving people of mass-mediated culture.

With apparently no negative feedback from within those worst-offending sectors, the only check on their party's self-destruction is Wall Street and the central bank. They can tighten the financial screws on their fellow elite sectors of the Dem coalition -- a technically, if not politically, easy feat since Silicon Valley is entirely propped up by central bank money-printing that flows through the upper tiers of the finance pyramid (QE). That funds the tech cartel members directly through investments in them, as well as indirectly via the disposable income that their yuppie customer base spends on their products and services. (Yuppies would have had zero wealth growth since 2008 if not for QE trickling down to the top 20%.)

But since finance has actual material power over society -- the creation and flow of money, not just shaping consensus, mass communications, crafting narratives, and other airy-fairy crap -- perhaps they should split off and form their own party. Let the Democrat brand belong to, and die with, the most bitterly despised sectors of society -- Silicon Valley, the CIA, the media, and college campuses. Bring along Hollywood and entertainment, though, since their domain of monopoly (pop culture) is still fairly popular across demographic and political groups, even if it's not powerful.

Then convince the industrial commodity sector -- steel especially -- to defect from the GOP. Manufacturing controls the GOP and has destroyed domestic demand for industrial commodities by off-shoring the factories that make finished goods from raw materials. Finance has a material interest in re-industrializing domestically, since de-industrialization has saddled the central bank with all the costs of funding society (these debts have now bankrupted the central bank), rather than taxing the high-profit-margin manufacturing sector and its labor-intensive workforce that earned high wages. That will lock in Pennsylvania for this new party, along with Indiana (the #1 steel-producing state).

The marketing and branding is irrelevant for now. The key point is just to shed the branding -- and the coalitional membership -- of those hated, impotent, and unproductive sectors that are currently destroying the Democrat party. Call the new one the "Funding and Building Party," I don't know. Things need to be Made in America again, at an industrial scale, and that requires funding their operations, and providing the raw materials for manufacturing. "Funding" avoids the bad associations with "financing" and "banking". Or the "Investing in American Creation Party," which sends out good vibes to fans of Made in America manufacturing, cultural creativeness, and more distantly Creationist-friendly religious people.


  1. I'm not as positive as you.

    There is very little chance the Democrats will abandon corporate money for populism and/or the Swedish model (relentless capitalism with strong worker rights and a welfare state).

    Instead they will double down in Communistic and genocidal rhetoric , possibly genocidal action (such as immigrating and placing 10 million Africans in White communities for "diversity") in order to keep power counting on fraud, American lack of organization on a large scale and our security state to buffer the effects of bad policies.

    Even a set back like loss of the Presidency to the courts won't slow the loons down much since they are driven by religious impulse masquerading as ideology. Instead they'll try court packing and jamming.

    Also note that the Republicans may not have control of the Senate and thus appointments after this do to a number of RINO members.

    Now another four years of President Trump can slow the centrifical collapse but separation is inevitable sooner than later, the general assumption being by the 2030's

    There is a caveat. if sane Democrats are able to purge the hard Left they can push the party to the centrist model you are suggesting and with AOC contemplating leaving , its plausible. Otherwise no.

  2. Search Twitter for "Trump" "steal back" -- libtards concede that it was stolen, now they're just worried that it could be stolen BACK (impossible phrasing if it were not stolen by Dems first, else they'd just say "if Trump steals this election").

    They know they stole it first. Now they're becoming aware that the steal is going to get deeeee-flectedddddd.

    Democrats are like a 120-lb sapling trying to steal the place of the 300-lb linebacker, by erasing the big guy's name on the roster and scribbling their own name in his place.

    Doesn't work that way -- and when you actually try to take their place on the field, guess who's going to shove the other off the turf?

    All the libtards' David & Goliath bullshit is a massive cope. They're deserving losers, because they've alienated the whole country.

  3. Whichever constituency discovers the true long-game of winning local elections in all the "useless flyover states" will stay on top for a very long time. See Benjamin Studebaker's blog from 10/28 on how he advocates leftists/Democrats seizing this opportunity before it's too late. Lefties have a massive disadvantage because of their unhealthy obsession with cosmopolitanism and nomadic non-committment to anywhere they live.

    Personally, I lean towards Biden (if his cheating pays off) being a lose-lose for Dems, both short and long term; they simply have no strategy to getting the party away from endless war and cuddling next to criminal technocapitalism. They think that inundating the public with BS sociology concerns will keep voters engaged and committed (i.e. distracted), but just look at how Hispanics alone are saying "gtfo" to that platform. Until they mobilize the financial sector and literally limit normal people's ability to buy/sell by freezing assets for wrongthink, they're in deep trouble.

    When it comes to the radicals (AOC, etc), I'm very curious what kind of legs that movement ACTUALLY has. Assuming a linear historical inevitability (e.g. "America will eventually have to become socialist") is a myopic Marxist trap. But at the same time, what is the real role of the radical Democrats long term? Will they be the linchpin that evolves the party into a legitimate gulag-thirsty power structure, or just serve as the cancer for the Democrats inevitable destruction?

    All in all, I like your optimism and share in some of it. The fraud along with the choice of Biden-Harris show an incredibly weak political coalition.


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."