Post-Election Thoughts

Posted on November 19, 2016 by Luke Ford

My friend writes: As you know my prediction of the election’s outcome the weekend before the election came to pass. I also predicted protests and riots and possible insurrection. We don’t yet have insurrection and hopefully we won’t.

Here are just some not so random observations about the election.

The drive to replace the electoral college and replace it with a popular vote. This would require a constitutional amendment and it is unthinkable that the smaller states would give away their relative power. If the electoral college were eliminated, all election dollars would be spent in California, New York, Florida and Texas, (which contain 1/3 of all United States citizens), and then Illinois, New Jersey, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia. It would certainly make it a lot more exciting in California since it has twice the population of New York and Florida and around 12,000,000 persons than Texas.

The reason the election wasn’t challenged. A margin of 100,000 votes separated Trump from Clinton and Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. Ordinarily, this might be close enough to encourage the loser to challenge the results, especially in light of Clinton’s lead in the popular vote total.

After looking at post-mortems, including what each candidate thought would be the outcome of the election, it is appears that Hillary’s own internal polls showed her losing those states and perhaps more, and Trump’s internal polls showed them gaining in and winning those states and perhaps more. These were at odds with the public polls. I do not know how much voter fraud there was, but the Clinton campaign may have been unwilling to challenge because a challenge might show widespread voter fraud perpetrated by the Democrats. Considering the enmity between the Trump and Clinton camps, as well as Clinton’s and Obama’s running her campaign as if a loss to Trump would be the apocalypse, it suggests that if they could engage in voter fraud they would. If I am correct then Trump actually won with a larger share than publicly accepted and this may explain the reasons that both Clinton and Obama have been so conciliatory toward Trump. Fringe sites such as Infor wars run by Alex Jones, claim as many as 3,000,000 non-citizens voted in the election and that they voted overwhelmingly for Clinton.

The protests. Many on the conservative side believe these are not spontaneous but organized by Soros affiliated organizations or radical leftist (such as ANSWER) organizations. To support of this contention they show that buses brought in protesters to Austin Texas and Chicago Illinois and that Craigs list in Philadelphia posted a listing offering to pay protesters. Perhaps this so, but from viewing the reaction to the election from family members and facebook friends, I think the protests are genuinely spontaneous. I don’t think the protesters are thinking about the things that they should: (1) are they protesting Trump’s policies or are they protesting because they believe he is some sort of fascist or Nazi. If they believe the latter, then they need to educate themselves about what Trump has actually said. Since Schumer, Warren and Sanders all have indicated they are willing to work with Trump on issues near and dear to them, this would tend to show that elected leaders who took one position during the campaign, now want to cut deals with him, deals they wouldn’t cut if they actually believed he was another Hitler or an outright white nationalist. (2) what do they seek to accomplish through the protests? Are they to encourage moving toward a popular vote and end to the electoral college? Is it to pressure the electoral college electors? Is it to get Trump to change policies? Is it to warn Trump that if he tries to implement policies he campaigned on there will be even greater protests? Is it to pressure Democrats to become obstructionists in dealing with Trump, the way they believe Republicans treated Obama? Is it to overturn the election? Is it to try to delegitimize Trump’s election? I think all of things play a part in the protests, but I don’t think the protestors realize that if they are accomplishing anything it is to make Trump’s victory more popular. The polls show that Trump’s negatives have been almost entirely eradicated since the election. Some of this is due to the natural respect persons have for the president and the willingness to give the president-elect a chance, others because Trump himself has acted more presidential and less petty and thin skinned than during the campaign, but I think part is a reaction to the protestors.

The level of vitriol directed at Trump, Bannon and soon towards Sessions. Attempts to smear Trump as a racist and anti-semite haven’t worked. The attempt to label Bannon in the same way hasn’t worked. What is the reason the protestors and Democrats are doing this? Although they are quick to label Trump a conservative in many ways, particularly with regard to foreign military interventions, the transpacific partnership and international trade deals, on reinstating Glass-Stiegel, and the infrastructure he is way outside the Republican mainstream and outflanks the Democrats on the left.

The Democrats always thought they had the economic populist vote. The Democratic strategists see that should Trump succeed, he may realign the Republican party and secure its power for the next couple of decades. This does contain a major caveat; Trump must dodge any economic meltdown in the next four years which would probably catapult Elizabeth Warren into the White House in 2020. But for the time being they look at Bannon and his economic plans, his attacks on crony capitalism, his contempt for the financialization of the economy and the commodification of human beings to be simply consumers is clear, no doubt helped along by his Catholicism and his fear that American has lost its Judeo-Christian moral underpinning, as a real threat. Bannon also clearly sees that the Democrats have boxed themselves in with their embrace of environmental and social justice issues. The Democrats cannot reach out to the Trump voters without toning both of those down. In the case of environmentalists, if the Democrats move to attract Trump voters, they may go to the Green party or split off from the Democrats to form a new rump party. In the case of those concerned about social justice, the Democrats are beholden to the African American vote. They simply cannot win in states like Florida, North Carolina, Virginia and the industrial Midwest without maintaining large and monolithic black turnout. However, if the Democrats embrace white working class voters and jettison their strong association with affirmative action, blacks may well stay home. If Trump can deliver real economic growth in urban areas and reduce crimes in those area, he may be able to break the Democratic stranglehold on the black vote.

Make no mistake, the left and particularly anyone trained in traditional Marxism, believe that economic factors from the inequality of wealth to the distinction between the ordinary citizen and the owners of the financial institutions and industrial factories would be the basis for revolution. The Democrats are in bed with the financial industry, yet many of the rank and file Democratic voters (again including my relatives and friends) still believed that Obama and Clinton are not beholden to those interests. Unlike Sanders, Obama governed and Clinton campaigned as if catering to the financial industry, promoting social justice and environmental issues, made up for any neglect of working class and poor voters of all races. And again although Sanders was a Democratic Socialist, he understood that through him as the vehicle, the aims of revolutionary Marxism could be accomplished at the ballot box and without bullets. To see Bannon, publisher of Breitbart and thought of by unsophisticated leftists as a reactionary, and Trump, perceived as a gauche buffoonish billionaire, actually lead the first effective populist takeover since Andrew Jackson, is the deepest possible shock they could absorb. But of course this isn’t the first time this has happened. But even if other’s don’t see, the implication is clear. If Trump can deliver, it is the end of the Democratic Party, and all the consultants and lobbyists dependent on it.

I believe this is the real reason the left has become unhinged. Fear that Trump will sideline them and make them irrelevant.

How Trump will govern. It is still too soon to tell. His selection of Mike Pompeo for the CIA is probably a good thing. The CIA has become increasingly politicized, and Pompeo will most likely depoliticize it. However, he might repoliticize it. We will tell whether this is true, by seeing who he keeps and who he fires and who he hires. It is worth noting he has close ties to the Koch Brothers who opposed Trump. This is not necessarily bad since the Kochs want a reduced defense budget and an end to foreign wars, but it also means that if the CIA disapproves of Trump, the agency might seek to undermine his presidency and perhaps even plot a coup against Trump. I don’t know how much of a Trump loyalist Pompeo was.

Jeff Sessions for AG. This signals two things (1) Trump is serious about some form of deportation and (2) Trump is not willing to have the Justice Department continue prosecuting many of the civil rights cases that the Obama administration chose to. This also includes investigating police departments and having them enter into consent decrees.

Mike Flynn probably means a harder line toward Muslim countries and a willingness to label them terrorism sponsors. We will see whether this approach proves more beneficial than the way the Obama administration chose to deal with Islamic terror. Flynn, although no fan of Russia, will have no problem following Trump’s lead for better relations with the Russians.

James Mattis as defense secretary may or may not be a good thing. Perhaps the worst thing he did after retiring was joining the board of Theranos and as it became clear the whole single drop of blood test was a fraud, lobbied the Pentagon to use Theranos.

Unlike most recent defense secretaries, he is an experienced combat officer. He has been involved in innovative changes in the way that troops carry out orders and respond to changed conditions. He will probably oppose politically correct military if being politically correct impacts the combat readiness (which it does.) He will probably endorse policies similar to those espoused by William Lind and reduce forces overall and focus on the remaining forces to maximize their combat readiness.

The rest of the appointees are rumors. However, if Trump appoints a neo-conservative to Secretary of State that will be a very bad sign, unless Trumps intention is to have the secretary of state be a figurehead while he runs foreign policy out of the White House.

If he selects Laura Ingraham as his press secretary that is a good move. It helps to show that Trump’s is a woman friendly administration. Ingraham was a great defender of and promoter of Trump. She is articulate, very smart and knows both traditional and new media. Some press secretaries have a hand in shaping administration policies and I think if Ingraham is the press secretary she would not accept the job unless she believed she would have a major role in that regard.

Posted in America | Comments Off on Post-Election Thoughts

הימין האלטרנטיבי, מהו

Posted on November 18, 2016 by Luke Ford

Source: 1. הימין האלטרנטיבי הוא ימני במובן האמריקני והארופאי של המושג. סוציאליסטים אינם ימין אלטרנטיבי. פרוגרסיביים אינם ימין אלטרנטיבי. ליבראליים אינם ימין אלטרנטיבי. קומוניסטים, מרקסיסטים, מרקסיאנים, מרקסיסטים תרבותיים, ונאו-שמרנים אינם ימין אלטרנטיבי.
2. הימין האלטרניבי מהווה אלטרנטיבה לתנועה השמרנית המיינסטרימית שבארה”ב, שלהלכה מתומצתת בעשרת עקרונות השמרנות של ראסל קירק, אך למעשה סטתה עם הזמן לכיוון הפרוגרסיביזם. הוא גם מהווה אלטרנטיבה לליברטריאניזם.
3. הימין האלטרנטיבי אינו גישה הגנתית בעלמא, אלא הוא דוחה על הסף את הרעיון של תבוסה אצילה ועקרונית. אדרבא, מדובר בפילוסופיה התקפית במלוא המובן, הדוגלת במחשבה קדימה. הימין האלטרנטיבי מאמין בנצחון באמצעות התמדה, תוך מיזוג דעים עם המדע, המציאות, המסורת התרבותית, ולקחי ההסטוריה.
4. הימין האלטרנטיבי מאמין כי התרבות המערבית היא הישג פסגה לאנושות, ותומך איפא בשלושת יסודותיה: הנצרות, הלאומים האירופאיים, והמורשת היוונית-רומאית.
5. הימין האלטרנטיבי הוא לאומני באופן פומבי ומוצהר. הוא תומך בכל סוגי הלאומנות וכן בזכותם של כל עם ועם להתקיים באשר הוא באופן אחיד ובלתי מחולל מפלישה והגירה של זרים.
6. הימין האלטרנטיבי הוא אנטי-גלובליזציה. הוא מתנגד לכל קבוצה הפועלת למען אידאלים ומטרות גלובליסטיים.
7. הימין האלטרנטיבי הוא אנטי-שוויונות. הוא דוחה על הסף את רעיון השוויונות מאותה סיבה שהוא כופר באמונה בחדי קרן ושדונים, והיא שהשוויון הבין-אנושי לא היה ולא נברא מעולם בשום צורה ואופן, לא מדעית, לא חוקית, לא גשמית, לא שכלית, לא מינית, ולא רוחנית.
8. הימין האלטרנטיבי הוא סיאנטודי. הוא מניח לעת עתה את נכונותן של מסקנות השוטף של השיטה המדעית (סיאנטודיה), תוך הבנה כי א) מסקנות אלו עשויים להשתנות בעתיד, ב) תופעת המדעיזם חשוף לשחיתות, וכי ג) מה שנקרא הקונצנזוס המדעי כביכול, מבוסס לא על סיאנטודיה, אלא על דמוקרטיה, ולפיכך היא לא מדעית הלכה למעשה.
9. הימין האלטרנטיבי מאמין כי זהות > תרבות > פוליטיקה.
10. הימין האלטרנטיבי מתנגד לכל שלטון ומשלה של קבוצה אתנית כלשהי בידי קבוצה אחרת, במיוחד בתוך ארצות המולדת של העמים הנשלטים. הימין האלטרנטיבי מתנגד לכך שקבוצה אתנית זרה בארץ תתפוס עמדה של השפעה יתרה בחברה הילידית באמצעות נפוטיזם, שבטיות, או כל אמצעי אחר.
11. הימין האלטרנטיבי מבין כי גיוון (תרבותי) + קרבה (פיזית) = מלחמה.
12. לימין האלטרנטיבי לא אכפת מה אתם חושבים עליו.
13. הימין האלטרנטיבי דוחה את הסחר החופשי הבינלאומי ואת התנועה החופשית של בני אדם הנצרכת לשם הסחר החופשי. היתרונות של הסחר החופשי הלאומי אינן ראיה ליתרונות הסחר החופשי הבינלאומי.
14. הימין האלטרנטיבי מאמין כי יש להבטיח את קיומו של הגזע הלבן ולקיים עתיד לילדים לבנים.
15. הימין האלטרנטיבי אינו מאמין בעליונות הכללית של גזע, עם, אומה, או תת-גזע כלשהו. לכל גזע, עם, אומה, ותת-גזע אנושי נקודות חוזקה וחולשה משלו, ולו הזכות הריבונית לשכון לבטח בקרב תרבותו הילידית, אותה הוא מכיר ומבכר.
16. הימין האלטרנטיבי הוא פילוסופיה שמוקירה שלום בין עמי העולם השונים, והוא מתנגד למלחמות שמטרתן להשליט את הערכים של עם אחד על עם אחר, וכמוהן נסיונות לאבד עמים מסוימים באמצעות מלחמה, השמדת עם, הגירה, או התבוללות גנטית.

COMMENTS:

* Moshe Feiglin gets it.

He also predicted President Trump early on: “He will win the primaries,” I repeated, “and he will also win the presidential elections. And, because of Netanyahu’s irresolution, that will create a very dangerous situation for Israel.”

“The new model is the return to identity. This is the new direction that history is taking. England wishes to return to its identity and voted for Brexit; America is returning to its identity and voted for Trump (“Make America Great Again); and, with G-d’s help, Israel will also return to itself and vote for Zehut.”

“Zehut” is Hebrew for “Identity,” the name of his party (card-carrying founding lifetime member). I used to think of him as the Israeli Ron Paul. But he is actually much more like Trump (just as resolute, but much lower key). He is a bit more intellectual and sounds a bit like Vox in speaking, especially with the constant refrain of identity. Unlike the leaders of religious parties, who have always had a narrow constituency, he is focusing on the Israeli heartland, the generally left-leaning greater Tel Aviv metro area (population 3.7M, nearly half the state). His message resonates very well. The man wants to legalize drugs (he speaks of starting with unrestricted medical marijuana, but is open about his long term intent). He also openly talks of expelling our Arab enemies within (with compensation even; we are kind). I met him several times. Discussed returning to the silver shekel, which he said were in his thoughts when I mentioned it to him.

* I have mentioned Feiglin quite a few times over the years. He had a lot in common with Ron Paul back in the day. I am hoping that his presence in Israel and Trump + Alt Right in the West is an indication of the rising of a generally cleansing and enlightening zeitgeist.

* The people of Israel are mostly right-wing and nationalist.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the Israeli Supreme Court, (which consistently flouts and overturns the decisions of PM Netanyahu and the Knesset and has no accountability) Israeli media, Israeli universities, or most people in Israel’s only large urban city, Tel Aviv.

And sadly, Israel suffers from quite a bit of “vibrancy” of its own. Jews are only about 75% of the population.

Muslims are 17% and benefit from a certain degree of affirmative action. Although like blacks in the US, they cry about “discrimination” and “racism”. For reference, France, which has the largest population of Muslims of any country in Europe is only at 9%.

Do some of these problems sound familiar at all?

Posted in Alt Right | Comments Off on הימין האלטרנטיבי, מהו

Steve Sailer Profile

Posted on November 18, 2016 by Luke Ford

Infogalactic is the non-PC alternative to Wikipedia:

Steven Ernest Sailer (born December 20, 1958) is an American journalist and movie critic for The American Conservative, a blogger, a Taki’s Magazine and VDARE.com columnist, and a former correspondent for UPI. He writes about race relations, gender issues, politics, immigration, IQ, genetics, movies, and sports. As of 2014, Sailer stopped publishing his personal blog on his own website and shifted it to the Unz Review, an online publication by Ron Unz that described itself as an “alternative media selection”.[1]

Sailer has generally held that nature versus nurture debates have worked out scientifically that the two sides are “about equally important: maybe fifty-fifty” such that the “glass is roughly half-full and half-empty.”[2] He’s thus often written on issues of race and intelligence as well as gender and intelligence issues, arguing that social groups face inborn advantages and disadvantages but that conservative socio-economic policies can improve things for all.

Sailer grew up in Studio City, Los Angeles.[3] As a child, Sailer appeared alongside four other grade school students on the “Kids Say the Darndest Things” segment of Art Linkletter’s House Party. He majored in economics, history, and management at Rice University (BA, 1980).[4] He earned an MBA from UCLA in 1982 with two concentrations: Finance and Marketing.[5] In 1982 he moved from Los Angeles to Chicago,[6] and from then until 1985 he managed BehaviorScan test markets for Information Resources, Inc.[7] In 1996, he was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and in February 1997, he was treated with Rituxan. He has been in remission since those treatments.[8] He became a full-time journalist in 2000[9] and left Chicago for California.[10]

Writing career

From 1994 to 1998, Sailer worked as a columnist for the conservative magazine National Review, in which he has since been sporadically published.[11]

In August 1999, he debated Steve Levitt at Slate.com, calling into question Levitt’s hypothesis, which would appear in the 2005 book Freakonomics, that legalized abortion in America reduced crime.[12]

Sailer, along with Charles Murray and John McGinnis, was described as an “evolutionary conservative” in a 1999 National Review cover story by John O’Sullivan.[13] Sailer’s work frequently appears at Taki’s Magazine[14] and Alternative Right,[15] while Sailer’s analyses have been cited by newspapers such as The Washington Times,[16] The New York Times,[17] the San Francisco Chronicle and The Times of London.[18][19] He has been featured as a guest on The Political Cesspool.[20]

Sailer’s January 2003 article “Cousin Marriage Conundrum”, published in The American Conservative, argued that nationbuilding in Iraq would likely fail because of the high degree of consanguinity among Iraqis due to the common practice of cousin marriage. This article has been republished in The Best American Science and Nature Writing 2004, and in One World, Many Cultures.

After the 2004 US election, Sailer discovered a very strong correlation between voting patterns and fertility rates. He described the fertility link in an article in The American Conservative: “Among the 50 states plus Washington, D.C., white total fertility correlates at a remarkably strong 0.86 level with Bush’s percentage of the 2004 vote. (In 2000, the correlation was 0.85.)”[21] Writing in the New York Times, pundit David Brooks referred to this article as showing the “surprising political correlations” of what he dubbed “natalism”.[22] Sailer later discovered a slightly stronger correlation between marriage rates and voting, and dubbed his theory of modern American voting as “Affordable Family Formation”: “a state’s voting proclivities are now dominated by the relative presence or absence of affordable family formation.”[23] The correlation between home prices, marriage rates, and voting was verified by George Hawley at the University of Houston, using county-level data for the 2000 election.[24]

In 2008, Sailer published his only book, America’s Half-Blood Prince, an analysis of Barack Obama based on his memoir Dreams from My Father.

Sailer is the founder of an online discussion forum called Human Biodiversity Discussion Group, whose members he has described as “top scientists and public intellectuals”.[25][26][27]

Views and criticism

Sailer cites studies that say, on average, blacks and Mexicans in America have lower IQs than whites,[28][29] and that Ashkenazi Jews and Northeast Asians have higher IQs than whites.[30][31] He says that prosperity helped blacks close the IQ gap.[citation needed] He suggests that a problem with mass immigration of non-white Mestizo Mexicans into America is that native-born whites in the US will become a master caste to a non-white servant caste.[32] He also considers that “for at least some purposes—race actually is a highly useful and reasonable classification,”[33] such as providing a very rough rule-of-thumb for the fact that various population groups may inherit differences in body chemistry that affect how the body uses certain pharmaceutical products,[34] for “finessing” Affirmative Action when that’s economically convenient,[35] and for political gerrymandering. Sailer has also argued that Hispanic immigration is “recreating the racial hierarchy of Mexico” in California:[36]

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.”

Rodolfo Acuña, a Chicano studies professor, regards Sailer’s statements on this subject as providing “a pretext and a negative justification for discriminating against US Latinos in the context of US history.” Acuña claimed that listing Latinos as non-white gives Sailer and others “the opportunity to divide Latinos into races, thus weakening the group by setting up a scenario where lighter-skinned Mexicans are accepted as Latinos or Hispanics and darker-skinned Latinos are relegated to an underclass.”[37] Sailer considers Hispanic a non-racial characterization,[38] identifying non-Hispanic White Americans as second-class citizens because of affirmative action, which he claims has caused and will cause more and more “anti-white pogroms“.[38]

During the United States presidential election, 2004, Sailer estimated that based on the intelligence tests from military records of candidates George W. Bush and John Kerry, Bush probably had a higher IQ by about 4 IQ points.[17][39] In a report on the findings for The New York Times, journalist John Tierney called Sailer “a veteran student of presidential IQ’s”, and cited the judgement of Professor Linda Gottfredson, an IQ expert at the University of Delaware, that Sailer’s study was a “creditable analysis”.[17] Although citing Bush as having a higher IQ, Sailer has condemned Bush as “irresponsible” and “uninterested in proficiency and honesty”.[40]

Sailer summed up his view on nature and nurture in October 2012 as:

If you analyze a host of real world outcomes using adoption studies, fraternal v. identical twin studies, twins-raised-apart studies, the history of early childhood intervention research, naturally-occurring experiments, differences between societies, changes over history, and so forth, you tend to come up with nature and nurture as being about equally important: maybe fifty-fifty. The glass is roughly half-full and half-empty.[2]

Sailer’s article on Hurricane Katrina was followed by accusations of racism from left-wing organizations Media Matters for America and the Southern Poverty Law Center.[41][42] In reference to the New Orleans slogan “let the good times roll”, Sailer commented:

What you won’t hear, except from me, is that “Let the good times roll” is an especially risky message for African-Americans. The plain fact is that they tend to possess poorer native judgment than members of better-educated groups. Thus they need stricter moral guidance from society.[40]

Conservative columnist John Podhoretz, responded in the National Review Online blog by calling Sailer’s statement “shockingly racist and paternalistic” as well as “disgusting”.[43]

Sailer describes his personal ideology as “Citizenism”, which he explains as:

I believe Americans should be biased in favor of the welfare of our current fellow citizens over that of the six billion foreigners… [since] Americans grasp that we are lucky to be American citizens and they want to pass on their good fortune to their posterity undiluted.[44]

He views this as an antithesis of racism, and he argues that African-Americans, Jewish-Americans, European-Americans, and other groups can rally behind this. He has also stated that “White Nationalism is worse than a crime, it’s a mistake” and argued that the ideology, if widely adopted, would actually hurt American whites rather than help them.[44]

A survey of psychometricians by Rindermann, Coyle and Becker found that Sailer’s blog was the most accurate when it came to “news sources relating [to] intelligence testing.”[45]

Memes

Sailer is responsible for coining terms for several concepts that have been popularly adopted and are often seen in the media.

Invade the world, invite the world

Sailer first appears to have coined this term in 2010 as “invite the world, invade the world” when he said “Because we must invite the world (it’s unthinkable not to), we therefore must invade the world to be safe…”[46]

It subsequently changed to the more pithy “invade the world, invite the world.”[47]

Citizenism

Sailer’s concept of Citizenism is that Americans are “willing to make sacrifices for the overall good of their fellow American citizens rather than for the advantage of either six billion foreigners or of the special interests within our own country.”[48]

The primary concern of female journalists

Sailer’s First Law of Female Journalism states that “The most heartfelt articles by female journalists tend to be demands that social values be overturned in order that, Come the Revolution, the journalist herself will be considered hotter-looking.”[49]

Tragic dirt

In November 2015, perhaps riffing on Vox Day’s magic dirt meme, Sailer coined the Tragic Dirt meme when referring to an article on terrorist attacks in the following countris: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria, and Syria.[50]

The baby gap

The “Baby Gap” is a reference to Sailer’s 2004 observation that white voters are picking their parties “based on differing approaches to the most fundamentally important human activity: having babies.” [51]

Zeroth Amendment

The “Zeroth Amendment”[52] is an observation that unrestricted immigration policies in the USA are justified by a hypothetical amendment to the United States Constitution. The Statue of Liberty pedestal plaque poem The New Colossus has been mockingly cited as the text of the hypothetical Zeroth Amendment.

The Sailer Strategy

In November 2000 Steve Sailer first articulated an approach the Republicans could use to win the US presidency.[53]

The approach has since become widely known as The Sailer Strategy and consists of pointing out to the Republicans that they could win by “increasing their share of the white electorate.”[53] In the recent 2016 presidential election it is suggested that Donald Trump won by adopting the Sailer Strategy[54] and news reports before and after the election suggest that the Mainstream Media agrees while not using the same term.

Posted in Steve Sailer | Comments Off on Steve Sailer Profile

William Kristol: “Steve Sailer and Ann Coulter Were Wrong.” [2:47:30]

Posted on November 18, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* Kristol flinched when the questioner mentioned your name Steve. It was a flinch of shame. He knows he’s a fraud.

* Immigration won Trump the primaries, there can be no doubt.

The Sailer Strategy was his key to victory in the general, but I do not think immigration is what pushed him over the top in the general. My take is that it was the war on political correctness that did it.

Trump didn’t use ethnic or racial fears to drive resentment among working class whites – instead he used political correctness. PC is the cugel used by the (upper class) elites to silence (lower class) whites. Trump stood against the PC overreach of BLM, Trans bathrooms, and all the other slights that have been building since the triumphant celebration of gay marriage. In some ways it was an intra-white class struggle, with lower class voters using Trump to strike back against their betters.

It alienated more cuckservative whites, but activated the passion and enthusiasm of the more numerous lower class whites, enabling Trump to successfully implement the Sailer strategy.

Whether that happened by luck, instinct, or design is an interesting question to be answered in the weeks to come.

* Kristol is unable to understand the complimentary alienation of the economic effects of globalism (outsourcing production to the Third World) and immigration (in-sourcing low skilled labor) which yield an acute loss of dignity and humiliation greater than the sum of the parts. Likely he could understand it if he tries but doesn’t care to understand it.

The sense that you can’t achieve reasonable lifetime milestones while simultaneously enduring the psychic shock of having often hostile, ethnically chauvinist foreigners replace you and overcome you with a healthy assist from your own government, while your relative lower status is applauded as “progress” and just desserts.

* He literally sputters when faced with a question about Japanese standards of living. That’s after getting beet red when asked about immigration. I’m surprised he didn’t cover his ears and start yelling “la la la I can’t hear you”.

You would think when people are consistently this wrong they would eventually lose their jobs instead of doubling down. Post-Trump it seems they may become even more prominent. Peter Principle at play?

* I still do not understand why anyone listens to him ? He has supported one failure after another (Iraq War, Jeb Bush, Hispanics becoming the new Republicans, election predictions, tax cut for billionaires to win votes, ignore white voters, etc), why is anyone listening to him ? I just wish somebody could ask him straight to his face why he thinks he is an expert when he is always wrong.

* Scott Alexander talks about how the left is destroying the future usefulness of terms like “openly racist” by attaching them to Trump, who clearly is not. What words can be used in the future to describe a candidate who is ACTUALLY openly racist, since if you call him “openly racist” people will assume that you mean it in the devalued Trumpian sense of someone who really isn’t? Now six of the last 4 Republican candidates have been garden variety racists, but only Trump up until now has qualified as openly racist so they will have to think of some new superlative.

Anyway, Kristol is destroying the meaning of the word “wrong” in the same way. If Sailer and Coulter are “wrong” (even though they were right) then what do you call an idiot like Kristol who was ACTUALLY wrong, now that the word wrong has lost its original meaning?

Now when the Hillary folks tout the fact that she won the popular vote, that’s understandably trying to salvage some dignity from defeat, but what excuse does Kristol have?

* That was quite a defensive answer. His body language said more than his words.

* Roger Stone said it best.

He learned from Nixon that the candidate has to reach his peak at just the right moment, and Trump did.

It’s like a surfer. He has to wait for just the moment when ride it all the way.

Trump managed to catch the right wave.

At any rate, I do believe Trump would have won much bigger if the media had been at least half-fair. Also, if nevertrumpers(riff on ‘never again’?) hadn’t been so hostile and voted for that fool Gary Johnson.

Winds were against him, but Trump managed to catch the right wave at just the right time.

And there were few winds on his side: Wikileaks and Wiener.

The media try to bury them… but there was the internet.

If Kennedy was the first TV president, Trump is the first internet president.

Some will say Obama was internet savvy due to high-tech community support, but he didn’t need the internet to win cuz all the media and big money were behind him.

But Trump really couldn’t have done this without alternative news and info sources.

* Having been involved in politics since the 2000 election, every Republican presidential candidate is literally Hitler. Each candidate more like Hitler than the last. Calling opponents racist and sexist have been watered down for a long time. The key difference is that the GOP of 2000-2015 would flinch whenever they were inevitably called a racist or sexist where Trump just plowed right through it. I’m sure to guys like Romney or McCain, they liked to have considered themselves non-racists and non-sexists to a fault so they would eagerly try to dispel the labels the best they can, even if it meant throwing their base under a bus. Trump has been the only guy so far to just keep on plowing through and looks like it worked for him. The Democrats are going to panic when they find that calling someone a racist no longer works.

* BTW, @Steve_Sailer, I’m seeing you name-checked more and more. Are you no longer an unperson after last Tuesday? Can people now admit that you exist without fear of disappearing themselves?

* Kristol predicted failure for Trump before Super Tuesday,
over the summer (remember Carly Fiorina accepting the invite to be Ted Cuz’s vive president), after Khazir-Kahn-gate, during the formation of the Renegade Party, and after all three debates before the general election. One of Nate Silvers writers at five-thirty-eight were talking up Evan Mcmullin’s chances not only in Utah, but a path to actual victory nationwide even two weeks before the national election. Silver had one article after the second debate entitled, “Hillary Clinton probably finished off Donald Trump last night”. Kristol assured everyone the entire GOP ticket would be pulled down by Trump.

What has Bill Kristol been right about again? Nothing in the past year. If he didnt have a name magazine and a perch at Fox, he would be a ranting fool on a sparsely read blog.

* The Weekly Standard cult really does seem to have a problem with those 2 (Coulter; Steve). I don’t doubt in the latter case the consternation is less pronounced and less uniform With Ann it’s obvious they hate her on every front and the style vs. substance reasons could never be unpackaged– recall her pro-McCarthyism book. Yet I think there’s about a half dozen or so regular contributors of theirs now following the unspeakable Unzian blog if only furtively; Caldwell, Carlson, and Last have openly quoted from these dark outlands. Alt-Rights may come and go but the ‘Sphere never stops turnin’.

* Kristol has supported one failure after another for twenty years and it gave us Barack Obama and almost gave us Hillary Clinton.

Now Trump has triumphed and have given the GOP it’s biggest victory in nearly three decades and is poised to pull the party in a new direction.

Kristol having failed to make any impact on the primary recruited a nobody solely to give Utah to Hillary and thus cost Trump the electoral college and he couldn’t even succeed in that.

I suppose I’d be angry too.

* Trump basically addressed the issue in a way that was theretofore verboten and won the Presidency.

So one is left with the undeniable conclusion that the two party consensus on immigration which totally excluded the Trumpian policy was a falsified preference – a fabrication they nearly made law.

What they can’t allow is a legal immigration pause in the same manner as the 25-65 pause because the people might like it.

* I love it when the questioner asks, “What have you ever been right about in decades?” and Kristol answers, “Most things.” Maybe he’s been right about where he left his car keys, but he’s been wrong about every issue of national significance. If I had been in the audience I would have shouted, “Hear, hear!” after the questioner asked him that one.

* According to OpenSecrets, Bill Kristol lives in 22101 (McLean, Virginia). There are 232 pages of properties in 22101 currently listed for sale on Zillow. The cheapest single family home is going for $697k. It’s 1655 sq ft and was built in 1956. On 176 of the 232 properties the asking price is $1 million or more, and the median asking price is $1.5 million. Zip code 22102, right next to 22101, is the wealthiest zip code in the D.C. Area, which is one of the richest metro areas in the country.

So yeah, it’s safe to say Bill Kristol gives zero shits about your average working class American. The funny thing is that he talks up his opposition to the Gang of Eight Amnesty Bill while providing us with no reason why he actually opposed it. He certainly didn’t denigrate Gang of Eight supporters in the same way he derided opponents of the 2006 amnesty bill, which he called “yahoos.” Probably he just realized that if he openly supported another attempt at amnesty that no one would ever get caught dead reading his magazine again.

* When really pressed – when the questioner pointed out the success of homogenous nations such as Japan and pre-Merkel Germany- Kristol, Galston and sympathizers in the audience respond with laughter and ridicule. This is a time worn tactic of the left, particularly the (((left)). I have seen it in action at debates for decades.

One cannot have a good faith debate with these people.

* What’s not mentioned is that he’s a so-called neocon Jew who cheerled America into the ill-/un-conceived and ultimately disastrous ‘War on Terror’ (aka ‘Invade the World, Invite the World’) — Kristol has always seemed to be dogmatically stupid and obtuse — also dogmatically malevolent re what is best for America and its people — yet he still appears to be a member of the punditocracy and retains influence — and people wonder why Trump won.

* Well, Kristol lost it pretty quickly. His first tack was to insist that “Sailer and Coulter were wrong” (that the vote was about immigration), because Trump didn’t get over 50% of the vote, and the other three candidates were all pro-immigration. Ergo, the American people are pro-immigration.

When he got pressed on this issue, he started getting accusatory (“what kind of euphemism is ‘third world’), dismissed the Somalis by referencing refugees, and then started getting sarcastic.

* So, according to you, “every other democracy” has the “same” open immigration policy? That’s news to me.

Look, American Jews tend to get a great many things wrong. Their curious attitude toward Israeli immigration policy (if they indeed have one, and if it is the same restrictionist policy you assume they hold) might be one of the few things they get right. What’s the point, therefore, of wanting to punish US for THEIR perceived ideological misdeeds, via this alleged “same” open immigration policy? No need to answer; your motives are clear.

* …the point about bringing up Israel with these people is that either they’re hypocrites or they practice cognitive dissonance. It’s a rhetorical dagger to point out the double standard, because there’s really no excuse for it except to say “Israel is special.”

* Perhaps Kristol should listen to what Netanyahu has to say on the matter:

The Israeli prime minister has stoked a volatile debate about refugees and migrant workers from Africa, warning that “illegal infiltrators flooding the country” were threatening the security and identity of the Jewish state.

“If we don’t stop their entry, the problem that currently stands at 60,000 could grow to 600,000, and that threatens our existence as a Jewish and democratic state,” Binyamin Netanyahu said at Sunday’s cabinet meeting. “This phenomenon is very grave and threatens the social fabric of society, our national security and our national identity.”

Yohanan Danino, the Israeli police chief, said migrants should be permitted to work to discourage petty crime. Nearly all are unable to work legally, and live in overcrowded and impoverished conditions. “The community needs to be supported in order to prevent economic and social problems,” said Rosenfeld.

But the interior minister, Eli Yishai, rejected such a move, saying: “Why should we provide them with jobs? I’m sick of the bleeding hearts, including politicians. Jobs would settle them here, they’ll make babies, and that offer will only result in hundreds of thousands more coming over here.”

Yishai repeated an earlier call for all migrants to be jailed pending deportation. “I want everyone to be able to walk the streets without fear or trepidation … The migrants are giving birth to hundreds of thousands, and the Zionist dream is dying,” he told Army Radio.

Netanyahu said the state would embark on “the physical withdrawal” of migrants, despite fears among human rights organisations about the dangers they could face in their home countries. Yishai said: “I’m not responsible for what happens in Eritrea and Sudan, the UN is.”

* NYT: Trump’s Biggest Test: Can He Build Something That Inspires Awe?

Build something awe-inspiring. Something Americans can be proud of. Something that will repay the investment many times over for generations to come.

Uhhh didn’t Trump mention something about building a huge wall?

* Concern/paranoia about Japan in the 1980′s centered on two observations: (1) American cars were terrible, while Japanese cars exhibited high quality design and manufacture, and (2) the Japanese government’s industrial policy (through the Ministry of International Trade and Industry, or MITI) seemed to point to a strategic command of a national economy that we would need to emulate.

The first issue was dealt with by much needed reform in Detroit and the Japanese companies building effective factories in the US. (You would not believe the crappiness of American cars. Every car had a clock, but no clock continued working for more than six months. I was astounded to see a working clock in my friend’s Honda Civic in 1974. The clocks in American cars shook apart from road vibration. When a colleague consulting for GM recommended a more expensive clock on Cadillacs, GM told him “Nobody buys a Cadillac for the clock.” They were right. People bought a Lexus.)

The second issue was a constant concern of people like James Fallows. MITI was already losing leverage over Japanese companies, however, and the emergence of companies like Apple and Microsoft convinced most people that central policy in the form of Industrial Policy was more likely to prop up staid companies like IBM than to generate something new and important.

* Japan’s MITI notoriously tried to get its 10 or so car companies to merge into just two under Toyota and Nissan. Honda refused.

* I didn’t have the heart to listen to the whole thing, but I flipped through it. My God, it was dreary and platitudinous and utterly conventional. In contrast there’s a Milo/Ann Coulter podcast out that was recorded just before the election. (“In this tiny corner of the world, Ann gets to be the voice of reason.”) The conversation was sparkling, funny, and had at least a couple real insights.

I get that the great and good can’t and shouldn’t let it rip to quite the same extent a couple epater le bourgeois specialists like Ann and Milo do. But the Kristol/Galston/gal talk reminded me of a Brezhnev-era colloquium in which the whole point is to drone on while avoiding saying anything either interesting or true. That could result in you getting into trouble with the authorities.

* Steve keeps mentioning a high-low tag team to screw over the middle. I noticed some historical parallels, with Jews trying to screw over other Jews through the involvement of outsiders. One could probably make a whole article out of something like this if you find more examples, at the risk of sounding like a conspiratorial nutcase (perfect for Unz.com!)

From a Wikipedia article on Pompey’s military career (He was Caesar’s opponent in the Civil War):

“A conflict between the brothers Aristobulus II and Hyrcanus II over the succession to the Hasmonean throne begun in Judea in 69 BC. Aristobulus deposed Hyrcanus. Then Antipater the Idumaean became the adviser of weak-willed Hyrcanus and persuaded him to contend for the throne…The people supported Hyrcanus and only the priests supported Aristobulus…The ambassadors of Aristobulus and Hyrcanus asked for [Pompey’s] help.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pompey#Judea

From a Wikipedia article on the last two Jews of Afghanistan:

“Simintov had lived with the second last remaining Jewish man in Afghanistan, Ishaq Levin… Levin had initially welcomed Simintov but the two fell out permanently when Simintov offered the caretaker help to emigrate to Israel to join the rest of the former Kabul Jewish community…the older man took umbrage, claiming Simintov was trying to take over the synagogue. A feud ensued, with the Taliban becoming involved after both men reported each other to the authorities for alleged wrongdoings ranging from running a brothel to misappropriating religious objects.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zablon_Simintov#Afghan_Jewish_conflict

* Criticizing Jewish double-standards on immigration policy is a valid debate tactic, as long as Jews simultaneously support lax border laws here and strict border laws in Israel to a noticeable degree. Even Netanyahu said that Europe had a responsibility to accept Syrian refugees, at the beginning of the crisis last year.
You imply that the motive of this line of questioning is antisemitism. That is a shaming tactic meant to discourage legitimate criticisms. I assume that you are hijacking this conversation with shaming tactics because you are paranoid, neurotic, and because you are anti-Gentile. I’m willing to say that openly.

* Free trade and immigration are the one-two punch of globalism. Free trade moves the portable jobs, e.g. manufacturing, overseas for lower wages and environmental costs. Immigration lowers the price point of labour for the less portable jobs, e.g. construction. They both need to be in place for globalism to be running efficiently on all cylinders.

* Can we demonize and punish American Jews for their hypocrisy in holding the “Israel is special” attitude with regard to immigration?

* Respectfully, could people stop using abbreviations without having previously indicated what they are talking about? I see these on iSteve frequently. If the comment is uninteresting, I don’t bother doing a Google search on what they mean by “BYMOAT” or whatever. If the comment is interesting, I try to figure it out in context. Example: “And that was the danger of SS.” My mind raced through possibilities–Social Security, Secret Service, uh, oh yeah, Steve Sailer, but that doesn’t work in context, wait a minute, “Sailer Strategy.” So I got it. It only cost me a minute. Am I just slower than everyone else? Possibly. But why not give slow guys like me a break and write “Sailer Strategy (SS)” the first time, since Sailer Strategy had not previously appeared in this post or comments?

* The presence of Bill Kristol at this Harvard symposium highlights the desperate need for a new generation of intellectuals who can articulate and expand upon the vision of nationalism that Trump, and corresponding populist movements in Europe, embody.

There is no place for a Bill Kristol after 2016 — if there ever was. He and his are artifacts of an elite bubble, and have no basis in the larger polity. This was always so, but became indisputable in 2016.

Posted in America, Ann Coulter, Steve Sailer | Comments Off on William Kristol: “Steve Sailer and Ann Coulter Were Wrong.” [2:47:30]

Frontpagemag: ‘Inventor of term “Alt Right” explains why Bannon critics are full of hot air’

Posted on November 18, 2016 by Luke Ford

Paul Gottfried writes:

I’m beginning this commentary on the recent assaults on Steve Bannon by quoting my response to questions that a CNN-Digital reporter asked me concerning President-elect Trump’s friend and adviser:

“There’s no indication that Steve Bannon, the Breitbart executive and Donald Trump adviser, who has been characterized as a white nationalist, is a racist or anti-Semite. Bannon is not a white identitarian or race realist. He comes from the world of Washington politics and journalism, not white identity politics. Although I don’t know the man, I doubt Bannon hangs out with people who burn crosses on other people’s lawns.”

I expressed this view, more or less, not only to CNN-Digital. I also expressed it in a phone-call marathon to representatives of a Danish daily and the Jewish Forward and, in an hour and a half German conversation, with an editor of the German conservative weekly Junge Freiheit. In all these exchanges I had to answer the question of whether Steve Bannon was in fact an anti-Semite and racist, a judgment that was coming from, among others, such exemplary American “conservatives” as Glenn Beck, Jonah Goldberg, and writers for the Wall Street Journal. I was also asked whether as the co-inventor of the term “Alternative Right,” which has now been shortened to “Altright,” I could tell if Bannon, who likes the term in question, enjoys the company of “white nationalists.”

I tried to explain that the exceedingly elastic term “Altright” has been claimed by a number of groups that belong to the non-establishment Right. All those on the Right who are at war with the GOP establishment and neoconservative politics and who are combatting PC with particular ferocity have embraced the designation “Altright.” This is especially true of Millennials who scorn establishmentarian positions. But it’s not at all clear to me that those who write for Bannon’s website publication, some of whom are Orthodox Jews, have much to do with white identitarians who also use the term “Altright.” I would doubt that these writers go out to drink with the Philonazi blogger Matt Heimbach, who also claims the Altright moniker.

Like David Horowitz, David Goldman, Rudolf Giuliani, and dozens of other commentators, I find the charges leveled against Bannon to be outrageous slander. I am also horrified by the double standard in play when Bannon, who may or may not have complained to a now divorced wife about Jewish students in a private school, is depicted as the reincarnation of Hitler. At the same time, attacks on Jews or other ethnic groups coming from the Left are given short shrift by the media.

Disparaging descriptions of blacks, Latinos, and Catholics that have emanated from Hillary’s staff (and which have been revealed by Wikileak) occasioned a yawn from the mass media here and in Europe. And so has Hillary’s hateful obscenity about her husband’s Jewish campaign manager, which has never received the same critical scrutiny as Steve Bannon’s totally fictitious anti-Semitism and racism. What would happen to Bannon’s or any Republican’s career if, like Hillary, he referred to someone as a “f-cking Jew bastard”? Presumably that person would not be the darling of the media establishment and the presidential candidate of George H.W. Bush, Robert Kagan, Max Boot and Alan Dershowitz.

I intend to raise these questions the next time someone calls on me as an expert on the Altright who can document Steve Bannon’s possible connection to neo-Nazi websites. Perhaps the interviewers would be interested in knowing what Hillary and John Podesta said about certain groups. Even more relevant, they might want me to explain how it came to pass that the Democratic National Committee is about to nominate as its new director Congressman Keith Ellison, a Muslim convert and close friend of Louis Farrakhan. Ellison is entirely explicit in his anti-white and anti-Jewish views and unlike Bannon, does not require reinvention to be turned into what he’s not. The fact that Ellison is heartily endorsed by such presumed idealists as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren is not likely to hurt the reputations of either social justice warrior.

Posted in Alt Right, Paul Gottfried, Steve Bannon | Comments Off on Frontpagemag: ‘Inventor of term “Alt Right” explains why Bannon critics are full of hot air’