Luke Ford

From the Chateau:

One of the most important (and under-appreciated) social science studies to have been linked at the Chateau had to do with the escape velocity of revolutionary political movements. Unfortunately, I gave up trying to find the relevant post in the archives after fifteen minutes spent trawling for it, but I recall the gist of the study’s conclusion.

A game-theoretical mathematical algorithm was applied to large scale movements of a social and political nature, to determine the number of people required for a movement to take off and snowball into a revolutionary fire that sweeps away the megaliths of the old order. (The algorithm is similar to the one used to discover that ethnocentric societies win out over other types of societies (e.g., humanitarianism) when they directly compete.)

What the study found was that a successful revolution only needed to start with 10% of the total population as active and passionate advocates of the cause. That’s a surprisingly low number at first glance, but it meshes with the historical record of past social movements. For instance, not many people know that a large majority of Americans in 1970 supported the Vietnam War, even though this was during the height of the flower power anti-war movement that would eventually succeed in ending the war and abolishing conscription — and fifty years later making the girls’ bathroom safe for men wearing dresses.

I was reminded of this study when I saw the video of cuckryan getting booed off the stage at a Wisconsin event.

Cuckryan, loathsome creature he is, won his August primary by a comfortable margin (although Paul Nehlen made deeper inroads than previous challengers had done against cuckryan). How could that be, I asked myself, when he seems to be despised by his constituents? And what does this say about an anti-globalist revolution?

The answer lies hidden in that gem of a study I mention above. Far from a majority of Wisconsinites are shouting SHAME ON YOU at cuckryan, but that vocal minority who do — that glorious 10% bringing all the heart and the balls to the populist nationalism rebellion — are influencing future events in ways that their small numbers prevent them from fully comprehending.

10%.

That’s it.

You get a dedicated 10% to stand athwart the globalism whore machine, yelling FUCK YOU TO HELL, and you can move mountains….and cucks from their corner stools.

So the next time you’re feeling despondent in your shiv-right isolation and surrounded on all sides by despicable cucks and john leibowitzian shitlibs, be invigorated in the knowledge that your tattered and dispersed regiment of realtalkers, fueled on nothing but white hot rage and righteousness, is striking a mighty blow straight at the heart of the corrupt and degenerate ruling class and the wicked Clinton witch.

Why do you think the elite are pulling out all the stops to kill this numerically insignificant alt-right rebellion? Because they know its potential power, and they are afraid.

From the Chateau:

Via Shrill, who writes,

This is the best political ad I’ve seen in a long time. Absolutely implicit.

A mother carrying a child is a rich image, one that’s imprinted not when motherhood starts but when girlhood starts; very little girls want to hold babies, almost as soon as they stop being babies themselves, and when they’re trusted to do so unsupervised (without the fear that they’ll drop the kid (“let them down”)) it’s a big deal. It’s a huge self-identity thing for females in general and mothers in particular (because of the emotional bond between mother and child).*

She’s wearing a windbreaker, which is a very white item of clothing. There’s nothing about it to make it stylish, but it also lacks the kind of branding or logos that would make it look prole. She and the kid are blondes, with blonde hair being a sort of lightning rod both for whites and for people who hate us. the red white and blue partition evokes patriotism, privacy (your ballot is secret), and tradition (these are currently only used in small towns, modern polling locations create privacy by spreading people out, rather than covering them up, which is a tangent rich in metaphor but let’s not).

*This is another illustration of the fatuity of transsexual men’s claims that they “feel like girls on the inside.” They don’t have the maternal instinct, they have the fashion instinct, which, of the two, is done somewhat more for their benefit. They’re saying to real women “the vision of you and your kind that I’ve created to inflame my lusts is the totality of your existence, independent of what you’ve actually felt in your life.”

I’ll add that the image is potent for another reason: it evokes primal race consciousness simultaneously through the emotional pathways of perceived threat and future promise. The child looks behind, her face a mix of perplexity and fear, at the dusky horde invasion and corrupt rulers; is she holding the curtain open for the viewer to peer at the gathering danger with her, or closing it in an act of defiance against the approaching darkness?

The mother is a guardian not only of her child, but of what her child represents: a lineage. We see only the mother’s shielding arm, her face hidden and focused on a momentous decision. She is the promise of a future. For her child. For her family. For her race. For her nation. The ad implores her, and all mothers like her: don’t let them down. You, White woman, aren’t voting for yourself. You’re voting for your children. Powerful. Provocative. And proof that the passion and the beauty and the art and the timeless truths are with the Trump revolution.

Steve Sailer writes:

Ironically, the most far-reaching scheme to rig this and future American elections isn’t being plotted in the Kremlin (as Hillary Clinton and the ruling media warn). Nor is it being hammered out in K Street offices by lobbyists, Democratic operatives, and their press counterparts (as Donald Trump suggests).

Instead, Democrats and their auxiliaries in the media routinely boast of their dream of turning America into a one-party state through changing who gets to vote in American elections.

Strikingly, this vast conspiracy to dilute the sovereignty of American voters by inviting in ringers from abroad is not covered up, nor even excused as aggressive-but-legal political hardball.

Instead, the dilution of the voting power of American citizens is praised lavishly as representing the highest value of “who we are as Americans.”

To protest, or even to notice, the open machinations to adulterate the value of your vote by importing millions of foreigners to increase the numbers of votes cast for the Democrats brands you as a deplorable.

That the Democrats want ever more non-Americans allowed into America so that these immigrants and their descendants can tip American elections toward permanent Democratic rule is something that Democrats are happy to discuss, just so long as Republicans admit that if they aren’t supportive of the Democrats’ scheme, then Republicans deserve their upcoming fate.

The Democrats have enjoyed inviting the more narcissistic and naive GOP politicians, such as Lindsey Graham, John McCain, and Marco Rubio, to join them in promoting the Democrats’ attempts to rig future elections via “comprehensive immigration reform.” As the Democrats point out, the only way Republicans can prove to the onrushing millions of foreigners that Republicans aren’t irredeemable, racist haters on the wrong side of history is by helping the Democrats bring in even more future Democrats…

It took Democrats a while to figure out that their grand strategy ought to be to give up on persuading the American people to elect them and instead for them to elect a new people.

Comment:

A First World country (USA, 2017) that is rapidly turning into a Third World country might develop a penchant for a coup or two.

Swiss army Chief of Staff urges citizens to arm themselves against ‘impending social disorder’:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-30/swiss-army-chief-warns-social-unrest-calls-upon-citizens-arm-themselves

High-ranking British general all but threatens a coup. “The general staff would not allow a Prime Minister to jeopardise the security of this country, and I think people would use whatever means possible, fair or foul, to prevent that.”

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/a-very-british-mutiny-corbyn/

French-Jewish writer Eric Zemmour claims military sources tell him the French General staff is preparing contingency plans to ethnically cleanse muslims and take back control of France in an emergency. Says they are secretly being advised by Israelis:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1756879/french-army-has-secret-plan-to-ethnically-cleanse-muslims-from-france-with-the-help-of-israeli-specialists-far-right-writer-claims/

“The U.S. military has zero history of such behavior”

Excepting, of course, the bloodiest war in the country’s history.

As noted previously, Trump (or whoever follows him) already has a strong majority among ‘men with guns’ (military, ex-military, police, border patrol, NRA, etc).

The left are so full of themselves now, they have no idea how naked they are.

I’d love to be a fly on the wall of the officer’s barracks across the Western world these days.

Not that I would ever advocate or condone any such (illegal) activity. Just observing.

“Does Trump have a place of exile picked out?”

Moscow, from which he could lead the resistance.

Because you never march on Moscow (Hillary might try, though. Playing right into the trap).

* While I can imagine that Hillary and her Big Friends in the media would want to pull Trump down legally, I really doubt that they would be able to pull it off, not least because of the political repercussions for them both.

Trump has called for Hillary to be prosecuted, but the public understands his point — they too see how Hillary has skated on being charged over her deletion of the 30K emails and the following lies. There’s no pretending that she wasn’t up to something that either was genuinely criminal or came within an inch of being so.

But Trump has no such potentially criminal history. Even the bizarre, over-the-top condemnations of him don’t allege any actual criminality. They would have to invent a charge from whole cloth to go after him. Of course they could do so, and may try to do so, but the larger public isn’t going to buy it, and his supporters — who will certainly be close to half the nation — will reject it vehemently.

Framing Trump on a contrived charge would be a disaster for the rigged system it would be designed to protect. Nothing could do greater damage to any sense of legitimacy in that system. If it seemed rigged before, how would it seem after it allowed Hillary to skate, while Trump gets prosecuted?

I can’t say with certainty they wouldn’t try to go after Trump, but they would truly be playing with fire if they did.

It would not end well.

* It is not enough to have capable leaders; we must control the mindscape.

Democracy just means rule by mass media and schooling in this technological age. The great populace doesn’t know what it takes to lead – but getting their vote still matters to some extent, and that is the real power base.

The left had the right of it in going after control of the media and academia – we must do the same. This is the age we live in.

* Not only would Cruz have lost badly, he would have done so championing an elitist-lite mantra that would have been a great foil for Hillary: tax cuts for the rich, more wars, flax tax, blah blah blah, Russia-be-evil, giving lip service to irrelevant social issues such as abortion and turning people off with religion talk. It amazes me how anyone out there could really think that guy had any chance of winning.

* Wearing a Trump shirt definitely leads to physical intimidation and ultimately violence against the wearer, here in Los Angeles. No “possibly” about it.

Yes, I have been stupid / brave enough to wear Trump shirts right here in downtown LA, Hollywood, West Hollywood, North Hollywood, Culver City, and even bizarre Christian-hating bigoted Santa Monica.

I have been spit at and threatened — with my small children right there — and one “man” even asked my wife whether she wanted to leave her “fascist dick” husband and get a real man (presumably him, since a real man goes around frightening and embarrassing women and children, as we all know).

Visiting family in New Jersey, I had a large fat slovenly “man” accost me in a pizza parlor (good old Secaucus), bump me with his chest and gut, curse and scream at me in the middle of the restaurant, make lewd comments to my wife, and DIRECTLY THREATEN MY CHILDREN. The owner did nothing, nor did any of the other customers. With these kind of pussies being the “good ” people, evil bullies will certainly grow even bolder and more aggressive.

I’m going to wear the shirt again. I’m an American and a man. Fuck ‘em.

* We may not need to. The following are going to be hard for the MSM to ignore entirely:

look at this: http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/hillary-clinton-lesbian-sex-claims-vince-foster-fixer/ This is my personal favorite. It will be the elephant in the room at the coming debate. If Hillary brings it up as a smear campaign Trump need only reply that she has three weeks to disprove it while it only took him a week to demolish her smear campaign. Then I hope he’ll finally get around to addressing the issues that can win him the election.

and this: http://therightscoop.com/watch-new-bombshell-video-just-released-james-okeefe-mass-voter-fraud/

and this: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-18/wikileaks-releases-another-1894-podesta-emails-part-11-data-dump-total-now-17150

and this: http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/emails-hillary-needs-podium-speak/

Trump and his supporters have begun their counter attack. And I suspect that this is only the beginning. The Clinton corruption and incompetence are well known. I’ll bet Trump’s team didn’t have much trouble uncovering verifiable, indisputable material that should put her in prison until she dies.