Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

First of all, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all of my readers.

I believe that on Election Day 2016, God gave this country a reprieve. But we do not want to waste it. As a Christian, I believe that we are under judgment, and that this reprieve ought to be viewed as a chance to further spread the gospel and to work to strengthen and edify others who are already saved. If you are a Christian, find a good, Christ-centered, bible-centered church. If you already have one, see what you can do to volunteer to help the church's mission. Also work to help missionaries around the world and in this country, either through your church, or through organizations you trust (Advancing Native Missions and Association of Baptists for World Evangelism are two I use).

Also, on a more secular level, we must continue to support organizations and websites like VDARE, American Renaissance, NumbersUSA, and Gab. We cannot assume that we can rest easy. Our enemies are rebuilding their forces as they did after the humiliating amnesty defeat in 2007. This time, we have to (a) keep building the grassroots that got Trump into office, and (b) go on the offensive.

So that is what we need to do going into the New Year - consolidate the victories we have, stay vigilant, and look to start regaining lost ground in the war to preserve America; keep looking to God for guidance and keep working to do his will. Above all, do not assume we have finished the job by getting Trump elected. The battle is never over in this age. I could go into more detail, I'm sure, but that's enough for now.

That is all.

What is the Significance of Hanukkah for Christians?

As the first day of Hanukkah falls on Christmas Eve at Sundown, one might ask whether Christians have any interest in knowing about Hanukkah, as Hanukkah in the U.S. is largely seen as a Jewish alternative to Christmas rather than having its own history emphasized.

In point of fact, yes, there is a lot that Christians ought to know about Hanukkah.

Having said that, I should point out that celebrating any holiday is optional for Christians, and Christians who are not of a Jewish background probably will not see the same significance to the holiday as Christians of a Jewish background.

Nonetheless, it is important to understand a few reasons why Hanukkah has significance from a Christian point of view.

First, Hanukkah commemorates the rededication of the Temple after the defeat of Antiochus Epiphanes (Antiocuhs IV). In essence, it is commemorating a type of the restoration of the world after the defeat of the Antichrist. In fact, one could argue that Antiochus is the most explicit type of the Antichrist in the Bible.

Secondly, Hanukkah is actually mentioned in the New Testament (the events leading up to Hanukkah are only mentioned in the Old Testament by way of prophecy - or more specifically apocalyptic prophecy - primarily Daniel, unless one counts the apocrypha). John 10:22-39 take place during the "Feast of Dedication," which is Hanukkah. The events that take place, with the people trying to stone Jesus, make much more sense if you understand that his claims to deity reminded them of Antiochus's claims to be a god incarnate. At the same time, Jesus is the true God incarnate, and Antiochus IV was just a pretender. This means that Christians ought to study in order to see the contrasts between God and false gods in behavior and attitude.

That is all.

Trump Suggestions

(1) The biggest goal for Trump politically ought to be to expand his base - the best way to do that is to basically use the veneer of "reaching out" in order to forge alliances with the left on issues where we actually agree - in particular, when the leftist has not been hostile to Trump (Jill Stein) or when they can be used as a slap in the face to Conservatism, Inc.

Trump will have Trade Promotion Authority when he takes office (I think, when does the 2015 TPA expire?) If I were him, I would try to get a House-Senate delegation created to work on any new trade deals (as I understand it, TPA supposedly allows for more legislative input during the actual formulation of the deal). I would work to make certain that Jeff Sessions, Rand Paul, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders were in the Senate delegation (all voted against TPA). The House Delegation could include Louie Gohmert, David Brat, and some well-known pro-labor Democrats.

This would build a sense that Trump wants to work with Democrats while he doesn't actually have to compromise on his priorities, and the inclusion of folks such as Sessions and Gohmert would insure that the Democrats don't try to sneak things into any agreement that would offend Trump's base (e.g. climate change regulations or immigration increases).

(2) Secondly, he needs to work to appease environmentalists with research into alternate energy worked into the Defense and NASA budgets. (Research how to make a solar-powered army base or how to use solar power for space stations or rockets, etc.). Spend a few billion on this, and make Jill Stein an adviser. Again, reach out to the other side without giving up anything on your core issues. Yes, Conservative Inc. will go apoplectic at spending a few billion on green energy, but no one else will care.

(3) Gingrich should get a position in the administration that puts him high up in NASA. Gingrich is a guy who likes big, crazy ideas, and that is what we need in NASA. Researching space bases? Mining asteroids? NASA should have something impressive as its ten-year goal, and Gingrich is the guy for that. Even if it fails utterly, I'm sure we'll get some useful new tech applications out of it.

(4) I think it's time we floated a proposal for a Christian Arab ethnostate in the Levant. We need a Lebanon that can serve as a haven for persecuted Arab Christians. There are a lot of rich Lebanese-heritage Christians (Darrell Issa being the wealthiest Congressman, Carlos Slim being the one-time wealthiest man in the world), and we need to get some Jewish historians who specialize in studying the Zionist Project that led to the creation of modern Israel together with them to talk about how land could be bought for such a project. I think a Trump administration could work on this behind the scenes.

(5) I think there needs to be a push for a national voter registration database (we can bribe states to join) where all citizens can get a voting ID number that can then be used to register, but will also be linked to information such as "any crimes that would deny you the right to vote, and where would you be denied" and "where have you voted in the past year." This number could be obtained at birth, but requires proof of citizenship to get. Free photo voter IDs that states would be required to accept as identification, but that any state or locality could require as proof of identity. Basically, we need to make certain that states can prevent voter fraud while also making the voter registration process more streamlined so as to be able to refute all claims of voter suppression.

That is all for now.

Where Trump can be Conciliatory

To environmentalists, he can include solar powered vehicles and bases in the military research budget, or the use of solar power in NASA's budget. Take the money from "diversity training," etc.

To neoconservatives, he can offer Condoleeza Rice the National Endowment for the Arts (she is trained as a pianist).

On voting, we need a new voting rights act that makes it okay to ask for ID to vote, to demand proof of citizenship to register, but also makes those things easily accessible and free of charge.

That is all - for now.

Unpatriotic Neoconservative

This cartoon is in response to David Frum shilling for Hillary.

That is all.

Two New Cartoons: "Honest Amptoons"

What if Ampersand and his fellow lefty cartoonists were honest?



In response to this.



In response to this.



In response to this.

More to come. Feel free to download, save, distribute. Will be on my DeviantArt page soon.

That is all.

Getting Grabby

People talk about how Donald Trump talked with Billy Bush, but guess what - both men and women sometimes talk that way. Here's the wife of Duran Duran frontman Simon Le Bon:



That is all.

5% "Increase" in Median Household Income Pure Illlusion:

Interesting take on supposedly good news.

Note: direct link has been blocked by Twitter.

That is all.

How to Use Twitter to Argue for a Cause

When trying to use Twitter to argue a position, one needs to consider what the goals are. Generally, there are at least 4 things Twitter is useful for:

(1) Disseminating information to people who support your position. Linking to articles, blogposts, etc., that provide support for a position allows people to improve their arguments, as well as provides them with things they can link to to support their position in the future. Finally, it helps to keep their moral high and to prevent discouragement.

(2) Providing support to your side in an argument. Joining in a conversation and supporting the people arguing for your side can help their morale and can give alternate perspectives for the other side. In addition, if you can provide links to articles, etc., supporting your side, you help to provide support for the facts of your argument (as well as helping the other people on your side in the future).

(3) Directly appealing to those on the opponents' side. Basically, trying to convince an opponent to consider your side. This requires being polite, and when possible appealing to your opponents' concerns that would ten to support your side rather than belittling the ones they disagree with. For example, when arguing with a liberal pointing out that the Koch brothers are supporters of mass immigration, and that it lowers wages, makes more sense than accusing them of wanting to commit white genocide.

(4) Discrediting your opponents. Generally, exposing the flaws of a someone's arguments (politely) to someone who supports them might make them less likely to trust that person (or at least their judgment) in the future. This is particularly important when arguing with someone who has some level of influence, as reducing their influence on others might make them change their attitude, or at least could reduce the damage they can do.

A good way to use Twitter, I would argue, would be to find conversations on a topic. Find ones where there is at least one person on your side. If you have an effective rebuttal to the person who is not on your side, reply to that person, and include at least one or two people on your side in the mentions. (The longer your reply, the fewer people you can use, obviously). One trick you can use to allow longer responses is to make a longer tweet, with your links in it, not responding to anyone, and then in your response, link to that tweet rather than stating your arguments in the response. The goal is to get other people who support you to retweet your position, or to further respond, backing up their arguments.

You can also include at least one other person in the tweet who disagrees with you, in hopes that one of your opponents may be provided with a reason to question the other. But do not include too many (having 2 opponents mentioned in one tweet is probably a good limit), because if a large number of them block you, you could get suspended. (This also means that you should only join one or two arguments at a time, so that you do not risk getting too many consecutive blocks). Also try to avoid arguing with someone who appears to be irrational or block-happy. You can also always click on your opponent's names later to see if they have blocked you. If you were able to join an argument without getting blocks (especially important; has the opponent tweeted since you joined the argument - i.e. have they been on Twitter and had a chance to block you but did not?) you can probably join another.

In between this, you can of course use Twitter to publicize links, or to post helpful things to people on your own side - for example, post an article supporting a position they have taken, or suggest a better way to phrase something. And of course, keep retweeting good tweets, etc. The point is, make your arguments only 10%-30% of your Twitter posting, so you don't seem to be always spoiling for a fight. I don't know for certain that this helps prevent suspensions, but I have not been suspended for more than 2 years using this strategy, so it seems to work fairly well.

Happy tweeting!

That is all.

NumbersUSA: Vote for Immigration Questions for the Next Presidential Debate

I don't know how effective it will be, but the "Open Debate Coalition" is holding voting on questions for the next debate, and NumbersUSA is asking people to go to the site and vote.

Here are the questions from a search for "immigration" in order of most votes.

Please vote for questions that are designed to make a pro-borders response look good. Do NOT vote for questions designed to make immigration control look bad. For example, "If you deport my parents, what happens to me?" is obviously designed to make immigration control look mean. Don't vote for that one, vote for one like the one that says: "How does encouraging unskilled immigration actually benefit minority Americans?" or "Do you support open borders?"

You can vote only once for a question, but can vote for as many question as you would like.

That is all.

Norman Podhoretz Endorses Trump

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.

Immigration: SVU: A Nation of Immigrants

A new meme for our time.

Here's the big print version:

That is all.

Would White Identity Politics Attract More Minorities than Cucking?

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.

Trump and Deportations

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.

Trump Should Say Immigration is About Americans & Mexicans versus Carlos Slim

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.

What's Good for (Which) Jews?

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.

Upside Down World

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.

On (((Jews))) - (E(Jews)E), (B(Jews)B), and (R(Jews)R)

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.

The Best Quote from "A Few Good Men"

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.

Recall Grover Norquist

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.

The Point of "Cuckservative"

Someone on Twitter asked me what the point of name-calling, e.g. "cuckservative" is. Won't the term simply alienate people instead of change their minds?

I think this misses a vital point. While there are people who are mistaken on the amnesty question and on racial questions in general (that is, they think that aping the liberals is going to help the Republicans win, or believe that the liberal paradigm for race relations, e.g. "denouncing white privilege" is correct, there are many who are simply cowards who would sell anything out not to be called racist, or who are taking positions to please donors and who do not actually take their positions based on well-considered morality.

The point in such cases is two-fold; first, to counter the idea that hating your own people in the name of "equality" is a good thing. For someone to celebrate the idea that their ethnic group is going to become a minority in a country they created is insane. It is not something that anyone has done throughout history or that it is assumed to be normal that someone does. When someone says that it is racist to be against an immigration policy specifically because it will make whites a minority in the United States, the best response is to point out how ludicrous it is to call someone a name for wanting to keep the majority population of America what it has always been (more or less, obviously we are not going to revert to the WASPiness of the 18th and 19th centuries). The point is to have a counter-insult to racist.

The point also is to point out that many of these "conservatives" are determined to pander to those who hate them. They will reach across the aisle to Democrats who are not willing to reach back in return (note how all the Democrats in lockstep refused to defund Obama's executive amnesty), and are constantly trying to find ways to reach out to minority communities that have no interest in voting for anyone who does not support a generous welfare state and affirmative action, and more-or-less become a Democrat, while ignoring reaching out to their mostly white base. In other words, the term refers largely to "conservatives": who are desperate for approval by liberals and who will concede whatever they need to in order to get approval.

Note how in 2012 the Romney campaign was more interested in reaching out to blacks and Latinos than in trying to reach out to the disaffected Paul voters who were concerned about interventionist foreign policy.

"Cuck" is an appropriate term, because it suggests a hatred or indifference to one's own blood, and to one's own friends, while supporting those who have no interest in being friends. The point of the term, when used amongst allies, is to remind one's self of what the problem with the traitors within are. When used at others as an insult, the goal is to make "cuckish" behavior as unacceptable as "racism." Maybe we will alienate people, and maybe people will embrace the term. But long-term, the effect will be the same as the term "racist." People will try to deny that they are "cucks" as as people realize that they cannot escape disapproval by conceding to liberals.

The idea, in short, is to reverse the dominant paradigm of political discourse, which always favors liberals.

The fact of the matter is, the current immigration debate reflects an America that is being cuckolded; its people are being replaced by foreigners, whose children we are told we must support. As a Steve Sailer commenter pointed out in 2014, we lack a vocabulary to describe this, and so we are defenseless to stop it. The term "cuckold" isn't even in popular circulation to describe literal individual cuckolding, and we are supposed to think it fine to force a man to pay child support for the product of a wife's infidelity, with absolutely no negative consequences for the faithless wife. Terms such as "cuckservative" are a way of regaining that vocabulary, and of trying to reframe the debate on terms that are (a) favorable to conservatives, and (b) reflect the unstated realities of our current situation.

That is all.

Trump on Immigration in 2013

Some helpful links that Ann Coulter re-tweeted from Trump:

Tweet
Tweet
Tweet
Tweet
Tweet
Tweet
Tweet
Tweet
Tweet
Tweet
Tweet
Tweet
Tweet
Tweet
Tweet
Tweet
Tweet
Tweet