r/K Theory

If you’re not familiar with r/K theory it is well worth picking up Anonymous Conservative’s book on the subject.  Viewing politics, or many aspects of life for that matter, through this prism can be helpful.  This may alleviate some of the frustration you may have when trying to understand why the other “side” does not understand your position at all.  This is a small sample of the theory as laid out in chapter 1 of his book.  His blog is worth checking out too.  He posts daily examples of this linked to news stories.

The theory of this book is that there is a simple explanation for the origins of political ideology.  Put most simply, our two main political ideologies are merely intellectual outgrowths of the two main reproductive strategies that have been described in the field of Evolutionary Biology for decades.

Biologists have long recognized that two different psychologies exist in nature.  These two psychologies each guide the organisms which hold them to pursue behaviors which will be most likely to yield survival and reproduction.  These psychologies are referred to as reproductive strategies, but they are really deeply imbued psychologies.  They frame how an organism views the world, how it views its peers, and how it behaves as it moves through life.

The study of these psychologies is often described using the shorthand “r/K Selection Theory.”  Both the “r-strategy” and the “K-strategy,” as they are referred to within the field, are psychologies which yield behavior that is custom tailored to a specific environment.  In humans, as in nature, the r-psychology is primarily an adaptation to the presence of copious resources, which do not require out-competing peers.  This is a condition which reduces the advantages of producing fit offspring, in turn favoring the fastest and most prolific reproducers, regardless of offspring quality.  By contrast, the K-psychology is an adaptation to a relative scarcity of resources, where only the fittest compete and survive.  This produces an increased selective pressure favoring the survival of more advanced and fit specimens.  It also reduces the advantages of producing copious numbers of less fit offspring.

Although the presence of absence of resources may vary within a population over the short term, over the long term these two environmental conditions will usually accompany either the presence or absence of a constant, high mortality, most frequently predation.  Predation lowers population numbers and prevents overcrowding, thereby increasing the per-capita resources available to each individual.  This prevents the onset of resource shortage due to overpopulation.

It is for this reason that the r-strategy, which is the evolutionary origin of liberalism, is most often seen in nature within prey species.  Meanwhile the K-strategy, which underlies conservatism, is most often seen in species which are not preyed upon.  This is in fact, the biological “Conservatives think like lions, liberals think like lambs.”  Lions are a K-selected species which exists sans predation.  As a result, each new lion must compete with its peers to acquire a share of the limited resources available to the population.  As a result, lions evolved to exhibit a K-type, competitive/aggressive psychology that intensively rears offspring to compete.  Sheep, by contrast, are a more r-selected prey species, surrounded by fields of grass they will rarely, if ever, fully consume.  This is reflected in their less belligerent, more pacifistic, more freely promiscuous nature.

One species exhibits a psychology which is belligerent, competitive, and sexually restricted and selective, so as to compete for limited resources and produce the fittest offspring.  The other exists as the exact opposite, simply trying to turn resources into offspring as quickly as possible, regardless of fitness.  Each is perfectly designed to compete with peers in their respective environment.

The r-strategy entails five main psychological traits.  Each trait is designed to help an organism out-compete peers in the r-selected environment of free resource availability.  This psychology exhibits a psychological aversion to both, competition with peers and the competitive environment.  It also exhibits a tolerance for, or embrace of, promiscuity, low-investment single-parenting, and early onset sexual behavior among offspring.  It will also tend to not exhibit any group-centric urges, such as loyalty to in-group, or hostility to out-group.

Of these five traits, (competition aversion, promiscuity, single parenting, early onset sexuality, and aversion to group-centrism/ethnocentrism), political leftists exhibit a tolerance of, or an embrace of, all five.  Indeed, as we will show, these five urges explain the entire liberal platform of issue positions.

Liberalism seeks to quash competitions between men (from capitalism, to war, to citizens killing criminal attackers with privately owned firearms).  Liberalism also adopts a lax attitude towards rampant promiscuity, if it is not actively embracing it.  Liberals tend to support single parenting, such as was seen in the debate over the TV show Murphy Brown’s glorification of single motherhood.  Liberalism exhibits a tolerance for, or an embrace of, ever earlier sexual education for children as well as an ever more serialized media environment to which children are exposed.  Liberals tend to rejecte ethnocentrism, and view a tendency towards a pack mentality as an odd and foolish evolutionary throwback.

On top of all of this, at the heart of most liberal policy is a fundamental perception that resources exist in limitless quantities, and that any shortage is not inherent to the finite nature of the world.  Rather, any shortage must be due to some specific individual’s greed altering the world’s nature state of plenty, which would otherwise be able to easily provision everyone with a comfortably high level of resources.  This is a psychology designed to avoid danger, and focus the individual on reproducing as fast as possible.  In our ancient evolutionary environment, absent birth control and abortion, this would produce large numbers of offspring, beginning early in life, and it would be perfectly adapted to r-selection, where every offspring would have food and survive.

The K-strategy entails an embrace of five opposite psychological traits.  K-selection favors an aggressive embrace of competition, and the competitive environment, where some individuals succeed, and others fail, based on their inherent abilities and merits.  It tends to reject promiscuity in favor of sexual selectivity and monogamy, and it will strongly favor high-investment, two-parent offspring-rearing.  The K-strategy also favors delaying sexual activity among offspring until later in life, when maximally fit.  Finally, in its most evolved form, K-selection will tend to imbue individuals with a fierce loyalty to their in-group, to facilitate success in group-competitions.  Competition, shortage, and conflict are the evolutionary origins of the pack mentality, and they are ever present in the extreme K-selected environment.

Clearly, conservatives favor competition, from capitalism, to war, to armed citizens fighting off criminals with personally owned firearms.  Conservatives accept that such competitions will produce disparate outcomes which will be based on inherent ability and effort.  Conservatives favor a culture of monogamy over promiscuity, and they tend to desire a culture which favors high-investment, two-parent child-rearing, as evidence by the conservative uproar over Murphy Brown, as well as the growing debate over “family values” within our culture.  Conservatives also tend to want to see children protected from sexually stimulating themes or sexual education until later in life, so they will be more likely to delay the onset of sexual activity until they are mature.  Of course conservatives have always viewed liberals as exhibiting diminished loyalty to their nation and its people because to a conservative, patriotism, and support for “one’s own,” is a vital moral quality in peers and its expression can never be too exaggerated.

Again, this is a psychology, designed to house one’s genes in carefully reared, highly fit, competitive machines.  It is perfectly adapted to confront conditions of resource limitation, where one’s only means of acquiring resources is to be better at competition than your peers, and to do whatever it takes to not be the individual who failed to succeed.

Why do the r and K reproductive strategies exist?  How exactly does each strategy offer advantage to the individual who exhibits it?  Let’s take a closer look at r and K in nature.  Suppose you have a field, and it produces enough grass to support 100 r-selected rabbits.  A group of owls moves in however, and keeps the rabbit population at only 20 rabbits, in a field which produces enough food to support 100.

Now this environment offers specific advantages and disadvantages to each rabbit.  The owls will shorten each rabbit’s average lifespan.  As a result, Darwinian selection will favor rabbits which reproduce fast and early.  If a rabbit waits to mate, it will be eaten, and that sexually procrastinating trait will be culled.  As a result, those rabbits that produce the next generation will have no compunction about mating as early as possible.  In this environment, “teenagers” and “children” mating is simply normal, as anyone who feels otherwise is eaten prior to reproducing.  Mating earlier also offers a numerical advantage in offspring production, which is advantageous when the competition is about producing as many offspring as possible.

Conflict is an unnecessary risk, since each rabbit already has vastly more food than it can eat.  Those who compete will waste time and energy fighting for something which is already freely available elsewhere.  Those who fight will risk injury and death, while those who do not fight will enjoy the same freely available food, absent any risk, simply by fleeing to another green pasture.  The fighters and competitors will produce fewer offspring than those who avoid competition’s risk and will find themselves numerically out-reproduced by the more prolific individuals who avoid conflict and competition.

Under r-selection, monogamy is disadvantageous, since to impregnate only one mate, and then see the few offspring you have with her eaten, is to see yourself fail, in Darwinian terms.  Monogamy will only produce so many young.  Thus in this environment, one is best served by producing as many offspring as possible, by as many mates as possible, beginning as early as possible.  IN that way, it becomes likely statistically that come of your numerous children will survive to reproduce.  Since under conditions of r-selection, these are the traits Darwin rewards, these are the traits which will emerge within a species placed within an r-selecting environment.

Since producing high numbers of offspring is the goal, it is also advantageous to not waste too much time on rearing any one offspring.  The goal in r-selection is mass production, as early and as often as possible.  Those who produce more offspring, even less fit offspring, out-compete those who do not, since fitness is unimportant when resources are free and there is no competition.  As a result, high-investment parenting for extended periods will give way to investing as little as possible in each offspring’s rearing, so one may dedicate oneself to the actual act of reproduction, and produce as many offspring as possible.  Since resources are freely available, and aggression an competitions are rare, offspring do not require much education or protection anyway, and they may be turned out of the home relatively early to fend for themselves.  Males will also abandon impregnated females with offspring so as to pursue their highly promiscuous mating strategy.  You see how free resources can actually devolve a population, reducing greatness.

Since there is no competition, there is no need to ally with anyone else to compete for resources.  As a result, these rabbits will not evolve any group-centric urges, or emotional connections to their peers.  Indeed, the very notion of in-group or out-group would be puzzling to them, if you could communicate the concept.  Each rabbit is wholly on their own – at most a part of a global rabbit warren.

As a result of all of this, in this environment a population will evolve to avoid conflict and competition, mate with as many partners as possible, mate early, and not invest highly in any one child, while feeling loyalty to no one.  The emphasis, as so many biology textbooks will assert, is to produce quantity over quality when producing offspring in an r-selective environment.

Now supposed we zoom out from the field, and zoom in to a nearby forest.  There, several packs of K-selected wolves exist in harmonious balance with a deer population.  Once these wolves reproduce, there will not be enough food to support the entire population of wolves, so some wolves will die due to starvation.  This creates a different selective pressure entirely.  Here, to survive, a wolf must aggressively compete with his peers for a share of the limited food available.  Those who avoid conflict and competition, in hopes of stumbling on non-existent food elsewhere, will die from starvation.  The wolves who survive will be those who go after any food they see, even if they have to try and take it from another wolf by force of violence.  Thus, such a K-type psychology will evolve to exhibit a more aggressive, competitive nature, more accepting of violence, and more accepting of inevitable disparities in competitive outcomes between individuals.

Of course a wolf’s success, in Darwinian terms, will revolve not just around surviving and mating, but also around producing offspring who survive and reproduce themselves.  From a Darwinian perspective, if a parent survives and mates, but all of their offspring die due to competitive failure, the parent may as well have no bothered reproducing at all.  As a result, K-selected wolves will evolve a psychology designed to invest heavily in a few, highly competitive offspring.  This will produce a small number of offspring that are likely to outcompete their peers, rather than a larger number of lower quality, competitively incompetent offspring.  Those wolves who mate randomly and often, with any mate they happen across, will see their numerous haphazardly produced offspring killed off by the fitter offspring of those parents who carefully sought out the fittest mate possible, and then competitively monopolized their mate’s genetic fitness through monogamy.  As a result, this K-trait of careful mate selection, and competitive monopolization, will emerge spontaneously as Darwin works his magic.

Young wolves will evolve to wait before entering the competition for a mate, so as to make sure they are as competitive as possible and are not simply killed by their older competition due to their immaturity.  Parents will also evolve to discourage such early sexual precociousness in their young, so their young will be maximally mature (and maximally attractive to highly fit mates) when pursuing their own lifetime mate.  Likewise, parents will evolve towards high investment, two-parent (or even pack) rearing, so as to better protect their offspring until they are ready to compete, and to carefully prepare them for the rigorous competition with peers which awaits them.

Intense K-selection often evolves into groups of individuals competing with other groups, since this is a more effective way to acquire limited resources than working along.  As a result, K-type organisms will tend to evolve into groups of individuals who exhibit pro-social traits, such as loyalty to in-group and disregard for out-group interests.  This is why K-selection produces packs of wolves, family groups of elephants, pods of dolphins, and prides of lions, all of whom care deeply for each other, while mice, antelope, deer, rabbits, and any other r-selected species will not exhibit any sadness should one of their ranks fall prey to a predator.

Since rabbits exist at the bottom of the food pyramid in nature, and are preyed upon fairly consistently by a wide range of predators (from owls, to hawks, to foxes), rabbits never truly experience the K-selected environment for any extended period.  As a result of eons of fairly consistent r-selection pressures, they express a consistently r-type psychology throughout their species.  Other species, which have existed for long periods under conditions of limited resources, will be highly K-selected in their psychology and behavior.  Still other species can exhibit a mix of r and K-type psychologies, due to a variety of unique environmental conditions, among them having a history of living in varying environments with periodic resource abundances and resource shortages.

Man is a higher level species on the r/K spectrum, but it is easy to see historically how groups and individuals could shift on the spectrum depending on the conditions of the time.  Looking through this filter, it is easier to understand the shift towards r-strategy for some when we introduced the welfare program into the United States, for example, which in some ways acted like the “unlimited resources” spoken about specific to r-type selection.  Once you understand the theory you will start to see examples of it all over the place.  I highly recommend checking out his book.  As always, people will point out exceptions to the rule and think they’ve somehow debunked an entire area of study that on the macro generally works out very well.  Think of it as a useful heuristic.  If nothing else you may become less frustrated if you can ascribe one’s behavior to a deeper biological mechanism.

Why so sad?

The left has come out in droves to denounce the idea floated by the White House to release illegals into sanctuary cities.  Why?  Surely you should want more of this diverse group which will only strengthen your community, right?

WASHINGTON – The revelation late Thursday that the White House tried multiple times to pressure immigration authorities into releasing migrants on the streets of sanctuary citiesdid not go over well with Democrats, who denounced the Trump administration as cruel.

The plan, reported by the Washington Post, was concocted to retaliate against Democrats and target sanctuary cities in liberal strongholds. It didn’t come to fruition after pushback from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Post reported. ICE rejected the idea after at first thinking it was a joke, the Post reported.

Members of Congress and immigration advocates called the idea inhumane and called for those within President Donald Trump’s administration to be held accountable.

“This reporting exposes yet a new level of inhumanity in this Administration,” Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, wrote on Twitter. “Those who pursued this disgusting policy are beneath the dignity of the offices they hold and must be held to account.”

And further down:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s district was specifically targeted, according to the Post, noting that the White House wanted to transport migrants into her congressional district in San Francisco.

Ashley Etienne, a spokeswoman for Pelosi, called the proposal “despicable.”

“The extent of this Administration’s cynicism and cruelty cannot be overstated,” Etienne said in a statement. “Using human beings — including little children — as pawns in their warped game to perpetuate fear and demonize immigrants is despicable, and in some cases, criminal.”

Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Ill., agreed.

“Immigrants are people. Not pawns to deploy in the President’s petty political fights,” Quigley said on Twitter. “@realDonaldTrump’s cruelty knows no limits.”

Former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julián Castro, who is running for president in 2020, reacted to the news live on CNN during a town hall on Thursday night.

“The cruelty of this administration never seems to end,” Castro said, noting the list of Trump’s immigration policies that have been criticized or challenged in court. “These folks want us to choose cruelty as a weapon against these people and against political opponents.”

Welcome to Clown World, honk honk.  Here the left can demand accountability and it is “cruel” and “despicable” to put illegals in the regions that fight the hardest to bring them here in the first place.  Obviously these clowns cannot see the irony of the situation.

The reality is this policy would not do anything anyways.  Unless you build walls around these sanctuary cities they will just seep into the rest of American society as they always do.  The only solution is a military one at the border, using military force to stop invasion of our Southern border.  But it is amusing to see the left explode in response.

At some point the general public surely must stop taking these clowns seriously, right?  Or are they already so dumbed down to the point that it does not matter anyway?  The left has been using “minorities” as political pawns for decades.  One court reversal that will help will allow President Trump to send asylum seekers back to Mexico during the asylum process.  We are at the point where border jumpers don’t even bother running anymore.  They are waiting on street corners to be picked up knowing they’ll be released anyways.  Great system we have.

Again, this could all be solved very quickly if we actually used the military in the proper way it is supposed to be used.  It wouldn’t take much strict military force at all to send a message to all who would try.  Instead we let these vibrants take advantage of the soft good-will of the American public.  Taking advantage of our good-will, then immediately breaking the law in the country.  Off to a good start.  But hey, they’re just looking for a better life for themselves, right?  So we cannot say or do or question anything lest we be dubbed racist.  Even if it means the death of America as we know it.  Clown World.

Assange Arrested

Julian Assange, one of the last true journalists left in the world, and probably the bravest given that he has literally risked his life to report the truth, was arrested in London after being kicked out of the Ecuadorian embassy.

WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange was arrested in London on Thursday morning, after Ecuadorian diplomatic officials invited British police into the country’s embassy to apprehend the Australian.

Assange had been living in the embassy of Ecuador in London under diplomatic asylum since 2012, and was granted citizenship by Ecuador in 2017.

Ruptly journalist Barnaby Nerberka has been broadcasting live from the embassy since tensions escalated between WikiLeaks and the Ecuadorian government of Lenin Moreno last week, and captured the arrest on camera.

Last week, WikiLeaks said sources within the Ecuadorian government told them that Assange was due to be expelled from the embassy “within hours to days,” an allegation the Ecuadorians were quick to deny. It now seems those reports were accurate.

WikiLeaks has maintained that Assange is likely to be extradited to the United States if expelled from the embassy, and was mocked as paranoid by some in the mainstream media for repeated claims that sealed charges existed in the U.S. against the journalist. WikiLeaks was eventually vindicated, as the existence of those sealed charges was revealed in November last year.

In June last year, Vice President Mike Pence pressured the Ecuadorian government on the status of Assange following demands from Senate Democrats that he do so. The New York Times reported in December that Ecuador has been offered debt relief by the U.S. in exchange for handing over Assange.

Assange was monumental in the email dumps that largely contributed to Hillary Clinton losing the 2016 election.  The DNC screamed and shouted that they were hacked.  The smart money is the DNC having had one of their own, Seth Rich, having leaked the emails instead.  He was murdered in an apparent robbery, though none of his possessions were actually taken.  Kinda strange for an alleged robbery, no?  And why else would WikiLeaks offer a reward for information?

Ecuador had every right to expel him from their embassy.  He had been there seven years.  But why now?  Q folks speculate his extradition to America is to really get his testimony into the official record.  Whether that’s true or not, time will tell.  But one thing is true, Julian Assange is a true journalist, who sought the truth and had the cajones to publish it, literally risking his life to do so.  Given that he had published information at one time or another that damaged both Democrats and Republicans he clearly wasn’t in it for political points from one side or the other.  How many journalists today take the hard road, the road that will pit you against the Clinton death machine?  A road that would keep you trapped in an embassy for seven years.  We shall see what happens to the man, but his contribution to preventing Clinton from taking office and the heinous crimes she and the Deep State committed against America cannot be understated.  None of what is going on right now, “the storm” that is brewing, would have been possible if she had won, and her odds of winning would have been much higher had Assange taken the easier road, one that nobody could really fault him for taking.

Which is it guys?

A meme is worth a thousand words.  Via Breitbart:

Wednesday MSNBC played a clip of 2020 Democratic presidential primary candidate Beto O’Rourke at the Nation Action Network’s convention.

O’Rourke was asked if he would sign Sheila Jackson Lee’s bill which would consider reparations proposals for Africans-Americans.

O’Rourke said, “Yes. Civil rights are not just those victories that began with at the outset of my comments, but the injustices that have been visited and continue to be visited on people. We will never get the change that we need to live up to the promise of this country. So absolutely, I would sign that into law.”

IMG_3177.PNG

Most of the public hasn’t seen the worst of Joe Biden

If only the current allegations of Joe Biden were the worst, he may be able to survive.  But that’s just the very tip of the iceberg.  His behavior around children is far worse.  And it would not surprise me in the least if darker stuff came out about him when the storm finally fully hits.  Check out this video below (I’m sure YouTube will take it down eventually as they’ve cleaned house on a lot of them so there’s another link as well).  I’ve provided a few screenshots as well for your viewing displeasure.

Additional link here.

Screen Shot 2019-04-02 at 9.11.43 AM

Seriously, ask yourself, is there any time a grown man would or should have his hands anywhere provocative on a little girl?  On her hip?  Dangerously close to her chest?  These are not accidents.

Screen Shot 2019-04-02 at 9.13.51 AM

If this guy is this cavalier when he is knowingly filmed I cannot imagine when he is off camera.

Screen Shot 2019-04-02 at 9.12.36 AM

And they are clearly all uncomfortable with it.  Keep in mind this is the guy many think has the best shot of winning the Democratic nomination.  Where are all the women who constantly whinge and bitch and moan about President Trump being a womanizer?  Pretty much always silent when it is one of their own.  Given how many of those vapid women in Hollywood who knew about Harvey Weinstein years before the rest of the allegations came out it’s not really a surprise at this point.  Take a look at the video.  These screenshots are not taken out of context in any way.  There is a bunch of inappropriate stuff he whispers in their ears too.  And they all look very uncomfortable and try to move away.

Winning by whatever means necessary

The NY Times released an article yesterday uncovering a Democrat operation to mimic the “Russian tactics” of the 2016 election for their own devices in the Alabama senate race.

As Russia’s online election machinations came to light last year, a group of Democratic tech experts decided to try out similarly deceptive tactics in the fiercely contested Alabama Senate race, according to people familiar with the effort and a report on its results.

The secret project, carried out on Facebook and Twitter, was likely too small to have a significant effect on the race, in which the Democratic candidate it was designed to help, Doug Jones, edged out the Republican, Roy S. Moore. But it was a sign that American political operatives of both parties have paid close attention to the Russian methods, which some fear may come to taint elections in the United States.

“Likely too small to have a significant effect on the race” yet in literally the same sentence it says the Democratic candidate just “edged out” the Republican candidate.

An internal report on the Alabama effort, obtained by The New York Times, says explicitly that it “experimented with many of the tactics now understood to have influenced the 2016 elections.”

The project’s operators created a Facebook page on which they posed as conservative Alabamians, using it to try to divide Republicans and even to endorse a write-in candidate to draw votes from Mr. Moore. It involved a scheme to link the Moore campaign to thousands of Russian accounts that suddenly began following the Republican candidate on Twitter, a development that drew national media attention.

“We orchestrated an elaborate ‘false flag’ operation that planted the idea that the Moore campaign was amplified on social media by a Russian botnet,” the report says.

By now we should know there is no bottom to how low the Democrats will sink to win.  The mid-terms showed what they’re willing to do.  If the rule of law isn’t going to be enforced, and if no election reforms are made, you can expect the DNC to become even more bold and sink to even lower levels to win.  I’m quite sure they tinkered in more elections than even the ones we knew about in the mid-terms.  Who knows how many seats they legitimately won and how many they cheated in.  Notice none of the races they won outright are investigated on any level.

I’m not sure how they can be so sure this had zero impact on the outcome when their candidate only won by 21,924 votes in a state where more than 1.3 million people voted.  Their justification is there’s no way that is possible with only a budget of $100,000.  As if we can trust that figure, or trust that they didn’t move money around discreetly.  And if Russia had such a huge impact on the election, having purchased less than $5,000 in ads…

But I digress.  The Republicans better take note and learn a thing or two if they ever want to retain or gain power again.  They are losing the demographic battle outright and if they do nothing will never win again probably beyond 2024.  Say what you want about the DNC but it’s clear they will try and win by any means necessary.  Honor is not a thing with these people.  Accept it for what it is, adapt, and move on.  While we cannot hold them accountable, you can certainly hold this over Democrat voters.  Ask them why they’re okay with their party doing this after they’ve been bitching and moaning and crying for TWO YEARS now for the very same meddling.  Just remember that most of them do not understand dialectic, so keep your rhetoric sharp and to the point.

Mob Rule

Describing the feral left as a mob has been trending hard over the last week, and with good reason.  While most of the left contracted Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) 2-3 years ago it has moved into a more worrying stage the past few months.  Throughout the election cycle and all of Trump’s presidency the left has been violent.  Far more violent than the right.  As I mentioned recently the leaders of the left have even begun to call for mob rule and violence.  And their calls are coming to fruition.

This clip below surfaced from Portland, Oregon over the weekend.  They are trying to direct traffic and claim that it’s their first amendment right to do so.  I know you’re looking for a logical explanation of their thinking here but I cannot provide that.

These are disgusting people both inside and out.  The democratic party has shamelessly weaponized and mobilized these cretins and it’s going to blow up in their faces.  They’ve lost control.  And I think they realize it.  You can only try and group up so many disparate races, religions, and political ideologies before the obvious differences between them erupt into in-fighting and outward violence as well.  A large portion of their constituency has gone too far.  The leaders know they cannot win on a platform of abolishing ICE.  They know the childish behavior at the Kavanaugh hearings doesn’t look good.  But when you’ve encouraged this sort of behavior for so long it is hard to turn it off like a light switch.  Especially when the people you are weaponizing are heavily medicated and mentally unstable.

But no matter.  The Democratic leaders, mostly white, have created a monster that will eventually vote them all out of office anyways.  We’ve seen this in New York with Alexandria Octavio-Cortez and even stalwarts like Diane Feinstein face serious opposition from Kevin de León (born Kevin Alexander Leon but that doesn’t sound foreign enough to garner the minority vote).  The tricky balance is allowing the Democratic party to devour itself while minimizing the collateral damage to the rest of the country.  Thankfully, we have the only possible Commander in Chief strong enough and prepared enough to deal with it.

You make the bed you sleep in

Dough Schoen of Fox News has released this piece about how the Democrats are divided within the party in what could spell disaster in the upcoming elections.  From the article:

The lack of consensus between the two factions of the Democratic Party is clear, unambiguous and startling.

The progressive agenda focuses primarily on resisting President Trump at every step, labeling his every action a scandal, and calling for his impeachment without any vetted or verifiable evidence of wrongdoing. Progressives also advocate a redistribution of wealth without any long-term plan to fund policies such as Medicare-for-All or guaranteed employment.

The moderates offer a distinctly different worldview. They offer a plan for inclusive economic growth and an alternative set of policies to resolve the issues surrounding immigration and health care. At the same time, they reject party-line loyalty to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and calls for President Trump’s impeachment.

It was clear to anybody with half a brain and an objective viewpoint to see this was inevitable.  Identity politics has been the name of the game for the Dems for quite some time now.  And they assumed that all these wildly different groups of people would somehow miraculously get along and sing kumbaya together and live in harmony.  Free shit for everybody is another constant, and of course the impeachment of President Trump.

The cognitive dissonance is fascinating to watch.  The better the economy gets, the lower the unemployment, having more money in everyone’s pockets, contrasted with constant screaming and “outrage” from the other side really is a thing to behold.  The left has no platform for this coming mid-terms.  What exactly are they going to run on?  The country is objectively stronger, richer, and more prosperous under President Trump.

It was only a matter of time before the Socialists and Communists clashed with the moderate left.  And it couldn’t happen to a worse group of people.  The constant division they pushed within this country, especially during the past 10 years, has set this country back decades.  An absolute bloodbath in the coming mid-terms would be the best thing for this country.  Hopefully, some day, this will pave for way for a 3rd party.  The Republicans aren’t much better, and in some ways worse from a traitorous standpoint, than the Dems.  Strong Libertarian candidates would be the eventual ideal.  Perhaps, after this bloodbath, and a continued purging of the Cabal by our heroic President, the way will be paved for more than two shitty options in the future.

The Democratic leadership can and should achieve a compromise with President Trump and the Republicans on providing necessary funding to secure the Southern border and also create a pathway to citizenship for individuals who illegally entered the United States through no fault of their own, and since that time have contributed greatly to the American economy and our society.

I really don’t think Mr Schoen realizes that this will never happen.  The feral left needs open borders to have any chance of succeeding in the future. Their platform simply isn’t sustainable any other way.  They do not care about American citizens.  The drugs and human trafficking coming over the border, much as they can pretend they want to stop it, is essential for their survival.  Mass immigration still remains the biggest issue that needs addressing.  Our country cannot survive in its current state.

%d bloggers like this: