A Trump Landslide?

Scott Adams writes: If you have been following this blog since last year, you know I have been saying Trump was playing 3D chess against 2D opponents. And by that I meant Trump was using powerful persuasion techniques while the rest of the field was flailing away with facts, reason, policy details, and other things that don’t change anyone’s mind.

Then, in late spring, at about the time that Bernie Sanders’ flamed out, Clinton ascended to the 3D playing field and stayed there, thanks to help – I assume – from one or more weapons-grade behavioral psychologists who joined the cause. For the past few months both candidates have operated in the third dimension, where emotion and persuasion rule, and facts are irrelevant.

Recently, Clinton has been winning in the third dimension. She abandoned her 2D rational arguments about experience and policies and started hypnotizing voters into believing they have the power to predict the future if they try hard enough. And in that imaginary future, Donald Trump is incinerating the world with nuclear fire because he can’t take advice, or he’s a narcissist, or he’s unstable, or he’s Hitler Version 2.0. This approach is excellent persuasion, and it is working for Clinton….

My prediction from last year – that Trump would win the general election in a landslide – was based on his persuasion advantage. That advantage is largely gone now because Clinton has evidently hired some weapons-grade Master Persuaders and moved to a purely emotional appeal, specifically fear. And it is working.

If nothing changes, Clinton will win in November. But things rarely stay the same. Here are several ways Trump could still win from behind.

1. Voters discover that Clinton has been hiding a major health issue.

2. Wikileaks releases something damaging.

3. Trump over-performs at the first debate, showing the world that he is willing and able to master the issues.

4. Trump makes the case that the Clinton Foundation is really about selling influence to foreign concerns.

5. Trump gives a speech or interview that is so effective in its empathy that he no longer appears to be crazy and racist.

6. A new surprise revelation about Clinton that no one sees coming.

7. Terror attacks push everything else out of the headlines in the final months.

8. Someone assassinates Clinton because of Trump’s 2nd Amendment joke.

Trump still has several ways to win, and at least three of those paths are under his control. But to be fair, we have seen no evidence that Trump is likely to do anything different in terms of style. So don’t count on a personality change.

In terms of persuasion technique, Clinton now has world-class advisors, but Trump still has the advantage of his risk profile. Trump can take bigger risks and go places Clinton wouldn’t dare. So Trump’s persuasion can be stronger if he chooses to increase his risk. Clinton will be more constrained by political correctness.

Posted in America | Comments Off on A Trump Landslide?

President Obama Lobbied For This Olympics To Be In Chicago

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* If you think that the Rio Olympics is an unmitigated disaster, just imagine what a total crap show a Chicago Olympic Games could have been. The cost over-runs alone would have been astronomical. Not to mention the total logistics and traffic nightmare along with the usual black criminality mixed in.

It’s said that losing the Olympic bid forced Daley, Jr. from seeking another term or two. If Chicago had won the bid, and he was still mayor, the ensuing fiasco would have made him become more of a complete stuttering, stumbling mess than he already otherwise was.

* Rio has a lot of problems, and they’re showing up at these Olympics, even if NBC isn’t in much of a mood to let us know.

Yet and still, the IOC still thought that all that was preferable to Chicago.

They had a point.

* All of these 426 murder victims will be quickly replaced, net-population wise, with more illegitimate babies born by mothers who have no clue as to how to support a child or raise a human being who will contribute to society’s well-being.

* I’ve lived most of my life in the Chicago area and after recently spending time downtown, including the lakefront, River North, the brand new riverwalk, nearby neighborhoods like Lincoln Park, Wrigleyville, Old Town, etc, it’s never seemed as safe, and as “white” to me. In the summer, Chicago is extremely fun and lively.

The violence is occurring a million miles away, in the no-go zones of the South side and the West side. I hardly know anyone who’s ever set foot in those areas.

* Do we know what the development plan was for the Chicago Olympics? Perhaps they were going to plow over the entire South Side. If so, there’d be a lot less crime in Chicago today, which would be whiter, and a lot more crime wherever the South Siders moved to.

* I watched one of this year’s officer-involved-shooting videos–I think it was Alton Sterling–with a Brazilian coworker. He watched, shrugged and said, “Stuff like this and worse happens all the time in Brazil. No one thinks it’s news.”

So, to your point that Rio may still be preferable to Chicago for the IOC, perhaps that is because the police violence necessary to maintain order for an event like the Olympics is unremarkable in Brazil, while it is impermissible in the US.

* Let’s see, there’s been two boxers charged with attempted rape (how one boxer can ‘rape’ two maids is beyond me) one of the torch bearers was shot at, and of course, lots of ruffian-on-tourist action. So far, not the train wreck I was expecting. But they still haven’t had the rowing, sailing or triathlon in that, um, ”water” so who knows. The high dive has been interesting, seems they either couldn’t afford enough chlorine or they don’t know what they’re doing with it.

* When Chicago hosted the World Cup in 1994 the murder rate was twice what it is today. The overall crime rate was higher as well. One of the big news stories from that was about a German radio show that was doing a live remote from the Chicago Loop during the World Cup Games. At least half of the questions from German callers who called in asked if the hosts of the show had armed guards protecting them or if the hosts feared for their lives because of how violent the city was. The feel good part of the piece that aired on local Chicago news programs was that the radio hosts extolled how safe they felt and how Germans in the city were surprised by how much they enjoyed the city. I think that the Olympics in Chicago probably would have been the same. A lot of hype about shootings and attendees to the Olympics not seeing much crime at all. The only exception would have been events that might have been held in places like Garfield Park. But even there the problem might be robberies, not murders. Most of the shootings in the city are from a gang war that has been going on since most of the high rise public housing projects were demolished. This has also increased the crime rate in smaller Illinois cities that some of the residents were sent to. When you hear about a Grandfather who was shot on his front porch or a 6 year old girl being shot, it usually is from a gang banger who is a bad shot.

* Chicago got the Gay Games in 2006. Didn’t that satisfy them?

Posted in Blacks, Chicago, Olympics | Comments Off on President Obama Lobbied For This Olympics To Be In Chicago

JJ: For her directorial debut, Natalie Portman mines her inner Israeli and what it means to be Jewish

Aside from considerations of faith, what it means to be Jewish/black/Muslim/Japanese is the same — to perpetuate the genes of your people and assist them in perpetuating themselves. As the preamble to the U.S. Constitution states: “For ourselves and for our posterity.” That’s the purpose of life.

No people and no country has a right to exist. Every people, every country, have to establish themselves against fierce competition and defend themselves and when opportunity presents itself, go on the attack to strengthen themselves. If your country and people do not become as strong as possible, they are reducing their chances to survive.

From the Jewish Journal:

“I realized how much Judaism for me was connected to yearning — to wanting what you don’t have — which is maybe why Israel is so complicated emotionally for Jews: It’s built into the emotional structure of our religion to yearn for a homeland we don’t have,” Portman wrote in the Times.
“So then, if we have it, what do we yearn for? We say ‘next year in Jerusalem’ as if we are still in exile. But maybe Jerusalem as an idea is never attainable — so we can keep longing for it, even when we have it.”
Portman’s eloquence on Israel is decidedly uncharacteristic of most of Jewish Hollywood. In good times and bad, Israel is a subject Jewish celebrities tend to avoid, lest they be seen as too tribal, or worse, unsympathetic to the Palestinian cause. But Portman is an exception, and, over the years, she has become a kind of a de facto defender of Israel (when I use this label with her, she laughs), especially in the face of public misconception or outright hostility toward Israel or the Jews. When a video surfaced in February 2011 of Dior chief fashion designer John Galliano spouting anti-Semitic comments in a Paris bar, Portman, then the face of a Dior fragrance, was quick to condemn him.
“I am deeply shocked and disgusted by the video of John Galliano’s comments,” she said in a statement at the time. “In light of this video, and as an individual who is proud to be Jewish, I will not be associated with Mr. Galliano in any way. I hope at the very least, these terrible comments remind us to reflect and act upon combating these still-existing prejudices that are the opposite of all that is beautiful.”
Galliano was subsequently suspended from Dior. Four years later, when The Hollywood Reporter questioned her about the incident, she said she could forgive him, but not his comments. In the same story, she was equally unforgiving of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whom she condemned for “racist comments,” which she said she was “very much against.”

Posted in Jews | Comments Off on JJ: For her directorial debut, Natalie Portman mines her inner Israeli and what it means to be Jewish

JJ: ‘Stephen Miller, meet your immigrant great-grandfather’

Rob Eshman writes:

Miller’s powerful lines, the ones that really froth the mob, all revolve around immigration. To stoke the emotions, he repeatedly references the brutal murder of Kate Steinle at the hands of an illegal immigrant.
“How many children are dead because of our sanctuary cities?” he asks. “Don’t ever, ever let anyone tell you that you’re not a good person because you want to secure the border!”
And then, playing John the Baptist to Jesus, Miller says, “I have some good news for you, folks, I have some fabulous news.” And he brings on, that’s right, Donald the Savior.
According to a long profile of Miller by Julia Ioffe in Politico, Miller is fast becoming the forward face of the Trump campaign. His former boss, Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, said he can’t think of anyone as valuable to a presidential campaign since Karl Rove. When Trump brought Miller on board, Ann Coulter, America’s blondest race-baiter, tweeted, “I’m in heaven!”
But what stopped me short in Ioffe’s report was this biographical tidbit: Stephen Miller grew up in Santa Monica, in a Jewish family.
Cue the record scratch. What? I doubted the Family Miller came over on the Mayflower, and I was positive they weren’t here to greet the boat. Could it be this young anti-immigrant leader is the descendent of immigrants? With the help of attorney and genealogy whiz E. Randol Schoenberg, I had my answer. On his mother’s side, Miller is a Glosser — and you could write a book on the Glossers. In fact, someone did.
For $19.99, I bought the Kindle edition of “Long Live Glosser’s” by Robert Jeschonek, a history of Pennsylvania’s first family of retail.
“Imagine living in a place where armed Cossacks ride through the streets, looking to cripple or kill you,” Chapter 3 begins.
And so it was Wolf Lieb Glotzer and his wife, Bessie, sought to flee “dreary, scary” Antopol, in Belarus. On Jan. 7, 1903, Wolf arrived in New York aboard the German ship S.S. Motke with $8 in his pocket. He was eventually joined by his son, Natan, a tailor, and his brother Moses, who had arrived earlier, having escaped conscription in the czar’s army. On a visit to Uncle Moses, Natan stopped in Johnstown, Pa., and fell in love with the place. He found work as a tailor and soon bought the shop.
You know the rest. Glosser’s expanded. More family, including brother Sam, joined in, and Glosser Bros. eventually grew into a chain of dozens of stores, becoming a beloved part of the community before eventually closing. And so it was: Sam Glosser begat Isadore, whose grandson is, yes, Stephen Miller.
By becoming Trump’s anti-immigrant avatar, Miller demonstrates that in America, truly anything is possible: The great-grandson of a desperate refugee can grow up to shill for the demagogue bent on keeping desperate refugees like his great-grandfather out.
But it’s different now, you say. Miller’s forebears came here legally, and Trump is not about stopping legal immigration.
Well, false. Last week at a rally in Portland, Maine, Trump attacked legal immigration from countries that are “prone to terrorism,” including Somalia, Morocco. Uzbekistan, the Philippines, Pakistan, Yemen, Syria and Afghanistan.
“We’re letting people come in from terrorist nations that shouldn’t be allowed because you can’t vet them,” Trump said, according to The Washington Post. He warned the crowd of “outsiders pouring into our country.”
(How a Trump administration will handle immigration from Israel, where far more terrorist acts are committed than in Morocco, is anyone’s guess.)
And for Miller to say his family came to America “legally” is simply a ruse. There was no illegal immigration at the turn of the century, because all non-Asian immigration was essentially legal until the 1920s.
Then, as now, angry voices fought to keep these immigrants out. They organized the Immigration Restriction League, focused on shutting the ports to swarthy Italians and Jews.
“The floodgates are open,” wrote one anti-immigrant newspaper editor as the Eastern European Jews docked in New York. “The horde of $9.60 steerage slime is being siphoned upon us from Continental mud tanks.”
Such sentiments led to the Immigration Quota Act of 1924 — which effectively shut the door to Jewish immigration on the eve of the Holocaust.
Miller’s stump speech taps into that same, ever-present strain in the American body politic. But when an American Jew turns on immigrants, there is a whiff of head-scratching hypocrisy, if not something more clinical. It is taking the side of people who, in a historical blink of the eye, would have met your own great-grandparents at the docks with stones and spitballs.
It is taking a fixable problem like immigration reform and making it intractable by stoking anti-immigrant fear and hate, by calling for a ban on an entire religion, by demeaning the sons and daughters of immigrants by race — all things Miller and his boss are doing. The goal of that behavior isn’t to fix a broken system, but to score political points off it.

Regarding this line: “Could it be this young anti-immigrant leader is the descendant of immigrants?” Everybody is a descendant of immigrants because nobody sprouted from the earth.

Wondering why immigrants might not want more immigrants is like wondering why a guy who lands the woman of his dreams might not want other guys taking her to bed.

Let’s take the example of a good Jewish liberal op/ed writer who secured the love and commitment of a wonderful woman. Would he want her sharing her bed with other men and women? If not, why not? If she is great, why keep her all to yourself?

So too if you are an immigrant who made it through the arduous legal process of becoming an American citizen (like my parents and I did), then you may not want American citizenship given to people who came here illegally and you may not want it given to people who are a bad fit (for instance, blacks and Muslims and mestizo Mexicans).

I suspect Rob Eshman lives in a nice home. Why doesn’t he give it up to people less fortunate than himself? Why is he choosy about the type of people he invites over? I am fascinated by leftists who have nice homes and are very selective about who they invite over. Why don’t they live in black neighborhoods? Why don’t they live in Mexican neighborhoods? Why don’t they live in Muslim neighborhoods? No. They always prefer to live in expensive white and east-Asian neighborhoods.

Eshman’s powerful lines, the ones that really froth the mob, all revolve around the evils of racism and yet he practices good racial hygiene in his own life, he chose not to live in a majority black or Mexican or Muslim neighborhood, and what’s more, he — gasp! — practiced eugenics by being very choosy in whom he selected to be the mother of his children.

To stoke the emotions of Jews, Eshman repeatedly references the brutal murder of six million of his tribesmen in the Holocaust at the hands of goyim.

I doubted the Family Eshman came over on the Mayflower, and I was positive they weren’t here to greet the boat. Could it be this aging pro-immigrant newspaper leader is the descendent of racist people who would not marry non-Jews? Well, I never.

By becoming Trump’s pro-immigrant enemy, Eshman demonstrates that in America, truly anything is possible: The great-grandson of people who would not marry non-Jews and an ardent supporter of the Jewish state is bent on maligning those who want the same things for their people.

And for Eshman to say his ancestors refused to marry non-Jews for noble reasons is simply a ruse. It’s racism and racism is bad according to people like Rob Eshman. Being racist is being like Hitler and Trump is Hitler.

From the Robert DeNiro movie, The Good Shepherd:

Joseph Palmi: Let me ask you something… we Italians, we got our families, and we got the church; the Irish, they have the homeland, Jews their tradition; even the niggers, they got their music. What about you people, Mr. Wilson, what do you have?

Edward Wilson: The United States of America. The rest of you are just visiting.

Goyim have interests too.

Regarding immigration from Israel, it is not Jewish Israelis who are committing terrorism.

As for illegal immigration prior to the 1920s, there were places like Ellis Island which screened people before letting them through. America was not a country where just anybody could show up. It was a country for white people of good character.

“Most immigrants, illegal or not, come to America to live secure, prosperous lives.”

Well, how are those second, third and fourth generation Mexican-Americans doing? Pretty lousy. Pro immigration Mexican-American intellectual Gregory Rodriguez writes in the New York Times: “In Los Angeles, which has the largest Mexican population in the country, there is no ethnic-Mexican hospital, cemetery or broad-based charity organization.” There’s no college either.

Why does American need immigrants from countries with an average IQ of 90 or less?

Steve Sailer argues that Hispanic immigration is “recreating the racial hierarchy of Mexico” in California:

While upwardly mobile Mexican-Americans marry blonde Anglos, downwardly mobile white men wed Mexicans. Now, there is no doubt plenty to be said for getting hitched to a Mexican lady. They probably tend to make better mothers, homemakers, and cooks than the leggy blonde careerists who, however, are so much more in demand in Southern California. But sadly, there is a big social cost to Anglo-Hispanic marriages—which raises severe doubts about America’s ability to assimilate Latino immigrants. As pro-immigration/pro-assimilation researcher Gregory Rodriguez admits, “Surprisingly, in most homes headed by an Anglo/Latino couple, Spanish becomes the household language.”

Thus, those L.A. blue-collar whites who don’t flee to Utah will tend to assimilate genetically and culturally into Latino culture.

Posted in America, Immigration, Jews | Comments Off on JJ: ‘Stephen Miller, meet your immigrant great-grandfather’

Jewish Liberal Argues That The Book Of Deuteronomy Pronounces Republican Senate Out Of Order

Did Jewish liberals say the same things when the Democratic-controlled Senate did not want to appoint a Republican nominee to the Supreme Court just before an election? I doubt it.

From the Jewish Journal:

Laura W. Brill is a media law and appellate litigator who writes frequently on legal issues. She served as a law clerk to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She writes:

One of the most popularly quoted Torah phrases about justice is “Tzedek, tzedek tirdof,” meaning: Justice, justice shall you pursue.
This is in Deuteronomy 16:20, in a Torah portion called “Shoftim,” meaning “Judges.” Shoftim actually begins two verses earlier, in Deuteronomy 16:18, with a commandment that gets much less attention but that seems every bit as important for people who care about justice: “You shall appoint for you judges and officers in all your gates…”
The obligation to appoint judges doesn’t appear to be optional. We “shall appoint judges.” There is no exception when a president is in his last year of office, or for protecting gun ownership.

Posted in America | Comments Off on Jewish Liberal Argues That The Book Of Deuteronomy Pronounces Republican Senate Out Of Order