The regime can't unseat a drooling geriatric to save its own ass, and you're blackpilling?

“The problem of evil” is the difficulty of squaring the suffering we see in the world with the presence of an omnipotent and benevolent Creator. Do bad things happen because God lacks the capacity to stop them, or because he lacks the will?

Doomers who think we’re in for a Thousand-Year Libtard Reich face a similar problem in reverse: if the regime is truly guarding all the doors and holding all the keys, why aren’t we already being deloused in a FEMA camp? Is it because they lack the will, or because they lack the capacity?

A true believer generally solves this problem by assigning their enemies a sprawlingly complex and inscrutable will — the regime works in mysterious ways, it plays n-dimensional chess.

Last night’s debate was great television (“I’ve seen your swing, I know your swing, let’s not fight like children”), but the statement from the actual government was the post-game coverage on CNN and MSNBC — and it’s worth trying to figure out exactly who is talking, and what they want.

Two things are true at the same time:

1. CNN and MSNBC would never call for the removal of a sitting Democratic president unless they did so on orders.

The “shock” at Biden’s condition was obviously performative: none of us were surprised that he’s senile, and we don’t work with him every day. It was decided, by someone, that now was the time to admit publicly what has been obvious for years.

But notice what was carefully left unsaid: nobody implied Biden might actually be unfit or disabled, which would mean that Kamala Harris becomes the President. They framed it, bizarrely, as if Biden had “failed” like an ordinary candidate who didn’t come prepared.

Also, not a single commentator even hinted at who might replace him. That kind of speculation would be inevitable if we were not dealing with a tightly disciplined media event — a de facto press release masquerading as “analysis”.

2. From the DNC’s perspective, it made very little sense to agree to this debate in the first place, and no sense at all to swap out the candidate this late in the game.

They put Gavin Newsom in front of the camera after the debate, but he has a catastrophic record to run on, and would only exacerbate the ongoing “BIPOC v. settler colonialism” schism in the party — especially if he got in the seat by shoving aside a black female Duly Elected Incumbent. Kamala obviously cannot win a general election, but it’s Her Turn. And there are really no other serious contenders.

So, someone is calling shots, but the shots they’re calling don’t make a lot of sense if you assume they are in full control of the party and want to win an election in November.

They clearly chose to hold the debate earlier than ever before to give themselves room to maneuver — but if they wanted a better candidate, they could have simply “opened” the primary.

If someone were actually in charge of the DNC, they could have gently encouraged Sleepy Joe to step down, anointed Newsom (or whomever), and forced the party to line up behind him in exactly the same way they’ve been lined up behind Biden.

Again: Biden’s cognitive performance was maybe slightly below average, but definitely not anomalous. They are with him every day. They know he is dying. None of this is a surprise to them. They could have avoided this — so why didn’t they?

My guess is that they’ve already tried dislodging Biden covertly, and they literally can’t.

When our guys learn that “democracy is fake”, the image they create in their mind is sometimes even more misleading than thinking elections matter in a straightforward sense.

A managerial state that governs via “manipulation of procedural outcomes” does not and cannot exercise power in the same way that an openly authoritarian regime can. There is a class of people who rule via their control of the propaganda apparatus, but the need to rule that way informs the categories of moves they can make.

Managerial politics overwhelmingly favor inertia and incumbency — which is why all such systems have become profoundly gerontocratic even as they have become ever more insanely revolutionary.

Biden got where he is by being a dependable party man and waiting his turn — but even in his debilitated state, his (and Harris’s) incumbency matters. If he doesn’t want to go, they can’t really make him without doing serious damage to the procedural system on which their power depends.

The method they’ve chosen (parading his illness and hoping to mount enough public pressure to get him to resign) amounts to a game of chicken — which is, again, a wildly suboptimal way to get a “regime flunky” to do what’s best for the party.

Some conspiracy brothers will say, “Well, then why don’t they just take him out?” to which I would reply “Exactly — why haven’t they just taken him out?” I’m not saying it’s off the table, but they’re clearly trying everything else they can think of first — which suggests that their power is far more constrained than some imagine.

Back in 2020, some people spread demoralization about how Biden’s appointment to the Presidency demonstrates our powerlessness — that we could be ruled by a literal empty suit, a man who appears not to be able to feed and dress himself. But now the regime is proving itself incapable of dealing with that same senile, shuffling corpse.

The bottom line: these people are not unbeatable — they’re not even, exactly, the enemy.

They aren’t the battle-hardened and ideologically confident Bolsheviks of 1917. At best, they’re the fat, exhausted, and cynical Soviets of 1985. They are confronting half a dozen different interrelated existential crises, not one of which they have any hope of addressing.

If you were a Russian dissident in 1985, the thing to do would not be to rail against the Soviets. The thing to do would be to make powerful friends, get foreign currency and independent income streams, update your passport, tidy up your dacha, and prepare for what comes after them.

exitgroup.us