* Yeah, if only we could find the right messenger and say it in the right way, the left-wing establishment and SJW’s will be OK with someone opposing their whole globalization, invade the world, invite the world agenda.
I thought Pat Buchanan was a fairly innocuous guy, and a DC insider, but it turns out that once he stopped being “Conservative” and supporting Bush I, he was discovered to be a vicious anti-Semite who hated women and blacks, and was an unpatriotic cowardly draft dodger.
I believe something similar happened to Tom Tancredo and Richard Lamm. Both of whom went from respected politicians to hate filled kooks when they started discussing immigration control.
* What Alexander doesn’t get is that if Trump loses, Hillary and her SJW crew both within the government and everywhere else will take it as a permanent defeat for what they regard as the forces of darkness, and will go full speed ahead on the PC agenda — including, of course, installing SC justices who will for a generation see to it that our free speech is limited by “hate speech” rules. It will not matter to them that they have to reverse any number of previous rulings, because those came from an unenlightened age.
It’s easy to imagine that there’s going to be some blowback eventually if they push PC too hard. But there’s no good reason to believe this. Human beings have a great capacity to adjust to new norms, however onerous. If human societies could be as oppressive about, say, sexuality as they were in the Victorian or Puritan era, they can be equally as rigid and punitive about “microaggressions” that violate identity politics norms. The only thing preventing us from going down that slippery slope is our own traditions and laws, and those can be altered over time. It’s really not in any way obvious where the end point of this might be, the stable point where there is so much dissent that it can’t be made any worse — and especially if the political correctness becomes enshrined in law, and identity groups themselves vote to sustain it.
People imagine the PC pendulum must swing back. But it’s swung only one way for any length in our entire lifetimes — how can we pretend to know where that swing must end?
If Trump wins, even if he weren’t to get a second term, and was regarded as a failure, he would clearly represent a potent force in society that couldn’t be entirely ignored. If he doesn’t, it’s not clear why another politician, with more congenial attributes, and the same point of view, and good electoral prospects, would be likely to appear in our lifetime. From the standpoint of the elites, he would in any case be another Trump, and would be subjected to the same treatment for the same reasons.
* Steve, when do you think the PC dam is going to break?
It didn’t break with the Bell Curve, it didn’t break with Summers, it didn’t break with Watson, it didn’t break with Mike Brown, it didn’t break with 9/11…Is there something coming down the pike with the Beijing Genomics Institute that we can hope for?
* The purpose of PC is to conceal the truth. It started with the problem of there being no rational explanation for low black academic achievement other than they are, as a people, not as intelligent as others. This has been known for at least 2000 years and was simply accepted. Since the Civil Rights era acknowledging this fact became forbidden and once it became forbidden it opened the door to concealing other unpleasant realities. Some concessions have had to be made. Women have to compete in separate sports venues, the mentally retarded are not admitted to Ivy League schools and some minimal physical standards can be a condition to hold certain jobs. Beyond that though PC is allowed to run rampant today. A person who cannot walk is not ‘crippled’ they are merely ‘differently abled’ and a black planetarium director becomes the greatest astrophysicist alive.
* While Pat Buchanan is not a Enoch Powell level genius, he’s probably the smartest serious candidate for President we’ve had in the past 50 years and has led an exemplary personal life beyond a few barroom brawls when he was young.
He’s written a dozen books about history, political theory, and demography, which is easy to forget since he has a regular guy persona.
I do not recall the media being especially mean to him in the 1992 primary, but I was a kid then and perhaps they would have been if he had become the nominee as opposed to the guy who was dividing the GOP at the time and sucking resources from the likely nominee.
* Going back to the debate, I was happy to see Trump was not a disaster again, but on policy I was really disappointed.
He abandoned his Muslim ban, a huge winning issue for him. They way he wins if voters are thinking in the voting booth, “Do I want more Muslims in America, or not?” Instead he retreated to the dumb talking point, on which Hillary is in complete agreement, that we can continue to have more Muslims but need to “vet them” more.
On health care, he repeatedly lied about premium increases (no, premiums are not going up more than 50%, I have an Obamacare plan and it has increased about 8% a year, which is typical) and repeated the retarded GOPe talking about about what a miracle it would be if we could sell insurance “across state lines.”
On taxes, he plan is another George W Bush indefensible and massive tax cut for the 1%. There was nothing stopping him from offering a huge tax cut for the middle class, something easy to understanding like cutting the payroll tax or exempting all income below $50,000. The one thing good he said was about the carried interest loophole, but that was too wonky for 95% of Americans to understand.
* The Vagina Defense Force is the problem here.
The actual recording of Trump’s comments is filled with laughter. It’s two guys boasting and catcalling. So what if there is x-rated language.
Trump specifically was talking about the CELEB-OBSESSED women and other women of the type that move around famous billionaire guys like moths around a flame.
The real travesty here is ignoring the daily reality of good looking famous rich men getting the green light from huge numbers of women. Every day.
Otherwise normal women are frequently complete sluts for celebrity men. Deal with it, America.
I guarantee that the married woman in question loved the attention from Trump. She knew exactly what was going on.
Once again the global vagina defense force wants to have it both ways. They want presumption of non-sluttery and the freedom to act like a total slut around super alpha males.
“You can have it all, baby!”
* You don’t need to look for a respectable messenger in order to win. You first have to win and then suddenly you’re respectable and respected.
First you defeat the PC establishment and then you can safely send Murray, Watson, Buchanan and Sailer on a lecture tour.
Nobody’s ever won a political fight with arguments.
* Sure, Trump is a flawed vessel for the nationalistic and anti-PC spirit.
But he has a unique combination of eff-you money, star power & communication mastery to weather the massive onslaught from all sides that the globalist & elitist forces are throwing at him.
Nobody else right now could do what he is doing. If he can survive, others with less obvious flaws will follow. But first, a nationalist, anti-PC politician has to survive.
* A producer at The Apprentice claims he has footage of Donald Trump saying the N word. This is suppose to be the October surprise from the Left.
Steve should do a blog about this and point out that our current president Barack Hussein Obama has also said the N word.
* Seriously, does any adult talking about this crap on TV not know the basics of normal heterosexual relations, which involve a series of escalating steps initiated by the man toward greater physical intimacy, and the various cues involved, almost all of them NON-VERBAL? That what Trump was talking about is perfectly fine at the start, middle, or end of a physical encounter between heterosexual adults, all depending on a CONTEXT which adults are supposed to understand as if an unspoken language? Groping, if you faithfully communicate in this language, is just another word for foreplay.
Not saying that the tape is any good for Trump, but there is nothing legally or even ethically askew about it and any grown man or woman damn knows it. It is simply a matter of manners and- for a dwindling share of the population- morals, and no more problematic than breaking wind in public; problem for Trump is that the electorate is perfectly within its rights to decide for a President on those grounds.
** To be fair to Alexander, the million leaked credit cards #’s from ASHLEY MADISON from men who really think there any normal women out there trolling for one-off sex on the Internet shows the cluelessness out there is pretty broad.
* They were talking about how their celebrity caused women to be receptive to their advances, which is not exactly a shocking observation.
Never in human history has a man seduced a woman by leading off with “do you consent for me to kiss you/place my hands upon your body?” He talked about moving in aggressively but didn’t say anything to indicate he wouldn’t take “no” for an answer. Anderson Cooper saying something along the lines of “You were talking about sexual assault. You realize that, right?” was one of the most infuriating moments of the debate. Sexual assault is more like, I dunno… maybe holding a woman down, biting her lip open and telling her to put some ice on it after you’re done raping her.
* It’s the messenger not the message.
Powell hamstrung the anti-immigration movement for decades. Anyone arguing the case was labelled powellite.
Instead of sticking to reasonoable arguments about the inadvisability of turning Britain into a multi-ethnic state, he littered his speech with soundbites like “rivers of blood” and “grinning pickanninies”. Pure stupidity.
I don’t blame Powell personally, he was probably on the autistic spectrum, IMHO.
The pity of it was that he became the poster boy for the anti-immigration movement.
* There are a bunch of reasons [Steven Pinker has not gotten into trouble with the PC police], some of which are worth imitating for those who want to take HBD more mainstream.
1. He’s careful and moderate with his language
2. He’s witty
3. He tends to present the data but let the reader draw their own conclusions
4. He does the “safety in numbers” tactic of publishing the most controversial research with 10+ co-authors
5. He limits his association with deplorables (though he does seem to retweet some academic deplorables)
Some factors more unique to him:
1. Jew privilege (did not save Larry Summers, but university president is a more vulnerable position to Watsoning than tenured professor)
2. He has mentored a lot of the smartest people in the field. This is made easier by the fact that psychology does not exactly attract great minds like physics does, and he is a senior tenured Harvard professor.
* He does not discuss racial differences, which is the politically correct third rail in academia. According to Cochran, Pinker told him and Harpending that if he tried to test their Ashkenazi Jewish theory he would be out of job at Harvard. He knows were the fault lines are, and will not cross them.
* The “Trump tape” wasn’t boasting. It was a process to get himself in character for the TV show he was about to act in. He had to become that character, the Braggart New York Boor. He used to do that character a lot in his rally speeches, “I’m really really rich.” The audience knew what he was doing.
Isn’ t that what “method” acting is, where they become the character? I think I read that Meryl Streep became that bitchy career the whole time they were filming “Devil Wore Prada.” Anne Hathaway said something like at the start of filming Meryl told her that was the last time Anne would like Meryl.
He was playing the Braggart NY Boor doing locker room talk. He’s a pretty good actor in that character he created. Its not Hamlet but its a different person from the way he was in interviews 30 years ago, even though he kind of said he same stuff.
* The question is “would someone classier, smarter, more knowledgeable than Trump have done better or worse than he’s doing now, all else being equal?”
I don’t know. Pat Buchanen is classier, smarter and more knowledgeable than Trump, he ran on very similar issues twice, and he did worse. But there could have been lots of reasons for this. Ceteris is never paribus in history. Maybe the time wasn’t right.
The most popular blog on the net is Perez Hilton’s. I think Perez’s IQ is close to the population mean, and I’m guessing that this helps him connect with millions of readers. If Steve set himself the goal of creating the most popular blog in the country, would he have succeeded? Maybe not. Maybe you have to be average, or at least close to it, to connect with the masses. Maybe this is one of those things that one can’t fake.
And maybe it’s more important for a populist politician to connect with the masses viscerally because all of the media will be against him and he’s not going to be able to run a lot of ads.
Leftism uses people’s social aspirations. It’s convinced people that it’s upscale, hip, trendy, cool. But lots of people have given up on being cool because of their age, weight, bad looks, bad jobs, lack of smarts, etc. That incentive doesn’t work on them. So they’re less repulsed by political messages that have been declared uncool by the media. They’re the natural constituency for an anti-establishment politician.
What’s the alternative? To redifine what’s cool, hip and upscale? That would be very, very difficult. An upscale spokesperson for unconventional political ideas is perceived as an irrelevant exception. Because he actually is an exception.
Has any nationalist pol succeeded at attracting the intelligentsia in any country in modern times? I can’t think of any. But getting a majority by mobilizing the working and lower middle classes – that’s been done in other countries. It’s harder to do in America than in Eastern Europe, for example, because Americans are divided by race. But it’s conceivable even in America. Trump will probably only lose by a few points.
* It could only have been Trump. Maybe in the future there will be a conventional politician who holds crimethink opinions who will have the cajones to step into the breach and be an articulate, reasonable voice for common sense… but as they say these days common sense ain’t so common.
It was the improbable combination in Trump of being opinionated, vain, arrogant, a prominent celebrity, and hewing to a certain strain of mid-century blue collar Archie Bunkerist common sensical political opinion that led us to where we are. Not only was he able to express what apparently 60% of white people are thinking, he was able to con the media into giving him millions of dollars of in kind campaign contributions of air time by being inherently newsworthy given his 30+ year history of making himself a public spectacle.
But it’s too true that pretty soon only 40% of white people will be able to admit to themselves that our country is good and the form it had before mass importation of third world people was worth preserving. And that means that it’ll be more like 30% of all voters who will even be interested in the good old days.
Which is so annoying. I work in a very g-loaded profession, and amongst my colleagues any opinion other than thinking Trump is an annoying clown with monstrous opinions is completely unheard of. And yet… their revealed preferences of who they would like to associate with reveal they don’t really think that a society made up of no-skill third world toilers is as good as a high trust society made up of people like them.
They don’t marry Salvadoran nannies and they certainly wouldn’t let their daughters date the sons of Afghani cab drivers. And of course their daughters wouldn’t want to date those people. They aspire to home ownership and middle class upstanding citizenship, but don’t give a moment’s thought to the fact that those things are so much more affordable in flyover country than in the coastal elite cities where they live, or why. They don’t seem to think that masses of people cramped into favelas on a hill with an elite caste of millionaires living down below in luxury gated communities is a good thing, and yet they never think twice about the open borders consensus and the PC culture that implies that we have to welcome in billions of third world immigrants.
That’s the thing that’s so annoying about our new PC overlords: the ethos that is driving this whole shitshow is just so insipid. Everyone is beautiful in their own way! There’s no value judgment to be made between a nobel prizewinner and a Pakistani goatherd– each has their own gifts to bestow to the mixed salad that is 21st century America!
It really is shameful that all 16 other Republicans who saw fit to run for President this year couldn’t articulate what really is a quite simple message: you don’t have to pretend about the Emperor’s clothes anymore. That tells you all you need to know about the state of the Party in 2016 and its chances going forward if they don’t find some new people who are actually willing to engage with the way the world really is and not how it appears in a Jack Kemp pamphlet from 30 years ago. Maybe capital gains tax rates were an important thing to argue about back in that much simpler time when there were just blacks and whites and the country wasn’t on the verge of permanent one party rule, but nowadays we’re in an existential crisis. So if no one credible was willing to engage with the way the world actually was, we had no choice but to go with Trump.
So sure, blame the messenger, he’s obviously a cad, and much worse, too. But to have picked Jeb or Carly or whatever was to pick no one and to concede before the fight was even started. What would Alexander have had us do? Nominate Jeb, have him lose anyways, let HRC let in another million Muslims and another 5 million Latin Americans, and 4 years later wait for an articulate, debonaire nationalist who may or may not (probably would not) have been coming? It’s insane.
* Enoch Powell’s ambition as a young man was to become the Viceroy of India. This was not delusional on his part.
The British ruled India through the Indian Civil Service, an elite corps of mandarins. Entrants were 20 to 24 years old, and had passed through one of the great British boarding schools or finished university. University was not required. A young man at 18 who had passed through an English boarding school was expected to have the intellectual, writing, and speaking skills— and maturity—to begin to learn the work of ruling a country.
Between the ages of 20 and 24, and after a suitable training period learning a local language and local customs, they became “district collectors” or “district magistrates.” These young men had the power of taxation, administration, and life and death over an entire district or county of a hundred thousand natives or more.
They grew up fast back then, and were expected to do great things.
Today, Goldman Sachs trainees attend Outward Bound courses.
