Sexualization of American culture and long march thru American institutions are two of many things the Left promoted that over-arch life in the USA today. I believe honest people, no matter what language they speak, are getting sick and tired of the lowest common denominator. The Left panders to the lowest common denominator. The Left lowers the quality of life for everyone, even themselves. Lena Dunham is a sample of LCD Leftism.
Yes. He thinks states should be able to pass near-total abortion bans.
"What used to be the conservative talking point, that abortion should be left up to the states, is now considered a betrayal of the anti-abortion movement.
Whenever liberals win a battle, they become more extreme liberal, often rejecting their earlier positions. The same applies to conservatives, but conservatives so rarely win any battles, we don't usually get to see it happen on the conservative side. But with abortion, we got to see it happen."
Trumps personal views matter less than the increasing salience of abortion and Evangelicalism as a political issue, driving California whites away from the whole Republican Party. Not just Trump.
Those aren’t increasingly salient. Christianity has lower influence than ever. California whites are losing salience though, flooded by ever growing numbers of non whites while they themselves flee their own disastrous choices to other better states
""and the Latinos especially don’t like the THREE pushiest groups currently on the top of the Democrats’ Pyramid of Privilege: JEWS, blacks and transgenders."
What would Steve get out of embracing criticism of that group? He'd gain the following of a bunch of conspiracy-theorist wannabe theocrats posturing with "Christ is Kang!" and telling him to embrace Catholicism as told by CatholicGroyper1388 rather than an actual priest. A very low-IQ movement.
Mentioning that Jews vote in spades for dems isn’t necessarily a criticism of them, although it is curious given their rather tribalistic loyalty to Israel and the dems other constituents antipathy to same
They want a blue Texas? Trump should say, "They like just one color, but I like red, white and blue! I want a red Texas. I want a blue Texas. I want a white Texas!"
Of course, the media would cut out everything except the last sentence.
I stand by my prediction that the Democrat party will cease to be a major national party by 2030. Meaning that 2028 is the last time they will field a presidential candidate and a large field of candidates for Congress with a shot at winning.
In 2032, if the party is still around, it will be functionally like the Green, Reform, Socialist, or Libertarian party: capable of fielding candidates to win some local and state elections, and capable of putting a few some Senators and congressmen in there, but not seriously able to challenge for either Congressional majority or the White House. At best, they can play spoiler in some states.
Why? Simple: as Steve has said, the party is a Coalition of the Fringes to Hate Whitey. But what kept the D's winning whites was the Vanilla Frosting guys at the top: old White and Jewish pols who could make voting whites think that, "Yeah, they may say they hate whitey, but that's just talk, look, Biden/Clinton/ Pelosi/Schumer is leading them!"
By 2028, however, the Vanilla Frosting guys will be gone from power. Biden and Pelosi are already on the way out, and Schumer is likely gone by 2028 -2032 (he's 78 right now in 2024) . And the D's desperately need Vanilla -Frosting folks -- because the Diversity Crew coming up is either incompetent, truly hates whitey and it shows, or both (e.g. Kamabla). Its why the Vanilla Frosting guys have been able to hang on to D power for so long---the party needs them, and the younger diversity folks are worse than them even though they are old, and no white guys are joining up or else are being deliberately held down. That's why terrible communist pol Gavin Newsom had a shot this year to replace Biden---he's a white youngish politician. But Newsom got out-maneuvered by Kamabla, so that says something about his talents.
When the last Vanilla Frosting guys are gone, whites will cease voting D (and the last die-hard D Boomer whites will be dead), and the coalition will make a power grab for the top for their group only. And whatever group takes it, the rest will exit and form a coalition party with white and Jewish leftists that will (if its meant to last) tamp identity politics way, way down from where it is now.
The D party has lasted since roughly 1820. 208 years is a long time for a political party to last in any system; most come and go historically in every nation. Even in a stable two-party system like ours, we've seen multiple powerful national parties come and go (Federalists, Whigs, No-Nothings, Bull Moose, etc.). So the D's dying off isn't something wild or out of bounds, and their trajectory is taking them right off the cliff.
"When the last Vanilla Frosting guys are gone, whites will cease voting D"
Secular, coastal whites REALLY don't want to vote for the party of Hulk Hogan and televangelism. I think you underestimate the degree of disgust with they feel for that. Talking about "whites" is like talking about "Yugoslavs" in 1980s Yugoslavia. There may be a white/Yugoslav genetic cluster, but the people aren't feeling it.
If anything, it's the GOP that will soon encounter a rough patch. Trump, for all his faults, is a Northern mainline Protestant and is willing to sound a moderate note on abortion. In 2028 they are likely to go full fetus fetish with someone extreme like Vance, DeSantis, or Rubio, or else Nikki Haley who's views on social security make her arguably even less electable.
I'd like you to be right about the imminent extinction of "vanilla frosting guys" but economics tells us that demand elicits supply. That is, a shortage of vanilla frosting guys will raise the rewards to new guys willing to do the job. Tim Walz, for instance. And the Dems only need a small number of these front men; an ounce of vanilla frosting will cover five pounds of chocolate cake.
The problem for D's on the Vanilla Frosting guys two fold:
1. The party used to (1940s-1980s) have a continuous farm system of talented white pols who could be counted on to be called up and do the job well as Vanilla Frosting. White union guys and ethnic Catholics could be counted on to be party leaders and cover up the Hate Whitey message. But these days, straight white males have been turned off for 40-50 years from joining the party, so the bench for Vanilla Frosting is thin. The few younger white guys who did stick around had to deal with the ignominy of being talked down to by worse DEI hires and being humiliated ritually and regularly-- so the only white guys left are either low-talent psychos (Newsom) or low-talent beta cucks (Waltz) willing to put up with it for possible future gain because, hey, they're the only white guys left. Any white guy with talent bolted decades ago and has been an R ever since.
2. The DEI hires will attack the party for boosting up younger whites over DEIs. They were fine with Biden/Pelosi as "elder statesmen" who'd held power a long time, but to them a younger white male is something to be held down and replaced. This is THEIR TIME, and Whitey must be punished. And this is also why talented white guys avoid the D's --they know they will be held down.
Hollywood is having a similar problem right now. After a decade of throwing out white guys for DEIs, suddenly they need those white guys to save their crumbling IPs, but they have few in the kitty and a bunch of squawking DEI managers upset if the white man comes back.
Of course, the difference is Hollywood is a business and has a monopoly on movie/TV production, so any white guy who wants to make movies/TV has to go through them, so Hollywood can conceivably get all the white guys they've pissed on back if they just fire the woke managers and rehire the white guys. The D's don't have a monopoly---the R's scooped up the older white guys and any new party from the D's can be formed from their remnants can recruit the young guys. The D's have a terrible image problem with white straight males and can't rebrand that quickly. And in politics you can't just fire all the woke DEI ideologues embedded in your system---they have power and money. BlackRock and Larry Fink and George Soros want their communist diversity, and they pay the bills!
In short, the D's have a much harder "get a young Vanilla Frosting guy" mission than Hollywood. Look for the D's to become desperate on that gambit.
I don't know if Newson is a "low-talent psycho". I mean not low-talent anyway. He was clever enough to veto the reparations disaster that Cal Dems had foolishly unleashed on themselves. And clever enough to spin the veto as an ambiguous technicality rather than a full-throated repudiation.
When he was Lieutenant Governor I heard him do an open-ended segment on the Adam Carolla Show. Provocateur Carolla hit Newsom with the heavy stuff the mincing prestige press was too 'nuanced' (i.e. fake) to ask. The median Dem would have been reduced to either a screaming outrage jak or to a blubbering soy heap, but Newsom calmly and deftly deflected, spun, bluffed, and lied his way through it all. Little sympathy as I had, I couldn't help but be impressed by his podium skill.
He looks like Patrick Bateman so people assume. I am reading "American Psycho" now. The book is from the 90s and about the 80s. Bateman is obsessed with his hero Donald Trump.
His recall election exposed him. He was openly nervous in interviews about being Gray Davis'd. His cozying up to CHinese dictators is a sign of his insecurity. SF was a shithole during his administration.
Newsom isn't that talented. If a mediocrity like Kamabla can get to be AG in California, Newsom's not much better. He's pretty low-talent politically for a governor, he's just pushed forth because he's governor. His whole " amend the constitution, amend the 2nd Amendment" garbage is right up there with Beto O'Rourke's spazziness.
Most governors are pretty mid. DeSantis is the only one I know of who seems to be performing above average.
Newsom doesn't have to be a great talent to be a Presidential candidate. Look at the other Presidential candidates (and Presidents!) we've had lately. Newsom is good enough. He looks healthy, has an attractive spouse, and knows how to avoid verbal pitfalls. That puts him in the top 10% of politicians. And since he's a white male, he provides the "Vanilla Frosting" the Dems desperately need to cover their Trojan Horse.
The power brokers will be more than content with him.
"Hollywood is a business and has a monopoly on movie/TV production"
There is no business entity called "Hollywood". That's just a neighborhood in LA and not even where all the studios are. "Hollywood" is just an old fashioned way of referring to the entire movie industry. So this is like saying that the chemical industry has a monopoly on the chemical business so chemists have no where else to go.
Interesting thesis. I'm not sure that Newsom got "out-maneuvered by Kamabla" so much as the DNC didn't want the hassle and risk of of delegitimizing their donated war chest by abandoning their incumbent girl. And just plain didn't want to abandon their incumbent girl.
Newsom, for his part, may have foreseen that letting DEI girl Kamala kamikaze against the GOP's strongest candidate would clear the field for Newsom in 2028 and beyond.
It's a good point though that, Newsom aside, the Dems are running out of charismatic "Vanilla Frosting" with which to camouflage the sh*t they regularly try to feed voters. Almost everyone is a grasping, whining, interest group rep these days who is unsuitable as the Dems' public face. Cory Booker is not looking like the successful sequel to the Obama psyop that he was billed as. Dems do still have a couple of lesser Kennedys kicking around somewhere they haven't quite alienated yet (Patrick, Joe III). And they have a few girl bosses they can try to pass off as Nice White Ladies (Whitmer, Klobuchar, Gillibrand). Mark Kelly isn't as old as he looks (does space cause premature aging?), but he doesn't seem interested even though he could get some marginal voters if he tricked them into mistaking him for Mike Ehrmantraut. They have non-incompetent governors in Shapiro and Pritzker, but would immediately run into the Public Jew Dilemma that will vex the Dems as long as Israel keeps bombing Arabs (which seems to be for the indefinite future): denounce the Zionist Entity or lose Michigan and The Youth. What about Cooper or Beshear? Maybe Kinzinger will oblige the Dems by completing his switch from Republican to Democrat? DeBlasio? Swalwell? Beto? Maybe they can rehabilitate Cuomo?
A Jewish candidate is a non-starter for D's, and Jews know it. Not just for the old-timey typical reasons, but because the D's support Palestine to such an extent that Jews get nervous and know any Jew in the presidential race will turn off the D's Palestinian crowd and thus lower turnout. The R's have a much better chance getting the first Jewish president in, since their voters are far more pro-Israel unapologetically and would turn out for him.
Cuomo maybe, but he's more of a back room heavy in NY politics than good in public or a national pol. He's masculine enough, and his harassment allegations might help him (hey, he's an old fashioned straight white guy!), but his resignation will follow him as a confession of guilt.
For most of the 20th century at least, the feeling among politically minded Jews was that a Jewish president would be net bad for the Jews. Too high profile, and every decision he made would make half the country more antisemitic
Disagree. Whites are the only group who still revere the constitution and the founders and the various amendments. The others, with notable exceptions, came to make money and we didn’t teach their descendants to love our traditions history and culture. They don’t value it and won’t fight to preserve it. Imo it will be a power struggle and the country will change into something we won’t recognize.
You are expressing the Myth of the White Conservative Gene, that only whites carry a special gene that enables them to appreciate social or economic conservatism. I thought this election, and Prop 8 in California in ‘08, should have dealt with this Myth.
P S a version of the same Myth is current on the Left. They call it Intrersectionality.
Kamala won 92% of the black female vote and 80% of the black male vote. She still won over 50% of Latinos so despite all the crowing about a new multi culti coalition I don’t see that much evidence. It may also be a fluke because Harris was a uniquely terrible candidate. I suppose we will see in 2 and 4. All I did was ask for numbers on prop because although I remember that NPR did a story about it I couldn’t remember details.
But I have to say that It's kind of hard to read R.G. and Alexander's comments and not come to the conclusion that the United States is not just fkt, but finished.
I think Steve said not that long ago, and in so many words, that the country will kind of putz along for a while (as opposed to "collapsing" or some other such word). He's probably right. And to the extent he is part of the reason can be found in R.G.'s and Alexander's comments.
I realize that requires some elaboration. But, well, not in a comment. At least not in this one.
The U.S. has too much valuable land too spread out for it not to be taken by someone(s). The Western Roman Empire collapsed but instantly tons of Gothic kingdoms sprouted up in Spain, Portugal, France, N. Africa, and Italy, as the lands and ports were too valuable not to be seized by a power-hungry guy looking for places with already good roads, good irrigation, good ports, and good aqueducts.
That the U.S. could be carved up similarly is not unheard of. California, the Mississippi river region, Texas, and the East Coast could end up as 4 distinct vying nations similar to Spain, Portugal, France, N. Africa, and Italy.
Thanks for your response R.G. Great comment! Especially the opening line.
"The U.S. has too much valuable land too spread out for it not to be taken by someone(s)."
So true. After all, one of the best ways to value something is to put it to use. Of course, another way to value it is to preserve it. But I think things will move in the direction you seem to suggest in your comment, for example,
"That the U.S. could be carved up....is not unheard of."
Right again. And, though I like the Roman Empire analogy, there is one word in our vocabulary that was missing from theirs - Adaptation. We truly are in a post-Darwinian age.
I don't think it's exactly going out on a limb to suggest that human behavior is becoming increasingly more, well, maladaptive. Meaning that our responses to the many challenges we face are more incompetent and less adequate to the demands that reality is confronting us with. A reality that doesn't give a damn about what we think or want, especially about things like race, gender, sexual orientation, pronouns, etc. etc.
And now we're back to the great exchange between you and Alexander above. Because both comments, and a lot of Steve's work in fact, seem to direct attention to this.
Certainly one explanation for the non-functional, maladaptive quality of human behavior of late, especially (though not exclusively) in the West, is that the prefered mode of response, if you will, to human problems is simply way too ideological. And ideology is hopelessly inadequate to the demands made upon us by reality more complex and unpredictable than ever before in human history.
That great line from Shakespeare's Hamlet comes irresistably to mind, "The readiness is all."
Where I live (Victoria, BC, Canada) no one has servants (except the wealthy) and there are no under-the-table cheap illegal immigrants. Judging by this comment at the WaPo article Texans are spoiled:
“Abbott talk about illegal immigrants but we need these folks to do the work here.. white people are not going to farm or build our homes/or do the housekeeping or cook for us.. “
Heaven help us! I have to do my own housework and cooking!
Rural Hispanics in West Texas have been voting Republican for quite a while. Rural Hispanics in South Texas have been moving that way over the past decade. Urban Hispanics are a harder nut to crack because many are part of a proletariat and have immigrated to Texas fairly recently. Democrats are more willing to offer the proletariat more free benefits.
If Texas moves left politically, the cause may be the white intel workers who have flocked to Austin. White intel workers are unusually left-wing.
"As we’ve all been told, the Great Replacement is a just a myth, a paranoid Republican conspiracy theory. It’s also been the Grand Strategy of the Democratic Party in recent decades..."
No doubt Steve readers are familiar with the revolting Mark Potok. I often think of him and this list of his whenever people refer to TGR as a "myth." https://x.com/i_aver/status/1146499007721758721
Or this one, where he brags about $PLC's aim to destroy whatever they designate as a Hate Group.
Of course, the joke is that if such Hate Groups really existed, Mark Potok wouldn't. And not just him.
But not only does he exist, he's lived a pretty good life in the USA, by any standard. The only thing radical about him is his ingratitude. Like I said, truly revolting. A creepy looking, web-mouthed puke.
Latino's are definitely friendlier to many right wing causes than one would think. But, when it comes between them and their 32 siblings getting into the U.S with good construction jobs, they'll happily betray the whites that they really have no actual animosity towards (PEW research center actually gave the statistic that 2% more latino's want confederate statues to stay than whites).
Sexualization of American culture and long march thru American institutions are two of many things the Left promoted that over-arch life in the USA today. I believe honest people, no matter what language they speak, are getting sick and tired of the lowest common denominator. The Left panders to the lowest common denominator. The Left lowers the quality of life for everyone, even themselves. Lena Dunham is a sample of LCD Leftism.
And the immigrants mostly didn’t care about the sexualization part, and were often rather hostile to it.
They accomplished it in California.
Indeed, one commenter at WaPo writes:
“If you doubt it, remember that California (home to Reagan and Nixon) shifted from "red" to "blue" in 1992 and is now no longer competitive.”
CA really never was that conservative. Rather that many high paying jobs were tied to Cold War Warbucks supported stronly by Republicans.
I don’t know about that, they defeated ssm before the activist SCOTUS overturned the will of the people.
And approved the 90s proposition denying services to illegals, also stopped by the courts.
In 2008, SSM was defeated by Blacks and Latinos and won the whites.
What were the numbers?
Even if California were all white, Biden still would have won:
https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/exit-polls/president/california
Fundamentally, white Californians don't agree with the bible-belt anti-abortion stuff.
Trump was anti abortion? Wha
Yes. He thinks states should be able to pass near-total abortion bans.
"What used to be the conservative talking point, that abortion should be left up to the states, is now considered a betrayal of the anti-abortion movement.
Whenever liberals win a battle, they become more extreme liberal, often rejecting their earlier positions. The same applies to conservatives, but conservatives so rarely win any battles, we don't usually get to see it happen on the conservative side. But with abortion, we got to see it happen."
https://x.com/LionBlogosphere/status/1779634014799679577
Letting states do what they want isn’t the same thing as being pro or anti abortion
To extreme leftists Bernie Sanders was right-wing, what's your point?
Trumps personal views matter less than the increasing salience of abortion and Evangelicalism as a political issue, driving California whites away from the whole Republican Party. Not just Trump.
Those aren’t increasingly salient. Christianity has lower influence than ever. California whites are losing salience though, flooded by ever growing numbers of non whites while they themselves flee their own disastrous choices to other better states
Nowadays they’re less salient sure but they became more salient after the Reagan area and made Republicans lose White Californians.
Very strange - evangelicals are a very strong force in California? I didn’t know that
Trump doesn’t give a good cahoot about abortion personally, but his only moral principle is the DEAL, and he made one. With Dobbs, the deal is done.
Maybe more so. And if California were all white, Prop 8 would have failed.
"and the Latinos especially don’t like the two pushiest groups currently on the top of the Democrats’ Pyramid of Privilege: blacks and transgenders."
Hold up. Isn't there another group in the Democratic party that's pushy? I mean that's really really pushy. Starts with a--
Trying to remember what the group is called, though. Hm....
Wonder if Latinos much like them?
Could this be that "really really pushy" group behind the Great Replacement?
-- ( https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1675225194351443968/pu/vid/720x1080/JFZ-bdFFf687holX.mp4?tag=12 )
Hard not to notice, isn't it?
>Starts with a--
ass? Why don't you just say it?
trying to recall, trying to remember....
it's such a mystery...
""and the Latinos especially don’t like the THREE pushiest groups currently on the top of the Democrats’ Pyramid of Privilege: JEWS, blacks and transgenders."
Nah, that doesn't work.
What would Steve get out of embracing criticism of that group? He'd gain the following of a bunch of conspiracy-theorist wannabe theocrats posturing with "Christ is Kang!" and telling him to embrace Catholicism as told by CatholicGroyper1388 rather than an actual priest. A very low-IQ movement.
Mentioning that Jews vote in spades for dems isn’t necessarily a criticism of them, although it is curious given their rather tribalistic loyalty to Israel and the dems other constituents antipathy to same
Well, the Orthodox Jews are moving away from the Democrats.
I suspect that they don't like them at all (to say the least).
You mean liberal white women?
They want a blue Texas? Trump should say, "They like just one color, but I like red, white and blue! I want a red Texas. I want a blue Texas. I want a white Texas!"
Of course, the media would cut out everything except the last sentence.
I stand by my prediction that the Democrat party will cease to be a major national party by 2030. Meaning that 2028 is the last time they will field a presidential candidate and a large field of candidates for Congress with a shot at winning.
In 2032, if the party is still around, it will be functionally like the Green, Reform, Socialist, or Libertarian party: capable of fielding candidates to win some local and state elections, and capable of putting a few some Senators and congressmen in there, but not seriously able to challenge for either Congressional majority or the White House. At best, they can play spoiler in some states.
Why? Simple: as Steve has said, the party is a Coalition of the Fringes to Hate Whitey. But what kept the D's winning whites was the Vanilla Frosting guys at the top: old White and Jewish pols who could make voting whites think that, "Yeah, they may say they hate whitey, but that's just talk, look, Biden/Clinton/ Pelosi/Schumer is leading them!"
By 2028, however, the Vanilla Frosting guys will be gone from power. Biden and Pelosi are already on the way out, and Schumer is likely gone by 2028 -2032 (he's 78 right now in 2024) . And the D's desperately need Vanilla -Frosting folks -- because the Diversity Crew coming up is either incompetent, truly hates whitey and it shows, or both (e.g. Kamabla). Its why the Vanilla Frosting guys have been able to hang on to D power for so long---the party needs them, and the younger diversity folks are worse than them even though they are old, and no white guys are joining up or else are being deliberately held down. That's why terrible communist pol Gavin Newsom had a shot this year to replace Biden---he's a white youngish politician. But Newsom got out-maneuvered by Kamabla, so that says something about his talents.
When the last Vanilla Frosting guys are gone, whites will cease voting D (and the last die-hard D Boomer whites will be dead), and the coalition will make a power grab for the top for their group only. And whatever group takes it, the rest will exit and form a coalition party with white and Jewish leftists that will (if its meant to last) tamp identity politics way, way down from where it is now.
The D party has lasted since roughly 1820. 208 years is a long time for a political party to last in any system; most come and go historically in every nation. Even in a stable two-party system like ours, we've seen multiple powerful national parties come and go (Federalists, Whigs, No-Nothings, Bull Moose, etc.). So the D's dying off isn't something wild or out of bounds, and their trajectory is taking them right off the cliff.
"When the last Vanilla Frosting guys are gone, whites will cease voting D"
Secular, coastal whites REALLY don't want to vote for the party of Hulk Hogan and televangelism. I think you underestimate the degree of disgust with they feel for that. Talking about "whites" is like talking about "Yugoslavs" in 1980s Yugoslavia. There may be a white/Yugoslav genetic cluster, but the people aren't feeling it.
If anything, it's the GOP that will soon encounter a rough patch. Trump, for all his faults, is a Northern mainline Protestant and is willing to sound a moderate note on abortion. In 2028 they are likely to go full fetus fetish with someone extreme like Vance, DeSantis, or Rubio, or else Nikki Haley who's views on social security make her arguably even less electable.
Secular coastal whites don’t breed either, so they’re a rather defunct entity in the future
Over the very-long term, sure, but there will still be many tens of millions of them in the decades going forward.
we are already seeing gen Z becoming more socially conservative thanks to breeding differentials between religious and seculars
https://washingtonstand.com/news/shocker-gen-zs-support-for-samesex-marriage-falls-precipitously
I'd like you to be right about the imminent extinction of "vanilla frosting guys" but economics tells us that demand elicits supply. That is, a shortage of vanilla frosting guys will raise the rewards to new guys willing to do the job. Tim Walz, for instance. And the Dems only need a small number of these front men; an ounce of vanilla frosting will cover five pounds of chocolate cake.
Yeah, I think the Dems can still squeeze an ounce of Vanilla Frosting from the bottom of the tube. See my previous comment for suggestions on who.
I don't think it's gonna be Walz though, because he looks over-squeezed already. He lacks charisma and has child molestation in his aura.
In your comment you employ a better metaphor than I did, for the brown stuff that the vanilla frosting needs to cover.
Good to see one of my favorite isteve veterans here. (I'm the isteve commenter formerly known as International Jew.)
Aha! Yes, I liked and admired your work and wit at Unz.
How'd you go from International to National though? Passport expire?
The problem for D's on the Vanilla Frosting guys two fold:
1. The party used to (1940s-1980s) have a continuous farm system of talented white pols who could be counted on to be called up and do the job well as Vanilla Frosting. White union guys and ethnic Catholics could be counted on to be party leaders and cover up the Hate Whitey message. But these days, straight white males have been turned off for 40-50 years from joining the party, so the bench for Vanilla Frosting is thin. The few younger white guys who did stick around had to deal with the ignominy of being talked down to by worse DEI hires and being humiliated ritually and regularly-- so the only white guys left are either low-talent psychos (Newsom) or low-talent beta cucks (Waltz) willing to put up with it for possible future gain because, hey, they're the only white guys left. Any white guy with talent bolted decades ago and has been an R ever since.
2. The DEI hires will attack the party for boosting up younger whites over DEIs. They were fine with Biden/Pelosi as "elder statesmen" who'd held power a long time, but to them a younger white male is something to be held down and replaced. This is THEIR TIME, and Whitey must be punished. And this is also why talented white guys avoid the D's --they know they will be held down.
Hollywood is having a similar problem right now. After a decade of throwing out white guys for DEIs, suddenly they need those white guys to save their crumbling IPs, but they have few in the kitty and a bunch of squawking DEI managers upset if the white man comes back.
Of course, the difference is Hollywood is a business and has a monopoly on movie/TV production, so any white guy who wants to make movies/TV has to go through them, so Hollywood can conceivably get all the white guys they've pissed on back if they just fire the woke managers and rehire the white guys. The D's don't have a monopoly---the R's scooped up the older white guys and any new party from the D's can be formed from their remnants can recruit the young guys. The D's have a terrible image problem with white straight males and can't rebrand that quickly. And in politics you can't just fire all the woke DEI ideologues embedded in your system---they have power and money. BlackRock and Larry Fink and George Soros want their communist diversity, and they pay the bills!
In short, the D's have a much harder "get a young Vanilla Frosting guy" mission than Hollywood. Look for the D's to become desperate on that gambit.
I don't know if Newson is a "low-talent psycho". I mean not low-talent anyway. He was clever enough to veto the reparations disaster that Cal Dems had foolishly unleashed on themselves. And clever enough to spin the veto as an ambiguous technicality rather than a full-throated repudiation.
When he was Lieutenant Governor I heard him do an open-ended segment on the Adam Carolla Show. Provocateur Carolla hit Newsom with the heavy stuff the mincing prestige press was too 'nuanced' (i.e. fake) to ask. The median Dem would have been reduced to either a screaming outrage jak or to a blubbering soy heap, but Newsom calmly and deftly deflected, spun, bluffed, and lied his way through it all. Little sympathy as I had, I couldn't help but be impressed by his podium skill.
He looks like Patrick Bateman so people assume. I am reading "American Psycho" now. The book is from the 90s and about the 80s. Bateman is obsessed with his hero Donald Trump.
> "He looks like Patrick Bateman so people assume."
The interview I heard was audio only, so I didn't know what he looked like at the time.
His recall election exposed him. He was openly nervous in interviews about being Gray Davis'd. His cozying up to CHinese dictators is a sign of his insecurity. SF was a shithole during his administration.
Newsom isn't that talented. If a mediocrity like Kamabla can get to be AG in California, Newsom's not much better. He's pretty low-talent politically for a governor, he's just pushed forth because he's governor. His whole " amend the constitution, amend the 2nd Amendment" garbage is right up there with Beto O'Rourke's spazziness.
Most governors are pretty mid. DeSantis is the only one I know of who seems to be performing above average.
Newsom doesn't have to be a great talent to be a Presidential candidate. Look at the other Presidential candidates (and Presidents!) we've had lately. Newsom is good enough. He looks healthy, has an attractive spouse, and knows how to avoid verbal pitfalls. That puts him in the top 10% of politicians. And since he's a white male, he provides the "Vanilla Frosting" the Dems desperately need to cover their Trojan Horse.
The power brokers will be more than content with him.
"Hollywood is a business and has a monopoly on movie/TV production"
There is no business entity called "Hollywood". That's just a neighborhood in LA and not even where all the studios are. "Hollywood" is just an old fashioned way of referring to the entire movie industry. So this is like saying that the chemical industry has a monopoly on the chemical business so chemists have no where else to go.
Holywood studios/corporations are indeed a business enterprise, thanks to monopoly-law exceptions on distribution, and conglomeration and the like.
Interesting thesis. I'm not sure that Newsom got "out-maneuvered by Kamabla" so much as the DNC didn't want the hassle and risk of of delegitimizing their donated war chest by abandoning their incumbent girl. And just plain didn't want to abandon their incumbent girl.
Newsom, for his part, may have foreseen that letting DEI girl Kamala kamikaze against the GOP's strongest candidate would clear the field for Newsom in 2028 and beyond.
It's a good point though that, Newsom aside, the Dems are running out of charismatic "Vanilla Frosting" with which to camouflage the sh*t they regularly try to feed voters. Almost everyone is a grasping, whining, interest group rep these days who is unsuitable as the Dems' public face. Cory Booker is not looking like the successful sequel to the Obama psyop that he was billed as. Dems do still have a couple of lesser Kennedys kicking around somewhere they haven't quite alienated yet (Patrick, Joe III). And they have a few girl bosses they can try to pass off as Nice White Ladies (Whitmer, Klobuchar, Gillibrand). Mark Kelly isn't as old as he looks (does space cause premature aging?), but he doesn't seem interested even though he could get some marginal voters if he tricked them into mistaking him for Mike Ehrmantraut. They have non-incompetent governors in Shapiro and Pritzker, but would immediately run into the Public Jew Dilemma that will vex the Dems as long as Israel keeps bombing Arabs (which seems to be for the indefinite future): denounce the Zionist Entity or lose Michigan and The Youth. What about Cooper or Beshear? Maybe Kinzinger will oblige the Dems by completing his switch from Republican to Democrat? DeBlasio? Swalwell? Beto? Maybe they can rehabilitate Cuomo?
A Jewish candidate is a non-starter for D's, and Jews know it. Not just for the old-timey typical reasons, but because the D's support Palestine to such an extent that Jews get nervous and know any Jew in the presidential race will turn off the D's Palestinian crowd and thus lower turnout. The R's have a much better chance getting the first Jewish president in, since their voters are far more pro-Israel unapologetically and would turn out for him.
Cuomo maybe, but he's more of a back room heavy in NY politics than good in public or a national pol. He's masculine enough, and his harassment allegations might help him (hey, he's an old fashioned straight white guy!), but his resignation will follow him as a confession of guilt.
For most of the 20th century at least, the feeling among politically minded Jews was that a Jewish president would be net bad for the Jews. Too high profile, and every decision he made would make half the country more antisemitic
🥱
The Democrats are the anti-white party. Sadly, tens of millions of American voters are anti-white. I expect the Democrats to thrive.
Disagree. Whites are the only group who still revere the constitution and the founders and the various amendments. The others, with notable exceptions, came to make money and we didn’t teach their descendants to love our traditions history and culture. They don’t value it and won’t fight to preserve it. Imo it will be a power struggle and the country will change into something we won’t recognize.
You are expressing the Myth of the White Conservative Gene, that only whites carry a special gene that enables them to appreciate social or economic conservatism. I thought this election, and Prop 8 in California in ‘08, should have dealt with this Myth.
P S a version of the same Myth is current on the Left. They call it Intrersectionality.
Kamala won 92% of the black female vote and 80% of the black male vote. She still won over 50% of Latinos so despite all the crowing about a new multi culti coalition I don’t see that much evidence. It may also be a fluke because Harris was a uniquely terrible candidate. I suppose we will see in 2 and 4. All I did was ask for numbers on prop because although I remember that NPR did a story about it I couldn’t remember details.
Great comments!
But I have to say that It's kind of hard to read R.G. and Alexander's comments and not come to the conclusion that the United States is not just fkt, but finished.
I think Steve said not that long ago, and in so many words, that the country will kind of putz along for a while (as opposed to "collapsing" or some other such word). He's probably right. And to the extent he is part of the reason can be found in R.G.'s and Alexander's comments.
I realize that requires some elaboration. But, well, not in a comment. At least not in this one.
The U.S. has too much valuable land too spread out for it not to be taken by someone(s). The Western Roman Empire collapsed but instantly tons of Gothic kingdoms sprouted up in Spain, Portugal, France, N. Africa, and Italy, as the lands and ports were too valuable not to be seized by a power-hungry guy looking for places with already good roads, good irrigation, good ports, and good aqueducts.
That the U.S. could be carved up similarly is not unheard of. California, the Mississippi river region, Texas, and the East Coast could end up as 4 distinct vying nations similar to Spain, Portugal, France, N. Africa, and Italy.
Thanks for your response R.G. Great comment! Especially the opening line.
"The U.S. has too much valuable land too spread out for it not to be taken by someone(s)."
So true. After all, one of the best ways to value something is to put it to use. Of course, another way to value it is to preserve it. But I think things will move in the direction you seem to suggest in your comment, for example,
"That the U.S. could be carved up....is not unheard of."
Right again. And, though I like the Roman Empire analogy, there is one word in our vocabulary that was missing from theirs - Adaptation. We truly are in a post-Darwinian age.
I don't think it's exactly going out on a limb to suggest that human behavior is becoming increasingly more, well, maladaptive. Meaning that our responses to the many challenges we face are more incompetent and less adequate to the demands that reality is confronting us with. A reality that doesn't give a damn about what we think or want, especially about things like race, gender, sexual orientation, pronouns, etc. etc.
And now we're back to the great exchange between you and Alexander above. Because both comments, and a lot of Steve's work in fact, seem to direct attention to this.
Certainly one explanation for the non-functional, maladaptive quality of human behavior of late, especially (though not exclusively) in the West, is that the prefered mode of response, if you will, to human problems is simply way too ideological. And ideology is hopelessly inadequate to the demands made upon us by reality more complex and unpredictable than ever before in human history.
That great line from Shakespeare's Hamlet comes irresistably to mind, "The readiness is all."
Where I live (Victoria, BC, Canada) no one has servants (except the wealthy) and there are no under-the-table cheap illegal immigrants. Judging by this comment at the WaPo article Texans are spoiled:
“Abbott talk about illegal immigrants but we need these folks to do the work here.. white people are not going to farm or build our homes/or do the housekeeping or cook for us.. “
Heaven help us! I have to do my own housework and cooking!
Is Vancouver unlike this?
> "don’t much like either"
"don’t much like each other"?
Rural Hispanics in West Texas have been voting Republican for quite a while. Rural Hispanics in South Texas have been moving that way over the past decade. Urban Hispanics are a harder nut to crack because many are part of a proletariat and have immigrated to Texas fairly recently. Democrats are more willing to offer the proletariat more free benefits.
If Texas moves left politically, the cause may be the white intel workers who have flocked to Austin. White intel workers are unusually left-wing.
leftists who live in the constant now don't understand assimilation
how could 2nd and 3rd gen vote differently from their parents?
How ironic it would be should Hispanics end up going Trump-style Republican!
Karl Rove will go insane.
"As we’ve all been told, the Great Replacement is a just a myth, a paranoid Republican conspiracy theory. It’s also been the Grand Strategy of the Democratic Party in recent decades..."
No doubt Steve readers are familiar with the revolting Mark Potok. I often think of him and this list of his whenever people refer to TGR as a "myth." https://x.com/i_aver/status/1146499007721758721
Or this one, where he brags about $PLC's aim to destroy whatever they designate as a Hate Group.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnTz2ylJo_8&t=111s
Of course, the joke is that if such Hate Groups really existed, Mark Potok wouldn't. And not just him.
But not only does he exist, he's lived a pretty good life in the USA, by any standard. The only thing radical about him is his ingratitude. Like I said, truly revolting. A creepy looking, web-mouthed puke.
Learn the truth about the great replacement on my podcast here:
https://soberchristiangentlemanpodcast.substack.com/p/s2-ep-7-the-great-replacement-strategy
Latino's are definitely friendlier to many right wing causes than one would think. But, when it comes between them and their 32 siblings getting into the U.S with good construction jobs, they'll happily betray the whites that they really have no actual animosity towards (PEW research center actually gave the statistic that 2% more latino's want confederate statues to stay than whites).