Election speculations from the peanut gallery

Naturally there is a lot of speculation and conjecturing from voters on the eve of the election — well, almost the eve of the big day. I won’t be bold or foolish enough to make any predictions of my own; I think the crystal ball looks a little too cloudy for that just now. In today’s wild atmosphere, almost anything might happen.

I did notice some comments made by readers of various blogs, and there are some non-factual remarks. Example: the assertion that most women will not vote for Trump. I think if you look at his rallies you will see lots of women, and they appear very enthusiastic in support of the President. If anyone thinks those women are there because their pro-Trump husbands dragged them along against their will — well, that’s an unlikely scenario in the very pro-feminist world of 2020; the non-liberal women have bought into feminism if only in a milder form than the pink-hat-wearing leftist women.

So yes plenty of right-leaning women do support Trump.

Another ‘iffy’ statement: Trump will lure away many POC voters, so many that it will give Trump a boost and a new POC voter base. But if we go by historical voting patterns I don’t believe those patterns can be overturned just like that, just that easily. What was the percentage of blacks voting for Obama in 2012? 90 per cent. It remains to be seen whether the GOP will achieve their longstanding dream of winning over black voters, wooing them away from the “Democrat Plantation” [their phrase, not mine].

The GOP is a so-far rejected or jilted suitor for the black vote. But they remain confident of winning over the object of their apparent affections.

And here’s where I see some wishful thinking: some voters are saying that even if women don’t come around to supporting Trump, maybe the young men (millennials and younger, as well as Gen X-ers) will make up for it by voting for right-ish candidates. (How many real right-wingers, or even mildly conservative politicians, are on ‘our side’?)

A Washington Post – ABC News Poll prior to the 2016 election showed that among voters, those who opposed Trump’s ‘harsh enforcement policies’ (as they described them), were 75 percent of Hispanics, 79 percent of Democrats, and 57 percent of voters overall. And what about the young voters just champing at the bit to come in and save the day? Two-thirds of them opposed Trump’s policies on immigration.

The only age group that supported Trump’s plans were the over 65 age group.

Trump himself is of that age group.

And that age group is growing fewer in number by the day. I don’t know how many of those people are still alive and thriving; I keep hearing that they are the group most likely to succumb to the pandemic, as the youngest of them are 74 years old. Who will take their place, demographically? Newly-minted voters from the third world? People who entered illegally but who are being made legal by amnesty schemes?

What does this mean for America, or what used to be America? What will the demise of the older age group mean to the political landscape?

How is ”democracy”, falsely so-called going to be affected by our own Grand Remplacement?

By the way, I’ve just read on the Internet that the Grand Remplacement is a ”right-wing conspiracy”. I am trying not to laugh here, but it’s no laughing matter. Someone must inform Canadian PM Trudeau about it; I think he ought to be informed about this conspiracy by Whites to replace Whites.

The election, though, is a serious issue, and I hope it proceeds without any disorder or conflict. How it unfolds will indicate whether we are still a relatively civilized country with rules and standards and order, or whether we are en route to banana-republicdom.

Political views by generation

Via Zero Hedge, the results of a survey by YouGov on the voting trends by generation in the UK, with the results being from the recent elections in the UK.


Evidently the same patterns hold true in this country as in the UK, with the younger voters being decidedly to the left in their voting habits, and the oldest being most ‘right-wing.’ The pattern held true in the Brexit referendum, with the young being very upset at the “racist” oldsters for voting to leave the EU.

Without the votes of the older segments (50+, and especially 60+) Britain could not have had a chance of extricating itself, via Brexit, from the EU.

Youth has its good points, but the young on both sides of the Atlantic seem to have been easy prey for the left’s propaganda for all these years. One can hope they’ll outgrow it, but they have to want to. They can easily find the truth if they really want to know; nobody has to be a victim of propaganda but it seems to have quite a hold on some segments of the population in the West.


Yesterday I was cautiously optimistic, but I admit that Trump’s victory today was somewhat surprising  — and I admit that all the naysaying talk about how ”They” wouldn’t  let him win, or “They” wouldn’t allow us to take back our country was even affecting my attitude.

Even now, as Hillary (or Queen Xanxia as I’ve been calling her: a Dr. Who allusion) has reportedly conceded, there are honestly Republicans on the Internet saying they won’t believe it, because she would never concede. Or they are saying that Trump can’t officially win until she appears in public and makes a formal concession speech. This is how hard it is for some to accept that the ‘Lizard Queen’ is not invincible or superhuman. They really think she can hold up the process by not making a formal speech. As far as I know there is no law that the losing candidate has to officially concede in front of the national media — it may be a tradition but it is not an ironclad rule, surely.

I still remember election night in November, 2000 when that sore loser Al Gore, after having called G.W. Bush to concede, then turned around shortly thereafter and took back his concession. I was flabbergasted; so graceless and childish on his part. So we can never overestimate the left’s capacity for treachery and dishonesty — but though they may have fits of  petulance and try to sabotage things, they can’t overturn the results of the election just because they don’t like to lose.

I think our folk have lived under political correctness and leftist manipulation for so long that we are like a psychologically beaten and whipped people. I think we’ll need de-programming or something to re-learn our self-confidence and to stop overestimating our enemies. ‘They are but men’, as the Bible says of the arrogant and powerful; they are not superhuman, not even Hillary.

Do we care?

I’ve got my ballot ready to go; it will be deposited tomorrow first thing.

Like most people on the right, I see this election as the most crucial one of my lifetime. I don’t see how anyone on our side could sit this one out.

I care about my nation — by which I mean that I care about the people of this country, the ‘generational Americans’, the ‘legacy Americans’, or ‘birthright Americans’, the Posterity of the Founders. We are the ones with everything to lose now. Not the rest.

But when I ask, “do we care?” I mean: have we grown so complacent, so jaded, so apathetic, and in the case of the dissident right, have we grown so disillusioned and so alienated from the “normies”, also known as ‘the sheeple’ or ‘Amurkans’ that we are wishing for it all to come down?

To me, my nation is like my family. I have some lefty relatives, and lately I am ashamed to claim them. Some of us were temporarily not on speaking terms due to their confrontational political rantings in my presence. But the fact is they are still my kin, and we still share ancestry and memories, good as well as bad. They may ultimately see the light, God willing. I am not willing to write them off. And I hope some of our ignorant lefty countrymen may come around to the Truth. So I can’t hate them.

But do we care in that we still at least make our voices known, even suspecting that politics and voting alone will not save us? I keep on with this blog although I suspect that it’s a vain effort on my part; I often feel I am writing for about five people out there, and the comments are few and far between. Am I just indulging myself here? Maybe so, and like many on the dissident right, in my little efforts here I may be putting myself on the radar screen of the powers-that-be, even though this blog is insignificant in terms of traffic and even less significant in terms of influence. But I feel duty-bound to make my voice heard even though I reach few and influence fewer. I honestly believe we will be held accountable for what we failed to do, for failing to speak up on the side of right and Truth, in whatever small way we can find. The point is to raise our voices; we can only do what we can do, regardless of how little the apparent result.

“I do not believe the greatest threat to our future is from bombs or guided missiles. I don’t think our civilization will die that way. I think it will die when we no longer care. Arnold Toynbee has pointed out that 19 of 21 civilizations have died from within and not by conquest from without. There were no bands playing and flags waving when these civilizations decayed. It happened slowly, in the quiet and the dark when no one was aware.” – Laurence M. Gould, former president of Carleton College, 1968


No predictions, but…

I wouldn’t be foolish enough to predict the result of tomorrow’s election. I certainly have hopes for a certain outcome, and I certainly do pray for the desired outcome.

I will say that, contrary to the belief of the Republican faithful like those at Free Republic, I don’t believe that there will be a groundswell of support for Trump among blacks. Or Hispanics. Those who claim to see that are wishful thinkers — in my opinion.

Malcolm Jaggers, at The Right Stuff, says much the same thing in a good piece today, titled About Those Mythical Conservative Blacks.

“The spectacle that Trump has made of himself trying to persuade Blacks in particular to vote for him have been not just futile, but almost embarrassing. Establishment Republicans think it’s simply fantastic, which kind of proves how feckless it is. Yes, there are realpolitik reasons for urban outreach that go beyond face value. Nonetheless, there is just no evidence that Blacks are yearning for “economic zones” to be created in the inner city. I would love to be contradicted on that point, and if Blacks vote for Trump at a percentage higher than I can count on one hand, I will consider myself officially contradicted.”

The ‘economic zones’ that have been proposed sound rather familiar. They were promoted by Jack Kemp and later by the Reagan administration. Need I say that they weren’t a smashing success? Regardless, even if we believed such things would work to ‘lift up’ minorities, as the TRS piece points out, they tend to vote by race; they are not attracted by policy proposals and abstract ideas.

However if a few minorities cross over and vote for Trump, so much the better, but then the GOP will end up, possibly, as a demographic mirror image of the Democrats, as we try to include everybody, and those ‘everybodies’ want coddling and special attention to their causes and their ‘felt needs.’

Then there’s this: if (heaven forbid) we lose this election, the party honchos will be saying ‘we didn’t do enough outreach to minorities; we’ve got to try harder.’ How has that worked out so far?


Absolutely true


This was posted on Facebook.  I found it on Morgoth’s blog, on a thread which is featuring memes which could be used in trying to engage Hillary voters and the brainwashed left. Could it be useful? I like it because it is absolutely true. The kind of thinking that is denounced as ‘extremist’, ‘hateful’, and ‘bigoted’ was common to most normal people back then; even Democrats had views that are considered reprehensible today.  Yet right and wrong don’t change with time. Truth is not based on shifting, fickle public opinion. What was good and right in 1965 still is.

First we have the election ahead of us. I hope to persuade some of my lefty relatives to stay home and not vote; that may be the best possibility of preventing the disaster that the election might bring.

‘What they saw’

The headline on this piece quotes a source saying that investigating NYPD officers were ‘sickened by what they saw’ in the e-mail evidence in the Hillary investigation.

How trustworthy the sources are here is beyond me; I’m not familiar with the websites from which this information comes, so I leave that judgement to those who know more about them.

What I do know, because I remember the late 1990s during the Clinton pre-impeachment scandal(s), is that all the right-wing forums were a-buzz with rumor and speculation every time someone leaked new ‘revelations’ about the Clintons’ misconduct. Every time, the headlines screamed ‘Latest bombshells will finally expose the Clintons! Smoking gun found!‘ or similar sensationalism. Whatever it was, there was always something that was promoted as being ‘the Big One! This is it! This will make Clinton resign!’

As history shows, no matter what was revealed, it was never enough to cause the shameless Clintons and their minions and defenders to admit anything, much less to retire in disgrace. They brazened it out till the bitter end, even being so bold as to trash the White House when they departed. Of course the liberal lying media denied what happened, following their pattern of covering up anything done by ‘their own.’ If you search on the subject you will find the media sycophants calling the damage just ‘pranks’ and mischief, downplaying it, if not outright denying that it happened.

This is what happens with a dishonest media machine; Thomas Jefferson wrote so often of the vital importance of a free and independent press. We are now living the consequences of not guarding against the corruption of the media, and the concentration of media control in a few, very politicized hands.

So, it may be that these latest ‘bombshells’, this time involving much more than ‘juvenile pranks’ like trashing the White House, or worse even than the Lewinski lewdness, will prove devastating to the corrupt Democrat crime machine and all their degenerate associates and contributors. We can hope.

But personally I am not investing too much in this latest story, not until it is actually out in the open, if ever. It may prove to be yet another of many damp squibs, as with virtually all of the ‘explosive revelations’ against the Clintons in the late 90s.

The thing is, our enemies, the ‘progressives’, liberals, Democrats, are people who are generally lacking in morals, especially as regards sexual behavior. Even when sexual behavior becomes transgressive to the point of violating the laws of God and man, they have no sense of shame. They generally can’t be shocked, being very amoral people in a deep sense. Oh, sure, they have perfected the art of feigning shock, when they can find a political enemy caught in some compromising situation  — like when some Christian minister is caught in sexual misbehavior. Then they suddenly are full of high morals, reacting with condemnation, for example, if the misbehavior happens to involve homosexuality — while normally they champion, no, celebrate homosexuality. And look at how they defend, even now, Roman Polanski.

They are not like normal people who recoil from certain things naturally; they are hardened in their amorality; everything is excused as a lack of understanding on our part; everyone is a victim of genes or childhood trauma (child abusers, for example) or their behavior is called good and natural (transsexualism, homosexuality, bestiality).

There is nothing much that can shock them, and when it comes to politics they would defend the Devil himself because after all he is one of their own.

So, we’ll see what develops. It would be a great surprise, and decidedly a good thing if some eleventh-hour revelation brings down the Democrats and all their associates and enablers, especially in the media. That would be the kind of deus-ex-machina we need, but if they are to be defeated it may just be down to the usual factors: let the elections play out, and pray that the vote-rigging does not work this time for the Democrat machine.

Evangelicals prefer Trump

According to one poll, 69 per cent of Evangelicals prefer Trump.

This contradicts what many of the news media have been saying, and it’s also the opposite of the popular opinion on many Alt-Right/dissident right blogs, where people say that Christians will not vote for Trump.

Personally I think that the seculars out there who are Trump supporters simply have a low opinion of Christians (or Evangelicals specifically), as the public at large has been conditioned to have negative images of Christians. So many on the secular right are lumping Christians together with the ‘Churchians.’ Not all Christians are Churchians, or ‘cucked’.

I live in a town where the majority of people are Christian, I mean, actively Christian, who belong to churches and attend every Sunday. They even read (and believe) their Bibles. They aren’t just casual Christians; they’re not just Christians by default because they haven’t yet become Moslems or Hindus or Mormons or atheists. But in my town, the vast majority of yard signs, bumper stickers or other such displays are for Trump. I have seen one sign for Hillary, though there may be a handful here and there.

Even in the University town which is about 20 minutes away, I have seen a total of two yard signs for Hillary. It’s hard to believe because that town, population about 80,000, is an ultra-liberal town, populated by many academics and young naive college kids. There are still some ‘Bernie’ signs there that were never taken down; Bernie was the choice for most of the lefties there. But I’ve seen two Hillary signs in my recent visits.

Anecdotes aren’t data, I know. But if there is a lot of support for Hillary, people must be too embarrassed to show their support. I can only hope they will be too embarrassed to go to the polls to vote for Hillary.

The media, I think, are trying to demoralize potential Trump voters by their barrage of false data and skewed ‘news.’

Just that easy

When the ‘Milo’/Alt-right love affair started I was wary, because whenever any ‘protected group’ is incorporated into the ‘Big Tent’, chances are that group will begin to impose its agenda (which is counter to that of the majority, always) onto the majority. “We need their votes!” Or, in Milo’s case, “He fights! He wins! We need fighters.”

Doesn’t anyone think that it’s a sad commentary that an effeminate homosexual has to “fight” on behalf of straight men who should be able to champion their own interests?

[An aside: the gay ‘Daddy will save us” hashtag,  referring to Trump, is mentioned. Maybe some FReepers don’t realize that for gay men, the term ‘daddy’ has a specific meaning.]

Anyway, the title of this post is a description of how easily the ‘mainstream GOP’ types at Free Republic are all fine with the “gay community” getting on the Trump train. Just read the comments here. How many dissenters are there? Watch. Those people will soon be called ‘homophobic’ and told that they are hindering The Cause by their bigotry.

No victim group left behind.

Yes, by all means, we need two parties competing for the ‘gay vote’ and two parties (at least) competing for the African-American vote, the Hispanic vote, the Moslem vote, etc. etc.

What will happen to our interests in this scenario? Just asking. Rhetorically, of course.

Debates: some historical perspective

I have no opinions to voice about the debate really as I didn’t watch it. There is a lot of analysis online from people who did endure the debate, and so my impressions, based on what I’ve heard or read are not worth much.

I actually haven’t watched any presidential debates since 2000, I think, which was also an important election for anybody on the right then, because the Clintons and their minions were on the way out of the White House (or so we hoped; if Al Gore had been elected it probably would have been a continuation of the Clinton regime with the same corrupt and venal cast of characters.)

A lot of us on the right then were desperate to get the Democrats out of the White House but the candidates were not inspiring. Most of us who voted for G.W. Bush did so only because he seemed preferable to the other options. At the time the election seemed all-important because so many of us were just living to see the back of the Clintons and their ilk. Even then, mind you, there was talk of Hillary planning to follow her ”husband” as President, eventually. But none of us could have envisioned the situation that we find ourselves in now, with our country in such dire straits, being overrun by immigration, our economy in a shambles, race conflicts at a possible all-time peak. No one could imagine that things could get so bad, so fast. It is dizzying, in retrospect, to ponder how far we’ve fallen.

But again, the younger people among us have no memory of the days of the Clinton scandals and all the corruption and deception which marked those years. If the younger generations know anything about the Clinton years they may know about the ‘sex scandals’, ‘Zippergate’, and so on. They may not have heard of Chinagate, Whitewater, the Mena, Arkansas drug-running allegations, the ‘tainted blood’ scandal which had to do with Arkansas prison inmates (on Bill Clinton’s watch as governor) donating tainted blood to Canada, etc. And what about the White House travel office scandal. Then there was the Arkancides, and let’s not leave out Waco, and the OKC bombing. That’s just the tip of the iceberg.

We then thought that our country had reached a nadir in politics, and that things could not be worse than what we had seen under the Clintons. Yes, we thought the 2000 election was very important, and I remember how frustrating and angering it was that the Democrats managed to contrive a way to contest the election when Bush was declared the winner.

Some may wonder why so many of us were ‘fooled’ by G.W. Bush but the thing is, we thought he was a prince compared to the Clintons, or Al Gore. And the ‘prince’ we elected turned out to be a frog, after all.

Sometimes I wonder if whoever pre-selects our candidates purposely chooses the worst possible candidate on one side to ensure that the other one is elected.

When G.W. Bush started showing his true, globalist/neocon colors early in his first term, I remember on an online forum I used to frequent, quoting from Scripture  “Put not your trust in princes.” Did I catch flak for saying that! I’d uttered blasphemy and treason, as Bush was still above criticism among average Republicans. So I was disaffected with Bush very early on, and left the GOP fold to ultimately find myself where I am now. Wherever that is; on the right side, I hope.