Higgenbotham's Dark Age Hovel

[Higgenbotham]

We may not wish the Gray Champion to come again—but come he must, and come he will.

Thus will the Gray Champion ride once more.

If it's not to be Trump, then who? Or do we not get our Gray Champion and descend into a new dark age with Kamala at the helm?

[spottybrowncow]

I have kids and I also have cats. Until recently they all slept in a big pile. I also am very fond of some childless ladies.
However - if we lose the election because of a 3 year old "childless cat ladies" comment, then we were already done before the election.
Not that that's much comfort.

[Higgenbotham]

I'm only thinking of it in terms of how much it is going to cost Trump. My guess is 2.5%.

[Higgenbotham]

According to a new University of Massachusetts Amherst survey, the results of which were provided exclusively to Rolling Stone, 51 percent of Americans strongly disagree with the idea that Kamala Harris not having biological children hinders her ability to serve as president. The number jumps to 64 percent when one includes those who somewhat disagree with the statement. Only 10 percent of respondents, 11 percent of parents, and 15 percent of Republicans agree with this sentiment.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... 235074698/

Between April and May this year, the Pew Research Center surveyed more than 2,000 adults aged 50 and over who have never had children, alongside 770 adults aged 18 to 49 who do not have children and are unlikely to have them.

According to the survey reports, the share of US adults under 50 who do not have children and are unlikely to ever have children rose by 10 percentage points from 37 percent in 2018 to 47 percent in 2023.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/7/3 ... n-us-women

Forgetting about the furor over Vance's statement, the second statistic is a good standalone one for the dark age hovel. Even I had no idea things were getting this bad, this quickly.

[aeden]

The polls we considered rather better moved to over 30 percent to 35 percent it will not matter
as if cat lady or plantation for 200 years we got them as Lyndon Johnson nailed the term down.
I consider active measures tolls the bell and if you are not think left we are going to weaponize whatever
we want since they use a compromised department to push the even more compromised intent
as what they funded. Corruption as in over the wire is already cemented in position funded by uniparty unwilling
to stop it as the Senator who did track the money and intent. The contention is half of the squad is negated and
the reply from the recent vote removal was intent that was directed as weaponization to all actual thinking Americans
in vowed retribution. Seriously twisted stuff H. Debased barely covers it.
Testimony to Federal Agents was forwarded as your Kids are easy to read are they not so why are you talking to regular
people who know you are absent as choice to the actual condition you willingly ignore is not a stretch to logic as you know better.

[Higgenbotham]

The following is an excerpt from the above video:

Unchosen childlessness has been on the rise for decades in the U.S. and other Western nations. This is central to America’s baby bust, our low and falling birth rates. Educational inflation is a real problem. And gone are the factory jobs of old that allowed a high school graduate to become a breadwinner. As a result, young adults spend their entire 20s in school, racking up debt instead of wealth. And thus, they don’t even try to start a family until their 30s. At that point, it’s easy for a woman to accidentally miss her fertile window.

Also, our dating culture is broken by apps and by the hyper-individualistic, transactional mindset that dominates our day. The collapsing community connection makes things harder by taking away a support structure for meeting, marrying, and staying married. So the childless should not be denigrated, but Vance is correct that widespread and growing childlessness is a problem.

https://san.com/opinions/real-birth-rat ... es-debate/

These are the same points I've made in this dark age hovel: nearly zero opportunities for people in their 20s to have children, and the broken social structure with transactional mindset.

Lack of family supporting employment for people under age 30: https://gdxforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=76077#p76077
Transactional mindset: https://gdxforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=76611#p76611

There is zero chance of any politician proposing a plan to fix any of this because it can't be fixed. What I mean by that, for example, is we can put a drop in the bucket by doing things like subsidizing semiconductor plants to be built here (in the US) that operate at a 55% higher cost than in Taiwan and go deeper into debt and that's about it, but there are hard limits to that that many think are being approached. So politicians will point fingers and name call to get elected. Even Hillary, an experienced and skilled finger pointer and name caller, totally screwed that up with her "basket of deplorables" comment.

Voters strongly reject Hillary Clinton’s ‘basket of deplorables’ approach
By Aaron Blake
September 26, 2016 at 12:43 p.m. EDT

The Washington Post-ABC News survey asked people whether "it's fair or unfair to describe a large portion of Trump's supporters as prejudiced against women and minorities." More than twice as many registered voters said this approach was out of bounds (65 percent) as said it was fair game (30 percent).

Even 47 percent of Democrats and 45 percent of Clinton backers said the description was unfair. And 84 percent of Republicans and 90 percent of Trump backers said the same.

One of the more interesting numbers in this poll is this: Although 57 percent of registered voters say Trump is appealing to people's prejudices, a sizable portion of the electorate also says this label applies to Clinton. Fully 45 percent of registered voters say Clinton is also appealing to voters' prejudices.

And it's not just the 45 percent of Americans who happen to be voting for Trump and are willing to say bad things about Clinton. In fact, 32 percent of liberals, 26 percent of Democratic-leaning voters and 21 percent of Clinton voters also say she's appealing to people's prejudices. So do nearly half (47 percent) of independent voters.

Those are not insignificant portions of the electorate; they are large segments of people who lean toward or are voting for Clinton who say that Trump isn't the only one in this race who appeals to prejudices.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... -approach/

[Higgenbotham]

Will the UK's government be the first Western government to fall in the new dark age?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly8rzky7lno

[Higgenbotham]

“Continuing to prevent the full reporting has the disadvantage of allowing others to spread misinformation, in a vacuum,” Menary said at a second hearing in Liverpool Crown Court.

https://nypost.com/2024/08/01/world-new ... udakubana/

The New York Post is the only media outlet I'm aware of that did a complete reporting on this incident.

What is most notable in my mind is the fact that the authorities were forced to cough up the name of the perpetrator which, if it's a minority, they like to keep hidden. They were forced to cough it up because the anti-immigrant forces, whether intentional or not, outfoxed them by using the fact that the authorities hid the identity of the perpetrator to "identify" the perpetrator as a Muslim. As a result, the authorities lost control of events, which is an important change. It removes the veil of invincibility and allows people to think that, in the words of "Mr Hope and Change" Barack Obama, "Yes, we can!"



This was previously identified in the dark age hovel as a critical output:

Outputs Related to Political, Social and Educational Breakdown

10. "Goodhart cites a YouGov poll from 2011 that found 62% agreed with the proposition: “Britain has changed in recent times beyond recognition, it sometimes feels like a foreign country and this makes me uncomfortable.” Only 30% disagreed. "

https://gdxforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=87659#p87659

[Higgenbotham]

About 25 years ago, I wrote the following to a director in my workplace who was hiding information: "When open communication is not the norm, it is only human nature that rumor and speculation will emanate to fill the vacuum." She really hated me for that. This is an excerpt which includes that:



This illustrates another dark age process that has been ongoing for decades. When organizations have a lot to hide, which most of them do nowadays, they will refrain from bringing people on board who are likely to point out their hypocrisy. They will instead insist that there are no qualified applicants. They can then bring people they can control on board: A mix of H1-B visa holders and people who are too stupid to do the work but don't rock the boat. The social breakdown continues, the cost structure goes up further, more bailouts are done, and we go further into debt.

In the incident from 25 years ago, I openly repeated the rumors referred to (by putting them in emails) in order to undermine her authority. She formally ordered me in a hard copy sealed memo to stop spreading rumors and to name the people I had heard the rumors from. I refused to do it. Instead, the above is what she got back through the email system.

Now, 25 years later, we are seeing the anti-immigrant forces doing almost the same thing.

When I say that, "I openly repeated the rumors referred to (by putting them in emails)" the way I did that was to say in the emails, "I was recently informed that..." My response back to her was basically to say that's the only information I have to work with - you haven't provided anything.

So if someone repeats on the Internet that the Southport attacker was a Muslim, the authorities were saying they were spreading "misinformation". Well, if the authorities are withholding the identity of the attacker, what do they expect?

[Higgenbotham]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctMu9qr7oGA

With the mention of Nelson Mandela on the news thread, it reminds to bring up China, specifically the CCP, and what appears to be their plan for Africa. The above presentation was put out by an entity controlled by the Central Propaganda Department of the Chinese Communist Party. It seems what they are trying to do is initially dial into a balanced presentation. I only watched the first 10 minutes, but didn't see them delve into the more sinister history of Winnie Mandela and the ANC as, for example, shown here:

https://youtu.be/FP_r5ET5CFU?t=177

I suspect they are well aware of it and also suspect this propaganda arm of the CCP, established only in 2016, is preparing the groundwork for a takeover of Africa. They will plan not to make the same mistakes the Europeans made. Generally, as Widdowson has noted, the Chinese are planning not to make the mistakes other countries have made in ignoring the cycles and rhythms of history.