Posts Tagged ‘elections’

Republicans Will Be The Biggest Casualty Of The Trump Revolution, At First

Wednesday, January 17th, 2018

Every industry has a life cycle. It starts out young and vital, then succeeds, and at that point, “everyone else” takes notice — that is, the people who were not the pioneers who created it — and comes on board, and starts doing the usual human stuff that makes everything fail. Then the industry degenerates to a chummy old boys club of one variety or another.

You can see this across the board, in entities as different as the automobile industry, worldwide religious denominations, hip-hop music and crypto-currencies. Founders create; participants partake, and by shaping the industry toward their needs with their greater numbers, they reduce it to the mean, at which point it loses what made it distinct and powerful.

Republicans face the same problem. Trump called them out on it not in so many words, although he did that as well, but by being a better example of what their industry was when it was vital. The GOP needs to wake up if it wants to stop the hemorrhage of lost elections:

The upset is the 34th Democratic pickup in the 2018 cycle. “Republicans have [already] flipped four seats from blue to red — two in the Republican-trending Deep South, one in New Jersey and one in Massachusetts,” Dave Weigel notes. “But on average, even in races that went against them, Democrats have improved on their margins from the 2016 rout. In other Tuesday elections, Democrat Dennis Degenhardt won 43 percent of the vote in Wisconsin’s 58th Assembly District; in 2016, Hillary Clinton won just 28 percent of the vote there, and no Democrat contested the seat. In Iowa’s 6th House District, Democrat Rita DeJong won 44 percent of the vote; in 2016, the party’s nominee won just 35 percent. In South Carolina’s 99th House District, Democrat Cindy Boatwright lost with 43 percent of the vote; the party had not run a candidate for the seat in this decade.”

On paper, the Republican candidate is great, if we are thinking of the “old way” of doing things. Responsible, respectable, probably good with business. But the new Republican mandate is culture change, which means doing away with all the egalitarian ideas that culminated in globalism. Right-wing voters are going to sit out any candidate who does not join the populist train.

In contrast, the Democrat candidate demonstrates a better fit for the cultural wave:

Her campaign focused not on attacking Trump but fighting the opioid crisis, improving access to health care and bringing good-paying jobs to the region. She didn’t need to talk about the president to benefit from an outpouring of progressive energy and conservative apathy.

She’s the chief medical examiner for St. Croix County, a former EMT and a member of the school board. She is also a trustee for the local food pantry and sits on the board for a community center that helps victims of sexual and domestic violence.

The first paragraph of the biographical page on Schachtner’s website notes that she is “a former member of the Wisconsin Bear Hunters’ Association,” and that “she and her family have enjoyed hunting in Wisconsin for generations.” She’s been married to her husband, Joe, for 39 years, and they have six grown children and nine grandchildren.

German-American name (i.e. Western European) plus a record of practical (business, like Trump) experience plus a campaign focused not on ideology but practicality… likes to hunt… traditional family structure… the Democrat is more in line with the cultural wave than the Republican, so the Democrat won.

Republicans should consider themselves on notice. They had a good thing going, where they went out there and ranted about god, guns, Israel, defense, abortion, and pro-business and then got elected, at which point they had to play the injured but nobly truthful hero and the money and votes kept rolling in. That approach failed the voters, and now they are having their revenge.

On the plus side, a purging of cucks — those who are more concerned with social pretense than real world results — will benefit both parties and could enable the GOP to get rid of fake Anglo William F. Buckley and his milquetoast conservatism. His innovation was to make a GOP that was compatible with the rising tide of Civil Rights activity, which essentially condemned the GOP to being a minority party. Popular, but unwise in the long term.

When the other side wins everything over a seventy-year span, it means that the strategy employed by the Right is not working, and with the rise of Trump, the Reagan-Buchanan ideal has won out over the Buckley ideal, with the Buchanan side emerging in crypto form. Trump has created a conservatism of two parts:

  1. A rigorous traditionalism. He appeals to masculinity, honor, social order, family, and even — most controversially — the type of race realism that says that every ethnic group must consider itself a nation, and see any other ethnic group as a competitor who wants to conquer it and take its women.
  2. An immense practical realism. At the end of the day, full bellies and lack of fears of being invaded by violent foreign powers make people happy. They dislike globalism not just because it fundamentally changed America but because economically, it fails, transferring money from the first world to the third world, which has fewer expenses and therefore gets ahead.

Trump is strategic enough to avoid wearing his traditionalism or concern over Obama’s “fundamental change” of America on his sleeve; instead, he uses the second plank to amplify the former. Traditionalism endures because it works, not just socially but financially, and so by applying sound business logic, he is uncovering the undiscovered core of conservatism.

Those who fail to pick up on this cultural wave sweeping the West — with Farage, Schultz, and Trump in the lead — will find themselves ignored by those who they think “should” vote for them, according to the late industry old boys club, and replaced by those who are either more conservative Democrats or populist Republicans. Right now the latter are scarce, but not for long.

Snapshot: Female Suffrage

Sunday, October 30th, 2016


As mentioned before, there is a problem with allowing women to vote (but scroll to the end for the punchline).

Harvard University President Larry Summers got in hot water for asserting that differences existed between male and female intelligence, and was later vindicated by scientific study (see also: Smart and SeXy) although the mainstream media ignored or counter-spun this information. However, that is not the problem with having women vote.

Women are not geared toward politics. Politics is the process of thinking toward the future in broad, irrational terms like principles and aesthetics. It requires people to take a strong stand because any idea will face a torrent of entropic forces trying to tear it apart, dumb it down or invert its meaning. Unlike in school, where the “right” answer counts, in politics the right vector or general direction counts. The details get settled later and cannot be anticipated in advance.

Nature has shaped women instead toward gaining social consensus. Their job in any situation, like in the archetype specific to them in the home, is to make everyone feel calm and accepted. Then they work out the details. For them, all is detail; there is no hierarchy or outline, but an unchanging goal of stability and peace, and from that they negotiate everything else. They are super-effective in social situations, unparalleled in family care and nursing, but devastatingly wrong in political situations.

Looking at American and European politics, we can see this in action. American women were the crucial group that elected Bill Clinton, generally on the basis that he was “good for race relations” and would establish pacifism between racial groups. American women also participated in electing Barack Obama for the same reason. In Europe, women dominate governments because they are perceived as safer and less warlike than men, with the female vote constituting a bloc they can count on to keep them in office.

We can see the evolutionary role of women playing out through these decisions: first, they pacify; then, they negotiate through details for what they think is a good compromise. The result is an inability to take any direction and then, as a result, a default to whatever the dominant direction is. Under female suffrage, the West has slide further down a path that will obviously not resolve well, simply through the process of compromise.

But for the punchline: while female suffrage is a terrible idea, so is the process of democracy in general.

Democracy disconnects actions from results. Votes are a lottery in which people hope their team wins, but then if not, conclude that the gods must be crazy and disconnect their brains until the next election. Even among high-intelligence males, the process of voting encourages a compromise mentality; working with the system is more important than working toward a result, especially if one wishes to stay in power.

Even further, democracy encourages the worst of human behavior by encouraging people to use the popular vote to take revenge on other groups. People can anonymous spend their neighbor’s fortune or sabotage his business, or simply approve for themselves handsome benefits at the expense of the rest of the citizens. Those with nothing to lose get the same vote as those who will be devastated, and the vote of an idiot is equal to that of a genius.

People like democracy because of its inherent pacifism. By its reliance on compromise, it prevents clear direction, which in the muddled simple-headed monkey thinking that is the default of humanity, means that it will offend no one and therefore give no one a cause for conflict. This ignores the fact that conflict is inherent because different groups and individuals have self-interest based on who they are, including what they can understand, and therefore are perpetually in conflict. Democracy just forces this conflict behind the scenes.

As we approach the eulogy for liberal democracy (1789-2016) occasioned by the simultaneous failure of every liberal policy yet created in the West, it is important to think the unthinkable, or “think outside the box” as we were encouraged in the 1990s. Our assumptions limit us to thinking along the same path we have been on, but because the results are so bad, it is time for new assumptions or no assumptions. Democracy has failed but there is no reason we must go down with that ship.

#HillaryHasAIDS: Why It Is Irrelevant What Her Malady Is

Sunday, September 11th, 2016


After months of media and Snopes telling us that Hillary Clinton’s health is not an issue and that we are all conspiracy theorists for even considering it, another set of videos emerge showing Clinton apparently unable to stand, then falling or passing out and then being dragged into her van by Secret Service workers, who then position themselves to hide the event from scrutiny.

Rumors and conjecture are flying about what illness Clinton has, but it may be time to dial that back. Remote diagnosis is difficult, and many things can produce these problems. For example, if she became dehydrated or exhausted, she might pass out in public. It happened to me when I was 18 in the pit of a Slayer show, and thanks to several metal fans and skinheads, I was dragged to safety probably looking about like Hillary did.

But, the bigger issue is this: Clinton looks elderly and has consistent health problems. If these are brought on by the stress of the campaign trail, how will she do as President? Even more, why is it so seemingly difficult to get straight answers from her campaign about what is going on?

At the end of the day, it does not matter what illness she has — Parkinson’s, AIDS, pneumonia — but that she is experiencing recurring health problems and there is some kind of mystery agreement between media and the candidate to keep this as hush-hush as possible. This calls into question her ability to serve, and the honesty of her campaign.

Some have posited that her health troubles are a bonus for the DNC because it allows them to have a figurehead candidate who can be managed from behind the scenes by whatever cabal of experts the team has assembled. If Huma Abedin, for example, sends every email that originates from Clinton, the source of any future emails can be hidden and will be executed as if it is a Presidential order.

This is a common tactic in organizations that wish to preserve deniability for the figurehead, and also to be able to act for that figurehead when he or she is indisposed. The Clinton email server debacle points to this type of arrangement: where email is insecure, and multiple people have access to the means of sending those emails as teh figurehead, that figurehead has plausible deniability in a court of law.

With the Clinton candidacy, the political elites of the Left may have decided that allowing any single person to have power is too dangerous for them. They want more power. In that light, a candidate who can only work a few hours a day may be ideal, because then a committee can make all the decisions and have the candidate sign off on them, or do it for her. As Breitbart reports:

Clinton herself said her head trauma caused her to limit her work as secretary of state to only “a few hours a day,” and to not recall briefings related to the secure handling of government records, FBI documents reveal.

Under these conditions, the candidate becomes an actress who announces what the committee wants, instead of a leader. This gives more power to the elites, and eliminates a potentially unreliable or unpredictable figurehead, as both Obama and Bush II were at times, even when they did so from the best of motives.

In the meantime, this throws a wrench in the campaign. After months of denial, the health problems surface, and whatever the cause, Clinton ends up looking like she cannot hold the office. This gives the DNC and its compliant Supreme Court a number of options, including delaying the election indefinitely as has happened in Austria:

A re-run of May’s vote was ordered after Mr Hofer’s far-right Freedom Party challenged the result.

…Mr Sobotka said on Friday that it was unlikely the problems could be resolved in time for the 2 October date, and said he would make a further announcement on Monday, fuelling speculation he will announce a postponement.

Die Presse cites government officials as saying a number of different dates, from November to January, are being considered.

This is a classic tactic for seizing power: announce that the system has broken, and in the interim, the existing party in power will continue to rule. That gives Democrats time to find another candidate, or to simply prolong their rule forever.

Clinton’s now-famous “alt right” speech provides the basis for doing so: if, as she says, the other party is a “hate group,” it may be interpreted — by the compliant Supreme Court — to be ineligible to rule on Civil Rights grounds. They may declare Donald Trump and his supporters to be Unconstitutional on this basis, claim an emergency, and grant powers to existing Leftist leaders as a means of avoiding this result.

As the intrigue piles up, with this election being crucial because the winning party will be able to change American demographics such to exclude a victory by the other party, it becomes more likely as November approaches that the Democrats will deploy some method of seizing control.

On the negative side, this means that America will be ruled by the same gang of criminals that brought us the near-dictatorial rule of Barack Obama, but on the plus side, this will signal the end of democracy as a viable system. Expect further skullduggery and manipulation as the election approaches.

Recommended Reading