Probably the only thing that everyone in modern America can agree upon is that we now live in a hyper-partisan age. The modifier is needed, as we used to lived in a mildly partisan age. Before that, American politics was about coalitions. The parties represented factions willing to compromise to some degree. Either this hyper-partisanship is a natural end point of liberal democracy, perhaps a prelude to civil war, or something happened in the last quarter century to get us here.
The first place to start is with Lenin, as he is the man credited with introducing both the term and concept into the West. The term was coined to counter objectivity in political economic analysis. Lenin rejected the idea that there is some objective good for all of society, because true objectivity is impossible when the interests of one class of society conflict with the interests of other classes. Therefore, the only rational politics is one in which you expressly advocate for the interests of your side.
In America, where the Marxist sense of class identity has never taken hold, party affiliation was the closest we had to partisanship through the Cold War. One would support a party out of family tradition or maybe regional affiliation, even when the platform of the party did not directly appeal to your interests. Loyal Democrats, for example, would argue that the party was best for the country as a whole. It was the blend of tradition, objectivity and republican virtue.
This is no longer the case in America, Partisanship is now much closer to the concept Lenin had in mind. The anti-Trump people, for example, hate Trump for entirely partisan reasons. Not only is republican virtue no longer a consideration, but policy itself is no longer a factor. Under Obama, for example, his partisans championed public works projects. They now reject those same projects, the very notion of them, because Trump now supports them. All politics is person and partisan.
Oddly, in a country that is decidedly middle-class, bourgeois objectivity with regards to public policy is now alien. A candidate talking about the general welfare would sound strange and unnatural. Similarly, the party factionalism has faded away. What are the interests of the Democrats and Republicans? The only thing that is true is global enterprise underwrites both parties. Otherwise their squabbling represents no practical interests of any definable interest group.
Has there been a Lenin in the American story who can be blamed or credited with introducing hyper-partisanship to our politics? The place to start, of course, is the founding. That is, the second founding. Was Lincoln a partisan and did he make explicitly partisan appeals? There’s no evidence for it. Lincoln’s public utterances were appeals to republican virtue and objectivity. The sadism of the abolitionists could be interpreted as partisanship, but they were just fanatics.
Even if Lincoln could be called the first partisan, it did not stick. The erecting of confederate statues, the ones now being demolished, was an effort to end the animosity between the two sides. Partisans have no sympathy for their enemies, even when they are thoroughly defeated. FDR is another good option, but again, he saturated his rhetoric in bourgeois objectivity. In fact, FDR and the ruling elite were quite fearful of the sort of partisanship introduced by the Marxists.
If we are to find an American Lenin, it is much closer to our time. The best candidate would have to be Bill Clinton. It was in his administration that objectivity was dispatched from public discourse. He and his people shamelessly lied, and their media partners greedily repeated the lies. A man willing to debate the definition of the word “is” in a deposition is not a man who accepts the concept of truth. The only thing that mattered to the Clintons was what was good for them.
That is an important fact about American partisanship. The Clinton machine was not representing a class or even a coalition. The only thing that mattered to the Clinton machine was what was good for the Clinton machine. They were willing to say and do anything that furthered their interests. The interests of others, even the interests of the country, were not a consideration. In fact, harming others was also their fallback position, if they could not gain a direct benefit.
This hyper-personal, hyper-partisanship was not a natural element in the Bush machine, but it was imposed on them. The whole Bush as Hitler thing was a direct effort by the Left to make their political differences with the Bush administration about the personality of Bush and his people. The Left still hates Dick Cheney, even though he has been out of politics for a dozen years. Of course, Obama is the David Koresh of the cult of anti-racism and anti-whiteness.
Now, the problem with the Lenin analogy, and any parallels drawn between this age and the Bolsheviks, is that this form of partisanship evolved within popular government, rather than in opposition to authoritarianism. An “us against them” mentality is a necessary component to revolution. American hyper-partisanship did not evolve to topple power or even to promote an alternative to power. It evolved among the power elite as a way to solidify their power.
Personal partisanship is the natural consequence of popular government. The Greeks did not have parties, they had personalities. Factions were labeled the “followers of” some notable politician. In the Roman Republic a similar system existed. Factions within the Senate were built around people. As America has slowly abandoned the republican political culture in favor of democratic culture, it is inevitable that factionalism would give way to personal partisanship.
On the other hand, this is akin to saying that the Bolshevik Revolution would have happened if Lenin never existed. By putting all of the emphasis on historical process, the people making events become spectators. History is the blend of people, events and ideas. In this case, the long Cold War and the natural evolution of liberal democracy was the perfect ground for a megalomaniac like Bill Clinton to introduce hyper-partisanship into American politics.
Note: The good folks at Alaska Chaga are offering a ten percent discount to readers of this site. You just click on the this link and they take care of the rest. About a year ago they sent me some of their stuff. Up until that point, I had never heard of chaga, but I gave a try and it is very good. It is like a tea, but it has a milder flavor. It’s hot here in Lagos, so I’ve been drinking it cold. It is a great summer beverage.
For sites like this to exist, it requires people like you chipping in a few bucks a month to keep the lights on and the people fed. It turns out that you can’t live on clicks and compliments. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. If you don’t want to commit to a subscription, make a one time donation. Or, you can send money to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. You can also use PayPal to send a few bucks, rather than have that latte at Starbucks. Thank you for your support!
Good post. I sprung off from it to write this.
NEVER forget that all the political rhetoric from any side of any spectrum is about ONE thing and ONE THING only.
Who gets the POWER to control the stealing rights!
Now with the computerized printing press of unlimited debt based fiat currencies the fight is over MEGA TRILLIONS. Just imagine if there had to be ink on paper and distributed with trucks to get the Tens of TRILLIONS out to the world as it is today.
Anyone seen any MSM coverage of the $21 TRILLION unaccounted out of the Pentagon??
It will go on until it cannot.
Someone sees the light.
Last para’s a hoot.
The Clintons are twin narcissists, Hillary being the worst-case scenario feminist poison pill. Istead of integrating the masculine aspect of her psyche, she is masculinized. Castrating Bill is her reason for living and the reason why she could never win.
We may be at a stage where there is no common good, i. e. the good of one segment of the population is the bad of other segments, maybe even every other segment.
In this sense, it is not prudent to advocate for the common good, as there is no such thing. The prudent thing to do is to look out for you and yours, as opposed to everyone else.
it is not prudent to advocate for the common good, as there is no such thing. The prudent thing to do is to look out for you and yours, as opposed to everyone else.
you can say that again
The less a population has in common (diverse), the less able they will be to find a common good. Instead, an uncommon bad. DIEE. Diversity, Inclusion, Equity, Extinction.
Politicians go head to head in fear-mongering contests. Whoever induces the most panic wins. The Biden campaign looks more like a deep fake every day. We seem to be in the transitional phase to the next paradigm being authored by artificial intelligence. It will be heralded by an alien invasion hoax. I’m checking out the exits, maybe a move to a different country like South Dakota or Japan. I already speak South Dakotoan, but the learn Japanese while sleeping tutorial isn’t working out so well.
If you do move, get “Dirty Japanese” and make that your primary book for learning.
Clinton won big because he moved first. Somebody else could have, but didn’t. Sometimes the first mover is destroyed, but sometimes he wins. The moral of the story is that if your political system can by modeled with The Prisoners Dilemma (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma) then maybe its doomed to fail? For example, Libertarianism.
This post is a great companion piece to this essay from First Things, as it helps to also recognize the differences between now and 1916 Russia (the first things essay is mostly the similarites).
The concept of bioleninism needs to be mentioned as “the organizational principle of the contemporary Left”. The foundational 3-part essay introducing the idea can be found HERE. Does hyperpartisanship intersect with bioleninism in today’s America? You BET it does.
The atmosphere creates the hurricane. The right man has to come at the right time. Lenin would not have done well in pre WW1 Russia. It was the war the smashed the last of Tsarist legitimacy on the rocks. The great man (no necessarily a nice or good man) has to come together with his time and place. You have to be born in the right place too. Bill Clinton the man had to be born just after the war, in the boomer cohort, but with a power base in an uncrowded, tier three state, had to assume power after the “me generation” was getting into middle age as he was a product of that generation. The previous generation was out of ideas by the 70s, but the culture had to change in the 80’s to accept him.
I can’t recall why but I recently read the write-up on Napoleon on Wikipedia and was surprised at how unremarkable he was in terms of his positions prior to coming to power. If Trump wins and the Inner Party decides to crash the system rather than tolerate four more years of Trump they could usher in a true enemy who will do them in, or not, but why risk it? Why not just site around for 48 more months and get it all “legitimately”? My only conclusion is that there is something about their inability to directly control Trump that terrifies them. I used to think it was maybe child sex slavery, but with their pushing of kiddie porn and only getting very mild pushback I have to wonder if even that would matter.
Take a look at how he treats the CNN anchors, who represent the essence of who these people are. He treats them with the same contempt. This is all personality driven. His actual policies are like Bill Clinton except with much more reckless spending. But Trump was never (the one) as our version of Napoleon will be. He’s just ushering in the next era.
If they don’t want Trump, they could easily crash the system now. Maybe they see Trump as a way to short circuit any right-populist opposition while running out the clock.
One of Z’s more interesting pieces. A few observations:
*I’m not sure the the dichotomous metaphysic of our political culture is objectivity v. subjectivity, but rather the general good v. naked self interest. People hellbent on their own selfish aims can still pursue what is objectively best for them, while those most interested in the common weal may conceive this very subjectively.
*The hyper-partisanship we’re seeing is nothing more than the efflorescence of 60s identity politics. On the Left we see an uneasy coalition of Freaks, Felons and Freeloaders, which is pitted against the normies of the Right. But all of this is simply the result of the social Balkanization that began in the 60s.
*Z makes a solid case that Slick Willy is the closest thing to an American Lenin. However, if we’re really seeking the figure who truly introduced hyper-partisanship and naked self interest into the American schema, I think the strongest candidates are actually a Frenchman and a German Jew. They are Michel Foucault and Herbert Marcuse. Those two theorists were the intellectual godfathers of the New Left, and it was the New Left which warped America into its current partisan maelstrom.
*Z claims partisanship developed to consolidate the ruling class. I disagree. I believe it was authored to topple the sociopolitical, cultural and economic supremacy of whites. And it is quite close to doing just that.
Bill Clinton may have been personally a sleazeball, but he worked with the Republicans after the 1994 sweep. Politically, he was a moderate after health care reform failed (thank you, Hillary). Even Obama was fairly moderate in his first term, or at least the first half of his first term. After the Gates-cop breakfast and then really after Baby Trayvon he went full anti-American, with BLM, DACA and the rest.
Every time I put a hoodie on I laugh amusingly to myself thanks to lil’Tray
One foreboding feature of partisanship in any country is that sooner or later the partisan groups develop their own thug armies, and the competing bands of thugs duke it out in the streets. This means BLM and Antifa will be permanent features.
What’s different about the partisanship in the US from other periods/places of partisanship is that only one side is allowed to have a street army. The “right” (for lack of a better term) has been lawfared into a terrorized meekness to prevent it from forming partisan street armies like the left has.
To cope, the more civnat elements on the right think the cops get to be the partisan army “on our side”, but they’re not and never will be. Case in point, the latest outrage from Milwaukee:
In this latest atrocity, BLM surrounds a random Trumper’s house for hours and terrorizes him, and the cops are nowhere to be found. Eventually the fearful man flashes a gun inside his house to get the bloodthirsty mob to go away, and the BLM mob calls the cops. The cops promptly come and arrest the man. And there are still people who fall for “the thin blue line” and “back the blue”!
Now, it’s certainly possible that the Milwaukee police were sympathetic to the man’s plight and merely “arrested” him to get him away safely, knowing that the charges would be dropped. But the police were still absent while the mob —- organized by a firebomber and burglar —- terrorized this man and countless others for hours on end.
Yet another example of how the police are NOT on our side and do not deserve a crumb of our support.
We already have militias in many areas. Klamath put 2k guys on the ground with a few phone calls.
There are plenty of other examples too. However places with Soros funded or shitlib D.A. are behind enemy lines.
Jim Snow laws being enforced in Milwaukee.
Maybe Antifa is right about cops.
A lot of this seems to revolve around how the left in America has evolved to view the white male.
Bush was hated for his ties to the the Christian Right do gooders which the left despises and his support for the military wars in Iraq.
20 years ago the left still hated the military.
Now that Bush is out of office and paints pictures of the men he sent to the Middle East to be maimed and killed, he passes Michelle Obama candy at public events and he is the target of Orange man criticism,
Bush is now a neutral figure in leftist history.
Cheney is still yet irredeemable on the left. He has not been contrite enough even though he does not support Trump.
The left has evolved to full on hatred for normal morality and any white man showing signs of patriarchy.
Trump is the new center for the lefts hatred.
The hatred has blossomed into hating anything associated with normal white males and Christian morality in any form.
It is sort of Leninism without Lenin.
Bill Clinton kicked it all off?
Yea, in the modern sense I think.
The 60’s kinda kicked it all off to me more so. We are just now getting to the fruition of the 60’s as the baby boomers get ready to meet their makers.
Never underestimate the effect on society of Boomer Commie radicals starting in the 60’s-70’s. Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn bored into the mainstream wood to destroy the entire structure. He is an American elementary education theorist (bore into the public schools) and she is a Clinical Law Professor. So much for the Constitution. Even Ruth Badass Ginsburg prefers the South African Constitution.
Angela Davis formerly of the Black Panther Party, or currently, is a Prof at UC Santa Cruz. Bettina Aptheker, professional Commie bitch, is also a Prof at UC Santa Cruz in Feminist Studies.
This is a marathon in which the Commie baton gets passed each and every generation. Plus lots of small atheist hats. They never stop.
The “we are destroying the environment-people are rotten” movement was blown into mainstream view with Paul Ehrlich, biology prof at Stanford, (The Population Bomb) gaining ground with the media. Here we are over 50 years later. Green on the Outside-Red on the Inside.
They taught the children of the elite for the past 50 years. The rot has been placed mainstream and deep. Until there’s a die-off, until a black swan occurs that throws people up against the wall of survival, more of the same will continue ad infinitum.
Plus Z observed the Clintons brought in mass institutionalized grifting. The ruling elite were further bought off and continually dip their beaks in the trough. They morphed into globalists, gladly lapping up Soros and China money with world-wide allies. It is The Way now.
Witness that literally in the case of SF District Attorney Chesa Boudin
And they fed the masses that diversity is our strength.
And here we are.
Bill Clinton’s life force is best expressed in the dictum that “if you’re going to be a grifter and crime family boss, be the BEST GOD DAMN grifter and crime boss that the world has ever seen.” Second place is for losers. Lying . . . no problem. Rape . . . easy peasy. Grand theft . . . now we’re talking. Pay-to-play . . . I was born for this. Pedophilia . . . I’m King of the World and I do as I please. And half the country truly worships this megalomaniac.
Yeah, but sometimes these days when I look into his gaunt face and colorless eyes, I think he’s starting to think of the metaphysical implications of what he hath wrought. I think Mark Steyn’s description of him as “The Blowjob of Dorian Grey” is apt. Maybe he had some fun but under nearly any moral framework his soul is pretty much damned (barring him doing something truly honorable like pushing his wife down a flight of stairs while she’s slightly tipsy so it looks like an accident).
I think you’re right that Clinton introduced the hyper-greed (even though progs would put that on Reagan) but the out-and-out hatred of the population/sadism-as-an-end-in-itself got started with the Obama people and won’t stop until they destroy us or they’re destroyed. Clinton is basically a hillbilly rapist from Arkansas who just happens to be very good at the Sunday New York Times Crossword puzzle, but he is a recognizable type (sleazy countrypolitan used car salesman). But Obama (and now Kamala) are being marketed to us with their main selling point being that they are not us. The guy’s name began with an “O” and ended with an “A,” for God’s sake, and he’d eaten dog meat in his youth in Indonesia (his basic pitch was, “My name is Ooga Booga and I’m here to eat your border collie”). And still, I’m not sold that their hatred for us is personal, so much as it is practical: they want to get their way in a society that still has some vestiges of republican democracy, and in which the majority is white. Ergo, the minority needs to be promoted over the majority, always. By trying to rig the election/pull coups, they’re inadvertently admitting that monarchical/reactionary/fascist hatred of democracy and the masses is correct. I agree with them on that principle, but I disagree that they’re the elite and think the elite should come from the white ranks, always, and act on behalf of that majority.
Dogs are America’s memories of Dad. Leaving one in a toilet in Jakarta is thematically strong. However, eating dog is as rare in Indonesia as it is in Denmark. Obama lied about it, like he did about almost everything, to make himself seem worldly/repugnant. There’s nobody in there but not you.
I’ve always thought his people had among them some singular Lenin-like genius who paired him with Biden only because at first glance (and unconscious thought) their signs and bumper stickers would register as OSAMA BIN LADEN, not-America personified. Two thirds of the single female vote guaranteed.
Bill Ayers gets too much conspiracy credit from normie-cons, but everything about Obama does seem like his idea of a joke.
I didn’t pay much attention the rumor that Ayers wrote “Dreams from my Father” until I saw Ayers at a speaking engagement where he offhandedly said, “I wrote it, by the way,” and everyone laughed. Sure, it was a snarky offhand comment, but it’s also a way that true sociopaths try to cover their guilt with irony. Aldrich Ames used to wear a shirt that said KGB in his off-time. Michael Alig (the notorious Party Monster) went around bragging that he killed his drug dealer Angel (even on TV) to the point where no one suspected him. I don’t know who wrote the book, but anything over a couple thousand words would be too taxing for Barry.
This is absolutely true. Some of us learn this the hard way in our personal lives. Sociopaths love to tell you what they’re doing, it gets them off to brag so blatantly about their misdeeds. You can confirm this by research as well as personal dealings.
“My name is Ooga Booga and I’m here to eat your border collie.” I thought the hillbilly rapist/NYT crossword quip was clever; but this gem encapsulates eight years of immiseration perfectly. COTY. Well done, sir!
“The only thing that is true is global enterprise underwrites both parties.”
There’s your answer. It’s good for business. Rob people of their identity (or in America’s case, don’t allow them to build one) and sell them stuff to fill the void. The less people have in common, the more they fight, the more they want to escape their unhappy lives.
It’s no longer working. There’s conflict in the streets, drug abuse and suicide are surging, the young want to burn the whole thing down. We’ve passed the point where work and material comfort can distract people from their miserable feelings.
Still think it’s masculine/feminine on a spiritual level, but this is how it’s manifesting in this time and place.
As left-wing critic Michael Tracey put it, the Clintons actually invented entirely new forms of corruption. There’s no doubt that history will record that the Bushes and the Clintons were primarily responsible for destroying America.
Since Hoover, virtually ever Presidency until Trump except maybe Eisenhower has been ultimately destructive to America in one way or another, and I include Reagan.
You can’t say bad things about Reagan in some circles, but yeah, him too.
IKE should not get a pass from his forced school integration madness.
He also torpedoed McCarthy through surrogates.
Fair enough, forgot about that.
I’d have thought that a discussion of the emergence of hyperpartisanship in the US would refer to the Rockefeller-Goldwater split in the Repubs in 1964 and the Daleyite-McGovernite split in the Dems in 1972. We’ve had ideological parties ever since. Regarding Lenin and the October Revolution: It’s very difficult to make a case for the October Revolution absent the personality of Lenin.
In a long forgotten commentary I once saw, someone made the comment Ted Kennedy going after Robert Bork was also a big inflection point. Kennedy had an axe to grind for personal reasons with Bork, and it caused lots of bad blood which was exacerbated when several years later Clinton was elected (given the reasons Bork supposedly wasn’t confirmed and yet Clinton’s personal failings were supposed to be overlooked).
Yeah. I’m of the mind that hyper-partisanship is the logical endpoint of liberal democracy. Clinton, Bush, and Obama: sure, they exist and drove the process, but liberal democracy is the kind of thing that awaits these guys. These stooges are not Caesar-like geniuses, they are more or less the sort of sociopaths who always exist. It’s just that our system encourages someone or other to eventually emerge and do what they do.
They are the Step-‘n-Fetchits of the oligarchs.
Bill Clinton openly demonstrated that everything is for sale, anything goes, and simply scoop up what you can, when you get the opportunity. Do it with a straight face, and mock anyone who might criticize it, and you are golden. A point of no return, indeed. Obama, and especially Hillary, have shown that you have to screw over people in a way that leads them to thank you for screwing them, or it doesn’t work out so well. Bill Clinton, like all of the best grifters, has that skill.
I know Z downplays the Clinton impeachment imbroglio but that was basically the point of no return. At that point in time the Left/Inner Party could have chimed in and said “yeah, we should have some standard for our political leaders, especially the President”, but instead they decided to burn every bridge to save a man that, really, wasn’t worth saving and arguably cost them the election in 2000 (and 2016) while permanently poisoning American politics in a way that it may never recover..
You would be the only person who “knows” this as I have talked about and written about it many times. In fact, you most likely got the idea of it being an inflection point from me.
I think he got it from me, actually. I am known for memorable postings.
I thought it was something that you related in one of your January-era Podcasts (during the Trump Impeachment, something along the lines of it was right for the House to impeach, but also correct for the Senate not to convict?), but, eh, it doesn’t mean that much and I’ll defer to your recollection, and say that I mis-remembered. It wouldn’t be a first…for today.
This is one of the main reasons the Left is falling apart much faster than the Right. Donny Two Scoops, for all his many and manifest faults, inspires loyalty in his people. “Trumpism” could easily exist. The Left, though, are trying the novel experiment of building a Cult of Personality without the Personality. Indeed, they seem to be actively seeking the most personally repellent people they can find to carry their banner, the kind of snakes even other SJWs can’t stand (the Kamala Harris VP pick, for example, is just baffling). It’s a bold decision, Cotton, let’s see how it works out for them.
I noted a long tome ago that the cult leaders of the Left are getting less realistic over time. Clinton was a gold plated phony, but he was a real person. Gore was more like an avatar than a real person. Kerry was basically an actor who had been playing the same role for so long people associated it with him. Obama, of course, was a man with no past. He was a product of a talent search. Having a shuffling husk of a man as their leader is the logical progression.
Biden is the ultimate expression, isn’t he? He is put forward precisely because there’s no there there. That he is obviously suffering from some sort of cognitive impairment, be it Alzheimer’s or stroke-related dementia, is a feature and not a bug since the strings are much easier to work. It will be interesting to see if Americans will elect a hologram.
Forgot to add, but a coalition comprised of people who otherwise hate one another almost requires a hologram or an avatar since a flesh and blood representative of one sect will piss off another. Kamala could not be nominated outright because Jose, for example, would head for the exits.
Picking Biden remains a puzzle. At the time, the party was certainly thinking it was a long show no matter who they picked. Throwing away a promising young option would not be wise. Still, they could have solved their Bernie Bro problem by letting him crash and burn. They could have allowed Warren a moment in the sun before she retires. With Warren, they would have a better chance of winning right now, as he can speak in complete sentences and knows where she is all the time.
Biden’s malleability was his best selling point. The propaganda outlets were told, “you furnish the pictures and I will furnish the war.” So we have a running narrative, totally artificial, about a non-existent candidate in a mental and intellectual sense. It did give the Democrats lower chances of victory but they still might be able to pull it off without putting their Establishment and the Cloud People under any danger of actual economic redistribution.
Long term, though, the Bernie Bros. (Sanders himself is a fake, as is Warren) will not go away. That’s the shoe yet to drop. If Biden wins (I’m skeptical) there will be an immediate left-wing revolt that is put down violently. If Trump prevails (and it is recognized, the latter of which seems unlikely), there will continue to be a united Left that goes full war.
That’s the thing, though. I don’t think the Left can remain united no matter what happens. We’re assuming (since we’re commenting on this post) that modern politics, especially Leftist politics, is a kind of bastard feudalism, with the “affinities” of various “lords” holding it together in the service of their king, only so long as the “king” continues to deliver the goods and doesn’t rock the boat much. Biden makes a lot of sense there, actually, as a candidate, but if he actually attains power he’ll be expected to deliver… and since he can’t, the “affinities” will turn on each other. Same result if he loses, since now it’s clear that the process — playing by the rules, insofar as the Left is capable of that — is broken beyond repair, so it’s every man for himself. To put it in terms Leftists can understand, since that’s the only show they watch: It’s Game of Thrones time either way.
The irony of the coalition of the oppressed is that only a member of the oppressive class is ultimately acceptable to them politically. Black men don’t vote for women of any color. Black women won’t vote for white women. Blacks of any sex don’t vote for gays ( neither will hispanics). After women put obama in office they figured blacks would return the favor but Hillary and Warren found out it doesn’t work that way. So now all trust between these groups is gone. For each, the best option is a self-hating white man they hope they make a cipher.
and almost nobody voted for Harris. True, she dropped out early but not because she was not interested.
They knew Biden was nothing more than a placeholder from the start.
I think they decided to throw the election. Besides, Trump has been good for the jews.
Well they seem to be accepting the presence of somebody on the SCOTUS who most likely has been doing a Weekend at Bernie’s for the last year so I’m going to say yes.
Biden is a distraction play from the real prizes-
Those are the Senate, DA races, and sheriff’s races in locales that don’t already have Soros-approved office holders.
I think if butt plug had a better name than Buttigieg and looked more like a normal person he would have got the nod for the next President. Having a gay or transgender as President is as important as having a mixed race black man or a woman leading the liberal democratic empire.
One does wonder what grievance group will get the next nod.
It does certainly seem like that way to me. But I suspect that it be down to the fact that his supporters in many ways see him as an underdog – which always seems to bolster loyalty. His reputation as a ‘straight talker’ probably also resonates – but then again I don’t know too much about the subject of President Trump.
The selection of cobras, pit vipers and mambas that make up the leftist cohort, as you mentioned, do seem to be absolutely repellent – likeable in almost no way; and the SJW clan probably also see this which is why there is so much infighting and partisanship within the left itself. I have seen this sort of partisanship on the local level and it results in almost nothing practical ever being done. People probably don’t care too much when it just manifests itself in the political soap opera on our screens – but when the rubbish isn’t getting picked up, drainage isn’t being properly maintained and electricity is intermittent, maybe we’ll awaken from our diversity nightmare.
I can tell you in California the true believers as well as their enablers i.e. most people, really do not seemed bothered by any of those pitfalls sadly. They complain about smoke and roads and electricity but it goes beyond just the gerrymandering as they continue to vote in the same scum.
I am in CA and I have seen exactly one Biden/Harris t-shirt. No signs, bumper stickers or flyers. Now I am in Orange County but that once solid Republican area is now purple.
That was their big problem last spring. The only personality that they had was Sanders, and he could not be tolerated. (Why they let him run in their primaries is a question that I can still see no good answer to.) My guess is that they hoped that Harris would be able to step up and become the face of the movement. She failed miserably. O’Rourke flamed out. Warren failed to incite enthusiasm. They tried to puff up Buttigieg, but a failed mayor of South Bend simply wasn’t up to it. In a panic, they pushed Biden forward, and tacked Harris on in the hope that she’ll grow into it. My take is that Biden wins, and by 2024 enough old white people will have shuffled off that the Repubs will be finished as a presidential party. Maybe Harris will develop the required personality. Otherwise, as things look, it’s going to be the likes of Ocasio-Cortez, Omar, Abrams, et al., although I imagine that Gavin Newsom will have a strong tailwind at his back.
Instead of a tailwind, Gavin Newsom will face a strong headwind in the future, that says, “You’re White!”
Exactly. It is happening now, to the delight of AOC.
Not only is he white, but he looks like a cheshire cat!
Gav appears to have waited an election cycle or two too long to have a realistic chance of fulfilling his presidential ambitions.
Sanders was just a dangle to get interest.
Why a juvenile insult like “Donny Two Scoops?” That’s something you do to someone you are designating as an enemy. It’s accepting the left’s framing.
I absolutely agree. The big brains continue to feel the need to trash Trump on his obvious shortcomings as if we don’t already know these things. I am still waiting on a superior alternative, assuming they are not accelerationists.
Yeah, my personal rule is I immediately dismiss and ignore anyone who uses a silly name for a politician – Left or Right. They’re childish – even the rare clever ones – and they negate any actual valid points the user might have had.
I rather like Donny Two Scoops, for a host of reasons.
He’s our Paully Walnuts.
A thought experiment involving the Overton Window:
One team lines up during the national anthem with a banner reading UNITED AGAINST RACISM.
The other team lines up facing them whose banner says UNITED FOR RACISM.
I’d pay to watch that one, and ask if they need a team doctor.
UNITED AGAINST RACISM = UNITED AGAINST WHITE MEN, LET US STEAL YOUR COUNTRY
UNITED FOR RACISM = GO BACK TO UGANDA
I read a few of those inside-baseball type of political books about the Clinton administration. And I’ve got to say, they just loved being bad. They loved the spin, loved the lying, loved the fabrications. They seemed to positively revel in a sort of sociopathically partisan politics, with no moral considerations at all.
It would be pointless just to complain about that. The truth is that we also need to have the “happy warrior” wartime mentality, a sort of joie de guerre, if we want to win.
Hillary Clinton is the sort of person who orders a tuna sandwich for lunch. When the waiter brings the tuna sandwich, she swears she ordered a turkey sandwich. Bill Clinton is the guy who flamboyantly plops down a big tip as everyone is leaving. He then picks it up when everyone is outside and his Hillary grabs a few tips off other tables.
Omigosh, just realized they were right. He was the first black president.
As Clinton aid Paul Begala said about Executive Orders: “Stroke of a pen. Law of the land. Kinda cool!”
Meanwhile, elsewhere it’s business as usual.
The way to combat violence against Jews is, apparently, to support violence against Whites.
This has been a sixty-year project ever since the Jews hitched their Star of David to the Confederacy and from that loss decided to go another route.
Gotta keep their golems moving in the right direction and on target!
The article is pretty amazing, particularly the description of “black Jews” under assault. It is ludicrous victim LARP’ing, but it will help wake up Whites to the hideous nature of their opponents. Blacks are low IQ primitives, but those who use them are quite dangerous.
Heh. Has anyone ever seen such a rare creature? I remember discussing this with a number of joggeresses many years back in a very jovial manner. None had ever witnessed said creature…
These type Jews are beyond parody now. It was some kind of far-fetched allusion to Ethiopian Jews, who actually are subjected to racial animus and outright hostility in Israel. “Hello, fellow Black people!” Yeah, right.
“Has anyone seen such a rare creature?”
Jussie Smollett. ‘Nuff said.
Both of them? I’ve seen Black Hebrews — they’re the ones that started the Sandmann incident and as far as I am concerned they’ve got some assault coming to them. They need to be shipped straight to Israel.
Israel will not allow the “Black Hebrews” to enter; they have already been refused visas & entry.
Israel knows the game they’re playing; namely to undermine Israel as a Trojan Horse.
Remember the “Million Man March” in Washington DC, about 20 years ago? I spent the day listening to it on WBAI (far left Pacifica radio station). After listening to Farrakhan bloviate about amerikka and Jews, I got the feeling that he believes that Nation of Islam are The Real Jews, and that the jews in israel (Europe & amerikkka too) are interlopers.
Black Hebrews are just an offshoot of Nation of Islam.
Farrakhan’s ideology is dumb asf, but at least his fake mooslim blacks are the racist types who want to stay away from whites.
Either this hyper-partisanship is a natural end point of liberal democracy, perhaps a prelude to civil war, or something happened in the last quarter century to get us here.
Some things happened roughly sixty years ago that got us here: the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965; the Civil Rights Act of 1964; the Voting Rights Act of 1965; the Fair Housing Act of 1968; affirmative action and its most grotesque iteration in the Bakke decision, “diversity”; and the predictable end point of anti-White pogroms in 2020. The common denominator is official and increasing oppression and destruction of the Historic American Nation.
This has precious little to do with personality cults or the transition from republicanism to democracy, although those are certainly present. Bill Clinton was the logical outcome of LBJ since he instigated the Rule by Lies. Our ancestors from the European Middle Ages would understand immediately what is underway. The feudal lords are unleashing the furies on the peasant masses to reinforce their final subjugation. Actually the closest analogy is Ottoman janissaries unleashing terror on their White brothers and sisters in Balkan villages. That was the first Color Revolution. We need a Lenin and have a Kerensky.
Present circumstances cannot stand and will not stand. Who ends up on top remains to be seen, but from now until the collapse of the Empire it will be an increasingly bloody affair that engulfs everyone from the homeless to the Cloud People. It is sad to have reached this conclusion but it is the only logical one. I once thought dissolution would be the best possible outcome but now the bar has lowered to civil war, and that is currently underway.
In 1990 the US was 80% white. In 2000 it had dipped to 75%. 2010, 72%. Maybe 80% white is the threshold for stability.
It’s more complex than that, we have to look at working age population, as well as executive/leadership population.
The older generation is still 85% white but have little cultural or real power. Throughout the 2000s the executives, leaders, etc. were still solidly white. Now the old Boomer generation is retiring and vibrants are taking their place. Things will kind of work as long as the majority of important/leader people are competent white folks.
This is starting to change too hence increasing decline.
We will be entering a time where we will test “critical fraction” theory on a societal level. Right now, we claim proof based on comparing successful societies with unsuccessful societies. But there is another type of proof—that of taking a successful society and “removing” its critical fraction. That’s what we are doing now to the US via its broken educational system and AA. This however will take another couple of generations.
I think we are seeing the results today. Look at all the US Navy ship collisions.
It is more complex, but I think the lack of an unchallengeably dominant culture is most of it. For whatever reason, demographic change and the overturning of that culture happened concurrently.
You are citing the figures INCLUDING mestizos. Officially in 2015 it was 61.9% non-hispanic White. Subtract 2% Jews, 1% Muslims, and another 2% of sub-cons and Latinos who still claim to be White, and you get the true figure of perhaps 55% European White.
One needs to look at the percentages within age cohorts. Then one can judge current impact. The percentage of “Whites” is composed of a high average age. The percentage of Hispanics, a much lower average age.
As such, not only are Whites less influential, but also more rapidly decreasing in overall percentage of the population (die off). A look at the 16 through 25 yo demographics tells the tale—and it doesn’t look good.
Maybe, but they can’t be lefties/marxists.
Just my impression, that was the result of mass immigration from Europe, probably atlanticism too. Demo is destiny.
If you (we) need a Lenin you (we) will get a Stalin.
Some of the hyper-partisanship sprang up in the sixties via media propaganda in favor of the negroes. If you grew up in this period in the South, you know how whites found themselves the target of vehement detestation by the Usual Suspects. It was a merciless cultural assault. And I don’t think it ever ended.
And apparently, Trump is an avatar for Whites in this former country – at least the bad thinking Whites at this time. There is literally nothing Trump can say or not say, do or not do that he, and by extension, us doesn’t get torn a new one 24/7/365.
It’s to the point where it is cynically amusing at this point.
Trump restricts travel from China: “Trump is over-reacting”
Later: “Trump didn’t react quickly enough!”
Trump contemplates nationwide coronavirus restrictions: “Trump is acting like a dictator!”
Later: “Trump should have ordered nationwide lockdown!”
You can’t even have a rational discussion with a leftist about this stuff.
The Utopianism of the left is on full display, too. Every single problem demands a total solution. Tradeoffs don’t exist. Unexpected consequences don’t exist. The grim truth of living in an imperfect world doesn’t exist. A policy’s decades-long record of failure doesn’t exist, as long as it seems like we’re “doing something.”
He goes out of his way to subject himself to abuse without gaining any benefit for himself or his supporters.
Indeed. This detestation is now and logically spreading to the entirety of the White Historical American Nation. Our feudal overlords are playing the Serbs against the Croats at a national rather than a regional level.
In grew up in the North in those times, and we saw the same thing here regarding Badwhites, mainly characterized as working-class white “ethnics” (i.e., non WASPs).
Kaiser Wilhelm II sent Lenin and a gaggle of other revolutionaries into the body of the Tsar’s Russia as a biological weapon, in a social sense. The virus of Communism still rages among the peoples of the earth.
We sent Trotsky in thinking he would be an insider sympathetic to Western interests and business opportunities. That explains why the US and UK pressed for his release when arrested in Canada.
“Lenin’s Ghost” is an un-holy trinity. Clinton, GW Bush, and especially Barack Hussein Obama are the triumvirate that applied the kill-shot on this now-dead republic.
I would say that the real trinity is Lenin’s Ghost, the Gargoyles of Frankfurt, and Arthur Finkelstein.
Lenin rejected the idea that there is some objective good for all of society, because true objectivity is impossible when the interests of one class of society conflict with the interests of other classes. Therefore, the only rational politics is one in which you expressly advocate for the interests of your side.
Partisanship is now much closer to the concept Lenin had in mind. The anti-Trump people, for example, hate Trump for entirely partisan reasons.
But not partisan in the way Lenin understood it. What Lenin mean was that workers had different economic interests than peasants, fishermen or craftsmen, even if everybody were a Commie. The Bernie Bro’s partisanism is ideological, which is to say they have been brainwashed, they hate Trump irrespective of their economic interests.
I still believe a majority of the Bros could be turned to the dark side, in fact I think it’s inevitable if the current war on whites continues. Of course, you’ll never reach their cadre, they’re professional globalist agitators, but the followers should rightly belong to us.
This, and it is happening around the edges now.
Imo a person’s politics come down to his economic interests. Ideology is a veneer.
Seems to me most bros back Bernie because they want to burn it down and he’s openly radical. They think they can build something that better serves how they’d like to make a living.
I agree, I think they could be turned in time.
It’s funny because they do have a lot of the same complaints as we do. But they somehow think more globohomo will fix the problems caused by globohomo.
Lenin’s partisanism was based on economic interests.
The Bernie Bro’s partisanism is based on ideological interests.
America’s partisanism is quickly becoming based on racial/ethnic interests – which will always, always, supersede economic and ideological interests.
Now thass what I’m talkin’ ’bout.
Today, holding a belief in an objective good for everyone is a sign of whiteness.
You know it has to happen. Some twit with greasy long hair and a ring through his lip and eyebrow will say, “America is a democratic republic…”
I dunno if my partisanship is driven by politics or personalities.
I actually agree with that character. Republican in structure but we elect our representatives. Even under the Constitution, the people who elect senators and the president were put there via some democratic process.
And then, as we see with the Clintons – the republic is democratically undermined….
I don’t think it was the system though— it was demoralization. I think John Adams said the Constitution was only fit for a moral people, and he was right.
Immoral people get a boot to the face because it’s what suits them.
The more I learn about Adams, the more I respect him. Even if he was from Boston.
Good sampling of quotes:
It was a “Democratic system” with a sharply reduced Demos: White Adult Male Property Owners.
About 4% qualified to vote for Washington.
I’m all for restricting the franchise. Start with net taxpayers 25 or over 🙂
Absolutely something that needs to be drilled into as many whites as possible in the demographic age. I have lost count of the amount of times that a premier of my nation has began speaking as though he cares about us all. As always, it is the partisans that have the supporters most likely to go the distance for the cause, whereas the tepid middle-grounders may have the numbers that voice support for them but will never go further than that.
In my very brief readings of The Russian Revolution, it seems that Lenin was a very formidable foe indeed. In this day and age in the UK I doubt I could pinpoint when started to become dominant but the twin double whammy of Trump 2016 plus Brexit was definitely a shock to the system. Furthermore, we must never forget the 20 year influx of those from less tolerant lands that arrived under the tenure of Anthony Blair – the local politics of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets give a pleasant insight into modern ethnic partisanship and just how easily these people can be riled.
There is nothing wrong with keeping one’s or one’s group’s interests primary. However, the distinction I take from Z’s essay is the loss of the concept of the greatest good for all. In real-world negotiations, it’s entirely possible that getting what you want would be a disaster to all (including you) in the end, but equally possible that a slight compromise might be a net good to you and to others as well.
Interesting. That is a sad loss. But it is an absolutely understandable loss when you’re dealing with groups who just don’t care about you. As this demographic thing takes off, I suspect that we really are – along racial lines, at least – going to have to put our own interests first and learn how to do so quickly.
What the greatest good for all may be is of course dependent on the people who make up your society. As a general rule, the more similar we are, the easier the greater good must surely be to define. One ‘greater good’ I see routinely popping up is ‘Public Safety’ – this usually means that anything that could save someone’s life is worth it. I personally find this very dangerous, as it is a surefire vector for the petty tyrant to rule the roost. But, it is a very polarizing issue; one need only to try to reason with the parents of a child, who was knocked over by a car that yet another speed camera and a reduction of the speed limit may not be good things.
I have probably have not put it too well above, but F. Hayek’s Road to Serfdom had a very good chapter on the problem of agreement between parties on various issues. The idea of reaching an agreement being the means to ensuring the greatest good for all. Of course, as I mentioned above, when you’ve a large portion of individuals from poorer quality nations flooding in, your ability to reason a point decreases significantly – so that does not help.
The loss of the concept of the greatest good for all is an absolutely understandable loss when you’re dealing with groups who just don’t care about you. Yes. Thus bioleninism.
Yep. Was re-reading The Bell Curve recently, and was struck by how out of date it is. It might be true, but it is only accurate for a meritocratic, homogeneous white society.
We’re rapidly returning to the days before the stratification by IQ of social class. There are a great deal of relatively high IQ white men denied opportunities. In 1990 there were millions fewer hostile tribal aliens – especially high IQ ones like Indians and Chinese.
The demographic age is upon us.
I never read The Bell Curve, but the book interestingly appeared on the bookshelf of MP Michael Gove – spotted when giving a TV interview:
Mr Gove gets plenty of stick on this side of the Atlantic, but he is not a dumb man. Not by a long measure. Needless to say he caught some flack. But I think they were doubly incensed because he dared to have a book by David Irving also on his shelf – and we all know how naughty Mr Irving is.
In a more reasonable age, such men, when discriminated against ‘by the economy’ could perhaps have created other opportunities for themselves. Now, they have to compete against the ideological discrimination too. My advice? For a lad young enough, if you’re high IQ, look where the pozz isn’t and go there – the trades (at the moment).
That said, for the high IQ lad that won’t be put off by the pozz and can battle through, say a tech workplace, learning a programming language is helpful – particularly on the web development front. Furthermore, ‘glue’ technologies like scripting, docker, AWS and Linux System Admin can be worth picking up.
And don’t you forget it. This sentence, said with concern on one’s face is always a good response when a normal person mentions with bewilderment: ‘What’s happening to this country?’.
Good call. Riots, random violence, theft, corruption, and general dysfunction are normal in every “black and brown” country.
The usa is now at least 45% “black and brown” among the working age population – and it’s starting to resemble a “black and brown” country. Imagine my shock! What happened?? They pledged allegiance to the constitution!
Most of the rioters are White. Its not a race riot. That is ginned up by the elite to bleed off energy to prevent a socialist overthrow of the Democrats and to remove President Trump.
Its a decent plan though I suspect that the people in charge of the riots have figured out the plan as has President Trump.
That said the US has always had big problems with being dysfunctional when money was involved
Hell we bombed strikers with military aircraft in 1909 and used General Pershing to break up the Veterans March
Our system only worked as well as it seemed to because the US has overwhelming economic growth. Now that that is gone we will revert to our natural state , part of the Americas.
Adding Latinos and others will not make it better but being Argentina, Peru or Uruguay is a natural fit for us as our society decays. That is if we can be held together which is not certain.
And no I’m not fine with it but the Conservatives, bit mainstream and dissident and too freedom/individualism/money/hate welfare oriented to even consider an ideology much less create one and make it happen.
It a part as bereft as workable ideas as its rival and worse unlike said rival lack the will to power that Democrats have,
“The demographic age is upon us.” Yes. But I wonder, doesn’t this notion hearken back to a more primitive age, an age of tribalism that until recently was mostly found only in Africa (before the advent of bioleninism)? Or is it always everywhere, and we just don’t see it as such (e.g. Catholic-Protestant, White-Black, Sunni-Shia, Han Chinese-Everyone Else, Moslem-Christian, Hispanic-Black, etc.)?
Ethnicities–Irish, English, French, Italian, Spanish, etc.–are also tribes. Tribalism has never disappeared entirely, although halfhearted attempts, often in the name of “human rights,” have been made to squelch it.
What is missing—both because purposely avoided, and not yet widely known/accepted was the association of race and character (as used in Galton’s time). We now know that IQ is only part of the problem, behavioral proclivities the other.
Read Murray’s latest book “Human Biodiversity”. It has the latest and most solid research results.
What major policy positions of Dick Cheyney does the average leftist disagree with? He is supportive of liberal social issues, they were fine with our forever wars when Obama was in office and want Trump to start more of them. They don’t seem to have much beyond where tax rates should be set and Obamacare. Very few of them seem capable of understanding how they have been conditioned.
Plus, Cheney at his height was viewed as part of the expert class, a heroic guvment man.
True. In his way, how is Cheney different from Joe? Bad heart instead of demented brain; but very similar graft-prone trough snuffing via Haliburton rather than the Ukraine after long, indistinguished government career crowned by the most useless, tits on a boar political office on offer — the Vice Presidency.
The main differences? Cheney appeared to have higher IQ than Creepy. He had a smooth, “corporate” way of talking, like he was telling you where his secret fishing hole was; like lean in, listen.
He was there to babysit the drunk fool he served “under”. Biden was a token.
They both got filthy rich, and never met a scheme beneath their level of morals.
I despise Cheney but he does come across well in an interview or debate. Very matter of fact, rational and never emotional. Always keeps it under control. I remember him debating Lieberman and saying how he wanted to give Lieberman “a chance to explore the opportunities in the private sector”.
Anyone ever see the pic of Cheney watching the 9/11 attacks on TV with his feet on the desk?
Cheney ran the Dubya WH, at least on the foreign policy side.
“Haliburton rather than the Ukraine”
Make that “Plus Ukraine” Cheney was a member of the US-Ukraine Chamber of Commerce,
Cheney talked like a damned robot. “Known unknowns”, etc.
I always considered that typical “corporate speak”.
Obama used it, just added a lot of “ums” and “uhs” to sound as if he had gravitas when he read off the teleprompter.
Same bullshit, for stupid people to absorb.
What Gin Rummy* was getting at was actually a legitimate bit of epistemology, often called the Johari Window. When I was still a cubicle drone I noticed that bits of analytical philosophy and psychology would often turn up in bowdlerized form in corporate PowerPoints in our 6 hour meetings where nothing was decided. Since the people recapitulating them were just trying to sound smart while actually being too stupid to grasp the concepts they were supposedly expounding on the results were often hilarous.
The media’s agreed upon buzzword “gravitas” for Obama’s gibberish reflects the convergence of corp-speak and gov-speak in the final years of the Bush administration. Part of the typical GoodWhite’s pseudo-intellectual facade is now composed of this kind of stuff under the guise of !science!
Ironically Rummy himself was actually a very smart guy even though his elucidation of these ideas was flawed on that particular occasion. The Obama team can be thought of as a troop of monkeys who somehow developed speech and were then let into the Princeton debate team’s practice sessions. When they came to power they could make the sounds alright but something was lost in, er, translation…
* I’m sorry but I can’t help but think about this whenever this topic comes up.
That was Rumsfeld. When asked where tge WMDs in Iraq were, he replied that they were “North, South, East and West of Baghdad”.
But…he did not like Bush the Elder. I heard him on TV say that Bush was an elite snob who felt that he was “to the manor born”.
Take the time hack to 5:45…
That was Rumsfeld: The other buttock of the same bum.
What you talking about? It doesn’t have anything to do with policy it’s the person being hated. You can watch the left shift on a dime if the wrong person supports what they like they will come out in opposition. Some weird version of The Devil’s Advocate
A leftist will oppose Trump’s tariffs on China on his way to a protest against corporate power.
The average leftist disagrees with what the immediately adjacent average leftist disagrees with – apply this recursively until foaming with hatred and resentment and expounding dogmatic thoughts on funny concepts like ‘equality’ and ‘fairness’.
Think of taxes and social programs as race-based jizya and you understand the disagreement, although even Cheney would have allowed for it up to a certain income level.
You are overlooking the key trait of the radical, his extreme polarization. Would you hate a man who was powerful, a potential ally, that you knew shared 95% of your moral and ethical beliefs, but you were disappointed by 5% that didn’t coincide, even, perhaps if they were matters of little relevance? No, you probably wouldn’t. Most normal people would welcome such a man into their lives. But the Radical would hate him, because he failed whatever the one litmus test is for that radical.
The current fashion is whether or not someone is “racist.”
Yet, if you actually use their definition of white supremacy, they are almost all white supremacists.
In the age of modern liberal democracy, white supremacist is almost infinitely flexible and there really isn’t a universally agreed upon definition. Sending a black person to jail, even if they just killed their mother and 2 innocent bystanders is white supremacy. The radical feminists who founded BLM have no problem whatsoever throwing black “deadbeat dads” in a cell for as long as is necessary to force them to pay
This is the age of flexible definitions. Men can menstruate and women can get prostrate cancer. Is it really that much of a surprise that blacks should never be put in prison except when they oppressing some black woman for not writing her a check, even if he only fails to do so because he can’t afford it?
“Most normal people would welcome such a man into their lives.”
Even if he happened to be black or Jewish?
In those cases, you would have to assume an ulterior motive (the jew) or a cash payment (the negro).
Why would one have to assume that?
Notice how Cheney’s daughter is now the Rep for WY. The nepotism is worse than ever. How stupid do you have to be to vote for someone like that? Clearly the people of WY have frost bitten, wind burned brains.
Could be nepotism. Or it could be that she actually holds views that are popular in Wyoming. I honestly do not know.
Dick Cheney is widely respected in Wyoming and represented that tiny state well for many years at least according to the Neo Con values that rather White and very out of touch state holds.
Odds are his daughter probably knows everyone who is important and in an informal way a lot of regular folk.
After all the entire state population is like a shade over 500k.
As conservative as Wyoming’s reputation, Liz Cheney is a Lesbian and a promoter of gay rights. So I guess we can say White Wyoming is poz’d, but the hunting is good.
No one cares much about homosexuality. They haven’t in many decades since mostly until recently it didn’t effect them.
Gay marriage still hasmany detractors but as Path Buchanan found to his astonishment, quoting here “to younger people being homosexual no more signifcant than being left handed”
Also the US isn’t a religious country, not really.
It has the trapppings of one but its LARPING
if you doubt me, when is thelast time anyone tried to regulate porn in a serious way?
Even the great “Evangelical” movement has petered out and lost retention. Its why DR people waiting around for a Christian moral revival might just be whistling in the wind.
Now the Anti Racist crowd has some elements of that but honestly its more anarachy with political cover
That’s the little sister. But I’m sure Liz does some carpet diving too. Wouldn’t you if Dick Cheney was your father figure?
Liz Cheney is not the lezbo. It’s the other daughter, Mary that munches carpets. Though the Cheney’s are supportive of the alphabet people. I think Cheney’s wife wrote an erotic novel.
I stand corrected. Put Wyoming back in the good guy’s corner. 🙁
That’s my point. The Cheneys are well respected in that state. And they bring home the bacon. This in the so called “cowboy state,” that looks down their loses at “the left coast.” Hypocrites all. They sit there in Casper, wind blowing at 40 mph as usual, eating the same Fox News shit as any other state. Listening to the same awful Sean Hannity, only with a tumbleweed blowing outside the window. But they’re free.
So what do you expect them to do?
I grew up for a spell in that State and its more empty than you can imagine.
Might as well watch cable.
Where was the film “Brokeback Mountain” filmed???
Is she the only rep?
Any other State have more Senators than House Members ?
South Dakota, North Dakota, Alaska and Vermont possibly others.
Or it could be that he used his Iraq, Ukraine, and uranium profits to buy western Wyoming, his mining, oil, and Jackson Hole Hollywood fiefdom.
For some reason, I can picture him in Dark Lord robes with a giant horned headdress.
Cheney has an artificial heart and is known to carry his old heart around with him in a jar. Make of it what you wish.
I was living in North Carolina when Bob Dole’s wife flew in for 2 weeks to qualify to be their senator. Never underestimate the stupidity of the American voter.
That is something the DR needs to change. You must be registered and live (with a few exceptions) continuously in a State for ten years to vote and only voters may hold public office.
Even better, no voting rights for those not born in the US of natural born citizen parents (both). This would push the vote out a couple generations such that we’d have the best chance of absorbing foreigners into the culture—and yes, I’ve just disenfranchised myself.
Not a bad thing. Throw in 21, married with children and owns property and we have something.
Yes, not to the exclusion of other, reasonable tests. Age could be raised for example to eliminate folks coming out of college with zip experience in making a living and paying taxes.
Sorry AB, I have paid attention and note you have thought and posted on this in the past. I’ve become distracted I guess by all the damn foreigners coming in and going to Congress as of late (Obama?)
Don’t sweat it. We get new people around here and they benefit from hearing a rehash.
Not happening, of course. “America” is moving in the opposite direction, enfranchising every riff and raff imaginable.
Something like will be incorporated into Whiteland’s constitution.
I’d go further: Only Natural Citizens may vote or hold office.
I’m fine with that.
To my way of thinking only the children of 2 natural born citizens at any location or a married citizen and legal person born in the US should have birth right citizenship.
No US citizen may have dual citizenship either.
Slavetrader Ilhan Omar and Palestinian welfare bum family Rashida Tlaib are our version of Mashed Majid.
Who the F are they to come and lecture us on our endless sins?
Interests can be roughly divided into two classes: economic and cultural. Economic interests are simply a resource scramble, and no point in human history has been without some struggle between the haves and have-nots of some sort or another. The folly of Marxism was to collapse all of history to this economic struggle. But the real source of antipathy is the evolution of cultural interests, which were kicked into hyperdrive after the Enlightenment weakened religion and exhalted the human individual as the focal point. As the idea that each individual is the only arbiter of what is best in life cemented itself in human consciousness, greater numbers of dudes who wanted to buttf**k other dudes and chicks who wanted to kill their unborn babies and wastrels who wanted to slam dope thrived. Thus, factionalism gives way to loathing and hatred. At its root, we can understand someone who is motivated by getting or keeping more material resources; but it’s difficult to be indifferent about someone on the other side of the cultural divide. Their very existence triggers the disgust reflex hard.
The US may not have had authoritarianism to develop against historically, but it’s certainly here now.
The average American, with the exception of a tiny fraction is roped in with Social Security, SSDI, Medicare, Medicaid, Section 8 or some other transfer program. Our liberty was sold to FDR decades ago for a hand full of stale, Bismarck biscuits during the depression. We wouldn’t know liberty if it bit us in the ass. Hell, even in the third world money talks. You could have the DMV in Guatemala detail your car if you pay them enough. Land of the Free my ass. Freedom to be a drone on a Rascal in Walmart. This is why the Republicans actually believe in a bigger lie than the Democrats. At least straight ticket Democrat Shanequa is honest that she wants her welfare bondage.
Not quite what you’re saying, but any time I hear someone go on about the USA being the “land of the free” I challenge them to pop open a beer and walk down the street.
The US has had a religious jihad against liquor since the 19th century if not earlier. We went to the trouble to amend our Constitution to prohibit it.
The damage this did to our rule of law was incredible but the tendency to religious mania just won’t go away.
This is why we have fake race/culture riots mostly by White people right now.
Unfortunately the puritans weren’t wiped out back in 1660or some time traveler didn’t cap Cromwell so generations later we have to deal with their nonsense.
Maybe if the British had linked up at Saratoga and isolated New England from the rest of the colonies, things would have turned out better. Certainly different.
Yes. Perfect Example.
What gets me is the “Leader of the free world” line.
I get what you are saying, but…
That brings me to thoughts of the bad days in NYC pre-Gulliani. Came back for a visit as my father was in hospital. Walked the streets in the old neighborhood business center. First thing I noticed were numbers of feral Blacks walking the crowded streets drinking from 40oz beer bottles from the convenience store. No shame, no fear, no hiding the fact. Walking into stores, and even tossing the empty bottles into the steel wire trash bins—not that they were a tidy bunch—but that it made such a sound when the glass shattered.
Never do I recall thinking, “It’s great to be free”. 😉
You know, you can do that in China … or at least drink in public parks. I assume you can drink walking down the sidewalk too.
Let’s see back in the 30’s when the US had stopped immigration and was 90% White.
Where to begin? The Dust Bowl and the Depression , an entirely internal one BTW , trade was less than 10% of the entire economy both import and export.
Ah yes .Bread lines , people were suffering from severe malnutrition (beriberi was common before Roosevelt’s regulations) and very possibly outright death by starvation
The States and the vaunted private sector charities overwhelmed couldn’t do anywhere near enough. Things were so bad Americans were stopped at the borders by other states.
Congress was too busy wanking to do anything other than shoot at some veterans demanding money they had earned early.
So along comes Roosevelt saying “I’ll make sure there is a safety net and I’ll make the economy grow by any means necessary.”
Guess what if you are too stupid to manage an emergency with short term changes to the system you have than you get the emergency President for Life.
Frankly we got off lucky, the US might have gone NDSAP , Communist or worse.
And then what? What happened by 1938? The depression got worse! And then by 39 FDR was eyeballing Europe for a war, gambling on war like a good statist at the end of his rope, after promising us he wouldn’t. We “won” the war only because our productive machine remained unharmed in the world. And then what? Did taxes ever go down? Did any of these programs outside of the CCC go away (ironically the most honest one)? Now my age group is saddled with picking up all of the used condoms on the floor after the party. We’ll be ruined (most of us). We’ve been borrowing from the future for much longer than 20 or 30 years. And look at this cultural shit show we have from it. Disgusting people shuffling through box stores buying Red Baron pizzas. Of course you’re probably fine with this.
Did you expect people to throw away a useful tool like a social safety net?
The reason they didn’t go away is people wanted the programs, it is as simple as that.
In any case people being clean and upright doesn’t seem to have much correlation with Roosevelt’s programs. People were fine into the 70’s , 80’s and even the early 90’s .
What is killing is a whole bunch of things, none of them being a social safety net.
People wanted the programs. Yes. Why? Because they never gave a flying F about freedom. They always vote for security. Fast forward to today where if people were told they to preserve their “benefits” the would have to eat cat shit while wearing a leash and begging they would say “okay, how much?” And by the way this very system created the immigration problem we have because it removed the SKIN IN THE GAME for the average worker. The price of wages used to be front and center in discourse. And you’re deluding yourself if you think these transfer benefits haven’t have a severe adverse impact on mainstream morality. It’s disconnected the natural link between church and citizens, inserting the state as god.
Freedom to starve is no freedom at all.
And why was this depression so different than 10 others before it? Because a Ken Burns documentary said so? My family did fine back then, despite watching the farm policies of the time mow down food in fields and throw milk into ditches.
Which is why food was destroyed in the middle of the depression.
Having bad policy choices does not negate the value of other policy choices.
Regardless of that, Roosevelt put a near end to hunger in the US which is more than anyone else did.
you mean world war 2 ended hunger in the US
and the first one also fed a lot, guns and butter was a vaunted Dem policy until LBJ really – when it reached its natural conclusion…
The social safety net bribes low IQ teen highschool dropouts into having the highest birth rates. 3 generations later, their math & reading scores are worse, crime is worse, and they are absolutely sure thats because of white privilege. You cant have welfare with diversity or immigration. We become the worlds outhouse. Blacks and latinos dont even pay enough taxes to cover the cost of their welfare consumption. It was a cannonball right through the hull in the ship. We can see it attracts politicians to promise them free stuff to keep voting blue. Then it escalates to releasing their prisoners and allowing riots, as long as they keep voting blue. Who knows whats next. Freedom only works on a high IQ populace. The rest require heavy policing and some bread and circuses in unwanted parts of town.
Teen pregnancy is much lower now than it was the in the past.
It wasn’t even hard to do. Understand that sixteen in a common age for first sex, show how yucky teen (this meaning unmarried girl not young bride) is, thank you MTV for Teen Mom and give good sex ed. Oh and throw in some other stuff to do (Internet and Video Games)
Cost, very low.
Result. Teen Pregnancy is at an all time low since we started tracking it in the 40’s. Its 1/3rd of that time!
I doubt strongly that married young women were treated as teen moms in the survey either.
Unrealistic religion driven ideas about society don’t work no matter who does them.
yeah and now whites are dying out, and trans give children book readings. yes blacks have less kids, but also less of them get the chair like they should, so it balances out and becomes worse actually, since whites have even less kids. it’s as if unrealistic secular ideas don’t work either.
I think both of you have good points. My take on social welfare is that it should have been implemented much more carefully and also cynically than it was. People supporting a strong social safety net cannot also support mass immigration on a planet where at least half the inhabitants can make twice what they do working at very hard jobs by moving a few thousand miles and doing absolutely nothing. This is so obvious (to me at least) that whatever legal and constitutional changes were made to allow social welfare should have included an amendment that outlawed immigration from low wage countries.
Along with, or as part of, that should have been provisions to revoke the franchise for anyone collecting benefits, to be restored once they were off of them. Instead we have a system that actually encourages people to get on the dole and then encourages them to vote for more gibs. Giving people their vote back after they were self-sufficient would also have been a way to give poor people a status symbol to strive for that didn’t cost anything and made them work hard to keep it.
The system was doomed from the start though because the people setting it up were not what they pretended to be. Superficially, FDR was an aristocrat who should have done things in a spirit of noblesse oblige and (racial and class) paternalism. In reality he was a crypto-Marxist whose ideas were more Leninist than Jeffersonian. After him it just got worse.
It’s precisely the social safety net that allows the lower classes, of all races, to sit at home and eat Doritos and smoke marijuana rather than get low rung jobs. And it’s not until you get the low rung job that you look around, then look at your pay check, and realize the danger of immigration, which is literally stealing from the poor and middle class. Our immigration problem will be solved within five years of a safety net implosion.
Then it’s not a safety net.
I agree with you here.
Bingo. As soon as politicians realized they could use productive people’s money to buy unproductive people’s votes, the “game” was on.
Technology makes more and more people unproductive every year. Has for nearly a century.
Whether its shovel ready jobs being replaced by a backhoe or Amazon destroying retail, efficiency means lower wages for all.
If the cost of goods were always declining faster and there was enough employment to make do, this would be fine.
This never happens, Instead a few tech elite become filthy rich and everyone else suffers.
We’ve seen this since 1973 or so when the US went low fertility and has never recovered. Until modernity is controlled No one has, no one will. Ever.
Of course as much as I disagree with your core beliefs I am glad to debate them.
Frankly it just shows there at least three separate Dissident Rights and that the Socialism as Necessary , Small State except for Morality Policing and New Christendom have no business sharing a polity .
If things fall the rest of the way apart, we will have to find a way to have separate countries maybe without even trade between some of them.
This will certainly result in less wealth for all but so be it.
And note don’t assume that your nation can go off and trade with China. The rest of the nations will be treating that as an act of war.
Eventually it will come to “there can be only one” which you know what is fine with me. let the best system survive.
this belongs on a t-shirt, or maybe several million of them
yes, that’s much more close to reality. for FDR’s inspiration, look at his wife.
the US did go NDSAP, just our own brand of it with Disney characters instead of Hugo Boss designed uniforms. One that appeals to grown children.
I get your point but I’d say our society is a bit more USSR in the intervention and lack of social energy area.
An NDSAP styled USA would never have allowed immigration or porn or probably the commercial Internet.
If you look at the nuts and bolts policies of that system, we pretty much replicated it, excluding the racial realism. Actually the inverse of it Especially monetary policy. And now, as it fails, we get to flirt with more Soviet solutions.
That’s NSDAP: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei.
the holding pen for future NASA scientists.
But FDR actually campaigned as an ambiguous conservative.
legit fascism would have been healthier than FDR, ngl
plus the Depression started when Europeans stumbled on their war debts in the late 20s, had a knock on effects of sorts, added to the way-too-strong laissez faire of 20s wasp-republicans.
also, fdr started the gibs to minorities.
legit fascism would have been healthier than FDR, ngl
plus the Depression started when Europeans stumbled on their war debts in the late 20s, had a knock on effects of sorts, added to the way-too-strong laissez faire of 20s wasp-republicans.
also, FDR started the gibs to minorities, starting with secular whites and chosenites, who of course stabbed the rest in the back eventually.
How come the land of the free with lt 5% of the worlds population has 25% of the people in cages?
That’s not even the worst part, it’s the tax and regulatory cages that are much more insidious.
We could do far better on regulation but no matter how you sort it modernity and urbanism are expensive.
You can pay more in wages or in taxes but if you want people to have children its either that or taxes.
Its 2020 and if they don’t have money enough , the number of babies drops. The absolute floor in the West is about half the number required to sustain the population. we are getting close to that.
Now if you want to get rid of welfare for single moms, this is not a bad thing. It will result in less children being born but not necessarily more marriage
As for the rest of the taxes things like Medicare and Social Security are the bulk of it, around 2/3rds.
Be very sure before trying to be rid of that. The other effects, discussed at length in the last thread are not good.
Not justifying our so-called justice system, but in most places, you can bribe your way out. Or they actually use the death penalty. And how competent are the cops in Nigeria?
We had higher standards.