December 8, 2016

At re-Americanized industries, a new level of job cornucopia

Trump is negotiating to bring back entire industries that used to have a place in the American economy -- such as electronics -- and that will have an additional benefit to job-seekers than simply the presence of more unfilled jobs. That is, since these industries have been sent out of the country for so long, their job openings will be in a "get in on the ground floor" industry, rather than a mature industry that is already well colonized.

Although the first round of applicants won't have the training to put together an iPhone, neither will any of the other American workers.

No clogged arteries in the promotion system, where the job you're looking to fill won't be open because the current occupant isn't being promoted up out of it.

Networking won't be as important, as there's nobody yet to network with in a new industry. Get trained, show up, don't screw up, and there you go.

And unlike other start-up industries that grow too fast and suffer from Gold Rush-style extinction after an initial boom, these industries have already proven their long-term worth and stability in both the United States way back when, and outside the country where the industries are currently located. They are not economic bubbles like "online social media". Making cars, television sets, and cell phones will not be going bust any time soon.

These industries already pay much better than the typical ones the workers would find themselves in -- that's why they were sent outside the country in the first place, to reap profits from labor arbitrage. Now we can add less difficulty getting your foot in the door, and less insecurity long-term.

There will be a boon to white-collar professionals as well, whose jobs are more industry-general rather than specific. If you're already trained as an accountant, you can switch industries from banking to electronics manufacturing without as much trouble as, say, switching from assembling burgers at McDonald's to assembling iPhones at Apple. Without needing as much specific training, the white-collars will be fast-tracked into the new industries.

That's another aspect that is often overlooked in the re-Americanizing of these industries -- they will produce not only blue-collar but white-collar jobs, too. The assembly line workers at a manufacturing plant don't run the whole operation by themselves. These middle and upper-middle class jobs were destroyed alongside the working class ones when the industry was sent out of the country.

Decades down the line, there will probably be class conflict that arises between the blue-collar workers and white-collar managers and professionals within these industries. But for now, they are both in the same boat of wanting the industries to return to this country so they can all get better-paying and more secure jobs.

This parallels the stages of populism after the elite-centric Gilded Age. First, during the Progressive Era, the focus was workers and industrialists teaming up to strengthen the nation's industries (as opposed to doing the bidding of foreign economies and peoples). Then, after that was achieved and immigration shut off, the foreign economic threat receded into the background, and the domestic class conflicts came more into focus, spawning the New Deal era with its tug-of-war between Big Labor and Big Business, as mediated by Big Government.

The neo-Progressive Era under Trump will be characterized by a seemingly strange coalition of workers, managers, and (loyal) company owners, uniting around the common project of re-industrializing the American economy. The Bernie movement was putting the cart before the horse, stressing class conflict at a time when nationalism is needed for populism to succeed. They'll get their turn, in a generation or so.

December 7, 2016

Pedophile symbols on child welfare and adoption logos

When the news first broke about the potential pedophile ring operating out of Comet Ping Pong in DC, it didn't take long for another pizzeria two doors down, Besta Pizza, to remove a known pedophile symbol from its logo (a triangle spiraling to form two concentric triangles).

Knowledge of these symbols comes from an FBI document obtained by WikiLeaks in 2007. The main ones are shown below. Click any image to enlarge.

As the citizens' investigation expands beyond the pizzerias themselves, and looks at potential sources through which the children would be trafficked, attention has turned to agencies that have easy access to obtaining and transferring children -- adoption, foster care, international relief and rescue, and the like. They would be the suppliers.

Do known pedophile symbols show up in the logos of these child-themed agencies?

In a post at the PizzaGate page on Voat, a graphic designer has gone through a national online database of such agencies, and tried to track the evolution of their logos. The idea is that the FBI document is from 2007, so by 2016 pedophile groups may have subtly altered or added to the symbols in order to evade detection. His purpose is to identify new symbols.

But plenty of these agencies are still using the old symbols known to the FBI 10 years ago. I did a Google Image Search for "adoption logo" and so on, scanning for concentric hearts, spirals, etc. Many results are indeed variations on these few themes. However, what's truly disturbing is how brazen some of them are, being near carbon copies from the FBI document.

Here is a screenshot of the webpage for the International Adoption Clinic of the Kennedy-Krieger Institute and Johns Hopkins Children's Center. They haven't bothered updating the look since 2004, around the time of the FBI document. Notice the heart logo in the upper-left:

Look familiar? Here is a side-by-side with the "girl lover" pedophile symbol from the FBI document of the same time:

Concentric hearts formed by a single stroke that spirals inward, clockwise, with the colors being white and pink-purple. All that's missing for a total copy is the final diagonal side on the inner heart of the second logo. Still, 99.9% identical logos for the International Adoption Clinic and organized girl-loving pedophiles. Not a coincidence.

Next, consider the logo of Terasol Artisans, a bakery across the street from Comet Ping Pong. Less than a week after PizzaGate broke, they deleted this logo from their website, just like Besta Pizza did with theirs, revealing it to be damning evidence. Here is one of the last days it was displayed:

Again the concentric hearts, but now also concentric hands. Based on scanning through those hundreds of child agency logos, I believe concentric hands is a new pedophile logo, but that's for another time.

Now consider the San Antonio Center for Childhood Trauma and Attachment LLC, a company that ostensibly trains child welfare workers, teachers, and parents of foster children how to integrate children into a new household, who show signs of a traumatic childhood. Check out the logo on the upper-left:

Look familiar? Here's a side-by-side:

In fact, they are 100% identical. (The logo's background is transparent and picks up the respective colors of the two different webpages it's laid on top of.)

Terasol removed this logo during a scandal about pedophile rings at a business across the street, yet here is the exact same logo for an agency that is supposed to be protecting abused children. And both feature the telltale girl-lover symbol of concentric hearts.

The two examples so far have looked at private groups -- what about similar groups within the government? It turns out they, too, appear compromised. Check out the logo (lower-right) for the Child Advocacy Center within the Sheriff's Office of Wicomico County, MD:

This one combines both the concentric hearts and the spiral motifs from the FBI document.

The fact that the logos of child welfare and adoption agencies so closely conform to pedophile icons suggests that they are involved in the child trafficking rings. They would be the ones who acquire and/or distribute the children wholesale to the black-market, whereas the restaurants like Comet Ping Pong, Besta Pizza, and Terasol Artisans would be the retail middlemen. (See this post on the possible ecosystem of the various shady businesses all on the same block as Comet Ping Pong.)

What exactly these groups are up to, we don't know. But it involves moving children around, is morally shady enough that they delete damning evidence when exposed, and uses a small group of (not-so) secret symbols to let the intended audience know who to approach.

Obviously not all of their business falls under this category -- I'm sure they do plenty of morally permissible activities as well (selling literal pizzas, matching foster kids with stand-up foster parents). The point is that they appear to be carrying out both the permissible and the suspicious activities, as though they were front groups (whether they were founded as such, or were hijacked and co-opted by pedo-enablers).

Now, go and post this wherever there is an audience for the PizzaGate story -- the Voat page, /pol, Twitter, Gab, Reddit, the forums you post on, whatever. I'm just doing the research here -- spreading it is your job. And buckle up, it looks like some serious stuff will be discovered on a daily basis from now on.

December 5, 2016

Bring Levi's production back to America

Trump has made it a hallmark of his rise to power that America needs to start manufacturing again if it wants to become wealthy again (and not just for the 1%).

So far he's made examples out of companies that make machines -- cars, air conditioners, iPhones -- since the workers get paid better in those industries. They add more value assembling cars than they would assembling burgers because consumers are not willing to pay much for someone else to assemble a burger for them -- but a car? Who would know where to begin, even assuming you had all of the raw materials and equipment at hand?

By bringing back jobs that add a lot of value to their employers' operation, Trump is lifting up the working and middle class without having to raise the minimum wage. Most manufacturing jobs already pay at least $15 an hour, which the Bernie people want to be the new minimum wage. Aside from not having to force employers to pay more than it's worth to hire someone, the workers enjoy the dignity of having a decent-paying constructive job rather than a handout.

But even in our manufacturing heyday, making machines was not the entirety of what we made, especially for female workers. There were whole industries that mass-produced what women used to make in their own homes, such as clothing and linens of various kinds. Although they don't add as much value as workers making air conditioners, seamstresses still save consumers a big headache by assembling their clothes for them.

Clothing wears away faster than an air conditioner or a car, so what the clothing manufacturers miss in profit margin per item they make up in sales volume.

Whenever he feels like the timing is right, Trump should pick an iconic clothing company that has off-shored its production. The carrot is the much lower corporate tax rate and reduction of pointless regulations. The stick is a big fat 35% tariff if they insist on ruining American workers' livelihoods while selling them cheap crap from the third world.

I nominate Levi's as the next target. Founded way back in 1853, they used to have 63 factories in America as recently as the early 1980s, employing between 15 and 20 THOUSAND workers, and they closed their last factories less than 15 years ago. The final nail in the coffin is so recent that there are even contemporary articles about it on the internet (covered by Forbes, CBS, and NBC).

Everybody recognizes Levi's, everybody has a pair, so it wouldn't require a campaign just to familiarize the public with who the target is. Nor what the problem is -- everyone understand that "made in Mexico / India / etc." is crap in clothing, while "made in Italy / England / etc." means high quality. The difference is that Levi's isn't a luxury brand, so we wouldn't be paying extra for its connotations like we would for an Italian designer pair of jeans.

Trump is a genius at identifying brand ambassadors, and would not have to personally take on the project so much. Have someone more relatable to the target audience be the face of the arguments and policy changes. Former beauty pageant contestants with a conscience and business sense? Maybe Ivanka herself?

It's not an ancient tradition set in stone that jeans have to be made by slaves in the third world so that the corporate stockholders continue to make profits like they did in their heyday, forever. Sometimes they're going to make more, sometimes less -- and that doesn't give them the right to fire the entire American workforce.

What kind of sick society would promote those norms with blood relatives or spouses or churches? "Welp, you've been dragging me down from 100% maximum for a few quarters now... you understand that I've got to ditch you. Maybe when/if you're back at your peak levels, you can return. Otherwise you can get re-trained to fit into a relationship with some other brother / husband / congregation."

The new approach of government must be stewardship over America's industries as resources that the American people depend on for their livelihoods, not helping corporate boards make off with as much money as humanly possible, and the devil if it ruins everyone else's lives.

And remember this earlier post: when manufacturing returns, the higher labor costs will not automatically go toward higher prices for consumers. They can just as well get eaten by the stockholders in the form of lower profit margins per item. Companies that stubbornly insist on raising prices to maintain profit margins will get out-competed by their rivals who decide to be the first mover in biting the bullet. So they'll still be profitable and rich, just not richer than God -- perfectly fine.

On top of prices that are roughly the same as before, we're going to get a much better product, and we're going to improve the lives of tens of thousands of workers just in the Levi's company alone. Better yet, these will be workers who would have a hard time getting good-paying jobs in other manufacturing sectors like car production -- namely working-class women.

That will have all sorts of positive knock-on effects, such as women not depending so much on the government to provide for them, and not being as in thrall to the neoliberal Democrat coalition that tosses them a few handouts while shipping their good-paying jobs to Mexico, India, or China.

Those workers fired in the final San Antonio plant were mostly Hispanic, judging from the name of their protest group (Fuerza Unida), and they were angry that their jobs were getting shipped to Costa Rica. They didn't care that their job thieves were "fellow Hispanics," even assuming Mexican Texans identified with Costa Ricans. It's like Cesar Chavez's Hispanic farm union workers wanting to send the illegals back over the Rio Grande, so they couldn't undercut their wages in America.

Bringing back all these good-paying jobs for working-class women that don't require a high level of skill and training will bring even more minorities into the Trump coalition, without having to pander to identity politics or provide handouts. We don't need 100% of them to defect, just enough to break what's left of the blue wall in certain states. Then it's back to GOP dominance like we haven't seen since the original Progressive Era.

December 2, 2016

PizzaGate beyond DC: Eight more pizzerias to investigate

Note: please link / condense this post to the PizzaGate page on Voat (the clearing house after Reddit shut down its own initial pages), the chans, Twitter, Gab, forums, and so on. We need to get the sleuths working on these leads, as well as further convince readers that there really is something going on here. It could be as simple as leaving a link to this post and a list of the pizzerias to look into.

I don't want this blog to turn into an ongoing PizzaGate discussion, though: this post is simply to lay out several leads for more interested individuals to follow up on. Discuss any concrete findings you have on those other sites, not in the comments here, which are for general reactions to all this weird crap.

After an earlier post on the topic, circumstantial evidence continues to mount about a possible pedophile / child trafficking ring operated by members of Clinton World through the DC pizzerias Comet Ping Pong and Besta Pizza. See this summary.

Now it's worth expanding the scope of the investigation. If those businesses are part of a ring, the same business model should be in operation elsewhere for the same purposes.

What are the odds, for instance, that there isn't a similar pizza front for pedos in Hollywood, a known den of underage sex abuse by elites?

It's hard to dismiss the totality of the evidence just surrounding Comet Ping Pong and James Alefantis -- if there are many other cases that are hard to dismiss, eventually the skepticism is unwarranted, and an investigation by the FBI is in order.*

I've gone through the Instagram accounts of actual pizzerias looking for red flags -- describing pizza as an addiction or obsession or lifestyle, highly sensual and sexual innuendo, a preponderance of underage children rather than other age groups in pictures, odd or inappropriate remarks about those pictures of children, and memes showing sexual pizza imagery or other bizarre pizza imagery relating to children.

When modern managerial culture says don't allow your brand to creep normal people out, especially if you're supposed to be catering to children and families, these are even more flagrant warning signs.

So far I've found at least 10. Two of them (linked to each other) I've looked quite a bit into, and will lay out the details in a post of its own. The remaining 8 I don't feel like investigating myself, since it's tiresome and creepy. But given how out-in-the-open these people are, there is guaranteed to be something in these 8 leads. They sometimes comment on each other's accounts, suggesting they're part of a larger federation.

These businesses and their customers primarily use Instagram for social media, so if you want to search for even more leads, that's where to look through. They're so similar and consistent that you will get used to spotting their tells. How many times do I have to see a meme of some guy making out with a human-size cheese-dripping pizza slice? That depiction of cheese is a motif unique to them -- a slice with something that looks more like runny, globby cheese dip than normal solid pizza cheese.

Again, who knows which of these will pan out? But there's enough red flags in their online presence to look into them. No links are given below, otherwise they might notice traffic spikes. If you're committed enough to investigate them, you can easily google their name. And don't be a retard by leaving comments directly on their accounts.

In no particular order, with some representative red flags (among many others omitted for brevity). Click to enlarge the text of the creepy comments, hashtags, etc.

1. Pie Five Pizza (brought up on /pol early on, but forgotten)

2. Pizza Studio

3. King David Frozen Pizza (Canada)

4. Hogan's Goat Pizza

5. King Dough Pizza

6. Bondi Pizza (Australia)

7. Dom DeMarco's Pizzeria & Bar (Las Vegas)

8. Blaze Pizza (Pie Five clone?)

Information to look into: Who is the owner, who are they connected to, where are their locations? And most importantly -- do they have connections to organizations claiming to protect children, particularly from abuse? A common theme in articles about pedo rings is that the groups responsible for taking them down -- whether benevolent non-profits or law enforcement agencies -- tend to get hijacked by pro-pedo individuals.

It's important to note that it's not clear what exactly these shady groups are up to. Child trafficking, pedophile rings, teenage prostitution, distributing child pornography, creating but not distributing it, something else? I wouldn't get too obsessed with uncovering what degree the crimes rise to, which the FBI will be figuring out. What internet sleuths can do is track down who is definitely up to something wrong, and get the word out.

I also wouldn't start with fixed expectations about who the elites are that are enabling this deviance. Comet Ping Pong and Besta Pizza were linked to Clinton World because they're in DC. Other locations will be tied to different sectors of the elite -- the movie industry in Hollywood, Wall Street in New York, tech and banking in Silicon Valley, and so on. Some of these 8 are chains with many locations, and it may be that the crimes are only taking place in some of them, where elites are concentrated.

For that reason, don't obsess over the Spirit Cooking angle to Comet Ping Pong, as weird and disgusting as it is. Maybe there will be a tie-in to a Satanic LARP-ing cult in the other cases, maybe not. We know for certain that no such group was involved in the pedo abuse within the Boy Scouts, the Catholic Church, and the like -- it's not about the elites being into the occult, but orchestrating the sexual abuse of children and covering it up.

* In fact, it's probably an anonymous FBI agent who initially leaked the details about Comet Ping Pong. Nobody would have noticed any of those clues on their own, and they had been sitting in plain sight on the internet for years. If we can figure this stuff out after an initial tip, the FBI likely has case files started on everything we already are and could soon find ourselves discovering. The internet sleuths are not so much breaking ground, but giving an advance warning of what law enforcement had already been preparing to expose and prosecute.

The reason why they aren't pursuing the cases toward indictments or announcing anything to the public is, as we've seen with Comey covering up for the Clintons (going back to the Marc Rich pardon), the elites have been above the law. With outsiders Trump and his Attorney General Jeff Sessions coming into power, that situation will no longer hold.

December 1, 2016

Urban areas that flipped red (and a few that flipped blue)

Both the Establishment media and conservative regulars are framing Trump's success as an uprising of non-urban America over urban America. The media provides its consumers with ego flattery in the form of reassuring them that Trump voters are hicks in the sticks, while conservatives pride themselves on not being urbanites and want to flatter their own egos about the electoral strength of non-urban America.

It's not that there's no truth to this -- a thousand voters in this rural county, a thousand voters in that rural county, pretty soon you've got a narrow victory.

But so much of non-urban America was already sour on the Democrats that there wasn't a whole lot more blood to be squeezed from that stone.

Rather, the key new partner in the Trump coalition was urban areas -- not just any, but those in de-industrialized regions. Industrialization produced large populations who are still there in the Rust Belt, even if it's down from their peak around 1970.

They may be forgotten cities, but they are still cities. In the Establishment and conservative mindset, whether you love 'em or hate 'em, only the thriving glamorous cities represent urban areas.

An earlier post on Election Day discussed these issues, and now we can see where exactly the large numbers of new Republican voters came from. We can also see which urban areas that used to be Republican have defected to the elitist party.

To keep the numbers round, I'm using "urban area" to mean a county with about 100,000 people or more. I only counted it as a flip if it was the same color during both Obama elections, and switched during the Trump election. Otherwise it already flipped due to Obama, McCain, or Romney. We're interested in the re-alignment brought about by Trump vs. Clinton.

First, a brief reminder of where urban areas are located:

We can't expect flipping urban areas in the Upper Plains if there aren't any there to begin with. And they'd already be Republican anyway.

This map shows urban counties that went for Obama both times and then for Trump (red), and those that went for McCain and Romney and then for Clinton (blue). Click to enlarge.

See the Appendix for tables listing the county, state, largest city, population size, and the last time it voted Republican (if it went to Trump) or Democrat (if it went to Clinton).

Let's start with the handful that went from red to blue. If Trump cities are forgotten cities, then new blue cities are thriving magnets for aspiring elites. Trump cities lie in the Rust Belt, new blue cities in the Sun Belt.

The worst offender is Orange CA, which hasn't voted Democrat since 1936. Next is Fort Bend TX, part of the Houston metro, that hasn't been blue since favorite son LBJ ran unopposed in 1964. Another favorite son, Jimmy Carter in 1976 and '80, was the last Democrat chosen by three counties in the Atlanta metro (Cobb, Gwinnett, Henry).

The only new blue county outside of the Sun Belt is Anne Arrundel MD, part of the Baltimore metro and home to Annapolis ("Drain the swamp"). It only narrowly voted Republican the past two times, though, so it's not as dramatic of a reversal. The last Democrat they voted for was LBJ in '64.

These counties are all affluent, and are natural defections as Trump re-aligns the GOP toward its Progressive Era dominance, when its guiding principle was husbandry of America's industries, relying on the native working class and industrialists alike.

What's disturbing is that when these new blue counties voted Democrat many decades ago, they were in line with the rest of the nation -- FDR, LBJ, Carter. Now they are voting blue at a time when the country has swung decisively red. They are joining their fellow nouveau riche parasites to make the Democrats the party of reactionary elites.

Turning to the blue-to-red counties, the bulk of them lie in the former industrial powerhouse of the Greater Northeast -- east of the Mississippi, and not the South. The two main sub-divisions are those along the Great Lakes and those in eastern major river valleys (Delaware, Hudson, Connecticut). Most of them contributed to winning the state for Trump, or at least substantially narrowing the margin (as in Rhode Island). The exception here is New York, where the gains outside of New York City were offset by the worse-than-usual Republican numbers within it. Not surprising, given all the yuppies, transplants, and immigrants there.

The largest counties here, with over half a million residents, are Suffolk NY (Long Island), Macomb MI, and Montgomery OH. I said in the Election Day post that a major Rust Belt city would turn red, and although it wasn't as big as Cincinnati, its large satellite Dayton turned red for the first time since 1988.

Just under half of these Rust Belt counties voted GOP for the last time as recently as 2004, although that doesn't mean they were reliably red before then. For some, 2004 was like 2016 a risk-taking year for the reliably blue county. For others, they had been drifting away for awhile, and 2008 was the crossing-over point. So Trump has both brought back lapsed Republican counties, as well as piqued the interest of blue counties who only vote red when things look really bad and they want someone to shake things up.

Nearly half last voted Republican during the 1980s, and a handful for Nixon in '72. Only two counties last voted GOP when it was a losing party (St. Lucie FL and Suffolk NY last voted red in '92). So unlike the new blue counties, the red-for-Trump counties have generally been on board with the rest of the nation -- for Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, and now Trump.

And although W. Bush won many of these counties, he didn't win the states they're in because he didn't win enough of them at once, and by large enough margins. Sure, W. Bush won Racine WI in '04, but Trump also added Kenosha, which hasn't voted red since the '72 landslide. And W. Bush won Macomb MI in '04, but Trump added Saginaw and Bay, which haven't voted red since the '84 landslide. So W. Bush could only make a dent in Wisconsin and Michigan, while Trump won both of them. And W. Bush didn't win any of the three in Pennsylvania that Trump flipped, which last voted GOP in '84 or '88.

Outside of the Rust Belt, there are two flipped counties in Florida that helped win the state. Although it might not seem like a historic upset since Florida goes back and forth, these two counties (Pinellas and St. Lucie) have been solid blue since '88 or '92. I'm guessing the transplants there are refugees from the Rust Belt. They vote like them, at any rate.

Secondarily, there's a pair of Southern minority cities where Trump's no-BS appeal to blacks managed to convert two urban areas that are traditionally Democrat because they're majority minority. These are Robeson NC and Jefferson TX, which only voted Republican in the '72 landslide, and were Democrat before that at least back through 1960. Chesapeake VA is also nearly majority minority, and no doubt flipped red with the help of the blacks for Trump. That was a W. Bush county (and state), though, so it's not such a major reversal.

Finally, there's an outlier out West in Cowlitz WA, which is actually on the Oregon border and part of the Portland area rather than Seattle. (Oregon is the reddest state on the West Coast, notwithstanding the recent colonization of Portland -- imagine that for twice as long in Seattle, and five times as long in San Francisco.) There's no single big city there, but a collection of small towns with roots in the lumber industry. Since 1960, they've only voted Republican in '60, '72, and '80.

That flip is part of the "grungers for Trump" phenomenon that I've pointed out several times before. This now includes the hometown of Nirvana (Aberdeen WA), whose small county (Grays Harbor) has not voted Republican since 1928! At least they picked winners when they did decide to go red. Truly a return to the Progressive Era of the GOP.

This makes it clear that the main issue determining the election was populism vs. elitism, and that gaining the white working class in forgotten cities was smarter than trying to reach out to minorities in mega-cities. The losses on the GOP side reflect that: it was elitist whites who left, not blacks, Hispanics, or Asians (such as their numbers were in the GOP).

If we don't internalize these lessons, we'll slip back into the same anti-urban mindset that lost so badly over the past generation. Rescuing and re-building forgotten cities is not blind worship of urbanism, unlike the failing mindset of Establishment Republicans whose idea of urban outreach is making themselves as cosmopolitan as possible in order to win the votes of yuppies in thriving cities. The Trump movement can prioritize urban areas, as long as it's coming from an attitude of stewardship over American industries, rather than maximizing the incomes of carpet-bagging yuppies.


Red to blue counties

State County Largest City Pop (100K) Last voted D
CA Orange Anaheim 32 1936
GA Cobb Marietta 7 1976
GA Gwinnett Peachtree Corners 8 1976
GA Henry Stockbridge 2 1980
MD Anne Arundel Glen Burnie 6 1964
TX Fort Bend Sugar Land 6 1964

Blue to red counties

State County Largest City Pop (100K) Last voted R
CT Windham Windham 1 1988
DE Kent Dover 2 2004
FL Pinellas St. Petersburg 9 1988
FL St. Lucie Port St. Lucie 3 1992
IL Winnebago Rockford 3 2004
IN Porter Portage 1 2004
IN LaPorte Michigan City 1 1988
IN Vigo Terre Haute 1 2004
IN Delaware Muncie 1 2004
ME Penobscot Bangor 2 2000
ME Kennebec Augusta 1 1988
ME Androscoggin Lewiston 1 1988
MI Macomb Warren 8 2004
MI Monroe Monroe 2 2004
MI Saginaw Saginaw 2 1984
MI Bay Bay City 1 1984
MI Calhoun Battle Creek 1 2004
MI Eaton Charlotte 1 2004
NC Robeson Lumberton 1 1972
NH Hillsborough Manchester 4 2004
NJ Gloucester Washington Twp 3 1988
NY Suffolk Brookhaven 15 1992
NY Niagara Niagara Falls 2 1984
NY Oswego Oswego 1 2004
NY Broome Binghamton 2 1984
NY Orange Newburgh 4 2004
NY Dutchess Poughkeepsie 3 2004
NY St. Lawrence Ogdensburg 1 1988
NY Saratoga Saratoga Springs 2 2004
NY Rensselaer Troy 2 1988
OH Montgomery Dayton 5 1988
OH Stark Canton 4 2000
OH Wood Bowling Green 1 2004
OH Lorain Lorain 3 1984
OH Portage Kent 2 1988
OH Trumbull Warren 2 1972
OH Ashtabula Ashtabula 1 1984
PA Luzerne Wilkes-Barre 3 1988
PA Erie Erie 3 1984
PA Northampton Bethlehem 3 1988
RI Kent Warwick 2 1984
TX Jefferson Beaumont 3 1972
VA Chesapeake Chesapeake 2 2004
WA Cowlitz Longview 1 1980
WI Racine Racine 2 2004
WI Kenosha Kenosha 2 1972
WI Winnebago Oshkosh 2 2004

November 29, 2016

Further losses for Democrats: Atheists, liberaltarians, etc., not just populists

Since the most action during primary season was on the Republican side, we didn't hear much about the cracks that were already beginning to split apart the Democrat coalition, which has now turned into a full-on civil war.

The parallels drawn between the Bernie movement and the Trump movement focused mostly on their being anti-Establishment and oriented toward economic populism rather than the usual topics. That made it clear that the Left populists were breaking away from the mainstream of their party, but there was actually a far broader range of reliable Democrats who were starting to get fed up with the direction of their party toward identity politics uber alles.

Not conservative Democrats, who have already switched over to Republican or not involved.

They're not even moderates on social-cultural issues -- they support gay marriage, they hate religion, and they want increased gun control. They make a point of saying that racism, sexism, etc. exist, and that we should call it out and shame people for it.

Their distinguishing traits are atheism and skepticism, which doesn't mean that's their main cause, only that it separates them from other liberals. Stressing reason, logic, and facts, they bristle at identity politics, which stresses unthinking tribalism, airing of grievances rather than productive debates, and generally a more emotionalist approach to politics. It rejects the obsession with victimhood and oppression, and takes a more constructive engineering approach to fixing problems.

Demographically, they're mostly white, educated, under-40, living in major metro areas, both male and female. In other words, like the populist and environmentalist progs who supported Bernie in such large numbers. Sure enough, most of these non-progs were big on Bernie, too, even if they didn't care what the TPP was all about.

Bernie was not speaking to their major concerns -- boo religion, yay gays, etc. Of the economic topics he focused on, probably the only one that really got their attention was student debt. It was simply the fact that he wasn't making an emotional appeal to tribal identity (race, sex, or whatever), nor trying to win by having the biggest chip on his shoulder.

As an example, consider YouTuber Jaclyn Glenn, who has half a million subscribers, along with 100K each on Twitter and Instagram -- someone who resonates with enough people to make it worth studying just one person's output. And her videos go back to 2010, so there's plenty to study about how she has changed.

She's an early Millennial, college-educated, female, atheist, pro-gay, crazy cat lady, transplant to Los Angeles. Aside from being white, she checks the boxes for being a loyal Democrat. Sure enough, lots of her videos focus on how stupid, evil, etc., Republican voters and politicians are. Going through the titles of videos in her archive, and listening to a random sample, it was the same ol' predictable crap that you'd expect from her demographic background in the political scene of the 2010s.

In 2014, she did express exasperation at how easily offended the third-wave feminists were, but she didn't really stick with this, or turn against feminist identity politics per se. Just, "Wow, settle down -- we're fighting for the same thing ultimately."

On her twitter the term "feminists" shows up a few times in 2014, provoked by GamerGate. She was against the feminazis like Anita Sarkeesian, but also not on board with the anti-feminists. That was the first major time when she felt like there was no middle ground, and you had to pick which side you were on. GamerGate may have opened up young people not only to the future Alt-Right, but also to the future "Shut it, feminazis" strain within the Bernie movement.

That disappeared once the controversy died down by the end of 2014. It's not until primary season began late last year that she really starts sounding off against the identity politics mainstream of her party. The Democrat civil war was just warming up.

Here is her response to the Islamic terrorist attacks in Paris. She all but says, "Hey Trump may have a point with his Muslim ban." It's not being an atheist that primes her to say that, since plenty of atheists apologize for Islamic terrorism. She knows they're the only ones who do this shit (despite a half-hearted reference to the Christian crusades nearly 1000 years ago). There's no room in the Democrat mainstream today for someone who is unapologetic about the danger that Islam uniquely poses to us here and now, and the need to do something about it.

Here is her explicit rejection of feminist identity politics, surrounding the denunciations by older feminazi types that women must vote for other women, or otherwise behave as mere drones in a hive serving the queen bee (that bitch). Wearing a Bernie t-shirt.

Here is an even better rejection of identity politics, reacting to some uppity black girl SJW whining about white privilege, and trying to shame white women for even having to ask what it is, as though they deserved an answer. (The uppity SJW actually demands that white women allies ought to pay her for droppin' dat knowledge on dere melanin-deficient ass.) Her response is pretty angry for a supposed ally. Sounds like she's this close to saying, "Well we don't need you dumb ghetto trash anyway."

Here she is parodying a hardline feminazi while interviewing pedestrians about inane SJW crap at Venice Beach of all places, underscoring what party-poopers the feminists are. During the past couple months, she's put out quite a few of these anti-feminazi videos.

Here is her "get over it" message to all of the #NotMyPresident complainers (she voted Hillary, too). And she was the one who made that not-really-anti Trump song during the summer, "Hump Trump". She isn't freaking out about his election bringing about the apocalypse, even if she doesn't like where it'll go.

The situation looks dire if the Democrat leadership can't even hold onto someone who was a stereotypical Democrat before primary season. She's not a populist / anti-war activist, showing that the Sanders supporters were drawing more broadly than just the progs. But she's not a rabid SJW or bound by the spell of tribal identity politics, so how can she still be a reliable Democrat?

Of course, she's not going to defect to the other side (unless she marries a Trump supporter). But the intense dissatisfaction with the party leadership means a deeply divided party for the foreseeable future.

November 24, 2016

Enough 50-D chess analysis: Be thankful for 80% perfect

Now that there are a lot of major decisions by Trump that are compressed into a brief time period, his decision-making ability is a hot topic again, and again too many in the Trump movement have the same response as before -- every big decision he makes is a 50-dimensional chess move whose brilliance may not be apparent to us mere mortals, but will become visible through Trump's instruction by example.

In this worldview, Trump is a guru who reveals esoteric wisdom to the cloudy-minded masses, the better to lift them up into a higher state of enlightenment -- not into the nature of the world, but into the nature of (organizational) leadership. His book The Art of the Deal is a sacred text in this tradition, a reverence that Trump does everything to encourage among his fans. "My second-favorite book, after the Bible."

The basic idea behind the worldview is that what appear to be trade-offs that require Trump to do something good and something bad in order to get things done, hopefully more good than bad, aren't really trade-offs after all. When your consciousness ascends to a higher dimension and looks down on the situation, there really is no trade-off at all, and Trump pulls off the job with (nearly) optimal outcomes on all relevant domains. He is the supreme squarer of circles.

The trouble with these Panglossian analyses is that they are always made after the fact, and have the quality of just-so stories. Why couldn't they have predicted what Trump would do? Because only he possesses the higher awareness to see through the 50-D moves, and we mere mortals are only able to describe its brilliance after he has carried it out. It reeks of excessive flattery.

And these describers will describe it as 50-D chess genius whether Trump does X or whether Trump does Not-X. Pick Romney as Secretary of State? Here's the 50-D chess brilliance behind that decision. Instead, pick Anyone But Romney? Here's the 50-D chess brilliance behind that decision. There's no independent way to evaluate how brilliant of a move it was, if it's always necessarily a masterstroke.

Moreover, if Trump's big decisions are win-win-win-win-win... he could never make a major misstep, and would never need any major course correction. A little wobble here, and little counter-balancing there, but nothing substantially different from what he intended to do.

Trump is undoubtedly better at this stuff than any of us are, but was it a 50-D chess move to skip the GOP debate before the Iowa caucus? He lost that race to Cruz, and saying that he would have lost by even larger margins had he participated in the debate, is just more post hoc rationalization. Was it a 50-D chess move to say that a pro-life stance leads toward punishing the seeker rather than the provider of abortion? Or to camp out in Wisconsin during the primary? He lost that primary by double digits. And was it a 50-D chess move to not only double down on the La Raza judge feud, but to instruct his surrogates to jump into the brawl as well? That was a time of dropping in the polls.

The point here is not to blackpill Trump supporters by desanctifying the image of Trump-as-guru. It is to keep us realistic: not every choice he makes is going to be optimal in all important respects. Sometimes he'll be able to correct the mistake (sidelining culture war questions after the abortion brou-ha-ha), and sometimes he -- and we -- are just going to suffer a blow and try to do as well as we can with that wound (the attempted coup by the GOPe that disrupted party unity just weeks before the election).

It is more accurate to say that Trump is good at surviving, or "winning," despite the blows that have been landed against him. And I don't just mean the antifragile strength that comes from, say, the media attacking him for not having served as a politician before -- that's a good thing in today's climate! I mean even the true blows like that "grab the pussy" tape. He is robust.

No matter what the context is, we'll always know that he's the least likely President to even consider selling out. He took money from no one and is a billionaire himself already. He's not from the political system, so they can't try shame / blackmail / etc. to police a member of their own network. And he's stated his goals boldly, publicly, and repeatedly, so that there won't be any double-talking wiggle room when it comes to trying to implement them. And he's fortunate to belong to the party that also controls both houses of Congress, along with most state and local government functions. And with his Supreme Court picks, he'll have that body's backing as well.

But that doesn't mean he won't ever have to compromise.

Some of it to heal the deeply divided nation, which he has always spoken out against. His most heartfelt indictment of Obama was that he thought at least Obama would be a bringer-together and a cheerleader for the nation, and then Obama turned out to stoke the divisions to polarize the population even further.

And some of it we may have no clue about because only the inner circles know about it. How do we know he hasn't been threatened by the Deep State already -- wanting certain boundaries to be respected, no matter if he was elected through a populist revolt. Trump is not an ideologue: in some such cases, he may decide it's worth the fight against the system (e.g., exposing and shutting down the elite pedophile rings), while in others he may decide it's more trouble than it's worth (cases we may never know about).

We would be foolish to believe that he, or we, have a mandate to do whatever the hell we see fit about cleaning up our government, economy, population, and culture. His theme song has been "You Can't Always Get What You Want" by the Rolling Stones -- not "Invincible" by Pat Benatar. He is a courageous warrior, not a teenager who has unlocked god mode on a video game.

The danger in spinning all these just-so stories is that we'll turn into a cult of the guru Trump, unable to recognize when the movement is heading in the wrong direction on some issue at some time. His is shaping up to be the greatest presidency that any of us has ever experienced, and there's nothing wrong with that representing an 80-90% compromise from what we truly have our hearts set on.

Let's be thankful for that.

November 23, 2016

Splitting Dem women away from SJWs: Class-based praise of family formation

Now that the Democrat civil war has already split the race warriors apart from the class warriors, it's time to focus on splitting apart the feminist SJWs from liberal women who don't resonate with gender identity politics.

How did the schism open up over the race vs. class divide?

It was the class side siding more with Trump than Hillary on economics, whether they wanted to admit it or not. Since Trump won, the class-oriented Dems can say "I toldja so" about the impotence of identity politics, and the importance of class. When the race baiters snap back about the class Dems being crypto-Trump supporters, both sides have exchanged fire.

Because they're a crumbling empire rather than an inchoate insurgency, there's a positive feedback loop between the two warring factions, which will split them farther and farther apart.

How could this be re-created over gender identity politics vs. class?

See this earlier post about the common ground that the populist nationalist movement shares with the Jill Stein and Bernie crowd regarding family formation. The old GOP framed family formation in natalist terms, where having children is a moral good per se and ought to be pursued to make the world a more moral and good place.

The populist take, from the Jill and Bernie people, is materialist -- forming a family is one of those normal things that normal people do, so if a majority are not, then either a majority are abnormal or there are other obstacles in their path. These are shaky income prospects and shifting residence patterns for fertile-aged women and their husbands, as they hunt for good-paying stable jobs in what feels like a wild goose chase.

In this video (at 7:15), Emma Vigeland from The Young Turks: Politics discusses this topic with her interview subject, a working-class black woman from suburban Cleveland. Vigeland takes it for granted that getting married and starting a family is a desirable thing, but feels financially uncertain and therefore hesitant to get started right away in her early 20s. She's clearly from an affluent family herself, so it hits on the theme of downward class mobility. Gen X-ers and Millennials may not want to admit it, but delaying marriage and having small or no families is yet another sign of their downward mobility.

The old GOP stance was the extremist conclusion -- that more and more young people are abnormal, as shown by their lack of interest in forming a family. This personalized and moralized their childlessness, as though it were a deliberate statement or a decision, rather than a situation they'd rather not find themselves in.

Trump, with Ivanka's help, is making this issue a materialist one again, seeking to make childcare more affordable so that young people can do what they want to do, which is get married and start having children. It's just one of those normal things everyone wants to get around to doing, not some higher good.

There is a waiting schism among Democrat women between those who are anti-natalists -- morally indignant at the idea of family formation being a good thing -- and normal women who want to start a family when they're able to afford it. We can help to ignite the war between them like we have with the race vs. class war.

The more the Trump movement discusses -- in a neutral, non-moralistic tone -- family formation as something that most normal people want to get around to, and are only putting it off because they're in an uncertain economic situation, the more we will force Democrat women to reveal which side they're on, and then go to war against each other.

The class-oriented ones will say, "Y'know, I hate to admit that Trump is right about anything, but he has a point." That will provoke the feminists into denouncing the normal ones for "judging" women who don't want a husband and/or children. The response by normals: "No, we don't mean those women are, like, morally bad or anything -- but shrinking family formation is a bad sign of economic stagnation." Oh, so you're one of those "economics is everything" women who doesn't care if she gets turned into a baby factory by her husband? "Excuse me? 'Gets turned into?' What if I want the children myself?" You see! -- she admits to internalizing patriarchal norms!

The end result is the SJWs waging a crusade to shame their fellow Democrats for having normal priorities, whether it's wanting to bring back good-paying jobs or make family formation affordable for all people and not just the rich. Normal people will resent being shamed for having normal priorities, which causes the SJWs to splinter off from the coalition, into their own purity cult, all hermetic and misanthropic.

It wasn't too long ago that Republican activists tried to shame Democrats and Independents as abnormal for not wanting to live under a Christian Zionist theocracy. Now the shoe is on the other foot, with Democrats becoming the party of alienating cultural extremists.

Hopefully Trump and Ivanka will start bringing up the topic again, but why wait? We can start sowing the seeds of discord with memes directed at normal women, from feminazi women. It's hardly a false flag when this is truly what they already believe, in substance and in tone. Put something like this over a picture of Elena Kagan looking maximally smug.

Dear faux-feminist women:

Starting a family is one of your life goals?
Seriously, baby factory much?
Your internalized misogyny is disgusting.
And, btw, makes you look weak and pathetic.

The real independent women

November 21, 2016

Where Trump won youth: The future of the re-alignment

In all the talk about the reversals of Democrat dominance in supposedly safe groups, I haven't noticed people talking too much about young voters. According to the exit polls in several states, Trump didn't just improve over the typical Republican, he won them outright.

These just so happen to be key states that flipped from blue to red, and although the flip of the youth vote is not the main factor, it's still part of a broader shift in these former blue states.

This ought to put in serious doubt the comforting mantra that the Bernie people tell themselves: "We're the future". Not in these states, you're not. Where young people are rabid Trump fans, do not count on "winning back the college kids," even with Bernie, and certainly not with pandering crap like Katy Perry and Jay Z concerts.

In de-industrialized, forgotten areas, young people face a rough and bleak-looking future, made even worse if their formerly homogeneous communities are becoming disrupted by immigration. They are willing to ignore the old nostrums that seem to have gotten them into this mess, and are willing to take a risk on the populist and nationalist direction that the Trump movement wants to take the country in.

Nationally, the exit polls show Trump losing the 18-24 year-old vote by about 20 points, the 25-29 year-old vote by about 15 points, and the 30-39 year-olds by about 10 points. Only starting with 40-somethings do the numbers switch to favor Trump.

The expected exceptions are in deep red states, where all age groups vote red. Even in some red states, though, it is the middle-aged and older groups that carry the state red, while young people vote blue (like Georgia).

In two usually blue states, Pennsylvania (now red) and New Hampshire (narrowly blue), Trump performed according to the national numbers among the 25-29 and 30-39 group. Although he didn't win the 18-24 group, he lost them by a much narrower margin than nationally -- 5 points in PA and just 2 points in NH. It's unusual for him to do better among the youngest age group, which suggests the beginning of a generational shift in the populist / nationalist direction.

There's more of a youth surge in Maine. Although Trump lost the 18-24 and 25-29 groups by 8 and 2 points, that's well above the national numbers. And he actually won the 30-39 group by 10 points, even better than his support among older voters. As these 30-somethings enter the numerically heavy middle-aged group, they could push Maine entirely into the red column, and not just in the one Congressional district.

The most interesting exceptions, however, are in the Upper Midwest. Wisconsin voted Republican for the first time since 1984, when the whole country voted Republican. Among the 18-24 group, Trump actually won by 2 points, and only lost by 9 points among the 25-29 group -- both far above the national numbers.

In Minnesota, too, Trump actually won by 5 points among the 18-24 group, and lost by 11 with the 25-29 group. He didn't do as well with older voters as he did in Wisconsin, so he didn't take the state, but it's staggering to see the youngest age group in the most reliably blue state vote for Trump (it famously did not fall during either of the Reagan landslides).

Rounding out the Lutheran Triangle, Iowa showed the greatest youth support for Trump. Although he lost the 18-24 group by 9 points, that's still well above the national numbers, and he won the 25-29 group by a whopping 24 points, as well as the 30-39 group by 10 points. That's even greater support than the 50-and-over voters showed him.

Most people forget the regional cultural breakdown of support for the Nazis in Germany -- it was greatest in the Lutheran dominant regions in the north and east, lying in the low farmland plains. Those people take it and take it and take it -- until they don't, and then they snap. In addition to the rural Lutherans turning their conformism in a nationalist direction, the Upper Midwestern plain is now also seeing the emergence of the Trumpenjugend.

"The cosmopolitans always used to take advantage of our Minnesota niceness. They used to think it was a joke. They are not taking advantage anymore."