');
The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Short Warren, Buy Biden
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

      My most perspicacious contribution–okay, okay my only perspicacious contribution!–to the collective understanding of the American political landscape is starkly identifying how the Democrat presidential nomination runs right through the middle of the black vote.

      Black primary voters and caucus goers have been close to monolithic in their electoral behavior since 2008. Though Clinton beat Obama among white and Hispanic primary voters, Obama obliterated her 85%-15% among blacks. He consequently won the nomination.

      In 2016, Sanders beat Clinton among white primary voters but Clinton crushed him among blacks, 78%-22%. She learned her lesson from 2008 and was the party’s standard-bearer in 2016 as a result.

      Based primarily on this understanding I predicted early on that Harris would be the 2020 nominee, and became convinced of as much after Deval Patrick announced he would not run. In a field as pallor as this one, I reasoned she’d be black enough.

      The black vote will still prove determinative, but a childless blue-blooded Brahmin with slave-owning ancestors and an elite Ashkenazi husband may not be able to out-black the first black president’s right-hand man. Biden has done a surprisingly good job holding onto black support. From the most recent RCP-recognized poll, black Democrat primary voter support by candidate (excluded candidates did not poll above 2%):

      Warren’s odds have recently risen as it becomes increasingly clear that Sanders has no path to victory. She is the progressive choice of grown ups; he the socialist choice of millennials. While Sanders has twice the support Warren does among those under the age of 45, she has three times the support he does among those over 45–and it’s the fogies who come out to vote.

      The same poll shows Warren with a plurality of white primary voter support (excluded candidates did not poll above 3%):

      It will come down the stretch to Warren against either Biden or Harris, but the nomination will be determined by whoever wins out between the latter two. The SWPLs supporting Warren are unlikely to vote en masse against the black choice. It would be racist to do so.

      Expect Harris to escalate with this approach:

      “I do not believe you are a racist” is a Scott Adams’ caliber rhetorical kill shot.

       
      • Category: Ideology • Tags: Election 2020 
      Hide 128 CommentsLeave a Comment
      Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
      Trim Comments?
      1. And we can go Pol Pot on his cities any time we want

        • Replies: @Anonymous
        I am not familiar with Cambodian history. What do you mean by "go Pol Pot"?
        , @Audacious Epigone
        Heh, replace "rural white Americans" with "urban blacks" and... permaban from Twitter, obviously.

        But hey, if this is how he feels, then political dissolution, right? Why be burdened with red state America? We'll find a way to eat, don't worry.
      2. Harris and Warren draw from the same voters, college educated left leaning whites. Recent California polling shows that

        Blacks will absolutely support a black candidate over Biden. Don’t care how high his favorability is

        And so apparently will 30% of white democrats as questioning a black Democrat is racist

        Additionally, the only group more likely than Black men to support a Black woman candidate is Black women. Exit polling data consistently shows that, even when BW candidates do not share the broader politics of the Black community, BM will support them well over any white candidate

        And if one looks at overall Google search trends by county, Harris popularity is most prevalent in the black majority counties

        Blacks among Democrats are

        61% of South Carolina
        54% of Alabama
        51% of Georgia
        49% of Maryland
        48% of Louisiana
        32% of North Carolina
        32% of Tennessee
        30% of Virginia
        30% of Florida
        28% of Delaware
        28% of Illinois
        27% of Arkansas
        24% of New Jersey
        22% of New Yorks
        21% of Missouri
        21% of Michigan
        20% of Ohio
        20% of Pennsylvania

        • Replies: @Rosie

        Additionally, the only group more likely than Black men to support a Black woman candidate is Black women.
         
        Hmmm. Maybe there's a lesson there.
        , @Achmed E. Newman
        AGREED. C'mon guys, whaddya' need a refresher course? It's all tribal nowadays!

        (except for with white people)
      3. Blacks will absolutely support a black candidate over Biden. Don’t care how high his favorability is

        • Replies: @anon19
        Agree 100%. Blacks are all about race.
        , @indocon
        Totally agree, just watch this next debate as Kamal and Corey both gang up on Joey. Expect constant references to this:
        https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-in-1992-crime-bill-does-everything-but-hang-people-for-jaywalking
        , @animalogic
        Let's be fair here. Anyone with an IQ over 75 would prefer the "Weekend at Berny's" stiff to Biden. Of course Berny made more sense than Biden.
      4. @Oblivionrecurs
        Blacks will absolutely support a black candidate over Biden. Don't care how high his favorability is

        Agree 100%. Blacks are all about race.

      5. @Oblivionrecurs
        Blacks will absolutely support a black candidate over Biden. Don't care how high his favorability is

        Totally agree, just watch this next debate as Kamal and Corey both gang up on Joey. Expect constant references to this:
        https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-in-1992-crime-bill-does-everything-but-hang-people-for-jaywalking

        • Replies: @Oblivionrecurs
        Even though it objectively reduced crime
      6. O/T

        Im amazed I missed this

        He should consider something a bit higher than the Senate. Sooner, rather than later.

        • Replies: @TomSchmidt
        Wow! That would be epic... except...

        The universities that are going to take the hit aren't the elite playgrounds. You'll take out a lot of East Peoria State places and their coteries of administrators. That is still a benefit for mankind, but it will have the paradoxical effect of strengthening elite universities that don't need student loan dollars to pay for all those assistant deans (Harvard is tuition free for students whose families earn less than $60,000.) eventually it will weaken even the elite, since the lower level universities provide jobs for elite-trained faculty and admins who did not get hired at elite schools, but that's a second-order effect.
        , @SFG
        He has to wait for Trump to finish his second term or get voted out. So, 2024 at the earliest. But he's off to a nice start.
        , @Audacious Epigone
        He's fantastic, sharp as a tack. He's a Trump with gravitas--doesn't apologize but knows what he's talking about, too.
        , @Oleaginous Outrager
        Yeah, he's great, what America needs is more Israel Firsters:

        https://twitter.com/HawleyMO/status/1152573100476784641
      7. @Oblivionrecurs
        Harris and Warren draw from the same voters, college educated left leaning whites. Recent California polling shows that

        Blacks will absolutely support a black candidate over Biden. Don't care how high his favorability is

        And so apparently will 30% of white democrats as questioning a black Democrat is racist

        Additionally, the only group more likely than Black men to support a Black woman candidate is Black women. Exit polling data consistently shows that, even when BW candidates do not share the broader politics of the Black community, BM will support them well over any white candidate

        And if one looks at overall Google search trends by county, Harris popularity is most prevalent in the black majority counties

        Blacks among Democrats are

        61% of South Carolina
        54% of Alabama
        51% of Georgia
        49% of Maryland
        48% of Louisiana
        32% of North Carolina
        32% of Tennessee
        30% of Virginia
        30% of Florida
        28% of Delaware
        28% of Illinois
        27% of Arkansas
        24% of New Jersey
        22% of New Yorks
        21% of Missouri
        21% of Michigan
        20% of Ohio
        20% of Pennsylvania

        Additionally, the only group more likely than Black men to support a Black woman candidate is Black women.

        Hmmm. Maybe there’s a lesson there.

        • Replies: @Oblivionrecurs
        That identity politics/skin games matters?
      8. @Rosie

        Additionally, the only group more likely than Black men to support a Black woman candidate is Black women.
         
        Hmmm. Maybe there's a lesson there.

        That identity politics/skin games matters?

        • Replies: @Disordered (with a bad memory)
        And that white women should do well to stand by their men, who should assume their headship role in American society. Enough of Scandinavian values already... If anything the Integralist vision is proving truer*.

        *(Well, a more racialist/localist and technocratic version of it to a degree, but that is to be expected given the slow but now near-complete Masonic-(((globalist))) rule, and resulting circumstances. Eventually globalist burghers will have to racialize again though, even if using the internet to start to do so. Heck, maybe all the touted "regressions to the mean" will eventually involve even harsher "return to the land" for most, if the Archaeofuturists are not too high...)

        ...

        As for the 2020 gossip, if Vegspartacus decides to gang up with Kamala Kween against Busin' Biden, he may get rewarded for his efforts in a hypothetical Kween Admin. So Uncle is not home safe then. Warren is still important, in that she may split the whitelib vote, with her women PokePoints and self-defeating antiracist pseudo-redistributionism, because what do whites know about racial solidarity*. Best thing is, the Bern is dead it seems. I just hope the wall and more nat-pop measures eventually come along with the 4d chess set, dear near-reelected President Trump.

        *(Specially those believing in universal individual salvation by bookworship and trade - but I digress again, and don't want to be reminded of the Church's own terrible deracionalizers; which at least did not use to be the ruling opinions until recently, but they are now).
      9. @indocon
        Totally agree, just watch this next debate as Kamal and Corey both gang up on Joey. Expect constant references to this:
        https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-in-1992-crime-bill-does-everything-but-hang-people-for-jaywalking

        Even though it objectively reduced crime

        • Replies: @Disordered (with a bad memory)
        Yeah but blacks care more about seeing their homies out the joint rather than safe communities. Though perhaps an effort to reach victims would help; then again, that is usually a chance for extra gibs-asking...
      10. @Oblivionrecurs
        Even though it objectively reduced crime

        Yeah but blacks care more about seeing their homies out the joint rather than safe communities. Though perhaps an effort to reach victims would help; then again, that is usually a chance for extra gibs-asking…

      11. What’s the Latino preference among the candidates?

        • Replies: @Disordered (with a bad memory)
        Latinos vote for whomever gets nominated, they don't show up for primaries - not used to such a concept really...

        Which is why the most Hispandering candidates fell absolutely flat...
        , @Audacious Epigone
        Biden is first with 23%, Sanders 15%, Warren 8%, Harris 6%--the latter seems really bad given that she is from California.
        , @Lot
        They barely show up to presidential general elections. They are not important at all in the primaries.
      12. @Oblivionrecurs
        That identity politics/skin games matters?

        And that white women should do well to stand by their men, who should assume their headship role in American society. Enough of Scandinavian values already… If anything the Integralist vision is proving truer*.

        *(Well, a more racialist/localist and technocratic version of it to a degree, but that is to be expected given the slow but now near-complete Masonic-(((globalist))) rule, and resulting circumstances. Eventually globalist burghers will have to racialize again though, even if using the internet to start to do so. Heck, maybe all the touted “regressions to the mean” will eventually involve even harsher “return to the land” for most, if the Archaeofuturists are not too high…)

        As for the 2020 gossip, if Vegspartacus decides to gang up with Kamala Kween against Busin’ Biden, he may get rewarded for his efforts in a hypothetical Kween Admin. So Uncle is not home safe then. Warren is still important, in that she may split the whitelib vote, with her women PokePoints and self-defeating antiracist pseudo-redistributionism, because what do whites know about racial solidarity*. Best thing is, the Bern is dead it seems. I just hope the wall and more nat-pop measures eventually come along with the 4d chess set, dear near-reelected President Trump.

        *(Specially those believing in universal individual salvation by bookworship and trade – but I digress again, and don’t want to be reminded of the Church’s own terrible deracionalizers; which at least did not use to be the ruling opinions until recently, but they are now).

        • Replies: @Rosie

        And that white women should do well to stand by their men, who should assume their headship role in American society. Enough of Scandinavian values already… If anything the Integralist vision is proving truer*.
         
        How about we secure the existence of our people and a future for White children, then work the rest of it out later?
      13. @Thulean Friend
        What's the Latino preference among the candidates?

        Latinos vote for whomever gets nominated, they don’t show up for primaries – not used to such a concept really…

        Which is why the most Hispandering candidates fell absolutely flat…

      14. @Oblivionrecurs
        Harris and Warren draw from the same voters, college educated left leaning whites. Recent California polling shows that

        Blacks will absolutely support a black candidate over Biden. Don't care how high his favorability is

        And so apparently will 30% of white democrats as questioning a black Democrat is racist

        Additionally, the only group more likely than Black men to support a Black woman candidate is Black women. Exit polling data consistently shows that, even when BW candidates do not share the broader politics of the Black community, BM will support them well over any white candidate

        And if one looks at overall Google search trends by county, Harris popularity is most prevalent in the black majority counties

        Blacks among Democrats are

        61% of South Carolina
        54% of Alabama
        51% of Georgia
        49% of Maryland
        48% of Louisiana
        32% of North Carolina
        32% of Tennessee
        30% of Virginia
        30% of Florida
        28% of Delaware
        28% of Illinois
        27% of Arkansas
        24% of New Jersey
        22% of New Yorks
        21% of Missouri
        21% of Michigan
        20% of Ohio
        20% of Pennsylvania

        AGREED. C’mon guys, whaddya’ need a refresher course? It’s all tribal nowadays!

        (except for with white people)

      15. Polls at this stage are still largely name recognition, particularly among blacks who tend to be low-information voters. I don’t think blacks will, in the end, side with a white man (where is Barack Obama’s endorsement?) against a person who is even arguably black. I’d still go long on Harris and short Biden.

        • Replies: @Disordered (with a bad memory)
        Obama will wait until he cannot avoid the decision any longer, the weakling he is.
        Hard to tell whether he will pick his wigga Biden or his bff K-Kween. He will want to pick a winner. Sometimes I even think Michelle will pick for him though, or that he will keep quiet and aloof to keep being the magic nword to all.

        I'd have to listen to more debates, see if Biden caves enough under pressure. People say strong black females! will decide, nonsense - their (usually single) white lady friends are the ones that give the final push. Will they get scared enough by Creepy Uncle Joe?
        , @Justvisiting

        Polls at this stage are still largely name recognition, particularly among blacks who tend to be low-information voters.
         
        You nailed it. The Obama staffers are more heavily represented on the Harris campaign than the Biden campaign.

        They know which way the (ill) wind is blowing.

        Long black racism.
      16. First Rule of Fight Club The Warren Nations of the Upper Massachusetts: YOU! DO! NOT! TALK! ABOUT! HER! BOOK!. Really, if word ever gets out, OK, gets let out, about Chief Warren’s < 20 y/o, conservative, anti-feminism book, well, it’s gonna be another Wounded Knee, I tells ya’.

        All it would take would be for one of the other candidates to actually read, and Warren could be taken right out of the race, struggled-against as a former capitalist roader.

        • Replies: @SFG
        It was a really good book, actually. And the personal-finance book was pretty good too.

        Carlson agrees with me: a Warren not beheld to the immigration lobby wouldn't be that bad.
        , @Audacious Epigone
        What a sorry spectacle it will be if it's Biden vs Warren accusing each other of crypto-fascist tendencies based on what they each did decades ago.
      17. My most perspicacious contribution–okay, okay my only perspicacious contribution!–to the collective understanding of the American political landscape is starkly identifying how the Democrat presidential nomination runs right through the middle of the black vote.

        Yeah, but you didn’t come up with the humorous and memorable term AUNT JEMIMA STRATEGY to describe the strategy of Democrat Party presidential primary candidates to win the votes of Black lady voters in the South and other areas of Black voter population concentration.

        Tweets from 2015:

      18. @Disordered (with a bad memory)
        And that white women should do well to stand by their men, who should assume their headship role in American society. Enough of Scandinavian values already... If anything the Integralist vision is proving truer*.

        *(Well, a more racialist/localist and technocratic version of it to a degree, but that is to be expected given the slow but now near-complete Masonic-(((globalist))) rule, and resulting circumstances. Eventually globalist burghers will have to racialize again though, even if using the internet to start to do so. Heck, maybe all the touted "regressions to the mean" will eventually involve even harsher "return to the land" for most, if the Archaeofuturists are not too high...)

        ...

        As for the 2020 gossip, if Vegspartacus decides to gang up with Kamala Kween against Busin' Biden, he may get rewarded for his efforts in a hypothetical Kween Admin. So Uncle is not home safe then. Warren is still important, in that she may split the whitelib vote, with her women PokePoints and self-defeating antiracist pseudo-redistributionism, because what do whites know about racial solidarity*. Best thing is, the Bern is dead it seems. I just hope the wall and more nat-pop measures eventually come along with the 4d chess set, dear near-reelected President Trump.

        *(Specially those believing in universal individual salvation by bookworship and trade - but I digress again, and don't want to be reminded of the Church's own terrible deracionalizers; which at least did not use to be the ruling opinions until recently, but they are now).

        And that white women should do well to stand by their men, who should assume their headship role in American society. Enough of Scandinavian values already… If anything the Integralist vision is proving truer*.

        How about we secure the existence of our people and a future for White children, then work the rest of it out later?

        • Replies: @Disordered (with a bad memory)
        Of course, that comes first. Which includes, to begin with, reducing the levels of miscegenation; which is currently heavily promoted by many white female intellectuals. So yeah, restoring white patriarchy helps, sorry.

        Besides, don't expect everything else to fall into place automatically just because you threw strangers out (however you define them).

        Beware the General Custer types, the Dubya evangelical types, the Eleanore Roosevelt types, overall those intellectual descendants of the Seneca Falls Conference that betrayed your race...
      19. Another reason that I remain skeptical of Joe Biden’s chances is his age. It’s going to be a long and grueling primary campaign and no one is at their best when they’re well into their eighth decade. I predict some funbling and inarticulate responses and some “deer in the headlights” moments. His best, and possibly only chance of success, would be to name a black running mate and promise to be a one-term president.

        • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
        Heh, he's not quite into the eighth decade, but the point is well taken.
      20. @216
        O/T

        Im amazed I missed this

        https://twitter.com/HawleyMO/status/1151126148090421248

        He should consider something a bit higher than the Senate. Sooner, rather than later.

        Wow! That would be epic… except…

        The universities that are going to take the hit aren’t the elite playgrounds. You’ll take out a lot of East Peoria State places and their coteries of administrators. That is still a benefit for mankind, but it will have the paradoxical effect of strengthening elite universities that don’t need student loan dollars to pay for all those assistant deans (Harvard is tuition free for students whose families earn less than $60,000.) eventually it will weaken even the elite, since the lower level universities provide jobs for elite-trained faculty and admins who did not get hired at elite schools, but that’s a second-order effect.

        • Replies: @Mr. Rational

        eventually it will weaken even the elite, since the lower level universities provide jobs for elite-trained faculty and admins who did not get hired at elite schools
         
        No, it would hit them immediately.  As soon as there were substantial layoffs at the lower-tier schools, the not-so-good students at HYPS would see their job prospects sinking to the bottom of the sea of more-experienced competitors and think about bailing.  Those considering enrolment definitely WOULD bail.

        Even if HYPS didn't need the money, having lots of potential students refuse to apply would hit them almost as badly as caving to affimative action admits hit Mizzou.  It would nail them right in the prestige.  Taking in AA or international students to fill their classes would just turn them into ghettoes.  They've got to be looking at this trend in utter horror.
      21. “childless blue-blooded Brahmin with slave-owning ancestors and an elite Ashkenazi husband may not be able to out-black the first black president’s right-hand man”

        The phrasing on this is difficult, AE. I thought you were referring to Warren, but you mean Harris, who spent her fertile years under Willie Brown. Warren had two children.

        Interesting is the differential between Republican and Democrats Presidents in number of Children. carter, Clinton 1; Obama 2; Reagan 3, Bush 1 5; Bush 2 w; Trump 5. There’s a reason Democrats need immigrants: the Republicans out-reproduce them.

        • Replies: @Arclight
        I feel like a huge part of the left/right divide with whites is the childless (or nearly so) and those who have a family to consider now and in the future. Many childless whites live in large cities that are essentially adult amusement parks (at least when not desperately working to pay the rent/mortgage) and they feel no attachment to the future generations of people that look like themselves. In contrast, those whites with multiple kids by nature what to arrange things so as to not disadvantage their progeny and are less likely to look kindly on policies that will put economic and cultural barriers in their way. A lot of liberal whites are quietly resentful of people who managed to have families and are willing to champion the good of POCs and their kids as a kind of stick in the eye of the people they sort of wish they were.
        , @krustykurmudgeon
        the democrats reproduce through the education system. So you may have white repubs having more kids - but they probably also have a higher defection rate.
      22. @TomSchmidt
        "childless blue-blooded Brahmin with slave-owning ancestors and an elite Ashkenazi husband may not be able to out-black the first black president’s right-hand man"

        The phrasing on this is difficult, AE. I thought you were referring to Warren, but you mean Harris, who spent her fertile years under Willie Brown. Warren had two children.

        Interesting is the differential between Republican and Democrats Presidents in number of Children. carter, Clinton 1; Obama 2; Reagan 3, Bush 1 5; Bush 2 w; Trump 5. There's a reason Democrats need immigrants: the Republicans out-reproduce them.

        I feel like a huge part of the left/right divide with whites is the childless (or nearly so) and those who have a family to consider now and in the future. Many childless whites live in large cities that are essentially adult amusement parks (at least when not desperately working to pay the rent/mortgage) and they feel no attachment to the future generations of people that look like themselves. In contrast, those whites with multiple kids by nature what to arrange things so as to not disadvantage their progeny and are less likely to look kindly on policies that will put economic and cultural barriers in their way. A lot of liberal whites are quietly resentful of people who managed to have families and are willing to champion the good of POCs and their kids as a kind of stick in the eye of the people they sort of wish they were.

        • Replies: @bro3886
        Much of white support for the Dems comes from the upper middle class and the wealthy. Even if they have kids they believe the third-worlding of America won't really effect them or their kids, that they will be mostly immune from its bad effects as they mostly are today. And they're probably right about it.
      23. @TomSchmidt
        "childless blue-blooded Brahmin with slave-owning ancestors and an elite Ashkenazi husband may not be able to out-black the first black president’s right-hand man"

        The phrasing on this is difficult, AE. I thought you were referring to Warren, but you mean Harris, who spent her fertile years under Willie Brown. Warren had two children.

        Interesting is the differential between Republican and Democrats Presidents in number of Children. carter, Clinton 1; Obama 2; Reagan 3, Bush 1 5; Bush 2 w; Trump 5. There's a reason Democrats need immigrants: the Republicans out-reproduce them.

        the democrats reproduce through the education system. So you may have white repubs having more kids – but they probably also have a higher defection rate.

        • Replies: @SFG
        OK, I laughed out loud at that one, and it's so true. You can't have kids, but you can turn other people's.
        , @TomSchmidt
        I'd say there was a time lag on this. Recall that Earl Warren and William Brennan were both appointed by Republicans, as was David Souter. Since GHW Bush, the Republicans have recognized that they can not afford to screw up Supreme Court appointments, and the Democrats have recognized that they've recognized it, thus the panic when RBG fell ill this year.

        The k12 school, and universities, have been elite-succoring places for years,left-liberal because that's the elite POV. The R's have lost children to that system for years because their lived experience was that that did not happen in them, at least K12. The children who weren't lost and went through that system will not make the same mistake with their own progeny.
      24. @TomSchmidt
        Wow! That would be epic... except...

        The universities that are going to take the hit aren't the elite playgrounds. You'll take out a lot of East Peoria State places and their coteries of administrators. That is still a benefit for mankind, but it will have the paradoxical effect of strengthening elite universities that don't need student loan dollars to pay for all those assistant deans (Harvard is tuition free for students whose families earn less than $60,000.) eventually it will weaken even the elite, since the lower level universities provide jobs for elite-trained faculty and admins who did not get hired at elite schools, but that's a second-order effect.

        eventually it will weaken even the elite, since the lower level universities provide jobs for elite-trained faculty and admins who did not get hired at elite schools

        No, it would hit them immediately.  As soon as there were substantial layoffs at the lower-tier schools, the not-so-good students at HYPS would see their job prospects sinking to the bottom of the sea of more-experienced competitors and think about bailing.  Those considering enrolment definitely WOULD bail.

        Even if HYPS didn’t need the money, having lots of potential students refuse to apply would hit them almost as badly as caving to affimative action admits hit Mizzou.  It would nail them right in the prestige.  Taking in AA or international students to fill their classes would just turn them into ghettoes.  They’ve got to be looking at this trend in utter horror.

        • Replies: @Disordered (with a bad memory)
        Yep. As price goes down for lower schools, a and standards go up in them, the big ivy tower schools will lose their bottom feeder talent, thus only having a very expensive meatless sandwich that will make them starve: elites, and aa beneficiaries that will eventually make them flee. So higher schools will havr to swallow the pill too and trim down the obese fat.

        Perhaps the elites may run from the minorities to Europe and China too much, but that can be fixed by not allowing so much international degrees. It's not like there aren't enough Chinese flooding the colleges.
      25. @Rosie

        And that white women should do well to stand by their men, who should assume their headship role in American society. Enough of Scandinavian values already… If anything the Integralist vision is proving truer*.
         
        How about we secure the existence of our people and a future for White children, then work the rest of it out later?

        Of course, that comes first. Which includes, to begin with, reducing the levels of miscegenation; which is currently heavily promoted by many white female intellectuals. So yeah, restoring white patriarchy helps, sorry.

        Besides, don’t expect everything else to fall into place automatically just because you threw strangers out (however you define them).

        Beware the General Custer types, the Dubya evangelical types, the Eleanore Roosevelt types, overall those intellectual descendants of the Seneca Falls Conference that betrayed your race…

        • Replies: @Anonymous
        No, because "miscegenation" is only ever about what white women do.

        All I ever hear from the "alt-right" and "white nationalists" is this word and I don't care. Because white men have higher interracial marriage rates than white women. So until this statistic flips I will continue to be open to marrying a Jewish or Asian man.
        , @Rosie

        So yeah, restoring white patriarchy helps, sorry.
         
        White women are not promoting miscegenation. You have us confused with our (((fellow white people))) who run the media. Your best chance of ever "restoring White patriarchy" (whatever that means) is making nice with White women. You will accomplish nothing otherwise.
      26. @Diversity Heretic
        Polls at this stage are still largely name recognition, particularly among blacks who tend to be low-information voters. I don't think blacks will, in the end, side with a white man (where is Barack Obama's endorsement?) against a person who is even arguably black. I'd still go long on Harris and short Biden.

        Obama will wait until he cannot avoid the decision any longer, the weakling he is.
        Hard to tell whether he will pick his wigga Biden or his bff K-Kween. He will want to pick a winner. Sometimes I even think Michelle will pick for him though, or that he will keep quiet and aloof to keep being the magic nword to all.

        I’d have to listen to more debates, see if Biden caves enough under pressure. People say strong black females! will decide, nonsense – their (usually single) white lady friends are the ones that give the final push. Will they get scared enough by Creepy Uncle Joe?

        • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
        Obama's reputation is pure gold among Democrats and moderates precisely because he hasn't tried to run the party from the post-presidency. He won't endorse during the primaries at all--his endorsement will come during the general (or when the primaries are obviously over).
      27. @Mr. Rational

        eventually it will weaken even the elite, since the lower level universities provide jobs for elite-trained faculty and admins who did not get hired at elite schools
         
        No, it would hit them immediately.  As soon as there were substantial layoffs at the lower-tier schools, the not-so-good students at HYPS would see their job prospects sinking to the bottom of the sea of more-experienced competitors and think about bailing.  Those considering enrolment definitely WOULD bail.

        Even if HYPS didn't need the money, having lots of potential students refuse to apply would hit them almost as badly as caving to affimative action admits hit Mizzou.  It would nail them right in the prestige.  Taking in AA or international students to fill their classes would just turn them into ghettoes.  They've got to be looking at this trend in utter horror.

        Yep. As price goes down for lower schools, a and standards go up in them, the big ivy tower schools will lose their bottom feeder talent, thus only having a very expensive meatless sandwich that will make them starve: elites, and aa beneficiaries that will eventually make them flee. So higher schools will havr to swallow the pill too and trim down the obese fat.

        Perhaps the elites may run from the minorities to Europe and China too much, but that can be fixed by not allowing so much international degrees. It’s not like there aren’t enough Chinese flooding the colleges.

      28. Anon[418] • Disclaimer says:

        “You know who is not grateful enough? Rural white Americans.”

        Funny how this guy picks out a subset of a subset to dump on. When talking about almost any other demographic (blacks) I could just use the entire demographic and be pretty close to accurate. Besides, let’s not pretend that guys like Atkins don’t benefit from all of that. Who do you think supplies most of the nice things they eat in their restaurants, fracks their oil, refines their gasoline and heating oil etc etc etc? Consider those subsides due payment for cheap natural resources from their lands that you use with reckless abandon; they could always sell to China, instead. And if he’s so butthurt over the issue, perhaps he could publicly suggest kicking them out of his perfect union – all Red States. This guy’s hesitance to say that aloud should tell you all you need to know about what he really thinks on the subject. Personally, I would welcome his endorsement of the issue. Separation is the best policy, I think.

        • Agree: Audacious Epigone
      29. @216
        O/T

        Im amazed I missed this

        https://twitter.com/HawleyMO/status/1151126148090421248

        He should consider something a bit higher than the Senate. Sooner, rather than later.

        He has to wait for Trump to finish his second term or get voted out. So, 2024 at the earliest. But he’s off to a nice start.

      30. @krustykurmudgeon
        the democrats reproduce through the education system. So you may have white repubs having more kids - but they probably also have a higher defection rate.

        OK, I laughed out loud at that one, and it’s so true. You can’t have kids, but you can turn other people’s.

      31. @Achmed E. Newman
        First Rule of Fight Club The Warren Nations of the Upper Massachusetts: YOU! DO! NOT! TALK! ABOUT! HER! BOOK!. Really, if word ever gets out, OK, gets let out, about Chief Warren's < 20 y/o, conservative, anti-feminism book, well, it's gonna be another Wounded Knee, I tells ya'.

        All it would take would be for one of the other candidates to actually read, and Warren could be taken right out of the race, struggled-against as a former capitalist roader.

        It was a really good book, actually. And the personal-finance book was pretty good too.

        Carlson agrees with me: a Warren not beheld to the immigration lobby wouldn’t be that bad.

      32. My read on this is everyone is figuring out how to get Biden’s share when he drops out in a few months. The media hides it, but the people inside see how old and frail he is now. It’s a matter of time before it becomes too obvious for the media to ignore.

        I was talking with some men in tiny hats last week who told me the Warren people are looking for one of the lesser candidates to start taking shots at Harris. If she is too damaged, Biden’s black support will have to go elsewhere. It’s the reason Gay Spartacus will hang around long past his expiry date.

        It will be interesting to see if the Weird Sisters are discussed at the upcoming debate. That seems like an opening for Harris to attack Creepy Uncle Joe, but it could be a way for a pale face to attack Harris for inflaming racial tension.

        As an aside, I wonder how many white presenting Democrats voted for Obama thinking he was going to heal racial tensions, but now wonder if that was a mistake. Obama is noticeably absent from the public stage. His Wookie is seen more than he is now. That unspoken buyer’s remorse maybe be a factor as the Weird Sisters racialize everything.

        • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
        Warren is the last place blacks are going to go though, isn't she? She's a dorkess and American Indian Rachel Dolezal. Her polling numbers among blacks are dismal. Sanders' are considerably better.

        If Biden drops out, the black vote goes to Harris--if it doesn't before then--and then probably to Sanders and maybe even Booker before Warren, I think.
      33. Warren was the darling of the left wing of the Democrat Party. Her fans were showering her with money and begging her to run. That all ended when she cast her lot with Hillary. Bernie has a dedicated following but they have no clout. They are the Deplorables of the left. Only white folks think Kamala is black. Black folks know better.

        Black Americans associate Biden with Obama. They know shit Joe said 50 years ago doesn’t matter. They know there ain’t gonna be no reparations. They are going to nominate Uncle Joe. Look for Trump/Pence vs. Biden/Harris.

        • Replies: @216
        The far-left base would be severely disappointed by such an outcome in the primaries. The unexpected leftist division in '16 is what tipped the balance in MI, WI and PA.

        A splinter candidate would repeat it, especially if AOC has the "golden silence" of Harry F. Byrd Jr.
        , @Audacious Epigone
        Is Biden that lacking in self-respect that he'd bring her on after she's gone after him in the lowest way possible for the better part of a year?
      34. Anonymous[217] • Disclaimer says:
        @216
        https://twitter.com/DavidOAtkins/status/1152049970570129409

        And we can go Pol Pot on his cities any time we want

        I am not familiar with Cambodian history. What do you mean by “go Pol Pot”?

        • Replies: @Mr. Rational
        He means empty the cities, put the ivory-tower academics to work shoveling out the horse stalls and pig sties, and shoot everyone who wears glasses.  (I wear glasses, FWIW.)

        Though I suspect we'd be much more refined about it.  We'd just see who'd ever posted leftist crap on social media, worked in HR or any university bureaucracy or converged department, or mudsharked.  If they had concerned family, we might parole them after a period of penance but hold the entire family liable if they violated parole.  Ever.

        All the non-Americans, though... I'm sure the rule will be "caedite eos".
      35. Anonymous[217] • Disclaimer says:
        @Disordered (with a bad memory)
        Of course, that comes first. Which includes, to begin with, reducing the levels of miscegenation; which is currently heavily promoted by many white female intellectuals. So yeah, restoring white patriarchy helps, sorry.

        Besides, don't expect everything else to fall into place automatically just because you threw strangers out (however you define them).

        Beware the General Custer types, the Dubya evangelical types, the Eleanore Roosevelt types, overall those intellectual descendants of the Seneca Falls Conference that betrayed your race...

        No, because “miscegenation” is only ever about what white women do.

        All I ever hear from the “alt-right” and “white nationalists” is this word and I don’t care. Because white men have higher interracial marriage rates than white women. So until this statistic flips I will continue to be open to marrying a Jewish or Asian man.

      36. @Disordered (with a bad memory)
        Of course, that comes first. Which includes, to begin with, reducing the levels of miscegenation; which is currently heavily promoted by many white female intellectuals. So yeah, restoring white patriarchy helps, sorry.

        Besides, don't expect everything else to fall into place automatically just because you threw strangers out (however you define them).

        Beware the General Custer types, the Dubya evangelical types, the Eleanore Roosevelt types, overall those intellectual descendants of the Seneca Falls Conference that betrayed your race...

        So yeah, restoring white patriarchy helps, sorry.

        White women are not promoting miscegenation. You have us confused with our (((fellow white people))) who run the media. Your best chance of ever “restoring White patriarchy” (whatever that means) is making nice with White women. You will accomplish nothing otherwise.

        • Replies: @Anonymous
        tfw when you think you're some kind of based trad woman but you're steeped in feminism so any talk of submitting to male leadership hurts your feelz.

        There are plenty shiksas pushing miscegenation and every other social ill. No matter how hard you pilpul, there is no squaring liberated wahmin with a return to sanity.
        , @Talha

        White women are not promoting miscegenation.
         
        And I think the stats someone brought up with regards to dating preferences brings this point home; White men are more likely to look for partners outside of Whites than White women are. I think this is a reflection of natural impulses actually. The vast majority of societies throughout history have been polygamous (including much of Europe until the Church was able to fight this - but it took time - I can give you references as to how late they were fighting things such as concubinage in the Nordic areas if interested) and fine with concubinage.

        So some Viking might have a main wife at home, but have a couple of thralls that he either captured or bought. As far as he's concerned, he's still spreading his seed and he doesn't really care that they might be Slavic or Greek or whatever. The woman may indeed be much more cautious about who fathers her child, because the overall cost to her in bearing and rearing it is greater, and if he can provide for it.

        The issue comes to a head once monogamy comes into place and demands those practices cease.

        But now, the open sexual (swipe-right) meat-market has thrown another variation on this entire situation and the experiment is still ongoing.

        Also, saw that comment of yours:
        http://www.unz.com/akarlin/what-the-nordics-get-right/#comment-3348261

        I used to comment at AK's columns (now I read a column once in a while), but one realizes what kind of audience a Russian (ethno)nationalist blog attracts, how anything on it affects one's life and whether one really cares to be part of the conversation. I guess that is a decision everyone has to make for themselves.

        Peace.
      37. The front page says 31 comments – 5 new.

        I see 26 comments.

        after typing this and submitting it the 31 comments came up.

      38. @216
        https://twitter.com/DavidOAtkins/status/1152049970570129409

        And we can go Pol Pot on his cities any time we want

        Heh, replace “rural white Americans” with “urban blacks” and… permaban from Twitter, obviously.

        But hey, if this is how he feels, then political dissolution, right? Why be burdened with red state America? We’ll find a way to eat, don’t worry.

        • Replies: @216
        It took quite some time from Luther to Westphalia; and left most of Germany in ruins.
      39. @216
        O/T

        Im amazed I missed this

        https://twitter.com/HawleyMO/status/1151126148090421248

        He should consider something a bit higher than the Senate. Sooner, rather than later.

        He’s fantastic, sharp as a tack. He’s a Trump with gravitas–doesn’t apologize but knows what he’s talking about, too.

      40. @Thulean Friend
        What's the Latino preference among the candidates?

        Biden is first with 23%, Sanders 15%, Warren 8%, Harris 6%–the latter seems really bad given that she is from California.

        • Replies: @Thulean Friend
        Thanks. Harris' underperformance underlines that she is really the favoured candidate of ZOG with no real base of her own. Besides, Latinos have two other candidates, Castro and Beto, the latter of which is LARPing as one.

        It's still hilarious that neither two make it to the top four. I recall Clinton doing better than Obama all throughout 2008 primaries with Hispanics, despite a supposed "coalition of color". It was really White liberals that helped him over the line.

        Seems Hispanics don't care much for racial politics this time around, either. I re-iterate my stance that a White+hispanic alliance remains underappreciated. Though i will concede that it crucially depends on mobilising the Hispanic vote, which so far has been relatively unsuccessful, but sheer numbers alone for Hispanics will matter more and more as time goes on. Especially as the real action gets to be the democratic primary rather than the general election as changing demographics all but lock out a GOP executive, á la California.
      41. @Achmed E. Newman
        First Rule of Fight Club The Warren Nations of the Upper Massachusetts: YOU! DO! NOT! TALK! ABOUT! HER! BOOK!. Really, if word ever gets out, OK, gets let out, about Chief Warren's < 20 y/o, conservative, anti-feminism book, well, it's gonna be another Wounded Knee, I tells ya'.

        All it would take would be for one of the other candidates to actually read, and Warren could be taken right out of the race, struggled-against as a former capitalist roader.

        What a sorry spectacle it will be if it’s Biden vs Warren accusing each other of crypto-fascist tendencies based on what they each did decades ago.

      42. @Diversity Heretic
        Another reason that I remain skeptical of Joe Biden's chances is his age. It's going to be a long and grueling primary campaign and no one is at their best when they're well into their eighth decade. I predict some funbling and inarticulate responses and some "deer in the headlights" moments. His best, and possibly only chance of success, would be to name a black running mate and promise to be a one-term president.

        Heh, he’s not quite into the eighth decade, but the point is well taken.

        • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
        Yes, he is. He's 76. Your seventies are your eighth decade.

        Maff, braugh.
      43. @Disordered (with a bad memory)
        Obama will wait until he cannot avoid the decision any longer, the weakling he is.
        Hard to tell whether he will pick his wigga Biden or his bff K-Kween. He will want to pick a winner. Sometimes I even think Michelle will pick for him though, or that he will keep quiet and aloof to keep being the magic nword to all.

        I'd have to listen to more debates, see if Biden caves enough under pressure. People say strong black females! will decide, nonsense - their (usually single) white lady friends are the ones that give the final push. Will they get scared enough by Creepy Uncle Joe?

        Obama’s reputation is pure gold among Democrats and moderates precisely because he hasn’t tried to run the party from the post-presidency. He won’t endorse during the primaries at all–his endorsement will come during the general (or when the primaries are obviously over).

        • Replies: @Feryl
        The could clone Hitler, and have him run with a D next to his name, and that would be good enough to win the loyalty of the modern Dem partisans. I'm pretty sure I've said before that it was GW Bush's 2nd term when a lot of partisan idiocy started getting out of control.
      44. anon[181] • Disclaimer says:

        “Look for Trump/Pence vs. Biden/Harris.”

        My prediction: there is no chance of Harris being on Biden’s ticket after her antics at the last debate. I personally don’t like any of the candidates currently running, besides Gabbard, as being a good match for him. Tulsi is young enough to make Biden look good again and also a war hero. The establishment hates her, but that would probably be a bonus because it would help Joe look like a rebel, taking some of the anti-establishment shtick Trump has.

        • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
        You're dreaming. I like the dream, though!
      45. @Audacious Epigone
        Heh, replace "rural white Americans" with "urban blacks" and... permaban from Twitter, obviously.

        But hey, if this is how he feels, then political dissolution, right? Why be burdened with red state America? We'll find a way to eat, don't worry.

        It took quite some time from Luther to Westphalia; and left most of Germany in ruins.

        • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
        Things move a lot faster now.
      46. @WorkingClass
        Warren was the darling of the left wing of the Democrat Party. Her fans were showering her with money and begging her to run. That all ended when she cast her lot with Hillary. Bernie has a dedicated following but they have no clout. They are the Deplorables of the left. Only white folks think Kamala is black. Black folks know better.

        Black Americans associate Biden with Obama. They know shit Joe said 50 years ago doesn't matter. They know there ain't gonna be no reparations. They are going to nominate Uncle Joe. Look for Trump/Pence vs. Biden/Harris.

        The far-left base would be severely disappointed by such an outcome in the primaries. The unexpected leftist division in ’16 is what tipped the balance in MI, WI and PA.

        A splinter candidate would repeat it, especially if AOC has the “golden silence” of Harry F. Byrd Jr.

        • Replies: @WorkingClass

        The far-left base would be severely disappointed by such an outcome in the primaries.
         
        Agreed (tee he). May the bird of paradise fly up their nose.

        But the far left base doesn't get to select the candidate (ha ha). The black folk will decide the primaries. AA's are quite practical when it comes to politics.

        Methinks AOC and silence are oil and water. Her job is taking over the Party by the power of celebrity. Neither the election nor her constituents are her primary concern.
      47. @Audacious Epigone
        Heh, he's not quite into the eighth decade, but the point is well taken.

        Yes, he is. He’s 76. Your seventies are your eighth decade.

        Maff, braugh.

        • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
        Heh, technically true I guess. My children are in their first century. So am I!
      48. @WorkingClass
        Warren was the darling of the left wing of the Democrat Party. Her fans were showering her with money and begging her to run. That all ended when she cast her lot with Hillary. Bernie has a dedicated following but they have no clout. They are the Deplorables of the left. Only white folks think Kamala is black. Black folks know better.

        Black Americans associate Biden with Obama. They know shit Joe said 50 years ago doesn't matter. They know there ain't gonna be no reparations. They are going to nominate Uncle Joe. Look for Trump/Pence vs. Biden/Harris.

        Is Biden that lacking in self-respect that he’d bring her on after she’s gone after him in the lowest way possible for the better part of a year?

        • Replies: @WorkingClass
        Yes. Biden has apologized for his skin color. He has no self respect.

        Remember Kennedy taking Johnson as running mate? He needed Johnson more than he hated him.

        Biden needs a bit of color (and estrogen) on his ticket. He needs a running mate who can do the running for him. He needs a running mate that has the approval of the DNC. Kamala is all those things. If she was from Texas or Florida she would be perfect.

        Keep up the good work A. E.
        I appreciate your direct participation.

        And you get some truly weird threads. A perfect fit for Unz Review.
      49. @216
        It took quite some time from Luther to Westphalia; and left most of Germany in ruins.

        Things move a lot faster now.

      50. @Intelligent Dasein
        Yes, he is. He's 76. Your seventies are your eighth decade.

        Maff, braugh.

        Heh, technically true I guess. My children are in their first century. So am I!

      51. @216
        O/T

        Im amazed I missed this

        https://twitter.com/HawleyMO/status/1151126148090421248

        He should consider something a bit higher than the Senate. Sooner, rather than later.

        Yeah, he’s great, what America needs is more Israel Firsters:

        • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
        Republicans feel like they have to do that. Explicit celebration of someone else's nationalism is a start.
        , @SFG
        Whatever. First major-party senator to at least talk nationalist and go after the universities. It's America First, not Israel Last. The point is to put America first...putting Israel second or last follows from that.
        , @silviosilver
        Priorities, dude. Priorities. It's all very well for us anonymous internet commenters to speak truth to Jewish power and spread a bit of realism around, but you'd have to be off your rocker to expect an elected official to embrace Jew-crit at this point in time. Get real.

        Was his response a bit over the top? Maybe, but if it enables him to step over the charge and concentrate on more immediate matters, it's a smart move.
        , @blak

        You’ll have to carry me out on a slab before I compromise my defense of white people, their greatness, their history, their safety, and the state of Missouri.
         
        When will it be ok for an American politician to say that?
        , @Feryl
        There are a lot of POC and Right dissidents who wouldn't mind this doofus becoming a martyr for his only true love (the Israel first Reaganite coalition and the doddering Silent and Boomer mega donors who keep the dream alive).
      52. “You’ll have to carry me out on a slab before I compromise my defense of the Jewish people, their greatness, their history, their safety, and the state of Israel”

        I take it that means you are going to defend your fellow citizens with such vigor that you will rise from the dead on their behalf.

      53. Lot says:

        I am long Biden and Warren, short Kamala and Yang.

        Have a nice profit on Warren, got her at 7. Same for Yang, free money shorting him at 10-14.

        I lost money shorting Buttman around 8. I covered and locked in the loss. He was impressive at the debate, raised the most $ last quarter, and is the only young candidate.

        Going long Biden the poll leader at only 20 seems like a no-brainer to me. Moreover, he consistently polls the best against Trump. If I were a partisan Dem, he would be my obvious choice.

        I think Dems want to win too much to nominate a black woman. Her fundraising is also weak and she isn’t radical enough to get a lot of volunteer energy. She also polls even or behind in head to head against Trump while Biden is +8 to 10.

        Sanders fundraising is getting weak, and he was awful at the debate. He also has 0 chance of winning at a contested convention.

        Warren has the largest Iowa operation by far, and it is working. If she beats Biden there, and suddenly the entire left could unite behind her as the Biden alternative. Then NH is next, right next to her home state and very well educated with few blacks. If she starts looking like a winner, blacks will desert Biden if he loses Iowa and NH to Warren.

        • Replies: @SFG
        Ah, so you're actually putting real money on these things? I've thought about doing it as a sort of harm-reduction thing to keep me from blowing money trying to time the stock market with my actual savings...any advice?

        It's occurred to me you could divide the price of a presidential contract by the price of a nominee contract to get the market's estimate of the candidate's viability.
        , @Feryl
        Sanders fundraising is getting weak, and he was awful at the debate. He also has 0 chance of winning at a contested convention.

        Bernie was really trendy in 2016 because of his populism, which most of the Left now finds icky due to the fact that populism got Trump elected. The mainstream Left, which is now the same thing as the SJW Left, has taken a hard turn toward elitism during Trump's presidency. Plus Bernie could've countered the SJW Left effectively due to his status as the spokesman of the populist Left, but instead he's pivoted towards de rigueur modern Left positions on ID politics, thereby rendering his entire political gravitas worthless; Bernie was never at all an SJW throughout his life, and now we're suppose to buy the recent pivot?
      54. @Thulean Friend
        What's the Latino preference among the candidates?

        They barely show up to presidential general elections. They are not important at all in the primaries.

      55. @Diversity Heretic
        Polls at this stage are still largely name recognition, particularly among blacks who tend to be low-information voters. I don't think blacks will, in the end, side with a white man (where is Barack Obama's endorsement?) against a person who is even arguably black. I'd still go long on Harris and short Biden.

        Polls at this stage are still largely name recognition, particularly among blacks who tend to be low-information voters.

        You nailed it. The Obama staffers are more heavily represented on the Harris campaign than the Biden campaign.

        They know which way the (ill) wind is blowing.

        Long black racism.

      56. Imagine where Uncle Joe might be if he could actually speak truth to Brahmin-descendant-of-slave-owner-Ashkenazi-marrying Kamala’s Black Power. He needs to find an authentic and respected descendant of slaves to be his mouthpiece; I’m sure the Reverend Sharpton has a reasonable price.

        • Replies: @SFG
        Americans aren't interested in starting fights with Jews. They're resentful of elites (many of whom are Jewish, of course) who ship their jobs overseas and flood the country with illegal immigrants.

        Biden could actually be a moderate foil to Trump and do quite well, but he has to play nice to get through the Dem primary first.
      57. @Oblivionrecurs
        Blacks will absolutely support a black candidate over Biden. Don't care how high his favorability is

        Let’s be fair here. Anyone with an IQ over 75 would prefer the “Weekend at Berny’s” stiff to Biden. Of course Berny made more sense than Biden.

        • Replies: @SFG
        Bernie was an effective critic of plutocracy who managed to drag his whole party to the left on economics, the stronger part of their platform.

        He's also a grumpy old white guy, which isn't in vogue anymore, but Warren could effectively carry his torch. Too bad she's so lefty on immigration; much like Tucker, I like her economic program.
      58. @Audacious Epigone
        Is Biden that lacking in self-respect that he'd bring her on after she's gone after him in the lowest way possible for the better part of a year?

        Yes. Biden has apologized for his skin color. He has no self respect.

        Remember Kennedy taking Johnson as running mate? He needed Johnson more than he hated him.

        Biden needs a bit of color (and estrogen) on his ticket. He needs a running mate who can do the running for him. He needs a running mate that has the approval of the DNC. Kamala is all those things. If she was from Texas or Florida she would be perfect.

        Keep up the good work A. E.
        I appreciate your direct participation.

        And you get some truly weird threads. A perfect fit for Unz Review.

      59. @216
        The far-left base would be severely disappointed by such an outcome in the primaries. The unexpected leftist division in '16 is what tipped the balance in MI, WI and PA.

        A splinter candidate would repeat it, especially if AOC has the "golden silence" of Harry F. Byrd Jr.

        The far-left base would be severely disappointed by such an outcome in the primaries.

        Agreed (tee he). May the bird of paradise fly up their nose.

        But the far left base doesn’t get to select the candidate (ha ha). The black folk will decide the primaries. AA’s are quite practical when it comes to politics.

        Methinks AOC and silence are oil and water. Her job is taking over the Party by the power of celebrity. Neither the election nor her constituents are her primary concern.

      60. anon[139] • Disclaimer says:

        OT :

        Neither Sailer nor Derb allowed this comment, where it was relevant to the subject. I hope Audacious Epigone’s anonymity allows for the publishing of this non PC content:

        This is from the cultural enrichment / strength through diversity file drawer:

        A calf escapes the animal house of pain and horrors in Bloomfield, Connecticut (known as Saba phuckallah hallah halal lah la la la certified butcher shop), so the civilized, diverse crowd employed there chase it into a Home Depot parking lot and cut its throat on the spot, after missing it and failing to take it down with an arrow shot from the bow:

        https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Cow-Slaughter-in-Public-Prompts-Closure-of-Bloomfield-Meat-Store-512914191.html

        • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
        It probably got caught up in their spam filters because of the naked hyperlink.

        This in fact looks like exactly the kind of story Mr. Derbyshire would include in Radio Derb.
        , @iffen
        Would someone smarter than me explain "the point"?
      61. @Audacious Epigone
        Biden is first with 23%, Sanders 15%, Warren 8%, Harris 6%--the latter seems really bad given that she is from California.

        Thanks. Harris’ underperformance underlines that she is really the favoured candidate of ZOG with no real base of her own. Besides, Latinos have two other candidates, Castro and Beto, the latter of which is LARPing as one.

        It’s still hilarious that neither two make it to the top four. I recall Clinton doing better than Obama all throughout 2008 primaries with Hispanics, despite a supposed “coalition of color”. It was really White liberals that helped him over the line.

        Seems Hispanics don’t care much for racial politics this time around, either. I re-iterate my stance that a White+hispanic alliance remains underappreciated. Though i will concede that it crucially depends on mobilising the Hispanic vote, which so far has been relatively unsuccessful, but sheer numbers alone for Hispanics will matter more and more as time goes on. Especially as the real action gets to be the democratic primary rather than the general election as changing demographics all but lock out a GOP executive, á la California.

        • Replies: @SFG
        I think it's going to be less about Hispandering ('we will let your illegal brethren in') than about focusing on aspects like assimilation or Christianity that are open to Hispanics--speak English and keep your families small, and we don't care if your name is Gonzalez, and by the way we believe in Jesus unlike those godless Democrats who want to put men in women's bathrooms. Stress the difference between legal and illegal immigration, let a few of the brightest in, and play up guys like Cruz and Rubio who have assimilated successfully. (I've got my differences with them both on policy but realistically better them than Ocasio-Cortez.) We could even subtly stress the differences between Latin America and North America while making the point that this is a club open to those willing to play by the rules--you don't want this place to be full of crime like the place you just left, right?

        A lot of Hispanics outside of university protest groups actually want to assimilate. If I go to France I don't expect to be able to teach my kids English and not have them learn French for three generations.
        , @Lot
        Bernie is the only Israel critic running. Everyone else is pro-Israel. No need for “ZOG” to pick sides.
        , @Feryl

        Especially as the real action gets to be the democratic primary rather than the general election as changing demographics all but lock out a GOP executive, á la California.
         
        Here's the funny thing: there's no reason that the GOP has to be the foreign nation-building*, free-trade, de-regulation party forever. Silent and Boomer mega donors turned the party into the sovereignty wrecking force that it's become, while also prioritizing white Evangelical issues that are dead on arrival in most big cities and many of their suburbs.

        But we've now reached a point where Gen X and Millennial Republicans are actually more hostile toward free trade than their modern Dem counterparts. There are plenty of voters who don't buy into nation bankrupting industrial policy, and the Republican establishment's failure to adjust to that will hurt them as much as anything else.

        *Prior to the 1970's, The Dems were actually more pro-war, what with being the Southern party of that era. But ideological alignments happen about every 40-50 years; the Dems recently have become the party of PC and elitist well-educated people, in contrast to their generally populist outlook (compared to the GOP) that they had from about 1930-2010. The GOP has to adjust to be more populist, which may entail dropping the excessive Religious Right trappings** that are dog-whistles to older heartland white voters.

        **Excessive religiosity is elitist, not populist, since it leads to purity competitions.

        Generational turn-over is going to be massively influential, since X-ers and later generations always resented the yuppie apologist and ineffectually pious Reaganite GOP. As older generations quiet down and just plain die off, look to the GOP to undergo massive changes by 2030.

        Put another way: The Dem establishment caved to Woke Twitter, which further spread the campus PC culture that we've had since the late 80's beginning of the full neo-lib era during Obama's 2nd term. Due to a variety of changes and pressures, eventually the GOP establishment will cave to the dissident Right, who represent various strands of Left and Right flavored populism that can be woven together to create a powerful force, one that will transcend the schizo and destructive Reagan coalition of "free market" zealots and Israel loving bible beaters.
      62. O/T

        Perhaps he could just say “Targeted Harassment” appropriating a leftist line in the same way he did with “Fake News”

      63. SFG says:
        @Lot
        I am long Biden and Warren, short Kamala and Yang.

        Have a nice profit on Warren, got her at 7. Same for Yang, free money shorting him at 10-14.

        I lost money shorting Buttman around 8. I covered and locked in the loss. He was impressive at the debate, raised the most $ last quarter, and is the only young candidate.

        Going long Biden the poll leader at only 20 seems like a no-brainer to me. Moreover, he consistently polls the best against Trump. If I were a partisan Dem, he would be my obvious choice.

        I think Dems want to win too much to nominate a black woman. Her fundraising is also weak and she isn’t radical enough to get a lot of volunteer energy. She also polls even or behind in head to head against Trump while Biden is +8 to 10.

        Sanders fundraising is getting weak, and he was awful at the debate. He also has 0 chance of winning at a contested convention.

        Warren has the largest Iowa operation by far, and it is working. If she beats Biden there, and suddenly the entire left could unite behind her as the Biden alternative. Then NH is next, right next to her home state and very well educated with few blacks. If she starts looking like a winner, blacks will desert Biden if he loses Iowa and NH to Warren.

        Ah, so you’re actually putting real money on these things? I’ve thought about doing it as a sort of harm-reduction thing to keep me from blowing money trying to time the stock market with my actual savings…any advice?

        It’s occurred to me you could divide the price of a presidential contract by the price of a nominee contract to get the market’s estimate of the candidate’s viability.

        • Replies: @Lot
        Yes, only about $700 in total, for fun not profit.

        I use predictit.org, an Australian non profit. I don’t trust any other site to not just disappear and steal deposited funds.

        I used the site to make a larger bet on Trump in 2016. They do send you a 1099 so you have to pay taxes if you win.
      64. SFG says:
        @Thulean Friend
        Thanks. Harris' underperformance underlines that she is really the favoured candidate of ZOG with no real base of her own. Besides, Latinos have two other candidates, Castro and Beto, the latter of which is LARPing as one.

        It's still hilarious that neither two make it to the top four. I recall Clinton doing better than Obama all throughout 2008 primaries with Hispanics, despite a supposed "coalition of color". It was really White liberals that helped him over the line.

        Seems Hispanics don't care much for racial politics this time around, either. I re-iterate my stance that a White+hispanic alliance remains underappreciated. Though i will concede that it crucially depends on mobilising the Hispanic vote, which so far has been relatively unsuccessful, but sheer numbers alone for Hispanics will matter more and more as time goes on. Especially as the real action gets to be the democratic primary rather than the general election as changing demographics all but lock out a GOP executive, á la California.

        I think it’s going to be less about Hispandering (‘we will let your illegal brethren in’) than about focusing on aspects like assimilation or Christianity that are open to Hispanics–speak English and keep your families small, and we don’t care if your name is Gonzalez, and by the way we believe in Jesus unlike those godless Democrats who want to put men in women’s bathrooms. Stress the difference between legal and illegal immigration, let a few of the brightest in, and play up guys like Cruz and Rubio who have assimilated successfully. (I’ve got my differences with them both on policy but realistically better them than Ocasio-Cortez.) We could even subtly stress the differences between Latin America and North America while making the point that this is a club open to those willing to play by the rules–you don’t want this place to be full of crime like the place you just left, right?

        A lot of Hispanics outside of university protest groups actually want to assimilate. If I go to France I don’t expect to be able to teach my kids English and not have them learn French for three generations.

        • Replies: @Jay Fink
        I have a unique perspective in that I share a house with a Hispanic family. One thing that stands out is their total lack of interest in politics...which is not uncommon among Hispanics. On election night 2016 they were watching a situation comedy together not even curious about the election results. This was amazing to me, considering the wall was such a big part of Trump's campaign.

        Another interesting observation is on a few occasions hearing the kids say to their parents. "You are Mexicans, we are Americans".
      65. SFG says:
        @The Alarmist
        Imagine where Uncle Joe might be if he could actually speak truth to Brahmin-descendant-of-slave-owner-Ashkenazi-marrying Kamala's Black Power. He needs to find an authentic and respected descendant of slaves to be his mouthpiece; I'm sure the Reverend Sharpton has a reasonable price.

        Americans aren’t interested in starting fights with Jews. They’re resentful of elites (many of whom are Jewish, of course) who ship their jobs overseas and flood the country with illegal immigrants.

        Biden could actually be a moderate foil to Trump and do quite well, but he has to play nice to get through the Dem primary first.

      66. SFG says:
        @animalogic
        Let's be fair here. Anyone with an IQ over 75 would prefer the "Weekend at Berny's" stiff to Biden. Of course Berny made more sense than Biden.

        Bernie was an effective critic of plutocracy who managed to drag his whole party to the left on economics, the stronger part of their platform.

        He’s also a grumpy old white guy, which isn’t in vogue anymore, but Warren could effectively carry his torch. Too bad she’s so lefty on immigration; much like Tucker, I like her economic program.

        • Replies: @Jay Fink
        In 2015-16 Sanders seemed really fresh and anti-establishment. This year he is stale and more in line with the rest of the Democrats, the other candidates moved towards him as well so he is less unique.
      67. @SFG
        I think it's going to be less about Hispandering ('we will let your illegal brethren in') than about focusing on aspects like assimilation or Christianity that are open to Hispanics--speak English and keep your families small, and we don't care if your name is Gonzalez, and by the way we believe in Jesus unlike those godless Democrats who want to put men in women's bathrooms. Stress the difference between legal and illegal immigration, let a few of the brightest in, and play up guys like Cruz and Rubio who have assimilated successfully. (I've got my differences with them both on policy but realistically better them than Ocasio-Cortez.) We could even subtly stress the differences between Latin America and North America while making the point that this is a club open to those willing to play by the rules--you don't want this place to be full of crime like the place you just left, right?

        A lot of Hispanics outside of university protest groups actually want to assimilate. If I go to France I don't expect to be able to teach my kids English and not have them learn French for three generations.

        I have a unique perspective in that I share a house with a Hispanic family. One thing that stands out is their total lack of interest in politics…which is not uncommon among Hispanics. On election night 2016 they were watching a situation comedy together not even curious about the election results. This was amazing to me, considering the wall was such a big part of Trump’s campaign.

        Another interesting observation is on a few occasions hearing the kids say to their parents. “You are Mexicans, we are Americans”.

        • Agree: Lot
        • Replies: @Feryl
        This is why, post-WW2, the American Right has had such an affinity for Mexico. Blacks are obstreperous, unruly, head strong. Unrest and cultural revolutions are more likely with lots of blacks.
      68. @SFG
        Bernie was an effective critic of plutocracy who managed to drag his whole party to the left on economics, the stronger part of their platform.

        He's also a grumpy old white guy, which isn't in vogue anymore, but Warren could effectively carry his torch. Too bad she's so lefty on immigration; much like Tucker, I like her economic program.

        In 2015-16 Sanders seemed really fresh and anti-establishment. This year he is stale and more in line with the rest of the Democrats, the other candidates moved towards him as well so he is less unique.

      69. @Arclight
        I feel like a huge part of the left/right divide with whites is the childless (or nearly so) and those who have a family to consider now and in the future. Many childless whites live in large cities that are essentially adult amusement parks (at least when not desperately working to pay the rent/mortgage) and they feel no attachment to the future generations of people that look like themselves. In contrast, those whites with multiple kids by nature what to arrange things so as to not disadvantage their progeny and are less likely to look kindly on policies that will put economic and cultural barriers in their way. A lot of liberal whites are quietly resentful of people who managed to have families and are willing to champion the good of POCs and their kids as a kind of stick in the eye of the people they sort of wish they were.

        Much of white support for the Dems comes from the upper middle class and the wealthy. Even if they have kids they believe the third-worlding of America won’t really effect them or their kids, that they will be mostly immune from its bad effects as they mostly are today. And they’re probably right about it.

        • Replies: @Feryl
        I thought that pre-Trump, wealthier Americans generally favored Republicans, with the primary exception being Jews and extremely well-educated people. It seems to me that more affluent people defecting to the Dems is probably, for the foreseeable future, in awful development because it will diminish populist class based Leftism (the real kind) on the modern Left, while the useless GOP will be paid by big donors to perpetually reject society stabilizing regulation of the markets and borders.
      70. Sure, all this talk about Biden segregation and Biden busing, is nothing more than an attempt to dislodge the critical and decisive black vote away from him. It won’t be game-on until and if that happens.

        The reason the black vote is so heavily behind Biden is because blacks fall behind the big dog, the big chief. You bought up 2008; Remember, that season started with both black voters and black politicians almost uniformly behind Hillary, not Obama. It was not until a combination of the endorsements of Obama by senior white women elected Democrats (Queen Bee Syndrome), and progressive white anti-Iraq War voters, gave Obama enough steam under his feet, that black voters and pols thought the water was warm enough to defect from Hillary to Obama.

        • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
        In 2008, Obama won most of the early states and then Hillary began slowly creeping back in as the primary season dragged on. She actually ended up beating Obama in total caucus/primary votes cast on the Democratic side.

        I don't recall the pre-primary campaign season though as I've recalled here before, I did play basketball with a bunch of black guys at the time and remember in the summer of 2007 not one of them who knew who Obama was. By the next Spring, they were all huge Obama supporters.

        By the time the voting started, Obama was dominating among blacks. Obama beat Clinton in South Carolina, the third voting state and the first one with any blacks, 78%-19% among black voters. She beat him 36%-24% among whites (Edwards got 40% of the white vote).
        , @Audacious Epigone
        Great to hear from you btw, it has been awhile!
      71. @SFG
        Ah, so you're actually putting real money on these things? I've thought about doing it as a sort of harm-reduction thing to keep me from blowing money trying to time the stock market with my actual savings...any advice?

        It's occurred to me you could divide the price of a presidential contract by the price of a nominee contract to get the market's estimate of the candidate's viability.

        Yes, only about $700 in total, for fun not profit.

        I use predictit.org, an Australian non profit. I don’t trust any other site to not just disappear and steal deposited funds.

        I used the site to make a larger bet on Trump in 2016. They do send you a 1099 so you have to pay taxes if you win.

      72. @Thulean Friend
        Thanks. Harris' underperformance underlines that she is really the favoured candidate of ZOG with no real base of her own. Besides, Latinos have two other candidates, Castro and Beto, the latter of which is LARPing as one.

        It's still hilarious that neither two make it to the top four. I recall Clinton doing better than Obama all throughout 2008 primaries with Hispanics, despite a supposed "coalition of color". It was really White liberals that helped him over the line.

        Seems Hispanics don't care much for racial politics this time around, either. I re-iterate my stance that a White+hispanic alliance remains underappreciated. Though i will concede that it crucially depends on mobilising the Hispanic vote, which so far has been relatively unsuccessful, but sheer numbers alone for Hispanics will matter more and more as time goes on. Especially as the real action gets to be the democratic primary rather than the general election as changing demographics all but lock out a GOP executive, á la California.

        Bernie is the only Israel critic running. Everyone else is pro-Israel. No need for “ZOG” to pick sides.

        • Replies: @Feryl
        It was mainstream Leftism to bash Israel in the 80's-GW Bush era, since duh, the Pentagon and Israel took control of the GOP in the 80's. Running from this stance just further proves that most modern Democrats aren't real Leftists.
      73. @Oleaginous Outrager
        Yeah, he's great, what America needs is more Israel Firsters:

        https://twitter.com/HawleyMO/status/1152573100476784641

        Republicans feel like they have to do that. Explicit celebration of someone else’s nationalism is a start.

      74. @Oleaginous Outrager
        Yeah, he's great, what America needs is more Israel Firsters:

        https://twitter.com/HawleyMO/status/1152573100476784641

        Whatever. First major-party senator to at least talk nationalist and go after the universities. It’s America First, not Israel Last. The point is to put America first…putting Israel second or last follows from that.

        • Agree: iffen
      75. @krustykurmudgeon
        the democrats reproduce through the education system. So you may have white repubs having more kids - but they probably also have a higher defection rate.

        I’d say there was a time lag on this. Recall that Earl Warren and William Brennan were both appointed by Republicans, as was David Souter. Since GHW Bush, the Republicans have recognized that they can not afford to screw up Supreme Court appointments, and the Democrats have recognized that they’ve recognized it, thus the panic when RBG fell ill this year.

        The k12 school, and universities, have been elite-succoring places for years,left-liberal because that’s the elite POV. The R’s have lost children to that system for years because their lived experience was that that did not happen in them, at least K12. The children who weren’t lost and went through that system will not make the same mistake with their own progeny.

      76. @anon
        OT :

        Neither Sailer nor Derb allowed this comment, where it was relevant to the subject. I hope Audacious Epigone's anonymity allows for the publishing of this non PC content:

        This is from the cultural enrichment / strength through diversity file drawer:

        A calf escapes the animal house of pain and horrors in Bloomfield, Connecticut (known as Saba phuckallah hallah halal lah la la la certified butcher shop), so the civilized, diverse crowd employed there chase it into a Home Depot parking lot and cut its throat on the spot, after missing it and failing to take it down with an arrow shot from the bow:

        https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Cow-Slaughter-in-Public-Prompts-Closure-of-Bloomfield-Meat-Store-512914191.html

        It probably got caught up in their spam filters because of the naked hyperlink.

        This in fact looks like exactly the kind of story Mr. Derbyshire would include in Radio Derb.

      77. @Anonymous
        I am not familiar with Cambodian history. What do you mean by "go Pol Pot"?

        He means empty the cities, put the ivory-tower academics to work shoveling out the horse stalls and pig sties, and shoot everyone who wears glasses.  (I wear glasses, FWIW.)

        Though I suspect we’d be much more refined about it.  We’d just see who’d ever posted leftist crap on social media, worked in HR or any university bureaucracy or converged department, or mudsharked.  If they had concerned family, we might parole them after a period of penance but hold the entire family liable if they violated parole.  Ever.

        All the non-Americans, though… I’m sure the rule will be “caedite eos”.

        • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
        We need someone who can wear the ring without leaving craters of death and destruction in his wake.

        I think I'd be a better hobbit than you, Boromir.
      78. @anon
        OT :

        Neither Sailer nor Derb allowed this comment, where it was relevant to the subject. I hope Audacious Epigone's anonymity allows for the publishing of this non PC content:

        This is from the cultural enrichment / strength through diversity file drawer:

        A calf escapes the animal house of pain and horrors in Bloomfield, Connecticut (known as Saba phuckallah hallah halal lah la la la certified butcher shop), so the civilized, diverse crowd employed there chase it into a Home Depot parking lot and cut its throat on the spot, after missing it and failing to take it down with an arrow shot from the bow:

        https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Cow-Slaughter-in-Public-Prompts-Closure-of-Bloomfield-Meat-Store-512914191.html

        Would someone smarter than me explain “the point”?

      79. @Oleaginous Outrager
        Yeah, he's great, what America needs is more Israel Firsters:

        https://twitter.com/HawleyMO/status/1152573100476784641

        Priorities, dude. Priorities. It’s all very well for us anonymous internet commenters to speak truth to Jewish power and spread a bit of realism around, but you’d have to be off your rocker to expect an elected official to embrace Jew-crit at this point in time. Get real.

        Was his response a bit over the top? Maybe, but if it enables him to step over the charge and concentrate on more immediate matters, it’s a smart move.

      80. @Oleaginous Outrager
        Yeah, he's great, what America needs is more Israel Firsters:

        https://twitter.com/HawleyMO/status/1152573100476784641

        You’ll have to carry me out on a slab before I compromise my defense of white people, their greatness, their history, their safety, and the state of Missouri.

        When will it be ok for an American politician to say that?

      81. @The Z Blog
        My read on this is everyone is figuring out how to get Biden's share when he drops out in a few months. The media hides it, but the people inside see how old and frail he is now. It's a matter of time before it becomes too obvious for the media to ignore.

        I was talking with some men in tiny hats last week who told me the Warren people are looking for one of the lesser candidates to start taking shots at Harris. If she is too damaged, Biden's black support will have to go elsewhere. It's the reason Gay Spartacus will hang around long past his expiry date.

        It will be interesting to see if the Weird Sisters are discussed at the upcoming debate. That seems like an opening for Harris to attack Creepy Uncle Joe, but it could be a way for a pale face to attack Harris for inflaming racial tension.

        As an aside, I wonder how many white presenting Democrats voted for Obama thinking he was going to heal racial tensions, but now wonder if that was a mistake. Obama is noticeably absent from the public stage. His Wookie is seen more than he is now. That unspoken buyer's remorse maybe be a factor as the Weird Sisters racialize everything.

        Warren is the last place blacks are going to go though, isn’t she? She’s a dorkess and American Indian Rachel Dolezal. Her polling numbers among blacks are dismal. Sanders’ are considerably better.

        If Biden drops out, the black vote goes to Harris–if it doesn’t before then–and then probably to Sanders and maybe even Booker before Warren, I think.

        • Replies: @Feryl
        Most people don't like Warren for many reasons, and BTW, good for blacks if they see through Warren, because she's actually a faux-populist promoting a war on the "one-percent" (who are too small in number to really exert that much influence), rather than criticizing the status-anxious and envious people in the 2%-20% class who are the real problem, because they have the numbers and influence to set the agenda *. Bernie was a real Leftist, and populist, for decades, evoking hostility toward sleazy corporate types who sold out the working class.

        Agnostic says that Warren was a Republican corporate lawyer, a Reaganite representing the rising force of ravaging yuppies, back in the 70's-early 90's. But once Clinton re-made the Dems in the 90's, that led to many of the most shameless and corrupt 20%ers defecting to the Dems.

        *The "Reagan revolution" was pushed hardest in the 80's by those who attacked the stable and regulated environment of 1930-1980; the 1% were doing pretty good in those decades, while the 2-20% class accepted what they could get. It was in the 80's that the Upper Middle Class began attempting to remove the restrictions on greed and speculation that FDR championed. Reaganites like Liz Warren have always been blatantly focused on the fortunes of the Upper Middle Class, and their resentment of the major elites for having too much money and power. They've never really cared about the fortunes of the working and lower middle class.
      82. @anon
        "Look for Trump/Pence vs. Biden/Harris."

        My prediction: there is no chance of Harris being on Biden's ticket after her antics at the last debate. I personally don't like any of the candidates currently running, besides Gabbard, as being a good match for him. Tulsi is young enough to make Biden look good again and also a war hero. The establishment hates her, but that would probably be a bonus because it would help Joe look like a rebel, taking some of the anti-establishment shtick Trump has.

        You’re dreaming. I like the dream, though!

      83. @countenance
        Sure, all this talk about Biden segregation and Biden busing, is nothing more than an attempt to dislodge the critical and decisive black vote away from him. It won't be game-on until and if that happens.

        The reason the black vote is so heavily behind Biden is because blacks fall behind the big dog, the big chief. You bought up 2008; Remember, that season started with both black voters and black politicians almost uniformly behind Hillary, not Obama. It was not until a combination of the endorsements of Obama by senior white women elected Democrats (Queen Bee Syndrome), and progressive white anti-Iraq War voters, gave Obama enough steam under his feet, that black voters and pols thought the water was warm enough to defect from Hillary to Obama.

        In 2008, Obama won most of the early states and then Hillary began slowly creeping back in as the primary season dragged on. She actually ended up beating Obama in total caucus/primary votes cast on the Democratic side.

        I don’t recall the pre-primary campaign season though as I’ve recalled here before, I did play basketball with a bunch of black guys at the time and remember in the summer of 2007 not one of them who knew who Obama was. By the next Spring, they were all huge Obama supporters.

        By the time the voting started, Obama was dominating among blacks. Obama beat Clinton in South Carolina, the third voting state and the first one with any blacks, 78%-19% among black voters. She beat him 36%-24% among whites (Edwards got 40% of the white vote).

        • Replies: @Feryl
        I think the moral of the story is that blacks are more credulous than any other demographic, and really do believe what CNN/Twitter/the church ladies/the "community organizers" say about what's goin' on.

        Obama, on economic issues and foreign policy, was one sorry excuse for a "Leftist". Neo-libs and Neo-cons aren't going to a lift a finger to help the working and lower middle class, which is exactly what most blacks are. But the ID politics mania (fanned by both affluent whites and blacks of all strata) has led to complete ignorance about how economic and foreign policy issues have been handled by Democrats over the last 30 years.
      84. @countenance
        Sure, all this talk about Biden segregation and Biden busing, is nothing more than an attempt to dislodge the critical and decisive black vote away from him. It won't be game-on until and if that happens.

        The reason the black vote is so heavily behind Biden is because blacks fall behind the big dog, the big chief. You bought up 2008; Remember, that season started with both black voters and black politicians almost uniformly behind Hillary, not Obama. It was not until a combination of the endorsements of Obama by senior white women elected Democrats (Queen Bee Syndrome), and progressive white anti-Iraq War voters, gave Obama enough steam under his feet, that black voters and pols thought the water was warm enough to defect from Hillary to Obama.

        Great to hear from you btw, it has been awhile!

      85. @Mr. Rational
        He means empty the cities, put the ivory-tower academics to work shoveling out the horse stalls and pig sties, and shoot everyone who wears glasses.  (I wear glasses, FWIW.)

        Though I suspect we'd be much more refined about it.  We'd just see who'd ever posted leftist crap on social media, worked in HR or any university bureaucracy or converged department, or mudsharked.  If they had concerned family, we might parole them after a period of penance but hold the entire family liable if they violated parole.  Ever.

        All the non-Americans, though... I'm sure the rule will be "caedite eos".

        We need someone who can wear the ring without leaving craters of death and destruction in his wake.

        I think I’d be a better hobbit than you, Boromir.

        • Replies: @Mr. Rational

        We need someone who can wear the ring without leaving craters of death and destruction in his wake.
         
        Those who set our course into death and destruction did it long before I had any influence.  I've never worn A ring, let alone THE ring.

        I think I’d be a better hobbit than you, Boromir.
         
        I think you are missing at least two clues.
        , @Anonymous

        We need someone who can wear the ring without leaving craters of death and destruction in his wake.
         
        Hm. There's no accounting for taste, I guess.
      86. @Lot
        I am long Biden and Warren, short Kamala and Yang.

        Have a nice profit on Warren, got her at 7. Same for Yang, free money shorting him at 10-14.

        I lost money shorting Buttman around 8. I covered and locked in the loss. He was impressive at the debate, raised the most $ last quarter, and is the only young candidate.

        Going long Biden the poll leader at only 20 seems like a no-brainer to me. Moreover, he consistently polls the best against Trump. If I were a partisan Dem, he would be my obvious choice.

        I think Dems want to win too much to nominate a black woman. Her fundraising is also weak and she isn’t radical enough to get a lot of volunteer energy. She also polls even or behind in head to head against Trump while Biden is +8 to 10.

        Sanders fundraising is getting weak, and he was awful at the debate. He also has 0 chance of winning at a contested convention.

        Warren has the largest Iowa operation by far, and it is working. If she beats Biden there, and suddenly the entire left could unite behind her as the Biden alternative. Then NH is next, right next to her home state and very well educated with few blacks. If she starts looking like a winner, blacks will desert Biden if he loses Iowa and NH to Warren.

        Sanders fundraising is getting weak, and he was awful at the debate. He also has 0 chance of winning at a contested convention.

        Bernie was really trendy in 2016 because of his populism, which most of the Left now finds icky due to the fact that populism got Trump elected. The mainstream Left, which is now the same thing as the SJW Left, has taken a hard turn toward elitism during Trump’s presidency. Plus Bernie could’ve countered the SJW Left effectively due to his status as the spokesman of the populist Left, but instead he’s pivoted towards de rigueur modern Left positions on ID politics, thereby rendering his entire political gravitas worthless; Bernie was never at all an SJW throughout his life, and now we’re suppose to buy the recent pivot?

        • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
        He's such a frustrating character. In a field of 20, the one guy--who already has a strong, loyal base of support--who refuses to do the race baiting on the principle of a vision of equality where we focus on where we are going instead of dwelling on where we've been could conceivably change the course of history. Instead, he'll just go down as an angry socialist crank who never really had a chance.
      87. @Audacious Epigone
        In 2008, Obama won most of the early states and then Hillary began slowly creeping back in as the primary season dragged on. She actually ended up beating Obama in total caucus/primary votes cast on the Democratic side.

        I don't recall the pre-primary campaign season though as I've recalled here before, I did play basketball with a bunch of black guys at the time and remember in the summer of 2007 not one of them who knew who Obama was. By the next Spring, they were all huge Obama supporters.

        By the time the voting started, Obama was dominating among blacks. Obama beat Clinton in South Carolina, the third voting state and the first one with any blacks, 78%-19% among black voters. She beat him 36%-24% among whites (Edwards got 40% of the white vote).

        I think the moral of the story is that blacks are more credulous than any other demographic, and really do believe what CNN/Twitter/the church ladies/the “community organizers” say about what’s goin’ on.

        Obama, on economic issues and foreign policy, was one sorry excuse for a “Leftist”. Neo-libs and Neo-cons aren’t going to a lift a finger to help the working and lower middle class, which is exactly what most blacks are. But the ID politics mania (fanned by both affluent whites and blacks of all strata) has led to complete ignorance about how economic and foreign policy issues have been handled by Democrats over the last 30 years.

        • Agree: Mr. Rational
      88. @Audacious Epigone
        Warren is the last place blacks are going to go though, isn't she? She's a dorkess and American Indian Rachel Dolezal. Her polling numbers among blacks are dismal. Sanders' are considerably better.

        If Biden drops out, the black vote goes to Harris--if it doesn't before then--and then probably to Sanders and maybe even Booker before Warren, I think.

        Most people don’t like Warren for many reasons, and BTW, good for blacks if they see through Warren, because she’s actually a faux-populist promoting a war on the “one-percent” (who are too small in number to really exert that much influence), rather than criticizing the status-anxious and envious people in the 2%-20% class who are the real problem, because they have the numbers and influence to set the agenda *. Bernie was a real Leftist, and populist, for decades, evoking hostility toward sleazy corporate types who sold out the working class.

        Agnostic says that Warren was a Republican corporate lawyer, a Reaganite representing the rising force of ravaging yuppies, back in the 70’s-early 90’s. But once Clinton re-made the Dems in the 90’s, that led to many of the most shameless and corrupt 20%ers defecting to the Dems.

        *The “Reagan revolution” was pushed hardest in the 80’s by those who attacked the stable and regulated environment of 1930-1980; the 1% were doing pretty good in those decades, while the 2-20% class accepted what they could get. It was in the 80’s that the Upper Middle Class began attempting to remove the restrictions on greed and speculation that FDR championed. Reaganites like Liz Warren have always been blatantly focused on the fortunes of the Upper Middle Class, and their resentment of the major elites for having too much money and power. They’ve never really cared about the fortunes of the working and lower middle class.

      89. @Lot
        Bernie is the only Israel critic running. Everyone else is pro-Israel. No need for “ZOG” to pick sides.

        It was mainstream Leftism to bash Israel in the 80’s-GW Bush era, since duh, the Pentagon and Israel took control of the GOP in the 80’s. Running from this stance just further proves that most modern Democrats aren’t real Leftists.

        • Replies: @dfordoom

        It was mainstream Leftism to bash Israel in the 80’s-GW Bush era, since duh, the Pentagon and Israel took control of the GOP in the 80’s. Running from this stance just further proves that most modern Democrats aren’t real Leftists.
         
        Yeah. Politics has changed a lot in just a few decades. Here in Australia there was on the Left a great deal of support for the idea that Australia should not slavishly follow Washington in foreign policy. There was also a great deal of opposition to the presence of U.S. military bases on Australian soil. Today both major parties seem to be committed to doing whatever Washington tells them to do. The Australian Labor Party today has very few valid claims to being a party of the Left.

        So it's happening everywhere. In Australia we can't really blame the Pentagon or Israel. It just seems like the Left has gradually shed all its actual leftism.
      90. @bro3886
        Much of white support for the Dems comes from the upper middle class and the wealthy. Even if they have kids they believe the third-worlding of America won't really effect them or their kids, that they will be mostly immune from its bad effects as they mostly are today. And they're probably right about it.

        I thought that pre-Trump, wealthier Americans generally favored Republicans, with the primary exception being Jews and extremely well-educated people. It seems to me that more affluent people defecting to the Dems is probably, for the foreseeable future, in awful development because it will diminish populist class based Leftism (the real kind) on the modern Left, while the useless GOP will be paid by big donors to perpetually reject society stabilizing regulation of the markets and borders.

      91. @Jay Fink
        I have a unique perspective in that I share a house with a Hispanic family. One thing that stands out is their total lack of interest in politics...which is not uncommon among Hispanics. On election night 2016 they were watching a situation comedy together not even curious about the election results. This was amazing to me, considering the wall was such a big part of Trump's campaign.

        Another interesting observation is on a few occasions hearing the kids say to their parents. "You are Mexicans, we are Americans".

        This is why, post-WW2, the American Right has had such an affinity for Mexico. Blacks are obstreperous, unruly, head strong. Unrest and cultural revolutions are more likely with lots of blacks.

      92. @Thulean Friend
        Thanks. Harris' underperformance underlines that she is really the favoured candidate of ZOG with no real base of her own. Besides, Latinos have two other candidates, Castro and Beto, the latter of which is LARPing as one.

        It's still hilarious that neither two make it to the top four. I recall Clinton doing better than Obama all throughout 2008 primaries with Hispanics, despite a supposed "coalition of color". It was really White liberals that helped him over the line.

        Seems Hispanics don't care much for racial politics this time around, either. I re-iterate my stance that a White+hispanic alliance remains underappreciated. Though i will concede that it crucially depends on mobilising the Hispanic vote, which so far has been relatively unsuccessful, but sheer numbers alone for Hispanics will matter more and more as time goes on. Especially as the real action gets to be the democratic primary rather than the general election as changing demographics all but lock out a GOP executive, á la California.

        Especially as the real action gets to be the democratic primary rather than the general election as changing demographics all but lock out a GOP executive, á la California.

        Here’s the funny thing: there’s no reason that the GOP has to be the foreign nation-building*, free-trade, de-regulation party forever. Silent and Boomer mega donors turned the party into the sovereignty wrecking force that it’s become, while also prioritizing white Evangelical issues that are dead on arrival in most big cities and many of their suburbs.

        But we’ve now reached a point where Gen X and Millennial Republicans are actually more hostile toward free trade than their modern Dem counterparts. There are plenty of voters who don’t buy into nation bankrupting industrial policy, and the Republican establishment’s failure to adjust to that will hurt them as much as anything else.

        *Prior to the 1970’s, The Dems were actually more pro-war, what with being the Southern party of that era. But ideological alignments happen about every 40-50 years; the Dems recently have become the party of PC and elitist well-educated people, in contrast to their generally populist outlook (compared to the GOP) that they had from about 1930-2010. The GOP has to adjust to be more populist, which may entail dropping the excessive Religious Right trappings** that are dog-whistles to older heartland white voters.

        **Excessive religiosity is elitist, not populist, since it leads to purity competitions.

        Generational turn-over is going to be massively influential, since X-ers and later generations always resented the yuppie apologist and ineffectually pious Reaganite GOP. As older generations quiet down and just plain die off, look to the GOP to undergo massive changes by 2030.

        Put another way: The Dem establishment caved to Woke Twitter, which further spread the campus PC culture that we’ve had since the late 80’s beginning of the full neo-lib era during Obama’s 2nd term. Due to a variety of changes and pressures, eventually the GOP establishment will cave to the dissident Right, who represent various strands of Left and Right flavored populism that can be woven together to create a powerful force, one that will transcend the schizo and destructive Reagan coalition of “free market” zealots and Israel loving bible beaters.

        • Replies: @dfordoom

        Prior to the 1970’s, The Dems were actually more pro-war,
         
        It does seem like every American war up to that point started with a Democrat in the White House.

        eventually the GOP establishment will cave to the dissident Right, who represent various strands of Left and Right flavored populism that can be woven together to create a powerful force, one that will transcend the schizo and destructive Reagan coalition of “free market” zealots and Israel loving bible beaters.
         
        The problem is that there's no-one with actual power and serious money prepared to back such a political revolution within the GOP. A GOP that adopted the dissident right position would find itself without any donors. And facing fanatical opposition from the big media, both old media and new media.
      93. @Oleaginous Outrager
        Yeah, he's great, what America needs is more Israel Firsters:

        https://twitter.com/HawleyMO/status/1152573100476784641

        There are a lot of POC and Right dissidents who wouldn’t mind this doofus becoming a martyr for his only true love (the Israel first Reaganite coalition and the doddering Silent and Boomer mega donors who keep the dream alive).

      94. @Audacious Epigone
        Obama's reputation is pure gold among Democrats and moderates precisely because he hasn't tried to run the party from the post-presidency. He won't endorse during the primaries at all--his endorsement will come during the general (or when the primaries are obviously over).

        The could clone Hitler, and have him run with a D next to his name, and that would be good enough to win the loyalty of the modern Dem partisans. I’m pretty sure I’ve said before that it was GW Bush’s 2nd term when a lot of partisan idiocy started getting out of control.

      95. @Audacious Epigone
        We need someone who can wear the ring without leaving craters of death and destruction in his wake.

        I think I'd be a better hobbit than you, Boromir.

        We need someone who can wear the ring without leaving craters of death and destruction in his wake.

        Those who set our course into death and destruction did it long before I had any influence.  I’ve never worn A ring, let alone THE ring.

        I think I’d be a better hobbit than you, Boromir.

        I think you are missing at least two clues.

      96. @Feryl
        It was mainstream Leftism to bash Israel in the 80's-GW Bush era, since duh, the Pentagon and Israel took control of the GOP in the 80's. Running from this stance just further proves that most modern Democrats aren't real Leftists.

        It was mainstream Leftism to bash Israel in the 80’s-GW Bush era, since duh, the Pentagon and Israel took control of the GOP in the 80’s. Running from this stance just further proves that most modern Democrats aren’t real Leftists.

        Yeah. Politics has changed a lot in just a few decades. Here in Australia there was on the Left a great deal of support for the idea that Australia should not slavishly follow Washington in foreign policy. There was also a great deal of opposition to the presence of U.S. military bases on Australian soil. Today both major parties seem to be committed to doing whatever Washington tells them to do. The Australian Labor Party today has very few valid claims to being a party of the Left.

        So it’s happening everywhere. In Australia we can’t really blame the Pentagon or Israel. It just seems like the Left has gradually shed all its actual leftism.

        • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
        When everything is race--and everything must be race in a multiracial democracy--there is no room for real leftism because it doesn't appeal to anyone, at least not enough to overcome the thickness of blood.
        , @Feryl
        The neo-lib establishment of both Left and Right flavors is desperately trying to maintain all of the signs of post-1980 "normality" (which were abnormal during the New Deal era, BTW). Western policy being premised on Israel's needs is only something that won dominance in the 1980's (after all, we didn't launch any substantial war in the Semitic world until the Gulf War), something that the Left used to resent because it wasn't the Left's idea to orient the entire world toward the needs of Israel (and indeed, the master race twaddle of the Israel state is profoundly anti-Progressive and elitist; how gnarled and warped that post-1980 Western conservatives would sublimate their fascist longings onto a Middle Eastern tribe after white Western fascists shat the bed in the early 20th century.

        Fortunately, if it takes chauvinist young generations of Muslims (who can't be guilt tripped about the Holocaust) to lead the way toward the re-establishment of real normality (that is, foreign policy based on one's actual tribal interests, not the interest of a backward, fascist, and dangerous country like Israel), then so be it.
      97. @Feryl

        Especially as the real action gets to be the democratic primary rather than the general election as changing demographics all but lock out a GOP executive, á la California.
         
        Here's the funny thing: there's no reason that the GOP has to be the foreign nation-building*, free-trade, de-regulation party forever. Silent and Boomer mega donors turned the party into the sovereignty wrecking force that it's become, while also prioritizing white Evangelical issues that are dead on arrival in most big cities and many of their suburbs.

        But we've now reached a point where Gen X and Millennial Republicans are actually more hostile toward free trade than their modern Dem counterparts. There are plenty of voters who don't buy into nation bankrupting industrial policy, and the Republican establishment's failure to adjust to that will hurt them as much as anything else.

        *Prior to the 1970's, The Dems were actually more pro-war, what with being the Southern party of that era. But ideological alignments happen about every 40-50 years; the Dems recently have become the party of PC and elitist well-educated people, in contrast to their generally populist outlook (compared to the GOP) that they had from about 1930-2010. The GOP has to adjust to be more populist, which may entail dropping the excessive Religious Right trappings** that are dog-whistles to older heartland white voters.

        **Excessive religiosity is elitist, not populist, since it leads to purity competitions.

        Generational turn-over is going to be massively influential, since X-ers and later generations always resented the yuppie apologist and ineffectually pious Reaganite GOP. As older generations quiet down and just plain die off, look to the GOP to undergo massive changes by 2030.

        Put another way: The Dem establishment caved to Woke Twitter, which further spread the campus PC culture that we've had since the late 80's beginning of the full neo-lib era during Obama's 2nd term. Due to a variety of changes and pressures, eventually the GOP establishment will cave to the dissident Right, who represent various strands of Left and Right flavored populism that can be woven together to create a powerful force, one that will transcend the schizo and destructive Reagan coalition of "free market" zealots and Israel loving bible beaters.

        Prior to the 1970’s, The Dems were actually more pro-war,

        It does seem like every American war up to that point started with a Democrat in the White House.

        eventually the GOP establishment will cave to the dissident Right, who represent various strands of Left and Right flavored populism that can be woven together to create a powerful force, one that will transcend the schizo and destructive Reagan coalition of “free market” zealots and Israel loving bible beaters.

        The problem is that there’s no-one with actual power and serious money prepared to back such a political revolution within the GOP. A GOP that adopted the dissident right position would find itself without any donors. And facing fanatical opposition from the big media, both old media and new media.

        • Replies: @Feryl

        The problem is that there’s no-one with actual power and serious money prepared to back such a political revolution within the GOP. A GOP that adopted the dissident right position would find itself without any donors. And facing fanatical opposition from the big media, both old media and new media.
         
        U R leaving out the "X" factor: generational character. The GOP ideologically hasn't moved on from 1980, because the Silents and Boomers ushered in the GOP dominated post-1980 era*. As such, they have no urge to renounce that which launched the neo-liberal and neo-con gravy train. Since the Dems were never the dominant player after 1980, it's easier for the Dems to undergo a make-over to try and best the GOP. Back in the 90's, the Dems were forced to become the me-too neo-lib party in order to get in the White House (also, on a local and state level Democrats began to pile up a lot of losses in the 90's further emphasizing the urgency of taking "centrist" aka more conservative positions on the key question of every ideological phase since the Progressive era: should the government do more or do less to insure equality and worker security?). Now that GW Bush, Obama, and Trump blatantly allowed another Gilded Age to deepen, which plays into the hands of the modern GOP, it's causing the Dems to attempt another make-over: Zealous ID politics and various degrees of anti-establishment rhetoric. Some of this is misguided or doomed to not find popular success, but at least it's something different. Whereas the establishment GOP is content with America's post-1980 ne0-lib/neo-con era; Trump is not as worthless as GW Bush was, but then, the only great things about Reagan and Trump was their reticence in launching major wars that have been ruining American presidencies since LBJ.

        Keep in mind that in the New Deal era (1930-1980), it was naturally the GOP who often were ideologically confused and experimental, desperately going through certain phases in order to keep up with the dominant party of that era (the Dems). Just like how the Dem establishment has fretted about the consequences of going too far off the reservation, leading to "centrists" like Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and Hilary running for president in the modern era, the GOP was forced, for the most part, to keep strident anti-New Dealers from being the party's standard bearers in the New Deal era. So we got Eisenhower, who oversaw massive infrastructure projects, and Nixon, who created OSHA and EPA (which drove old-school Republicans absolutely nuts; Nixon was elected by a Progressive public to do Progressive things, which many conservatives gritted their teeth about at the time but still went along with to survive and not be loathed by the public).

        *Post-Boomers understand that most people have gotten ripped off in the neo-lib era, and left to rot in houses they can barely afford, or on the street, or in prison. This is why the only thing that will break the GOP free of neo-liberalism is the rise of younger generations, who will no longer have to worry so much about angering Silent and Boomer billionaires once we get into the 2030's (seriously, look it up sometime: the vast majority of wealth in America is owned by people born before 1955). Besides, 2030 will mark 50 years of neo-lib policy, by which time people will feel that it's time to move on.
        , @Feryl

        It does seem like every American war up to that point started with a Democrat in the White House.
         
        The Democrats were the party of the South before 1970. But FDR was able to regionally unify America under the banner of economic populism by ensuring that every region had a seat at the table (one of the remarkable things about circa 1930-1970 was the degree to which many 2nd and even 3rd tier cities did quite well, a stark contrast from the pre-1930 and post-1980 era of the wealthiest elites living in "crown jewel" neighborhoods of the most glitzy cities while they raked in dough from rampant speculation/booms and the other cities were left to rot.

        It's not surprising that the Republicans decision to shack up with the Pentagon during a time of soaring inequality and corruption has led to excessive war-mongering. The Dems gave us Korea and Vietnam*, but these wars were relatively short-lived and inexpensive because leadership back then understood that too much investment in a difficult to sell war would be unpopular and a betrayal of the public. Hell, even GHW Bush showed his Rockefeller and GI (moderate) roots by quickly ending the Gulf War; the heavily Boomer influenced neo-con wing would only get stronger as the 90's and 2000's went on, which has led to the Pentagon becoming obscenely out of control and arrogant. Young Boomers in the New Deal era were skeptical of war mongering, but many of them turned on a dime and began to favor belligerence in the neo-lib era (perhaps it would be more accurate to say that Boomers tended to be either very pro or anti-war, even in the 1960's, but obviously the dumber war-mongering side became dominant after 1980).

        *They also gave us US involvement in WW2; remember that Americans were skeptical of getting involved in other countries affairs during the New Deal era, but Americans ended up approving of our WW2 efforts because it was apparent that the Nazis represented the desperate lashing out of the fading German empire (and Japan needed to pay a price for their own arrogance, also); ironically, America in the post-GW Bush era has caused other countries to become reflexively and often violently anti-America out of fear that the US is desperately waging war and mucking about in foreign countries in order to extend the US empire.
      98. Anonymous[130] • Disclaimer says:
        @Rosie

        So yeah, restoring white patriarchy helps, sorry.
         
        White women are not promoting miscegenation. You have us confused with our (((fellow white people))) who run the media. Your best chance of ever "restoring White patriarchy" (whatever that means) is making nice with White women. You will accomplish nothing otherwise.

        tfw when you think you’re some kind of based trad woman but you’re steeped in feminism so any talk of submitting to male leadership hurts your feelz.

        There are plenty shiksas pushing miscegenation and every other social ill. No matter how hard you pilpul, there is no squaring liberated wahmin with a return to sanity.

      99. Anonymous[130] • Disclaimer says:
        @Audacious Epigone
        We need someone who can wear the ring without leaving craters of death and destruction in his wake.

        I think I'd be a better hobbit than you, Boromir.

        We need someone who can wear the ring without leaving craters of death and destruction in his wake.

        Hm. There’s no accounting for taste, I guess.

      100. @Rosie

        So yeah, restoring white patriarchy helps, sorry.
         
        White women are not promoting miscegenation. You have us confused with our (((fellow white people))) who run the media. Your best chance of ever "restoring White patriarchy" (whatever that means) is making nice with White women. You will accomplish nothing otherwise.

        White women are not promoting miscegenation.

        And I think the stats someone brought up with regards to dating preferences brings this point home; White men are more likely to look for partners outside of Whites than White women are. I think this is a reflection of natural impulses actually. The vast majority of societies throughout history have been polygamous (including much of Europe until the Church was able to fight this – but it took time – I can give you references as to how late they were fighting things such as concubinage in the Nordic areas if interested) and fine with concubinage.

        So some Viking might have a main wife at home, but have a couple of thralls that he either captured or bought. As far as he’s concerned, he’s still spreading his seed and he doesn’t really care that they might be Slavic or Greek or whatever. The woman may indeed be much more cautious about who fathers her child, because the overall cost to her in bearing and rearing it is greater, and if he can provide for it.

        The issue comes to a head once monogamy comes into place and demands those practices cease.

        But now, the open sexual (swipe-right) meat-market has thrown another variation on this entire situation and the experiment is still ongoing.

        Also, saw that comment of yours:
        http://www.unz.com/akarlin/what-the-nordics-get-right/#comment-3348261

        I used to comment at AK’s columns (now I read a column once in a while), but one realizes what kind of audience a Russian (ethno)nationalist blog attracts, how anything on it affects one’s life and whether one really cares to be part of the conversation. I guess that is a decision everyone has to make for themselves.

        Peace.

      101. @dfordoom

        It was mainstream Leftism to bash Israel in the 80’s-GW Bush era, since duh, the Pentagon and Israel took control of the GOP in the 80’s. Running from this stance just further proves that most modern Democrats aren’t real Leftists.
         
        Yeah. Politics has changed a lot in just a few decades. Here in Australia there was on the Left a great deal of support for the idea that Australia should not slavishly follow Washington in foreign policy. There was also a great deal of opposition to the presence of U.S. military bases on Australian soil. Today both major parties seem to be committed to doing whatever Washington tells them to do. The Australian Labor Party today has very few valid claims to being a party of the Left.

        So it's happening everywhere. In Australia we can't really blame the Pentagon or Israel. It just seems like the Left has gradually shed all its actual leftism.

        When everything is race–and everything must be race in a multiracial democracy–there is no room for real leftism because it doesn’t appeal to anyone, at least not enough to overcome the thickness of blood.

        • Agree: Talha
        • Replies: @iffen
        at least not enough to overcome the thickness of blood.

        Okay, so you are just throwing in the towel and wasting the last 3 hundred years or so?

        We can think! We can be rational! I read about it in a book.
        , @Feryl
        Ideological cycles happen in more diverse countries, too. And though New Deal era culture was perhaps the most shaky in the Deep South (for obvious reasons), it is still nonetheless true that prole-class whites and blacks did increasingly better as the New Deal era went on. And the racial tensions brought about by the changes of the 60's and early 70's don't negate the fact that ordinary Americans, in all regions, did quite well economically into the 1970's.

        Arrogant and corrupt elites (and wannabe elites) over-seeing policy and culture which decimates the middle class, and creates massive economic and social divisions between and within various regions, races, professions, etc. is something that can happen in any country regardless of ethnic demographics. We could get the demographics of 1950 back, and it wouldn't change the fact that 2020 Americans decided that people with an IQ above 110 deserve to have a lot while less talented people can dive into a dry concrete swimming pool. Whereas 1950 era Americans were about elites sacrificing the means to have more in order to insure that lower class people would not be rotting away on vice, on the street, or in prison.
        , @dfordoom

        When everything is race–and everything must be race in a multiracial democracy–there is no room for real leftism
         
        Which of course is why the PTB want to make everything about race. Right from the start identity politics was a bludgeon with which to smash actual leftism.

        Russia is a multi-racial society. They don't seem to make everything about race. Obviously everything doesn't have to be about race.
      102. @Audacious Epigone
        When everything is race--and everything must be race in a multiracial democracy--there is no room for real leftism because it doesn't appeal to anyone, at least not enough to overcome the thickness of blood.

        at least not enough to overcome the thickness of blood.

        Okay, so you are just throwing in the towel and wasting the last 3 hundred years or so?

        We can think! We can be rational! I read about it in a book.

        • Replies: @Mr. Rational

        We can think! We can be rational! I read about it in a book.
         
        IT IS!  I saw it in a movie once.
      103. @dfordoom

        Prior to the 1970’s, The Dems were actually more pro-war,
         
        It does seem like every American war up to that point started with a Democrat in the White House.

        eventually the GOP establishment will cave to the dissident Right, who represent various strands of Left and Right flavored populism that can be woven together to create a powerful force, one that will transcend the schizo and destructive Reagan coalition of “free market” zealots and Israel loving bible beaters.
         
        The problem is that there's no-one with actual power and serious money prepared to back such a political revolution within the GOP. A GOP that adopted the dissident right position would find itself without any donors. And facing fanatical opposition from the big media, both old media and new media.

        The problem is that there’s no-one with actual power and serious money prepared to back such a political revolution within the GOP. A GOP that adopted the dissident right position would find itself without any donors. And facing fanatical opposition from the big media, both old media and new media.

        U R leaving out the “X” factor: generational character. The GOP ideologically hasn’t moved on from 1980, because the Silents and Boomers ushered in the GOP dominated post-1980 era*. As such, they have no urge to renounce that which launched the neo-liberal and neo-con gravy train. Since the Dems were never the dominant player after 1980, it’s easier for the Dems to undergo a make-over to try and best the GOP. Back in the 90’s, the Dems were forced to become the me-too neo-lib party in order to get in the White House (also, on a local and state level Democrats began to pile up a lot of losses in the 90’s further emphasizing the urgency of taking “centrist” aka more conservative positions on the key question of every ideological phase since the Progressive era: should the government do more or do less to insure equality and worker security?). Now that GW Bush, Obama, and Trump blatantly allowed another Gilded Age to deepen, which plays into the hands of the modern GOP, it’s causing the Dems to attempt another make-over: Zealous ID politics and various degrees of anti-establishment rhetoric. Some of this is misguided or doomed to not find popular success, but at least it’s something different. Whereas the establishment GOP is content with America’s post-1980 ne0-lib/neo-con era; Trump is not as worthless as GW Bush was, but then, the only great things about Reagan and Trump was their reticence in launching major wars that have been ruining American presidencies since LBJ.

        Keep in mind that in the New Deal era (1930-1980), it was naturally the GOP who often were ideologically confused and experimental, desperately going through certain phases in order to keep up with the dominant party of that era (the Dems). Just like how the Dem establishment has fretted about the consequences of going too far off the reservation, leading to “centrists” like Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and Hilary running for president in the modern era, the GOP was forced, for the most part, to keep strident anti-New Dealers from being the party’s standard bearers in the New Deal era. So we got Eisenhower, who oversaw massive infrastructure projects, and Nixon, who created OSHA and EPA (which drove old-school Republicans absolutely nuts; Nixon was elected by a Progressive public to do Progressive things, which many conservatives gritted their teeth about at the time but still went along with to survive and not be loathed by the public).

        *Post-Boomers understand that most people have gotten ripped off in the neo-lib era, and left to rot in houses they can barely afford, or on the street, or in prison. This is why the only thing that will break the GOP free of neo-liberalism is the rise of younger generations, who will no longer have to worry so much about angering Silent and Boomer billionaires once we get into the 2030’s (seriously, look it up sometime: the vast majority of wealth in America is owned by people born before 1955). Besides, 2030 will mark 50 years of neo-lib policy, by which time people will feel that it’s time to move on.

        • Replies: @dfordoom

        U R leaving out the “X” factor: generational character.
         
        I'm leaving it out because it's irrelevant. There is no mystical "generational character." People born at different times have different life experiences and slightly different cultural tastes. They're exposed to different cultural influences. Millennials are no different from Boomers except that they like different music and they've been unbelievably thoroughly indoctrinated. What matters is the extent of the indoctrination.

        And the level of indoctrination is increasing. Which means that each succeeding birth cohort will be more thoroughly pozzed and more thoroughly marinated in globalist ideology.

        There's a weird sort of biological determinism in the obsession with generations, as if different generations are inherently different. They aren't. If you removed the current indoctrination from the media and the schools and replaced it with Evangelical Christian indoctrination then most people would conform and become Evangelical Christians. If you removed the current indoctrination from the media and schools and replaced it with Maoist indoctrination then most people would conform and become Maoists. Regardless of which generation they belong to.
      104. @dfordoom

        Prior to the 1970’s, The Dems were actually more pro-war,
         
        It does seem like every American war up to that point started with a Democrat in the White House.

        eventually the GOP establishment will cave to the dissident Right, who represent various strands of Left and Right flavored populism that can be woven together to create a powerful force, one that will transcend the schizo and destructive Reagan coalition of “free market” zealots and Israel loving bible beaters.
         
        The problem is that there's no-one with actual power and serious money prepared to back such a political revolution within the GOP. A GOP that adopted the dissident right position would find itself without any donors. And facing fanatical opposition from the big media, both old media and new media.

        It does seem like every American war up to that point started with a Democrat in the White House.

        The Democrats were the party of the South before 1970. But FDR was able to regionally unify America under the banner of economic populism by ensuring that every region had a seat at the table (one of the remarkable things about circa 1930-1970 was the degree to which many 2nd and even 3rd tier cities did quite well, a stark contrast from the pre-1930 and post-1980 era of the wealthiest elites living in “crown jewel” neighborhoods of the most glitzy cities while they raked in dough from rampant speculation/booms and the other cities were left to rot.

        It’s not surprising that the Republicans decision to shack up with the Pentagon during a time of soaring inequality and corruption has led to excessive war-mongering. The Dems gave us Korea and Vietnam*, but these wars were relatively short-lived and inexpensive because leadership back then understood that too much investment in a difficult to sell war would be unpopular and a betrayal of the public. Hell, even GHW Bush showed his Rockefeller and GI (moderate) roots by quickly ending the Gulf War; the heavily Boomer influenced neo-con wing would only get stronger as the 90’s and 2000’s went on, which has led to the Pentagon becoming obscenely out of control and arrogant. Young Boomers in the New Deal era were skeptical of war mongering, but many of them turned on a dime and began to favor belligerence in the neo-lib era (perhaps it would be more accurate to say that Boomers tended to be either very pro or anti-war, even in the 1960’s, but obviously the dumber war-mongering side became dominant after 1980).

        *They also gave us US involvement in WW2; remember that Americans were skeptical of getting involved in other countries affairs during the New Deal era, but Americans ended up approving of our WW2 efforts because it was apparent that the Nazis represented the desperate lashing out of the fading German empire (and Japan needed to pay a price for their own arrogance, also); ironically, America in the post-GW Bush era has caused other countries to become reflexively and often violently anti-America out of fear that the US is desperately waging war and mucking about in foreign countries in order to extend the US empire.

        • Replies: @dfordoom

        They also gave us US involvement in WW2
         
        And the Dems dragged the U.S. into the First World War.

        Roosevelt clearly wanted war. And there was a major propaganda push behind America's entry into WW2 - Hollywood was fanatically pro-war for several years before the U.S. entry into the war.
      105. @Audacious Epigone
        When everything is race--and everything must be race in a multiracial democracy--there is no room for real leftism because it doesn't appeal to anyone, at least not enough to overcome the thickness of blood.

        Ideological cycles happen in more diverse countries, too. And though New Deal era culture was perhaps the most shaky in the Deep South (for obvious reasons), it is still nonetheless true that prole-class whites and blacks did increasingly better as the New Deal era went on. And the racial tensions brought about by the changes of the 60’s and early 70’s don’t negate the fact that ordinary Americans, in all regions, did quite well economically into the 1970’s.

        Arrogant and corrupt elites (and wannabe elites) over-seeing policy and culture which decimates the middle class, and creates massive economic and social divisions between and within various regions, races, professions, etc. is something that can happen in any country regardless of ethnic demographics. We could get the demographics of 1950 back, and it wouldn’t change the fact that 2020 Americans decided that people with an IQ above 110 deserve to have a lot while less talented people can dive into a dry concrete swimming pool. Whereas 1950 era Americans were about elites sacrificing the means to have more in order to insure that lower class people would not be rotting away on vice, on the street, or in prison.

        • Replies: @dfordoom

        We could get the demographics of 1950 back, and it wouldn’t change the fact that 2020 Americans decided that people with an IQ above 110 deserve to have a lot while less talented people can dive into a dry concrete swimming pool.
         
        Agreed. Going back to the demographics of 1950 would not help. Current problems are not caused by immigration. They are caused by an elite which is waging class warfare against non-elites. Without immigration you would still have had the rise of the drug culture, you would still have had the explosion of crime that happened in the 60s, you would still have had cultural degeneracy with the country drowning in an ocean of pornography, you would still have had the radical homosexual agenda forced upon you, you would still have witnessed the decay of the institution of marriage.

        Demographic change has been a very bad thing in every western country but it is not the key to the problems we face.

        And everything is not about race.
      106. @dfordoom

        It was mainstream Leftism to bash Israel in the 80’s-GW Bush era, since duh, the Pentagon and Israel took control of the GOP in the 80’s. Running from this stance just further proves that most modern Democrats aren’t real Leftists.
         
        Yeah. Politics has changed a lot in just a few decades. Here in Australia there was on the Left a great deal of support for the idea that Australia should not slavishly follow Washington in foreign policy. There was also a great deal of opposition to the presence of U.S. military bases on Australian soil. Today both major parties seem to be committed to doing whatever Washington tells them to do. The Australian Labor Party today has very few valid claims to being a party of the Left.

        So it's happening everywhere. In Australia we can't really blame the Pentagon or Israel. It just seems like the Left has gradually shed all its actual leftism.

        The neo-lib establishment of both Left and Right flavors is desperately trying to maintain all of the signs of post-1980 “normality” (which were abnormal during the New Deal era, BTW). Western policy being premised on Israel’s needs is only something that won dominance in the 1980’s (after all, we didn’t launch any substantial war in the Semitic world until the Gulf War), something that the Left used to resent because it wasn’t the Left’s idea to orient the entire world toward the needs of Israel (and indeed, the master race twaddle of the Israel state is profoundly anti-Progressive and elitist; how gnarled and warped that post-1980 Western conservatives would sublimate their fascist longings onto a Middle Eastern tribe after white Western fascists shat the bed in the early 20th century.

        Fortunately, if it takes chauvinist young generations of Muslims (who can’t be guilt tripped about the Holocaust) to lead the way toward the re-establishment of real normality (that is, foreign policy based on one’s actual tribal interests, not the interest of a backward, fascist, and dangerous country like Israel), then so be it.

      107. @Audacious Epigone
        When everything is race--and everything must be race in a multiracial democracy--there is no room for real leftism because it doesn't appeal to anyone, at least not enough to overcome the thickness of blood.

        When everything is race–and everything must be race in a multiracial democracy–there is no room for real leftism

        Which of course is why the PTB want to make everything about race. Right from the start identity politics was a bludgeon with which to smash actual leftism.

        Russia is a multi-racial society. They don’t seem to make everything about race. Obviously everything doesn’t have to be about race.

        • Replies: @LondonBob
        Russia is multiracial?
        , @Anounder
        Russia is relatively less degenerate but still liberal and sources like the Russian Times spew out propaganda. Even then, Putin's regime is willing brutalize uppity minortees. No different than Singapore.

        You need to recognize that society lacking homogeneity can be done, provided:
        A. There's a state that will inflict brutality.
        B. There's enough segregation.
        C. There's a reigning religio, system, what have you that the Minorities have to recognize and know their place in. It may absorb some of them.

        Just compare how Blacks behaved when they had to drink away from Whitey to how they behave now.
      108. @Feryl

        The problem is that there’s no-one with actual power and serious money prepared to back such a political revolution within the GOP. A GOP that adopted the dissident right position would find itself without any donors. And facing fanatical opposition from the big media, both old media and new media.
         
        U R leaving out the "X" factor: generational character. The GOP ideologically hasn't moved on from 1980, because the Silents and Boomers ushered in the GOP dominated post-1980 era*. As such, they have no urge to renounce that which launched the neo-liberal and neo-con gravy train. Since the Dems were never the dominant player after 1980, it's easier for the Dems to undergo a make-over to try and best the GOP. Back in the 90's, the Dems were forced to become the me-too neo-lib party in order to get in the White House (also, on a local and state level Democrats began to pile up a lot of losses in the 90's further emphasizing the urgency of taking "centrist" aka more conservative positions on the key question of every ideological phase since the Progressive era: should the government do more or do less to insure equality and worker security?). Now that GW Bush, Obama, and Trump blatantly allowed another Gilded Age to deepen, which plays into the hands of the modern GOP, it's causing the Dems to attempt another make-over: Zealous ID politics and various degrees of anti-establishment rhetoric. Some of this is misguided or doomed to not find popular success, but at least it's something different. Whereas the establishment GOP is content with America's post-1980 ne0-lib/neo-con era; Trump is not as worthless as GW Bush was, but then, the only great things about Reagan and Trump was their reticence in launching major wars that have been ruining American presidencies since LBJ.

        Keep in mind that in the New Deal era (1930-1980), it was naturally the GOP who often were ideologically confused and experimental, desperately going through certain phases in order to keep up with the dominant party of that era (the Dems). Just like how the Dem establishment has fretted about the consequences of going too far off the reservation, leading to "centrists" like Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and Hilary running for president in the modern era, the GOP was forced, for the most part, to keep strident anti-New Dealers from being the party's standard bearers in the New Deal era. So we got Eisenhower, who oversaw massive infrastructure projects, and Nixon, who created OSHA and EPA (which drove old-school Republicans absolutely nuts; Nixon was elected by a Progressive public to do Progressive things, which many conservatives gritted their teeth about at the time but still went along with to survive and not be loathed by the public).

        *Post-Boomers understand that most people have gotten ripped off in the neo-lib era, and left to rot in houses they can barely afford, or on the street, or in prison. This is why the only thing that will break the GOP free of neo-liberalism is the rise of younger generations, who will no longer have to worry so much about angering Silent and Boomer billionaires once we get into the 2030's (seriously, look it up sometime: the vast majority of wealth in America is owned by people born before 1955). Besides, 2030 will mark 50 years of neo-lib policy, by which time people will feel that it's time to move on.

        U R leaving out the “X” factor: generational character.

        I’m leaving it out because it’s irrelevant. There is no mystical “generational character.” People born at different times have different life experiences and slightly different cultural tastes. They’re exposed to different cultural influences. Millennials are no different from Boomers except that they like different music and they’ve been unbelievably thoroughly indoctrinated. What matters is the extent of the indoctrination.

        And the level of indoctrination is increasing. Which means that each succeeding birth cohort will be more thoroughly pozzed and more thoroughly marinated in globalist ideology.

        There’s a weird sort of biological determinism in the obsession with generations, as if different generations are inherently different. They aren’t. If you removed the current indoctrination from the media and the schools and replaced it with Evangelical Christian indoctrination then most people would conform and become Evangelical Christians. If you removed the current indoctrination from the media and schools and replaced it with Maoist indoctrination then most people would conform and become Maoists. Regardless of which generation they belong to.

        • Agree: iffen
        • Replies: @Feryl
        Silent and Boomer mega donors control each party, yes, it's true (later generations are basically broke). However, Dems in the post-Reagan era have tended to be better at listening to younger generations, because the Dems, being the weak party, have to be open to new ideas. Whereas the GOP has been dominant for 40 years, and as such, they still are devoted to the generations who most bought into the ideological framework of Reaganism (Silents and Boomers).

        X-ers have achieved political representation more slowly than any other American generation. Indeed, in the Western World, the 1950's-1970's were notable for the degree to which younger GIs, Silents, and Boomers easily attained mid-higher level positions. But since the 1980's, Silents and especially Boomers have been very stubborn at clinging to their jobs as they reach older age. Furthermore, the rise of the New Gilded Age since the 80's has led to obvious contempt toward X-ers and later generations. Boomers, as any X-er will tell you, tend to treat Gen X like an unwanted younger sibling, and a rival not worth much respect. This is far different than the gracious treatment that Boomers frequently got from GIs and Silents in the 60's and 70's (there were very few workplace shootings back then; people got along too well to succumb to hyper competitive jealousy, insecurity, and rage).

        The GSS shows that X-ers and Millennials are not as comfortable with Social Darwinism as Silents and Boomers are.

        Look, you can deny it as much as you want, but ideological and professional differences exist between different generations. That's what the facts show.
      109. @Feryl

        It does seem like every American war up to that point started with a Democrat in the White House.
         
        The Democrats were the party of the South before 1970. But FDR was able to regionally unify America under the banner of economic populism by ensuring that every region had a seat at the table (one of the remarkable things about circa 1930-1970 was the degree to which many 2nd and even 3rd tier cities did quite well, a stark contrast from the pre-1930 and post-1980 era of the wealthiest elites living in "crown jewel" neighborhoods of the most glitzy cities while they raked in dough from rampant speculation/booms and the other cities were left to rot.

        It's not surprising that the Republicans decision to shack up with the Pentagon during a time of soaring inequality and corruption has led to excessive war-mongering. The Dems gave us Korea and Vietnam*, but these wars were relatively short-lived and inexpensive because leadership back then understood that too much investment in a difficult to sell war would be unpopular and a betrayal of the public. Hell, even GHW Bush showed his Rockefeller and GI (moderate) roots by quickly ending the Gulf War; the heavily Boomer influenced neo-con wing would only get stronger as the 90's and 2000's went on, which has led to the Pentagon becoming obscenely out of control and arrogant. Young Boomers in the New Deal era were skeptical of war mongering, but many of them turned on a dime and began to favor belligerence in the neo-lib era (perhaps it would be more accurate to say that Boomers tended to be either very pro or anti-war, even in the 1960's, but obviously the dumber war-mongering side became dominant after 1980).

        *They also gave us US involvement in WW2; remember that Americans were skeptical of getting involved in other countries affairs during the New Deal era, but Americans ended up approving of our WW2 efforts because it was apparent that the Nazis represented the desperate lashing out of the fading German empire (and Japan needed to pay a price for their own arrogance, also); ironically, America in the post-GW Bush era has caused other countries to become reflexively and often violently anti-America out of fear that the US is desperately waging war and mucking about in foreign countries in order to extend the US empire.

        They also gave us US involvement in WW2

        And the Dems dragged the U.S. into the First World War.

        Roosevelt clearly wanted war. And there was a major propaganda push behind America’s entry into WW2 – Hollywood was fanatically pro-war for several years before the U.S. entry into the war.

        • Replies: @Feryl
        Nobody in America created the Nazi regime, which represented the last desperate flailing of that era's German empire (or wannabe empire, by that stage). The Germans were really, really pissing everyone off in the early 20th century. People who make excuses for Germany by saying that other countries did them wrong, financially, don't understand why other countries were doing this: as punishment for German arrogance, and quite obviously to try and cripple Germany so that Germany could not resume it's efforts at Empire building*.

        And I like how people pretend that all war can somehow be avoided; it can't, and shouldn't be, avoided in all cases. Nobody should be bitter that Germany and Japan got humbled by the Allies.

        To draw a parallel, if other countries decided to start crippling the US financially, would you blame them? The US has become an arrogant and bullying empire, thus other countries are morally entitled to start fighting back against America.

        *Iran is not trying to build an empire, so we need to leave them alone. It is, of course, US/Israeli/Wahhabi supremacists who are the main "actors" in modern empire building.
      110. @Feryl
        Ideological cycles happen in more diverse countries, too. And though New Deal era culture was perhaps the most shaky in the Deep South (for obvious reasons), it is still nonetheless true that prole-class whites and blacks did increasingly better as the New Deal era went on. And the racial tensions brought about by the changes of the 60's and early 70's don't negate the fact that ordinary Americans, in all regions, did quite well economically into the 1970's.

        Arrogant and corrupt elites (and wannabe elites) over-seeing policy and culture which decimates the middle class, and creates massive economic and social divisions between and within various regions, races, professions, etc. is something that can happen in any country regardless of ethnic demographics. We could get the demographics of 1950 back, and it wouldn't change the fact that 2020 Americans decided that people with an IQ above 110 deserve to have a lot while less talented people can dive into a dry concrete swimming pool. Whereas 1950 era Americans were about elites sacrificing the means to have more in order to insure that lower class people would not be rotting away on vice, on the street, or in prison.

        We could get the demographics of 1950 back, and it wouldn’t change the fact that 2020 Americans decided that people with an IQ above 110 deserve to have a lot while less talented people can dive into a dry concrete swimming pool.

        Agreed. Going back to the demographics of 1950 would not help. Current problems are not caused by immigration. They are caused by an elite which is waging class warfare against non-elites. Without immigration you would still have had the rise of the drug culture, you would still have had the explosion of crime that happened in the 60s, you would still have had cultural degeneracy with the country drowning in an ocean of pornography, you would still have had the radical homosexual agenda forced upon you, you would still have witnessed the decay of the institution of marriage.

        Demographic change has been a very bad thing in every western country but it is not the key to the problems we face.

        And everything is not about race.

      111. @Feryl
        Sanders fundraising is getting weak, and he was awful at the debate. He also has 0 chance of winning at a contested convention.

        Bernie was really trendy in 2016 because of his populism, which most of the Left now finds icky due to the fact that populism got Trump elected. The mainstream Left, which is now the same thing as the SJW Left, has taken a hard turn toward elitism during Trump's presidency. Plus Bernie could've countered the SJW Left effectively due to his status as the spokesman of the populist Left, but instead he's pivoted towards de rigueur modern Left positions on ID politics, thereby rendering his entire political gravitas worthless; Bernie was never at all an SJW throughout his life, and now we're suppose to buy the recent pivot?

        He’s such a frustrating character. In a field of 20, the one guy–who already has a strong, loyal base of support–who refuses to do the race baiting on the principle of a vision of equality where we focus on where we are going instead of dwelling on where we’ve been could conceivably change the course of history. Instead, he’ll just go down as an angry socialist crank who never really had a chance.

        • Replies: @Feryl
        Well, Perot had a good shot in '92, then fumbled it away almost immediately after he gained his best polling numbers (w/ many people speculating that he got deep threats from some Bush acolyte after the polls hit the news wire, which shook his confidence, caused him to take a "break" from campaigning, and he never recovered his once very high support from the public).

        Then his '96 campaign had the smell of "the window is closed and ain't opening back up" on it.

        Agnostic often talks about "re-aligners" and reformers needing to have the right timing. The public wasn't totally ready for Bernie (older voters and Southerners didn't want anything to with him; for that matter, I think it's only the Midwest and some of the upper and inland Northeast where Bernie would've done well with older voters in the general election, since "bring the factories back" doesn't resonate that much with the West, Coastal Northeast, and South) even in 2016, and by 2020 the modern Left has moved on from working class populism*. Similar to how Perot was able to engage a fair chunk of 1992 voters because we hadn't fully abandoned New Deal sentiment (or our factories) at that time, but by 1996 voters on neither the Left nor Right wanted to hear Perot's New Deal populism anymore.

        *Social prohibitions against "Bernie Bros" and other fun-lovers have risen exponentially since Trump's election, because populists of all stripes were blamed for Trump's victory. This is probably why no mainstream Leftist dares to run another 2016 Bernie type campaign. Elitists of the neo-lib era think that the populists are malignant destroyers of a "desirable" order which either has existed since the 80's, or which the SJW Left is currently working towards. The GOP Reaganites won't abide any attacks on the general thrust of the last 40 years (thus the saint-hood granted to Reagan), the arrogant SJW Left won't abide any ideology that places less educated people on the same moral plane as the credentialed folk).
        Even Reagan was rejected several times, in the 1970's, and just barely managed to beat Rockefeller Republican GHW Bush in 1980. And while Reagan did pretty well in 1980, he wasn't exactly facing a tough opponent (Carter), either. But by 1984, the public had fully embraced neo-lib Reagan, against a pure New Dealer (Mondale), no less; Carter was a quasi neo-lib, and 1980 voters were a little bemused that for the first time since the 1920's, we didn't have a full New Deal candidate running.
      112. @dfordoom

        They also gave us US involvement in WW2
         
        And the Dems dragged the U.S. into the First World War.

        Roosevelt clearly wanted war. And there was a major propaganda push behind America's entry into WW2 - Hollywood was fanatically pro-war for several years before the U.S. entry into the war.

        Nobody in America created the Nazi regime, which represented the last desperate flailing of that era’s German empire (or wannabe empire, by that stage). The Germans were really, really pissing everyone off in the early 20th century. People who make excuses for Germany by saying that other countries did them wrong, financially, don’t understand why other countries were doing this: as punishment for German arrogance, and quite obviously to try and cripple Germany so that Germany could not resume it’s efforts at Empire building*.

        And I like how people pretend that all war can somehow be avoided; it can’t, and shouldn’t be, avoided in all cases. Nobody should be bitter that Germany and Japan got humbled by the Allies.

        To draw a parallel, if other countries decided to start crippling the US financially, would you blame them? The US has become an arrogant and bullying empire, thus other countries are morally entitled to start fighting back against America.

        *Iran is not trying to build an empire, so we need to leave them alone. It is, of course, US/Israeli/Wahhabi supremacists who are the main “actors” in modern empire building.

        • Replies: @dfordoom

        And I like how people pretend that all war can somehow be avoided; it can’t, and shouldn’t be, avoided in all cases.
         
        I was merely pointing out that Hitler would have been unlikely to have risked war in 1939 had he been facing an Anglo-French-Italian alliance.

        And in actuality the declaration of war by Britain and France achieved nothing. They were swiftly defeated and permanently destroyed as great powers. After 1940 Britain and France were irrelevant. The best argument for the British to have tried to avoid war was that they were quite simply incapable of fighting a war. They did not have the money to do so.

        The war ended in 1940. Hitler won. In 1941 Hitler started a new war against the Soviet Union. He lost. That's the story of the war in Europe.

        Personally I think it's a good thing that Hitler got smashed into the ground by Stalin. I am not a member of the Hitler Fan Club, or of the Hitler Did Nothing Wrong club. He was a dangerous madman and Nazism was a dangerous deluded imperialist fantasy that could only end in disaster. Whatever you think of Stalin he did the world a good turn by squashing the Nazis.

        The point is that Britain's contribution to victory was close to being non-existent.
      113. @dfordoom

        U R leaving out the “X” factor: generational character.
         
        I'm leaving it out because it's irrelevant. There is no mystical "generational character." People born at different times have different life experiences and slightly different cultural tastes. They're exposed to different cultural influences. Millennials are no different from Boomers except that they like different music and they've been unbelievably thoroughly indoctrinated. What matters is the extent of the indoctrination.

        And the level of indoctrination is increasing. Which means that each succeeding birth cohort will be more thoroughly pozzed and more thoroughly marinated in globalist ideology.

        There's a weird sort of biological determinism in the obsession with generations, as if different generations are inherently different. They aren't. If you removed the current indoctrination from the media and the schools and replaced it with Evangelical Christian indoctrination then most people would conform and become Evangelical Christians. If you removed the current indoctrination from the media and schools and replaced it with Maoist indoctrination then most people would conform and become Maoists. Regardless of which generation they belong to.

        Silent and Boomer mega donors control each party, yes, it’s true (later generations are basically broke). However, Dems in the post-Reagan era have tended to be better at listening to younger generations, because the Dems, being the weak party, have to be open to new ideas. Whereas the GOP has been dominant for 40 years, and as such, they still are devoted to the generations who most bought into the ideological framework of Reaganism (Silents and Boomers).

        X-ers have achieved political representation more slowly than any other American generation. Indeed, in the Western World, the 1950’s-1970’s were notable for the degree to which younger GIs, Silents, and Boomers easily attained mid-higher level positions. But since the 1980’s, Silents and especially Boomers have been very stubborn at clinging to their jobs as they reach older age. Furthermore, the rise of the New Gilded Age since the 80’s has led to obvious contempt toward X-ers and later generations. Boomers, as any X-er will tell you, tend to treat Gen X like an unwanted younger sibling, and a rival not worth much respect. This is far different than the gracious treatment that Boomers frequently got from GIs and Silents in the 60’s and 70’s (there were very few workplace shootings back then; people got along too well to succumb to hyper competitive jealousy, insecurity, and rage).

        The GSS shows that X-ers and Millennials are not as comfortable with Social Darwinism as Silents and Boomers are.

        Look, you can deny it as much as you want, but ideological and professional differences exist between different generations. That’s what the facts show.

        • Replies: @dfordoom

        Look, you can deny it as much as you want, but ideological and professional differences exist between different generations. That’s what the facts show.
         
        Ideological and professional differences exist between social classes as well. And they're much more significant than so-called generational differences.

        Look, I understand that you're disillusioned with the world as it is today. I'm just as disillusioned. Lots of people are just as disillusioned. As amazing as it might seem lots of Boomers are disillusioned and angry and disgusted at the state of the world. Why antagonise them because of some weird mystical idea that generations have some strange inherent properties that make them either virtuous or wicked.

        The PTB must be absolutely delighted to see dissidents wasting their energies on this generation nonsense.
      114. @Audacious Epigone
        He's such a frustrating character. In a field of 20, the one guy--who already has a strong, loyal base of support--who refuses to do the race baiting on the principle of a vision of equality where we focus on where we are going instead of dwelling on where we've been could conceivably change the course of history. Instead, he'll just go down as an angry socialist crank who never really had a chance.

        Well, Perot had a good shot in ’92, then fumbled it away almost immediately after he gained his best polling numbers (w/ many people speculating that he got deep threats from some Bush acolyte after the polls hit the news wire, which shook his confidence, caused him to take a “break” from campaigning, and he never recovered his once very high support from the public).

        Then his ’96 campaign had the smell of “the window is closed and ain’t opening back up” on it.

        Agnostic often talks about “re-aligners” and reformers needing to have the right timing. The public wasn’t totally ready for Bernie (older voters and Southerners didn’t want anything to with him; for that matter, I think it’s only the Midwest and some of the upper and inland Northeast where Bernie would’ve done well with older voters in the general election, since “bring the factories back” doesn’t resonate that much with the West, Coastal Northeast, and South) even in 2016, and by 2020 the modern Left has moved on from working class populism*. Similar to how Perot was able to engage a fair chunk of 1992 voters because we hadn’t fully abandoned New Deal sentiment (or our factories) at that time, but by 1996 voters on neither the Left nor Right wanted to hear Perot’s New Deal populism anymore.

        *Social prohibitions against “Bernie Bros” and other fun-lovers have risen exponentially since Trump’s election, because populists of all stripes were blamed for Trump’s victory. This is probably why no mainstream Leftist dares to run another 2016 Bernie type campaign. Elitists of the neo-lib era think that the populists are malignant destroyers of a “desirable” order which either has existed since the 80’s, or which the SJW Left is currently working towards. The GOP Reaganites won’t abide any attacks on the general thrust of the last 40 years (thus the saint-hood granted to Reagan), the arrogant SJW Left won’t abide any ideology that places less educated people on the same moral plane as the credentialed folk).
        Even Reagan was rejected several times, in the 1970’s, and just barely managed to beat Rockefeller Republican GHW Bush in 1980. And while Reagan did pretty well in 1980, he wasn’t exactly facing a tough opponent (Carter), either. But by 1984, the public had fully embraced neo-lib Reagan, against a pure New Dealer (Mondale), no less; Carter was a quasi neo-lib, and 1980 voters were a little bemused that for the first time since the 1920’s, we didn’t have a full New Deal candidate running.

      115. @Feryl
        Nobody in America created the Nazi regime, which represented the last desperate flailing of that era's German empire (or wannabe empire, by that stage). The Germans were really, really pissing everyone off in the early 20th century. People who make excuses for Germany by saying that other countries did them wrong, financially, don't understand why other countries were doing this: as punishment for German arrogance, and quite obviously to try and cripple Germany so that Germany could not resume it's efforts at Empire building*.

        And I like how people pretend that all war can somehow be avoided; it can't, and shouldn't be, avoided in all cases. Nobody should be bitter that Germany and Japan got humbled by the Allies.

        To draw a parallel, if other countries decided to start crippling the US financially, would you blame them? The US has become an arrogant and bullying empire, thus other countries are morally entitled to start fighting back against America.

        *Iran is not trying to build an empire, so we need to leave them alone. It is, of course, US/Israeli/Wahhabi supremacists who are the main "actors" in modern empire building.

        And I like how people pretend that all war can somehow be avoided; it can’t, and shouldn’t be, avoided in all cases.

        I was merely pointing out that Hitler would have been unlikely to have risked war in 1939 had he been facing an Anglo-French-Italian alliance.

        And in actuality the declaration of war by Britain and France achieved nothing. They were swiftly defeated and permanently destroyed as great powers. After 1940 Britain and France were irrelevant. The best argument for the British to have tried to avoid war was that they were quite simply incapable of fighting a war. They did not have the money to do so.

        The war ended in 1940. Hitler won. In 1941 Hitler started a new war against the Soviet Union. He lost. That’s the story of the war in Europe.

        Personally I think it’s a good thing that Hitler got smashed into the ground by Stalin. I am not a member of the Hitler Fan Club, or of the Hitler Did Nothing Wrong club. He was a dangerous madman and Nazism was a dangerous deluded imperialist fantasy that could only end in disaster. Whatever you think of Stalin he did the world a good turn by squashing the Nazis.

        The point is that Britain’s contribution to victory was close to being non-existent.

        • LOL: LondonBob
        • Replies: @Feryl
        Well, I'm glad we can agree that the hostilities of WW2 were plainly not the result of non-German devils being unfairly mean to the poor Germans, who just needed some TLC so they could get back on their feet and the world could resume being tranquil. I mean seriously, apologetics for Germany of the early-mid 20th century? Get a life, people.

        Also, I'd like to remind people that Hitler didn't magically warp the German mind; he was appealing to something that already was there, all along (e.g., Hitler's dreams of world domination fed the sizable German ego of that time). A non-Hitler may not have done everything exactly like Hitler did, but he still would've attempted to further the German Empire.

        What's also often over-looked is that many of the 1st world's leaders were to some extent culturally and ideologically similar in the early 20th century; it's just that how their leaders operated depended to some extent on the nature of their nation's imperial ambitions. Since the German's were the most desirous of imperial expansion, it only stands to reason that they produced such a megalomaniacal leader eventually. The public in say, Russia or the US, was much more skeptical of their own imperial expansion during that time.
      116. @Feryl
        Silent and Boomer mega donors control each party, yes, it's true (later generations are basically broke). However, Dems in the post-Reagan era have tended to be better at listening to younger generations, because the Dems, being the weak party, have to be open to new ideas. Whereas the GOP has been dominant for 40 years, and as such, they still are devoted to the generations who most bought into the ideological framework of Reaganism (Silents and Boomers).

        X-ers have achieved political representation more slowly than any other American generation. Indeed, in the Western World, the 1950's-1970's were notable for the degree to which younger GIs, Silents, and Boomers easily attained mid-higher level positions. But since the 1980's, Silents and especially Boomers have been very stubborn at clinging to their jobs as they reach older age. Furthermore, the rise of the New Gilded Age since the 80's has led to obvious contempt toward X-ers and later generations. Boomers, as any X-er will tell you, tend to treat Gen X like an unwanted younger sibling, and a rival not worth much respect. This is far different than the gracious treatment that Boomers frequently got from GIs and Silents in the 60's and 70's (there were very few workplace shootings back then; people got along too well to succumb to hyper competitive jealousy, insecurity, and rage).

        The GSS shows that X-ers and Millennials are not as comfortable with Social Darwinism as Silents and Boomers are.

        Look, you can deny it as much as you want, but ideological and professional differences exist between different generations. That's what the facts show.

        Look, you can deny it as much as you want, but ideological and professional differences exist between different generations. That’s what the facts show.

        Ideological and professional differences exist between social classes as well. And they’re much more significant than so-called generational differences.

        Look, I understand that you’re disillusioned with the world as it is today. I’m just as disillusioned. Lots of people are just as disillusioned. As amazing as it might seem lots of Boomers are disillusioned and angry and disgusted at the state of the world. Why antagonise them because of some weird mystical idea that generations have some strange inherent properties that make them either virtuous or wicked.

        The PTB must be absolutely delighted to see dissidents wasting their energies on this generation nonsense.

        • Replies: @Feryl

        Look, I understand that you’re disillusioned with the world as it is today. I’m just as disillusioned. Lots of people are just as disillusioned. As amazing as it might seem lots of Boomers are disillusioned and angry and disgusted at the state of the world.
         
        I am well aware that a lot of older people are not happy; hello, since the 60's many Boomers have been complaining that things don't work like they want them to. However, I hate to say this, but after years of giving my parent's generation the benefit of the doubt I have come to conclude that their anger was frequently incoherent and mis-directed. This isn't to say that they always are wrong about everything, but rather, they mostly could not form coalitions with each other to fight the good fight. There is strength in numbers and in uniting for a common purpose, however Boomers often are fragmented from each other ideologically and have difficulty with "message discipline". Post-WW2 prosperity afforded Western Boomers a dangerously high level of individuality, a major reason why the Western family disintegrated and, per Bob Putnam, participation in various and well-organized "social clubs" and civic groups (like uh, bowling leagues) fell dramatically once Boomers entered the middle aged bracket in the 80's and 90's.

        According to Putnam, and Neil Howe, it's remarkable that Millennials have been able to do anything at all to stop the rush toward individualism given the chaos they were born into, whereas Boomers who were born in the New Deal era sped off at light speed away from the "boring" culture created by their parents and grandparents.

        Also, I never liked the ideological state of affairs that we've had in my entire lifetime, which includes the 80's and 90's. I certainly wished I wasn't born in 1985, which is around the time that America became a police state, where most Americans fear that an encounter with a cop having a bad day could result in a fractured skull, or an extend stay in prison. Do some Boomers realize how out of touch they sound when they say that the 60's were a "crazy" time? Last I checked, back then we didn't have no-fault divorce, we didn't have high suicide levels, and we didn't have leaders more interested in building prisons than factories.
      117. @iffen
        at least not enough to overcome the thickness of blood.

        Okay, so you are just throwing in the towel and wasting the last 3 hundred years or so?

        We can think! We can be rational! I read about it in a book.

        We can think! We can be rational! I read about it in a book.

        IT IS!  I saw it in a movie once.

      118. @dfordoom

        When everything is race–and everything must be race in a multiracial democracy–there is no room for real leftism
         
        Which of course is why the PTB want to make everything about race. Right from the start identity politics was a bludgeon with which to smash actual leftism.

        Russia is a multi-racial society. They don't seem to make everything about race. Obviously everything doesn't have to be about race.

        Russia is multiracial?

        • Agree: Audacious Epigone
        • Replies: @dfordoom

        Russia is multiracial?
         
        Depends how you define race. Everybody defines it differently. Race really is a social construct to a considerable degree. Americans think Hispanic is a race.

        Russia is certainly multi-cultural and multi-ethnic, and multi-faith. They seem to make it work.
      119. @dfordoom

        When everything is race–and everything must be race in a multiracial democracy–there is no room for real leftism
         
        Which of course is why the PTB want to make everything about race. Right from the start identity politics was a bludgeon with which to smash actual leftism.

        Russia is a multi-racial society. They don't seem to make everything about race. Obviously everything doesn't have to be about race.

        Russia is relatively less degenerate but still liberal and sources like the Russian Times spew out propaganda. Even then, Putin’s regime is willing brutalize uppity minortees. No different than Singapore.

        You need to recognize that society lacking homogeneity can be done, provided:
        A. There’s a state that will inflict brutality.
        B. There’s enough segregation.
        C. There’s a reigning religio, system, what have you that the Minorities have to recognize and know their place in. It may absorb some of them.

        Just compare how Blacks behaved when they had to drink away from Whitey to how they behave now.

        • Replies: @dfordoom

        C. There’s a reigning religio, system, what have you that the Minorities have to recognize and know their place in. It may absorb some of them.
         
        Any society, whether it's multi-racial or not, needs some reigning religious or ideological system. Or it needs some other focus of loyalty, such as a monarchy (an actual monarchy not the absurd pretend British monarchy). People need to believe that they're part of something.

        Radical individualism will lead to disaster even in a mono-racial mono-cultural state.

        Modern western nations appear to lack all the ingredients required for nationhood.
      120. @dfordoom

        And I like how people pretend that all war can somehow be avoided; it can’t, and shouldn’t be, avoided in all cases.
         
        I was merely pointing out that Hitler would have been unlikely to have risked war in 1939 had he been facing an Anglo-French-Italian alliance.

        And in actuality the declaration of war by Britain and France achieved nothing. They were swiftly defeated and permanently destroyed as great powers. After 1940 Britain and France were irrelevant. The best argument for the British to have tried to avoid war was that they were quite simply incapable of fighting a war. They did not have the money to do so.

        The war ended in 1940. Hitler won. In 1941 Hitler started a new war against the Soviet Union. He lost. That's the story of the war in Europe.

        Personally I think it's a good thing that Hitler got smashed into the ground by Stalin. I am not a member of the Hitler Fan Club, or of the Hitler Did Nothing Wrong club. He was a dangerous madman and Nazism was a dangerous deluded imperialist fantasy that could only end in disaster. Whatever you think of Stalin he did the world a good turn by squashing the Nazis.

        The point is that Britain's contribution to victory was close to being non-existent.

        Well, I’m glad we can agree that the hostilities of WW2 were plainly not the result of non-German devils being unfairly mean to the poor Germans, who just needed some TLC so they could get back on their feet and the world could resume being tranquil. I mean seriously, apologetics for Germany of the early-mid 20th century? Get a life, people.

        Also, I’d like to remind people that Hitler didn’t magically warp the German mind; he was appealing to something that already was there, all along (e.g., Hitler’s dreams of world domination fed the sizable German ego of that time). A non-Hitler may not have done everything exactly like Hitler did, but he still would’ve attempted to further the German Empire.

        What’s also often over-looked is that many of the 1st world’s leaders were to some extent culturally and ideologically similar in the early 20th century; it’s just that how their leaders operated depended to some extent on the nature of their nation’s imperial ambitions. Since the German’s were the most desirous of imperial expansion, it only stands to reason that they produced such a megalomaniacal leader eventually. The public in say, Russia or the US, was much more skeptical of their own imperial expansion during that time.

        • Replies: @dfordoom

        Also, I’d like to remind people that Hitler didn’t magically warp the German mind; he was appealing to something that already was there, all along
         
        Imperialism was pretty much part of the European mindset at the time. The big difference was that Germany had imperialist ambitions within Europe. The French had given up such dreams because they were too weak so they concentrated on imperial ambitions in Africa, Asia, etc. As did the British. Even the lesser European powers such as the Dutch and the Spanish and the Portuguese wanted to hang on to their empires. The idea that imperialist ambitions were healthy and normal was pretty much universal among European states (and the United States was pursuing aggressive imperialist policies as well).

        Hitler's problem was that his imperial ambitions in eastern Europe were inevitably going to bring him into conflict with the Soviet Union, and were inevitably going to arouse strong opposition from the British, the French and the Americans who thought their own imperialisms were a fine thing but Hitler's imperialism was wicked.

        It turned out that Hitler's imperialism really was evil. British, French and American imperialism was pretty nasty as well but Hitler's was aimed at white people.
      121. @dfordoom

        Look, you can deny it as much as you want, but ideological and professional differences exist between different generations. That’s what the facts show.
         
        Ideological and professional differences exist between social classes as well. And they're much more significant than so-called generational differences.

        Look, I understand that you're disillusioned with the world as it is today. I'm just as disillusioned. Lots of people are just as disillusioned. As amazing as it might seem lots of Boomers are disillusioned and angry and disgusted at the state of the world. Why antagonise them because of some weird mystical idea that generations have some strange inherent properties that make them either virtuous or wicked.

        The PTB must be absolutely delighted to see dissidents wasting their energies on this generation nonsense.

        Look, I understand that you’re disillusioned with the world as it is today. I’m just as disillusioned. Lots of people are just as disillusioned. As amazing as it might seem lots of Boomers are disillusioned and angry and disgusted at the state of the world.

        I am well aware that a lot of older people are not happy; hello, since the 60’s many Boomers have been complaining that things don’t work like they want them to. However, I hate to say this, but after years of giving my parent’s generation the benefit of the doubt I have come to conclude that their anger was frequently incoherent and mis-directed. This isn’t to say that they always are wrong about everything, but rather, they mostly could not form coalitions with each other to fight the good fight. There is strength in numbers and in uniting for a common purpose, however Boomers often are fragmented from each other ideologically and have difficulty with “message discipline”. Post-WW2 prosperity afforded Western Boomers a dangerously high level of individuality, a major reason why the Western family disintegrated and, per Bob Putnam, participation in various and well-organized “social clubs” and civic groups (like uh, bowling leagues) fell dramatically once Boomers entered the middle aged bracket in the 80’s and 90’s.

        According to Putnam, and Neil Howe, it’s remarkable that Millennials have been able to do anything at all to stop the rush toward individualism given the chaos they were born into, whereas Boomers who were born in the New Deal era sped off at light speed away from the “boring” culture created by their parents and grandparents.

        Also, I never liked the ideological state of affairs that we’ve had in my entire lifetime, which includes the 80’s and 90’s. I certainly wished I wasn’t born in 1985, which is around the time that America became a police state, where most Americans fear that an encounter with a cop having a bad day could result in a fractured skull, or an extend stay in prison. Do some Boomers realize how out of touch they sound when they say that the 60’s were a “crazy” time? Last I checked, back then we didn’t have no-fault divorce, we didn’t have high suicide levels, and we didn’t have leaders more interested in building prisons than factories.

        • Replies: @dfordoom

        According to Putnam, and Neil Howe, it’s remarkable that Millennials have been able to do anything at all to stop the rush toward individualism
         
        I didn't know that Millennials had done anything to stop the rush toward individualism. When did they do this? I must have missed it.
      122. @LondonBob
        Russia is multiracial?

        Russia is multiracial?

        Depends how you define race. Everybody defines it differently. Race really is a social construct to a considerable degree. Americans think Hispanic is a race.

        Russia is certainly multi-cultural and multi-ethnic, and multi-faith. They seem to make it work.

        • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
        A la Albion's Seed, so were these United States circa 1800. Magnitude matters.
      123. @Feryl
        Well, I'm glad we can agree that the hostilities of WW2 were plainly not the result of non-German devils being unfairly mean to the poor Germans, who just needed some TLC so they could get back on their feet and the world could resume being tranquil. I mean seriously, apologetics for Germany of the early-mid 20th century? Get a life, people.

        Also, I'd like to remind people that Hitler didn't magically warp the German mind; he was appealing to something that already was there, all along (e.g., Hitler's dreams of world domination fed the sizable German ego of that time). A non-Hitler may not have done everything exactly like Hitler did, but he still would've attempted to further the German Empire.

        What's also often over-looked is that many of the 1st world's leaders were to some extent culturally and ideologically similar in the early 20th century; it's just that how their leaders operated depended to some extent on the nature of their nation's imperial ambitions. Since the German's were the most desirous of imperial expansion, it only stands to reason that they produced such a megalomaniacal leader eventually. The public in say, Russia or the US, was much more skeptical of their own imperial expansion during that time.

        Also, I’d like to remind people that Hitler didn’t magically warp the German mind; he was appealing to something that already was there, all along

        Imperialism was pretty much part of the European mindset at the time. The big difference was that Germany had imperialist ambitions within Europe. The French had given up such dreams because they were too weak so they concentrated on imperial ambitions in Africa, Asia, etc. As did the British. Even the lesser European powers such as the Dutch and the Spanish and the Portuguese wanted to hang on to their empires. The idea that imperialist ambitions were healthy and normal was pretty much universal among European states (and the United States was pursuing aggressive imperialist policies as well).

        Hitler’s problem was that his imperial ambitions in eastern Europe were inevitably going to bring him into conflict with the Soviet Union, and were inevitably going to arouse strong opposition from the British, the French and the Americans who thought their own imperialisms were a fine thing but Hitler’s imperialism was wicked.

        It turned out that Hitler’s imperialism really was evil. British, French and American imperialism was pretty nasty as well but Hitler’s was aimed at white people.

        • Replies: @iffen
        British, French and American imperialism was pretty nasty as well but Hitler’s was aimed at white people.

        This seems to imply that imperialism directed at whites is worse than imperialism directed at POC.
      124. @Feryl

        Look, I understand that you’re disillusioned with the world as it is today. I’m just as disillusioned. Lots of people are just as disillusioned. As amazing as it might seem lots of Boomers are disillusioned and angry and disgusted at the state of the world.
         
        I am well aware that a lot of older people are not happy; hello, since the 60's many Boomers have been complaining that things don't work like they want them to. However, I hate to say this, but after years of giving my parent's generation the benefit of the doubt I have come to conclude that their anger was frequently incoherent and mis-directed. This isn't to say that they always are wrong about everything, but rather, they mostly could not form coalitions with each other to fight the good fight. There is strength in numbers and in uniting for a common purpose, however Boomers often are fragmented from each other ideologically and have difficulty with "message discipline". Post-WW2 prosperity afforded Western Boomers a dangerously high level of individuality, a major reason why the Western family disintegrated and, per Bob Putnam, participation in various and well-organized "social clubs" and civic groups (like uh, bowling leagues) fell dramatically once Boomers entered the middle aged bracket in the 80's and 90's.

        According to Putnam, and Neil Howe, it's remarkable that Millennials have been able to do anything at all to stop the rush toward individualism given the chaos they were born into, whereas Boomers who were born in the New Deal era sped off at light speed away from the "boring" culture created by their parents and grandparents.

        Also, I never liked the ideological state of affairs that we've had in my entire lifetime, which includes the 80's and 90's. I certainly wished I wasn't born in 1985, which is around the time that America became a police state, where most Americans fear that an encounter with a cop having a bad day could result in a fractured skull, or an extend stay in prison. Do some Boomers realize how out of touch they sound when they say that the 60's were a "crazy" time? Last I checked, back then we didn't have no-fault divorce, we didn't have high suicide levels, and we didn't have leaders more interested in building prisons than factories.

        According to Putnam, and Neil Howe, it’s remarkable that Millennials have been able to do anything at all to stop the rush toward individualism

        I didn’t know that Millennials had done anything to stop the rush toward individualism. When did they do this? I must have missed it.

      125. @dfordoom

        Also, I’d like to remind people that Hitler didn’t magically warp the German mind; he was appealing to something that already was there, all along
         
        Imperialism was pretty much part of the European mindset at the time. The big difference was that Germany had imperialist ambitions within Europe. The French had given up such dreams because they were too weak so they concentrated on imperial ambitions in Africa, Asia, etc. As did the British. Even the lesser European powers such as the Dutch and the Spanish and the Portuguese wanted to hang on to their empires. The idea that imperialist ambitions were healthy and normal was pretty much universal among European states (and the United States was pursuing aggressive imperialist policies as well).

        Hitler's problem was that his imperial ambitions in eastern Europe were inevitably going to bring him into conflict with the Soviet Union, and were inevitably going to arouse strong opposition from the British, the French and the Americans who thought their own imperialisms were a fine thing but Hitler's imperialism was wicked.

        It turned out that Hitler's imperialism really was evil. British, French and American imperialism was pretty nasty as well but Hitler's was aimed at white people.

        British, French and American imperialism was pretty nasty as well but Hitler’s was aimed at white people.

        This seems to imply that imperialism directed at whites is worse than imperialism directed at POC.

        • Replies: @dfordoom


        British, French and American imperialism was pretty nasty as well but Hitler’s was aimed at white people.
         
        This seems to imply that imperialism directed at whites is worse than imperialism directed at POC.
         
        Sorry, I didn't make that point clear. To Europeans in the first half of the 20th century imperialism directed at whites would definitely have been regarded as being worse than imperialism directed at POC.
      126. @dfordoom

        Russia is multiracial?
         
        Depends how you define race. Everybody defines it differently. Race really is a social construct to a considerable degree. Americans think Hispanic is a race.

        Russia is certainly multi-cultural and multi-ethnic, and multi-faith. They seem to make it work.

        A la Albion’s Seed, so were these United States circa 1800. Magnitude matters.

      127. @Anounder
        Russia is relatively less degenerate but still liberal and sources like the Russian Times spew out propaganda. Even then, Putin's regime is willing brutalize uppity minortees. No different than Singapore.

        You need to recognize that society lacking homogeneity can be done, provided:
        A. There's a state that will inflict brutality.
        B. There's enough segregation.
        C. There's a reigning religio, system, what have you that the Minorities have to recognize and know their place in. It may absorb some of them.

        Just compare how Blacks behaved when they had to drink away from Whitey to how they behave now.

        C. There’s a reigning religio, system, what have you that the Minorities have to recognize and know their place in. It may absorb some of them.

        Any society, whether it’s multi-racial or not, needs some reigning religious or ideological system. Or it needs some other focus of loyalty, such as a monarchy (an actual monarchy not the absurd pretend British monarchy). People need to believe that they’re part of something.

        Radical individualism will lead to disaster even in a mono-racial mono-cultural state.

        Modern western nations appear to lack all the ingredients required for nationhood.

      128. @iffen
        British, French and American imperialism was pretty nasty as well but Hitler’s was aimed at white people.

        This seems to imply that imperialism directed at whites is worse than imperialism directed at POC.

        British, French and American imperialism was pretty nasty as well but Hitler’s was aimed at white people.

        This seems to imply that imperialism directed at whites is worse than imperialism directed at POC.

        Sorry, I didn’t make that point clear. To Europeans in the first half of the 20th century imperialism directed at whites would definitely have been regarded as being worse than imperialism directed at POC.

      Comments are closed.

      Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS