Archive for the ‘party politics’ Category

How to really win the “Hispanic” vote.

Tuesday, July 28th, 2015

If the Republican party seriously wanted the “Hispanic” vote, which of course it does not, because if it won the “Hispanic” vote it might win elections, and if it won elections, might have to implement its agenda, the way to go would be to split the “white Hispanics” from the indios and mestizos, and the indios and mestizos from the blacks. “Hispanics”, whether white, mestizo, and indio, really hate blacks, and the Democrats are the black party. It would be easy to take advantage of racial tensions to break “Hispanics” away from the democrat party. “Hispanic” children go to schools that impose equal disciplinary outcomes by racial quota, so that black kids get away with stuff that white and Hispanic kids face zero tolerance for.

So, find a prominent republican who is a fair skinned Mexican who speaks Mexican Spanish as his mother’s tongue. He tells them, in Spanish:

“Our kids are punished while black kids go unpunished, because Democrats are the black party, while Republicans are the white party. The schools are in chaos because of black misconduct. Do you want to be ruled by the black party or the white party?”

By and large the government quietly allows Mexicans collective self defense against blacks, while it does not allow whites collective self defense against blacks, but every so often, the Democrats, being the black party, give Mexicans the short end of that stick also. The Republicans could make hay out of such incidents.

Mexicans have a lot more contact with blacks than whites have contact with blacks, and are less brainwashed by Cathedral propaganda. Leftists keep telling republicans that Mexicans have old style Catholic values, are social conservatives, even though your local hospital is flooded with short fat pregnant Mexican women surrounded by a half dozen children by half a dozen different fathers getting free medical care for themselves and their grossly neglected children. Nah, they don’t have old style Catholic values, and neither does the Pope these days, they are not socially conservative, but they are race realists.

The left is run by white males, but their voter bank is a coalition of everyone against white heterosexual males. For Mexicans, problems with blacks are way more salient than problems with white heterosexual males. Electoral politics 101: Split the enemy coalition. Get some fair skinned Mexicans who don’t live in the bubble, who have friends and family exposed to black dysfunction, and have them stir up the $#!%. Are republicans worried about losing black votes? Bad black behavior is an enormous vote winner for republicans which they refuse to cash in. And never will choose to cash in.

The major victims by far of bad black behavior are Mexicans. Democrats are the black party. Republicans are the white party. You want to stir up anger at blacks among those nonblack democrats who live in the closest proximity to blacks. It really is that simple.

Instead the Republican party pursues sainthood for blacks, and always will.

Sockpuppet Rapist

Friday, January 2nd, 2015

Email from Jackie Coakley’s supposed rapist to the man who friendzoned her.

Ryan McDuffin friendzoned Jackie Coakley.  She then invented a sockpuppet imaginary boyfriend, Haven Monahan.  She talked to Ryan McDuffin about this boyfriend a lot, and sent numerous messages to Ryan from sockpuppet accounts, supposedly from her imaginary boyfriend.  Sockpuppet boyfriend then supposedly rapes her with five other men when she went on a date with him. (This was the original version of the UVA frat boy rape)  Five days after supposed rape, she supposedly sends an email to her supposed boyfriend begging Ryan McDuffin to become her boyfriend, which the imaginary rapist Haven Monahan supposedly forwards to Ryan McDuffin from what is supposedly his email account, but is in fact an account controlled by Jackie Coakley:

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Haven Monahan <haven.monahan@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 8:33 PM
Subject: about u
To: “——@virginia.edu” <——@virginia.edu>

you should read this. iv never read anything nicer in my life.

Well yeah…Ryan is fine. Ryan’s great, actually. I mean he’s smart. He’s attractive. He’s funny. He’s a scaredy cat. If you creep up behind him, he’ll jump right out of his skin. It’s pretty amusing. He’s honest. He always calls them just like he sees them. You can constantly count on getting the truth from Ryan, even if the truth hurts. He has the most incredible taste in music. He’s like this walking, talking music library. And he understands how truly important music is. He’s stubborn. He has this regimented way about him that can be so frustrating sometimes. And sometimes the things he says hurt. But he’s a really, really good friend. And loyal to a fault. He’s realistic about everything. And I’m a dreamer so I mean, it’s good to have somebody like that in my life. He’s one of my best friends here, you know? He’s more than that …he’s everything

So, then there’s Ryan. And Ryan…Ryan’s incredible. I didn’t fall for Ryan Duffin the first day I met him. Nor did I fall for him on the second day or the third day for that matter. But once I did fall for Ryan, you see, my world flipped upside down. Kathryn doesn’t understand what I see in Ryan. I guess I don’t understand what she doesn’t see in him. He’s gorgeous, but gorgeous is an understatement. More like you’re startled every time you see him because you notice something new in a Where’s Waldo sort of way. More like you can’t stop writing third grade run on sentences because you can’t even remotely begin to describe something, someone, so inherently amazing. More like you’re afraid that if you stare at him too long, you’ll prove your grandparents right that, yes, your face will get stuck that way…but you don’t mind. You, like everyone else, may think I’m exaggerating, but then again, you probably don’t know Ryan Duffin. Ryan has no idea what he does to me…he can make me feel more emotions in one second then I would normally feel in one year. He makes my head spin. And the truth is, I’m crazy about him. I mean, if I had the choice of hanging out with anyone in the entire world or just sitting in my dorm with him talking about music and watching a crappy TV show…I’d choose him everytime…without a single false step. I know he doesn’t like me. If someone really wanted you, they’d actually put some time and effort into trying to get your attention. Ryan doesn’t even like to be around me sometimes. And that really sucks. When you like someone more than he likes you, you’ll do anything to switch the scales. The thing is, you can’t. You want to tell him how you feel but you know it will end with “It’s just not going to work out.” How can I explain to him that I fell for him because of a million tiny things he never knew he was doing? I know I should just stop trying because he and I are never going to happen. He doesn’t like me, I’m not his type, I’m not the type of person he could ever be with so I should just get over it. The problem is I can’t shake these feelings I have for him, I try so damn hard, but they won’t go away. I can’t move on because the only thing I can find wrong with him, is that he can find so much wrong with me. [Redacted] said I shouldn’t give up. She said she read this quote once that said,” There’s nothing more beautiful than the way the ocean refuses to stop kissing the shoreline, no matter how many times it’s sent away.” She claimed that’s how Ryan and I are. I think she’s wrong. I think he was right from the get-go. He’ll never see me as anything more than some girl and it’ll never amount to anything. He told Alex I’m not his type and I’m a waste of his time. The things he says hurt more than you know but still…there’s something about him that makes me come back for more. All I know is, the girl who gets to be with Ryan Duffin is the luckiest girl in the world. And if she doesn’t know that, then she doesn’t deserve him.

According to a police officer, all rape accusations made by adults are false, in that he has never encountered a genuine accusation, and neither have any of the other police officers he has talked to about the matter.

My own experience would lead me to conclude that when he says “by adults” he is counting statutory rape as rape, though in my experience, it is girls who have developed hair on their pussies but not yet developed breasts who are the sexual aggressors.

If an underage girl is having sex, she is usually badly behaved in several other ways that also need and merit a beating.

Women, not men, are the uncontrollably lustful sex.  For society to reproduce biologically and culturally, men have to impose monogamy on women, impose on women the rule that they can only sleep with one man, and stick with that man, and only sleep with a man willing to stick with her.

Sex between adult males and female children is primarily a problem of female bad behavior, one few remaining problems that one is allowed to acknowledge is a problem, though one is not allowed to blame the perpetrators.

Women are the sex whose dangerously volcanic and difficult to control sexual urges threaten civilization.  For civilization to function, men have to control women’s sexual decisions.  Women, if permitted, will reliably make bad sexual choices.  Female sexuality is dangerous, and needs to placed under the control of fathers and husbands.  Placing male sexuality under the control of women is the worst possible form of control.  It results in the large majority of women fucking a small minority of men starting at a disturbingly early age and continuing until their eggs start to run out.  Sex between adult males and little girls is seldom rape.  It is girls behaving badly, and starting their bad behavior an an early age.

We should return to the system where state and society backed patriarchal authority and where sex with a virgin was a property crime against the father.

No enemies to the left, no friends to the right

Monday, November 17th, 2014

Scott Alexander’s blog used to be good, but now he has been terrorized out of politics. Therefore boring. The problem was he purged all frequent commentors to the right of him out of the comments, which means that he had only enemies in his comments. And, being the rightmost, was persecuted. He has stopped posting on politics, I assume as a result of this persecution.

Every so often I see someone reeling in shock and horror that we cannot possibly tolerate any connection with Person P, because they have some connection with person Q, who went to an event that was also attended by person Y, who has some connection with person Z, and, gasp, shock, horror, person Z has some connection with the “extreme” right.

Meanwhile posters, badges, and tee shirts of notorious communist mass murderers continue to sell well, and checking academic syllabi, one regularly reads questions of the form “explain why this noted communist mass murderer was amazingly wonderful, and why those whom he had eradicated were vile scum of the earth”, which questions usually contain very clear hints as to exactly what the answer is supposed to be.

If one follows this policy, and one’s friends and enemies also follow this policy, then one’s enemies are one’s friends and one’s friends are one’s enemies.

Thus the tea partiers and rinos quarrel for republican pre selection, but, once republican preselection is over, the tea party allies with the rinos, the rinos ally with the democrats, and the democrats ally with the foreign enemies of America. The right acts towards the left the way an abused woman acts towards her boyfriend. Hence the pattern of inner party and outer party. The permanent government is innermost, then then democrats, and the republicans are the outer party.

Inner Party always wins

Wednesday, November 5th, 2014

The tea party, upon being elected, deems it impossible to repeal obamacare, despite the fact that it is unpopular, about to become more unpopular with startling price rises, and that it was quite popular to run against obamacare.

Meanwhile, in a move that has absolutely no connection to obamacare, we are seeing a movement to publicize sedative overdose as a peaceful happy death.

It generally is not. The dying person makes horrifying sounds that sound very much as if he is very aware that he is dying and has changed his mind very strongly about the issue. Peaceful death, in so far as any death can be called peaceful, is heavy morphine (or fentanyl, which has much the same effect as morphine), not heavy sedatives.

Further, with heavy morphine, the difficult moral issues go away. You give the patient a pain control clicker with no limit, or a very high limit. And if he should die, death by misadventure. Chances are it was accidental overdose, a common side effect of extreme pain control with self administered morphine in dying patients. Doctor did not kill him, and it is hard to tell if he killed himself. Probably he did not.

The great advantage of heavy sedatives from the point of view of the medical profession is that a heavily sedated patient is unable to protest being killed off. Hence the popular “suicide” method where the patient is heavily sedated, then has a plastic bag popped over his head, then a cord is tightened around the patient’s neck. Sounds voluntary and peaceful, like Obamacare.

The great disadvantage of unlimited self administered morphine through an IV drip is that if pain control is successful, patient is likely to decide there is no hurry to commit suicide, and hang around occupying an expensive hospital bed for months or years.

Opiates control pain, and overdose will kill you. Sedatives control the patient, and overdose will kill you. If a patient is heavily sedated, cannot choose, therefore, not suicide but murder. Murder is a lot more effective at controlling health care costs.

Don’t vote. It only encourages them

Monday, November 3rd, 2014

You will undoubtedly hear that the election is nail bitingly close.

That is a lie. To sustain the illusion of a two party state, large numbers of Democrats are elected as republicans. They reliably vote Democrat whenever it matters. Observe, for example, the “bipartisan” budget passed by the supposedly Republican controlled house.

And what is the issue of the election? Once in a while Republicans point out that Obama is up to his armpits in foreign wars and losing, that the economy has been depressed and is sinking further under Democrat rule, that the streets are unsafe, that the young have no job prospects, that middle class means a hundred thousand dollars in college debt while working at starbucks, that Obamacare turns out to be unaffordable, and so on and so forth. So what are Democrats on about?

They have microtargeted campaigns for low information voters – women, homosexuals, blacks, and hispanics. But if you add up all the microtargets, their one issue is “We hate straight white males.”

To which the Republican reply is “We hate straight white males too. In fact we hate them even more than you do.” And sometimes, not very often, they add “But we also worry about losing wars and the economy sucks.”

Before this election, the anti straight white male party had a majority. After this election, the anti straight white male party will have a bigger majority and more extreme policies.

And similarly for the election after that, and the one after that. You face a government that hates you, and every year it will hate you more. Hence the visibly second class citizenship for whites that we see on the streets, that the recent catcalling video inadvertently highlighted.

Yes, political competition continues, and will continue, but it is competition within the permanent majority party as to hates straight white males even more.

Politicians will use public money to buy votes. They naturally want to buy the cheapest votes, so democracy tends to universal franchise. But they still want cheaper votes, so create an underclass. Then they import an underclass. The final outcome, as in Ivory Coast, is that the former natives get ethnically cleansed with the help of UN troops.

No good person should vote in an election with universal franchise, as it is a declaration that he is equal to his inferiors. Since, in fact, he is not equal to his inferiors, he must therefore be oppressing them, and will be punished for that oppression. Strangely, he remains unequal. Obviously the punishment was not sufficiently severe.

That is what you have been getting for voting, and will continue to get for voting. You have been punished, you will be punished, and the punishments will grow progressively more severe. When you vote, you affirm that you are equal. Since, in practice, you are not equal, you affirm that you deserve the punishment that you will receive.

Very minor outbreak of democracy

Thursday, June 12th, 2014

Elections are about goodies. Even more obamaphones for all. No money down mortgages for minorities.

One might hope that republican primaries might be conducted on a slightly higher level.

In the recent primary, Eric Cantor campaigned that he was going to bribe the voters with their own stolen money, while David Brat campaigned on issues that have overwhelming support – campaigned against immigration, against crony capitalism, and against Obamacare. Just about everyone in America, except Washington and big business, opposes crony capitalism, most oppose immigration and Obamacare, and almost everyone who should be voting in a Republican primary opposes all three.

David Brat won 56% to 44%.

However, David Brat does not take the horribly extreme ultra right wing neonazi position that we might actually deport illegals, let alone stop with the Obamaphones.

Bottom line: 44% of the voters in the Republican primary voted like sluts and underclass.

The American right is deader than God

Wednesday, April 23rd, 2014

In the last presidential election, nominated governor Romneycare

In the election before that, nominated Senator McCain-Feingold

The current huge increase in government expenditures and substantial increase in taxes reflects a bipartisan budget that your Tea Party congressman voted for – which means that your tea party congressman voted to fund Obamacare.

And, very shortly after the 2014 election, the Republican party is about bring in thirty million Democrat voters.  (Each person amnestied gets to bring in relatives, and, in the 1986 amnesty, promptly did so.  We also had a huge, though short lived, baby boom among immigrants, probably because immigration rights for kin boosted and, for a little while enforced, marriage.  This caused some people to say that the immigrants were naturally socially conservative, though fertility eventually declined to normal underclass levels as the freshly imported women started normal underclass sexual behavior, responding to welfare incentives, rather than immigration control incentives.  It eventually became glaringly obvious that Mexican immigrants are not socially conservative, once they become eligible for welfare.)

It is deemed essential that the Democrat party appease its base, hence the ban on the Keystone pipeline, while the Republican party can take its base for granted, and should always do what maximally offends them.  Every Democrat agrees it is essential to pander to the most radical democrats, while most Republicans agree that the Republican wing of the Republican party are ugly hateful racist neanderthals.

And remember the Reagan Revolution.  Without the 1986 Reagan Amnesty act Obama would not have won the election, and probably would not have been nominated.

At election time, candidates posture about how right wing they are.  Sometimes they do dramatic things like “shutting down the government” – which invariably and predictably end in the total and complete capitulation of the right.  When it is time to pass a budget or a law, they are all leftists.  Just as you don’t get into Harvard except you can do an adequate simulation of leftism, you don’t get into politics unless you can adequately simulate leftism, even though you have simulate rightism for those hateful despicable disgusting voters.  Democrats are the inner party, Republicans the outer party.  They are all one party, the party of the state, preaching the religion of the state.

 

Progressives are channeling me

Friday, November 15th, 2013

Not long before 10-10 no pressure came out, I compared environmentalists the French Revolutionary terrorists, and said that they would murder children for insufficient environmentalism, and then the revolution would devour its children. And lo and behold, they produce an ad depicting themselves murdering children for insufficient environmentalism, and then murdering each other.

Observe, the Obama ads for Obamacare: Now people who actually work for a living will fund your self destructive behavior! Is it not great? Obamacare is wonderful since it makes other people pay for your decisions! Now typical Obama voters, such as alcoholics and fat sluts will no longer have to bear the costs of their own decisions!

The only way they could have made the Obamacare ads more truthful would be to give the beneficiaries the appropriate skin color.

The anti-anti reactionary FAQ Part 2, Crime.

Friday, October 25th, 2013

A major reactionary argument is that since the early eighteenth century, since the reign of throne and altar, war, state political repression, state violence against respectable citizens, underclass crime, and minority crime have all risen enormously, that the overclass and underclass are attacking the productive, and the attack has been escalating.

Scott’s anti reactionary FAQ  points out that murder is pretty much the same as ever it was.  Quite so.  Those crimes that the state tolerates are increasing – thus burglary, assault, and mugging has soared everywhere, whereas home invasion burglaries, where the criminals riotously enter an occupied dwelling, have only soared in those countries such as Britain where home invasion is tolerated.

Scott tells us that Victorians felt profoundly unsafe from crime:

Violent attacks by strangers were seen as grave cause for concern. There was a disproportionate amount of attention paid to violent nighttime assaults by strangers in urban areas, called “garroting” and similar to what we might call “mugging”. There were garroting panics in 1856 and 1862

He neglects to tell us why the Victorians panicked.

The Victorians panicked because, over the course of several weeks, two people in the city of London were mugged, a crime that they had no words for, never having experienced it before.

Scott points out that crime has diminished over the last few decades, neglecting to acknowledge that this is a short term and small decline compared to the long term trend of a gigantic rise in private and state violence.

The cause of the decline is pretty obvious in San Francisco. Police are kicking black ass. The highly progressive far left elite piously averts its eyes while its police force does extremely racist and reactionary things to protect them from minorities.

It seems the same thing has been happening everywhere.

Although progressivism moves steadily ever leftwards, in any one area of policy there are waves. First a large movement left. Disaster ensues, as with freeing the slaves, then a small movement right, as with Jim Crow. Then after a while, another large movement left.

Crime has diminished somewhat because we are in the small movement right phase with respect to crime. From what is happening in New York city, looks like the next large movement left phase is about to resume, whereupon we will see gentrification end, white flight resume and New York head off in the footsteps of Detroit.

Crime has risen because of movement left. It fell because, for a little while, we moved a little bit right on crime.  But since progressives always need each to be lefter than the other, they can only move rightwards on crime by moving leftwards on something else – and in due course, are coming back to moving leftwards on crime.

The outer party rolls over

Thursday, October 17th, 2013

The outer party has rolled over for the inner party and wet themselves.

Because they lost, they will be blamed for holding the confrontation at all. Had they won, Democrats would be blamed.

In that the Democrats had accepted funding to keep almost all the government open except Obamacare, the Democrats were most of the way to losing. In that the Democrats were starting to call the Republicans crazy, the Democrats were most of the way to losing (since in a game of chicken, the guy who can most convincingly demonstrate craziness wins). So the Republicans had no choice but to declare defeat.

That the Republicans snatched defeat from the jaws of victory confirms my original analysis, that the whole thing was charade from beginning to end, which analysis I had started to doubt as the confrontation went on for two weeks and the Democrats came ever closer to capitulating.