Kamala Harris just gave Steve Bannon an orgasm

In Michael Wolff's Seige, Steve Bannon says: “Don’t ever underestimate the Democrats’ ability to overplay their hand and fuck things up." I'm sure Bannon watched the Democratic debate last night. Kamala Harris probably made him cum so hard the janitor had to squeegee the ceiling.

I cannot freakin' buh-LIEVE this. The Democrats, running against a historically unpopular president, are going to get routed in 2020. Why? Because Kamala Harris -- in a play to steal Biden's African American supporters (the Obama-v-Clinton maneuver) -- just made forced busing a progressive litmus test.

Team Trump surely loves this turn of events. They are no doubt dying to make forced busing the issue. If Harris or any other pro-busing candidate takes the nomination, we are in for a rout -- maybe a 50-state rout.

Kamala Harris is, in essence, the new chair of the Trump Re-election Committee. Vladimir Putin is probably coming up with all sorts of new schemes to amplify her message and to funnel money to her campaign.

I was a Harris supporter until last night. She lost me -- forever. If she is the nominee, I will sit out the 2020 election.

Will she win over African American voters? Will they force the Democratic party to embark upon a suicide march? I fear so. That's the impression I've been getting from MSNBC and CNN.

Memories are short, so here's a history lesson: Forced busing has been tried. It failed spectacularly. 

(I shall expand upon points made in an earlier post.)

David Frum's book about the 1970s, How We Got Here, cites a Gallup poll from the early 1970s which said that four percent of whites and nine percent of blacks supported busing. In the 1970s, busing caused riots. In California, the people voted for Proposition 1, which effectively made it illegal.

Democrats destroyed their own brand in the 1970s, when they became linked in the public consciousness with mandatory busing. Remember, this was a time when Watergate and other scandals had the GOP on life support. It can fairly be said that, without mandatory busing, there would have been no Reagan revolution. Busing kept the Republican party alive. Busing created the monster that is modern conservatism.

If the issue of forced busing had not revitalized the Republican brand, this country would have instituted some sort of "single payer" health insurance overhaul in the 1980s. White flight would have been far less prevalent; our cities would have a more robust taxpayer base. The busing experiment extracted a heavy price.

Back in the 1970s, I was a high school student in Los Angeles. Freeways were not quite so crowded as today, but they still resembled parking lots during peak travel times. Mandatory busing presented kids with the prospect of rising well before dawn in order to sit through a two-hour ride -- and at the end of the school day there would be a return trip of similar length. After school programs, including athletic events, could be nightmarish.

White parents who objected to this plan were called racist. Reflexively. Constantly.

The parents would say: "We have no problem with black kids coming to our local school. We have no problem with people of different races learning together and socializing. In fact, we like that idea. But we refuse to make our kid spend four hours a day in traffic."

Racist racist racist! came the response.

And that's when the word "racist" lost its sting.

That's when the accusation stopped triggering an automatic guilt complex. That's when (in my home town) many life-long liberals -- working class liberals in the San Fernando Valley, Hollywood liberals living "south of the Boulevard" -- warmed to the idea of voting Republican.

From Wikipedia:

A 1978 study by the RAND Corporation set out to find why whites were opposed to busing and concluded that it was not because they held racist attitudes, but because they believed it destroyed neighborhood schools and camaraderie and increased discipline problems.[4] It is said that busing eroded the community pride and support that neighborhoods had for their local schools.[4] After busing, 60 percent of Boston parents, both black and white, reported more discipline problems in schools.[4] In the 1968, 1972, and 1976 presidential elections, candidates opposed to busing were elected each time, and Congress voted repeatedly to end court-mandated busing.[24]

Critics point out that children in the Northeast were often bused from integrated schools to less integrated schools.[4] The percentage of Northeastern black children who attended a predominantly black school increased from 67 percent in 1968 to 80 percent in 1980 (a higher percentage than in 1954).[4]

Busing is claimed to have accelerated a trend of middle-class relocation to the suburbs of metropolitan areas.[4] Many opponents of busing claimed the existence of "white flight" based on the court decisions to integrate schools.[4] Such stresses led white middle-class families in many communities to desert the public schools and create a network of private schools.

Throughout the 1970s, the proponents of forced busing kept referencing Brown vs. The Board of Education, continually pretending that there is no legal difference between de facto and de jure segregation. Guess what? They're still trying to pull off that smarmy trick.

There IS no de jure segregation in our schools. It was, thank God, made illegal many years ago. What we have today is a problem of demographics, not law.

Do you believe that forced busing can somehow end the de facto segregation of neighborhoods? Stop fooling yourself. The hard fact is that the busing experiment of the 1970s made demographic separation worse, not better. Consider, for example, what happened in Richmond, Virginia:

In April 1971, in the case Bradley v. Richmond School Board, Federal District Judge Robert R. Merhige, Jr., ordered an extensive citywide busing program in Richmond, Virginia. When the massive busing program began in the fall of 1971, parents of all races complained about the long rides, hardships with transportation for extracurricular activities, and the separation of siblings when elementary schools at opposite sides of the city were "paired", (i.e., splitting lower and upper elementary grades into separate schools). The result was further white flight to private schools and to suburbs in the neighboring counties of Henrico and Chesterfield that were predominately white...

The percentage of white students in Richmond city schools declined from 45 to 21 percent between 1960 and 1975 and continued to decline over the next several decades. By 2010 white students accounted for less than 9 percent of student enrollment in Richmond.[40] This so-called "white flight" prevented Richmond schools from ever becoming truly integrated.

Joe Biden was wiser than an army of owls when, decades ago, he tried to distance the Democratic party from the concept of busing. The party was bleeding from a massive self-inflicted wound; he tried to staunch the flow. 

Here's the paradox. Harris and Bernie Sanders want the party to embrace busing at a time when "progressive" colleges are instituting segregated dorms. Why are colleges enforcing segregation? To insure that black students won't have to intermingle with the irredeemable evil known as the white male. See here and here.

You should check out those links. That's the kind of heinous, separatist bullshit that the apostles of Identity politics have foisted on academia: You go over there, and you go over there. Based purely on skin color. Segregation for adults; busing for children. In the postmodernist mind, that kind of insanity is considered woke.

This brouhaha exemplifies why I haven't had the stomach for blogging lately. We are going to lose in November, 2020. I can see it. I can see it so clearly, it's as if it has already happened. I can already feel that loss like a sledgehammer blow to the gut.

Whenever I am tempted to become emotionally invested in this race, that gut-pain hits me so hard I practically double over. I want to vomit.

Let's be blunt. Progressives, feminists, gays, trans people and African Americans have become power-mad. Bannon was right: Progs will always overplay their hand. Progressives are so immersed in their own world, they have no idea how obnoxious they sound to people outside of their world.

They keep telling us that Dems must give up the white working class, formerly the backbone of the party.  Instead, we must somehow use Identity politics to eke out a win.

NO.

We live under the electoral college system. I don't like it, but there it is and we cannot change it. Thus, increasing black/queer/feminist turnout in California and other true-blue states won't change a goddamned thing. Continually kowtowing to the trans community is politically pointless: That community comprises roughly 0.6 percent of the population, although Hollywood is brainwashing this generation into believing otherwise.

Feminists keep pretending that they speak for all women, yet polls consistently indicate that the majority of women despise what feminism has become. Feminism is now controlled by a cabal of power-mad man-haters who have made their home in academia because they could never survive anywhere else. Most women dislike feminism because most women don't hate men. They love their fathers, brothers, husbands and lovers.

The vast majority of Americans favor gender equality, as do I. If feminists truly stood for equality, instead of the resentment-fueled hatred of All Things Male, then the numbers would be equal. In other words, the percentage of people favoring feminism would equal the number of people favoring gender equality. The fact that the numbers are very different indicates that modern feminism has gone very wrong.

The only way  for Dems to win is to appeal to the working class -- including white working class males, who are sick and tired of being hated.

White males are hurting. They are committing suicide in frightening numbers. Feminists and blacks don't care about these suicides -- in fact, they sneer. They applaud white male suicide: Serves 'em right. Conduct the test for yourself and you'll see what I mean. If you mention this suicide epidemic in a progressive forum, feminists will make sneering references to toxic masculinity.

And then they wonder why their party loses elections...!

Don't be surprised if they use the word butthurt to describe working-class white males and their grievances. That has become the chic new term. The last time I dared to bring up the topic of white male suicides, they walloped me with that word more than once: Butthurt. As in: Who the fuck cares whether butthurt white males live or die?

Let that sink in. That's how feminists respond to SUICIDE.

What cruelty. What inhumanity. Identity politics is a brainwashing device -- an indoctrination program designed to remove all vestiges of normal human sympathy.

If you examine the rhetoric of feminists and other advocates of Identity politics, you will see that their end goal is the same as Richard Spencer's: Total segregation. Don't believe me? See here and here and here. And that's just for starters.

Identity politics is fascism's best friend. No, that's not right. Better: Identity politics is fascism -- period. Hitler was the ultimate Identity politician.

Feminism, postmodernism, intersectionality and all other forms of Identity politics are an absolute evil. Indefensible.

As long as Dems champion these vile causes, they will lose. As long as they continue to spit on white males purely on the basis of skin color and sex, they will lose. Dems will start winning again only when they once again champion the working class -- by which I mean all members of the working class.