RSS
Here’s my presentation at the early 2013 VDARE.com symposium, transcribed and then translated from spoken Sailerese into actual written English.
Hi, I’m Steve Sailer, and it’s a real pleasure to address our symposium. I’m going to talk about some overlooked aspects of the 2012 election.
As we get to the data, we’re going to focus on voting by state because that is, more or less, how Electoral Votes are counted. For Republicans to ever take back the White House, they will have to figure out more states they can win.
In the interest of simplicity, all the percentages are going to be for Romney’s share of the two-party vote. I’m leaving out Libertarian voters, write-ins, and so forth. I apologize for ignoring non-two party voters (I saw recently that Tom Wolfe wrote in Ron Paul’s name in 2012), but this expedient will allow us to think about just one number at a time: Romney’s share. Thus, if you want to know what Obama got, just subtract Romney’s percentage from 100.
I’m working with a huge poll that almost nobody’s talked about. It was conducted online by Reuters-Ipsos throughout the election year. This particular edition features a sample size of 40,000 two-party voters who responded immediately after voting.
Now, the Reuters-Ipsos panel has advantages and disadvantages versus the better-known Edison exit poll, which had a sample size of only about 25,000. I haven’t noticed any systematic differences in results reported by the two polls, but Reuters-Ipsos has a number of strengths for the serious analyst.
For example, the more celebrated exit poll wasn’t even conducted in 20 states, including Texas. If you want to know something about the future of American politics, you better know something about Texas. The Reuters-Ipsos poll had a sample size of 2,403 respondents in Texas. In summary, we’ve got a decent sample size on almost every state, not just 30 favored states.
Most importantly, Reuters lets anybody make any crosstabs they want of their results, while the Edison exit poll only lets subscribers who pay tens of thousands of dollars get their hands dirty with the data. So, the quality of discussion of the exit poll numbers has been constrained.
Below is something nobody has seen before, a table of Romney’s share of the vote by race in each of the 50 states.
The first column of percentages is Romney’s final share of the actual two-party vote. Nationally, Romney only got 48.0 percent to Obama’s 52.0 percent. (After all the votes were counted, Obama’s victory margin turned out wider than almost all polls had predicted. The Reuters’ poll has Romney at 48.5 percent, so it was a half-point too high.)
National, Romney won 58.1 percent of the white vote which, unsurprisingly, was not enough. He lost 97-3 among blacks and 72-28 among Hispanics.
| Actual | Reuters | Whites | Blacks | Hispanics | Other | ||
| National | 48.0 | 48.5 | 58.1 | 3.0 | 28.3 | 39.0 | 17.7 |
| Alabama | 61 | 61 | 82 | 7 | na | 38 | 10 |
| Alaska | 57 | 60 | 72 | na | na | na | na |
| Arizona | 55 | 56 | 66 | na | 26 | 31 | 26 |
| Arkansas | 62 | 62 | 69 | 6 | na | na | 22 |
| California | 38 | 39 | 49 | 5 | 25 | 38 | 25 |
| Colorado | 47 | 48 | 52 | na | 27 | 26 | 22 |
| Connecticut | 41 | 42 | 45 | 6 | na | na | 20 |
| Delaware | 41 | 41 | 52 | na | na | na | 8 |
| D.C. | 7 | 0 | 8 | 0 | na | na | 0 |
| Florida | 50 | 50 | 61 | 4 | 35 | 38 | 22 |
| Georgia | 54 | 54 | 79 | 3 | 25 | 43 | 7 |
| Hawaii | 28 | 20 | 56 | na | na | 0 | 15 |
| Idaho | 66 | 67 | 67 | na | na | na | na |
| Illinois | 41 | 42 | 51 | 1 | 30 | 34 | 12 |
| Indiana | 55 | 55 | 60 | 2 | na | 38 | 13 |
| Iowa | 47 | 47 | 48 | na | na | 31 | 21 |
| Kansas | 61 | 61 | 64 | na | na | na | 31 |
| Kentucky | 62 | 62 | 66 | 3 | na | na | 17 |
| Louisiana | 59 | 60 | 84 | 0 | na | na | 0 |
| Maine | 42 | 42 | 42 | na | na | na | na |
| Maryland | 37 | 38 | 56 | 1 | na | 32 | 4 |
| Massachusetts | 38 | 37 | 40 | 4 | 27 | 23 | 19 |
| Michigan | 45 | 46 | 53 | 2 | 32 | 35 | 13 |
| Minnesota | 46 | 46 | 47 | na | na | 18 | 25 |
| Mississippi | 56 | 56 | 88 | 0 | na | na | 0 |
| Missouri | 55 | 55 | 62 | 8 | na | 34 | 17 |
| Montana | 57 | 56 | 55 | na | na | na | na |
| Nebraska | 61 | 62 | 65 | na | na | na | na |
| Nevada | 47 | 47 | 57 | 1 | na | 46 | 17 |
| New Hampshire | 47 | 48 | 48 | na | na | na | na |
| New Jersey | 41 | 41 | 52 | 0 | 24 | 36 | 15 |
| New Mexico | 45 | 45 | 52 | na | 27 | na | 41 |
| New York | 36 | 36 | 46 | 2 | 18 | 24 | 10 |
| North Carolina | 51 | 51 | 67 | 2 | 22 | 38 | 9 |
| North Dakota | 60 | 55 | 57 | na | na | na | na |
| Ohio | 48 | 49 | 54 | 13 | 25 | 33 | 18 |
| Oklahoma | 67 | 67 | 74 | na | na | 71 | 41 |
| Oregon | 44 | 46 | 48 | na | 22 | 33 | 23 |
| Pennsylvania | 47 | 47 | 54 | 0 | 13 | 31 | 5 |
| Rhode Island | 36 | 36 | 39 | na | na | na | na |
| South Carolina | 55 | 56 | 78 | 0 | na | na | 0 |
| South Dakota | 59 | 59 | 58 | na | na | na | na |
| Tennessee | 60 | 60 | 71 | 1 | na | 33 | 10 |
| Texas | 58 | 58 | 76 | 2 | 37 | 41 | 25 |
| Utah | 75 | 75 | 75 | na | 31 | 33 | 30 |
| Vermont | 32 | 32 | 34 | na | na | na | na |
| Virginia | 48 | 48 | 60 | 3 | 26 | 38 | 13 |
| Washington | 42 | 44 | 46 | 3 | 29 | 30 | 29 |
| West Virginia | 64 | 64 | 66 | na | na | na | na |
| Wisconsin | 47 | 47 | 49 | 7 | na | 31 | 21 |
| Wyoming | 71 | 67 | 74 | na | na | na | na |
Unfortunately, Reuters just lumps together American Indians with Asians and whoever else feels like calling themselves “Other.” Romney garnered only 39 percent of the Other, although that’s better than what the exit poll reported for Romney among Asians (26 percent, down a purported 9 points from 2008), and 38 percent among “Other” mostly American Indians (up 7 points from 2008). There was a fair amount of theorizing based upon the exit poll about why Romney did so much worse than McCain among Asians (although none about why he did so much better among American Indians).
The Reuters poll, however, suggests these sharp swings didn’t actually happen.
Which poll is right about the Other? Beats me. Mostly, the exit poll and Reuters are pretty similar, so when they disagree, I’d just recommend taking the average of the two surveys.
The Reuters-Ipsos Polling Explorer interface won’t display any breakdowns where the sample size is less than 100. But I managed to get around that cautious limitation by lumping together in huge California with each small state’s sample, then doing the math. That worked out fairly well. Rather than a minimum sample size of 100, I chose an aggressive minimum of merely 15. That’s quite small, so don’t trust each number above too much. Since it’s so hard to get these numbers, I felt it better to err on the side of giving my readers more rather than less information.
We’ll start our analysis with minority electorates, then give the white vote the careful inspection it requires. Yes, I know that white voters are out fashion, but they are still numerous and much more of a swing vote from state to state than are the trendier minorities.
The black share of the vote is routine almost all the way through. Traditionally, California blacks vote a little more Republican than the national blacks, and, sure enough, Romney hauled in a full 5 percent of California blacks versus 3 percent nationwide.
The one black figure that’s unexpected is Ohio, where Reuters reports that Romney get 13 percent of the black vote. That’s from a moderate sample size of 92 black panelists. A vast amount of money was spent on advertising in the battleground state of Ohio, so maybe Romney’s strategists can pat themselves on the back for buying a few extra black votes. Or maybe this 13 percent figure is just a fluke due to limited sample size.
A few anomalies like this are actually reassuring about the authenticity of the Reuters poll. The results fit my model of how the world works, of how various factors interact so well that occasionally I break into a cold sweat over the thought that maybe Reuters just made up the results! I mean, if you hired me to create a model of how demographic and regional factors work together, it would spit out numbers very much like these. But, the occasional unpredictable result, like Romney supposedly getting 13 percent of the black vote in crucial Ohio, is, in a way, confidence-inducing.
With Hispanics, you can see that Puerto Rican Hispanic states like New York (Romney got 18 percent of New York’s Hispanic vote) and Pennsylvania (13 percent) are a little bit further to the left than Mexican Hispanic states such as California (25 percent). But, most of the Hispanic vote falls within a relatively narrow band. Rather than swing voters, these look like solid Democrats who drift a little right if their white neighbors are conservative..
Ever since the election, we’ve been told constantly that the main thing Hispanic voters care about is amnesty for illegal aliens, and the only way for Republicans to ever win the White House again is to grant amnesty (and, while you’re at it, throw in “a path to citizenship”). If you doubt this is the right course for the GOP, just ask any Democrat and they’ll tell you.
If there is any state where this logic shouldn’t apply, it ought to be Florida, which Obama won by a hair. The two main groups of Hispanic voters in Florida are Cubans and Puerto Ricans, neither of whom care about “immigration reform.” The Puerto Ricans are born citizens, and yet they still vote overwhelmingly Democratic. You might almost think Democrats are pulling Republicans’ legs over amnesty …
The Cubans, as described in Tom Wolfe’s Back to Blood, have their own special immigration law that applies to any Cuban who can set foot on American soil. The Cubans used to vote heavily Republican, but Florida Hispanics now went overall 65-35 for Obama, suggesting younger Cubans are trending Democratic. In Wolfe’s novel, even the conservative cops among the Miami Cubans resent the Anglos as competitors who get on their nerves by thinking of Florida as part of America. And the Democrats are the natural home for the resentful.
There is a small difference between the Mexican American voters in California (25 percent for Romney) and Texas Hispanics (37 percent). That 37 percent sounds pretty good – it must be the pro-amnesty role models of the Bush family, while, as we all know, California Latinos were alienated by Proposition 187 — until you notice that Romney got an astonishing 76 percent of the white vote in Texas versus only 49 percent in California. So, relative to whites, Romney may have performed better with Hispanics in California where there is only a 24-point gap, not the 39-point gap in Texas. Or if you look at it proportionally, California’s 25/49 is almost identical to Texas’s 37/76. So maybe the Bushes and Prop. 187 don’t really matter, and what really matters is that Mexican Americans mostly vote Democratic because they find it to be in their self-interest for old-fashioned tax-and-spend reasons?
What about the white vote?
This graph below shows Romney’s share of both the total vote (in dark) and white vote (in red). The states are sorted in order of how well Romney did overall, with Utah at the top and Hawaii at the bottom.
It started out as a bar graph, but I had 100 bars (50 states times two), which seemed excessive, so I made the bars invisible and just left the values of the bars. If you look at Utah, you can see that Romney got 75 percent of the total vote and 75 percent of the white vote in the state. In Wyoming, 71 percent of the total vote and 74 percent of the white vote.
So, for Romney to do really well, he needed two things: states that are almost all white and whites that are almost all Republican.
Now, as you get further down, you see outliers where the GOP’s share of the white vote is far higher than the GOP’s overall performance, such as Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi. These are states typically in the deep south with large black populations where there’s a strong degree of white solidarity to keep blacks from taking over the state. For example, the state of Mississippi went for Romney 56-44, and the way he won was by getting 88 percent of the white vote. Why did he get 88 percent of the white vote? Well, Mississippi has the largest black population of any state and according to this Reuters-Ipsos poll, blacks in Mississippi voted 100 percent for Obama (sample size = 38)
So that’s kind of what diversity gets you in the long run. As Lee Kwan Yew of Singapore says, in a multicultural democracy, everybody ends up voting on race.
Probably the two most interesting states that Romney won are not in the deep south: Texas (76 percent of white vote) and Arizona (66 percent).
Texas is not really an old deep south state by any means. It has had a huge influx of Americans since oil was first discovered in 1901, and it has its own culture. It shows the possibilities of what a state could do in terms of going heavily toward Republicans as a bloc vote: 76 percent is a pretty amazing number, but that’s what it took to keep rapidly-Hispanicizing Texas handily Republican. If whites in Texas don’t vote consistently Republican, then the state, with its 38 Electoral Votes, will go Democratic in some future presidential election. And that would end the chances of the Republican Party as we know it ever regaining the White House. So, GOP, you better hurry up and put all those illegal aliens in Texas on the path to citizenship!
One thing to keep in mind about Texas is that its formidable degree of white solidarity is the result of generations of white Texans indoctrinating each other in the superiority of Texas over the rest of the country (as I noticed while a student at Rice U. in Houston). This solidarity has some real payoffs. For example, back in the 1980s Texas had a hugely successful anti-littering campaign featuring the slogan “Don’t Mess with Texas.” Politically, it turns out that Texas pride among whites keeps Mexicans discouraged. (Mexicans are not terribly hard to discourage.) On the other hand, the braggadocio of Texans has not necessarily endeared themselves to the rest of the country.
As you may have observed, the demonization of Arizona in the national press over the last few years has been virulent. The front page of the New York Times routinely featured articles about horribleness of white people in Arizona and how something needs to be done about them.
That’s because by the standards of Western states without many blacks, there was strong solidarity among Arizona whites, with 66 percent voting Republican. That frustrated Democratic efforts to register and turnout as many Mexican Americans as possible.
The most interesting states on the graph are the ones where Romney came close to 50 percent. These are the states future Republican candidates must improve in to have a shot at the White House.
The message you’ve heard ever since the election is that the Republicans lost because of the amnesty issue and therefore they must agree to amnesty and a path to citizenship. You know, the New York Times and the POTUS have all been explaining to the Republican Party how they need to pass amnesty right now for their own good. And if Republicans can’t trust the leadership of the Democratic Party to look out for their partisan interests, who can they trust?
Yet, the states in which Romney came close to winning are typically ones where he just did not get enough of the white vote. Consider Ohio, where Romney lost 52-48 overall by only getting a grand total of 54 percent of the white vote. Almost anywhere in modern American, Republicans have to win more than 54 percent of whites to win.
Here are some other north central states where Romney came fairly close:
Pennsylvania: 54 percent of the white vote
Iowa: 48 percent
WI 49 percent
Minnesota 47 percent
Michigan 53 percent
Romney couldn’t get the job done in these northern states not because of the tidal wave of Hispanics, but because he just didn’t get enough whites to show up and vote for him.
Let’s see where we could make the amnesty argument. Florida was close. And, as we know ever since the infamous 2000 election, Florida has been ripe for people with an ax to grind to claim that their particular panacea would have determined who won the Presidency. For example, I got a press release during the 2000 vote counting in Florida from a Sikh lobby. The Sikhs hate laws requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets because they muss up their turbans. Traditionally, helmet laws are the Sikhs’ hot-button issue. The press release announced that if Al Gore had come out against helmet laws, the Sikhs of Florida would have made him President. I checked their math, and, yeah, they had a point.
But the larger point is that this logic is mostly nuts.
But the Republicans don’t get it. At the moment, they think that all they have to do to get back to the White House is turn the party over completely to Marco Rubio. Let him negotiate amnesty with the Democrats. (What could possibly go wrong?) Mexicans must love the guy, right? After all, both his name ends in vowels.
Yet, do Mexican Americans even like Cubans, such as Sen. Rubio? (One of the hidden messages of Back to Blood is that Cubans don’t care at all about Mexicans.) Nobody seems to have checked.
Virginia is another interesting state. It’s an example of how the Republicans are beginning to shoot themselves in the foot with legal immigration. The Washington DC suburbs are home a large number of well-educated legal immigrants, and, it turns out, they like to vote Democratic. Even if they’re making a lot of money and it’s going to cost them in taxes, these legal immigrants just find the Democrats more to their taste.
Then there are what I call the Clean Green states such as Colorado (where Romney won 52 percent of whites), New Hampshire (48 percent), Oregon (48 percent), and Washington (46 percent). Amnesty isn’t going to win them those states.
There’s New Mexico, with its large Hispanic population, but once again the GOP lost there because they only won 52 percent of the white vote. New Mexico is interesting as a view into the future of Hispanicized America. Hispanics have been in the Upper Rio Grande Valley for 400 years, yet the state that does not attract many illegal immigrants. How come? Because there aren’t many jobs in New Mexico. Why not? Because it has been filled up with Hispanics for its entire history, and they don’t create a lot of jobs.
What about California? Surely, that’s a state where whites have been crushed under the rising tide of Hispanics? Actually, Romney only won 49 percent of the white vote there. Kind of hard for a Republican to win that way.
As we all know from having heard it over and over that Republicans were doing fine in California until they shot themselves in the foot with Proposition 187 in 1994. What they don’t tell you is that George H.W. Bush won less than 33 percent of the total vote in California in 1992, two years before Proposition 187. But who has time to fact-check The Narrative?
Nevada might be the closest thing to an example supporting the amnesty-uber-alles narrative. Romney won a mediocre but not terrible 57 percent of white votes there, but lost due to Hispanics (and Filipinos) voting heavily Democratic. Unfortunately, the Reuters-Ipsos poll only has a Nevada sample of 14 Hispanics, so we’re flying kind of blind here.
My impression of Nevada Hispanic voters is that the big issue for them is not amnesty, it’s that they were just hammered by the mortgage meltdown of 2007-2008. Nevada long led the country in foreclosures. Nevada Latinos were flying high during the Bush Bubble, but haven’t forgiven Republicans since for their defaulting. How amnesty will cure that for Republicans is a mystery.
Let’s briefly look at the national level. A one-word characterization of Mitt Romney’s campaign would be bloodless. He stressed serious, respectable issues involving entitlements and taxes. He avoided any mention of anything ungentlemanly. Unfortunately for Romney, he’s living in a time that our leading man of letters calls the age of Back to Blood.
In contrast, coming out of the 2010-midterm elections, Obama saw he had a real problem. The Obamamania of 2008 had carried him to a large victory over a wounded and already flawed Republican candidate. But how was he going to re-mobilize his base, which largely consists of the margins of American society, without the Hope and Change piffle of 2008?
The Obama base is, to be blunt, the fringes. The epitome of Romney’s base is the married white father, while the essence of Obama’s base is the single black mother. Obama’s base hadn’t bothered to show up to vote in 2010, so how was he going to motivate them in 2012? The former are a lot more likely to vote out of a sense of civic duty, while the latter need some emotional motivation.
Here’s a table of data I published on VDARE.com just after the election that clearly shows the Core v. Fringe distinction:
| Reuters-Ipsos Exit Poll | Romney’s Share | Sample Size |
| Mormons | 86 percent | 766 |
| Married white Prot. | 74 percent | 11,761 |
| White Protestants | 70 percent | 15,732 |
| Married white men | 65 percent | 7,001 |
| Married whites | 63 percent | 24,176 |
| Married white women | 62 percent | 17,175 |
| White Catholics | 57 percent | 8,173 |
| Whites | 58 percent | 34,446 |
| Married men | 58 percent | 7,910 |
| Marrieds | 57 percent | 27,106 |
| Homeowners | 55 percent | 31,163 |
| Married women | 55 percent | 19,196 |
| Single white men | 51 percent | 3,383 |
| Married other races | 48 percent | 958 |
| Men | 51 percent | 12,002 |
| All Voters (2 candidate) | 48 percent | 40,000 |
| Single whites | 48 percent | 10,270 |
| Women | 47 percent | 27,997 |
| Single white women | 44 percent | 6,886 |
| Other races | 39 percent | 1,642 |
| Married Hispanics | 35 percent | 928 |
| Single men | 39 percent | 4,092 |
| Married Jewish men | 40 percent | 419 |
| Hispanics | 28 percent | 1,584 |
| Singles | 35 percent | 12,894 |
| Renters | 33 percent | 8,835 |
| Single Jewish men | 30 percent | 163 |
| Married Jewish women | 34 percent | 652 |
| Bisexuals | 25 percent | 616 |
| “Other orientations” | 31 percent | 229 |
| Single other races | 28 percent | 684 |
| Single women | 31 percent | 8,801 |
| Single Hispanics | 21 percent | 656 |
| Hindus | 23 percent | 101 |
| Single Jewish women | 23 percent | 328 |
| Gays/lesbians | 16 percent | 976 |
| Blacks | 3 percent | 2,087 |
| Black single women | 2 percent | 925 |
At the top are Mormons at 86 percent for Romney. Now, obviously, Mormons are a minority, but they’re increasingly the only minority group in modern American that still tries to act like they’re part of the core.
Then come married white Protestants (74 percent), then white Protestants, married white men, married whites, married white women, white Catholics, whites, married men, marrieds of both sexes, homeowners, married women, single white men, married other races and men in general.
At the bottom are black single women at 2 percent for Romney. Then blacks, gays and lesbians, single Jewish women, Hindus, single Hispanics, single women, single other races, other orientations. I’m going to stop there. “Other orientations” comes from the sexual orientation question. They gave you four choices: heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual; and for those who didn’t find those adequate, “other” was a choice. The Other Orientation folks went strongly for Obama.
Obviously, this turned into an election based on identity, on whether people felt themselves in the core of America or in the fringe of America. The core versus fringe can be defined in a couple of ways. For example, over multi-generational periods, do you come from people who settled this country a long time ago, or are you, say, an immigrant from Somalia who is now going to gift us with all the lessons that Somalis have developed over the eons on how to run a successful country?
Or, on a personal level, are you somebody who is married, has stayed married, has children, owns a home, and is employed? Or are you somebody who’s single, renting, who basically doesn’t find your life satisfactory and is looking for somebody to blame?
The way the Obama campaign turned out their base was to whip up feelings of resentment toward core Americans, toward those people whose ancestors had built the country, who largely keep it running today and who in their personal lives have done a pretty good job of keeping their act together.
Obama did a spectacular job of taking those two kinds of people from the fringe, and telling them that they should resent the white married people of America, the ones who own their homes, the ones whose grandparents helped make this country, and that there’s something shameful, unfair, or at least uncool, about coming from the core of America.
It was a brilliant strategy. Obama ran a really ugly, nasty campaign full of subliminal hatred. The Obama campaign did a good job keeping the stew of ill will they were brewing somewhat under wraps until after the votes were counted. But in the days following the election, out came pouring the chest-beating Suck-It-White-Boy exultation, the mindless fury at the losing white male bogeyman for being old and white, but, mostly, for losing.
The Republican Brain Trust now assumes that the way to solve this problem is via amnesty, just like their good friends the Democrats keep telling them. Amnesty, however, will be seen as white America’s surrender declaration, as an official invitation to kick the former top dogs while they’re down. And who can be expected to resist that?
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
The Sailer hypothesis ignores the obvious point John Deryshire makes often: sociologically and culturally speaking, there are no whites, there are goodwhites and badwhites. Everything you can do to max out the badwhite vote drives down your share of the goodwhite vote (some moderate goodwhites vote R over taxes and what not).
This whole election has also totally disproved another Sailer hypothesis, that the electoral map can be shaken up by changing the GOP’s policies. Reality: Trump will win the exact same states as McCain and Romney +/- 3.
What you are left with is “Sailerism by Default”, relying on the badwhite vote whilst making futile attempts to reach out to goodwhites and nonwhites, which is what, in one form of another, every GOP candidate, including Trump, has been doing for 20 years.
I mean, we all agree that America is the Titanic... why not steal all the lifeboats and depart if we know the conclusion?
"Welcome to my nightmare, you're gonna like it..."Replies: @Anonymous, @Dissident, @Rumormonger
Have you ever seen any other Republican presidential candidate have a black homeless woman stumping for him who gets kicked around by angry Hispanics?Replies: @Gabriel M
It was a
brilliantbrutal strategy.This whole election has also totally disproved another Sailer hypothesis, that the electoral map can be shaken up by changing the GOP's policies. Reality: Trump will win the exact same states as McCain and Romney +/- 3.
What you are left with is "Sailerism by Default", relying on the badwhite vote whilst making futile attempts to reach out to goodwhites and nonwhites, which is what, in one form of another, every GOP candidate, including Trump, has been doing for 20 years.Replies: @IHTG, @BenKenobi, @Anonymous, @Flip, @Jack D, @Fleshman, @fleshman
Easily winning Iowa which Obama won easily is something, isn’t it? The Southern Strategy didn’t finalize overnight, either.
This whole election has also totally disproved another Sailer hypothesis, that the electoral map can be shaken up by changing the GOP's policies. Reality: Trump will win the exact same states as McCain and Romney +/- 3.
What you are left with is "Sailerism by Default", relying on the badwhite vote whilst making futile attempts to reach out to goodwhites and nonwhites, which is what, in one form of another, every GOP candidate, including Trump, has been doing for 20 years.Replies: @IHTG, @BenKenobi, @Anonymous, @Flip, @Jack D, @Fleshman, @fleshman
If we BadWhites are democratically swamped then perhaps it’s time to look at other options.
I mean, we all agree that America is the Titanic… why not steal all the lifeboats and depart if we know the conclusion?
“Welcome to my nightmare, you’re gonna like it…”
Isn't that what alot of the elites have been doing? Increasing their share of the wealth over the last few decades, getting the govt to go deep in debt to prop up the stock market so they'll be able to sell out high when the sh*t starts to hit the fan?Replies: @epebble
As I've quoted the late radio artist Bob Grant before,
"I wish there were there somewhere to go, because I'd go there."Replies: @BenKenobi
What is really frightful is that young whites skew liberal, I see them remaining liberal for years as they age, and (obviously) they become a larger percentage of the white population each year. Blame brainwashing by gov’t skools.
Look at the avalanche of actors/musicians/celebrity endorsements of Hillary. I fear that many airheads will vote some of her favorite stars celebrities say to.
Perhaps, but with declining white populations appealing to white votes is a dead end. It will bring short term victory at best, and then what? At some point there just won’t be enough whites.
I think something can be learned by studying right wing movements in Latin America, and how they manage/circumvent the race issue. Highlighting or exaggerating leftist corruption to poor, uneducated minorities seems to work moderately well, for the same reason the left is able to capitalize on their votes, because these people are politically innocent.
In America, this tactic is subverted by the left, who use their media platforms to scream about racism as much as possible, thereby occluding any other interests naive minority groups have. So it comes back to the same thing. Before the right can make grand moves, it must take out the ideological, urbanite, and predominantly white left.
It adds up to quite a few years of holding back the tide, in which time perhaps the anti-white media and elite consensus can be replaced by something that will allow the racially suicidal white birth rate to be turned around.
Sooner or later the problem becomes less a matter of white votes, but of white people. I hope it is not the case in 2016.
At least Trump isn’t making the same mistake, despite the protests of the Republican establishment. He’s made it clear to the entire political establishment and America at large that no one is going to win a majority of the votes with the Bush/McCain’ Invade the world Invite the world’ formula anymore. If they want to survive they’re going to have to adapt.
This whole election has also totally disproved another Sailer hypothesis, that the electoral map can be shaken up by changing the GOP's policies. Reality: Trump will win the exact same states as McCain and Romney +/- 3.
What you are left with is "Sailerism by Default", relying on the badwhite vote whilst making futile attempts to reach out to goodwhites and nonwhites, which is what, in one form of another, every GOP candidate, including Trump, has been doing for 20 years.Replies: @IHTG, @BenKenobi, @Anonymous, @Flip, @Jack D, @Fleshman, @fleshman
No, that idea doesn’t hold for this election- Trump is running a different campaign where he defies the establishment ideas like amnesty which are deeply unpopular across both goodwhites and badwhites, as well as blacks, and even many of the Hispanics who’ve been here legally.
Have you ever seen any other Republican presidential candidate have a black homeless woman stumping for him who gets kicked around by angry Hispanics?
In principle, I think a Trump type candidate could increase the share of the black vote, but banking everything on that is even dumber than trying to win over Hispanics.
Trump has grokked this distinction. He is maxing out badwhite turnout with his downscale MAGA message while stanching the loss of goodwhites by hammering on Hillary’s unique history of brazen public corruption. It just might work.
But there are (at least) two basic ways of doing that. Using your terminology, what establishment Republicans have been doing for years is trying to maximise the goodwhite vote (often by actively repressing badwhites and their main concerns) whilst taking the badwhite vote for granted, because “where else can they go?” It turns out, they can stay at home.
The alternative approach is to actively engage with your base and its concerns, the badwhites, to build an inspired and motivated bloc that has the energy to bring in young and idealistic people by smelling of confidence rather than of failure and of apology, and then say to the goodwhites and nonwhites: you come and join the winners. That would be basically the Republican equivalent of what Obama did successfully, twice. It’s also something Trump has done to some extent, though he has not really followed through on it, probably because it doesn’t come naturally to him and he and his advisers are scared of the implications.
It’s harder for Republicans because of the overwhelmingly leftist domination of the media, but that’s true for whatever tactic Republicans could adopt, except abject surrender to leftism.
Apart from not physically resembling the president what did Romney actually offer us? Can anybody remember anything he said that was noteworthy besides his private observation about the 47%? He looked down his nose at the white deplorables just as much as the rest of them did. His role was, as in boxing, to be an ‘opponent’ that came out to put up a good fighting show but to go down at the end. Wasn’t much there to get the white voters enthusiastic.
I believe the term is "bum". Romney is a bum.Replies: @Flip
Trump seems to have gone all in on the Sailer strategy. And despite everything, he is still in this. Even if he loses, as long as it isn’t a landslide, I think it vindicates the theory. Someone who never talked about grabbing pussy on tape will run with it, and we will call that person president.
This whole election has also totally disproved another Sailer hypothesis, that the electoral map can be shaken up by changing the GOP's policies. Reality: Trump will win the exact same states as McCain and Romney +/- 3.
What you are left with is "Sailerism by Default", relying on the badwhite vote whilst making futile attempts to reach out to goodwhites and nonwhites, which is what, in one form of another, every GOP candidate, including Trump, has been doing for 20 years.Replies: @IHTG, @BenKenobi, @Anonymous, @Flip, @Jack D, @Fleshman, @fleshman
I think that “goodwhites” can be induced to vote Republican if their interests are at stake. That’s the point of the high percentage of Republican voting whites where blacks are a large share of the population. Many “goodwhites” voted for Giuliani after Dinkins ran New York into the ground.
I disagree. I think a useful working definition of “goodwhite” is people who are willing to ignore the fact that Democratic policies will drive down the standard of living for the vast majority of white people in order to virtue signal about diversity politics.
Maybe for now the threat is too far down the road and the direct consequences not dire enoigh. I remember Dinkins’ NYC it was such a shithole it was hard for voters to ignore. But NYC seems a special case and at any rate they’re now done electing Republicans too. California seems to have descended into public policy lunacy beyond the intermediate stage of electing sensible moderate Republicans and soon the country as a whole will follow
I’ve agreed with this theory, which I call my theory, since I came up with it back in 2008. The previous two GOP candidates had nothing to offer white voters, and their turnout was tepid. It’s what I hold out hope for in the face of the polls showing a slight Clinton lead.
On Hispanics–I can’t remember if you’ve discussed this or not, but Hispanics profile very differently based on their command of the English language, which has a lot to do with whether they are born here or not. Recent immigrants (presumably citizens) speak poor English, are 90:10 Clinton. Second or third generation Hispanics are less enchanted with Dems–Clinton’s lead is 7 points, or so. That may explain Nevada, which has a lot of long-established Mexicans. California gets a constant influx.
On Asian voters–Asians, particularly Chinese and Indians, are all about getting their parents over here living on welfare.
Hispanics living in New Mexico since before the Mexican-American War (many with family trees back to 1610) do not consider themselves "Mexicans", "Mexican-Americans" or even a generic mongrel "Hispanic" or "Latino". They deem themselves "Spanish".
Given their sensitivity to Mexican monikers, and the difficulty maintaining their "Spanish" identity for over 400 years of residence in New Mexico, I expect their politics are much more conservative as well.
OT, but there’s a curious tweet from Jennifer Palmieri, a high level Clinton person:
What’s interesting about it is that the Democrats very likely know exactly what is in the Podesta emails that might be damaging, since they, presumably, have all of them in their possession, and know the latest date of those already revealed. This is a pertinent fact that never seems to be mentioned in any accounts of these releases. If we had a press, the question might be asked of the Democrats, instead of, say, questions as to how the Russians have hacked the elections.
Now it may be that Palmieri is genuinely expecting some last minute chicanery from WikiLeaks. Yet that seems unlikely. WikiLeaks has clearly been truthful so far and has everything in the world to lose by making something up.
So is the reasonable inference that she knows what’s in store, and is trying to undermine it in advance?
Time will tell — and not even very much time.
https://gab.ai/Crew/posts/1358228Replies: @Almost Missouri
http://magafeed.com/austin-crites-is-a-birddogger-for-hillary-family-may-be-tied-to-voter-fraud/
I would think that avoiding total disaster ("we've got nothing on them") would be the top priority, meaning that if they think that releasing everything would move Trump's chances from 50% to 90%, they probably wouldn't release it because that 10% chance of the witch pulling through regardless, with all of your amunition against her gone, would be a total disaster, and that should be maximally weighted.
I'm neurotic, so my main priority in life is making the worst plausible outcomes less horrible. Going all in in hopes of a big win looks idiotic to me. I would think that the people making decisions at that level are more like me than like Chinese dry cleaner proprietors on a weekend trip to Atlantic City.Replies: @Lot
But now at the last minute we're supposed to take it on faith that whatever comes out is fake.
The conventional wisdom is that Friday 11/4 was the best date for a last-minute scandal eruption; it came and went. There's no longer enough time for amplification and interpretation, which seems especially relevant to the Podesta email hack and similar revelations. For many or most voters, Clinton's misdeeds have been too complicated and context-dependent to hit home. Even the easy-to-understand Creamer/Foval videos have had only limited impact.
A bombshell release on Sunday, Monday, or Tuesday seems very unlikely. What would be the point of the delay?
Unless it's those naughty Russians pulling the strings, if you assume that what drives them is "we don't care who wins as long as we sow discord and mistrust of the Americanskis' electoral process."Replies: @The most deplorable one
I think something can be learned by studying right wing movements in Latin America, and how they manage/circumvent the race issue. Highlighting or exaggerating leftist corruption to poor, uneducated minorities seems to work moderately well, for the same reason the left is able to capitalize on their votes, because these people are politically innocent.
In America, this tactic is subverted by the left, who use their media platforms to scream about racism as much as possible, thereby occluding any other interests naive minority groups have. So it comes back to the same thing. Before the right can make grand moves, it must take out the ideological, urbanite, and predominantly white left.Replies: @Randal, @yaqub the mad scientist, @Greenstalk
If it only allows the immigration spigot to be turned down, it will buy time. And anyway while whites will not be the majority they will be the largest single minority for some considerable time, and as whites get used to being the biggest minority in a state made up of identity lobbies they will inevitably come to act more like an identity lobby themselves.
It adds up to quite a few years of holding back the tide, in which time perhaps the anti-white media and elite consensus can be replaced by something that will allow the racially suicidal white birth rate to be turned around.
Lots of interesting analysis, but in particular thanks for this:
I’ll have to remember that trick.
This whole election has also totally disproved another Sailer hypothesis, that the electoral map can be shaken up by changing the GOP's policies. Reality: Trump will win the exact same states as McCain and Romney +/- 3.
What you are left with is "Sailerism by Default", relying on the badwhite vote whilst making futile attempts to reach out to goodwhites and nonwhites, which is what, in one form of another, every GOP candidate, including Trump, has been doing for 20 years.Replies: @IHTG, @BenKenobi, @Anonymous, @Flip, @Jack D, @Fleshman, @fleshman
As more and more goodwhites realize that they have been marginalized by elites and are now on the receiving rather than the giving end of the screwing that corporate America, affirmative action, Section 8, etc. has been giving to badwhites, they will join the badwhite category. The problem is that by the time that they realized this, it will be too late – the coalition of the fringes will be big enough that they will be able to operate without the need for whites of any kind, good or bad.
By the time whites wake up to the demographic situation in their own locale - it's too late! Meanwhile, goodwhites elsewhere in comfortably majority-white areas sneer at them and make it clear that such concerns are for the peasants. That is until their own area reaches the end of demographic conveyor belt, as they fall into the abyss they cry out for help to other, safer, goodwhites - who respond by slamming their boot heel down on their fingers, condemning them to oblivion. And then it's their turn. . .
One strategy has to be to make the goodwhites aware of this. Because eventually the supply of nice places for goodwhites to live will be exhausted.Replies: @Corvinus
One of the great revelations of the last few decades is how much more important group identities are in politics than anything else. Economics and social issues seem to play a relatively small role in our political choices, and, it would seem, do so only insofar as they are themselves tied to some group identity.
One of our contemptible and contemptuous elites, David Brooks, just a day or so ago gave away the game between goodwhites and badwhites. He declared in a television interview that the badwhites voting for Trump were just acting according to their “gene pool”.
Really, Marx was all wrong about how economics drives everything. Economics captures people’s attention only insofar as it maps onto pre-existing group identities. Those identities, with the loyalties and enmities that come with them, define the hidden and basic forces behind all of our politics.
Iffy. Whites are likely to remain a numerical majority for at least the few decades. It’s not over yet.
I’m thinking about taking the risk of divorce rape and trying to find a lady to pump out a few hopefully right-wing kids. I don’t know if I can do all the rural hunting-type stuff though…and without it I may just wind up making more liberal urbanites. Any thoughts on this from people who have lived in both environments, or who have produced conservative kids in liberal areas?
I would add a couple of notes:
• A prenup may be helpful, but in no sate is it ironclad protection.
• "pretend to your kids that you are a liberal – they will rebel and become conservatives just to spite you" is funny, but I'm not sure it really works that way. I was generally pretty frank (in an age-appropriate way) with my daughter as she grew up about the way things work and what can and cannot be discussed publicly. Today, she lives modestly, chooses good friends, practices shooting, and talks about "stupid liberals".
In my experience, divorces in the white middle and upper middle class tend to fall into the following categories:
1. Husband loses job and never makes much effort to find a new one, nor take care of the house
2. Emotional abuse, substance abuse, infidelity
3. The toughest ones to watch: man marries a woman "out of his league" when they are both young, wife over time realizes she can "do better" as she gets hit on by higher status men, eventually shacking up with one.
While I am sure "taking a nice guy to the cleaners to go eat/pray/love" divorces do exist, I do not know of a single one to ever happen in my extended family / social circle.Replies: @Flip
There's no point in complete shielding- that's almost guaranteed to provoke a reaction in him, particularly if your own grounding in very conservative lifestyle is not that strong.
If your own thinking is somewhat heterodox compared to the left-right paradigm, I suspect his will be too. You'll differ on some things, but I think what matters- a core way of thinking- will pass on.
You can join clubs and civic organizations, but there is no substitute for having your children know on a personal level like minded adults and their children. To me, the premier issue is getting a son around intelligent, principled, purposeful men as models- and that is outside structured school/club settings- he needs to be around them in informal settings as well. That is not easy to do these days.
I will say that a strong sportsman/outdoor/conservation background certainly is a plus.Replies: @Venator
I've been stuck in commie congressional districts for 25 years, but left CA for MN when MN was considered purple and left MN for a southern state recently. We can't pull the trigger on the rural part, though, which is why we still end up in commie districts. We like cars not trains, but we also like foodie restaurants, libraries and museums. We still prefer the hippie SWPL grocery stores. So we live in places where we come into contact with liberals, but our lifestyle removes them from view. No tv. No pop culture. Conservative church.
You can't send the kids to public school, so she needs to be competent as a homeschooler. And you'll still have to play Socratic games with the kids where you remind them that when people want to Share, it means they want to steal from you. Etc. You won't have friends in your neighborhood, but so what.Replies: @The Practical Conservative, @Dissident, @Karl
It’s hard to tell, but “seeing a whopper of a Wikileaks” may refer to seeing reports of what’s in the leaks rather than the leaks themselves. It’s obvious that, whether it’s from trolling, wish-fulfilling fantasy, or political spin, a lot of BS has bubbled up recently (eg, Clinton satanic pedophilia ring). She may be asking people to please ignore the insane theories.
On Hispanics--I can't remember if you've discussed this or not, but Hispanics profile very differently based on their command of the English language, which has a lot to do with whether they are born here or not. Recent immigrants (presumably citizens) speak poor English, are 90:10 Clinton. Second or third generation Hispanics are less enchanted with Dems--Clinton's lead is 7 points, or so. That may explain Nevada, which has a lot of long-established Mexicans. California gets a constant influx.
On Asian voters--Asians, particularly Chinese and Indians, are all about getting their parents over here living on welfare.Replies: @MG, @Big Bill
I don’t know about the Chinese, but anecdotally I can tell you that Trump has not insignificant support in the Indian-American community, especially those Indians who are supporters of Prime Minister Modi.
One of our contemptible and contemptuous elites, David Brooks, just a day or so ago gave away the game between goodwhites and badwhites. He declared in a television interview that the badwhites voting for Trump were just acting according to their "gene pool".
Really, Marx was all wrong about how economics drives everything. Economics captures people's attention only insofar as it maps onto pre-existing group identities. Those identities, with the loyalties and enmities that come with them, define the hidden and basic forces behind all of our politics.Replies: @Jason Y, @Altai, @Glossy
But isnt it strange how these identities come to be defined and allied with one another? Trump can scream til he’s blue in the face that he loves the ELL-GEE-BEE-TEE community, but because he once said a mean word about some immigrants, most low info gays and fans of gays are certain that a vote for Trump is a vote for homophobia. It’s all a bit silly.
Nice job Comey, making sure Hillary FBI and rigged system are the dominant theme on the last campaigning day. Democrat true believers will feel vindicated, Republicans motivated, independents and moderates disgusted.
I mean, we all agree that America is the Titanic... why not steal all the lifeboats and depart if we know the conclusion?
"Welcome to my nightmare, you're gonna like it..."Replies: @Anonymous, @Dissident, @Rumormonger
“I mean, we all agree that America is the Titanic… why not steal all the lifeboats and depart if we know the conclusion?”
Isn’t that what alot of the elites have been doing? Increasing their share of the wealth over the last few decades, getting the govt to go deep in debt to prop up the stock market so they’ll be able to sell out high when the sh*t starts to hit the fan?
This is not a bug but a feature – a good way to increase your relative status (especially if other routes are not available to you) is to drive down the relative status of your competitors. The traditional route of upward mobility is pretty much closed for most young people. Status displays of material goods are passe – EVERYBODY owns a 60″ flat screen TV (or could buy one for cheap if they wanted it.)
Goodwhites have no problem with the standard of living being driven down for white people so long as those white people do not include themselves. Usually, if goodwhites have jobs as school teachers or bureaucrats or in the HR dept, or living on their divorce settlement, they have nothing to worry about – yet. And by the time they do, it will probably be too late, as per the old “first they came for…” meme.
The OJ verdict should have served as a warning to white females – racial solidarity trumps sisterhood. But the lesson was not drawn.
But, it seem that Whites and not other racial and ethnic groups are especially prone to this.
I don't think that the Japanese, Chinese, or other Asian cultures would consider doing this to other members of their group (at least to the degree that it is occurring in White countries). There is still too much much ethnic pride and sense of solidarity among Asians. Something that has been washed out of Whites. The rest of the world still thinks more as a tribe and less as a class for the most part.
Ultimately, it will be a disaster for Whites living in these cultures . In the USA the already declining life expectancy of working class Whites and dramatic increase in the suicide rates of Whites (much discussed on these boards recently) is already evidence of this.
A lot of historical, cultural and perhaps even genetic facts could explain this difference between White cultures and other cultures.
It could even be a structural problem ....Whites have advanced tolerant industrial societies that people want to move to and other groups either don't have these types of places or haven't been able to create them (excepting Japan of course).
Any thoughts about the causes? Are there one or two causes that are more important than the other causes (e.g. a Christian ethos, Cultural Marxism, the feminization of politics, White cultural emphasis on individualism rather than collectivism, etc...)
Or am I wrong and it could (and will?) eventually happen to any racial or ethnic group ( for example there are signs that Koreans in South Korean have caught the diversity bug) under the right set of circumstances?
One of our contemptible and contemptuous elites, David Brooks, just a day or so ago gave away the game between goodwhites and badwhites. He declared in a television interview that the badwhites voting for Trump were just acting according to their "gene pool".
Really, Marx was all wrong about how economics drives everything. Economics captures people's attention only insofar as it maps onto pre-existing group identities. Those identities, with the loyalties and enmities that come with them, define the hidden and basic forces behind all of our politics.Replies: @Jason Y, @Altai, @Glossy
It’s not hard. Politics turns on the axis of the most important group conflicts. In homogeneous political entities those are issues of class, different economic sectors and rural/urban divide.
If minorities are small, not growing and have no political ambitions you won’t have any ethnic conflict and we really would have a class-based political conflict.
America is just interesting in how it also illustrates how ethnic group conflict scales in the presence of larger group differences lead to the creation of a ‘white’ identity that would no doubt have seemed absurd in the 1920s. The decline of religion didn’t even seem to have been the trigger, which is even more interesting.
It’s not an either -or thing. Your choice is not like Green Acres (cultural reference for boomers), where either you live on Park Ave. in NYC or else in a rural backwater hunting for squirrels to eat. There is a lot in between. Pick one of the blue states in Steve’s Years Married graph. Housing will be more affordable there – for the price of a shack in Palo Alto you could buy a palace. Then pick a medium sized city in one of those states – preferably not a university town. You will find plenty of culture if you look, and not just the hunting club. Then get a prenup. Then pretend to your kids that you are a liberal – they will rebel and become conservatives just to spite you.
All this pilpulistic analysis over how the GOP could regain power ignores the fundamental question: What difference does it make whether the Democrats or the Cucks govern the country formerly known as America?
I look forward to seeing the breakdown of the white vote that Trump gets.
For some reason Chrome asks me if I want to translate this page every time I load it.
As this gab on Gab suggests, that tends to validate the authenticity of all the Wikileaks so far:
https://gab.ai/Crew/posts/1358228
Maybe his problem was also vote fraud:
http://magafeed.com/austin-crites-is-a-birddogger-for-hillary-family-may-be-tied-to-voter-fraud/
I don’t know who hacked all of those e-mail accounts. But let’s imagine it was the Kremlin. Would they want to release everything they have now, hoping for a Trump win, or would they want to hold a lot of it back, to blackmail Hillary in the White House?
I would think that avoiding total disaster (“we’ve got nothing on them”) would be the top priority, meaning that if they think that releasing everything would move Trump’s chances from 50% to 90%, they probably wouldn’t release it because that 10% chance of the witch pulling through regardless, with all of your amunition against her gone, would be a total disaster, and that should be maximally weighted.
I’m neurotic, so my main priority in life is making the worst plausible outcomes less horrible. Going all in in hopes of a big win looks idiotic to me. I would think that the people making decisions at that level are more like me than like Chinese dry cleaner proprietors on a weekend trip to Atlantic City.
I also doubt they are even doing this under the direction of the Russian government, but rather it is an effort to curry favor with the government by showing themselves to be useful to them so they can continue to operate their scams. Another compatible motivation is simply revenge over our support for the anti-Russian factions in ex USSR states.
It is all a very distasteful way to win. I'm glad Trump dumped Manafort for this reason. I suppose a close and distasteful win is still better than what Hillary will do if she wins.
Not necessarily. I think we can agree that Obama is a much, much better candidate than Clinton. If Trump does worse against horrible-candidate Clinton than Romney did against Obama, this may be seen as a repudiation of Trump and of the ideas he espouses. What if Trump, who turns off educated white people and may be the first Republican in recent history to lose among whites with university education, gets a lower % of the white vote than Romney did?
Ideally, someone will get the message that some of the ideas Trump has been promoting are important, and a more acceptable candidate (such as Tom Cotton?) will emerge as a potential president. But I suspect it is likely that the lesson learned will be double down on the Rubio strategy.
The real problem is that democracy itself always leads to the power of Big Money, imperial politics, rampant corruption, and the explosion of drunken urban mobs. It takes a strongman—a Caesar—to crush the power of the Optimates. That is the thumbnail sketch of why I’ve been supporting Trump since day one.
Our elites know this. They are stupid and feckless and lame, but they know on which side their bread is buttered and thus have a superior grasp of the situation than most on our side. Their shrieking cries of “Trump is a racist! Trump is unfit!” are really symptoms of the pain attending their slipping grip on power, uttered in the only language they know how to speak. It is the echoes of reality after it has been projected through the distortion box of Leftist obscurantism.
I believe that the office of the presidency is going to have a salutary effect on Donald Trump. Even he does not yet realize just how deep and fetid a swamp it is that must be drained. There will eventually be no more talk of “big beautiful doors” in the wall. There will be no more rhapsodies about bringing good jobs to urban blacks. By the last years of his second term, Trump will be a grim, quiet, full-blown White Nationalist. Both the GOPe and the coalition of the fringes sense this and they are alarmed. They are not panicking yet because they still believe their situation is secure. But arrogance has a tendency to blind. Their moment in the sun has passed.
The great metaphor for the twilight of the elites will be non-president Hillary cackling and lying to an empty room.
This is the problem everywhere.
By the time whites wake up to the demographic situation in their own locale – it’s too late! Meanwhile, goodwhites elsewhere in comfortably majority-white areas sneer at them and make it clear that such concerns are for the peasants. That is until their own area reaches the end of demographic conveyor belt, as they fall into the abyss they cry out for help to other, safer, goodwhites – who respond by slamming their boot heel down on their fingers, condemning them to oblivion. And then it’s their turn. . .
One strategy has to be to make the goodwhites aware of this. Because eventually the supply of nice places for goodwhites to live will be exhausted.
So, basically you are refuting the HbD notion that race is biological in this particular instance when it comes to designating whites into "good" and "bad" categories.
How does one even characterize whites in this fashion? What are the metrics involved? Why should "good whites" be belittled and badgered by "bad whites" for making their own individual choices about race (or is it the other way around)?
"Because eventually the supply of nice places for goodwhites to live will be exhausted."
So "goodwhites" are incapable of ensuring their own safety and survival? Do you really believe it, that these "nice places" will turn to rot?
Wow, just wow.
One of our contemptible and contemptuous elites, David Brooks, just a day or so ago gave away the game between goodwhites and badwhites. He declared in a television interview that the badwhites voting for Trump were just acting according to their "gene pool".
Really, Marx was all wrong about how economics drives everything. Economics captures people's attention only insofar as it maps onto pre-existing group identities. Those identities, with the loyalties and enmities that come with them, define the hidden and basic forces behind all of our politics.Replies: @Jason Y, @Altai, @Glossy
One of the great revelations of the last few decades is how much more important group identities are in politics than anything else.
The wiser sort of people always knew that. I didn’t always know it, but the stuff I’ve read tells me that there were always some people who saw through the ruse.
Really, Marx was all wrong about how economics drives everything.
Communism and Libertarianism (which are really the same thing) are misdirections, attempts to distract people from the tribal nature of politics and economics. I suspect that for the ideologues behind these movements the desire to misdirect worked through feelings and subconscious anxieties, and not through explicit reasoning. But I think that it was their main motivation.
Ideally, someone will get the message that some of the ideas Trump has been promoting are important, and a more acceptable candidate (such as Tom Cotton?) will emerge as a potential president. But I suspect it is likely that the lesson learned will be double down on the Rubio strategy.Replies: @AP, @LondonBob, @Neil Templeton, @Greenstalk, @reiner Tor
I just checked the stats – Romney won university-educated white voters by 14%. Trump is losing this group by 7%. Attacking “the elites” or “cucks” essentially means attacking educated whites. trump’s movement may make up for this through maximizing white working class votes, but dividing whites is at best a tricky strategy.
http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/donald-trump-supporters-shy-voters-hillary-clinton-leading-2016-presidential-polls-politico/
I dunno about “the lesson was not drawn.”
After watching Trump arriving on the scene and building up his campaign, for the last 15 months, to me, the lack of Hillary Signs (or Trump) on lawns to me is a subtle message. I have theories that people, living in ordinary neighborhoods (not the Hollywood elite/East & West Coast elites) have learned some uncomfortable lessons. Here’s my list of things that have backfired for supporting Clinton/liberal, tedious narrative for decades now. – keep in mind, these happened during the course of this election, and these are just a few I can remember:
1. BLM; specifically the looting & burning; the woman calling for going to white neighborhoods to do that! And, all the ensuing rioting and shutting down highways, throwing bricks off of bridges…sheesh!
2. Campus craziness: Dartmouth library assault/screaming obscenities at administrator at Yale over Halloween costumes; Berkeley “wall,” to prevent white students to get to class. The sheer narcissism of these students – w, b, l, etc.
3. beating up Trump attendees at rallies – finding out DNC paid for the people to assault them
4. Killing of cops/ambushing cops…not reporting on the black female sergeant in Philly because it was “inconvenient” for The Narrative.
5. Podesta wishing San Bernadino Jihadi was white
6. Dissing the National Anthem; especially during “armed forces day.”
7. Having someone like JayZ perform…listen to his vile lyrics about women. Beyonce’s lurid performance at the Super Bowl last year.
8. Obama not being able to get control of his crowds, lately…dissing a Veteran and an old white guy.
9. Pandering to people about having to accept jihadism in the future in our towns/cities/communities. Someone like the major in NYC being peeved because it was obviously a bomb!
10.Ignoring Wikileaks: this being the biggest mistake of all. Mistake for journalists and pundits to ignore. This will be a lasting wound for the people who were too partisan to overlook their hubris and to do, well, their damn job.
I have lost respect for all (except 3) talking heads on our networks. It has been incredible to watch these people try with all their might, to trash Trump and trash the people who support him. I said this more than a year ago: condescending to people will backfire. And, to use such a broad brush, to be so prejudiced against supporters and a bizarre intent to not understand the massive differences of reasons people support Trump, will haunt these journalists and pundits to their grave. They just don’t seem to understand that it is always, “the economy, stupid,” to quote one of their team members.
In 2016, ca.70% of the total white vote is not voting for Clinton. Obviously, the fact that there are more and more blue states that are now tossups and battlegrounds means that Trump’s share of the total white vote share has increased above Romney’s share, so he probably will receive ca.63-64% of the total white vote on Tuesday.
Ohio is indeed an outlier for black Republicans. When George Voinovich won reelection for governor, he took 72% of the vote overall with exit polls showing 40% of the black vote.
Ohio, outside of its central cities, simply has a larger share of the type of blacks who vote Republican: private sector middle class and regular attendance at mostly-white churches. Ken Blackwell ran and won statewide office in Ohio a few times as this type of black Republican and the state had a number of black republicans in the state legislature in the 90’s and 00’s. Over time, however, the state has reverted to the mean and currently has no black GOP officeholders.
The reason I was skeptical that Trump would do well with blacks, or that any Republican could ever break 10%, is that the supply of blacks who are “demographically base GOP” simply is not very high. Ohio has more of them than other states, but still not that many.
Voinovich’s career is a lesson for another reason however: he showed how to win huge among white voters: anti-war, pro-union, moderate on both social and economic issues.
It’s notable to anybody paying attention that their strategy for handling WikiLeaks thus far hasn’t been to deny the veracity of anything that comes out – it’s been to attack the method by which we acquire the leaks, as if that matters. Even their shills at CNN claimed that it was illegal for us proles to look at the leaks, rather than that the leaks were fake.
But now at the last minute we’re supposed to take it on faith that whatever comes out is fake.
Have you ever seen any other Republican presidential candidate have a black homeless woman stumping for him who gets kicked around by angry Hispanics?Replies: @Gabriel M
Blacks and Goodwhites are basically opposites; badwhites have more in common with both than either have with each other. Thus the Dems pursue “inverse Sailerism by default”, pushing policies like amnesty and pervert-normalization which blacks are apathetic or actively hostile to and still getting 90% of the black vote every time. Obama, who is a goodwhite who playacts at being a black man, obscured this basic dynamic somewhat.
In principle, I think a Trump type candidate could increase the share of the black vote, but banking everything on that is even dumber than trying to win over Hispanics.
Steve’s data table on white vote by state shows Romney did better with California whites than in the following other states: CT, ME, MA, MN, NH, NY, RI, VT, WA. He did equally well with CA whites as WI whites. If you break out Southern California, he probably did better than his non-Southern white share of the USA as a whole.
Sometime about the Canadian border caused whites to vote for Obama. Romney only got 34% of Vermont whites, 42% in Maine, 47% in MN.
Had the DNC run a white candidate, he would have beaten a lot worse.
If Wikileaks had something that big, they wouldn’t have waited this long. It is probably just general paranoia.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/06/clinton-aide-targets-chelsea-in-email-as-foundation-audit-shows-issues.html
One thing we can be certain of is if Trump loses, the GOP will learn precisely the wrong lesson. The obvious success of a platform built on sane immigration policy will be regarded as a fluke; racist basement-dwelling internet trolls lashing out. The Rick Wilsons are going to be triumphantly lecturing us how stupid we were to ignore the Hispanic vote. Then we’ll get to see ¡Jeb! or Rubio get crushed by an incumbent Hillary in 2020.
In 2024 or 2028, when the GOP can’t rely on Texas’ 38 electoral votes (more like 42-44 by then), what is the strategy?
Jack D’s advice may be good, I don’t know. In my experience, location is more a dependent variable than an independent one.
I would add a couple of notes:
• A prenup may be helpful, but in no sate is it ironclad protection.
• “pretend to your kids that you are a liberal – they will rebel and become conservatives just to spite you” is funny, but I’m not sure it really works that way. I was generally pretty frank (in an age-appropriate way) with my daughter as she grew up about the way things work and what can and cannot be discussed publicly. Today, she lives modestly, chooses good friends, practices shooting, and talks about “stupid liberals”.
Sometime about the Canadian border caused whites to vote for Obama. Romney only got 34% of Vermont whites, 42% in Maine, 47% in MN.Replies: @ATX Hipster, @Almost Missouri, @Rod1963
At least in Vermont, minorities are an abstraction for them, not something they encounter in their day-to-day lives.
I think something can be learned by studying right wing movements in Latin America, and how they manage/circumvent the race issue. Highlighting or exaggerating leftist corruption to poor, uneducated minorities seems to work moderately well, for the same reason the left is able to capitalize on their votes, because these people are politically innocent.
In America, this tactic is subverted by the left, who use their media platforms to scream about racism as much as possible, thereby occluding any other interests naive minority groups have. So it comes back to the same thing. Before the right can make grand moves, it must take out the ideological, urbanite, and predominantly white left.Replies: @Randal, @yaqub the mad scientist, @Greenstalk
I’d say your strategy is in keeping with the general theme becoming popular here that we’re headed to Latin political culture in general.
Sometime about the Canadian border caused whites to vote for Obama. Romney only got 34% of Vermont whites, 42% in Maine, 47% in MN.Replies: @ATX Hipster, @Almost Missouri, @Rod1963
I think this is the discussed phenomenon of diversity causing whites to vote for their ethnic interests, while in the absence of diversity whites suicidally virtue signal. Closer to Canada = less diversity.
You still do see some puritan cultural influence in how white Mainers v West Virginians v. Wyoming residents vote.
Checking the headlines, this is probably what she meant. Plus the story about the maid printing off emails for her. I would have been surprised if the Clinton Foundation didn’t pay for Chelsea’s wedding. The whole Foundation is so far outside any sort of ethical standards, how do people like Doug Band decide what they will warn the Clintons about?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/06/clinton-aide-targets-chelsea-in-email-as-foundation-audit-shows-issues.html
And yet Trump might win largely because blacks didn’t bother to vote and voted in higher numbers for Trump. Should be cruising it due to the white vote. In the long run by the time whites block vote in the US it will be too late.
Yes, lack of diversity causes whites to vote on issues other than race. Blacks have the strongest effect in this regard. I wonder how the rapid increase in Muslims wearing headscarves will play out for increasing white solidarity. I find it a whole lot more alarming than, say, a Chinese family. And Muslims are by far the fasted growing demographic in the USA.
You still do see some puritan cultural influence in how white Mainers v West Virginians v. Wyoming residents vote.
On Hispanics--I can't remember if you've discussed this or not, but Hispanics profile very differently based on their command of the English language, which has a lot to do with whether they are born here or not. Recent immigrants (presumably citizens) speak poor English, are 90:10 Clinton. Second or third generation Hispanics are less enchanted with Dems--Clinton's lead is 7 points, or so. That may explain Nevada, which has a lot of long-established Mexicans. California gets a constant influx.
On Asian voters--Asians, particularly Chinese and Indians, are all about getting their parents over here living on welfare.Replies: @MG, @Big Bill
In New Mexico there is a similar cultural divide between “Mexicans” and “Spaniards”.
Hispanics living in New Mexico since before the Mexican-American War (many with family trees back to 1610) do not consider themselves “Mexicans”, “Mexican-Americans” or even a generic mongrel “Hispanic” or “Latino”. They deem themselves “Spanish”.
Given their sensitivity to Mexican monikers, and the difficulty maintaining their “Spanish” identity for over 400 years of residence in New Mexico, I expect their politics are much more conservative as well.
I watched the show on Nick at Nite in the early 90’s in elementary school, and at least a few other of my classmates did too. Early 60’s TV was great. I also liked Mr. Ed, the Dick Van Dyke show, and Bewitched. Some of TV shows like these aired in syndication on networks and were watched by poor black kids in the 1990’s too. Ask a black person in their early 30’s if they know who Mr. Mooney is, you might be surprised.
It’s the opposite, GOP does not “need” White voters, it is white voters who need to vote for someone else (or create a new Party) if the GOP no longer represents them.
It is an existential question, really. If the GOP will not represent Whites and court the Latino vote, then it is useless. Worse than useless.
Maybe it was not always like that, but with DEM having become the de facto “party of minorities” and doing a population replacement of white Americans, it is like this now. Either the GOP represents whites, or someone else will, eventually.
OT: Al Franken has accused a Trump ad of being antisemitic.
“a German shepherd whistle, a dog whistle”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/06/senator-al-franken-accuses-donald-trump-of-launching-antisemitic-tv-ad
Strangely enough, four out of the last five Minnesota senators have been Jewish. Jews make up 1.45% of Minnesota’s population. Sounds anti-gentile to me.
GOPs bigger problem was that it was relying on white votes.
Trump is breaking that model, really is, I’ve been telling you guys. The guy really is trying to be a candidate for all Americans.
That will be the outcome, not just a Trump victory, but a paradigm shift in U.S. politics.
Again, I’ve been saying that since forever, you can see it just playing out before our eyes, we just have to walk through this.
Search on either Clinton or Hillary on Twitter, which ya know is in the bag. The top and latest feeds are just horrendous, virtually all negative stuff, serious redpilling amongst those who are realizing they’ve been lied to, spirit cooking, Chelsea wedding, FBI, it goes on and on.
Only positive stuff is from Clinton campaign and a shrinking pool of dead-enders.
We are in the rout phase in the hearts/minds info campaign that is being waged subtextually since the FBI announced reopening of case.
Forget polls, MSM wouldn’t publish anything else objectively, just by virtue of them being willing to publish poll results makes me question the information. Everything else they print is slanted lies, so…. It isn’t even worth discussing. Beyond that, they average sentiment over several days running, so at best they are lagging indicators if there is any degree of honesty in them at all.
Not too worried myself as my current relationship seems headed toward marriage.
In my experience, divorces in the white middle and upper middle class tend to fall into the following categories:
1. Husband loses job and never makes much effort to find a new one, nor take care of the house
2. Emotional abuse, substance abuse, infidelity
3. The toughest ones to watch: man marries a woman “out of his league” when they are both young, wife over time realizes she can “do better” as she gets hit on by higher status men, eventually shacking up with one.
While I am sure “taking a nice guy to the cleaners to go eat/pray/love” divorces do exist, I do not know of a single one to ever happen in my extended family / social circle.
The Shyster sez:
Talk to a wills, trusts and estate attorney about a Domestic Asset Protection Trust (DAPT) or Offshore Asset Protection Trust (OAPT) or both.
You can fund them with your own assets (before or after marriage).
Depending on the jurisdiction of the trust they can be immune to attack from family courts.
Its options include: seizing all domestic assets to make up for the foreign assets, screwing the trust beneficiary over in every other way, and even jailing him for civil contempt.
Given the high fees for setting them up and their very limited usefulness, I'll bet for every dollar actually protected ten are spent on legal and admin fees.
Sometime about the Canadian border caused whites to vote for Obama. Romney only got 34% of Vermont whites, 42% in Maine, 47% in MN.Replies: @ATX Hipster, @Almost Missouri, @Rod1963
White Californians voted for Romney out of desperation as they know what diversity really is. Look Romney as a candidate sucked eggs, a nasty, cold blooded gordon gekko type who made bank looting businesses and firing white Americans. The only reason whites voted for him was because of Obama.
Had the DNC run a white candidate, he would have beaten a lot worse.
The big story today is President Obama calling on illegals to go out and vote. This truly boggles the mind. Trump has laid bare our foundations. For that we owe him a debt of gratitude.
OT
Did Ireland’s historic (first-ever) rugby union victory over the mighty New Zealand All Blacks, in front of 65,000 at Soldier Field yesterday, impinge on the US sporting public’s consciousness at all?
Did Ireland’s historic (first-ever) rugby union victory over the mighty New Zealand All Blacks, in front of 65,000 at Soldier Field yesterday, impinge on the US sporting public’s consciousness at all?
It was mentioned on sportscenter, which is the main nightly tv sports recap if you didn't know. I also saw it mentioned on a couple sports blogs and message boards, bit those mediums of course skew more sports hipster than your general sports consumer.
Re: Jennifer Palmieri’s tweet on WikiLeaks — “is the reasonable inference that she knows what’s in store, and is trying to undermine it in advance?”
The conventional wisdom is that Friday 11/4 was the best date for a last-minute scandal eruption; it came and went. There’s no longer enough time for amplification and interpretation, which seems especially relevant to the Podesta email hack and similar revelations. For many or most voters, Clinton’s misdeeds have been too complicated and context-dependent to hit home. Even the easy-to-understand Creamer/Foval videos have had only limited impact.
A bombshell release on Sunday, Monday, or Tuesday seems very unlikely. What would be the point of the delay?
Unless it’s those naughty Russians pulling the strings, if you assume that what drives them is “we don’t care who wins as long as we sow discord and mistrust of the Americanskis’ electoral process.”
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/11/bracing-for-impact-ii.html
As for election fraud, consider yourself a Democrat operative who is going to commit felony voter fraud on Tuesday.
Do you have confidence that there is a viable Dem. machine that will be backing you up, rigging things for you?
While 100s of millions of people have just been seriously redpilled about all the election rigging/vote fraud, why D’s are so in favor of early voting, gives them time to fill out all the absentee ballots..
I think the willingness amongst the D ranks to do this stuff is crumbling. It is kind of like when El Presidente’s troops are unwilling to shoot on their fellow citizens, whether out of ethics or fear.
Same here, although I didn’t really connect much with Green Acres. I thought Get Smart was pretty funny. I think F-Troop has to be just about the most side-splitting, riotously funny show I’ve ever seen. Larry Storch was incredible.
GOP’s 2012 Problem: Not Enough White Votes
GOP’s 2016 Problem: Too Many Goodwhite Votes
GOP’s 2020 Problem: Too Many Non White Votes
GOP’s 2024 Problem: Way Too Many Non White Votes
as deplorable as Obama’s strategy was, Romney was an Iraq War defending elitist.
And a Russophobe.
Euro-Americans should never rally around a neocon or neocon fellow traveler.
The conventional wisdom doesn’t apply in this election. The conventional wisdom assumes a centrally controlled narratives, limited/curated information dispersal mechanisms.
That is what was shattered this election. And it did so by having the Clinton campaign fight the last war with the assumptions of the last war.
The information distribution networks work way, way faster and differently. There was some devastating stuff in Nov. 4, both for supporters and for general public.
For the Trump Campaign, the Nov. 4 release totally energized the wikileaks followers, convinced them, rightly or wrongly, that they are battling a truly monstrous evil.
Nothing like having people like that on your side, and now these guys are pulling 36hour binges poring over every email for any sort of misconduct, not just pizzagate and getting it in front of the American people at all costs.
Nice to have volunteers like that, no?
It is a swarm of termites bent on divine justice.
Anything that is dumped today/tomorrow will be in time to very much affect the election, the eyes of the world are on this like no other presidential election in my life, and I went through Reagan.
So again, the model here is different than that under which “conventional wisdom” was formed.
Heck, you know plenty of people going to the polls Monday are going to take one last look at the breaking headlines before casting a vote.
“His role was, as in boxing, to be an ‘opponent’ that came out to put up a good fighting show but to go down at the end.”
I believe the term is “bum”. Romney is a bum.
ic100,
I agree that Monday would be too late for a big reveal to have its greatest effect, and that one would expect that Friday (or earlier, since Friday tends to be a day when news can get dumped with less attention) would be the last day for such a reveal.
But then, why is Palmieri issuing this warning? Why warn against something you’d expect would not happen? Why not warn earlier, before the last day to expect it reasonably?
And bear in mind, as I had said earlier: the Democrats almost certainly know what the bombshells might be–they’ve got the emails in hand. If they know there are no further bombshells, why issue this warning? Do they honestly believe that WikiLeaks is just going to make something up, destroying its reputation forever?
It may be that there’s nothing left up Wikileaks’ sleeve. But, if not, I don’t understand what the point might be for Palmieri’s tweet.
The most important thing you can do is raise your children to think independently, be responsible, and have skills and interests other than posting about their trivialities to social media.
This means they have to be, at a minimum, genetically intelligent from the start, which means that you have to select a naturally smart person to be their mother. I know this goes against the standard advice to import a submissive 18 year old virgin from Siberia without regard to IQ, but there you have it.
If you have a kid who is genetically capable of not being a shallow mouth-breather, then as they are growing up the onus is on you to limit screen time, mitigate the damage from shallow peers with conversations of your own, and train them in useful age-appropriate skills such as cooking, fixing things, etc.
Now a young woman will of course have the widest window to produce the most children, but there is a good for me/good for America tradeoff here that they need to at least point out. ROK doesn't even bring up alimony risk, which is a huge oversight in a website supposedly devoted to helping men. It's a nice example of ideological blinders, actually.
Thanks to all of you for all your help!Replies: @Almost Missouri, @ATX Hipster, @biz, @The Practical Conservative
OT: There is a transit strike in Philly (been going on for a week) that could possibly have an impact on the election. It would be funny if a public employees union ended up being the Democrats undoing. Then again, perhaps those wily union bosses just held their strike for such a suitably strategic time in order to maximize the concessions they could wring out of it.
GOP’s
20122016 Problem WasNot Enough White VotesTo Many Maids With No Security Clearance…and/or Citizenship.Because, before Mrs. Abramovic, there was this other, performance artist named Marina ,who is now eagerly waiting to accept her position as Hillary’s new Secretary of Whitehousekeeping, Bleaching & Classified Materials Printing;
http://nypost.com/2016/11/06/clinton-directed-her-maid-to-print-out-classified-materials/
I wouldn’t be surprised that, totally unbeknownst to Marina, Bibi’s Collection Agency had done better vetting of Mrs. Santos then any of our guberment-salaried clowns had ever bothered to do:
The conventional wisdom is that Friday 11/4 was the best date for a last-minute scandal eruption; it came and went. There's no longer enough time for amplification and interpretation, which seems especially relevant to the Podesta email hack and similar revelations. For many or most voters, Clinton's misdeeds have been too complicated and context-dependent to hit home. Even the easy-to-understand Creamer/Foval videos have had only limited impact.
A bombshell release on Sunday, Monday, or Tuesday seems very unlikely. What would be the point of the delay?
Unless it's those naughty Russians pulling the strings, if you assume that what drives them is "we don't care who wins as long as we sow discord and mistrust of the Americanskis' electoral process."Replies: @The most deplorable one
Best. Election. Ever.
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/11/bracing-for-impact-ii.html
GOP's 2016 Problem: Too Many Goodwhite Votes
GOP's 2020 Problem: Too Many Non White Votes
GOP's 2024 Problem: Way Too Many Non White VotesReplies: @Joe Magarac
Unless the direction of things changes greatly, there will be no GOP in 2024, and very possibly no United States of America.
In the “Dewey Defeats Truman” department, remember this one…
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-candidacy-is-severely-damaging-gop-efforts-to-court-hispanic-voting-bloc/2016/11/06/992df6f6-a432-11e6-9bd6-184ab22d218e_story.html
Trump is going to kill, at least for a Republican and he will continue to win that demographic over post-election, among what is identified as the “Hispanic” vote, we all know that.
I agree with commenters upstream that Derb is more accurate than Steve on this; that GoodWhites will always virtue signal.
HOWEVER, I have a view that the most virtue signalling GoodWhite would sell out his most ultra Vibrant friend for career advancement and particularly, and ESPECIALLY, advancement in the SEXUAL MARKETPLACE.
Bottom line: Sex matters more than money to people. It even overrides virtue signaling.
To successfully appeal to White Male Urbanites, who vote full on Good White SJW, a direct and brutal approach must be taken:
1. They are not Darwinian successful enough to land a hot babe, the most they’ll get is a poorer Lena Dunham who will not be grateful but resentful, and even fatter. Trigglypuff is what they’ll get.
2. The current female/feminist dynamic, “only the true Alpha White guys are successful in a sea of diversity” stacks things against them — they’ll only get Trigglypuffs it the go along to get along.
3. Their only play to get a hottie AND KEEP HER is to go full on “nativist” aka “Band of Brothers” traditionalist, keeping faith with their grandfather’s sacrifices.
4. Take a page out of Michelle Obama’s book* and argue that THEY, as descendants of heroes, are OWED the status positions unrightfully usurped by foreign interlopers and as descendants of heroes they must kick them out (of the nation) and take their rightful place; with the new higher status getting them the hot babe of their dreams.
*Michelle Obama has famously and repeatedly argued that White men must be fired from their jobs so the positions can be given to Blacks, women, Muslims, etc.
In short, to maximize the White vote, two pronged but related attacks on the coalition of the fringes must be mounted. As described in the previous post, note to unmarried White women (which is unlikely to ever change as White women prefer sex with Alphas to marriage to beta males) that all those goodies attainable to them depend on kicking out the high cost foreigners who deny them that vacation in Bermuda or free health care or College Loan forgiveness let along free college to their bastard kids.
But nakedly appeal to White Urban SJW men that they can trade up drastically if they just act like their grandfathers and move to kick out all the foreigners, and descendants of foreigners. Make an argument about heritage, blood, and inheritance. The country is theirs, paid for in blood at Okinawa and the Bulge, they must heroically reclaim it; and every single Hollywood movie they’v watched confirms this message.
So the FBI exonerates Clinton again.
My view is that this election is about class, not race, and that if and when middle- and working-class voters of all races, white, black, brown, yellow, recognize their common interest they will have a working majority. It may take a more skillful demagogue (“champion of the people”) than Trump has turned out to be (?) but it can be done.
Yeah, Comey like all White male upper managers caved; and now probably faces a total revolt by the FBI lower ranks who know Hillary will fire them ALL and replace them with non-Whites; same with the NYPD. That’s the fruit of the Dem’s War on Cops; the higher ups go along but the lower ranks revolt as they see no other option anyway. I fully expect the FBI and local police to be nearly 100% non-White in a few years.
I figure we will see all sorts of stuff leak out today/tomorrow from angry FBI agents Whistleblowing on the dirty deals Hillary had going; and thus the Palmieri tweet. Hillary probably wins with this Comey move.
Lesson again learned. It is better to be feared than loved, and those who know Hillary the best fear her. I have no doubt she personally threatened Comey and like most men with women like that he caved.
FBI move this Sunday sounds way too fishy/wussie...sounds like they are being blackmailed (it is just too schizoid from last week to this week) so, the public may feel that this is very ominous and creepy. Ominous in that anyone can be taken out of the path of Clinton for any reason, at anytime. It seems too flippant to make such a decision 2 days before the election.
Besides, the grifting; Saudi, Qatari, Algerian, Moroccan millions are just too disgusting...funding of ISIS and all, lingering bad blood with Libya. And, the Russian uranium deal torpedoes her integrity. Nobody wants to see this slimy, lying grifter couple back in the WH. And, yeah, all those FBI agents will be terminated. Somebody blinked.
OT again – Kay Starr dies at 94.
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/nov/06/kay-starr-obituary
Now that is well put.
I loved both of those shows too. I think F-Troop was on both Nick and Nite and syndicated.
Unfortunately I think the union said they would suspend the strike on election day.
In my experience, divorces in the white middle and upper middle class tend to fall into the following categories:
1. Husband loses job and never makes much effort to find a new one, nor take care of the house
2. Emotional abuse, substance abuse, infidelity
3. The toughest ones to watch: man marries a woman "out of his league" when they are both young, wife over time realizes she can "do better" as she gets hit on by higher status men, eventually shacking up with one.
While I am sure "taking a nice guy to the cleaners to go eat/pray/love" divorces do exist, I do not know of a single one to ever happen in my extended family / social circle.Replies: @Flip
Your number three sounds like “taking a nice guy to the cleaners” to me.
I am just talking about what I have seen personally, with three actual divorces I know of that fit this pattern. I am sure there are many contrary examples. The men are certainly much worse off emotionally, but not so much financially and end up keeping the house.
I would say the OJ marriage and what happened there should as well..
I believe the term is "bum". Romney is a bum.Replies: @Flip
Also, known as the Washington Generals. See Paul Ryan et al.
Did Ireland's historic (first-ever) rugby union victory over the mighty New Zealand All Blacks, in front of 65,000 at Soldier Field yesterday, impinge on the US sporting public's consciousness at all?Replies: @Flip, @Anonymous, @Father O'Hara
Nope. Although I saw a lot of people wearing green wandering around Chicago yesterday.
Hindus have very long experience in dealing with Muslims.
Talk to a wills, trusts and estate attorney about a Domestic Asset Protection Trust (DAPT) or Offshore Asset Protection Trust (OAPT) or both.
You can fund them with your own assets (before or after marriage).
Depending on the jurisdiction of the trust they can be immune to attack from family courts.Replies: @Lot
Possibly so, but the beneficiary of the trust is very subject to attack from the family court, who will not look kindly on someone who took steps to stash money overseas outside of its control.
Its options include: seizing all domestic assets to make up for the foreign assets, screwing the trust beneficiary over in every other way, and even jailing him for civil contempt.
Given the high fees for setting them up and their very limited usefulness, I’ll bet for every dollar actually protected ten are spent on legal and admin fees.
Ohio, outside of its central cities, simply has a larger share of the type of blacks who vote Republican: private sector middle class and regular attendance at mostly-white churches. Ken Blackwell ran and won statewide office in Ohio a few times as this type of black Republican and the state had a number of black republicans in the state legislature in the 90's and 00's. Over time, however, the state has reverted to the mean and currently has no black GOP officeholders.
The reason I was skeptical that Trump would do well with blacks, or that any Republican could ever break 10%, is that the supply of blacks who are "demographically base GOP" simply is not very high. Ohio has more of them than other states, but still not that many.
Voinovich's career is a lesson for another reason however: he showed how to win huge among white voters: anti-war, pro-union, moderate on both social and economic issues.Replies: @Steve Sailer
I was reading about some retired black athlete who lives on a farm and raises horses. It turns out he grew up on a farm in Ohio and raised horses.
Homosexual men fit into the unmarried, messed up, twenty something woman vote that always goes Democrat anyway.
Nice job Comey, making sure Hillary FBI and rigged system are the dominant theme on the last campaigning day. Democrat true believers will feel vindicated, Republicans motivated, independents and moderates disgusted.
Since it involves the wife remarrying another guy who makes more money, not really. There would be no alimony, and child support would be low/zero with split custody.
I am just talking about what I have seen personally, with three actual divorces I know of that fit this pattern. I am sure there are many contrary examples. The men are certainly much worse off emotionally, but not so much financially and end up keeping the house.
Ideally, someone will get the message that some of the ideas Trump has been promoting are important, and a more acceptable candidate (such as Tom Cotton?) will emerge as a potential president. But I suspect it is likely that the lesson learned will be double down on the Rubio strategy.Replies: @AP, @LondonBob, @Neil Templeton, @Greenstalk, @reiner Tor
I don’t think 2012 Obama was that good a candidate, or Romney that bad. Good reasons Republicans haven’t won a clear election victory since 1988, 04 was a war election. Demographics move too quickly against the GOP, your media doesn’t pretend to be even handed (you have no right wing tabloid press) and your academia just brainwashes too well. The financial crash and the Iraq war really destroyed the Republican brand. It is just an up hill battle for the GOP, Trump’s ability to appeal to the white working class and his rapport with blacks really is your best shot.
Someone who never did anything comparable to talking about grabbing pussy on tape wouldn’t have the cojones to run with an ice cream truck, let alone run a Presidential campaign. You don’t understand how unusual Trump is. We will not get another chance.
"a German shepherd whistle, a dog whistle"
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/06/senator-al-franken-accuses-donald-trump-of-launching-antisemitic-tv-ad
Strangely enough, four out of the last five Minnesota senators have been Jewish. Jews make up 1.45% of Minnesota's population. Sounds anti-gentile to me.Replies: @LondonBob, @SFG
LOL I did notice the over representation, but I think that just reflects the Jewish over representation in the elites.
This whole election has also totally disproved another Sailer hypothesis, that the electoral map can be shaken up by changing the GOP's policies. Reality: Trump will win the exact same states as McCain and Romney +/- 3.
What you are left with is "Sailerism by Default", relying on the badwhite vote whilst making futile attempts to reach out to goodwhites and nonwhites, which is what, in one form of another, every GOP candidate, including Trump, has been doing for 20 years.Replies: @IHTG, @BenKenobi, @Anonymous, @Flip, @Jack D, @Fleshman, @fleshman
Well this doesn’t refute the Sailer strategy. It’s just that the strategy has to be executed with more finesse than Trump is doing. For every “Badwhite” he attracts he is probably repelling 1.5-2 “Goodwhites” based mostly on his antics, personality and total lack of decorum. He has made it hard for respectable people to openly support him even if they are sympathetic to his issues.
Make no mistake: Trump is underperforming among economically secure whites in suburban and exurban places who have voted Republican for years.
My guess is that Trump will underperform Romney among whites overall (some of whom are voting for Johnson) and so Trump does not refute the Sailer strategy.
Sailer is right–the next successful GOP candidate will be one who can attract Trump voters without turning off normal Republicans.
American Indians seem to be the second most conservative group, after Whites.
Romney won 71% of “other” in Oklahoma, in other words American Indians.
Alt-Right luminaries David Yeagley and Vox Day are American Indians.
The difference may be that most of these Oklahoma "Indians" are primarily of European ancestry, which is not the case on the SD and AZ reservations. Vox Day does not look Indian in the slightest. I am not aware of him identifying as Indian as opposed to a white guy with minor Indian ancestry.Replies: @EriK
I would think that avoiding total disaster ("we've got nothing on them") would be the top priority, meaning that if they think that releasing everything would move Trump's chances from 50% to 90%, they probably wouldn't release it because that 10% chance of the witch pulling through regardless, with all of your amunition against her gone, would be a total disaster, and that should be maximally weighted.
I'm neurotic, so my main priority in life is making the worst plausible outcomes less horrible. Going all in in hopes of a big win looks idiotic to me. I would think that the people making decisions at that level are more like me than like Chinese dry cleaner proprietors on a weekend trip to Atlantic City.Replies: @Lot
I highly doubt it is the Russian government. Most likely it is some of the many Russian (and Russian-speaking Ukrainian) cybercriminal gangs who are allowed to target Westerners with impunity. The most profitable method is ransomware trojans, which may produce as much as a billion a year for these gangs.
I also doubt they are even doing this under the direction of the Russian government, but rather it is an effort to curry favor with the government by showing themselves to be useful to them so they can continue to operate their scams. Another compatible motivation is simply revenge over our support for the anti-Russian factions in ex USSR states.
It is all a very distasteful way to win. I’m glad Trump dumped Manafort for this reason. I suppose a close and distasteful win is still better than what Hillary will do if she wins.
Our boy Ross is getting denounced as racist. It’s an interesting development. He normally is able to stay on the good side of the volunteer auxiliary thought police.
His writing about his very fertile great grandparents and the 0.5-ish TFR of him and his cousins hit close to home.
The retard denouncing Ross managed to write an article telling us not to demonize Chechyns,
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/04/2013421145859380504.html
Warning before reading, you risking throwing up in your mouth doing so. She manages to pack all of the following into a single article:
Nate Silver has an updated path to victory “snake” for Trump that no longer involves Pennsylvania, but instead involves Trump winning FL, OH, NC, NV, NH and ME-2, with NH being the narrowest win that puts Trump one EV over the top.
This is only based on polls and demographics.
The early vote estimates for ME-2 and NV seem to preclude this path and still require one of PA, MI, WI, or CO. The turnout shift away from blacks and toward hispanics points away from CO and toward PA, MI, or WI.
I’ve shifted my bets to GOP keeping the Senate and Trump wins NC, both of which are still paying better than even.
Florida being too close to call makes betting on the margin of EV victory too hard for me so I have shifted that bet toward “easy money” of Trump winning GA and Clinton winning NY.
GA has polled close, but decreased black early vote turnout in FL and NC on top of Romney’s win make this an easy win for Trump. It only pays about 12% after fees, but that is pretty good for the risk in my view.
http://www.denverpost.com/2016/11/06/al-gore-campaign-for-hillary-clinton/
I hope you’re wrong but I think you’re right.
This whole election has also totally disproved another Sailer hypothesis, that the electoral map can be shaken up by changing the GOP's policies. Reality: Trump will win the exact same states as McCain and Romney +/- 3.
What you are left with is "Sailerism by Default", relying on the badwhite vote whilst making futile attempts to reach out to goodwhites and nonwhites, which is what, in one form of another, every GOP candidate, including Trump, has been doing for 20 years.Replies: @IHTG, @BenKenobi, @Anonymous, @Flip, @Jack D, @Fleshman, @fleshman
I would also add that if you read Steve carefully, you’ll see that the Sailer strategy involves much, much more than Trumpist hostility to illegal immigration. Besides Trump has chosen to emphasize immigrant crime which is a far less salient issue that immigrant effects on labor and housing markets and demands on public services.
The Sailer strategy encompasses an approach to policy that is overwhelmingly friendly to families with kids and also very pro-environment. It cares about affordable family formation and protecting natural resources. The GOP tone deafness on both these issues costs them dearly with upscale white voters who might otherwise be open to them. Even the Trump led GOP is incoherent on these issues.
I’d hardly call him our boy. Regardless, it was a delicate balancing act that was doomed to fall and shatter at some point. He’ll be taken into the tool shed for this by his editors and when he gets out he’ll be even more of an insincere sellout than he already is.
https://twitter.com/sarahkendzior/status/795288427910615040
Our boy Ross is getting denounced as racist. It's an interesting development. He normally is able to stay on the good side of the volunteer auxiliary thought police.Replies: @Lot
Ross’s column she denounced was good but depressing, as much of his work is. He cites the “our posterity” line in the Constitution!
His writing about his very fertile great grandparents and the 0.5-ish TFR of him and his cousins hit close to home.
The retard denouncing Ross managed to write an article telling us not to demonize Chechyns,
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/04/2013421145859380504.html
Warning before reading, you risking throwing up in your mouth doing so. She manages to pack all of the following into a single article:
I noticed the over-representation too………….because it is real. Al Franken is part of the same over-representation in the Senate. If he has an issue with the ad, his issue is with reality.
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/nov/06/kay-starr-obituaryReplies: @Mr. Anon
Her signature song, Wheel of Fortune, was used to great effect in L.A. Confidential.
https://gab.ai/Crew/posts/1358228Replies: @Almost Missouri
For those of us who can’t login to Gab, can you copy and paste?
Romney won 71% of "other" in Oklahoma, in other words American Indians.
Alt-Right luminaries David Yeagley and Vox Day are American Indians.Replies: @Lot
American Indians in South Dakota and the Southwest tend to block vote for Democrats. Rick Renzi, a Republican congressmen who went to jail in the Abramoff scandal, somehow managed to get the Navajo vote however.
The difference may be that most of these Oklahoma “Indians” are primarily of European ancestry, which is not the case on the SD and AZ reservations. Vox Day does not look Indian in the slightest. I am not aware of him identifying as Indian as opposed to a white guy with minor Indian ancestry.
"He is of English, Irish, Mexican, and Native American descent."
https://infogalactic.com/info/Vox_Day#Personal_life
My son turned out liberal on some things and conservative on others- pretty much like me. He lived part of his childhood in a rural area next to a university in a deep red state, and his high school years in a purple area of another red state.
There’s no point in complete shielding- that’s almost guaranteed to provoke a reaction in him, particularly if your own grounding in very conservative lifestyle is not that strong.
If your own thinking is somewhat heterodox compared to the left-right paradigm, I suspect his will be too. You’ll differ on some things, but I think what matters- a core way of thinking- will pass on.
You can join clubs and civic organizations, but there is no substitute for having your children know on a personal level like minded adults and their children. To me, the premier issue is getting a son around intelligent, principled, purposeful men as models- and that is outside structured school/club settings- he needs to be around them in informal settings as well. That is not easy to do these days.
I will say that a strong sportsman/outdoor/conservation background certainly is a plus.
I figure we will see all sorts of stuff leak out today/tomorrow from angry FBI agents Whistleblowing on the dirty deals Hillary had going; and thus the Palmieri tweet. Hillary probably wins with this Comey move.
Lesson again learned. It is better to be feared than loved, and those who know Hillary the best fear her. I have no doubt she personally threatened Comey and like most men with women like that he caved.Replies: @Lagertha
Timing is too bizarre: I don’t think anything matters anymore – people aren’t going to suddenly vote for her. The people who will vote for Trump will do so; same thing with Hillary.
FBI move this Sunday sounds way too fishy/wussie…sounds like they are being blackmailed (it is just too schizoid from last week to this week) so, the public may feel that this is very ominous and creepy. Ominous in that anyone can be taken out of the path of Clinton for any reason, at anytime. It seems too flippant to make such a decision 2 days before the election.
Besides, the grifting; Saudi, Qatari, Algerian, Moroccan millions are just too disgusting…funding of ISIS and all, lingering bad blood with Libya. And, the Russian uranium deal torpedoes her integrity. Nobody wants to see this slimy, lying grifter couple back in the WH. And, yeah, all those FBI agents will be terminated. Somebody blinked.
"a German shepherd whistle, a dog whistle"
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/06/senator-al-franken-accuses-donald-trump-of-launching-antisemitic-tv-ad
Strangely enough, four out of the last five Minnesota senators have been Jewish. Jews make up 1.45% of Minnesota's population. Sounds anti-gentile to me.Replies: @LondonBob, @SFG
Given that not even NY is like that, I’d chalk it up to some weird Minnesota thing.
Isn't that what alot of the elites have been doing? Increasing their share of the wealth over the last few decades, getting the govt to go deep in debt to prop up the stock market so they'll be able to sell out high when the sh*t starts to hit the fan?Replies: @epebble
It is what we are doing as a nation; low taxes, high government spending leading to large and growing deficits to be financed by trade deficits earned by exporters abroad. disturbing any variable in the equation will cause great instability (high interest rates, high inflation, high unemployment, falling dollar – anyone remember misery index of ’70s? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misery_index_(economics) ).
I always thought yammering on about divorce settlements (an issue that more men *do* very much need to be aware of) and then arguing for marrying a young woman with no career always struck me as more typical of the writer’s fantasies than actual reality, since I actually did consult a divorce lawyer, and was told a career woman was best in that regard since most formulas work off the difference between the partners’ incomes. (I was also advised not to get married and to formally legitimate the child if I wanted to pass on property, which is the sort of bizarre counterintuitive thing I wonder if I could actually get away with.) Also a younger woman has the most leftover time with good looks to be stolen by another man–a 35 year old is going to have a lot less time to be eat-pray-loving you unless she’s really nuts (which some women are!)
Now a young woman will of course have the widest window to produce the most children, but there is a good for me/good for America tradeoff here that they need to at least point out. ROK doesn’t even bring up alimony risk, which is a huge oversight in a website supposedly devoted to helping men. It’s a nice example of ideological blinders, actually.
Thanks to all of you for all your help!
You're right about the differences between older career women and younger women wrt time on their hands and ability to trade their looks, but you didn't mention the likely compromise you'll be making in the quality as a mother you'd likely be making with the career woman. I'm acquainted with a woman who has decided to try to focus less on her career and spend more time with her kid. Sounds great, except she only made this decision after losing her second child at 6 months, after having gone back to work without taking maternity leave. Think real hard about marrying a woman with priorities like that before you make any decisions.
Bear in mind that a 35 yr old may not have the looks she once did - but there will always be a guy around thirsty enough not to care.Replies: @Corvinus
Do you have confidence that there is a viable Dem. machine that will be backing you up, rigging things for you?
While 100s of millions of people have just been seriously redpilled about all the election rigging/vote fraud, why D's are so in favor of early voting, gives them time to fill out all the absentee ballots..
I think the willingness amongst the D ranks to do this stuff is crumbling. It is kind of like when El Presidente's troops are unwilling to shoot on their fellow citizens, whether out of ethics or fear.Replies: @Almost Missouri
Maybe, but the thing about fraud is it’s not one-man-one-vote anymore. Once you decide to commit fraud, you can manufacture an awful lot of votes with very few fraudsters.
Yeah don’t trust goodwhites to suddenly gain racial consciousness. Sweden is probably a good predictor of what they’ll do – dig themselves and their country into a hole too deep to climb out of and then apologize for existing as they’re raped economically and literally. Look at, say, Pajama Boy, and tell me that there’s a point where that guy decides it’s time to take his country back. The notion is laughable.
The difference may be that most of these Oklahoma "Indians" are primarily of European ancestry, which is not the case on the SD and AZ reservations. Vox Day does not look Indian in the slightest. I am not aware of him identifying as Indian as opposed to a white guy with minor Indian ancestry.Replies: @EriK
He identifies as part Indian and Mexican often if you read his blog.
“He is of English, Irish, Mexican, and Native American descent.”
https://infogalactic.com/info/Vox_Day#Personal_life
I thought that gab was open access now …
Now a young woman will of course have the widest window to produce the most children, but there is a good for me/good for America tradeoff here that they need to at least point out. ROK doesn't even bring up alimony risk, which is a huge oversight in a website supposedly devoted to helping men. It's a nice example of ideological blinders, actually.
Thanks to all of you for all your help!Replies: @Almost Missouri, @ATX Hipster, @biz, @The Practical Conservative
Maybe, but check the Chateau’s list of which careers are best (hint: don’t marry lawyers).
Our bizarre counter-intuitive (not to mention counter-rational) legal regime leads to bizarre counter-intuitive strategies to survive it.
Now a young woman will of course have the widest window to produce the most children, but there is a good for me/good for America tradeoff here that they need to at least point out. ROK doesn't even bring up alimony risk, which is a huge oversight in a website supposedly devoted to helping men. It's a nice example of ideological blinders, actually.
Thanks to all of you for all your help!Replies: @Almost Missouri, @ATX Hipster, @biz, @The Practical Conservative
It’s a huge tradeoff, too. You’re trapped once you’re married. But once you have kids, assuming you care about being able to spend time with them, you’re her bitch.
You’re right about the differences between older career women and younger women wrt time on their hands and ability to trade their looks, but you didn’t mention the likely compromise you’ll be making in the quality as a mother you’d likely be making with the career woman. I’m acquainted with a woman who has decided to try to focus less on her career and spend more time with her kid. Sounds great, except she only made this decision after losing her second child at 6 months, after having gone back to work without taking maternity leave. Think real hard about marrying a woman with priorities like that before you make any decisions.
Bear in mind that a 35 yr old may not have the looks she once did – but there will always be a guy around thirsty enough not to care.
You must not be married or have kids, because that's not how it works. Pro tip --> Stop reading Roissy and ROK.
"You’re right about the differences between older career women and younger women wrt time on their hands and ability to trade their looks, but you didn’t mention the likely compromise you’ll be making in the quality as a mother you’d likely be making with the career woman."
Assuming that career woman are less likely to be a quality mother to their children. Again, you must not be married or have children.Replies: @ATX Hipster
Not that it completely negates your point, but there is a documented “Shy Trump” effect among college “educated” White people.
http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/donald-trump-supporters-shy-voters-hillary-clinton-leading-2016-presidential-polls-politico/
Even if you could get all the white folks together, they’re still a declining proportion of the population, and it gets worse every 4 years.
Republicans really need to find a way to split off some other ethnic groups, maybe an alliance of respectable ethnics vs the poor ones. Making more effort to distinguish between legal immigrants and the other kind would be a good place to start.
The reason the Sailer strategy will never work in the future is because Catholics aren’t as individualistic as Protestants. Even with 5 Justices on the Supreme Court, Catholics still see themselves as outsiders. They are naturally at home with Democrats. Two-thirds of Catholics in the Senate are Dem. Or at least they were a few years ago when I actually counted. White Protestants became a minority in 2015. All those states with the high white numbers for Romney are White Protestant states. The Sailer strategy really only ever applied to them. This is the only time it can work–this election–while there are still enough of them left. The media gave such helI, too. Maybe it never could have worked. Steve didn’t factor in the Big Media component. The more you push for a Sailer strategy, the angrier Big Media gets, the more they fire up outsiders to go vote.
Now a young woman will of course have the widest window to produce the most children, but there is a good for me/good for America tradeoff here that they need to at least point out. ROK doesn't even bring up alimony risk, which is a huge oversight in a website supposedly devoted to helping men. It's a nice example of ideological blinders, actually.
Thanks to all of you for all your help!Replies: @Almost Missouri, @ATX Hipster, @biz, @The Practical Conservative
Yeah. I’m not a lawyer, but it seems obvious to me that the best way to avoid divorce rape is to marry a woman with an equal or higher income to yours, and to keep her in the workforce.
I wonder how these manosphere people think the judge will look upon the earnings potential of their high school dropout from Siberia with no work experience.
This is the point where someone is going to jump in and say that they married an immaculate 20 year old from Uzbekistan that is so traditional that all she wants to do is fuck and pump out babies and wear high heels, and they’ve had three kids and the wife who has a sixth grade education from her village nonetheless taught them to speak four languages, and she has absolutely no interest in getting visas for her extended whole family and having them live with him, and his post-wall cat lady ex-girlfriend is so jealous when she sees him in Trader Joes with his thin traditional 20 year old wife who nonetheless looks stunning in high heels with their three quatralingual kids in tow, and all I have to say to that person is: pics or it didn’t fucking happen.
The odds of marrying a foreign woman are better if you integrate into their culture. In many places you are already high status in their culture just by being European, although you'd still be a foreigner.
You can also 'import' a wife. The odds of that working out are somewhat worse due to the toxic anti-male culture and perverse incentives in place in America, but it's up to everyone individually to decide how they want to live their life. I certainly wouldn't begrudge someone that if they had a good plan and were confident that it would work.Replies: @Kristen
Hillary’s problem, on the other hand, has been too many white male voters.
As the democrats have done for so many years, they cast this election as if it’s 1850, blacks are still slaves and women are held helpless prisoners in the kitchen. And white male behavior was the essential issue in 19th century Temperance campaigns, don’t forget.
We’re all victims here, she said, and I guess we all know who the white male oppressor is in this election.
Yes, I agree with your point about Whites seeking to raise their status by purposefully dragging down the status of other Whites.
But, it seem that Whites and not other racial and ethnic groups are especially prone to this.
I don’t think that the Japanese, Chinese, or other Asian cultures would consider doing this to other members of their group (at least to the degree that it is occurring in White countries). There is still too much much ethnic pride and sense of solidarity among Asians. Something that has been washed out of Whites. The rest of the world still thinks more as a tribe and less as a class for the most part.
Ultimately, it will be a disaster for Whites living in these cultures . In the USA the already declining life expectancy of working class Whites and dramatic increase in the suicide rates of Whites (much discussed on these boards recently) is already evidence of this.
A lot of historical, cultural and perhaps even genetic facts could explain this difference between White cultures and other cultures.
It could even be a structural problem ….Whites have advanced tolerant industrial societies that people want to move to and other groups either don’t have these types of places or haven’t been able to create them (excepting Japan of course).
Any thoughts about the causes? Are there one or two causes that are more important than the other causes (e.g. a Christian ethos, Cultural Marxism, the feminization of politics, White cultural emphasis on individualism rather than collectivism, etc…)
Or am I wrong and it could (and will?) eventually happen to any racial or ethnic group ( for example there are signs that Koreans in South Korean have caught the diversity bug) under the right set of circumstances?
It’s a modern truism that you can’t have both a functioning welfare state and open borders. Is it possible to have democracy and open borders? Is there any literature on the subject?
Ideally, someone will get the message that some of the ideas Trump has been promoting are important, and a more acceptable candidate (such as Tom Cotton?) will emerge as a potential president. But I suspect it is likely that the lesson learned will be double down on the Rubio strategy.Replies: @AP, @LondonBob, @Neil Templeton, @Greenstalk, @reiner Tor
Who is this Tom Cotton? Why do people keep mentioning his name? Has he been calling out those who wish to use America as a mule to build their market?
Pajama Boy already has a country that was explicitly formed to be a ‘safe space’ for Pajama Boys and Girls. He doesn’t need to take it back.
When Pajama People living outside of this safe space lecture founding stock of the host country that “This country isn’t yours! You don’t own it! It never was!”— things may get contentious.
My kids are too young for me to know the answer, but my husband and I doing our best. I believe it can be done if you have a SAHM for a wife who is not a liberal. She’s the key. She can’t be making wimps of boys. She has to let you play football and wrestle with them, and she can’t be raising girls to think they are like boys. She has to understand shame has its place, as does pain. As does them solving their own problems. Would you trust her with a firearm? Does she approve of them? You don’t need to be a hunter, just a shooter. Football or judo is good for toughness too.
I’ve been stuck in commie congressional districts for 25 years, but left CA for MN when MN was considered purple and left MN for a southern state recently. We can’t pull the trigger on the rural part, though, which is why we still end up in commie districts. We like cars not trains, but we also like foodie restaurants, libraries and museums. We still prefer the hippie SWPL grocery stores. So we live in places where we come into contact with liberals, but our lifestyle removes them from view. No tv. No pop culture. Conservative church.
You can’t send the kids to public school, so she needs to be competent as a homeschooler. And you’ll still have to play Socratic games with the kids where you remind them that when people want to Share, it means they want to steal from you. Etc. You won’t have friends in your neighborhood, but so what.
I wonder, though, about the matter of Internet exposure. Have you given any thought as to how you will deal with that? (Sounds as if you're children are still too young for it to be a concern yet.)I don't understand this. Surely, you cannot be suggesting that all sharing is the equivalent of stealing.
Was your capitalization of "Share" deliberate?Does that mean that your children's opportunities for socializing with peers are limited to those you drive them to or who drive to your home? No playing with neighbors? (And, if home-schooled, then presumably none at school.)
now that right there is the core essence of your problem.
i believe that you ARE =intellectually= aware that you'd ACTUALLY get better foodstuffs by asking around of the wives of the diesel mechanics at the tractor dealership.
But you're addicted to..... i cannot put my finger on it. But I smelled it when I saw it, down at the Whole Foods in La Jolla.Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome
It’s interesting to read this by Steve while this open borders puff piece by National Review is also being covered here on the main page.
https://www.unz.com/article/national-review-conservatism-inc-plan-to-cave-even-more-on-immigration/
I mean, we all agree that America is the Titanic... why not steal all the lifeboats and depart if we know the conclusion?
"Welcome to my nightmare, you're gonna like it..."Replies: @Anonymous, @Dissident, @Rumormonger
Where would you suggest we flee to?
As I’ve quoted the late radio artist Bob Grant before,
“I wish there were there somewhere to go, because I’d go there.”
However, the balkanization of North America is inevitable.
With a lot of hard work, and little luck, one of the new nations be a "White Israel".
Of course my first choice is that the God-Emperor and His loyal Space Marines are successful in Making America Great Again.
I think something can be learned by studying right wing movements in Latin America, and how they manage/circumvent the race issue. Highlighting or exaggerating leftist corruption to poor, uneducated minorities seems to work moderately well, for the same reason the left is able to capitalize on their votes, because these people are politically innocent.
In America, this tactic is subverted by the left, who use their media platforms to scream about racism as much as possible, thereby occluding any other interests naive minority groups have. So it comes back to the same thing. Before the right can make grand moves, it must take out the ideological, urbanite, and predominantly white left.Replies: @Randal, @yaqub the mad scientist, @Greenstalk
Stop declining the white population then. It’s something being deliberately done by human beings, not some force of nature like gravity.
Whiskey is going to hate this, but the Republicans probably need to focus more on white female voters. Centre-right parties in other Anglo countries usually get at least 40 percent of the female vote. White males for the Republicans are like blacks for the Democrats – a group that can be taken for granted. However, the Republicans need to pander to white females with specific female-orientated policies and marketing.
Leaning further to the left of health care, a female running mate for the presidential candidate, less hawkish rhetoric on foreign policy, and lots of social media campaigning should help a lot. Trump is already up with the play on the last point.
Ideally, someone will get the message that some of the ideas Trump has been promoting are important, and a more acceptable candidate (such as Tom Cotton?) will emerge as a potential president. But I suspect it is likely that the lesson learned will be double down on the Rubio strategy.Replies: @AP, @LondonBob, @Neil Templeton, @Greenstalk, @reiner Tor
Nonsense. Obama was an appallingly bad candidate with a dreadful record. He got elected because the press was completely on his side and because many in the GOP at least tacitly sided with him. Clinton is also a bad candidate, and is also being propped up by a North Korean style press and by the support of elements within the Republican Party.
A lot of non-University educated whites stayed home because Romney was such a poor candidate. Trump is a stronger candidate and the harpy is a weaker one. If she does as well as Obama did it will be the result of fraud, the fact that the media has congealed into a fascist-like propaganda combination, or a combination of these two factors. Meanwhile, some evidence indicates that educated types sometimes do not reveal to pollsters their preference for Trump because it is politically incorrect or damaging to their professional status, so the polling figures may be skewed somewhat. I would also expect a much lower black turnout for somebody carrying the harpy’s baggage. We’ll see what happens, but I suspect that the gist of the headline of the reprinted 2013 article really is that if the white vote increases as a proportion of the total, which it should, things may not follow the predicted polling model, which is based on 2012 turnout tweaked somewhat to favour the pollsters’ predilections since they are part of the same media combine which is fully in the bag for the harpy.
Romney won among white women, getting 56% of their vote. Trump was getting 43% at the end of October.
Trump is the first Republican candidate to split the white vote and to lose large segments of white voters.If Trump pulls off a win it will be because of this, plus lower black and other Democratic turnout.Replies: @Reg Cæsar
Those “economically secure whites” are very left-wing in their thought processes, and anything Trump (or any other candidate) did to appeal to them would cost him votes among the more conservative whites. It’s not a circle which can easily be squared. Those people WANT to screw over poorer whites by “free trade” and open borders, secure in their own protected jobs and enclaves.
They’ve been divided by class for a long time, Trump’s not the one doing it to them. What’s different about Trump is that he’s appealing to the white working class instead of the white wealthy class, which is the norm for Republicans.
I've been stuck in commie congressional districts for 25 years, but left CA for MN when MN was considered purple and left MN for a southern state recently. We can't pull the trigger on the rural part, though, which is why we still end up in commie districts. We like cars not trains, but we also like foodie restaurants, libraries and museums. We still prefer the hippie SWPL grocery stores. So we live in places where we come into contact with liberals, but our lifestyle removes them from view. No tv. No pop culture. Conservative church.
You can't send the kids to public school, so she needs to be competent as a homeschooler. And you'll still have to play Socratic games with the kids where you remind them that when people want to Share, it means they want to steal from you. Etc. You won't have friends in your neighborhood, but so what.Replies: @The Practical Conservative, @Dissident, @Karl
Private school is also an option. Telling women they have to homeschool plus do all the household stuff is fertility inhibiting since they can be “moderates” and not have to homeschool the kids or they get to have a maid if they do. So they go that route much more often.
Now a young woman will of course have the widest window to produce the most children, but there is a good for me/good for America tradeoff here that they need to at least point out. ROK doesn't even bring up alimony risk, which is a huge oversight in a website supposedly devoted to helping men. It's a nice example of ideological blinders, actually.
Thanks to all of you for all your help!Replies: @Almost Missouri, @ATX Hipster, @biz, @The Practical Conservative
Dude, it’s simple. Earn enough money that you can support a wife as the majority income and then marry a woman who goes to church. Have three or more children with her and have her stay home with them. Suddenly you have a single digit risk of divorce.
Steve Sailer,
I think that there is something more to consider: About 45 million white people sat out the election in 2012. So, it is not simply trying to get more of thw white vote. It is also getting more of the whites to turnout and vote for you.
That is what is indicative of this election.
Usually if you see a bunch of people walking around Chicago wearing a particular color,the best thing to do is haul ass,as you are probably about to be shot.
How many private schools are left that don’t promote Cultural Marxism?
I've been stuck in commie congressional districts for 25 years, but left CA for MN when MN was considered purple and left MN for a southern state recently. We can't pull the trigger on the rural part, though, which is why we still end up in commie districts. We like cars not trains, but we also like foodie restaurants, libraries and museums. We still prefer the hippie SWPL grocery stores. So we live in places where we come into contact with liberals, but our lifestyle removes them from view. No tv. No pop culture. Conservative church.
You can't send the kids to public school, so she needs to be competent as a homeschooler. And you'll still have to play Socratic games with the kids where you remind them that when people want to Share, it means they want to steal from you. Etc. You won't have friends in your neighborhood, but so what.Replies: @The Practical Conservative, @Dissident, @Karl
I have great respect for all three of those choices.
I wonder, though, about the matter of Internet exposure. Have you given any thought as to how you will deal with that? (Sounds as if you’re children are still too young for it to be a concern yet.)
I don’t understand this. Surely, you cannot be suggesting that all sharing is the equivalent of stealing.
Was your capitalization of “Share” deliberate?
Does that mean that your children’s opportunities for socializing with peers are limited to those you drive them to or who drive to your home? No playing with neighbors? (And, if home-schooled, then presumably none at school.)
There's no point in complete shielding- that's almost guaranteed to provoke a reaction in him, particularly if your own grounding in very conservative lifestyle is not that strong.
If your own thinking is somewhat heterodox compared to the left-right paradigm, I suspect his will be too. You'll differ on some things, but I think what matters- a core way of thinking- will pass on.
You can join clubs and civic organizations, but there is no substitute for having your children know on a personal level like minded adults and their children. To me, the premier issue is getting a son around intelligent, principled, purposeful men as models- and that is outside structured school/club settings- he needs to be around them in informal settings as well. That is not easy to do these days.
I will say that a strong sportsman/outdoor/conservation background certainly is a plus.Replies: @Venator
Keep in mind that heritability of political attitudes is about 0,5 while the rest seems to be mostly unshared environment – which means you don’t know what your children will take from their upbringing.
Boys who don't get that are a lot more likely to grow up to be in their 40's posting memes celebrating assorted fringiness/ edginess in preparation for transition to dying alone.
Did Ireland's historic (first-ever) rugby union victory over the mighty New Zealand All Blacks, in front of 65,000 at Soldier Field yesterday, impinge on the US sporting public's consciousness at all?Replies: @Flip, @Anonymous, @Father O'Hara
OT
Did Ireland’s historic (first-ever) rugby union victory over the mighty New Zealand All Blacks, in front of 65,000 at Soldier Field yesterday, impinge on the US sporting public’s consciousness at all?
It was mentioned on sportscenter, which is the main nightly tv sports recap if you didn’t know. I also saw it mentioned on a couple sports blogs and message boards, bit those mediums of course skew more sports hipster than your general sports consumer.
Did Ireland's historic (first-ever) rugby union victory over the mighty New Zealand All Blacks, in front of 65,000 at Soldier Field yesterday, impinge on the US sporting public's consciousness at all?Replies: @Flip, @Anonymous, @Father O'Hara
About as much as Taylor Swifts kick ass show last summer at the same venue in front of a similarly sized crowd! (Tho I assume not the same crowd. Heh heh.)
Plenty, but the homeschool or die crowd rarely has enough household income to pay for tuition at any of them. You do get bulk discounts, incidentally, making them reasonably priced for larger families if the family income is decent. And there’s often scholarships if you do homeschool and want to transition.
Election night is going to be a nail biter because in many states Trump is off Romney numbers with whites but Clinton is off Obama’s number too. A huge number are 3rd party or undecided.
Now Trump may not need as high a number as Romney due to black turnout dropping but he can’t slip much.
Wherever these 3rd party/undecided whites pbreak will determine who wins. I hope they realize if Clinton wins we’ll be hearing about Hispanics and their power the rest of our lives.
This is only based on polls and demographics.
The early vote estimates for ME-2 and NV seem to preclude this path and still require one of PA, MI, WI, or CO. The turnout shift away from blacks and toward hispanics points away from CO and toward PA, MI, or WI.
I've shifted my bets to GOP keeping the Senate and Trump wins NC, both of which are still paying better than even.
Florida being too close to call makes betting on the margin of EV victory too hard for me so I have shifted that bet toward "easy money" of Trump winning GA and Clinton winning NY.
GA has polled close, but decreased black early vote turnout in FL and NC on top of Romney's win make this an easy win for Trump. It only pays about 12% after fees, but that is pretty good for the risk in my view.Replies: @Ed
Al Gore dashes off to “Green” Colorado today, you may want to revisit your CO bet.
http://www.denverpost.com/2016/11/06/al-gore-campaign-for-hillary-clinton/
“GOP’s 2012 Problem Was Not Enough White Votes”
The problem is alway not enough white people voting their own interest.
Certainly. I was just trying to point out that in this kind of discussion, which I’ve run up on several times, there isn’t much on boys experiencing informal bonds around stable men- repairing things, helping each other out when in need, good, honest humor, unscripted fun. It doesn’t make one necessarily more traditional or conservative, but it’s a huge foundation for it. I see too many boys who grow up without this fall into Coalition of the Fringes mentality, because it is easier to feel “fringy” when they don’t feel a part of something- and relying on scripted time with others only goes so far. I don’t know what you call this- I just know it when I see it.
Boys who don’t get that are a lot more likely to grow up to be in their 40’s posting memes celebrating assorted fringiness/ edginess in preparation for transition to dying alone.
Good job destroying the straw man that you created. Is there any one specific person you can point to who said what you are saying?
The odds of marrying a foreign woman are better if you integrate into their culture. In many places you are already high status in their culture just by being European, although you’d still be a foreigner.
You can also ‘import’ a wife. The odds of that working out are somewhat worse due to the toxic anti-male culture and perverse incentives in place in America, but it’s up to everyone individually to decide how they want to live their life. I certainly wouldn’t begrudge someone that if they had a good plan and were confident that it would work.
While I was in Kyoto, Japan last week, I attended an Anglican Church, went to academic lectures in English, and met up with some professors at the university there. A visual pattern was easily discerned: American man with Japanese wife. What struck me, though, was how Americans left their culture for that of Japan. I have known many Japanese women with American husbands in the US, but this was the first time I saw their counterparts in Japan.
Japan is ethnically Japanese with less than one-percent "gaijin" (foreigner of a non-Asian background). I liked their homogeneity and admired them for keeping their values and culture intact. Such homogeneity has created a crime-free, stable society.
While walking around the city, I rarely saw strollers. Where were the babies, I wondered? The US looked like a giant preschool after Japan! I do not know why they aren't reproducing. Yes, they are crunched for land, but they've always been that way -- so why are they not making babies now? No answers, here.Replies: @Truth
I've been stuck in commie congressional districts for 25 years, but left CA for MN when MN was considered purple and left MN for a southern state recently. We can't pull the trigger on the rural part, though, which is why we still end up in commie districts. We like cars not trains, but we also like foodie restaurants, libraries and museums. We still prefer the hippie SWPL grocery stores. So we live in places where we come into contact with liberals, but our lifestyle removes them from view. No tv. No pop culture. Conservative church.
You can't send the kids to public school, so she needs to be competent as a homeschooler. And you'll still have to play Socratic games with the kids where you remind them that when people want to Share, it means they want to steal from you. Etc. You won't have friends in your neighborhood, but so what.Replies: @The Practical Conservative, @Dissident, @Karl
> We still prefer the hippie SWPL grocery stores.
now that right there is the core essence of your problem.
i believe that you ARE =intellectually= aware that you’d ACTUALLY get better foodstuffs by asking around of the wives of the diesel mechanics at the tractor dealership.
But you’re addicted to….. i cannot put my finger on it. But I smelled it when I saw it, down at the Whole Foods in La Jolla.
Prevelance of Obesity by Annual Household Income for Persons Ages 18-64
Good analysis, Mr. Sailer.
Right now, I am astonished by a political development there.
On Friday last week, Barrak Hussein Obama threw a temper tantrum about the FBI’s investigation of mail on a laptop co-owned by Mr. Penis (Weiner) that originated from the connection of his former wife, Humus, as the fave of Pantsuit Clinton.
Before the next working day (Monday, today our time, the statement was on a weekend day), Comey announces some bullshit.
Saw an article claiming that the NYPD has copies of it all and will continue investigating if the FBI drops it.
The timing of Obama’s tantrum and Comey’s reaction indicates that the Dem machine wanted it to be as late as possible, so that the NYPD can have no effect before polling day.
Big surprise and obvious process.
HOWEVER, I have a view that the most virtue signalling GoodWhite would sell out his most ultra Vibrant friend for career advancement and particularly, and ESPECIALLY, advancement in the SEXUAL MARKETPLACE.
Bottom line: Sex matters more than money to people. It even overrides virtue signaling.
To successfully appeal to White Male Urbanites, who vote full on Good White SJW, a direct and brutal approach must be taken:
1. They are not Darwinian successful enough to land a hot babe, the most they'll get is a poorer Lena Dunham who will not be grateful but resentful, and even fatter. Trigglypuff is what they'll get.
2. The current female/feminist dynamic, "only the true Alpha White guys are successful in a sea of diversity" stacks things against them -- they'll only get Trigglypuffs it the go along to get along.
3. Their only play to get a hottie AND KEEP HER is to go full on "nativist" aka "Band of Brothers" traditionalist, keeping faith with their grandfather's sacrifices.
4. Take a page out of Michelle Obama's book* and argue that THEY, as descendants of heroes, are OWED the status positions unrightfully usurped by foreign interlopers and as descendants of heroes they must kick them out (of the nation) and take their rightful place; with the new higher status getting them the hot babe of their dreams.
*Michelle Obama has famously and repeatedly argued that White men must be fired from their jobs so the positions can be given to Blacks, women, Muslims, etc.
In short, to maximize the White vote, two pronged but related attacks on the coalition of the fringes must be mounted. As described in the previous post, note to unmarried White women (which is unlikely to ever change as White women prefer sex with Alphas to marriage to beta males) that all those goodies attainable to them depend on kicking out the high cost foreigners who deny them that vacation in Bermuda or free health care or College Loan forgiveness let along free college to their bastard kids.
But nakedly appeal to White Urban SJW men that they can trade up drastically if they just act like their grandfathers and move to kick out all the foreigners, and descendants of foreigners. Make an argument about heritage, blood, and inheritance. The country is theirs, paid for in blood at Okinawa and the Bulge, they must heroically reclaim it; and every single Hollywood movie they'v watched confirms this message.Replies: @Anonymous
But I see these guys with East Asian women who are 8.5’s to 9’s with dispositions that are 10’s. Almost no white woman over a 8 has a naturally pleasant disposition, and certainly not a demur, self-effacing one. They might be bubbly and friendly but it’s rarely natural. It seems to me that white women have gotten less attractive in the last 30 years and they’ve become a lot more hostile (almost like blacks). [I was accused of being a woman hater (by a woman) last time I pointed this out re: white women, so FTR, I’m happily married to my first and only wife].
White men have become whimpier. And in Europe a lot more feminine. I think this could be a product of WWII. The most masculine men in Germany were killed and the ones left to procreate were less masculine. Now they are sympathetic to multiculturalism and socialism and carry man purses. This feminization of men happened in the U.S., but to a less extent b/c of them being the victor and not losing a large chunk of masculine men. But it manifested itself in the progressive politics that grew out of the 1960’s and 70’s and the only thing that kept it check was the large WWII generation. Same thing happened in Japan to a larger extent than in Europe. WWII Japanese men were much more masculine, especially the ones who fought and died in WWII.
The beginning of the end of whites occurred in WWII, the unnecessary war.
They always have, and they’ve always aged out of it, so I fail to see what’s frightful about it. What’s frightful is that we’re being race-replaced by the oligarch class. What’s frightful is how stupid white voters are, hemming and hawing and splitting the vote over whether to survive or not.
And Minnesotans are goodwhite schmucks.
Guess he read my posts from August.
Neither does Yeagley, IIRC.
In every recent election white people with a university education voted for the Republican (Romney carried this group by 14% – Trump is losing it by 7%, a 21% swing). As did white women (Romney got 56% of their vote).
The real story about Trump with respect to white voters is that while he has, indeed, gathered together the subset of whites who are working class and male, he has also split the white vote – something no previous Republican candidate has managed to do.
So AFF works for all races and minorities, not just whites. It just works from a lower base point with the others.
This may be account for a few % but the magnitude of the shift is such that it doesn’t make a big difference. Romney won college-educated whites by 14%, Trump is losing them (according to polls) by 7%. Even if the actual figure is a loss of 2% or so it’s still a large shift.
Romney won among white women, getting 56% of their vote. Trump was getting 43% at the end of October.
Trump is the first Republican candidate to split the white vote and to lose large segments of white voters.
If Trump pulls off a win it will be because of this, plus lower black and other Democratic turnout.
Steve, I’m just commenting here on #95 to catch your attention.
Two observations, only one of which relates to possible action.
Unfortunately nothing much can be done about what I take to be a relevant and important demographic difference between Australia and the US. To me the American problems which are much written about on UR look more like problems of class than race – a view which an 1890s middle or upper (or even lower perhaps) class person would have easily adopted. The worry is that this, for cultural rather than genetic reasons, will not change much in the next 50 years and will be exacerbated by the highly probable black heritable IQ deficit and the declining fertility of the bright, energetic and puposeful. Which is to say that the class problem is a quality problem even if, historically, lower class people of the pre Malthusian era were not condemned to have generally inferior descendants.
As you are well aware Australia’s demographic mix suffers little from the so far intractable problems of its indigenes whose numbers are only 2 or 3 per cent, and there has been only one seriously negative experience of taking in supposed refugees or immigrants in the last 70 years – Lebanese in the late 70s and early 80s. There are mostly economic reasons for curtailing the privileges of bringing in parents but the weight of immigration for a long time seems to have been with employable and/or well off and/or educated English speaking East Asians and Indians. I see no problem at all in the long run for the Liberal (right of centre) Party from them as voters. Indeed I see them as unsympathetic to a welfare state encouraging the fertility of the inadequate and unproductive.
Now here,at the end, is a prescription for action.
The US, from afar looks too far gone to hope, for example, to be capable of standing up to China in 2030, but surely there would be votes in advocating that, except for special cases, no alien and no alien’s child becomes a citizen with voting and welfare rights without having been a net taxpayer for 15 years. It would obviously have to be refined and nuanced but, with skill, not too much weakened. And it would certainly be good for white working class males and should appease them.
By the time whites wake up to the demographic situation in their own locale - it's too late! Meanwhile, goodwhites elsewhere in comfortably majority-white areas sneer at them and make it clear that such concerns are for the peasants. That is until their own area reaches the end of demographic conveyor belt, as they fall into the abyss they cry out for help to other, safer, goodwhites - who respond by slamming their boot heel down on their fingers, condemning them to oblivion. And then it's their turn. . .
One strategy has to be to make the goodwhites aware of this. Because eventually the supply of nice places for goodwhites to live will be exhausted.Replies: @Corvinus
“By the time whites wake up to the demographic situation in their own locale – it’s too late! Meanwhile, goodwhites elsewhere in comfortably majority-white areas sneer at them and make it clear that such concerns are for the peasants. That is until their own area reaches the end of demographic conveyor belt, as they fall into the abyss they cry out for help to other, safer, goodwhites – who respond by slamming their boot heel down on their fingers, condemning them to oblivion. And then it’s their turn. . .One strategy has to be to make the goodwhites aware of this.”
So, basically you are refuting the HbD notion that race is biological in this particular instance when it comes to designating whites into “good” and “bad” categories.
How does one even characterize whites in this fashion? What are the metrics involved? Why should “good whites” be belittled and badgered by “bad whites” for making their own individual choices about race (or is it the other way around)?
“Because eventually the supply of nice places for goodwhites to live will be exhausted.”
So “goodwhites” are incapable of ensuring their own safety and survival? Do you really believe it, that these “nice places” will turn to rot?
Wow, just wow.
“Obama ran a really ugly, nasty campaign full of subliminal hatred.”
Have you been living under a rock?
Is this the Trump strategy of accusing the other person of your weakness?
You're right about the differences between older career women and younger women wrt time on their hands and ability to trade their looks, but you didn't mention the likely compromise you'll be making in the quality as a mother you'd likely be making with the career woman. I'm acquainted with a woman who has decided to try to focus less on her career and spend more time with her kid. Sounds great, except she only made this decision after losing her second child at 6 months, after having gone back to work without taking maternity leave. Think real hard about marrying a woman with priorities like that before you make any decisions.
Bear in mind that a 35 yr old may not have the looks she once did - but there will always be a guy around thirsty enough not to care.Replies: @Corvinus
“It’s a huge tradeoff, too. You’re trapped once you’re married. But once you have kids, assuming you care about being able to spend time with them, you’re her bitch.”
You must not be married or have kids, because that’s not how it works. Pro tip –> Stop reading Roissy and ROK.
“You’re right about the differences between older career women and younger women wrt time on their hands and ability to trade their looks, but you didn’t mention the likely compromise you’ll be making in the quality as a mother you’d likely be making with the career woman.”
Assuming that career woman are less likely to be a quality mother to their children. Again, you must not be married or have children.
Aaron Clarey aka Captain Capitalism posted a good rant on his blog named “A world without white people”. http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.ca/2016/11/a-world-without-white-people.html
The problem of the GOP may indeed be not enough White votes, but the problem of the Dems may be not enough Black votes—or rather not enough Blacks to vote: Shootings in Chicago, November 1-6: killed, 23; wounded, 96. Total shot: 119.
Unless something is done about this, and fast, the country will soon reach the point of Peak Aspiring Rapper.
I suggest you go back and look closely at the data Steve presented, because the white vote was split in 2012 and every election cycle before that. Romney winning 58% of the white vote is the white vote being split between Romney and Obama. We don’t know exactly what percentage of the white vote Trump will win, but I imagine it will be 58% plus or minus 2%.
You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about wealthy educated whites. I repeat, these people are “conservative” only in their desire to conserve the progressive status quo. Their ox is long overdue for a goring.
That’s a thoughtful post, but…
Given Trump’s been demonized just for calling for an end to illegal mass migration from Mexico, how far do you think anyone would get advocating your far more stringent immigration policy?
Romney won among white women, getting 56% of their vote. Trump was getting 43% at the end of October.
Trump is the first Republican candidate to split the white vote and to lose large segments of white voters.If Trump pulls off a win it will be because of this, plus lower black and other Democratic turnout.Replies: @Reg Cæsar
Sounds like white trash to me. Degree or not.
Ideally, someone will get the message that some of the ideas Trump has been promoting are important, and a more acceptable candidate (such as Tom Cotton?) will emerge as a potential president. But I suspect it is likely that the lesson learned will be double down on the Rubio strategy.Replies: @AP, @LondonBob, @Neil Templeton, @Greenstalk, @reiner Tor
Romney wasn’t constantly attacked by fellow Republicans throughout the campaign. Other Republicans were campaigning for him. It might have helped Trump with the pro-Romney voters if Romney and Ryan for example were campaigning for him.
Romney lost because many working class whites refused to vote for him. Trump will likely lose because the educated white Republicans are just returning the favor.Replies: @reiner Tor, @Randal
As I've quoted the late radio artist Bob Grant before,
"I wish there were there somewhere to go, because I'd go there."Replies: @BenKenobi
You are quite correct, there is nowhere to go.
However, the balkanization of North America is inevitable.
With a lot of hard work, and little luck, one of the new nations be a “White Israel”.
Of course my first choice is that the God-Emperor and His loyal Space Marines are successful in Making America Great Again.
It might have helped Trump with the pro-Romney voters if Romney and Ryan for example were campaigning for him.
Romney lost because many working class whites refused to vote for him. Trump will likely lose because the educated white Republicans are just returning the favor.
However, a Hillary presidency will be shit for the nice educated white Republicans. Trump may not be very good for them, but way better than Hillary, and there's no third option in sight.Replies: @AP
It was so loud we could hear it across the Atlantic.Replies: @iffen
These attacks were rather mutual.
Yes, Trump attacked back.
http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-mitt-romney-self-deportation-2016-2Replies: @reiner Tor
Romney lost because many working class whites refused to vote for him. Trump will likely lose because the educated white Republicans are just returning the favor.Replies: @reiner Tor, @Randal
But a Romney presidency would’ve been shit for the working class folks. Besides endless wars and tax cuts for the rich, there was nothing in it for them, so Obama was actually no worse than Romney in that respect.
However, a Hillary presidency will be shit for the nice educated white Republicans. Trump may not be very good for them, but way better than Hillary, and there’s no third option in sight.
Why not? It’s not like it’s difficult. People do it for fun.
a Hillary presidency will be shit for the nice educated white Republicans
Not true. This is where the alt-right and their criticism of the “cucks” are correct. For the upper middle class and above there is very little difference to their economic well-being predicated on which party controls the White House. Many upper middle class Republicans can be quite liberal.
Someone has to mention it…..j reno has departed. Anyone remember the clinton/reno assault on the Branch Davidian Church….fried up all those little kids and their parents alive. Then the vismin holder led up the thorough impartial investigation……essentially concluding the kids were white so it didn’t matter much.
Excellent data visualization on Romney’s Share of White Vote vs. Share of Total Vote. One can see the potential for Trump in the battleground states, OH, FL, PA, etc. if he can get more of the white vote share to pull (heave ho!) his total over the threshold (to the right!). Also, the visualization brings home how this could be the last chance Republicans have to be competitive for the presidency. Thanks for reposting this. Will be fascinating to compare this chart with 2016 results.
Romney lost because many working class whites refused to vote for him. Trump will likely lose because the educated white Republicans are just returning the favor.Replies: @reiner Tor, @Randal
And I remember the endless whining about how unforgivably disloyal all those traditionalist (and often working class) Republican types were for not turning out to vote for the RINO candidate their betters had anointed to represent them.
It was so loud we could hear it across the Atlantic.
The RINO label and associated political questions are not simple. I prefer to think of the 2012 election as the time enough of my peeps figured out that they weren't getting anything out of bending over every four years so they decided not to bend over again.
You must not be married or have kids, because that's not how it works. Pro tip --> Stop reading Roissy and ROK.
"You’re right about the differences between older career women and younger women wrt time on their hands and ability to trade their looks, but you didn’t mention the likely compromise you’ll be making in the quality as a mother you’d likely be making with the career woman."
Assuming that career woman are less likely to be a quality mother to their children. Again, you must not be married or have children.Replies: @ATX Hipster
Wrong on both counts. You must not have ever seen divorce rape up close.
“Wrong on both counts. You must not have ever seen divorce rape up close.”
There is no “trap” when you’re married, nor are you “her bitch” when you have children. Again, you’ve been duped by Roissy and ROK.
Now, anecdotally, I have had four of my friends who went through a divorce. In three of the four cases, they worked out their situation amicably. With the fourth case, they were both a bit on aggressive side in their relationship, so it’s other than surprising that things got messy.
now that right there is the core essence of your problem.
i believe that you ARE =intellectually= aware that you'd ACTUALLY get better foodstuffs by asking around of the wives of the diesel mechanics at the tractor dealership.
But you're addicted to..... i cannot put my finger on it. But I smelled it when I saw it, down at the Whole Foods in La Jolla.Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome
I suspect those would more likely be at Wal-Mart buying sodas.
Prevelance of Obesity by Annual Household Income for Persons Ages 18-64
I’m not sure who started it:
http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-mitt-romney-self-deportation-2016-2
It was so loud we could hear it across the Atlantic.Replies: @iffen
vote for the RINO candidate their betters had anointed to represent them
The RINO label and associated political questions are not simple. I prefer to think of the 2012 election as the time enough of my peeps figured out that they weren’t getting anything out of bending over every four years so they decided not to bend over again.
It would have to be pitched as the post racist fair and objective solution. What’s not to like about it for every voting citizen who, even if poor, doesn’t want to share with lots more snouts in the trough. He/she can see that the trough is more likely to stay full and available to them if newcomers are all working hard to pay in. Naive?
However, a Hillary presidency will be shit for the nice educated white Republicans. Trump may not be very good for them, but way better than Hillary, and there's no third option in sight.Replies: @AP
Policies that encourage “self deportation” would have helped working class wages. Also he wouldn’t have pushed stuff like affirmative action and would be good in terms of their preferred social policies. But he would’ve been pro free trade and a hawk, so minuses in addition to the plusses.
The educated white Republicans will be fine under Clinton, at least in the short to medium term (the long-term consequences, over decades, of her immigration policies could be a different matter). Migrants are priced out of their neighborhoods so they won’t deal with them regularly, Trump is much worse for the stock market (thus pensions, IRAs, etc.), more migrants means cheaper labor for lawn-care, free trade means products cost a lot less. That’s, of course, if anything much gets done. A Clinton presidency would probably be a lot of gridlock and not much change. If your life is good, that’s not a bad thing.
Taxes will be higher than they would have been under Trump, but it won’t be a catastrophic situation (and again, can be balanced by stock performance).
But giving up your country for dubious stock market gains will predictably come back to haunt you or your descendants. And of course affirmative action affects the more dysfunctional the least.Replies: @AP
The odds of marrying a foreign woman are better if you integrate into their culture. In many places you are already high status in their culture just by being European, although you'd still be a foreigner.
You can also 'import' a wife. The odds of that working out are somewhat worse due to the toxic anti-male culture and perverse incentives in place in America, but it's up to everyone individually to decide how they want to live their life. I certainly wouldn't begrudge someone that if they had a good plan and were confident that it would work.Replies: @Kristen
“The odds of marrying a foreign woman are better if you integrate into their culture. ”
While I was in Kyoto, Japan last week, I attended an Anglican Church, went to academic lectures in English, and met up with some professors at the university there. A visual pattern was easily discerned: American man with Japanese wife. What struck me, though, was how Americans left their culture for that of Japan. I have known many Japanese women with American husbands in the US, but this was the first time I saw their counterparts in Japan.
Japan is ethnically Japanese with less than one-percent “gaijin” (foreigner of a non-Asian background). I liked their homogeneity and admired them for keeping their values and culture intact. Such homogeneity has created a crime-free, stable society.
While walking around the city, I rarely saw strollers. Where were the babies, I wondered? The US looked like a giant preschool after Japan! I do not know why they aren’t reproducing. Yes, they are crunched for land, but they’ve always been that way — so why are they not making babies now? No answers, here.
The stock market is difficult to predict, to say the least.
But giving up your country for dubious stock market gains will predictably come back to haunt you or your descendants. And of course affirmative action affects the more dysfunctional the least.
Basically, uneducated whites Republicans need the educated ones more than vice versa. The latter are screwed less by a democratic (particularly, Wall-street friendly Clinton) victory. Belmont has done well under Obama, Fishtown has not. Dividing the two, as Trump has managed to do, will have much worse consequences for uneducated whites than for educated ones if the result of this division by Trump is a Clinton victory.Replies: @reiner Tor
http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-mitt-romney-self-deportation-2016-2Replies: @reiner Tor
Your link contains another link to the origins of the feud, which was Romney talking about releasing tax returns of candidates and then zeroing in specifically on Trump.
Of course Trump is in the habit of stopping feuds with people who stop attacking him, and talking respectfully about people who support him. That’s how Lyin’ Ted became Senator Cruz. Romney & the cucks might’ve tried it, too. Or they might’ve just shut up, and Trump wouldn’t have spent time attacking them at all. For example why did Ryan have to have that conference call?
I mean, we all agree that America is the Titanic... why not steal all the lifeboats and depart if we know the conclusion?
"Welcome to my nightmare, you're gonna like it..."Replies: @Anonymous, @Dissident, @Rumormonger
It’s clear from their actions that the elites have already privately concluded that the US is nearing the end of its history. They now just want to make as much money as possible before fleeing to Switzerland/Israel and watching the final collapse from a distance with detachment and in safety.
But giving up your country for dubious stock market gains will predictably come back to haunt you or your descendants. And of course affirmative action affects the more dysfunctional the least.Replies: @AP
Every time Clinton does better in the polls, the market goes up; when she stumbles, it goes down. Markets like stability. Trump promises to shake everything up. This isn’t rocket science.
Decades down the road, yes. But not any time soon.
Not really, given that Asians (the ones who actually compete with educated white Republicans) don’t benefit from it. Sure there are the rare Barack Obamas getting into Columbia, but for the most part it’s competition for city or state jobs that require only a high school diploma, a government contract for a construction company given to one owned by a minority, etc. To benefit from AA you still have to be in the race. A black or Hispanic guy with a high school diploma or less will get an advantage over a white guy with the same background, but he’s still not going to get a job requiring as university degree. This isn’t post-apartheid South Africa.
Basically, uneducated whites Republicans need the educated ones more than vice versa. The latter are screwed less by a democratic (particularly, Wall-street friendly Clinton) victory. Belmont has done well under Obama, Fishtown has not. Dividing the two, as Trump has managed to do, will have much worse consequences for uneducated whites than for educated ones if the result of this division by Trump is a Clinton victory.
Which fell short of the personal attacks Trump responded with.
From your link, Romney’s statements about Trump refusing to release his taxes:
“We have good reason to believe that there’s a bombshell in Donald Trump’s taxes…Well, I think there’s something there. Either he’s not anywhere near as wealthy as he says he is, or he hasn’t been paying the kind of taxes we would expect him to pay. Or perhaps he hasn’t been giving money to the vets or the disabled, like he’s been telling us he’s been doing…Donald Trump and Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz have not shown us their back taxes…This was an issue on my campaign…The reason I think there’s a bombshell in there is that every time he’s asked about his taxes, he dodges or delays and says, ‘Well, we’re working on it”
Firstly – he was right, Trump hadn’t paid income taxes. Secondly, the tone was not particularly disrespectful.
Trump’s response:
“Mitt Romney, who totally blew an election that should have been won and whose tax returns made him look like a fool, is now playing tough guy.”
Obviously it escalated from there, by both men.
In any event, it was OK to attack Trump during the primaries. Why did he keep attacking him, once he sealed the nomination?
They should perhaps read The Camp of the Saints to see how it ends for Switzerland.
As for Israel, ending up as a small state surrounded on all sides by followers of a death cult armed with nukes doesn’t make for a happy ending either.
God, I hope enough Americans prove to have the necessary self-preservation instinct to put Trump in the White House.
While I was in Kyoto, Japan last week, I attended an Anglican Church, went to academic lectures in English, and met up with some professors at the university there. A visual pattern was easily discerned: American man with Japanese wife. What struck me, though, was how Americans left their culture for that of Japan. I have known many Japanese women with American husbands in the US, but this was the first time I saw their counterparts in Japan.
Japan is ethnically Japanese with less than one-percent "gaijin" (foreigner of a non-Asian background). I liked their homogeneity and admired them for keeping their values and culture intact. Such homogeneity has created a crime-free, stable society.
While walking around the city, I rarely saw strollers. Where were the babies, I wondered? The US looked like a giant preschool after Japan! I do not know why they aren't reproducing. Yes, they are crunched for land, but they've always been that way -- so why are they not making babies now? No answers, here.Replies: @Truth
All they need to do is import 3,000 brothers and wait 50 years: Reproduction crisis averted.
Basically, uneducated whites Republicans need the educated ones more than vice versa. The latter are screwed less by a democratic (particularly, Wall-street friendly Clinton) victory. Belmont has done well under Obama, Fishtown has not. Dividing the two, as Trump has managed to do, will have much worse consequences for uneducated whites than for educated ones if the result of this division by Trump is a Clinton victory.Replies: @reiner Tor
Obviously, the stock market will tank if Trump wins. I hope you don’t think it means that after eight years of Trump presidency the stock market will be lower than after eight years of Hillary presidency. Because that would be an idiotic idea.
So Romney attacked Trump out of the blue, after which Trump furiously attacked back. If you think Trump shouldn’t have escalated, then, well, Romney started the escalation.
In any event, it was OK to attack Trump during the primaries. Why did he keep attacking him, once he sealed the nomination?
Who has a better relationship with Wall Street?
It was a fairly civilized request for the tax returns. He wasn’t actually insulting. Trump took it to that level.
Strong dislike and negative opinion for the man, after all was said and done during the primaries.
Trump is a divider of white people.