The Least Threatening Threat

Politics become much clearer when viewed in context of the personal. Because that’s largely what politics are: interrelationships writ large. So it’s remarkable how effective a more intimate perspective can be in revealing the absurdity of a scene. For example, no one expects you to replace your family with strangers; but everyone expects you to replace your countrymen with foreigners. That jarring juxtaposition could lead many people to reconsider their liberal notions of nation and state. And that’s why my tactic for achieving political clarity rarely makes the Times editorials.

Though that’s not to say it isn’t still useful. Consider how sincere you’d gauge the following monologue I’ll paraphrase below.

That’s it. I’ve had it. I’m leaving. Do you hear me? Wait, you can’t hear me when you’re putting on headphones. I’m so done with you. I’m walking out, and there’s nothing you can do to stop it. See my feet? They’re moving right now, one after the other. And Holy Gaia are you going to be sorry. Do you realize how sorry you’re going to be? You don’t really look sorry. Which is crazy, because you’d be totally miserable without me. Look over there, I bought you that cuisinart. Can you even spell cuisinart? See how happy I make you? But you don’t seem appreciative. That’s why I’m leaving. Stop changing the TV channels. I’m being totally serious here. Your future is on the line. I don’t think you deserve me. So I’m just going to pack up my wiffle-ball bat and go have a super awesome life and you’re not invited unless you have something you’d like to say to me right now. Who are you texting?

That was essentially this hysterical false break-up threat from some pristinely unselfconscious writer named Kevin Baker at the New Republic. I won’t quote much since it was quite lengthy and uniformly ludicrous. I’m actually surprised something so embarrassingly indulgent escaped editorial discretion. That’s what blogs are for, numbnuts. But perhaps TNR is now foraging for Salon cast-offs.

The piece was a relentless run-on about how grubby semi-humanoid conservatives should be made to suffer the loss of secession-minded liberals, without whom the right could barely shovel beet purée into its slack-jawed mouth. That’s a bluff I’m inclined to call, while hoping it’s not a bluff.

But overall I was struck not by the abundant preening self-praise, which is no more noteworthy in such venues than sirens in the ghetto. But rather because it was such a high-definition display of left-wing loathsomeness framed comically as a threat of divorce. I struggled to comprehend the strategy. Substantially bolstering a counterparty’s contempt for you seems an ineffective means to secure their sorrow at prospects of your parting. A man who truly has the goods slips out the door quietly; histrionics are a liar’s appeal. Which should lead a reader to the conclusion that this particular lib is trying to convince himself more than anyone else.

Of course no contemporary liberal can even tuck their children into bed without an obligatory racial denunciation. Goodnight sweetie, daddy loves you very much except for your WHITE SUPREMACY. The writer knew the requirement.

For more than 80 years now, we—the residents of what some people like to call Blue America, but which I prefer to think of as the United States of We Pay Our Own Damn Way—have shelled out far more in federal tax monies than we took in. We have funded massive infrastructure projects in your rural counties, subsidized your schools and your power plants and your nursing homes, sent you entire industries, and simultaneously absorbed the most destitute, unskilled, and oppressed portions of your populations, white and black alike.

All of which, it turns out, only left you more bitter, white, and alt-right than ever.

I always wonder which element of the progressive revenue or welfare structure liberals are suggesting should be scrapped when they note this “blue-states pay more” problem. I’ve never actually heard them advance legislation for dramatic tax, EBT, and Medicaid cuts that would offer relief from this abominable payments disparity. For what are they waiting? Demand Maxine Waters sponsor massive cuts to welfare payments now. But in the meantime I’ll try to unravel the enigma of why Minnesota is a net payer while Mississippi is a taker. Maybe demographics play a role. But for now we should just assume the difference is mooching Republicans.

Despite how effortless libs like Kevin Baker make ridicule, I really have no qualms with the end-state he pretends to covet. In his absence, I could be left to live in a traditional America, while in mine he finally has an open avenue to Kinshasa. There are no losers.

Whatever the left wants to make of their world, just make it without us. Stop talking and start walking.


23 thoughts on “The Least Threatening Threat

  1. Pingback: The Least Threatening Threat | Reaction Times

  2. Liberals smarter than Kevin Baker, which is to say most, are fully aware that they don’t need to leave; they just need to wait. Demographic change which will lead to Democratic dominance in national politics is baked into the cake at this point. Whites still hold a slight majority in the under 20 crowd, but are now a minority of new births.

    America’s demographics are shifting from a majority-minority model to a pluralistic model, and its politics will necessarily follow suit. The past of American politics was about ideological divides in a white majority population. The future of American politics is going to be an ever-shifting network of political alliances based largely on ethnic interests. This model is working out quite nicely in South Africa.

    It’s useful to remember that Trump won an extremely narrow electoral victory against Hillary Clinton, a highly flawed candidate saddled with a history of crime and corruption. Trump may manage to eke out a similarly narrow victory in 2020, but by 2024 or 2028 the wave of demographic change reflected recent birth rates will have swept over the landscape and there will be no more Republican presidents. Republicans may well manage to control the House of Representatives and periodically the Senate, but control of the Executive branch will be lost forever.

    Federal law reigns supreme, and while Trump’s election has attracted butthurt liberals like Kevin to federalism, their flirtation will be a brief affair. Once the federal government is safely in their hands, liberals will dump federalism like an aging mistress and return to their one true love: the dominant power of the federal government and its money printing machine.

    America’s founding fathers, evil white scoundrels that they were, understood that raw democracy is simply tyranny of the majority. They designed America as a constitutional, federal Republic in which the federal government held limited, enumerated powers. And while the progressive movement has vastly expanded the power of the federal government, the architecture of America remains that of a federal Republic.

    That ends when liberals achieve permanent control of the Executive branch. The Obama administration was a brief preview of what is in store for America: government by executive order and regulations promulgated by the Administrative state. Republicans may well control Congress in the future, but Congress will be irrelevant. America will be governed by the Executive branch. This effectively ends the Republic and begins a new era of America as a Democracy.

    I like your formulation of “stop talking and start walking,” but it doesn’t go far enough. If you value the Republic then the appropriate phrase is “get out. Now.”

    If 2016 was the Flight 93 election, then California is the Flight 93 state. If California stays in the Union, then America has another 4-8 years as a Republic. Ejecting California from the Union will ensure the survival of the remaining American Republic for at least another 50 years, which is about the best we can do at this point.

    Get out. Now.

    • It’s a win-win. Once separated from the Deplorable States of America and their irredeemable white voters, the electoral incentive for importing more brown voters into their safely Blue country goes away. Immigration as a means of gaining or preserving power ceases to be an issue on ether side of the divide and the economic interests of each country’s citizens can take precedence.

      Let’s do this.

      In 30 years, Barron Trump can lead 20 divsions over the Sierras and take it back.

      • How well did your hypothetical “loss of incentive” work out for South African whites after loss of power?

      • @Val: South Africa was not importing brown immigrants in order to swing elections to the Left; the Left had more than enough brown voters already. The point was, absent a need to beat conservative white candidates, liberal whites lose the incentive to keep importing more reliably socialist brown voters.

    • “This model is working out quite nicely in South Africa.” for whom? I would like to know how many of those White with power are actually jews. Other then this question your analysis seems spot on. Waiting another 50 years is only kicking the can further down the road.

      As the greatest French writer of the twentieth century, Louis-Ferdinand Celine wrote in Trifles For A Massacre wrote: Democracy is always and above all nothing but the veil of the Jewish Dictatorship.

  3. “But in the meantime I’ll try to unravel the enigma of why Minnesota is a net payer while Mississippi is a taker. Maybe demographics play a role.”

    I see what you’re getting at, but that’s not the cause. Liberal nitwits like Mr. Baker love tossing around the trope of “blue states pay, red states take,” but they never discuss why. Yet they use it as a moral baseball bat to beat up on their foes (not that they’re being judgmental though, because that’s not who they are).

    The trope as such is true, but it’s an artifact of our grossly top heavy tax system, which exists because income inequality is massive and gets worse every year (something Mr. Baker is probably smart enough to complain about, but too stupid to realize is caused by his very own brand of open border globalist Progressivism).

    Using 2014 numbers (the first I found; it’s only worse now), the top 1 percent paid 45.7% of taxes. The bottom 80 percent — EIGHTY PERCENT — paid 15% of taxes. So the top 20% pays 85% of taxes, and that number is skewed highly to the top of the top.

    Well where do the 1 and 2% tend to live? Yeah, in blue state urban centers or their immediate suburbs. So this greatly skews the results towards those states. You only need a few billionaires to push things into the “pay” column rather than the “take” column (if Mr. Baker reads this, I expect he will send a thank you note to Donald Trump for being a significant reason why blue state New York can flaunt it’s moral status).

    The point of all these dull numbers is that the blue pay/red take trope says nothing whatsoever about the populations of the states beyond the top percent. What would be enlightening is to calculate payers and takers after removing the top 20% of tax payers. This would give you the proper insights.

    Though even there, you have to be careful. Take New York City. It has significant populations of Orthodox Jews and Chinese who are well off yet pay almost no taxes, because they are gigantic tax scamers. And at the same time big tax eaters, since Granny Chan is, of course, on Social Security ten minutes after landing at JFK, and Uncle Joel gets a passel of EBT cards for his nine children. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg, or the Goldberg.

    A final note. I see that the insufferably smug Mr. Baker wrote an article entitled, “The Myth of the Smug Liberal.” No, really. I leave it to others to read as they wish. Me, I can’t even.

    • It is a laughably simplistic argument. What about the federal workers in Maryland or Virginia? What’s the net economic benefit of the ny fed to New York and New Jersey and Connecticut? These leftists don’t care, not that they are trying to make a legitimate argument anyway. The country can survive without their financial products and digital advertising, can they survive without food and energy?

  4. Thank you, Porter. You provide witty, elegant expression of our people. When I read that article (well, the first few paragraphs, anyway, couldn’t stomach the rest) my witty response was YOU MAKE US TAKE YOUR MONEY BECAUSE YOU SEND IT TO OUR GOOGLES! MISSISSIPPI?!?!

    I’d make a terrible blogger, but I’d be brief.

  5. But in the meantime I’ll try to unravel the enigma of why Minnesota is a net payer while Mississippi is a taker. Maybe demographics play a role.

    They apparently never see that argument coming. Try plotting the relationship between state ranks in various measures of social well-being vs. the percentage of non-white population. With the exception of a few outliers (ahem, West Virginia) the correlation is exactly what you’d expect it to be.

  6. Probably the funniest thing about the article you linked is that he chose Mississippi as his example of everything that is wrong with red America because it is so poor. All he ended up doing was making our point for us. MS has more dindus per capita than any other state, therefore it is poor. We are all keenly aware of the fact that places with lots of black people are poor, but it’s good to hear liberals finally admit it. What a fucktard. Literally everything that is bad about the ‘worst’ southern states are that way because of all the outdated farm equipment we stupidly brought from Africa 200 years ago.

  7. Guest: I like your formulation of “stop talking and start walking,” but it doesn’t go far enough. If you value the Republic then the appropriate phrase is “get out. Now.”

    I agree with your comment and like “get out now” also, but not because I value a form of government, but rather the people it was intended to serve.

    Peter: Your point about billionaires and progressive taxation is correct and not voiced nearly enough. Although the full picture is that the tax/take paradigm is a three-factor issue contingent on each state’s payers, paupers, and politicians.

    As you note, the rich overwhelmingly pay the tax bills. Though not just necessarily the super-rich. Delaware doesn’t doesn’t have a single billionaire, and yet is in the top spot for net per-capita paying states.

    They are in that Atlas-not-shrugging position because they have a broad middle and upper tax base with a significantly above average per capita income. So the payer component is high without relying on robber barons. But Delaware also has a somewhat high taker quotient, with the 15th highest state percentage of residents on EBT, which is an excellent proxy for all other taker costs and pathologies. One item that goes assiduously unmentioned by the left in their lamentations of money paid to red states, is that it is mostly money paid to “minority” democrats in red states.

    Though for Delaware, it seems like a wash with little to account for why they pay so much and receive so little.

    That’s because we haven’t gotten to the politicians component. And states with cunning and aggressive representation receive the pork, while those who elect doormats receive the bills. Federal works spending constitutes a significant portion of the recipient state bundle.

    Fortunately for everyone else, the people of Delaware routinely elect politicians who are utterly untalented at this trade. As a result, that state is dead last in federal contract dollars per tax dollar paid, and second to last in incoming federal grants by the same measure. That’s what puts them in worst position.

    The nexus of payers, paupers, and politicians are the factors that drive the state pay-take model. Or, filtered through the liberal fish-brain: Conservative parasites!!

    • Fortunately for everyone else, the people of Delaware routinely elect politicians who are utterly untalented at this trade. As a result, that state is dead last in federal contract dollars per tax dollar paid, and second to last in incoming federal grants by the same measure.

      At the same time, they receive a huge non-tax federal subsidy by virtue of the bankruptcy law provision allowing corporations to file in the state of formation. That’s a huge part of Delaware’s economy.

  8. Coming to America and earning American citizenship is a privilege not a right. Hearing the truth from our Government is a right not a privilege. No exceptions these are laws that have incredible harm when violated, the end result is eventually you lose your entire country.

    This interview here between Bill O’Reilly and Tom Cotton is significant for a few reasons. First and foremost a constitutionally based immigration program is being yanked from the pre 1960’s patriot graveyard. High skilled and ultra high skilled contributors are going to replace the army of illiterate, unskilled, “oppressed” migrants and refugees swarming into the USA legally and illegally. Building the wall is important, trust me so is this.

    Other notables this week, AG Sessions essentially fired all 46 Obama appointed US Attorneys. Take note tolerant leftists Clinton and Reno did the exact same thing.

    Also very significant is Manhattan Federal prosecutor Preet Bharara was fired after refusing to step down. In my opinion Preet was the political blocker to a full scale, open and honest investigation into HRC, Abedin, Weiner and the Clinton Foundation. I would bet the NYC PD knows this to be true. The pop corns ready I’ll be watching.

    Preet if you’re reading good riddance amigo, India could use a crime fighter. Go make India great again. Your country’s hasn’t been great since before the evil Asura king Salva destroyed Krishna’s capital Dwaraka with his flying Vimana.

    All in all a good week, momentum has swung back in favor of America.

  9. The idiot vox writer doesn’t understand that GOP aka Red America pays for Blue America. I think Trump won every single income group above 50K. Saying CA is blue ignores the fact that productive tax paying class in CA is overwhelmingly Republican

    If voting was restricted to people who pay Federal taxes then GOP would run every single state. Looking at taxes at Geographical level to identify which party is paying for our nation is silly but it is Vox so whatever

  10. Pingback: Billy Goat Bluff – Daily Pundit

  11. Really a great description of the essence of politics as “interrelationships writ large.” An individual perspective would be so useful in providing direction as Absurdities Abound in Aggregate. In discrete units, one would probably be willing to forego the pious thrill of funding voter ID in Kenya and importing Ebola victims to the US.

  12. The “threats” of secession by California or other leftist regions are about as serious as a 10 year old threatening to run away from home…we should be so lucky…they’re far too addicted to federal tax $$, ad well as self-righteous in telling the rest of us how to live, sadly they’re not going anywhere.

  13. Pingback: This Week In Reaction (2017/03/12) - Social Matter

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s