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.
Monday, June 20, 2016
Being somewhat connected with alt-right (don't know if I am alt-right, neoreactionary, etc. or what. Don't really care which label fits me), it has come to my attention that there is a lot of discussion about the role that Jews play in the current anti-white (anti-white Gentile, anyway) fever. Thinking about things, I have come to a conclusion. I think that most Jews who take an interest in internal European and America politics can be divided into one of three camps: The Jewish establishment. JewE, if you will. These are the people who lead the big, well-funded groups, as well as those who actively agree with them. These largely do to one extent or another fit the stereotype of the guy who wants to tear down white Gentile/Christian culture wherever it exists, and do see racial minorities and third-worlders as weapons to be used against white Gentiles. Examples would be Abe Foxman, Barbara Lerner Spectre, and Chuck Schumer. Other examples would be Paul Singer and Sheldon Adelson, but Adelson's recent willingness to support Trump has opened the possibility that he might be willing to prioritize other things over inundating the U.S. with human flotsam and jetsam. Blue-pill Jews. Basically, these are rank-and-file Jews who more or less follow JewE, but largely out of inertia, out of an assumption that they are looking out for their best interests, or other mundane reasons. There is no active hatred of Christians or white Gentiles, although there may be a back-of-the mind fear that drives them to the establishment for protection. I don't know if I have that many examples, because by definition I am mostly talking about people who are not setting agendas but following others. Red-pill Jews. These are Jews who realize that Western culture is a good thing, and to the extent they are ethnocentric, as good for the Jews, and either see Jewish culture (and Israel) as part of the west or as symbiotic with the west. They see Islam as the great threat, and see white Gentiles as being, on the whole, friends or potential friends. I would include bloggers Nicholas Stix, The Mad Jewess, Mickey Kaus, and Ilana Mercer among this number. I think that with the increasing Muslim population, Europe's Jews are increasingly getting red-pilled. In many ways, American Jews are sort of like the GOP in 2004 - rot at the establishment top, lots of people following "their team," and only a few really caring about the problems that they are heading into. So, if you want to use the ((())) symbols around Jewish people, may I suggest (E()E) for Establishment types (I sort of like the name "JewE"), (B()B) for blue-pill types (largely the only (B()B) types that would be prominent enough to mention would be "man on the street" interviewees or maybe someone who once wrote a letter to the editor), and (R()R) for red-pill types. That is all.
Sunday, May 22, 2016
Capt. West: Commander Galloway, why don't you get yourself a cup of coffee. Galloway: Thank you, sir, I'm fine. Capt. West: Commander, I'd like you to leave the room so we can talk about you behind your back. Galloway: Certainly, sir. That is all.
Tuesday, April 26, 2016
Dear readers: I should have dealt with this earlier, but, if you are a fully paid Life Member of the NRA or have been a member for 5 straight years, you can vote for their board of directors and should have received a ballot in the MArch 2016 magazine. In the ballot is a recall measure for Grover Norquist, due to his alleged connections to groups that are tied to the Muslim Brotherhood. Regardless of the veracity of these charges, Norquist is a known proponent of amnesty (see him promote the "Gang of Eight" bill here), which would destroy our gun rights by changing the electorate. I remember calling the NRA and urging them to take a stand on the Gang of Eight bill. They declined, unlike Gun Owners of America (guess which one will and which one will not be getting my donations in the future). Maybe Norquist is part of the reason why they don't see immigration as affecting gun rights? Anyway, I encourage you to mail in a "Yes" vote to recall Norquist. Remember, it has to be received by (not maild by, received by) Saturday, May 1. That is all.