Good analysis. I listened to the clip of the interview with Lester Holt. Did she actually say she has never been to Europe? How it is even possible that a 60 year old candidate for US president has never been to Europe?
I think that it was just an attempt to deflect the question.
Most likely, she meant: "I have not been to Europe as Vice President either, so I don't understand why your question is relevant."
She seemed legitimately confused as to why a VP who has been assigned to deal with immigration issues should need to go to the border, which is telling in itself.
With rare exception, females are herd-creatures. They go along with the pack because that is what's safe. And Safety Safety Safety! is the obsession of the feminine. They call that corrupt Prog-front Homeland Security for a reason. The moniker wasn't accidental.
Women install fem-totalitarianism and then demand that 'we all just get along'. They and their Demoncrapic Party of liars are evil-on-the-hoof. They hate masculinity and whiteness with a passion, while imagining themselves 'enlightened' and 'beacons of love'. lol
Giving them the vote was the beginning of the end for America. Endlessly empowering them (without a shred of merit) is a nation engaging in a death wish.
Sadly, American men -- including conservative and Christian men -- don't have the groceries to speak the truth about the totalitarianism of collective female empowerment. After all, it might offend their wives and their precious princess daughters! It takes strong men to restore a fallen, failed gynocracy. Those men too afraid to speak the truth about obvious things for fear of Making Princess Angry need to shut up, get out of the way, and let the real men get on with the job.
There is one possibility that might change things. Trump was a hostile takeover of the Bush GOP. Soon the Democrats internal fights will begin in earnest. A new populist Bernie like movement might be a lot harder to keep down than the party leadership would like at this point.
There are so few working-class Democrats left anymore, and few are active in politics. The real base for Left Populism is among white college-educated professionals, who are more interested in cultural progressivism than economic issues.
And they have already succeeded in their hostile take-over of the Democratic party.
I think Bernie Sanders is the first and last of his breed.
Oddly, I think Sanders was also a cult of personality. Not to the degree that Trump is, but similar that a significant part of his support was from people who liked the idea of an outspoken old contrarian more than they liked his policy goals.
I have never really understood the Bernie Sanders phenomenon. He talks and proposes policies like old-style Social Democrats and labor organizers, but his support was almost entirely from young white male college-educated professionals.
Maybe it was just a cult of personality, but I think it was just more professional class anger directed at the wealthy and corporations.
My guess is that no future Democrats will follow his path.
There's a lot of skepticism towards capitalism coming from Millennial white leftist men. I don't really understand it, but I have childhood friends in this bucket, and I've tried to reason it out with them but mostly failed.
In my case, a lot of them are engineers that are intelligent but not very enterprising, don't really understand business (and sort of consider it beneath themselves to understand it), and who have ended up in crappy companies in commoditized industries. E.g. programming machines that manufacture copper wire, stuff like that. So there's that classic engineer feeling that they're Atlas holding up the company on their shoulders, but it's a lousy company that can't or won't pay them their due, and they lack the agency to do much about it, and so Bernie-style politics is an outlet for them.
Having worked with software engineers for 20 years, I know the type.
I first realized something was wrong when I saw so many very competent, hard-working and intelligent coworkers melt down like toddlers in Nov 2016. I was honestly stunned and baffled that people would be so emotionally effected by one election.
I remember thinking "It is just an election. Get a grip, dude!" It seemed so bizarre to me.
Unfortunately, that was a harbinger for the next 8 years (and likely many more to come).
Progressivism is not a political phenomenon. It is a cult or, more succinctly, a religion. This is why the emotional reactions.
This is also why the Progs demand that every detail of their agenda be adhered-to, right down to the trans nonsense. You toe the line according to the Canon of Beliefs, or you are in a state of apostasy.
"losing the 2020 Presidential election may have been the best thing to happen to Trump"
I think this is correct. It sucked for all of us, who had to live under bad Dem policies, but it showed the country who those people were. The last four years created a permission structure for talented people to abandon the left for Trump.
I think he got insulted at a party, ran for president out of spite and to generate buzz, then fell into winning and didn't know what to do.
The irony is that raking him over the coals for years even though he didn't do anything that really deserved it probably turned him into a more serious politician.
Surprised that you went HARD on Kamala,usually your writing is very polite,then again runing for the worlds most important and famous job has its drawbacks.One think that is potentially overlooked in your analyses is the egalitarian ethos thats omnipresent in the Democratic party,which makes it harder for those few really gifted individuals to rise to the top.If someone really intelligent or charming got a lot of positive attention it would make a lot of people in the democratic party very awkard. Overall your views on the Democratic party and Hanania's analyses of the conservative party paint a black-pill view of politics. Imagine all the time and effort put into promoting Trump,plus the even more money Dems spent to promote Kamala's campaign were used in different projects such as climate policies or investing in poor countries' businesses. And we ended up with two below average leaders anyway.
Yes, I did go hard on Kamala, but I did so because I think that very serious lessons can be drawn from her candidacy that I do not see other writers drawing.
I guess as a former Democrat who feels like I was ideologically purged from the party, I still have some anger issues about my treatment. LOL
And the point you made that you thought I overlooked was actually my main point. Perhaps I was not clear enough.
For the record, I am not "black pilled." Black-pill conservatives or leftist actually really pissed me off. Previous generations of Americans have gone through much worse: the American Revolution, Civil war, Great Depression, WWII and the Cold War. We actually have it really good, so there is no reason to give up.
I am very optimistic about the American future, but our politics is a dumpster fire that is rapidly spreading through the rest of society. And it is going to get worse before it will get better. In the end, though, I believe that reality always wins, and the American system is the best at arriving at a good place in the long run. We just have to exhaust all other options first and that can be a painful process!
More on that in other articles.
As for Hanania, I read his articles and he reads mine. He seems a lot more concerned about who supports a policy rather than what they believe and the results the policy will produce. I have a different focus.
Not everyone has it 'really good'. Many careers and lives have been destroyed by Progressive people and policies, particularly Woke HR departments. All those men who now suddenly live in tents in our cities didn't end up there because they were lazy drug-addicts. Some did, but many did not. Do not assume that because you have a comfortable life, everybody does. A couple stints of extended homelessness will take that notion right out of you.
Your political analysis in this OP was good. You write better when you're angry and I am glad the Demoncraps kicked you out. Toughened you up some.
Hanania seems to have a very pessimistic view for the future of the republican party, he thinks its hostile to smart people that could implement healthy economic policies and growth.He ended up voting for them because he was afraid of left even more in this aspect, but promoting prosperity is more than just tax cuts and we are sceptical if Republicans can attract people who will implement such policies, and tackling climate change in the process
To be honest, I understand the Left far better than I understand the Right. The Right in all Western nations has been incredibly ineffective over the course of my lifetime. Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher are the only ones who actually moved the needle in terms of policy reforms, and I was strongly against them at the time. Now I see them in a bit better light.
The Right argues against the Left like lions, but govern like a bunch of kittens.
I generally agree with them about what is wrong, but they rarely present good solutions. And those that they do present are rarely implemented.
My biggest problem with the Right is that they:
1) Tend to ignore material progress and focus on cultural issues (which to me are secondary)
2) Are very naive about the good old days that never actually existed.
3) Once elected, they rarely do more than cut marginal tax rates, which I am opposed to during times of federal deficit.
4) Complain endlessly about the Left but rarely develop better policies to promote material progress and upward mobility for the working class.
5) Now they have this cult of personality around Trump that forces everyone to comply. That is not my style. I guess I am too much of a rebel.
I don't think the needed policies are all that complicated. I just don't think they have the desire to do so.
And regarding attracting people to implement policies, Trump has done a pretty impressive job of attracting talent this time around. It is not clear to me, however, that it will lead to results in the next 4 years.
2025 is actually far more important than 2024. I will write an article about this next week.
Equality or egalitarianism derives from the Jacobin concept (read, lie) of egalite. And when you are parroting the Jacobins, you are mimicking one very deluded and evil bird.
Nobody and nothing is 'equal', not on Earth and not in heaven. It is a lie that the inferior tell themselves -- and other inferiors -- to rationalize stealing power and wealth from the competent and superior.
Goood point. I should have mentioned that. Maybe the Democrats will recruit Petraeus or McChrystal. I can’t think of anyone else who might qualify. The problem would be in bringing back memories of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Maybe, but I honestly do not see a Hispanic male Democrat who could actually convince many Hispanic males who voted from Trump to change their vote.
He will likely just be a Kamala Harris with a deeper voice.
The Democrats and all parties on the Left need to fundamentally rethink their entire world view, but I do not think that they have the courage to do so. Reality is going to have to kick the shit out of them a few more times.
Very astute analysis.
Thanks for the subscription!
An exceedingly well reasoned and well argued analysis.
"Kamala is America’s HR manager"
...and Bernie is America's labor union representative. :)
Good analysis. I listened to the clip of the interview with Lester Holt. Did she actually say she has never been to Europe? How it is even possible that a 60 year old candidate for US president has never been to Europe?
I think that it was just an attempt to deflect the question.
Most likely, she meant: "I have not been to Europe as Vice President either, so I don't understand why your question is relevant."
She seemed legitimately confused as to why a VP who has been assigned to deal with immigration issues should need to go to the border, which is telling in itself.
Yes I agree with that assessment. Although it would not surprise me if she hasn't actually been to Europe.
With rare exception, females are herd-creatures. They go along with the pack because that is what's safe. And Safety Safety Safety! is the obsession of the feminine. They call that corrupt Prog-front Homeland Security for a reason. The moniker wasn't accidental.
Women install fem-totalitarianism and then demand that 'we all just get along'. They and their Demoncrapic Party of liars are evil-on-the-hoof. They hate masculinity and whiteness with a passion, while imagining themselves 'enlightened' and 'beacons of love'. lol
Giving them the vote was the beginning of the end for America. Endlessly empowering them (without a shred of merit) is a nation engaging in a death wish.
Sadly, American men -- including conservative and Christian men -- don't have the groceries to speak the truth about the totalitarianism of collective female empowerment. After all, it might offend their wives and their precious princess daughters! It takes strong men to restore a fallen, failed gynocracy. Those men too afraid to speak the truth about obvious things for fear of Making Princess Angry need to shut up, get out of the way, and let the real men get on with the job.
There is one possibility that might change things. Trump was a hostile takeover of the Bush GOP. Soon the Democrats internal fights will begin in earnest. A new populist Bernie like movement might be a lot harder to keep down than the party leadership would like at this point.
Maybe, but I just do not see it.
There are so few working-class Democrats left anymore, and few are active in politics. The real base for Left Populism is among white college-educated professionals, who are more interested in cultural progressivism than economic issues.
And they have already succeeded in their hostile take-over of the Democratic party.
I think Bernie Sanders is the first and last of his breed.
Oddly, I think Sanders was also a cult of personality. Not to the degree that Trump is, but similar that a significant part of his support was from people who liked the idea of an outspoken old contrarian more than they liked his policy goals.
I have never really understood the Bernie Sanders phenomenon. He talks and proposes policies like old-style Social Democrats and labor organizers, but his support was almost entirely from young white male college-educated professionals.
Maybe it was just a cult of personality, but I think it was just more professional class anger directed at the wealthy and corporations.
My guess is that no future Democrats will follow his path.
Bernie Sanders = Woody Guthrie. ;^)
LOL
There's a lot of skepticism towards capitalism coming from Millennial white leftist men. I don't really understand it, but I have childhood friends in this bucket, and I've tried to reason it out with them but mostly failed.
In my case, a lot of them are engineers that are intelligent but not very enterprising, don't really understand business (and sort of consider it beneath themselves to understand it), and who have ended up in crappy companies in commoditized industries. E.g. programming machines that manufacture copper wire, stuff like that. So there's that classic engineer feeling that they're Atlas holding up the company on their shoulders, but it's a lousy company that can't or won't pay them their due, and they lack the agency to do much about it, and so Bernie-style politics is an outlet for them.
Having worked with software engineers for 20 years, I know the type.
I first realized something was wrong when I saw so many very competent, hard-working and intelligent coworkers melt down like toddlers in Nov 2016. I was honestly stunned and baffled that people would be so emotionally effected by one election.
I remember thinking "It is just an election. Get a grip, dude!" It seemed so bizarre to me.
Unfortunately, that was a harbinger for the next 8 years (and likely many more to come).
Progressivism is not a political phenomenon. It is a cult or, more succinctly, a religion. This is why the emotional reactions.
This is also why the Progs demand that every detail of their agenda be adhered-to, right down to the trans nonsense. You toe the line according to the Canon of Beliefs, or you are in a state of apostasy.
They call them Bernie Bros for a reason.
"losing the 2020 Presidential election may have been the best thing to happen to Trump"
I think this is correct. It sucked for all of us, who had to live under bad Dem policies, but it showed the country who those people were. The last four years created a permission structure for talented people to abandon the left for Trump.
And it gave him time to rethink the kind of people that he surrounds himself with.
Ironically, Trump was very trusting of the very Deep State that he criticized so harshlessly.
I think he got insulted at a party, ran for president out of spite and to generate buzz, then fell into winning and didn't know what to do.
The irony is that raking him over the coals for years even though he didn't do anything that really deserved it probably turned him into a more serious politician.
He thought he was ready for the Beltway but he was just a babe in the woods. They ate him for lunch.
We shall see if he has learned his lesson and grown some hardwood bark.
I'm not sure.
Trump was starting to hit his strike towards the end of his term, once he started listening to people like Chris Rufo.
It's less about Trump and more that the last four years have destroyed the Democrats.
Surprised that you went HARD on Kamala,usually your writing is very polite,then again runing for the worlds most important and famous job has its drawbacks.One think that is potentially overlooked in your analyses is the egalitarian ethos thats omnipresent in the Democratic party,which makes it harder for those few really gifted individuals to rise to the top.If someone really intelligent or charming got a lot of positive attention it would make a lot of people in the democratic party very awkard. Overall your views on the Democratic party and Hanania's analyses of the conservative party paint a black-pill view of politics. Imagine all the time and effort put into promoting Trump,plus the even more money Dems spent to promote Kamala's campaign were used in different projects such as climate policies or investing in poor countries' businesses. And we ended up with two below average leaders anyway.
Yes, I did go hard on Kamala, but I did so because I think that very serious lessons can be drawn from her candidacy that I do not see other writers drawing.
I guess as a former Democrat who feels like I was ideologically purged from the party, I still have some anger issues about my treatment. LOL
And the point you made that you thought I overlooked was actually my main point. Perhaps I was not clear enough.
For the record, I am not "black pilled." Black-pill conservatives or leftist actually really pissed me off. Previous generations of Americans have gone through much worse: the American Revolution, Civil war, Great Depression, WWII and the Cold War. We actually have it really good, so there is no reason to give up.
I am very optimistic about the American future, but our politics is a dumpster fire that is rapidly spreading through the rest of society. And it is going to get worse before it will get better. In the end, though, I believe that reality always wins, and the American system is the best at arriving at a good place in the long run. We just have to exhaust all other options first and that can be a painful process!
More on that in other articles.
As for Hanania, I read his articles and he reads mine. He seems a lot more concerned about who supports a policy rather than what they believe and the results the policy will produce. I have a different focus.
Not everyone has it 'really good'. Many careers and lives have been destroyed by Progressive people and policies, particularly Woke HR departments. All those men who now suddenly live in tents in our cities didn't end up there because they were lazy drug-addicts. Some did, but many did not. Do not assume that because you have a comfortable life, everybody does. A couple stints of extended homelessness will take that notion right out of you.
Your political analysis in this OP was good. You write better when you're angry and I am glad the Demoncraps kicked you out. Toughened you up some.
Glad that you liked the article.
Sorry, but the percentage of homeless who lost their jobs due to HR is minuscule.
I am Gen X. We were born tough. You could drop us off a cliff, and we would dust ourselves off, and get back to business.
Hanania seems to have a very pessimistic view for the future of the republican party, he thinks its hostile to smart people that could implement healthy economic policies and growth.He ended up voting for them because he was afraid of left even more in this aspect, but promoting prosperity is more than just tax cuts and we are sceptical if Republicans can attract people who will implement such policies, and tackling climate change in the process
To be honest, I understand the Left far better than I understand the Right. The Right in all Western nations has been incredibly ineffective over the course of my lifetime. Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher are the only ones who actually moved the needle in terms of policy reforms, and I was strongly against them at the time. Now I see them in a bit better light.
The Right argues against the Left like lions, but govern like a bunch of kittens.
I generally agree with them about what is wrong, but they rarely present good solutions. And those that they do present are rarely implemented.
My biggest problem with the Right is that they:
1) Tend to ignore material progress and focus on cultural issues (which to me are secondary)
2) Are very naive about the good old days that never actually existed.
3) Once elected, they rarely do more than cut marginal tax rates, which I am opposed to during times of federal deficit.
4) Complain endlessly about the Left but rarely develop better policies to promote material progress and upward mobility for the working class.
5) Now they have this cult of personality around Trump that forces everyone to comply. That is not my style. I guess I am too much of a rebel.
I don't think the needed policies are all that complicated. I just don't think they have the desire to do so.
And regarding attracting people to implement policies, Trump has done a pretty impressive job of attracting talent this time around. It is not clear to me, however, that it will lead to results in the next 4 years.
2025 is actually far more important than 2024. I will write an article about this next week.
Equality or egalitarianism derives from the Jacobin concept (read, lie) of egalite. And when you are parroting the Jacobins, you are mimicking one very deluded and evil bird.
Nobody and nothing is 'equal', not on Earth and not in heaven. It is a lie that the inferior tell themselves -- and other inferiors -- to rationalize stealing power and wealth from the competent and superior.
Historically it is the normal state of the US for one party to dominate at the national level.
Between Jackson and Lincoln the only way the Whigs could win was by running a war hero with no political record.
There were only two Democrat presidents between Lincoln and FDR.
Goood point. I should have mentioned that. Maybe the Democrats will recruit Petraeus or McChrystal. I can’t think of anyone else who might qualify. The problem would be in bringing back memories of Iraq and Afghanistan.
I think they will nominate a Hispanic Man if they can in 2028.
Maybe, but I honestly do not see a Hispanic male Democrat who could actually convince many Hispanic males who voted from Trump to change their vote.
He will likely just be a Kamala Harris with a deeper voice.
The Democrats and all parties on the Left need to fundamentally rethink their entire world view, but I do not think that they have the courage to do so. Reality is going to have to kick the shit out of them a few more times.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/the-left-has-hit-a-historical-dead
You go, reality! :O)