COULD THE 2020 BLACK VOTE CAUSE WWIII?

by Colin Liddell

It may surprise some people, but what I am mainly known for in the academic world is my insight into geopolitics and economics. Here is Professor George Michael of Westfield State University channeling academia's views on the Diss-Right:

"Arguably, the alt-right’s most perspicacious observer of Russia is Colin Liddell." (Read more here)

I know that doesn't mean too much, as many of the other supposed "luminaries" of the Dissident Right are pretty low IQ. But it does mean something.

So, having read Brett Steven's grim prophecy of a Sino-American war, here's my take on the relationship between these two Superpowers, and why the relationship has soured so dramatically in recent months.

Back in 2016 when the Alt-Right was breaking into the relative big-time, I explained the basic economic relationship between America and China in my Normie's Guide to the Alt-Right:

Leftist Globalism leads to dysfunctional interdependence and power imbalances. I have already mentioned that America exports debt to countries such as China and Japan, which in return export their unemployment (in the form of manufactured goods) to America. The effect of this is that America has to absorb this unemployment through increasing social dysfunction. This takes the following forms:

• racial grievances
• high crime and counter crime
• mass incarceration
• unemployment
• inefficiency
• fake jobs and professions
• prolonged "education"

An interesting case in point is America’s Black population. Up to 1971, when America created the global debt system, by abandoning the gold standard, the country exported more or less what it imported. It had to. The fiat system allowed it to start exporting debt, a negative. But economics has its own karma. To balance this, it also had to import a negative. That was unemployment. This became apparent in the 70s and 80s when Japanese goods started to flood the American market.

To sum up this quote: America creates fake money, essentially debt, which China takes in return for over-production, namely externalised unemployment.

Walmart

All administrations before Trump's were entirely happy with this relationship because it basically meant the US was getting "free shit" (represented by falling consumer prices with middlemen skimming off plenty of profit) while also blowing off the ceiling for money printing and government overspending. China's acceptance of US debt basically empowered the continued growth of Big Government, making the normally valid critiques of the Tea Party entirely irrelevant.

But what was in it for China? Two things: technological development and anti-revolution.

Unemployment is, generally speaking, a revolutionary force. The Maoist system was initially geared for technological advancement, but one of the first and most socio-politically toxic by-products of technological advance is unemployment, and Mao-era China was in no position to export this dangerous by-product. Hence the "Great Leap Forward" failed. Whether it was sabotaged or unwittingly undercut by the political parameters in place at the time I leave aside for the moment. But Communist China continued to do things in the traditionally inefficient and labour-intensive way that had ensured social stability throughout most of Chinese history, while of course remaining endearingly backward.

Chimerica changed all that. It was a big win-win for both countries, allowing China to finally become a modern country, 200 years after the West, while allowing Americans to enjoy the "good life" with a few negative side effects, such as Black unemployment and the Rust Belt.

Now let's switch to U.S. politics. Unlike China, the USA is a competitive two-party system (I won't bother to call this a democracy, as a true democracy would be a free-market of myriad political parties operating under an absolute system of proportional representation). The two-party US system means that one party has to defeat the other in order to gain power, although there may not be that much difference between the two.

This is where building a coalition that can best utilise the "electoral architecture" of America comes in, which also leads to most of the apparent differences we see between these two organs of the oligarchy. Trump did this magnificently in 2016, gaining a landslide in the Electoral College (304-227) while losing the popular vote (46.1% vs 48.2%). He pulled this off by allowing certain states, notably California, to serve as sump pits for the anti-Trump vote, while making inroads into Rust Belt states, among others.

Since then we have learned that Trump is particularly keen to appeal to the ethnic and Black vote, with his main selling point being that he has presided over record low Black unemployment.

The typical Alt-Right idiot will say that "cucking for the Blacks" in this way is a losing strategy, as most of them will vote Democrat anyway. But elections are generally won by people who can do nuanced mathematics.

Here's a little butthurt analysis from a Guardian hack that fits in quite well here:

Had African Americans turned out to vote in 2016 like they did in 2012, Hillary Clinton would be the president of the United States. Instead, Democrats overlooked and underisnvested in the community, resulting in a cataclysmic drop-off in black voter turnout. The percentage of eligible African Americans who voted dropped to its lowest level in nearly 20 years, allowing Trump to eke out his razor-thin electoral college victory.

...Republicans have indeed done the math and are working overtime to reduce the margins by which they lose the black vote. During the Super Bowl, Trump’s re-election campaign spent $11m on a very effective ad featuring an African American woman who’d been released from prison after criminal justice reform legislation. She says in heartfelt fashion to the millions of people watching the ad: “I want to thank President Donald John Trump.”...

It may be tempting to dismiss Trump’s efforts to make inroads into a community that regularly, overwhelmingly rejects Republicans; that, however, misses the real goal of Trump’s strategy. Its objective is not to win majority support, but rather to bring down the amount of black support for Democrats just enough to tip a close contest. Lost in all the analytical obsession over white working-class voters is the fact that black male support for Hillary Clinton was 5% lower than that for Obama in 2012.

The other objective of black-specific messaging is to reassure white voters that Trump isn’t racist...

Here we arrive at the nub of the problem: In order to ensure his reelection Trump needs to protect the two demographics who are most at risk from the conventional Chimerica relationship. In essence this is why Trump has taken a hard line with China.

Yes, the Black vote matters to Trump in ways that it did not to his predecessors. Obama could take it for granted, Bush could largely ignore it, as states he relied on, like Virginia, Texas, and Georgia, were still solidly Republican. But Trump can't. Add to that the need to shore up the Rust Belt vote he gained from the Dems in 2016, and you see exactly why China is in Trump's cross hairs.

If things get really bad between China and America and lead to war, the real cause would be Trump's need -- or the need of whoever comes after Trump -- to appeal to the two groups most negatively impacted by Chimerica.

If the Dems get in, they may actually need to steal some of Trump's anti-Sinoism, depending on the general picture. Or perhaps they can keep Blacks on board by ignoring their economic concerns and merely pandering to the hysterical side of their anti-White identitarianism through BLM. How that plays into the general electoral picture is also pretty fascinating but food for another, separate article.

Best to just wait out whatever stupid shit America is going through.

Colin Liddell is the Chief Editor of Affirmative Right and the author of Interviews & Obituaries, a collection of encounters with the famous and the dead. Support his work by buying it here. He is also featured in Arktos's A Fair Hearing: The Alt-Right in the Words of Its Members and Leaders.

Note: Links to our site are banned on Facebook, so if you wish to share this article there please use the identical version available at this site.