December 16, 2015 Rolling Back The Neo-Cons Luke Ford No sacred cows.

Rolling Back The Neo-Cons

Posted on December 16, 2015 by Luke Ford

The blogger Patterico seems to be moving from neo-con to conservative.

Last night, watching the debate, I witnessed a bizarre interchange in which Hugh Hewitt appeared to assert that it is a necessary qualification for the presidency of the U.S. that one be willing to kill “thousands” of “innocent children.” I figured I would wait to blog it until I could see a transcript, since I could hardly believe I had heard it correctly. Newsbusters has the video and transcript:
HUGH HEWITT: Doctor Carson, you mentioned in your opening remarks that you’re a pediatric neurologist surgeon —
BEN CARSON: Neurosurgeon.
HUGH HEWITT: Neurosurgeon. And people admire and respect and are inspired by your life story, your kindness and evangelical core support. We’re talking about ruthless things tonight. Carpet bombing, toughness, war. And people wonder, could you do that? Could you order air strikes that would kill innocent children by not the scores, but the hundreds and the thousands? Could you wage war as a commander in chief?
BEN CARSON: Well, interestingly enough, you should see the eyes of some of those children when I say to them, “We’re going to have to open your head up and take out this tumor.” They’re not happy about it and they don’t like me very much at that point. But later on, they love me. Sometimes you, I sound like him [Motions to Trump.] You know, later on, you know they really realize what’s going on and by the same token, you have to be able to look at the big picture and understand that it’s actually merciful if you go ahead and finish the job rather than death by 1,000 pricks.
HEWITT: So you are okay with the deaths of thousands of innocent children and civilians? [Audience booing.]
CARSON: You got it. You got it. [Pointing at the audience.]
HEWITT: That is what war— Can you be as ruthless as Churchill was in prosecuting the war against the Nazis?
CARSON: Ruthless is not necessarily the word I would use but tough, resolute, understanding what the problems are and understanding that the job of the president of the United States is to protect the people of this country and to do what is necessary in order to get it done.
I was pleased to hear a Republican audience booing Hewitt. I often worry that we have become very casual about the killing of innocent people, slapping the label “war” on it to avoid thinking about it too closely. The boos told me that not everyone thinks this way.
This is not mere handwringing in an attempt to show myself to be morally superior. This is an attempt to get people to think more deeply about the justification for killing innocent people.
Murray Rothbard said in his classic essay War, Peace, and the State:
If Smith and a group of his henchmen aggress against Jones and Jones and his bodyguards pursue the Smith gang to their lair, we may cheer Jones on in his endeavor; and we, and others in society interested in repelling aggression, may contribute financially or personally to Jones’s cause. But Jones has no right, any more than does Smith, to aggress against anyone else in the course of his “just war”: to steal others’ property in order to finance his pursuit, to conscript others into his posse by use of violence, or to kill others in the course of his struggle to capture the Smith forces. If Jones should do any of these things, he becomes a criminal as fully as Smith, and he too becomes subject to whatever sanctions are meted out against criminality.
This seems easy to understand when “Smith” (the “collateral damage” in the example) is a sympathetic figure. Take the Peasants’ Crusade in the last few years of the 11th Century. Peasants on their way to retake Jerusalem massacred Jews and stole their property. They rationalized that they were on a holy mission, and they needed the money — and the people they were taking it from were nonbelievers anyway, so what’s the big deal? They were embarked on a just war, and in a just war, sometimes innocents have to die.
That example makes the peasants seem like criminals — in part because many do not sympathize with their mission, and in part because the Jews seem sympathetic. But in the 11th Century, the cause appeared quite just to Westerners — and the Jews seemed unsympathetic indeed.
What about drone strikes? Many Americans seem perfectly comfortable with the notion that innocent people must die in drone strikes if that’s how you get the bad guys. I think we tend to assume that birds of a feather flock together. If people are close enough to a terrorist to be killed if you drone-strike him, that’s on them, amirite?
Except that, by that logic, if the government had learned that Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik were jihadis, it would have been justified in drone-striking them and anyone who happened to be at a year-end meeting with them. What are those people doing in the company of a couple of jihadis anyway?
Ah, but those are Americans! It’s not the same in Syria, or Yemen, or Iraq, some seem to think. Over there, if you’re near a terrorist, you’re fair game. Over here, maybe not. Which raises the question, if had we drone-struck a San Bernardino mosque, with Tashfeen Malik and Syed Farook inside, would you have supported that, even if a couple dozen civilians died in the process?

Jeff* says: “My feeling is based on the debates that the sort of criticism that Rand Paul, Donald Trump, and even Ted Cruz are making toward neo-conservatives foreign policy is gaining traction among Republicans. Trump is the most important, of course, because he was the first Republican (other than Ron Paul) to attack both the Iraq war and George W. Bush. Republicans have spent too much time justifying the Iraq war and praising George W. Bush, instead of putting daylight between their toxicity and the candidates of 2016. This is another reason the Neo-Cons are in such a panic and even Adelson’s packing the hall last night, didn’t deter a substantial portion of the audience cheering Rand Paul and Ted Cruz when they pointed out the folly and blowback related to intervention in Iraq, Libya and Syria.”

Posted in Conservatives, Neoconservatives, Republicans | Comments Off

Mistrial declared in trial of Officer William Porter in death of Freddie Gray

Posted on December 16, 2015 by Luke Ford

A reader says: The story gives some information but not three pieces of crucial information: It does give the breakdown between women and men on the jury but it fails to (1) give the breakdown of the Jury by race, (2) mention that officer Porter, the first to go to trial is African-American and (3) the jury vote for conviction.

This last is important. If there was one black holdout for conviction, the prosecutor probably won’t retry the case, but if it hung with a majority seeking conviction it probably will. It may be that the court is not disclosing the juror vote for fear of precipitating civil unrest.

LOS ANGELES TIMES:

Mistrial declared in trial of Officer William Porter in death of Freddie Gray
A mistrial was declared Wednesday in the trial of Baltimore Police Officer William G. Porter, after jurors told a judge it could not reach a verdict on any of the four charges against him.
“I do declare a mistrial,” Judge Barry G. Williams announced in a downtown courtroom.
Porter, 26, was charged with involuntary manslaughter, second-degree assault, reckless endangerment and misconduct in office. He is the first of six city police officers to stand trial in the death of Freddie Gray.
Attorneys are expected to appear in court Thursday morning in front of an administrative judge to pick a retrial date. Porter is not scheduled to attend.
It’s unclear whether Porter’s retrial will affect the trial dates for the other five officers, who are scheduled to be tried separately and consecutively beginning Jan. 6.
The State’s Attorney’s Office did not comment Wednesday, citing a “gag order that pertains to all cases related to Freddie Gray.”

Posted in Blacks, Crime | Comments Off

The Blessings Of Chinese Birth Tourism

Posted on December 16, 2015 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* The brightest kids in California high schools are assured admission to the best schools in California’s public university system. That’s why:

UC Berkley is 40% Asian (32% white)
UC Davis is 39% Asian (29% white)
UC Irvine is 46% Asian (16% white)
UCLA is 30% Asian (27% white)

By population, California is 12% Asian, the US is 4% Asian.

Sine my son was a math and science kid in high school in a university town, naturally most of his “friends” were Asian. They all complained bitterly about quotas and policies that kept their numbers so low in the best colleges. They followed university admissions policies and racial demographics like baseball.

* If you’re one of those people for whom seeing is believing, take your pick of these videos:

Al Jazeera offers a nice, in depth video, hosted by a very pleasant woman in a hijab, for the benefit of Earth’s 1.5 billion Muslims who might be trying to figure out how to get a foothold in the USA:

The video is titled “Birth tourism delivers a new generation of US citizens.”

* “Birth tourism — illegally spending just enough time in America so your child can exploit America’s naive birthright citizenship rule — demonstrates the cash scarcity value of American citizenship that America’s leadership seems intent on giving away to random foreign grifters.”

A nation of drifters and grifters.

* I think the technical term for that is “diaspora.”

* Within the German ethny, you are generally better off with a higher IQ German.

Bringing in higher IQ Chinese introduces a whole suit of different characteristics beyond IQ, such as conscientiousness, inherent honesty, empathy for strangers/kin, aesthetic sensibility, etc.

You don’t see too many people moving to China for the ambiance and cultural appeal. If you are going to do eugenics, let us choose an appealing end stage.

* How about we call chinese-’american’ kids born this way ‘dumplings’?

They are dumped over here.

As for Americans that allow this, I guess they are Dim Sum.

* We can deny visas for any reason. Coming here solely for birth is a form of fraud.

* The parachute kids (high school Chinese kid without parents) and astronaut kids (high school Chinese kid and mom, with Dad back in China) are a great deal for the Chinese national parents, a total scam/rip-off for the USA and USA taxpayers : the Chinese national gets high school and language education; graduating from a US high school gets them residency status in college, so the Chinese national parents can pay in-state tuition. With just one or two years you magically become Asian-American, at least to the colleges (and in college statistics), not a Chinese national or international student. And the parents didn’t have to invest anything. Doesn’t matter if there here legally or not. Of course birth scammers are even worse.

* I spent several hours at that mall last weekend while my wife shopped. To amuse myself I would stand in one spot and keep a mental tabulation of how many identifiably White and non-White people I saw. In the heart of supposedly old White Orange County the White people proportion came to 19%. Also, I didn’t do an actual count, but the number of women in head scarves seemed to be pretty close to the number of Chinese women. OC has imported huge numbers of Islamic techies in addition to the East Asian ones, plus UC Irvine is heavily Asian. What was dismaying was the young women with their mothers, and sometimes the daughters wore scarves while their first gen mothers did not.
The mall itself is showing a heavy drift to the upper scale. One end looks like an upscale Tokyo, Dubai or Shanghai shopping district with a parade of one ultra luxury European store after another, a Nordstrom at the anchor end to provide lower cost relief, and Tiffany’s as the comparatively downscale American entry. Even the La Perla store we drop into once a year to buy $400 Italian ladies underwear has remodeled and gone even further up the scale than it already was. The check-out counter is behind a wall so the crass commercial aspects are hidden from sight, and all the saleswomen are wearing the same severe black dresses with identical make-up, hosiery, jewelry and hair. (Picture what Mussolini’s secretaries would have looked like). What remains of the shabby Sear’s complex at the downhill end of the mall is probably not long for it.
San Marino is another old White center which now has large number of Chinese kids living alone and attending San Marino High. When I used to work in the area I sometimes went to a great burger place that was popular with the San Marino High kids. These Chinese kids would zoom in with their Porsches and BMWs and try to cheat the owners by ordering water with lunch but filling the cups with soda at the fountain. The poor schlub owner would swoop on them and confiscate their sodas while the princelings laughed derisively.

* Birth tourism interdiction is influenced primarily by two forces:
1. ICE bureaucracy, with internal communications snafus, inconsistent policies, personal agendas social engineering, all supported by, or subject to, outdated technology;
2. Washington political weathervane that moves in response to real or imagined need for Chinese support for Treasury market stability.
The two interact with all the efficiency and transparency that we’ve come to expect after years of government training.

* Here’s the shocking thing: it’s NOT illegal. Intending to go to the USA for birth tourism is not a valid reason to deny someone a visa. Our consular officers in embassies are supposed to issue visas to birth tourists, assuming they would otherwise qualify for a tourist visa. Whether they’re pregnant or intending to give birth is not supposed to be considered.

* The US is simultaneously importing a new overclass and underclass. We are witnessing the changes, but even if we are noticing some amount of Überfremdung , over-foreignization, it’s happening slowly enough that few are panicking.

As for unintended consequences, they will be massive. The middle class is vanishing paralleling the European-Americans slow retreat from cultural and economic dominance. We probably wouldn’t be able to recognize our future society. Neil Blomkamp’s vision in Elysium might not be so far off, but perhaps we should expect that the faces of those residing safely and comfortably apart mostly will have Asian traits.

That the Asian-Americans have an acute class consciousness is no surprise. I also work at a part-time retail job in a market that has a huge presence of Asian immigrants. It’s a high-priced kind of place that caters to highly paid professionals at the high end of the SES. Even though the organization is a very progressive non-profit co-op that is very committed to diversity and our stores customers are predominantly south and east Asian, it’s uncanny how very few of the colleagues at the store are also ethnically south and east Asian. Apparently these princes and princesses might be too good to work retail. These are usually at least polite, but when I asked a a colleague who transferred to our store from a branch in New York City how the customers here in the northwest are different, he said they are much snobbier here.

* Despite their collective high IQ scores, the Chinese collectively carry a trait one might call “emotionally autistic.” This would diminish their edge significantly in their ethnic cleansing role.
The history of a race might be the best measure of what to expect in the future, and China doesn’t self-govern very well, and haven’t fared well when challenged and under significant pressure, as the Japanese would tell you.
I recall reading that prior to WWII, we had sent them dive-bombers for their use to repel the Japanese. After training, the Chinese were apt to bomb themselves, so much so that they begged us to send our own pilots to fly our own planes for bombing runs. In one incident, they bombed their own major department store, it was like their version of Macy’s, killing or maiming hundreds of their own citizens.
The Chinese pilot had bombed it because he thought he saw a Japanese Zero fighter, and immediately dropped his bomb load so he could flee. Turned out not to be a Japanese fighter. This didn’t mitigate the dead Chinese in their bombed out “Macy’s.”
That was the final incident that sent their diplomats begging for our help, as flying a bombing run proved too intense for our Chinese friends.
I suspect IQ, and sound judgement under duress, can be somewhat mutually exclusive traits, so I’d hold off on the ethnic cleansing of Germans, if I were you.

* Le Figaro’s top two articles today are about illegal Chinese immigration and Chinese passport fraud. The worst thing about being Chinese is that you have to live around Chinese people, it would appear.

* The Germans are the most accomplished high culture people on the planet of the past three centuries.

The Americans are the most accomplished mid/low culture people.

The idea that these peoples can be improved by importing hundreds of millions of Chinese is foul and demonic.

* Was Hitler practicing his own interpretation of HBD when he tried to exterminate Slavs? Given that Slavic IQ is 2-4 points lower than German IQ. The reason that HBD must be suppressed especially if its real is that how long will it take until people start combining Social Darwinism and HBD and conclude that certain races like the Gypsies or Blacks deserve to be exterminated because of inferior IQ? I.e. the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.

* White civilized society is very attractive to outsiders because white people treat others as they wish others would threat them. Too bad outsiders do not feel the same way. If they did Trump would not be succeeding.

* As for orientals, particularly Chinese, they combine high cognitive characteristics with low creativity and low empathy for others. There is a place for them in the world, and it is called-I know this is shocking to some-China.

Posted in Asians, California, China | Comments Off

Chicago Censors Talmud

Posted on December 16, 2015 by Luke Ford

Jeffrey Goldberg writes in the Forward in 1994:

If Graydon Snyder only knew that he would be convicted of sexual harassment for teaching the Talmud, he might have kept his mouth shut.
But Mr. Snyder, a Bible professor at the United Church of Christ’s Chicago Theological Seminary, could not have foreseen the dangers that lurk in talmudic discourse, and he now stands at the center of perhaps the most bizarre and troubling political-correctness case yet.
In a graduate-level Gospels class two years ago, Mr. Snyder told a story from the Talmud’s Baba Kama tractate, a book that covers tort law. Mr. Snyder says the story, which contains one of the Talmud’s more famous and challenging hypotheticals, helps his students understand the differences between Jewish and Christian notions of sin.
Accidental Sex
A man is fixing the roof of a house, the Talmud says, when he falls onto a woman below and accidentally has sexual intercourse with her. What does the roofer owe the woman, the Talmud asks. Medical expenses? Yes. Pain suffered? Yes. But does he owe her for the indignity she suffered? No, the sagacious guide answers, because the roofer’s intent was not to rape or seduce. Mr. Snyder contrasted this with a lesson found in Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, in which feelings of “lust in the heart” are considered as sinful as the actual act of adultery.
All this was apparently too much for one of Mr. Snyder’s students, who brought charges against him for creating a hostile sexual atmosphere. The case was heard by the seminary’s Sexual Harassment Task Force, whose members include students, professors and the seminary’s president. The task force found Mr. Snyder guilty and placed him on probation.
In effect, though, the task force also found the Talmud guilty — of being one of the world’s oldest dirty books.
“I asked the task force, ‘Are you aware that this is the Talmud I’m talking about, that I took this story from a Jewish holy book?’ ” said Mr. Snyder, who is Christian. “They indicated that they knew what they were doing.”

From NYMag.com Dec. 16, 2015:

Ehsan Abdulaziz, a Saudi millionaire property developer, was cleared of rape charges in London this week after he claimed that he had tripped and fallen on an 18-year-old girl who was sleeping at his apartment after partying with him, penetrating her by accident.
Hm: That’s not how gravity or bodies work at all.
The Mirror reports that Abdulaziz had already had sex with the 18-year-old’s friend and he said his penis might have been poking out of his underwear when he happened upon the young woman sleeping off a night of drinking. The millionaire accounted for his DNA being found in the woman’s vagina because she had allegedly seduced him when he was offering her a T-shirt or a taxi ride home. He also said that he had semen on his hands from having sex with the woman’s friend earlier. In court, Abdulaziz maintained his innocence, saying, “I’m fragile, I fell down but nothing ever happened, between me and this girl nothing ever happened.”
A jury reportedly deliberated for only 30 minutes before acquitting Abdulaziz of one count of rape.

Posted in Sex, Talmud | Comments Off

Sharia in Boston: Judge Orders Pastor to Learn and Study Islam

Posted on December 16, 2015 by Luke Ford

Pamela Geller writes: After the Boston jihad bombing, it appears that the city of Boston has utterly surrendered and submitted to Islam. “Boston Strong,” my eye.

As you know, my organization is heading to the Supreme Court to contest the refusal of the Boston TA to run my anti-jihad ads and pro-Israel ads. They allow vicious anti-Semitic blood libels to run, but not our ads. That’s sharia.

Now this outrage. First off, I do not believe that Pastor Daisy Obi, a 73-year-old ordained minister from Nigeria, threw the Islamic supremacist Gihan Suliman down the stairs. I think she is a liar — I have seen this too any times. Muslim revenge. Muslims in Muslim countries under the sharia do this all the time: accuse Christians of blasphemy in order to get them jailed or punished.

The woman accused of saying anti-Muslim things and “pushing a Muslim tenant down the stairs” rents to several Muslims. So clearly she is not anti-Muslim. And secondly, the alleged victim had upwards of 15 people living her the apartment, so of course the landlord would complain. Suliman did not respond to messages left at her home and workplace (of course not).

Posted in Islam | Comments Off

Lost in Translation

Posted on December 16, 2015 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* I’ll never forget the well-earned farewell moment when Murray whispers into Johansson’s ears.

Perfect encapsulation of wistful.

Everyone has that moment twice in a lifetime.

She is dawn, he is twilight.

She’s uncertain as she’s just beginning to live, he’s certain that he’s lived and it’s over.

Their paths cross, their lives are at the opposite sides of the horizon, and they ‘get’ each other.

Last Tango is a darker twist on this theme.

LIT mostly seems episodic and accidental, but when all that had happened crystallize in that penultimate scene, it’s one of the most quietly stirring moments in cinema.

Chance turns into fate, fleeting though it may be.

“When John is waiting on the next business trip, you go up to that man, and you tell him the truth. Okay?”

* “Lost in Translation” captures very well the feelings of a world traveler or an expat: the sense of wonder, the lure of the strange and the exotic, the sense of alienation, and the longing for and kinship with someone from home. And the ever present fatigue.

* Lost in Translation is one of those blurry films that come into focus in a single magic moment.

In mystery stories, there is the moment that ties everything together logically.
The final piece of the puzzle clarifies what really happened and puts it altogether.

But there are stories where the tie-in is emotional than logical. LIT doesn’t have to solve or explain anything. In fact, much of the movie seems rather ordinary and pointless. Two expats just passing time in Japan. And even without that special scene at the end, it would still be a nice movie but then nothing more.
That single moment changes all else, which take on a different hue and angle.
It’s like going on a meandering hike where you go through interesting places but it just looks like more of the same — trees, bushes, weeds — but then you come upon a spot where you get an overview of the entire area through which you’d hiked. It’d be just a small part of the hike but it changes your view of the whole experience.

The ring scene in SIXTH SENSE had the same effect on me. I didn’t much care as I watching it movie but that moment just pulled everything together and made me reevaluate all that had gone before.

It’s funny how a single keystone or linchpin scene can change everything. It’s like the right note in a song.

* Women in all walks of life seem to have problems understanding the following points:

1.) You don’t demand power, you take it; and
2.) You don’t demand respect, you earn it.

Go to the female financiers, (Larry Ellison’s daughter is sitting on a nice pile all dedicated to financing films) and get them to buy scripts from women and then hire women to direct.

Put the film into the marketplace and earn that respect that you think you deserve and all you need to do to earn that respect is to make good films which earn investors good returns. That’s how men do it.

* Milius is an interesting case. A decent enough film-maker but hardly great. I think he had more interesting ideas and possibly higher intellect than Lucas or Spielberg, but he was simply not a natural film-maker.

His most special and personal film is no doubt THE BIG WEDNESDAY. I think he should have let someone else direct. His direction is shapeless and clumsy, all over the place. The movie does have its moment, and people hoped it would be another AMERICAN GRAFFITI. Handled properly, it could have been a more: a West Coast MEAN STREETS. But Milius just didn’t have movie magic in his fingers. (I still love the ending. And the three fellas look fabulous.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MBZ1jl94Cc

His DILLINGER is pretty entertaining but lacks the dash of Penn’s BONNIE AND CLYDE and the kick of Peckinpah.
Kael was sort of right about Milius. He’s too self-satisfied. He’s too much at home with his myth of manhood. Now, if others were to handle the material, they could add some irony and tension. But when Milius directs his own material, it’s too much a macho-smug manual on what it-means-to-be-a-man. It’s like comic book Hemingway. It’s teddy bear than real bear. He’s too cuddly with himself. His material has to be treated by others with some distance.
Milius was so much into himself that when he was asked about Kael(who regularly bashed him), he would say that she really loves him.

Another interesting figure who was more interesting as writer than director was Paul Schrader. Rosenbaum called Schrader a ‘right-winger’. But then, according to Rosenbaum, everyone right of Trotsky is a ‘right-winger’.
But I see what he meant. Even though Schrader became more liberalish as he rebelled against his strict religious upbringing, his hangups and obsessions have SEARCHERS-like rightwing, conservative, and ‘racist’ roots. He did write TAXI DRIVER and direct MISHIMA.
(Rosenbaum’s interview with Mekas in FILM THE FRONTLINE is pretty over the top. Rosen goes on and on about Schrader’s ‘rightwingerism’ until even a lib like Mekas says he’s not interested in that stuff)

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3697045?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

But Schrader, like Milius, just didn’t have the movie magic.

People just have different talents, and they know their limitations. Scorsese is a great director but probably not much of a writer.
The negative impact of ‘auteur theory’ was encouraging directors to take fuller charge when it would have been better to work well with others.

And some artists should just stick to what they are naturally good at. Norman Mailer, a great writer, has no film sense. His films are awful. Dylan, great composer, should leave other arts alone. His RENALDO AND CLARA is not film-making. He did become decent at painting though. McCartney’s MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR is a total embarrassment.

Milius and Schrader were good directors but nothing more. But then, film is the sort of artform where one doesn’t have to be really good. If the material is good, and if the directing is proficient enough, it can be a good movie. Eastwood made his name that way. He never was the magician like Spielberg or the master like Scorsese, but he worked hard at it and became very good. Very honest.
Of course, the French like him for that reason. Their praise of Eastwood is really a kind of putdown of Americans. It’s as if to say, ‘you Americans make good honest hardy movies but leave the real Art Films to us.’ It’s like a French chef over-praising hamburger and Apple Pie as authentic American cooking. As for real artful cooking, leave it up to the French.

It’s interesting that a bunch of key directors had ‘right-wing’-ish tendencies even if they weren’t politically rightist, and their films cast a long shadow.

Peckinpah’s STRAW DOGS was called ‘fascist’. Bergman, though no ‘rightist’, made the left ‘queasy’ with some of his films. Boorman’s DELIVERANCE and ZARDOZ are quasi-fascist. So, is EXCALIBUR. Kubrick’s films may not be conservative, but they certainly aren’t leftist either. Scorsese usually says the proper things veiled somewhat PC-like, but his films tend to be very un-PC. Then, there was Schrader and Milius. Walter Hill made some movies that made Libs happy, but he also made LONG RIDERS and others that might make Libs wince. Though I heard the studio made GERONIMO–Hill’s adaptation of Milius script–more PC, I still think it’s a powerful piece of work.
Lucas talks like a PC-tard but he was inspired by crypto-fascist Joseph Campbell, and he is obsessed with fascist aesthetics. Stone’s mind is leftist, his gut instincts are rightist. Mann is sort of like the same way. Friedkin’s movies are mostly unapologetic celebration of machismo. THE EXORCIST is possibly the most ‘conservative’ movie of the 70s, a porny moral tale against the porny devil. Lynch is a sort of deviant conservative who plays at being Lib. According to BLADE RUNNER FUTURE NOIR, Scott was a ‘conservative’ when he made the film. Probably just a mainstream Brit con, but the Wagnerianism of BLADE RUNNER has some dark subtexts about racial matters.

Perhaps, the reason why directors with right-wing tendencies(even if not politically rightist) strike a deeper chord is because they touch on the darker themes of human nature. They are more empathetic with what lies beneath.
The liberal view is there is the Good, and we should be goody-goody, and then, there is the bad, and the bad is bad. Too simple. John Sayles is a good director but his films are morally so simple and lifeless. His one special movie is BABY IT’S YOU and largely because it’s not about politics.
Robert Redford is another good director, but most of his films are forgettable… but THE CONSPIRATOR was really good cuz it eschewed the easy moralism of his earlier films.

Posted in Hollywood | Comments Off

More Muslims Or More Restrictions On Speech?

Posted on December 16, 2015 by Luke Ford

Steve Sailer writes:

As we all know, there’s nothing more unthinkable than restricting the right of foreign Muslims to immigrate here because they or their descendants might go on the Internet someday and learn that Allah wants them to commit Jihad at the office Christmas party. You’d have to be a Republican frontrunner to doubt the absolute sanctity of the Zeroth Amendment: that everybody in the rest of the world has the presumption of a right to move here. Granted, exceptions could be made for migrants visibly wearing suicide bomb vests, but to, say, disproportionately pat down Muslim migrants based on the stereotype of Muslim terrorists would be a hideous violation of the Zeroth Amendment.

A U. of Chicago law professor says in Slate that the thing we can do is junk some of the First Amendment:

ISIS Gives Us No Choice but to Consider Limits on Speech
America faces unprecedented danger from the group’s online radicalization tactics.
By Eric Posner
It has become increasingly clear that terrorist groups such as ISIS can extend their reach to American territory via the Internet. Using their own websites, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and other platforms, they lure young men and women to their mission—without having to risk the capture of foreign agents on U.S. soil. The Americans ensnared in ISIS’s net in turn radicalize others, send money to ISIS, and even carry out attacks.
Never before in our history have enemies outside the United States been able to propagate genuinely dangerous ideas on American territory in such an effective way—and by this I mean ideas that lead directly to terrorist attacks that kill people. The novelty of this threat calls for new thinking about limits on freedom of speech.

COMMENTS:

* Expel all Muslims and watch freedom of speech flower in the aftermath. The few make the sacrifice for the many.

* Posner also posted the first legal defense of a Muslim immigration ban. His father is probably the most prominent man in America to openly discuss IQ racial inequality.

Generally he’s a utilitarian legal realist who lacks a romantic attachment to abstract rights.

* The novelty of this threat calls for new thinking about limits on freedom of movement.

* I’ve noticed this seems to be emerging as the open-borders fallback position since it’s started to become clear that the yokels in flyover country are not going to drop their concerns about immigration. Since the invite-the-world crowd is apparently incapable of considering that an “all open borders all the time” approach might be less than optimal, they’re looking around for some alternative that might pacify the boobs out in the hinterlands while they continue to flood the country with peasants who vote for socialism.

“We’ll just take away the First Amendment for Muslims!” you can almost hear them saying (along with other malefactors to be named later, but they’ll make sure to bury that in the fine print). “That’ll satisfy the rubes!”

We’ll get to see endless clips of liberal politicians (and a few clueless conservatives) trying to strike a chest-beating Trumpian tone on taking rights away from “radical terrorist elements.” (The template here would be the way some liberals used to try and sell gun control back in less-politically-correct times: They’d heavily imply that nearly all guns were owned by scary black drug dealers, and banning guns was a way to protect good white people. I recall seeing ads along those lines back in the 80s that would never pass muster today.)

Hell, I wouldn’t be surprised if a few liberals manage to reason themselves into supporting FDR-style internment camps — though they’ll be quick to assure us that only the “bad,” extremist Muslims will be kept in such camps. Anything necessary to keep the Third World spigot turned on until they’ve got enough votes to imprison their REAL enemies — traditionalist whites.

* The threat from terrorism is *tiny* in terms of actual danger to Americans, but it is an endless justification for whatever knuckleheaded thing the elites want to do next.

Want to bomb the hell out of some random third-world country to keep the no-bid military contracts flowing? Want to give the president the power to have US citizens assassinated on his say-so alone? Want to use a gazillion dollars of high tech equipment to spy on annoying journalists and opposition politicians? Want to shut down irritating public protests and arrest all the ringleaders? Want to impose speech restrictions so you can silence those dangerous radical views the ruling class finds uncomfortable?

Just utter the magic word “terrorism,” and some large fraction of people will nod their heads sagely and go along with it all. You can tell people you’re doing it all to keep them safe, and it doesn’t even matter that none of what you’re doing is making them any safer. The NSA can’t point to a single terrorist attack their massive surveillance has foiled, but they still get to keep doing it because terrorism. The TSA routinely fails to detect simulated bombs their testers bring onto planes, but they still stay as-is because terrorism.

This works, I think, because most voters aren’t too well informed, and media *love* stories that play up fear. And because the ruling class is overwhelmingly in favor of this stuff, because it’s power for them. (Also, probably because the spy agencies and military contractors make bad enemies.). And the result is that every day, we get to watch our country descend further in its progression toward some kind of high-tech police state, where people will get arrested or disappeared for reading the wrong stuff or expressing the wrong opinions online. Even people who should know they’ll soon be targets for this stuff can be gotten to support it by saying the magic word. We are *so* fucked.

* Trump is providing a threat to the stable arrangement the powerful in the US prefer. Had laws regulating speech, Trump would be facing prosecution for at least two of his statements. This is precisely how these laws are used in European countries that have them–as a way to push back on opposition politicians whose ideas are upsetting to the elites. Even if folks at the top were considered off-limits, Steve wouldn’t be.

Jihadis pose little threat to the elites–some loser shooting up a Christmas party or scoring an own-goal[1] while trying to build a bomb isn’t going to cost anyone their billion-dollar no-bid contract or their 1000-man personal empire within the federal government. But outsiders upsetting the applecart by irresponsibly giving the voters the wrong sort of ideas, they might actually mess up those things.

[1] Aka what you call it when the terrorist blows himself up while trying to make or transport his homemade bomb. I think I read this from the War Nerd, and the term stuck in my head.

* I don’t know a lot about Eric Posner’s work, but every time I have seen an opinion piece written by him, it has been a justification for taking away liberties from regular people and giving more power to the people at the top. Does he ever argue things the other direction?

* “Never before in our history have enemies outside the United States been able to propagate genuinely dangerous ideas on American territory in such an effective way”

What about the fellow travelers of the Frankfurt School?

* The only way to understand Posner is to realize he is just an unhinged left of center Neocon in the mold of his mentor “Crazy Marty Peretz”.

Scratch Posner and just below the surface is an ultra Zionist as insane as any compulsive head bobbing Yeshiva scholar. Posner day dreams that if the Invite the World lunacy can only go on a bit longer and we can just get lucky enough to have some Jihadis saw off the heads of an entire Christian kindergarten in lets say Tulsa while celebrating Easter then those Rednecks in middle American will gladly commit mass murder of the entire Middle East as a “Final Solution” of the “Arab Question”.

In back of Posner’s mind is the thought that if we could get those ignorant Christian Dispensationalist Bible thumpers to demand the Nuking or should we say RIPLEYING of Mecca, Riyadh, Bagdad, Damascus,Tehran,…., then there will be nothing stopping the establishment of the Covenant of Abraham as far as the banks of Euphrates.

Or will the Rabbis now tell us it was the Tigris that Jehovah promised for his people???

Shorter Posner: “F” the 1st Amendment!!!, Nothing, And I mean nothing can stop Invite the World, until Israel can wash off its blood stained hands in the waters of the Tigris.

Oy Vey!!!

When will the Goyishe Kop ever learn to think like one of Chosen?

* Has this Posner person not heard of the KGB, communism, the Cold War, Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs? Islamist radical terrorists can easily be beaten if enough of them can be shot, they are not an existential threat to any nation around with the possible exception of Afghanistan.

* Posner teaches a course on Plutocracy (description below), and fwiw he bears a rather strong resemblance to Rahm Emanuel.

Course Description: Plutocracy means “rule by the wealthy.” It is firmly rejected by modern democratic principles, yet over the last decade influential commentators have argued that plutocracy has reappeared around the world, including in the United States and Europe. We will discuss whether plutocracy really exists, and if it does, why, and what can be done about. Our tentative reading list includes Jeffrey Winters, Oligarchy; Scott Radnitz, Weapons of the Wealthy: Predatory Regimes and Elite-Led Protests in Central Asia; Chrystia Freeland, Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super-Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else; David Rothkopf, Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making; and Robert Frank, Richistan: A Journey Through the American Wealth Boom and the Lives of the New Rich. Graded Pass/Fail.

* We are always being told immigrants come because of our unique sets of freedoms. We are the freest country in the world which in turn attracts people the world over. And those freedoms are enshrined in the Constitution which is the envy of the world. If that is the case, then wouldn’t curtailing our freedoms and the Constitution harm that which is so special about the USA?

Of course if immigrants are coming here for purely economic benefits, whether earned by their labor or provided by the taxpayer, then maybe our Constitution is not that big of a deal to them. Maybe our unique set of rights, which natives seem to regard as central, aren’t what is drawing people here.

Of course this would lead to question another concept we are forever being told. Namely, that he USA is a propositional nation and that all that matters is that immigrant and citizen share a common belief in the sanctity of our founding documents, most especially the Bill of Rights.

Yet if we are seriously thinking about changing our most cherished rights because of the presence of an increasing number of immigrants, how valid is that proposition?

* What about the CPUSA? Posner would have supported prison for Anita Whitney. Louis Brandeis didn’t. American Jews will some day have to choose between Brandeis and Posner.

And by the way, even in WWII, it was not as simple to get pro-German speakers sentenced as Posner believes. The “Great Seduction Trial” ended without a sentence. Well, a lot of German Americans went into custody without trial. But the judicial system only cracked, it was not broken. Why? Because Roosevelt could only win bipartisan sympathy by emphasizing the “four freedoms”, which made open limiting of the First Amendment nearly impossible. Posner wisely doesn’t try to give us precise parallels what part of Roosevelt legislation he wants to reestablish.

* So according to Posner you can’t have diversity and free speech. If we had to pick one, I know what I and most Americans would pick.

I find it strange that Muslim immigration is a huge deal now, while after 9/11 and 3,000 dead Americans it was never a topic of conversation. It must be solely due to the Trump effect. This shows you that it is always the people at the top that set the terms for debate and discussion. I’m sure Muslim immigration could have become an issue after 9/11 if a prominent politician had merely mentioned it.

In fact, the main argument that Bush used during his entire administration is that we are fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them here. But no one asked the simple question, “how are they going to get over here?” The only two ways are legal or illegal immigration. But stopping either one is considered heresy to the ruling elites.

* Raises the issue of whether Islam is really a religion as the men who wrote the Bill of Rights understood the term. How much did they actually know about the tenets of Islam? Not much I am guessing. I happen to be reading a sympathetic biography of Muhammad written in 1970 by Sir John Glubb and the barbarities described, condoned, and prescribed by “the prophet” are no different than those practiced by Isis today. Right down to helping a five year old child push a spear into a man who is being crucified on a cross!

Let us suppose Islam were given the status of Bolshevik Leninism back in the day. How would we combat it? Would the President have authority to close Mosques, outlaw Islamic schools, prohibit (or seize) Saudi money? What about calls to prayer, public prayer, etc.?? Repatriation of self-declared Muslims? Might we make an exception for Sufis? It is hard to imagine how we might combat what had come to be understood as a totalitarian ideology based on a correct reading of the Koran and the hadiths.

* There’s a tremendous disparity between what Posner proposes to do — limit free speech — and the event, that is, the San Berdoo massacre. Moreover, the limitation he is looking for is troubling.

Note that if ISIS was using social media to give precise instructions or calls for terror attacks they could be shut down under existing legislation. On the other hand, Posner seems to want to shut down websites that “alienate” people in a certain direction. This is nothing more than establishing the groundwork for crimethink.

Of course, once it becomes legitimate to shut down websites that disseminate views that fail to foster love of country and obedience, then ultimately any contrarianism on any number of issues could be outlawed. And they would, because that’s the whole point.

* Anyone watching SyFy’s adaptation of Childhood’s End?

I can see why the Overlords imposed a diversity regime on humanity. The carefully indoctrinated nonjudgmentalism made it easier for humans to accept the Overlords’ appearance when they finally revealed themselves.

Gee, that bears no resemblance to trends in the real world, does it?

* If we’re going to start stripping first amendment protections, how about we implement a change that would only impact the small portion of the population that is creating the need for this? In other words, limit the free exercise clause to allow the prohibition of, or severe restrictions on the practice of, Islam.

* The late Larry Auster proposed something along these lines: an amendment to the First Amendment stating that the practice of Islam was not protected by the First Amendment and could be subject to government regulation, including required approvals of sermons, supervision of worship services, etc. I think that Kemal Ataturk had similar restrictions in Turkey. Islam needs to be understood as an ideology that may work just fine in Muslim countries, but is quite dangerous in other countries.

* Our nation’s Founders comprehended that Islam is inimical, hostile to our republic, to our Constitution. Here’s our sixth President John Quincy Adams, son of our second president:

“The precept of the koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force.”

* Current estimates by PEW put muslim population in the US at 0.9%. In 2007, in was 0.4%. Extrapolating back a bit (conservatively), let’s assume that on Sep 11, 2001 it was less than 0.3% (and probably even less). Makes total sense to me as a policy. What could be a more rational response to 9-11 than more than tripling percentage of the muslim population in about a decade?

* Hitler’s big mistake was not founding his beliefs on Odin worship. Had he packaged it as a religion, he would have snuck in under radar. He had the conquering the world part and the death to infidels/lesser races part like the Muslims, he just didn’t have a deity.

If only he had said he was a Messenger from Odin and transcribed everything Odin told him in Mein Kampf we would all be speaking German now and wearing helmets with horns in church.

Posted in Censorship, Islam | Comments Off

How Do We Head Off The Next Camp Of The Saints Surge?

Posted on December 16, 2015 by Luke Ford

Comment: The best place to warehouse large numbers of unwanted aliens is probably Puerto Rico. It’s US territory, the local economy and government badly need the boost, and if the unwanted escape from their dormitories (camps), they’ll have a very hard time getting to the mainland.

Posted in Immigration | Comments Off

The Big Short

Posted on December 16, 2015 by Luke Ford

Steve Sailer writes:

Thus, the best interludes are when the smart guys take two road trips to the Sand States to meet us dumb Americans. In one, several stars go to a convention in Las Vegas to learn if the mortgage industry is stocked by geniuses who have figured out some new kind of math. In case you are wondering: It’s not. (The Big Short could have used more scenes of overconfident sales dudes. Indeed, the film would be better if there were a big role perfect for that living embodiment of Bush-era cluelessness, Will Ferrell.)

And, in a sequence reminiscent of my 2008 short story “Unreal Estate,” Carell’s boys visit an exurban housing development outside Miami to see if the Housing Bubble is as dubious in plasterboard as it seems on paper. A brand-new McMansion turns out to be home to a tattooed mixed-race renter. The implication is presumably that no greater fool will come along to pay $600,000 to live next to a tow-truck driver, but McKay, an irate but timid Bernie Sanders fan, wimps out at making this clear. (Lewis, a protégé of Tom Wolfe, appears to be a closeted conservative, but I doubt if McKay has noticed.)

In reality, the essential cause of the Housing Bubble in what Lewis dubbed the Sand States—Florida, California, Arizona, and Nevada—was that the quantity of population was climbing fast enough due to Third World immigration to seemingly rationalize the higher prices, but the quality of the increasingly diverse population was declining. But under the rules of political correctness, nobody was allowed to articulate this in public. Instead, George W. Bush lectured his federal regulators that the real problems with the mortgage market were instead that racist rules about down payments and income documentation were redlining minorities out of their American Dreams.

Lewis’ 2008 article “The End,” the basis for his 2010 book, explains:

In Bakersfield, California, a Mexican strawberry picker with an income of $14,000 and no English was lent every penny he needed to buy a house for $720,000…. Eisman [Carell] knew some of these people. One day, his housekeeper, a South American woman, told him that she was planning to buy a townhouse in Queens. “The price was absurd, and they were giving her a low-down-payment option-ARM,” says Eisman, who talked her into taking out a conventional fixed-rate mortgage. Next, the baby nurse he’d hired back in 1997 to take care of his newborn twin daughters phoned him. “She was this lovely woman from Jamaica,” he says. “One day she calls me and says she and her sister own five townhouses in Queens.”

But you won’t see any of that in McKay’s movie version.

Therefore, after all these years, McKay remains unsure whether the mortgage meltdown was due to fraud or stupidity. But Occam’s razor suggests that long-term ignorance and deceit is caused by taboo: Our most sacred value today is diversity, so that was the one cause we weren’t allowed to question.

And we still aren’t.

Posted in Mortgages | Comments Off

Republican Debate Open Thread

Posted on December 15, 2015 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* There are no rattlesnake bites up in Nome, Alaska because they don’t have rattlesnakes up there. Stop importing Muslims into the US and you reduce the need for surveillance, after all, it’s not Sven from Minnesota who is conducting jihad.

Every sacred principle must be abandoned in order to keep the Rube Goldberg invention of multiculturalism semi-functional.

* People shape culture. As the Muslim proportion of the US population grows, there will be more Muslim influence on American culture. So far, at least, Muslims immigrating to the US have been of higher SES than those migrating to Europe, and even with this benefit, we already have erosion of civil rights in order to accommodate Muslim interests and the threats arising from Muslim presence, so if the future influence is to be the same, better or worse, I can’t see up tapping future immigrants who are better than present, I don’t think it’s plausible that we can even maintain the same caliber of immigrants because most of what we’ve been seeing of late have been refugees, not Muslim engineering professors, so the composition of the Muslim community is going to be diluted with low human capital immigrants and we’re going to follow the European model of disaffected 2nd generation kids who turn to more radical Islam because they’re not integrating to success in the US.

Who needs that future when it can be aborted right now and thus this leaves us to deal with the more manageable problem of existing Muslim-Americans, and keep in mind that it is because of this population that there are calls for increasing the scope of the Surveillance State.

* I am struck by the fact that Trump has set the terms of the debate. Even when Trump is being attacked, it’s for being too strong on immigration/terrorism/Islam.

* Trump has said that all the interventions and meddling have been wrongheaded, wrong, should’ve invested those trillions in the USA.

* Rence Priebus (RNC Chair) warmed up the crowd with a spiel full of transparent swipes at Trump.

* Trump wants to keep Muslims out of America.

Christie/Fiorina/Kasich/Jeb/Cruz/Rubio wants to provoke WWIII with Russia.

Which one of these two positions is scarier?

* I’m finding Rubio’s hyper energetic speaking style increasingly grating, especially as he keeps interlarding his speech with pre-fab boilerplate. I liked that he got his ass kicked on his Gang of Eight participation.

Carly is also grating. Sounds like the spinster headmistress of a private girls’ academy hectoring an assembly of senior girls on how standards have been slipping.

I’m glad Rand Paul is still in the debates because I agree with a lot of what he says about our foreign policy. The crazy war-talk from most of the others is alarming.

Kasich sounds like a crazy old coot, so it’s funny he acts like he’s the only reasonable person on stage.

Jeb is pathetic. He keeps mentioning that Trump gets his foreign policy views “from the shows.” Why doesn’t Trump remind the audience that Jeb gets his foreign policy views from Paul Wolfowitz.

I think Ben Carson is campaigning for Surgeon General. I’m okay with that. Do we have a Surgeon General at the moment? Don’t recall hearing of one.

* Immigration Grade from NumbersUSA:
Trump: A-
Paul: C-
Bush: C-
Rubio: D

* Several of the middling lights have done their homework. Carson’s compares middle east policy to an emergency on an airplane – “secure your own mask before helping your neighbor. Well, we need to take care of our own people before we solve everyone else’s problems.” Sounds kinda hokey, but it will stick in people’s memory.

Rand Paul sticks it to Marco Rubio on refugees (can’t recall the exact words, but Rubio looks nervous and stammers a bit).

Rand Paul and Donald Trump are both doing well trashing the money and lives we’re wasting in the M.E., all of which have achieved nothing. Both get applause when they talk about the problems in the M.E. being intractable and our country wasting time and money trying to referee it.

Christie sounds like the pig-faced idiot he is when he talks about “punchin’ ole Russia in da nose!” but his willingness to say “no refugees at all” is a worthwhile moment. His NJ governor background has apparently led to a weird combination of sensible response to massive immigration by radicalized foreigners, combined with aggressive, moronic dick-swinging when it comes to international relations. Invade the world without the invite the world (or course, he couldn’t pull that off, even if it were desirable).

* Vanity things not done in 1965:

Hair coloring (this got its start in the 1940′s but looked bad with the early formulations, got much better right around the early 1960′s and has since improved by leaps & bounds). Tanning salons; topical tanning lotions. Botox. Electrolysis, laser hair removal. Collagen injections. Human growth hormone. Cosmetics for men – not including stage makeup. Face lifts (& artifices that induce temporary face lift) and lots of other cosmetic surgical procedures. Vastly improved cosmetic dentistry.

But hair coloring is Number One – it’s why almost all women “of a certain age” no longer look like women “of a certain age” looked in 1965; and today increasing numbers of men also use hair coloring and have hair transplants or wear well-fitted “hair replacement technology.”

Of course there’s also genes: if you think candidates today aren’t picked, at least in some significant part, because their genes gave them telegenic good looks, then perhaps you might think again. There’s an abundance of data showing that good looking people are more popular, more successful, earn more, advance faster to better positions, have greater life-satisfaction, and other advantages and opportunities over other than good-looking people.

* Rubio appears to be a not very bright. He has been coached to memorize a variety of “conservative” republican-pleasing catchphrases. He strings these catchphrases together as circumstances warrant, reciting with a flat monotone. He then pauses with a pleased half smile on his face as if waiting to be praised for being a good boy who’s memorized his lesson well.

After his election in 2010 he was riding high as the tea party fox news favorite and then sold out for a few sheckels to shill for Zuckerberg’s amnesty PAC.

* Wealthy people age better due to less stress, better medical care and better nutrition. By stress I mean not only physical stress caused by hard manual labor and also lack of sleep and rest, but also psychological stress caused by financial worries, living in bad housing conditions in gritty neighborhoods and long commutes to work.

Being poor takes a toll on you. Rich people look different, much healthier and more relaxed.

* A wealthy friend of mine told me that money can’t buy happiness, but it can make you less nervous.

* Trump needs to convert enthusiasm to actual votes in the primary and the general and it’s an open question as to how deeply his supporters are engaged with the political system.

Is Trump interested in mastering the minutia of policy? Open question and the answer will affect his electability.

How committed is he to the policies he espouses? Talking tough in general is different from talking tough in specifics and from implementing the tough talk as tough policy which will be carried out. The principal reason he’s garnering support is for his tough policies but he’s reluctant to be specific and if he backtracks in the specifics, then his support would decline.

What seems to be happening is a battle over direction. Establishment favors set policies and new policies designed to bring in minority voters (at the expense of white voters) and Trump’s policies seem to bring in white voters from (at the expense of immigrants) and rely on a different set of policies. If Trump is true to his statements, then 8 years from now the Republicans could be a reoriented party. There is a lot of inertia working against that type of transformation and this pits a large base of voter interest against a small base of establishment interest. Even if Trump wins he needs to tap into the Republican networks to staff positions all through the Executive and if they all work against his vision, reform dies on the vine.

* Have you noticed the Establishment’s increasing vehemence in denouncing and vilifying Trump, as Trump’s numbers continue to climb? Because the Establishment is scared sh_tless that Donald Trump has an excellent change of being elected by the fed-up-with-the-Establishment American people.

* Trump might be the only one to go on the attack with Hillary and win. Rubio will get hit over the head with “republicans are racist”, he’ll backtrack and lose the republican base. Trump will go for the throat and drive her unlikeability ratings up helping to erode her base. It’s a long shot but she’s susceptible there.

* At some point Trump needs to pull a version of the Rocky switcheroo (Rocky went from boxing southpaw to righthanded) and Trump needs to suddenly come out as a policy dork to show that he gets all myriad minutia of policy at the federal and international level. He didn’t come out looking good on the Nuclear Triad question.

* Trump has the demeanor to destroy Hillary and unlike McCain pulling his punches against Obama because McCain didn’t want to be perceived as a racist, for Trump this would be a do or die opportunity and he’s not going to want to lose.

* The Trump technique, “You know, I like Hillary. She’s a nice person. A very nice person. But let’s face it, as secretary of state she was a disaster. Probably the worst secretary of state in our history. And honestly, that face, that voice–do we want to look at that for the next four years? Do we want to listen to that? I don’t think so.”

* Trump works because he says what ordinary people think they’d say if they were running for president. That’s part of why they like him. Not knowing what the “nuclear triad” is doesn’t degrade him in their eyes—they don’t know what it is either, so who cares?

* I think Trump has a very good chance of getting the Republican nomination, and anyone who represents either of the two parties has a realistic chance of becoming President.

If you look at past elections, even in a blowout like Reagan v. Mondale, Mondale still got 40% of the vote. Just by winning the nomination, Trump will have a built-in 40-45% of the vote. Then we’re just a terrorist attack or economic bubble away from President Trump.

* I think Dubya’s secret is that he is an extremely charismatic, confident alpha male.

I didn’t think this when he was president. I never thought he was much of a speaker. I thought his eyes were too close together to be very good looking or charismatic. In fact, I don’t think this quality was very evident when he was president (or when he was on tv as president).

But I recently saw a picture of him when he was younger (35?). He was extremely charismatic, confident, and dominant. It reminded me of James Caan, or Warren Beatty, guys like them.

In the picture, Bush looked like a smug, rich jerk. But he had the extra quality of being one of those guys who, in spite of your not liking him, you wish he would invite you to his yacht party.

Every social group (from junior high school on up) has that kind of guy. He isn’t necessarily rich (though Bush was). He isn’t necessarily a great athlete. And he isn’t necessarily the best looking. But he’s got some ineffable quality where you hope he likes you.

* I think Trump’s Muslim ban stuff is overkill, but why does Jeb say we need Muslim immigration for us to work with Muslim nations?

Trump never said ban diplomats and heads of state.

And besides, most of communication is done electronically.

China doesn’t allow Muslim immigration, but it does trade and diplomacy with the Middle East.

Israel doesn’t allow Muslim immigration but has close ties with Saudis and Turkey and Egypt.

Besides, it’s the Muslim allies of the US that did most to aid and abet ISIS: Saudis and Turks. And ISIS got so much US weaponry.

Prior to 65 immigration law, US banned most immigration, but it worked with China in the war against Japan in WWII.

Why do we need to allow immigration from a nation to work diplomatically with it?

It makes no sense.

Nixon met with Mao when two nations didn’t trade people.

If anything, relations are worse now even though so many people go back and forth.

* I am listening to ATC on NPR, and they have a segment in which two reporters are analyzing last night’s Republican debate. One reporter referred to Trump’s proposal to build “the most beautiful wall in the world” to keep out Mexican and other illegal migrants from crossing our southern border and dismissed Trump’s proposal as being unnecessary in light of the fact that statistics show that Mexicans have actually been returning to Mexico in recent years. I believe Mitt Romney referred to such behavior as “self deportation” during the 2012 Presidential campaign and was mocked endlessly by the MSM for his “frivolous” proposal.

Posted in Islam | Comments Off