Tuesday, September 20, 2016
Norman Podhoretz recently said he is voting for Trump because he is better for Israel. However, his son John Podhoretz has not endorsed Trump. A scene at the Podhoretz household (note that little Johnny hates Russia so much that he has developed an aversion to theanimal associated with them; he has even ripped an arm off of his teddy bear): That is all.
Saturday, September 10, 2016
Friday, September 02, 2016
One of the concerns people keep having about the GOP pulling into white identity politics is that it will drive away minority voters and make it even harder for the GOP to win elections. Why? Why would white identity politics drive Asians out of the GOP when black identity politics isn't driving them out of the Democratic Party? How come the embrace of LGBT doesn't drive Muslims out of the Democratic Party or vice versa? If identity politics are so anathema to groups outside of the identity, how come the Democrats can form a coalition of mutually hating identity groupS? If you can have a coalition of the fringes against the middle, why can't you have a coalition of the middle and middle-friendly minorities against the fringe? One reason why Asians have left the GOP is that by eschewing identity politics, the GOP offers nothing for any group which wishes to engage in identity politics. If whites won't stand up for their own interests, why would they stand up for those of an ally? There is a lot of talk about Jewish ethnocentrism being a driving factor in the war on whites, but according to a Gallup poll, the most ethnocentric Jews, the Orthodox, favor Trump 3 to 1. People who are ethnocentric respect other people who are ethnocentric; as long as they define themselves by their love of their own rather than by hatred of those not their own. Talking a similar language allows you to understand each other. Talking universalism when everyone else is tribal just tells them "I don't want your respect. Go ahead and take advantage of me." The key point: you cannot form coalitions with other interest groups until you have an interest group of your own. Cucking is not going to attract more minorities. A recognition of one's own interests matched with benevolence toward those who will make common cause with you very well might. That is all.
Sunday, August 28, 2016
A few points on the best way to respond to questions about "deporting 11 million" that Trump flubbed so badly recently: First, never indicate that anyone will definitely be legalized. It disheartens supporters and allows the enemy to start tearing at the weakness. Second, always shift the discussion to the non-sympathetic cases - not just the criminals, but those who are on welfare or otherwise are a detriment to our society. Do not get suckered into talking about people whom your emotions will tell you we have to let stay, but about those whom most people will demand be deported. However, never imply that you are limiting deportations only to the cases that you mention. Third, emphasize the logic of attrition through enforcement - point out that seriously enforcing employment laws will cause many illegal aliens to leave; seriously enforcing welfare restrictions will do the same. Even deportations will have a multiplier effect, because once we are serious about deportations, a significant number will leave on their own. Emphasizing this will blunt the impact of the "you can't round up 11 million people" line. But do not hint at it - specifically note that enforcing the laws will cause many to leave without being deported. Fourth, emphasize the deportation of recent visa overstayers - make the point that a large portion of illegal aliens did not come here illegally, but rather stayed here illegally. Talk about deporting those people, and associate the idea of a deportation force with a group of people who coordinate such removals. Fifth, shift the discussion about the sympathetic cases to the future. "Listen, perhaps there are some cases of people who are beneficial to the country and who have been here a long time, and we can work with those people - but before we do any of that, we need to get a handle on the people who are not beneficial to this country - and there are a lot more of those than the media would have you believe. Before we determine what to do with these sympathetic cases, we must first remove the non-sympathetic ones - violent criminals first, but then lesser criminals, people who are receiving government benefits - the idea that the vast majority of illegal aliens are good guys and we only need to remove a few bad apples - there are lots of bad apples. But we'll get rid of them first; then we can see whether or not anyone who is left gets to stay." That is all.
Tuesday, August 23, 2016
The best way for Trump to gain Latino votes, and to alter the impression that people have of him that he is mean to immigrants is for him to reframe the issue so that he will pursue policies that will help the illegal aliens to do better in their home countries. He can reframe the issue as working class Americans and Mexicans versus rich plutocrats on both sides of the border who use immigration policy for exploitation. Carlos Slim is the obvious biggest target by far. Essentially, Trump can say that in addition to protecting our border, he will push for anti-monopoly reforms in Mexico to end the economy-sapping telecom gouging by Carlos Slim, and to increase penalties on employers who knowingly hire illegals. By far, the most important element is the first - he ought to declare that in any renegotiation of NAFTA, he will insist that Mexico pass certain reforms. In general, trade deals will be used as a bargaining chip with any country sending us large numbers of immigrants. The primary focus of the speech should be on he fact that he is not looking to help U.S. workers by hurting non-U.S. workers, but to help them by stopping the massive profiteering of corrupt plutocrats. His reforms would make both average Americans and average Mexicans richer - it's the corrupt plutocrats who would lose out. Also, it would make it easier to talk about being humane to illegal aliens - he could simply say something like "by the time my policies are done, life will be so good in their home countries they will beg to be deported!" The key is to make it seem that America First will benefit everyone else as well, so it will be harder to portray as selfish. As a bonus, he could continually lambaste the New York Times as nothing more than a puppet of Carlos Slim, and every bad article about him he could respond with "of course, the N.Y. Times hates me, it's owned by a bad guy I am trying to stop from exploiting his people." Also, he should start calling it the Carlos Slim Times. That is all.
Saturday, July 09, 2016
It strikes me that a lot of people seem to say "all Jews care mostly (or entirely) about 'is it good for the Jews.'" The implication being that Jews are irrevocably the enemies of white Gentiles, and that all Jews share the same goals and ideas as the Jewish elites. Therefore, my thesis of JewE (elites), JewB (blue-pilled), and JewR (red-pilled) is wrong. In fact, I would argue that even from a standpoint of "is it good for the Jews" the JewE/B/R thesis is quite apt. That is because there are at least two definitions of what "good for the Jews" means. Elite Jews for the most part view the issue as "what helps the most powerful Jews become more powerful;" i.e. what puts the most Jews in the Fortune 500, puts the most in the Supreme Court, etc. Most rank-and-file Jews define "good for the Jews" as "makes the most broad-based prosperity and safety for the Jewish people." That is, reduces the risk of antisemitic incidents (by any group) and makes the general safety of communities where Jews are likely to be as safe as possible (having violent criminals roam around or other things that reduces the safety of the general community is no better for Jews in that community than for anyone else). The difference between red-pill Jews and blue-pill Jews to the extent that ethnocentric concerns drive them is that the red-pillers understand that the goals of the elites do not necessarily translate to the goals of the rank-and-file and that the blue-pillers assume that they do. That is, blue-pillers assume that more power to the most powerful Jews will automatically trickle down to the Jewish masses. Red-pillers see that their elite's goals often involve sacrificing their lessers to enhance their position vis a vis other elites. It occurs to me that you can see this same pattern with the elites of many ethnicities - blacks come to mind. White Gentiles less so in some ways and more in others, because of the fact that their elite don't really pretend to care about whites in general, so blue-pillness among white Gentiles is less about faith the racial solidarity of the elites with the people and more about a desire to be polite. That is all.
Tuesday, June 21, 2016
This latest episode of Non sequitur by Wiley Miller at first glance appears to be reasonable. It's making fun of a ridiculous policy that does not seem to make sense at all. That is, until you consider that it is in response to the ridiculous idea that a guy with a penis and testicles is a woman if he - oops, "she" - feels like one. That Wiley Miller sees nothing ridiculous about a "woman" with a penis and testicles speaks volumes about the sickness of our society. That is all.