Furthermore, I think their histrionics set the pattern for today’s left-leaning movements such as Antifa, MeToo, BLM and The Resistance.

The Tea Party’s opposition to Obama and the left was rhetorical only. They didn’t shut down left wing speakers on college campuses through mob action and physically threaten, assault (in the case of antifa) and murder (in the case of BLM) they’re perceived enemies.

The various left wing groups making up the so called “resistance” are following the example and using the tactics of violent communist revolutionaries.

Although I’m an independent voter, I’ve always leaned conservative when their candidates and platform deserved my support. But because I was always shocked and dismayed at the seemingly nonsensical protests of the conservatives’ Tea Party I’ve often voted against other than conservative.

If they’re no more. Fine. They were more of a hysterical protest movement against Obama than they were activists for liberty.

Furthermore, I think their histrionics set the pattern for today’s left-leaning movements such as Antifa, MeToo, BLM and The Resistance. So, their example was readily adopted and easily subverted to the goals of the left and the conservatives have few to blame for this but the Tea Party.

Extremism serves no permanent master. So, it should be evoked with great, meticulous care, instead of capricious abandon like the Tea Party did.

We conservative leaning voters now see what they wrought and it’s not pretty.

You can’t have fiscal responsibility AND debt money. First you end the FED. Then you balance the budget. The Tea Party thought the congress could stave off bankruptcy merely by borrowing less. The Club For Growth could not understand that with debt money increased debt IS growth.

Today, just as diversity is our strength, debt is our prosperity.

Sounds crazy I know. But consider elite political dogma that maintains there is no such thing as race. No such thing as national borders. No such thing as BOYS AND GIRLS. That whiteness is the cause of all ills of humanity. Or the ridiculous notion that our national security is threatened by Iran or North Korea. Or that Donald Trump is a Russian agent.

The creators of the current incarnation of the banking cartel knew from the beginning that their project would end in disaster but proceeded anyway for their own personal enrichment. The inevitable crash when the debt money ponzi has run its course is finally upon us. Imperial Washington is in the service of evil. Next comes the flood.

Dr. Doom’s pessimism above is justified by Ron Paul’s loser son…Zionist Randy Boy.

RP is still fine (except for his constant crowing about “de konsitooshun), but as you say his kid is as goofy and as worthless as they get.

The kid has to be an unspeakable embarrassment to the old man.

As for TEA party, it was a fraud from the beginning, just like Trump, and I had no idea it still existed. If its supporters had any brains, they’d know that there are no political remedies to the problems of this terminally degenerate moral cesspit.

Dr. Doom’s pessimism above is justified by Ron Paul’s loser son…Zionist Randy Boy.

Ron Paul himself is beyond irrelevance these days.

Greg, I like yours and Dr. Paul’s optimism, and you are right that there will be an “other side”. Somehow, though, Dr. Doom’s scenario seems just as realistic to me. Plus, there are his credentials.
;-}

Let’s not be bamboozled by the media on the tea party issue. Trump and the “alt-right” are far more interesting fodder right now. However, listen to the members of the freedom caucus speak and note their votes. Ron Paul used to be the sole “no” guy, now there’s a relative bunch of them. Furthermore, the idea of liberty is often times projected into the broader debate by many people. Progress has been made, there’s no reason to be apocalyptic about the chances of liberty, and my thought is that there’s a lot of turmoil and potential in the American political scene, in particular the deception of rank and file liberals. There may be a reckoning, and liberty has as good a chance as any of coming out stronger on the other side. We have been speaking a consistent and appealing truth, and that is not without its power.

The TEA Party isn’t over Ron. The American Dream is over. Its not the Gold Standard, its the Den of Thieves who run the federal reserve. Its Baron Rothschild and the Rockefellers, Ronnie. They’re not businessmen, they’re crooks. That monopoly money was NEVER any good. It has stolen America from the White Men who built it.
It will not stand. The brown cannot even maintain what has been stolen. Computers and robots cannot keep it running either, boy. What was ours before will be ours again. Its inevitable. Whether they get Idi Amin or Pancho Villa, they won’t get a stable society. The black and brown have NEVER done that.

Call it racism. Say Anti-Semitic to the Moon gawds. It doesn’t matter. America is either White or its nothing. This globalism is a delusion. There is no plan here. Puerile fantasies of power and slaves. The ludicrous gibbering of loons. Imbeciles that have failed over a hundred times and only survived due to their cowardice and having somewhere to run to.

That’s all over. The globalization has made finding gullible victims pretty much impossible. The enemy parasite has never been one to think things through. I expect it will keep doubling down and trying to instigate wars to save itself. This perfidy stinks to High Heaven.

The Gods are Angry. Its not carbon dioxide you have to worry about. Diseases, wild weather, earthquakes, wars and rumors of wars. Welcome to the Book of Revelation. There is a fork in the road. The wheat and the chaff are about to part. A Global Conflagration is Here. Diseases run rampant. Influenza is hardly the only one. Pestilence Chan has been busy. Hepatitis, Black Plague, Ebola, TB, and others. Immune from vaccines and medicines.

Let us not mince words. That materialism of times past has corrupted Mankind. A cleansing of such nonsense is now in order. Gold won’t save you. Drugs whether legal or illegal will not save you. Pain is good for the soul. Pain should warn you of your errors. More pain is now assured. The Gods will not be Ignored.

Whatever God you believe in. Whatever name you use. Whatever religion you care to prescribe to.
It only matters that humanity and materialism shall not stand against the Ones Most High.

There are Powers That Be, but they are not the ones who bleed and need Gold.

This entire post, like so many these days, is so self-regarding that it goes nowhere. Its link to the “original Adbusters ad” is not a link to an ad, but to a news story which discusses Adbusters in general terms.

As for Adbusters itself, I find it very much like this post itself: Adbusters is so damn in-groupy and self-referencing the reader seldom has any clear idea of what it is saying. That, of course, is the burden of this very post, so in that the writer and I agree. I just wish the writer realized that it wasn’t Occupy Wall Street that was incoherent, but Adbusters.

I don’t see the American Nations uniting against population replacement before their less outbred elements constitute an overwhelming high-IQ majority. The diminished Northerners at that point may face three options, none of them pleasant: 1.) Follow the cool kids and embrace “racism”. 2.) Uproot themselves and abandon ship. 3.) Insist on clinging to power and suffer dearly for it.

Something like the Civil War was inevitable. When you have two opposing groups in direct competition, one must rule the other to whatever extent practicable. Yankeedom and the Midlands achieved ideological dominance, and the Northerners of old could be very effective at war when necessary. Since then these slow breeders have not only been dying off but growing more docile, effete, even.

Looking at SWPL males and today’s conservative young men in martial terms, this comparison is unkind to the former.

Very interesting. Some aspects of the maps agree with intuition (preconceived notions?), but there are also lots of surprises.

I’d be interested if age is a big factor too.

David Brooks, the NYT neocon, wrote about Edward Snowden & Bradley Manning, that they seemed like a new phenomenon; he characterized them as atomized, alienated men in their late 20s with activist libertarian sympathies who fear “Big Gov”. Young white guys with a functioning brain don’t like the way the US is turning out, especially since Bush. Just think of the people running Wikileaks, Snowden, Manning, Ross Ulbricht (Silk Road guy), Cody Wilson (3Dprinted gun guy), Satoshi Nakamoto (Bitcoin, probably some white guy alias),

They’re all familiar with the anarchist libertarian Von Mises Institute. It’s where they get much of their idea fuel. I’m pretty sure this isn’t just a coincidence. On Techcrunch I read a commenter saying capable young white guys in tech feel out-of-place in an H1-B Indianized Silicon Valley and turn to other interests.

Methinks Brooks misses something profound, they’re not just turning to libertarianism.

There’s also scores of HBD and/or WN bloggers; the Moldbuggians/”neo-reactionaries” on Twitter are even younger, mentally much tougher. And, of course, there’s the game/manosphere, literally filled with young white guys who’ve basically given up on their country and a bourgois lifestyle. Unlike Brooks, I don’t blame any of them.

“On the issue of outbreaks of violence…and immigrant groups, Catholic Irish, Italians, and Eastern Europeans in the early part of the 20th century.”

The pattern is always the same because mass blue-collar immigration generally involves young men arriving first and congregating in beach-heads where they have local superiority of numbers of young men but no women. When you think of it in those simple terms it’s pretty obvious why what always happens, always happens.

Internal migration for work follows the same pattern.

Emancipation will come only when american negroes have their own separate, geographically-removed, nation-state. It will mean emancipation for them… and for the white ethnies which right now suffer them.

Slavery, like indentured serfdom before, was the great idea of the plutocrats of the day (today we would call them globalists, or “open society” advocates, or immigrationists or, why not, simply libertarians). The plan was so simple… “let’s import cheap labor and fuck the underclasses. If that’s economically catastrophic for millions of my ethnic cousins, well, hey, fuck them. If that provokes terrible problems in the long term for my descendants, well, we will be dead long ago. Fuck my grandsons as well.”

You can only think like that if your culture is pure individualistic economicism. Just a culture of egotistical merchants and money-lenders can think like that.

“Integration”, like now “assimilation”, are predicated on the extreme versions of egalitarianism and individualism that poison the american white mind since, at the very least, the Illumination. Fanatic ideologies that have progressively poisoned all europids’ minds since the defeat of Those Who Shall Not Be Named in the last (by now) Great Europid Internecine Worldwide Slaughter.

The obviously *maladaptive* character –in the current environments– of the *moral rules* associated to this culture is breathtaking. Maddening, indeed.There’s no better proof than the social or legal ban on every meaningful criteria of discrimination: ethnic origin, sex, age, religion, cultural practices.

In fact the very change of meaning of the verb “to discriminate” from “to choose” to “to be mean for absurd reasons” is very significant. A change that has taken place in several different western languages, as I can personally attest.

Trouble is that Tea Party and Occupy are not really ideological opposites at all. I’ve blogged about this before:

T. Greer. “Far Left and Far Right – Two Peas in a Pod?” The Scholar’s Stage. 10 April 2013.

T. Greer. Far Right and Far Left – Coming Together — With Infographics! The Scholar’s Stage. 13 June 2013.

T. Greer. “Ominous Parallels: What Antebellum America Can Teach Us About Our Modern Political Regime.” The Scholar’s Stage. 26 February 2013.

All of that was written before the Syria vote came to capitol hill, which only accentuated this strong inter-party rift. This divide between the establishment and the fringes – who agree on quite a lot – are just as wide as that between left and right, and politicians (say the Speaker of the House) have to go to great lengths (say, shutting down the government) to force the political system into the type of hyper-partisan gridlock that keeps their party members focused on the righteous fight against the liberal or conservative enemies.

I would be interested in a geographic break down of the “establishment” faction’s base of support.

No, I know you and Cochran are right, we obviously can’t change the past and there are too many variables to do anything but wildly speculate about what might have happened. However the fact remains that nothing (aside from emancipation, I am not disputing that and absolutely am not against that result) was truly resolved in that conflict, the two regions have continued to spar ever since and will continue to do so but will it erupt over the coming decades into armed conflict? That is the 64 thousand dollar question here. Because if that is in the cards, then those of us residing in the midlands, such as myself, need to be thinking about moving somewhere else. How is New England this time of year?

~S

What fascinates me about this is that it’s precisely the belief that we are all one nation that causes this strife. If the Puritans up north would be content with local legislative solutions then there would be far less friction. Roe Vs. Wade is one example but the Affordable Obamacare Act (did I properly piss off both sides there?) is another. The Tea party folks overwhelmingly don’t want govt healthcare and they overwhelmingly live in certain parts of the country as you’ve shown, but no… we can’t let them be who they are, we have to save them, we have to impose our values on everyone. I’ve been watching this happen for my entire life and been incredulous about it for just as long. it is absolutely maddening.

Of course the consequences of backing the south into a corner where they feel like they have to defend themselves morally and culturally could be quite different from last time. Now the weapons do a lot more damage, there are a lot more of them, and many of our the largest army and air force bases are located in the south and west.

I’ve often mused to friends that the biggest mistake we ever made as a nation was not letting the South go when we had the chance. We should have beaten then, took the west and it’s resources and let them go be their own agriculturally (and later oil) based country.

I’ve considered several times writing a novel about what it might be like, either the initial breakout of conflict or the aftermath… might be fun. I keep stumbling on the details though, I don’t have the knowledge of military matters like Clancy (RIP) did, now HE could have done this scenario justice, though somehow I don’t see Jack Ryan saving us from this one.

~S

The Tea party is about responsible government, a message which has been sullied by constant relentless media attacks, and the Occupy movement is about pooping in the streets and getting stuff for free because “one day my parents will kick me out”. Both republicans and democrats are corrupt beyond salvation. getting rid of ALL incumbants is the only hope America has, and it’s a slim one. Neither of these movements will probably save us. I fear it;s almost time to water the tree of liberty.

I want to get rid of Lindsay Graham and Eric Cantor just as much as I want to get rid of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. That’s what I think the Tea Party is all about.

An actual Occupy vs. Tea party reality show is in production right now. Raising funds at Kickstarter to complete production.

Go here to see the trailer – http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1668801059/occupy-vs-tea-party-reality-series

I consider myself to be a Tea Party voter. Much as I disagree with them on specific issues, I welcome and generally approve of the Occupy movement.

Occupy is obviously just as disgusted with the culture of corruption on Wall Street, the incompetence and corruption of politicians as I am. And they agree with me as to the futility and dishonor of these bankrupting wars.

Media coverage tends to obscure the significant overlap between the two, which is substantial enough to suggest the possibility that collectively they may form the new center of a new political spectrum, committed to clean government, restoration of traditional American rights and freedoms, non-intervention abroad, and to prosecution of the “Big Criminals” who have been wrecking and degrading our country.

The TPM actually votes and is organized around truly Constitutional methods and goals. They moved 700 seats during 2010 and are still very active. They are still actively engaging voters, fundraising and getting the message out that conservatism, free markets, less regulation, spending cuts and taxation changes must be made. They back candidates and work for them.

The OWS gets press and sympathetic lefties eat it up and I guess that’s what you mean by winning, but if they had any truth at all they would go after Obama and his ties to Wall Street and the 1%. They wouldn’t accept him if they weren’t very partisan. Their tactics are not appreciated by many Americans and most do not back them because they see them for what they are: hypocrites and useful idiots. Does any candidate want OWS backing? Do any of them admit it proudly? Van Jones, sure, but he’s a Truther and left wing radical.

Don’t count the TPM down and out just yet. We’ll have our say in November. Look for results.

“Occupy has nothing on the Tea Party when it comes to actually changing who governs.”

that’s because Occupy correctly understand that it matters little who holds elected office. any substantive change will come from the collective action of economically victimized people, and that has little to do with any ballot box.

“The TEA party lost favor because it accomplished absolutely nothing.”

Wrong. It removed a lot of incumbents. It needs to remove even more and probably will. Occupy has nothing on the Tea Party when it comes to actually changing who governs. Occupy is spectacle. The Tea Party actually votes.

The Tea Party is nothing more than aging Baby Boomers who don’t want to pay taxes to help out younger generations, but who expect younger generations to pay taxes for their Social Security and Medicare. They also have not said anything about America’s ridiculous ‘defense’ budget. As such, the Tea Party combines the worst elements of the extreme right-wing with the Me Me Me attitude of the 60s left.

The TEA party lost favor because it accomplished absolutely nothing. The majority of what it elected went lockstep with everything that is wrong with the republican party delving in everything social that had nothing to do with its mandate or namesake. I have no respect with OWS because it represents everything wrong with America and its unsustainable love affair with entitlements. If it had any real objective it would be Occupy K Street. The rampant corporatism is only possible with sympathetic politicians leaving all blame to government. The blame for government largess we can only blame on ourselves.

The tea party was co-opted by the Republican wing of the establishment within weeks of being started and OWS, after some initial hesitation, was shut down by the liberal mainly Democratic administrations of the cities in which it emerged. My guess is you won’t have a long hot summer of OWS in 2012 because it would cost Obama the election. Real winner (no surprise) is the ruling establishment.

Of course it depends on what you mean by “winning” when you ask which “Third Force”-type movement is or was doing better, the Tea Party people or the Occupiers.

But by all reasonable definitions I think the Occupy movement has and more importantly will in the future be seen as being the most popular, successful and enduring in terms of representing a genuine Third-Force movement.

For all its juvenile antics and incoherent talk I think the Occupy movement nevertheless had the greater, more fundamental recognied truth on its side. And that truth was that whether they identify themselves as being Democrats, or Republicans, or a business or clatch of people doing this or doing that, essentially the country has been seized by and is being run for what is best described as an American Nomenklatura.

That Nomenklatura lots pretends to fight amongst itself, and sometimes indeed has real fights among itself, just as the old Soviet one did. And all the Tea Partyers did—while perhaps starting out at least a bit angry at all of them—was miss this fundamental truth and thus were very quickly and easily co-opted by one component of the Nomenklatura to attack the other.

The Occupy movement on the other hand, for all its antics and incoherent talk, at least more recognizes the fundamental truth that this *is* such a Nomenklatura, and started honing in on its bankers and paymasters.

As usual the future will tell who is right, but I at least would be more than willing to bet that the future Third-Force-type movement that lasts, or the future movements that spring up and prove to have some real force and popular sympathy are not going to be the Tea Partys or those being suckered like the Tea Party into just being tools in the hands of one or the other components of the Nomenklatura.

Instead, even if it’s a Rand Paul-type movement, it will far more closely agree with the fundamental if poorly expressed understanding that the Occupy movement recognized that the entire game now is essentially rigged. And that the solution is not to merely empower one component of the ruling claque over the other, but to sweep away that entire claque.

Don’t know if it will be successful in doing so; indeed I doubt it, but if you measure a movement’s success or “winning” in relative terms of the numbers of people persuaded or sympathetic to it, then that’s the sort of Third-Force movement that I believe will clearly emerge as the biggest winner.

Tea Party was co-opted by the Republican neoliberals AKA neocons. It limply serves up nothing more now than standard War Party fare and in fact is seen as an adjunct to that Party. In fact, it is so meaningless as far as change is concerned now, that even the uber-wealthy bankster class, as embodied by Mitt, has no problem genuflecting, if disingenuously. In fact that it can be done so disingenuously shows how bereft of real content or any challenge for serious change it has become.

All was not so sanguine at the earlier Tea Party rallies either; there were plenty of firearms concealed and on hip at Tea Parties and there was antisocial behavior.

Occupy Wall Street certainly had greater numbers; and the authorities were openly antagonistic: after all, the 1% really does rule America, politically and economically. You can bet the police wouldn’t have tolerated armed OWS demonstrators the way they did gun-toting and gun-displaying Tea Partiers – but again, the Tea Party movement was easily absorbed by mainstream Republican one-percenters who considered them rubes, and no serious threat to the status quo, anyhow.

The group whose economic hegemony over our lives and whose greed, corruption and offshoring of our economic well being really is that 1%, roughly calculated.

It might be conservative often means being reflexively for the status quo – or re-embracing it after firing a few blanks into the air like Tea Partiers, but the status quo of “Gekkonomics” has brought us into a world of hurt. Being afraid to change away from a mutated form of rogue crony capitalism gone bad, which most resembles Russian oligarchs in predatory behavior, is not the way restoration of health, if it is even possible now, lies for our USA.

TruthSayer: Americans might be classified as moderates in terms of the Political spectrum, yet that would classify them as radical. It is radical to attempt not to cut the debt. The toothless Tea Party seeks to conserve a fifteen trillion dollar debt. The politicians they support? Well, they have all voted for spending increases at least in the past. The so called Ryan cuts? They do not cut a penny, they just slow down spending. What is radical are the worthless fools who would do nothing to make real cuts in spending. Cut corporate subsidies, do not increase taxes. Cutting subsidies would be more in line with the constitution. I can guarantee you that should taxes be raised, the moment that an annual surplus was ran, they would spend that money. There is nothing moderate about a fifteen trillion dollar debt nor the ridiculous spending that causes it. On a final note, there is nothing radical about a plan that would cut the spending levels of the country back to 2007 levels. That is what a one trillion dollar cut would do.

“Mainstream America is MODERATE…. We do not like Radicalism.”

Well, MODERATE Mainstream America should be quietly taken aside and told that now is as good a time as any for a little remedial instruction in the rules of capitalization.

Lets just be clear as to why the MainStream Likes the Tea Party

about as Much as OWS…

Mainstream America is MODERATE…. We do not like Radicalism.

Both of these Orgs are RADICAL.

The Tea Party for Instance wishes to soak the Poor to further Enrich the Wealthy

OWS on the opposite end wants to Soak the Wealthy to ‘Help’ the Poor

Mainstream Moderate Americans are not Ideologues.. They are not Radical.. They like the word COMPROMISE.

If you ask a Moderate MainStream American what they want it is Clear

1) A Strong Military

2) Social Security and Medi-Care to be Funded in existence and Fiscally Viable

3) Quality Schools and High Quality Teachers

4) Continued upkeep of existing Infrastructure with new projects being brought online as well

5) Regulations that protect the Consumer so what happened at the end of Bush Jr.’s Presidency NEVER happens again.

6) Oil and Energy as well as other Corporations brought back under control so they can be stopped form the Environmental Damage they are creating

7) Alternative Energy Sources that would help us with Number 6

8) All this done in the Cheapest most Fiscally Responsible Manner

To Achieve this Moderates know what needs to be done…

1) Raise Taxes on those that can afford it (The Richest of the Rich)

2) Streamline Government to reduce as much Monetary Waste as possible

3) Reduce the Complexity of Regulation (this does not mean eliminate it) so as to make following it less confusing and cheaper for Companies to do

4) Find a Solution to Spiraling Health Care Costs (The Ones in the PRIVATE Sector especially)

Conservatives are on Borrowed Time if they do not learn the Word Compromise….

The Tea Party is already Dead as a Result, there is NO Coming back for them.

The Republicans and Conservatives still have a chance to recover. But with the Rhetoric this Moderate sees Continuing, I find their Continued Survival Unlikely..

The Baby Boomers that propped them up for Decades are dying off… And they are NOT being replaced in anything that can remotely resemble equal Numbers.

The T-party is fundamentally selfish and present-oriented (“…Tea Party demonstrators were mostly, according to polls, high on Medicare…”, the Occupy-WS crowd is fundamentally infantile and pleasure-principle driven … (“They hectored passers by, made lots of noise and littered streets with debris.”

Given the reigning affairs of state (“Out of our national debt of $15.7 trillion, the Chinese are holding $2 trillion.”“), voted in by the people over decades, the Reasonable Mainstream is less reasonable, than fundamentally denying to the point of psychosis. It is all of the above, in a sense: selfish as to the present, but surely if blindly accepting of violence and riots … but please, not in our present.

If nearly the same number of Americans approve of the radical Occupiers and the mainstream, reasonable Tea Partiers, wouldn’t it be reasonable to conclude that perhaps the Tea Party isn’t that much more reasonable or mainstream in the eyes of the Reasonable Mainstream than Occupy? Or maybe that reasonable mainstream-ness isn’t the entire ball of wax as far as the viability and credibility of a political movement.

Besides perceptions and soundbites, the Tea Party has had much more success in acquiring and exercising actual political power. The results have been mixed, at best. Why should its elected representatives should be held unaccountable? Because their supporters understand the bare minimum of civilized behavior is not to fling trash and black traffic? The Reasonable Mainstream would agree with that minimum, I’m sure. But to actually produce sound policy instead of politely but ridiculously posturing at every media opportunity is decidedly more than that minimum.

The Tea Party seems to have learned, if not the worst, then at least the dumbest lessons of the 60s, as represented by its agitprop-heavy culture of marches, assemblies, pickets and costumes. It doesn’t seem to have learned any of the policy lessons of the past 45 years, (especially the last decade) at all.

Voters in 2012 will continue to remove incumbents of both parties. Not enough of them, to be sure, but they will continue to do it. The “Tea Party” and “Occupy” are two sides of the same coin, which is the seething popular rage against the corruption in both political parties, the government, and Wall Street.

Let me suggest an alternative scenario: starving the beast does not need a Ron Paul (as if he could do so by dictate!) It needs a grassroots movement to adopt a strong Spending Limit amendment to the Constitution. This will take time.

Any one guy can be Alinskied a whole lot easier than a nation (not that the left hasn't tried.)

Anarchotyranny operates on the principle of astroturfing. But the principle of "Breitbart Is Here" can be a counterweight.

No ratcheting – blowback.
—
Haumea

Let me also add that the Ron Paul is as bad as the other candidates because he piggybacks on politically correct memes of the left as well.

Blaming everything on the fed as opposed to challenging PC memes (as e.g. Gingrich occasionally does) does nothing to reverse PC. Starving the beast cannot work until PC is demonstrated to be the lie that it is.

Ron Paul's done nothing to fight the narrative, he has merely adopted it while shifting the blame onto easier targets.

—
Haumea

"It's too bad tea partiers apparently don't realize that the modern bureaucratic state, whether it has a Republican or a Democrat as its titular head, inexorably increases the anarcho-tyranny that political correctness necessitates, inhibits the process of creative destruction, and squelches personal freedoms. The beast cannot be tamed. Our only chance is to starve it."

Oh, I think you're jumping to an unsupported conclusion here. They probably do realize it – they simply don't believe the old wackjob can get elected and are making the rational choice, which is selecting the most electable candidate.

The realistic choice isn't an execution and a pardon. It's an execution and a stay of execution.

—
Haumea

Santorum is like a more successful version of Ron Paul. (Paul being another Republican who draws a disproportionate share of his support from outside the Republican party.)

The 2008 Obama-Clinton marathon saw noticeably higher participation from under-30's, and even more so those 30-44, than this year's Republican race (although 45 and older still had a healthy majority).

Obama famously drew a lot of young people to the voting booth, so that would skew things. Did John Kerry draw a lot of the young peoples vote? I don't know, but I doubt it.

Plus, the GOP is made up of older people than the Democratic party. The average age of white people in America is greater than that of blacks or Hispanics.

In Ohio, 33% of the electorate were non-Republican (Democrat or independent) and these people broke for Santorum. Romney won comparatively easily among Republicans – the race was a squeaker because among the one in three voters were not Republican, Santorum prevailed. 33% strikes me as quite a lot.

If we accept that Santorum is the more conservative candidate (and there are problems of definition in doing so) then we have to conclude that registered GOP voters are less conservative than the large numbers of non-Republicans who vote in Republican primaries.

Anonymous at 11:00:

Yes, primary election participants are usually mostly the elderly — but there are, so to speak, shades of gray (pun intended). The 2008 Obama-Clinton marathon saw noticeably higher participation from under-30's, and even more so those 30-44, than this year's Republican race (although 45 and older still had a healthy majority).

One thing which is not commented on much is that Santorum, though often described as being "the conservative challenger to Romney", does better among Democrats and independents, while Romney does better among Republicans.

Whether this is due to a "dirty tricks" campaign by Dems or just to Santorum appealing to more liberal voters is uncertain. I think the evidence points towards the former though.

Two things jump out at me about this year's GOP exit polls:

These contests have been dominated by old farts. In hardly any of these contests has the share of the under-30 vote reached so much as 10(!) percent

That is true of primaries in general, regardless of the year or of the party.

The Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street are both jokes: each is a gaggle of its respective party's most conventional, intellectually incoherent, and shrill partisans.

Two things jump out at me about this year's GOP exit polls:

These contests have been dominated by old farts. In hardly any of these contests has the share of the under-30 vote reached so much as 10(!) percent.

Paul does better among self-described moderate/liberal voters. It shows the corruption of political thought that neocon garbage is "conservative," so that dissenters therefrom — including, presumably, the Buchanans, Sailers, and Spencers in the public — are pushed into the box of "moderate" or "liberal".

Thanks. I was wondering about this.

Brooks will eventually find his way back to the Democrat party, and from there back to Canada.

Re: Emma, on July 6th, 2011 at 9:05 am (above)

Wow. I’ll have to judge a political party by the company it keeps. The ‘Emmas’ of the world -no doubt a very sweet lady- and the Bachmanns -no doubt a very unsweet lady- make it clear what the Republican party has become. No wonder Brooks wrote what he did.

Philip: “Admittedly the thought of an Evangelical fanatic like Michele Bachmann becoming president makes my blood run cold, but the Tea Partiers are as often as not on to something. Government is too big, too expensive, is ruining the country, and must be stopped cold. Which means harsh medicine.”

Proof?

Gary:

“You are absolutely right that the elitist “establishment “republicans bear much responsibility for the fiscal mess our country is in. That’s why the tea party folks ran against many of them in 2010 and should do so again in 2012, 2014, etc. The job we started isn’t done yet, as far as I’m concerned.”

I notice that the Tea Party didn’t run against ‘them’ in 2002, 2004, 2006 or 2008.

sal magundi: (re: the Tea Partiers)

“so where were they when bush was president?”

Supporting a Strong America(n Executive Branch), foreign wars of choice, the President’s right to break the law if he feels like it, the idea that criticizing a (Republican) president is betraying America, and in general salivating at and worshipping the Empire. Oh, and desecrating Jesus and God by conflating them with the GOP and the USA.

Gary said:
“The central issue of our time is the uncontrolled growth of the federal government. Of all of the candidates in the race, I believe Bachmann is the most sincere when she talks about cutting spending.”
But what spending does she want to cut? All but military spending. While calling the President a “socialist,” Bachmann is actually the highest form of a socialist, the militarist, where everything in the economy must be subordinated to the military and military conquest and industry, even if it means bringing our own nation to its knees, like the Japanese and Germanmilitarists of the 1930’s did to their own countries. Ignorant Tea Party folks had better figure that out pretty quick or they will rue the day; they will get both economic collapse as well as strategic defeat. And they call themselves Nationalists, yeah, National Socialists.

Neocons Trade Medicare for War http://america-hijacked.com/2011/06/15/neocons-trade-medicare-for-war/

“Admittedly the thought of an Evangelical fanatic like Michele Bachmann becoming president makes my blood run cold â€� ……

Mine too. I was willing to consider cutting her some slack up until her proclamation that the US needed to keep the nuclear option with respect to Iran on the table as part of our commitment to Israel, which is securing God’s blessing for us. Any candidate willing to murder millions of Iranians at the behest of Israel for fear of being cursed by God must be avoided at all costs.

Once President Perry is sworn in, this tempest in a teabag will subside very quickly and things will be back to normal: Big Government working hand in glove with Big Business while pundits, politicos and hacks sing the praises of Free Enterprise.

I agree with everything snowcrash7 said. We need a smarter foreign policy that would allow us to rein in military spending. At the same time, we must clamp down–hard–on immigration.

Meanwhile, Israel is seeking to transfer its African immigrants to Australia. The joke’s on the West.

http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=227332

Wiki says that Brooks floated the idea of a “McCain Lieberman Party” that he thought would nicely represent the “moderate mainstream” of the country. That gives you some indication of what “normal” means to Brooks. Lieberman – a Zionist fanatic – is history, of course, and McCain, the 2008 loser who increasingly looks and sounds like a caricature of Curtis LeMay, soon will be.

It is significant that he is willing to cut Medicare but makes no mention of the defense budget, which is more than half of all discretionary spending.

It sure as hell is. Brooks, first and foremost is a Zionist. It is therefore little surprise that he favors an effective wealth transfer to Israel (in the form of our defense budget and warmaking) away from healthcare for American peasants and other ‘white trash’ as he pushes the founding stock of this country toward the grave.

FU Brooks

Brooks is a prime example of someone able to simulate the manner of reasonable discourse without actually being reasonable. ,

From the perspective of a normal American, Brooks belongs to a small and shrinking faction – dangerously well-placed – that believes the United States can and must fight cripplingly expensive wars regardless of cost or relation to the real security of the United States. Until Brooks and his kind are relegated to the far corners of national debate where they belong these economic and military catastrophes will continue.

I think some credence ought to be given to the possibility that radical change is more robust over a long enough period to also be gradual. The deficit is 10% of GDP right now which is a good reason to get on the shrinking of the budget. But eliminating a tenth from the economy overnight strikes me as a terrible idea. I don’t often agree with Brooks, but I agree that this skirmish could have costs greater than its importance and I’ll be happy to blame the GOP for the disaster. It’s funny, but the phrase “the fierce urgency of now” has been in my head a lot lately.

“An how very true, that the recent insanity of American “defenceâ€� policy owes so much to Brooks and his pals at the American Standard, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Wall Street Journal.”

I can understand your confusing Brooks with a company that makes toilets (American Standard), but I believe you meant Weekly Standard (or Weakly Standard, if you prefer).

I don’t see or hear anyone from any faction, aside from Ron Pau,l adressing real solutions to our spending crisis aside from taking it out on the middle class.
Let’s start by reelin in the American Empire for starters. We were never meant to be an empire. So why are we still in Korea, Germany and other countries who are prosperous now because we bore the brunt of defending them. And I say this as a retired combat arms NCO.
Lets bring the troops home from the senseless Middle East wars which are only serving to create MORE terrorists and benefit only the military industrial complex Eisenhower warned us about.
And if you’d like to get REALLY radical, how about we stop giving tax breaks to companies who offshore jobs, then secure our borders and drastically limit the importation of cheap, foreign labor under the H1B visa to replace American workers.
As the Beltway has never in our hsitory ben so totally controlled by the corporations, I am afraid the American Experiment is over. Entropy has set in to that wonderful system designed by the Founders. And until we realize thart nothing will ever change.

An how very true, that the recent insanity of American “defence” policy owes so much to Brooks and his pals at the American Standard, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Wall Street Journal.

Bravo! Yes, David Brooks supports endless war and continued idiotic squandering of trillions of dollars on “defence”.

Begin by cutting foreign aid to all countries. Start with Israel.

“Admittedly the thought of an Evangelical fanatic like Michele Bachmann becoming president makes my blood run cold ” ……
Indeed, his Royal Highness David Brooks has been spewing venom on the Tea Party for years. Servants should always know their place. As for Phillip, since most Tea Partiers are Christians, isn’t this a case of ET TU BRUTE.

“the Tea Partiers are as often as not on to something. Government is too big, too expensive, is ruining the country, and must be stopped cold.”

so where were they when bush was president?

I could not agree more. It’s the “scientists,” “intellectuals,” and so-called “physicians” that continue to propound the false theories of evolution, of antibiotic drug resistance, of genetic mutations as a cause of some diseases, of preventive vaccines for viral and bacterial diseases, and so on.

None of these theories are true and that’s why you don’t find any trace of this in the ancient wisdom of folk remedies. Our ancestors were not so easily duped; they had faith in God the Creator. Michelle Bachmann understands this — David Brooks does not — and that’s why I am voting for her in our Republican primary. God Bless Michelle!!

You can’t in all honesty blame the current state of affairs entirely on the neocons and their propaganda organs. Our constitution was designed to produce perpetually “weak” governments and concomitant with the mealy-mouthed, self-serving political class who infest the halls of Congress have enabled “special interests” and alien philosophies to control the course of events to the detriment of the nation.

The “Tea Party” is a grass roots, populist revolt against the status quo. Their project to bring fiscal sanity back to the government is admirable. But they will fail in the end. Our governing class, with the peoples’ tacit approval, will keep on borrowing and spending until the world says enough.

You are absolutely right that the elitist “establishment “republicans bear much responsibility for the fiscal mess our country is in. That’s why the tea party folks ran against many of them in 2010 and should do so again in 2012, 2014, etc. The job we started isn’t done yet, as far as I’m concerned.

I do have to take issue with your characterization of Michele Bachmann as an “Evangelical fanatic”. Yes, she does have very strong religious beliefs, but using language like that to cast aspersions is not constructive in my opinion. I don’t share Bachmann’s beliefs, in fact I am an atheist, but I would gladly vote for her over any of the establishment candidates.

Her religious beliefs don’t bother me. She could be Hare Krishna for all I care, as long as she embraces the concepts of individual freedom, limited government, etc., as expressed in our constitution, and is not afraid to stand up and fight for them against the entrenched establishment in Washington DC.

The central issue of our time is the uncontrolled growth of the federal government. Of all of the candidates in the race, I believe Bachmann is the most sincere when she talks about cutting spending. I don’t trust the others not to say one thing on the campaign trail, and then compromise and cut a deal once they get into office. As you correctly stated, this is a time for harsh medicine. This is no time for compromise or feckless leadership.

We need a candidate who says what (s)he means and means what (s)he says. Bachmann is the only one I feel comfortable saying that about. If the election were held today, she would have my vote.

“Brooks is a successful product of the status quo, someone who has ridden his ideology to a position with America’s self-proclaimed leading newspaper.”

He certainly has come a long way from his days as an ardent Socialist in his early 20’s. I guess those trips sailing on Bill Buckley’s sailboat can change anyone’s political thinking.

Don't wake the white giant black people.

As an atheist who hates the Tea Party, allow me to explain:

Most religion is evil. One of the key components of Christianity (and Islam) is that non-believers should be sadistically tortured for all eternity. Most people are OK with sadistically torturing billions of people for billions of years (which I find hard to understand), but a few people who have some compassion look at that and think "hey, that's not right!", and disbelieve.

Compassionate people strongly oppose the Tea Party, for obvious reasons.

Most religion is also stupid. Most people can believe that the world was created by a magical space pixie who cares about us but never does anything to show his existence. But a few people who have some intelligence and integrity look at that and think "hey, that's not right!", and disbelieve.

Intelligent people with integrity also strongly oppose the Tea Party, for obvious reasons.

In summary, people with enough compassion and common sense to realise religion is nonsensical and cruel, can also see the same about the Tea Party.

"Empirically speaking, most atheists are statheists."

Such a bold claim requires evidence.

My posts on liberal atheists:

http://onestdv.blogspot.com/2009/07/liberal-atheists-and-state.html

http://onestdv.blogspot.com/2009/12/swiss-minarets-and-liberal-atheists.html

http://onestdv.blogspot.com/2010/10/friendlyatheist-liberal-atheists-focus.html

http://onestdv.blogspot.com/2010/06/liberal-atheists-white-people-dont.html

(sorry for the spam but it's very relevant, especially the 1st post)

"which is which" = "which it is"
"than" = "then"

—
Haumea

Half Sigma is either an idiot or he trolls his own blog on a regular basis. I still haven't figured out which is which. He reasons logically for a stretch, than jumps to some tenuously supported conclusion.

Empirically speaking, most atheists are statheists.

Statheism: the belief or doctrine that there's no God but the state.

—
Haumea

There are just very few true skeptics. The book, What Americans Really Believe" notes that on the spectrum of credulity, traditional religionists tend more toward skepticism than the irreligious. I would argue that some religionists eventually fall off the religion wagon because of skepticism. However, those who claim no religion actually more readily believe the unproven and even the disproven. Skepticism doesn't appear to be the reason many eschew traditional religion.

"One of the most interesting results of this survey is that A&As are the only group with a substantial majority that can identify what the Tea party stands for."

Sounds like you treated the data as a Rorschach test. You didn't even click through to the original source, did you?

"If your God doesn't live in the sky, I guess He lives in the halls of Congress, or even worse, in Turtle Bay"

What an odd conclusion do draw from the data. I thought Tea Partiers essentially won the last congressional election – and therefore [you would think] A&As would be hostile to the current Congress. Also, what is the problem with Turtle Bay? Do people you don't like live there?
One of the most interesting results of this survey is that A&As are the only group with a substantial majority that can identify what the Tea party stands for. Perhaps if everyone could the results would be quite different.

I'm a tea party supporting atheist. We are few, but we are a hardy, passionate few.

Surely that's part of the point of Secular Right: to demonstrate the existence of atheistic conservatives to a world that assumes that an atheist must be a Leftist (because, indeed, most atheists are Leftists).

I think this is why libs hate the tea party more than they hate Republicans. Plenty of Republicans are de facto liberals like Bush.

The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama,who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.

"Besides didn't you say you dated a white guy and had white friends."

Deziarrhea has a thing for white guys, that's why she come here everyday.

Desiree

Cry me a river

My "devotion and allegiance to Whitey" is actually appreciated. Like it or not I'm not the only non white that "goes to bat for YT".

You think whites "gathered up the spoils left behind" in white wars. Like WW1 and 2. Like the Revolutionary War. Who pitted whites against each other? Huh?

You make it sound like whitey is the common enemy of non whites. Black people are the common enemy of every non black race. They have earned everybody's hate.

I am not Old Yeller. I'm not some dog on a leash who can't think for himself. Besides didn't you say you dated a white guy and had white friends.

Believe or not I'm Hispanic. Some of the Hispanics I rub shoulders with openly hate blacks. They like to call black people "mayate" which is the English equivalent of "nigger".

"Tea Baggers are a bunch of racist idiots." Why does wanting less government, less taxes and personal responsibility make me an idiot? Desiree, take Black Guy and go somewhere else.

"Stop with the 'dumb fucking whore' thing."

Stop posting stupidity.

"The revolution being called for while Bush was in office had nothing to do with race, though. Anti-war activists were the main people shouting against Bush, if I can recall specifically."

…except after Katrina, when Kanye West spoke what nearly all blacks were thinking during his infamous sub-retarded rant. How quickly they forget….

So what you're actually saying is that white people are not allowed to dislike this man as a president under any circumstances. No dissent allowed!! That's definitely the core principle America was built on, right? I think I remember something in the Constitution about NOT having the right to criticize a black person's ideas, but I'll have to double check that. I'll keep you posted.

Personally, I can't stand the guy, but it has nothing to do with his skin tone…I disagree with his white half just as much as I disagree with his African half. His policies are completely unrealistic and poorly thought out, as are most far-left ideas. So if that makes me a "racist" in your book, you should probably reconsider, as I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Gladio ex Libertas

Desiree

Cry me a river

(Stop with the 'racist YT' thing. If you knew most white's personally, you'd quickly realize the 'racist' title and the 'white trash' title make no sense directed thusly…)

Everyone knew America would have a non white president. I just didn't think It would happen in my lifetime.

Tea Baggers were nowhere to be found because Bush was Republican just like them. Maybe the Tea Baggers are against Obama because he's black. That's not the only reason. There's immigration and universal health care. And that Is just the tip of the iceberg.

The concept of "BRA" Isn't ridiculous. Look around and you will find white people are bending over for black people.