Does Trump Need To Tone Down His Worldwide Wrestling Persona?

Posted on March 16, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* I have been hoping that, as his eventual nomination becomes more apparent, he will switch from to a more presidential persona. He will also need to bone up on policy once he is in debates with Hillary. We’ll see.

* Yeah, that style could be *way* too exciting when applied to international relations.

Trump seems to me to have exactly the wrong sort of temperament to be president. Even more than his apparent ignorance of a lot of policy details, that worries me when I imagine a Trump presidency.

* Trump is in uncharted waters here. I take his comment as an off the cuff reaction to the question of what would happen if he were denied the nomination by back room manouevres. It’s not a well thought through PC answer but it’s also a warning to party insiders to back off.

From Trumps’s perspective keeping his adversaries in the Rep establishment worried, afraid and off guard works to his advantage. Much more than being Mr Nice Guy who allows himself to be defeated by strict adherence to Marquess of Queensbury rules. That’s what Rmoney did.
It’s the exact opposite of what has succeeded and gotten him this far.

I think it’s very doubtful there are many Trump supporters who will engage in street violence on his behalf. But don’t forget that historically few political movements have succeeded without cadres willing to do so. More likely if Rep bigs deny Trump the nomination the millions who voted for him will sit on their hands come election time and let Ryan lose to Mrs C.

I was listening to CNN discussing Trump’s statement this morning. Ex BHO official Van Jones was particularly strident saying this comment disqualifies him from the presidency. Apparently in Jones’ world, hinting at riots if you dont get your way is unprecedented in American politics.

* There are three things giving Trump the election:

1. Combative, hilarious mike work
2. Immigration policy
3. Previous celebrity

He excites voters because he treats the entire system as contemptuously and with the irrelevance that many cynical folks have believed it was. He doesn’t mince words or use Washington speak; he speaks plainly in language common folk are familiar with.

And his combative style is what white male voters have long sought: a champion speaker who opposes the left’s identity hustlers on Jimmy Hoffa-esque level. Followers of Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson or Bill Ayers or Tim White believe those folks will take it to the streets if necessary, and will fight with them. That’s energizing.

People are rallying to him precisely because he looks like he will punch a dude who comes on his stage–even if the dude is black, or Hispanic, or gay. That kind of street-level alpha maleness has not been seen in U.S. white non-leftist leaders in decades.

Trump is basically pointing out that the left is nothing but a mob, and he’s not going to roll over for it; he’ll fight to the man with his own mob if necessary. Trump is pointing out that the system is a charade, and basically a reality show itself. That’s energizing; that’s sending his voters to the polls; that’s scaring Clinton, who has no passionate followers. Asking him to knock off his combative style is like asking police officers to go out unarmed.

Why would he give up one of his greatest assets?

* Steve having vapors that people might actually be mad enough to fight for something.

* Donald, learn to speak in oblique ways with political pablum. Don’t say what you mean and mean what you say, because it offends sissy-boy Steve Sailer.

* What Trump said was the plain and simple truth. Style and temperament had nothing to do with it. This wasn’t showmanship, and there was no ulterior motive behind Trump saying what he said, the way that he said it.

Trump’s statements have always been highly accurate, yet everybody still seems to think he’s just playing for effect and being a buffoon about it. That just isn’t true. Trump’s campaign has been 100% serious from the very beginning. He’s a very misunderstood man—misunderstood, it seems, even by most of his supporters.

What I don’t comprehend is, if you think Trump is just putting on a show, and you are a Trump supporter, why are you still supporting him? Did you really come out to the desert just to see a circus, since that’s what you think it is? This is decision time. Trump is for real; he is not a spectacle. I support Donald Trump for exactly what he says and does.

* I think Trump’s comment was appropriate given the context: a scenario that the millions of primary votes giving him a huge delegate superiority are overturned. That would be a great outrage, and ‘there would be riots’ is a phrase commonly applied to such an outrage. I agree he should be more careful with language and perhaps shouldn’t have said that, but only because the media grasps at every straw to slander him. In general, his anger at the outrageous state of the nation is needed and he must ‘fight’ for his voters.

* A shot across the bows of those who are thinking of how to keep him from being the candidate. It is may be part of his deal making skills that Trump has a meandering way of speaking and is often vague about his meaning, but I think he is wise to raise the spectre of him being denied the nomination. The only thing that will dissuade the Republican establishment is Trump taking his now massive support and forming a new party. That would be the riot.

* Trump himself last night started to address some of these points regarding what his critics have said about his candidacy. I mean, he’s going on nine months since he first announced he would run. A total bs show doesn’t last for nine months, let alone for nine news cycles. That’s probably the larger point: When the time comes, he’ll do the Presidential bit quite effectively. He’ll rise to the expectations of the moment. But until that time comes, there’s still some delegates to receive for the nomination.

Hillary has had it a whole heck of a lot easier. Imagine if she had the entire MSM AND the entire liberal news media all stacked vs. her every single day, pointing out her flaws, gaffes, mistakes, coughs, barks, etc. and them replaying them dozens of times.

Let him get the nomination first, then when the time comes, the presidential bit will follow.

* Liberals gleefully leave open the possibility of unrest, riots, violence. Conservatives shake their head, tut-tut, mumble something about not wanting to cause unpleasantness and then write a blog post wondering how come liberals dominate everything.

* I didn’t pay as close attention to the 2008 race, did Steve tsk tsk when Obama told supporters to bring guns to the political fight at a fundraiser? Obama’s “elevated” divisive rhetoric has led to the rise of BLM and set back race relations 20+ years.

For all Trump’s bluster whose supporters actually jumped barricades and plowed through Secret Service agents to attack a candidate? Who organized to purposefully interrupt an opponent’s political rally, caused property damage, and injured people in Chicago? Not Trump people.

* At the time of the “Swiftboating” of John Kerry, I said that if Kerry had any guts he should confront whomever was responsible for the slurs and sock him on the jaw. By ignoring the allegations, he looked weak. (I have no particular view of the truth of the allegations, except that I think anyone who participates in armed combat deserves the benefit of any doubt, otherwise no one is ever safe from recriminations.)

By being verbally belligerent, Trump is pre-empting Swiftboat type attacks.

* It is funny how many people Trump has fooled. He is a very cunning, shrewd and ruthless operator. He has put on a persona that has now made people totally forget that he is basically a New Yorker with tons of money and the lifestyle of a New York celebrity (which means he has spent his whole life surrounded by people with hyper-liberal opinions even if he doesn’t agree with those himself). Trump’s biggest challenge was going to be to achieve “authenticity” with the hard-core Republican base (especially the South where a New Yorker would normally be regarded as having no chance). He has achieved this now. And how! Cruz couldn’t win a single Southern state although he is the evangelical!

Once he has the nomination and trains his guns on Hillary, the whole “tone” and “rhetoric” will again be modulated to destroy Hillary in the minds of the doubting Democrats who want to vote for HRC out of party loyalty but suspect that she is a fraud. The rhetoric that was aimed at the angry base in Alabama will be put on the back burner (only to be brought to the forefront when absolutely necessary to ensure that the loyal flock do not start dithering).

I think the intelligence and cunning of Trump is likely to be appreciated many years after he has served as President (assuming he wins). Even today many historians regard Eisenhower as a duffer but smart cookies like Nixon who served under him knew better!

* That’s because it’s the “liberals” who are the ones who wreck things and the conservatives who build and preserve them. This is only confusing to us all now because the people Americans call liberals are really illiberal and the people called conservatives are often destructive radicals themselves. The NRO crowd are viciously destructive when it comes to other people’s countries; they only start squealing for real conservatism when people start taking away their stuff.

* If you look at Trumps twitter you will see that he follows very closely what is said about him in he media. Seems he took great offense at Fox news coverage last night spinning every outcome as a defeat for Trump or a victory for Cruz or Kasich. In Fox’s view: Trump barely winning IL and NC were huge defeats for him and clear signs of his weakness and unelectability; the loss in OH makes it mathematically impossible for him to clinch before the convention; poor noble Marco just couldn’t get his message heard past Trump’s boorish campaign stunts, the close result in MO was a stunning repudiation of Trumpism etc. etc.

Here are some of Trumps’ twitter reactions to FOX election night coverage

This also explains his decision to not participate in the extra Fox debate on Mar 21; why give Megyn Chris and the gang extra shots at gotchas

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump
Can’t watch Crazy Megyn anymore. Talks about me at 43% but never mentions that there are four people in race. With two people, big & over!

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 23h23 hours ago
If media wasn’t so biased against Trump, he would’ve won all of the delegates.

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 23h23 hours ago
” it’s ridiculous” Don’t worry, everyone is wise to Crazy Megyn!

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 23h23 hours ago
” I tried to give them a shot tonight, but they have the whole anti Trump cheerleading team.”

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 23h23 hours ago
” She’s choking on the results! Call her justifiable Kelly. Justifying everything she says.”

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 23h23 hours ago
” Was going to watch @Foxnews for the primary results but saw @megynkelly – looks like #CNN tonight”

* How many hours per day does Trump watch TV?

* Not everybody understands that professional wrestling isn’t real.

Not everybody understands that this whole democracy bit that includes the people selecting their leaders might not be real.

* I’m not entirely sure what the line is that Trump needs to stop at. He’s said a number of things that I thought would all but end his campaign, but it didn’t happen. And now I have to scratch my head to remember exactly what it was that I thought he screwed up on.

* Steve’s post is misguided and foolish but in a different way than the typical Michael Gerson/AceOfSpadesHQ/RedState mewling (which actually has now become too silly to read, for example the Weekly Standard’s Jonathan V. Last puffing his chest to call Breitbart “Pravda” then feigning concern about the high-holy bruised arm of a found-money source for Bezos cub reporter Ben Terris– yeah, she’s just like this century’s Anita Hill, man). Trump does not have a “business-like” side. He got this far because he started with money and a great personal charisma along with a talent for running his mouth– yes, the world really does work that way; too bad you meritocracy dorks can’t accept reality. Even if, as I suspect, he meant that figuratively the mood at a brokered convention would be akin to, quote, a riot, it’s all just bait for the ambulance chasers. Not surprising from a guy who doesn’t know much about the hyper-legalized hall-monitor culture of modern American politics.

If he’s undone by his own recklessness and the campaign collapses, so be it. What matters is that Kasich or Rubio or Jeb or any of the other frankenamnesty candidates were denied support from real, living, breathing voters. This motley bloc, accustomed to be played for biennial suckers, took a good long look, yet despite the breathless hype of the Stephen Hayes/Kevin Williamson/Fox News androids– supposing any healthy # of sane free men ever listened to these coin-slot thinkfluencers ever — they chose what’s behind Door D instead. Meanwhile you and a few credulous alt-righters were somehow laboring under the impression that Trump’s really, deep down, “one of us” while simultaneously, the consummate performer who “plays a version of himself” for the campaign. Assuming there is a point where the theatrical-consumption version ends and the responsibility-to-the-office version begins, would that diminished mortal candidate be likely to withstand the general election pulverization and win? Not a good question to flesh out in October.

Neither am I on board with Cruz but I know Trump has more upside as a competitor to Coughing Lady Macbeth. What happens in the fullness of time to all three of them concerns me not at all. The point was made, the GOPe replicants on the stage were dispatched or at least rewarded with very little actual voter support no matter how desperately they shrieked about Hitler-Mussolini-Satan part Fifty-Three. Let the heavens fall– there’s your “violence” blurb for this week’s table talk among ideological politics nerds.

* Trump Needs to Knock Off His Pro Wrestling-style Mike Work”

Making him … what? Tom Tancredo? Pat Buchannan? Duncan Hunter?

Level-headed, sensible statesman have been railing against open immigration and stupid globalist trade deals for at least two decades now. Mainstream media either completely ignores them, or briefly mocks them for having the racist cooties and then goes on to ignore them.

Trump is where he is – failing or not, at least with some chance to make a serious run for the Presidency – because he cuts through the clutter and reaches people who literally cannot or will not think about issues of government and policy for longer than 20 seconds. Trump generates a reaction from people who know what channel corresponds to Bravo or ESPN or E! on their cable box, but not CNN or FOX news. As shallow and worthless as those cable “news” networks are? They are too deep and complicated for the average voter.

“I understand that, but he has to stop being so crazy and start to look just a LITTLE Presidential.”

Again … why? Tom Tancredo had all the arguments about illegal immigration inpacting our wages, or schools and hospitals, etc. He delivered them all with a measured, respectable, logical tone. And literally 99 percent of our country could not tell you who Tom Tancredo is.

Respectability politics brought us to where we are. Now – who here likes where we are?

* I mean, is there any reason, other than anti-semitism, for anybody to object to a 4th lefty Jew to sit on the court?

And is there anybody on the respectable right willing & able to object?

* By speaking this way, Trump is fathering a lasting movement of concerned founding stock Americans. Whether he wins or not, it’s time for the anger to undergo politically meaningful expression.

* Conservative populist celebrity candidates have won in Blue States before: Schwarzenegger and Ventura. So writing off Trump as obviously unelectable seems like a pretty massive misreading of the electorate.

People don’t actually *like* wonky conservative nerds. The only Republican candidate to win the popular vote in 30 years was George W. Bush running as the defender of working class Americans against effete liberal snobs.

Nerdy conservatives really want to believe that there is a silent majority of sober, intellectual conservative voters in this country. News flash: there isn’t. You have to cater to the WWE demographic to have a chance at winning.

* Heather Mac Donald for VP. Can you imagine her in a debate?

When she was younger, she worked as an attorney for the EPA and left-wing enviro group NRDC. Getting to 63% of the white vote you need to get people who care about the environment, and I bet she can speak eloquently about how protecting the environment is a conservative value. And Hoolian would gay-smile back at her and sputter his canned talking points.

Quite the education, perhaps a former neighbor of SS:

High School: Harvard-Westlake School, North Hollywood, CA
University: BA English,Yale University (1978)
University: MA English, Cambridge University (UK)
Law School: JD, Stanford University (1985)

She’d ensure Trump was safe from being impeached or shot too, since she is with him on the important issues and would probably be more effective once in office. Two non-PC Scottish Americans from New York City is quite the combo too.

* Trump needs to look very carefully at Schwarzenegger’s playbook. He won something like 2/3 of the white vote with dumb slogans aimed at low end whites and environmental and social stands to cater to affluent whites.

* To be fair to Trump, watching TV would be very different for him than it would be for the rest of us. Many of the people on the cable news and financial channels would be people he knows personally and who would respond when he calls them up, whether on air or later. He’d know who the money bunnies on screen are dating and all the rest. Watching TV would be much more like video conferencing for him. The Donald broke the fourth wall decades ago.

* Yeah, that was cringeworthy. But in a way it was a brilliant way to expose the leftist media’s hypocrisy on the subject of riots.

Similarly, when he said his supporters might go to Bernie’s rally and everyone started gasping Hitler. Well, so much for the idea that everyone has a right to show up en masse at another candidate’s rally in order to interrupt it.

But yes, at some point he needs to tone it down. It might not be possible for him.

I don’t mind too much. He is what he is and if he’s too much for the more pc voters, so be it, he’ll lose. What he’s accomplished is beyond our wildest imaginings. The most successful paleoconservative presidential candidate in my lifetime. He has brought issues into the mainstream that I have had to discuss anonymously online all my adult life. Most of us would get fired for saying what he does. For conservatives, his candidacy has been an easing off of the suffocation we have lived with for most of our lives. I think a lot of us are very grateful.

* During the congressional investigation of Andrew Jackson’s actions during the First Seminole War, Ol’ Hickory threatened to cut off a certain senator’s ears. He didn’t, as it turned out, but perhaps General Jackson was indulging in a bit of Southern frontier bluster.

Jackson actually had a knife & gun fight with the Benton brothers, so he wasn’t above pitching in to a rival. And there’s the guy he killed in a duel.

He applied a similar ruthlessness to politics, and generally succeeded. If his own aide-de-camp pulling a gun on him didn’t make Jackson blink, then some effete, lace-britches politicos weren’t going to make Jackson sweat.

My point, if you want to make America great again, sometimes you have a use for the sort of character who threatens to crop an ear. For good or bad, it’s part of the package.

* Trump will defeat the Wicked Witch of the West and become the 45th President of the United States of America. And Trump will be a disaster as a President. We all know this now, and we all knew this from the beginning. We did not want this fight, but there were two choices. Trump was always the lesser evil.

Trump will have arrayed against him not just the parasitic sycophants pretending to be journalists, but the intelligence community and the rest of the administrative state. The errors won’t just be his, they will be manufactured by his enemies.

Consider the best state of nature. Trump could put two chickens in every pot (and a lobster to boot), raise the test scores of NAMs by an entire standard deviation, and create peace between Israel and the Arabs, but it would not matter. He will be demonized even beyond the demonization visited upon Reagan. It will be vicious. Trump will be relentlessly, robotically, and mindlessly demonized by the Left and their fellow travellers on the right.

But Trump, the deal-maker, will follow Arnold and Jesse Ventura in tacking to the Left. He will lose his base, but no amount of Leftist/Socialist policy implementation will erase the contempt in which is ‘superiors’ hold him. (Cf. Nixon) Trump will be bereft of friends, and vulnerable to all the enemies he has made by telling the truth.

Nevertheless, Trump is our chance to say that we will not sit and watch, we will not go quietly, we will not passively stand by while we are marginalized, mocked and demonized.

It does not matter. It is not our job to rectify the stupidity of the Left or the perfidy of the Right. It is our job to raise the American Eagle, the middle finger of either hand, the gesture of contempt to our overlords.

Trump will have everyone against him. Trump’s faceplants will be recorded, amplified and distorted beyond any measure of reason, common sense or experience.

Put your seat belt on. It is going to be a rough ride, and it is just the first stage in the counterattack.

Vote Trump. But if you don’t think Trump will disappoint you, and disappoint you in a manner worthy of the worst thoughts you have of a tycoon with contempt for nearly everyone but himself, you are not paying attention.

* Some of the suggestions and hand wringing by people in this thread is worthy of an NRO article.

Trump should stop doing what’s been working fot him and listen to a guy who labors in obscurity to beg for shekels on a quarterly basis.

Posted in Donald Trump | Comments Off on Does Trump Need To Tone Down His Worldwide Wrestling Persona?

Diversity vs. Freedom of Speech at the U. of California

Posted on March 16, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* Just looked in the cabinet and I’m all out of caring.

* Liberals love to Balkanize, and it’s coming right back at them.

* It is rather hard to avoid being anti-Zionist as the term Zionism is in itself ambiguous. Is it also wrong to be antimilleniallist or to deny that Mormonism is the only true Church? Is it wrong to oppose the back-to-Africa element of Rastafarianism?

Probably just better to stay away from university campuses to avoid the risk of being arrested by the campus religious police for some innocent remark like “Holy Moses” in case you offend secular Jews.

* Buying off PoC is not going to work. Look at Hollywood, currently in the midst of a purge of the White/Jewish talent in favor of … what Shonda Rhimes cousins? Tyler Perry’s nephew’s barber? Will Smith’s kids. [Shudder.]

Victimization won’t work either … PoC don’t care and already call the Holocaust “White on White crime” and suggest that because the victims were … wait for it … White, they don’t matter at all.

Most popular culture has bought into the idea that White people don’t matter — that’s baked into the cake so to speak.

Jews best bet is a universal White identity embracing them, the Irish to the West, to the Russians to the East; the Finns to the North and the Greeks to the South. With an emphasis on Sinn Fein willingness to fight and engage in both separatism and identitarianism.

Everything in this life is a struggle. If you don’t fight for it, you don’t get anything.

* 1. It seems subjective to accept barring anti-Muslim and anti-Gay agitation, but not apply the same to anti-Israeli agitation. Religion is a choice, so it would be easier for religious adherents to cease belonging to their religion or to change their name than it would be for a nation to allow itself to cease to exist.

2. It’s not very professional for universities to be aggressive political wargrounds in which the far-left majority threaten students and teachers who hold inconvenient ideas. It wouldn’t be tolerated at professional businesses, and it misleads students as to what’s acceptable in the professional world.

3. It’s worth remembering that the founding of Israel was a WW2 land swap, with 700,000 Islamic Middle Easterners losing their land, versus 850,000 Jewish Middle Easterners losing their land (in the 1948 Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries). Liberals are as against the data on Israel as they are on human biodiversity.

If liberals are fine with millions of Syrians moving elsewhere, they should also be fine with Israelis buying-out Palestinians’ stake in their small remaining plots of land. Israel could fund it with some years of their saved future military budget. That would let them make Palestinians who accept the buy-out richer than the average American. That’s a much better deal than Syrians are currently getting.

* There is no comparing an Israel in existential war – as it has been since its founding – with Western nations at peace. Western nations at such wars were ruthless. Firebomb Dressen, nuke Hiroshima. And that solved their problems. Were Israel to use those standards it would have long ago expelled the Palestinians and turned Tehran to glass. It is odd, the Muslim states and most of the third world have contempt for, and some are at war with, the Western liberal order. If not for that order, which Israel accepts, Israel might have long ago solved its problems – in the way New Zealand solved its Maori problem or Belgium dealt with the Congo.

In any event the West these days is suicidal. Israel deciding not to be suicidal I suppose is breaking with the standards of the West. As for Jews in the West, most of them are suicidal as well and so a gulf is opening between liberal Jews and Israel and anyone who reads the Jewish press sees this every day.

Posted in Academia, Jews | Comments Off on Diversity vs. Freedom of Speech at the U. of California

Muslims Have Taken Over The Third Street Promenade & The Grove, Making Progress On Their Invasion Of Century City

Posted on March 16, 2016 by Luke Ford

Allahu Akbar! I for one welcome their vibrancy.

REPORT: Muslim culture is being forced upon cities all across the country and it’s only going to get worse as long as the government continues to protect Islam at the expense of the rest of the nation.

As a country that allows freedom of religion, people should in fact be able to practice whatever religion they would like, but not like this.

It’s one thing to be a Muslim and follow Islam, but it’s entirely different when it impacts everyone in the area in which Muslims live.

In the video below, you may think that it’s a Middle Eastern city or maybe even Germany or Paris, but it’s not. The video below in right in the middle of Los Angeles, CA.

Posted in Islam | Comments Off on Muslims Have Taken Over The Third Street Promenade & The Grove, Making Progress On Their Invasion Of Century City

I Wish America Had A Wall Like Israel’s

Posted on March 16, 2016 by Luke Ford

From Breitbart: Israel to Raise Height of Egypt Border Fence to Block Migrants

TEL AVIV – Israel is set to raise the height of its fence along the Egyptian border in an effort to keep out migrants, defense officials said Tuesday.

The fence will be raised an additional meter, making it six meters (19.7 feet) high. This follows an increase in African migrants entering the country over the past year.

The army said that a series of additional prevention methods will be put in place to reduce the number of illegal border crossings.

The current fence, which was built between 2010-2014, has been largely successful in preventing migrant incursions, the IDF said. In 2014, only 14 people made it across the border, compared with 12,000 in 2010. However, in 2015, some 200 migrants made it over the fence, often with the use of ladders.

In one case, Israeli soldiers wounded three Africans after opening fire on them at the border. The Military Police opened an investigation and ruled that the shooting was unwarranted.

The Defense Ministry is seeking contractors to raise the fence. Some of the previous construction was actually carried out by Africans who had themselves made it across the border.

Posted in America, Israel | Comments Off on I Wish America Had A Wall Like Israel’s

They Broke Up Over Donald Trump

Posted on March 16, 2016 by Luke Ford

This is a beautiful story of a man finding his balls, just like America is finding its balls.

Rachel Brewson writes:

For me, Trump’s racist comments are a bridge too far. We’d watch the debates and argue — that was nothing new. But there was something unsettling about his new interest in Trump. We’d sit on the couch and he’d spend hours on Twitter, scoffing at “Hillary trolls.” We’d always enjoyed a good argument, but now there was a hint of chauvinism and condescension. The wit and charm I fell in love with seemed to have dulled.

One afternoon, we attended a barbecue in the Valley. One of Todd’s oldest friends was moving back to New York. Everyone was there. I was knee-deep in Republicans desperate to compare notes on the election. As usual, I knew it’d be tough to keep my cool, but it was nothing new. Or so I thought.

Things started off harmless enough. It was a perfect LA afternoon: sunshine, good food, catching up with old friends, a few drinks. Todd was happy to see his old crew again. There was a boyish grin on his face; seeing him — tall and handsome, laughing in the sunshine — made me remember why we fell in love. The sun drifted behind the palm trees and the gorgeous LA sunset enveloped us. I held his hand in mine. I was happy.

After dark, we gathered in the kitchen and things got a little raucous. There were plenty of not-PC one-liners, but everyone was in good spirits. Then, inevitably, we got onto the topic of Trump.

I suddenly realized that pretty much everyone in the room was a Trump supporter. I’d expected a few, but I’d been a little naive. Things turned nasty. One of Todd’s friends said that LA would be a much nicer place if we deported all the Mexicans. Everyone laughed; Todd laughed the hardest. I said nothing.

Todd made a racist joke about Mexicans. He was egged on by his friends. I grabbed his arm. He could see that I was pissed. I mouthed, “Let’s go.” He ignored me. The conversation continued on its downward spiral.

“Hillary will ruin this country,” he said, looking directly at me. “She’s an entitled c*nt who only represents a bunch of ugly feminazis.”

I was shocked. I’d never heard him speak about women like this before.

“I’m voting for Hillary,” I said, trying to maintain my composure.

“Women don’t deserve the vote,” he retorted. Was this a joke? Some kind of Ann Coulter bullshit? Some of his male friends laughed uneasily. The women in the room were silent. All eyes were on me. I placed my half-empty wine glass on the marble counter top and walked calmly out of the room. I slammed the door. I sat in the car alone and cried.

I texted him that it was over.

I was devastated. Why did he have to treat me like that? If he wanted to break up, why did he have to do that in public? To impress his Trump-bro friends?

You might be thinking that it’s a stretch to blame Trump for causing the end of my relationship. Maybe it is. But I can’t help thinking that if Trump didn’t get his hooks into Todd, we’d still be happily agreeing to disagree. Trump has lowered the debate into the sewer, and it’s become toxic.

I thought that we could beat politics, but politics beat us. In the end, Todd’s love for Trump and his Republican bros was bigger than his love for me.

Posted in Donald Trump, Feminism | Comments Off on They Broke Up Over Donald Trump

Is America Getting Stupider?

Posted on March 16, 2016 by Luke Ford

* After dealing with five incompetents at Verizon, my friend finally got put through to a Jew in customer service who solved his problem.

* Does every people have a right to live in any country they want? Jews in Saudi Arabia? Muslims in Israel? Africans in Japan? Why would peoples who evolved in completely different environments be an identical fit for another locale?

* Jewish Journal: Merrick Garland’s Jewish ancestry: Matzah, prayer shawls and Democratic Party politics…

* Ben Shapiro: To anti-Semites spamming my timeline: I’m less worried about the ‪#‎TrumpTrain‬ than the boxcars you seem enthusiastic about attaching to it.

* Goy: Did you get circumcised as a child? I did. Seems like a weird thing that so many Christians do it.

Luke: Yes, I did. Another example of Jewish influence.

Goy: Yeah it kinda seems like it. It’s impressive how Jews have built almost a world empire of influence and diaspora without much pushback at all since WW2. Good chess players.

* Ricky: Huckabee, Gingrich, Christie had to suck up to the nasty toadie neocons for years. Now they feel free with the rise of Trump.

* Ricky: Also, notice how Obama has expressed annoyance with the jewish lobby? These people are really wearing out their welcome.

Posted in America | Comments Off on Is America Getting Stupider?

Donald Trump’s Stone Cold Truths About Women

Posted on March 16, 2016 by Luke Ford

From the Chateau:

I’ll let you in on a leetle secret. It wasn’t Trump’s policy positions that initially roused my enthusiasm for his prospects as a cuckstablishment destroyer. Yes, the Wall and the rest of it certainly sealed the deal, but it was Trump’s charisma — his Game — that I noticed first and, based on my judgment then, would be the pure energy that carried him to victories innumerable. I have since been vindicated.

Trump’s Game is evident in the facility with which he handles friends and foes alike, but for astonishingly confirming evidence, one should look to the archives of Trump’s statements on female nature. The man clearly knows the score.

Shitlibs faint with the “I can’t even” vapors at the sight of Trump’s knowledge droppage, but we who operate in the dating trenches nod knowingly and recognize Trump as one of us: the few, the proud, the poonlords.

Here’s a selection of Trumpening Truths about women:

I would never buy Ivana any decent jewels or pictures. Why give her negotiable assets?

Trump gets that all’s fair in love and divorce.

Beauty and elegance, whether in a woman, a building, or a work of art, is not just superficial or something pretty to see.

Trump knows that Beauty is Truth, and Ugliness is Lies.

26,000 unreported sexual assaults in the military-only 238 convictions. What did these geniuses expect when they put men & women together?

Trump understands that men and women are different in mind as well as body.

It’s certainly not groundbreaking news that the early victories by the women on ‘The Apprentice’ were, to a very large extent, dependent on their sex appeal.

Pretty women can cash in their looks for fabulous prizes. And they do.

You know, it doesn’t really matter what [the media] write as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass.

Self-evidently true.

There are basically three types of women and reactions. One is the good woman who very much loves her future husband, solely for himself, but refuses to sign the [prenup] agreement on principle. I fully understand this, but the man should take a pass anyway and find someone else. The other is the calculating woman who refuses to sign the prenuptial agreement because she is expecting to take advantage of the poor, unsuspecting sucker she’s got in her grasp. There is also the woman who will openly and quickly sign a prenuptial agreement in order to make a quick hit and take the money given to her.

Trump is familiar with the female archetypes. He is also familiar with the CH maxim “Always be ready to walk. It’s a man’s best defense against scheming broads”.

Women have one of the great acts of all time. The smart ones act very feminine and needy, but inside they are real killers. The person who came up with the expression ‘the weaker sex’ was either very naive or had to be kidding. I have seen women manipulate men with just a twitch of their eye — or perhaps another body part.

The greatest con feminism ever pulled was the idea that women are powerless pawns in the resource-acquisition market.

[Angelina Jolie’s] been with so many guys she makes me look like a baby… And, I just don’t even find her attractive.

Trump is a based slut shamer. He knows that cock-ravaged sluts have lowered their value as marriage material. #NoHymenNoDiamond

My favorite part [of ‘Pulp Fiction’] is when Sam has his gun out in the diner and he tells the guy to tell his girlfriend to shut up. Tell that bitch to be cool. Say: ‘Bitch be cool.’ I love those lines.

Trump is well aware of sexual dynamics, and that a real man is in charge of his woman. Beta males get steamrolled.

During one down period, I referred to him in print as a ‘financially embattled thousandaire’ and he sent me a copy of the column with my picture circled and ‘The Face of a Dog!’ written over it.

Fucking LOL. If the ugly shoe fits…

Women find [my] power almost as much of a turn-on as [my] money.

The stoniest, coldest truth. Chicks dig power. Men dig beauty. Trump is a student of the immutable cosmic laws governing the sexes.

All of the women on ‘The Apprentice’ flirted with me — consciously or unconsciously. That’s to be expected.

Trump assumes the sale. A sterling demonstration of a classic Game technique.

Bonus TrumpenTruth!

Women: “You have to treat ’em like shit.” (New York magazine, Nov. 9, 1992)

And here the Trumpening completes the circle with the Chateau. A maestro of the muff, Trump has internalized one of the Chateau’s timeless truths: Every girl loves a jerkboy fascist. They can’t help themselves. All the quisling, mewling betaboys can do is nip at the Asshole Alpha’s ankles, inflamed with envy as they go home at night to be reminded of their low sexual worth by the sight of their fat and dumpy wives (or gay lovers).

Donald Trump is the father and role model every young boy would be blessed to have, especially the little shitlib boys. May the Lord guide him and help him achieve the ultimate AMOG of America’s pissant cucks: the White House throne.

Posted in Donald Trump | Comments Off on Donald Trump’s Stone Cold Truths About Women

Jews For Trump

Posted on March 16, 2016 by Luke Ford

Jonathan Marks posts on FB:

* How Are Those Non-Racist Open Borders Working Out?
Is Islamophobia worse than rape and sexual assault? More than 1,000 crimes by Muslim migrants against women in a single night in Cologne. Police detain two suspects, from Algeria & Iraq. Of course, we should have more migrants and less jails, say Bernie & Hillary.

* If depicting Yitzhak Rabin in a Nazi uniform was said to be incitement and prelude to his assassination, is the relentless comparisons of Trump to Hitler an equal incitement and prelude to his assassination? What leaders are disavowing that verbal violence?

* As that violent instigator Trump says, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun. Because from what I understand, folks in Philly like a good brawl.” Oh, wait a second, that was Obama.

* Appearing on CNN’s Reliable Sources on Sunday, longtime media critic Steven Brill — no conservative — saw a double standard in how the media reacted to the events in Chicago: “I want to say this very narrowly, because this does not excuse Mr. Trump from inciting violence, it does not excuse everything else he’s doing in his campaign. I do think that if Trump supporters, by the dozens or hundreds, planted themselves at a Hillary Clinton rally or a Bernie Sanders rally and stood up and disrupted it, and that was their intent, that the press would cover that differently. So in that sense, I think Trump has a point.”
CNN host Brian Stelter agreed: “I think you’re right.”

* Why when leftist protestors disrupt Trump rallies does it reflect poorly on Trump, not on those leftists attempting to suffocate political expression? If right-wingers disrupted a Hillary or Bernie rally, would we blame Bernie/Hillary people or the disruptive right-wingers? So far, only leftists are disrupting Trump rallies, not rightists disrupting anyone. Try disrupting a Black Lives Matter rally in Baltimore and see how gently they’ll react.

* Some said (not in this story), what’s worse, being endorsed by David Duke, whose endorsement Trump didn’t seek, or Hillary and Bernie actively meeting with and seeking the endorsement of Al Sharpton, provocateur of the Crown Heights Pogrom, with its cries of “Kill the Jews,” the murder of Jew and dozens of home invasions? What’s more threatening, a Klan endorsement that Trump didn’t seek, or Hillary and Bernie voting for the Iran nuclear deal? The deal allows Iran to test ballistic missiles, and this week Iran did, with threats to annihilate Israel written in Hebrew on the missile. To Jews, Sharpton is worse than Duke, Iran is more threatening than the Klan.

Jonathan Mark writes:

In a campaign stained by insults and innuendo, has anyone been more smeared than conservative Republicans supporting Donald Trump?

More than a few Orthodox Zionists among them complained to us that in a dangerous, uncertain world, their fears are dismissed as phobias: xenophobia, homophobia, Islamophobia; they’re called racist, nativist, fascist. Their candidate, Trump, is routinely compared to “Hitler” by professors, comedians, even Anne Frank’s half-sister, Eva.

(Despite the oft-repeated charges that Trump hates Muslims, a March 1 poll conducted by CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, found that 18 percent of American Muslims are now Republican and Trump is their favored nominee.)

Last week, Trump asked those at a rally to “raise your hand,” like a juror at a swearing-in, in a pledge to vote for Trump in the primary. To the people at the rally, an innocent gesture, surely, but it was “Heil Hitler” in the eyes of Abe Foxman, formerly of the Anti-Defamation League, signaling “obedience to their leader.”

Foxman, for decades, scolded those who made Holocaust comparisons to petty politics. Americans are routinely scolded against comparing the nuclear deal with Iran to the 1938 Hitler appeasement. “We can’t even compare Islamic terrorists to Nazis — or even to Islam,” said one Trump supporter, “and suddenly we’re told that a Trump rally is a Nuremberg rally on the eve of the Holocaust.” Incivility is contagious; Trump’s campaign, drizzled with impolitic insults, is being mirrored on the left by intemperate critiques as incendiary as Trump’s own.

J.J. Gross, a New York writer now living in Jerusalem, e-mailed: “I am not for Trump; I am against Hillary [Clinton] and [Bernie] Sanders. Hence I will vote for Trump, absent any other opponent to those two.”

Gross was one of several who pointed to Sidney Blumenthal as an example why “Hillary can’t be trusted.” Blumenthal’s son, Max, is a fierce critic of Israel; The Nation called “Goliath: Life and Loathing in Greater Israel” by Max Blumenthal, “the ‘I Hate Israel’ handbook.” The elder Blumenthal suggested Clinton read Max’s articles, some of which Clinton distributed to her staff.

Gross continued, “Bernie Sanders’ Jewishness is the most dangerous kind. … My worry with Sanders is not what he would do ‘for’ Israel but what he would do ‘to’ Israel. Yes, Trump is a bombastic, bloviating egomaniac, in the American tradition of Teddy Roosevelt and P.T. Barnum; such ego demands greatness for America, and by extension its allies, of which Israel is certainly one, if not the only one.”

In Brooklyn, one rabbi, familiar with back-room conversations in Borough Park and chasidic Williamsburg, said Trump’s supporters were “not the sophisticated people.” But even unsophisticated people can have good reasons, said the rabbi, who asked not to be named because of his political ties. “There’s great anger at the Democratic Party,” and “here comes a man who speaks his mind, telling everyone off. He’s not really a nice guy. The Yiddish word is prust,” crude, coarse.

Nevertheless, in Florida, Sid Dinerstein, former Palm Beach County Republican chair, said, “The Republican Jews I speak to seem very solid for Trump.”

Larry Spiewak, chairman of the Flatbush Council of Jewish Organizations, was cited last summer in Hamodia and Haaretz as a Trump supporter. (In the American Jewish Committee poll of Jewish attitudes released last fall, Trump polled higher than any other GOP hopeful.) Spiewak told Haaretz that Trump was like Howard Stern. “Only Trump has the guts to say what others are afraid to say out loud. … Is he abrasive sometimes? Yeah, but that’s what people like…”

Six months later, Spiewak is not so sure. He senses that Trump supporters may be less apt to express their support. “Look,” Spiewak told us, “I listen to Howard Stern every morning, but I don’t go around telling everybody. I still agree with what Trump’s saying on the issues, but I’m not agreeing with how it is said — the way he puts people down. He’s losing respect from the community. My respect level is less than it was.

“You know,” said Spiewak, “I always say to my friends, ‘anybody but Hillary.’ But I really don’t know what I’m going to do now. Hey, it’s early. My father used to say, an hour before Shabbos isn’t Shabbos. A lot can happen.”

What about him being neutral on Israel? (Trump has said that in negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians he would be “evenhanded,” an honest broker.) “I don’t think he’s neutral on Israel,” said Spiewak.

Dr. Alan Rosenthal, a professor of surgery at New York University, said he had no problem with Trump’s “neutral” comment regarding Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. “He is correct in ‘not showing his cards’ at this time. I would not want to play poker with Donald Trump. I don’t think Trump would hesitate to treat Arab leaders as condescendingly as he did Chris Christie.”

Rosenthal continued, “From an Israel/Jewish perspective, a priority to me, I trust Trump to be a very strong, positive candidate. People I know who have had dealings with Trump, both business and personal, never heard him intimate even the most subtle anti-Jewish or anti-Israel comments.” His Jewish daughter, son-in-law and grandchildren, “all of whom he loves dearly,” are all shomer Shabbat, “making an anti-Israel/Jewish position very unlikely.”

There hasn’t been much polling on the race in Israel, but the Jewish Journal cited an Israeli Democracy Institute monthly Peace Index poll saying that 60 percent of Israelis say that Trump is good for Israel, while 51 percent say the same for Hillary Clinton. Seventeen percent of Israelis say Trump would be bad for Israel; 32 percent say Clinton would be bad for the Jewish state.

Dennis Prager writes March 15, 2016:

This past Friday, a left-wing mob shut down a Donald Trump rally in Chicago. Most Americans viewing what happened saw it for what it was — another left-wing assault on the speech of those with whom they differ and on traditional American civility.
Not surprisingly, the media reporting has concentrated overwhelmingly on Trump for incendiary and inexcusable comments he has made at some of his other rallies that were disrupted by protesters. For example, he offered to pay any legal bills incurred by a man in the audience who sucker-punched a protester as he was being led out of a Trump rally.
Many have also noted the alleged assault by Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, who was accused of trying to grab Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields’ arm. (I say “alleged” because I have watched the video of the alleged incident four times but could not ascertain what actually took place.)
For the record, I have been relentless in my criticisms of Donald Trump, both in print and on my radio show, preferring any other Republican candidate. Based on his past, I have not had any reason to trust him as a conservative or as a Republican, and he has exhibited serious character flaws.
Nevertheless, truth must trump opposition to Trump.
And the truth is that the left-wing attack on Trump’s Chicago rally had little, if anything, to do with what the incendiary comments Donald Trump has made about attacking protestors at his events. Leftist mobs attack and shut down events with which they differ as a matter of course. They do so regularly on American college campuses, where conservative speakers — on the rare occasion they are invited — are routinely shouted down by left-wing students (and sometimes faculty) or simply disinvited as a result of leftist pressure on the college administration.
A couple of weeks ago conservative writer and speaker Ben Shapiro was disinvited from California State University, Los Angeles. When he nevertheless showed up, 150 left-wing demonstrators blocked the entrance to the theater in which he was speaking, and sounded a fire alarm to further disrupt his speech.
In just the last year, left-wing students have violently taken over presidents’ or deans’ offices at Princeton, Virginia Commonwealth University, Dartmouth, Providence College, Harvard, Lewis & Clark College, Temple University and many others. Conservative speakers have either been disinvited or shouted down at Brandeis University, Brown University, the University of Michigan and myriad other campuses.
And leftists shout down virtually every pro-Israel speaker, including the Israeli ambassador to the United States, at every university to which they are invited to speak.
Yet the mainstream media simply ignore this left-wing thuggery — while reporting that the shutting down of a pro-Trump rally is all Trump’s fault for his comments encouraging roughing up protestors at his events.
That the left shuts down people with whom it differs is a rule in every leftist society. The left — not classical liberals, I hasten to note — is totalitarian by nature. In the 20th century, the century of totalitarianism, virtually every totalitarian regime in the world was a leftist regime. And the contemporary American university — run entirely by the left — is becoming a totalitarian state, where only left-wing ideas are tolerated.
Tens of millions of Americans look at what the left is doing to universities, and what it has done to the news and entertainment media, and see its contempt for the First Amendment’s protection of free speech. They see Donald Trump attacked by this left, and immediately assume that only Trump will take on, in the title words of Jonah Goldberg’s modern classic, “Liberal Fascism.”
And if these millions had any doubt that Trump alone will confront left-wing fascism, Trump’s opponents seemed to provide proof. Like the mainstream media, the three remaining Republican candidates for president — John Kasich, the most and Marco Rubio the least — blamed Trump for the left-wing hooligans more than they blamed the left. It is possible that in doing so Senators Cruz and Rubio and Governor Kasich effectively ended their campaigns and ensured the nomination of Trump as the Republican candidate for president. The combination of left-wing violence and the use of it by the other GOP candidates to wound Trump rather than label the left as the mortal threat to liberty that it is may clinch Trump’s nomination.
And if the left continues to violently disrupt Trump rallies, they — along with the total absence of condemnation by the Democratic Party and its presidential candidate — may well ensure that Donald Trump is elected president. Between the play-Fascism of Trump and the real Fascism of the left, most Americans will know which one to fear most.

Posted in Donald Trump, Jews | Comments Off on Jews For Trump

Trump Marches Into AIPAC Monday

Posted on March 16, 2016 by Luke Ford

I wonder how he’ll do with AIPAC?

Trump’s Jewish grandchildren are his shield against the Jews accusing him of being Hitler.
One big difference between Trump and Hitler is that Hitler did not have any Jewish grandchildren.
Even the ADL must appreciate this fact, once it is pointed out to them.

Is this what we want for a President?

Is this what we want for a President?

Posted by Donald J. Trump on Wednesday, March 16, 2016

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* A smart strategy here would be if Trump can, even subtly, position himself as the best bulwark between American Jews (and Israel) and the various moonbats on the left Hillary has to break bread with (Black Lives Matter, etc.) who aren’t and won’t be the friends of successful white people of any description (and who aren’t too far from BDS and other anti-Israel/pro-Palestinian outfits). These folks will be a problem Jews can recognize more quickly than the Jews will be able to “become” not-white. Jews viscerally don’t like demagogues who are too popular with Gentile torches-and-pitchforks mobs, but they do understand benevolent despots (or, if you will, czars) who stand between useful Jews and the mob; and they also (at least a generation or two back, mostly on the East Coast) understand why to be afraid of black mobs.

* It will be interesting to see Trump triangulate between the obeisance to Israel that AIPAC expects, his promises to avoid unnecessary military adventures, and the expectations of those who hope Trump really will mainstream policies favoring the interests of US citizens and of the USA over the interests of foreigners and of foreign nations. Such policies may seem unexceptional for a republic but have been utterly repudiated by this country’s ruling elites — the plutocrats and Israel-first extremists and the MSM and federal political figures they have bought and paid for.

* Trump has no particular animus toward Israel or Jews. It should not be a surprise that he is speaking at AIPAC. Dislike of Jews/Israel and conspiracy theories about AIPAC is a fringe position in American politics, and mostly a far-left fringe position.

* FL governor Rick Scott just endorsed Trump. Trump should seriously consider picking Scott to be his running mate (and thus helping to deliver FL’s 29 electoral votes). A Trump-Scott ticket would be a quite respectable, professional choice and not a weird, straight out of left field curve ball choice like McCain chose in ’08.

* At this point, the debates can’t help Trump much. Cruz is too good of a debater, and Kasich is too sober in demeanor for Trump’s bullying style to look very good.

* The far left dislikes Israel because they’re white-ish people colonizing brown-ish people in a pretty brutal fashion. I dislike Israel because they’re no ally to the USA but they’re treated as such because of the powerful Israel lobby (AIPAC etc) and Jewish stranglehold on corporate media. The USA gives Israel billions of dollars and political cover at the UN Security Council and in return we get espionage and false flag attacks (USS Liberty, 9/11). “Our” leaders are apoplectic about Iran doing nuclear research when Israel already has dozens of nukes and is a non-signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

* Trump will be speaking on two levels. For the general public he will sound normal and non-controversial. But to Jews and red-pilled Americans, the two groups who are in the know, there will be a second and more subtle discourse. Will Trump reach Troll Level: Expert? He came very close to this honor in his last speech to those GOP Jewish business men.

One subliminal message will be a threat that if Jews gang up against him (as they do seem to be doing) and he still manages to win the elections; baby Israel will pay a very heavy price indeed!

On the normal people level Trump has to get across that he has no need to pander to AIPAC since he is self-funding and Jews are such a tiny demographic, and since they normally vote Democratic. their actual voting power nil. By saying he has no need to pander he is of course pointing out that Hillary has a huge need to pander.

Trump has to strongly criticize the Iraq, Libya, and Syria disasters and openly call for peace with Putin. Dare the collected Jews to boo those comments.

Trump has to again say he will be an honest broker between Israel and Palestine. Of course he probably will not be, but that all depends on how American Jews treat him in the general election, doesn’t it?

It would be wonderful trolling if Trump goes though his stump speech about getting other nations to pay for our protection — no need to explicitly mention Israel — in fact it’s better not to.

In fact he should as much as possible avoid the subject of Israel and concentrate on making America great again — these Jews are Americans after all, aren’t they?

To me this speech will be Must-See-TV. There will be some hecklers and some people walking out. But of course that only helps Trump as most Americans are disgusted by Israel. I also think it is great to shine such powerful spotlight on AIPAC — many Americans will be just getting introduced to it….

* I giggled a bit at the unintended message behind this.

“Speech by controversial GOP candidate could give him legitimacy he lacks, which is precisely what enrages his opponents.”

So it’s not enough for him to meet the criteria set out in your laws and get the necessary votes, for him to be President and not just a seat warmer, true legitimacy can only come from the sainted AIPAC.

* LF: Criminal lawyers have a good gig. There’s almost no paperwork, they almost never take anything to trial because their clients are guilty and juries hate them, and criminal lawyers can’t get sued for malpractice unless their clients factually prove their innocence (win on appeal).

* If anyone could give Trump trouble I would imagine it would be the Israel lobby. They pretty much control conservative politics. Whenever Israel says jump conservatives reply how high? However if anyone can do it, it would be Trump but will be a bit harder than taking on the conservative establishment as he has done.

* Trump’s relationship with the Jewish community is probably not unlike Stalin’s, friendly but aware of the very real difference in interests.

* I would wager that the speech Trump will actually give will be NOTHING like the speech that you just proposed. That fantasy speech is the speech that YOU would give, which is why you would never be elected dog catcher. Trump is going to AIPAC to make friends, not to spit in their faces and endorse Putin. As Steve explained, people who don’t want to be total losers in America need to have at least SOME Jewish friends.

* The fact that Trump is taunting Fox News by this snub is more important than that he will be speaking at AIPAC. In fact, I’d say the most important thing about the Trump campaign so far is that he’s winning while repeatedly flouting the power of the media and telling the world via Twitter that he’s doing it.

* If Trump can get the GOP nomination while taunting Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, the National Review, Glen Beck, etc, etc, then he will be liberating millions of people from the belief that you have to jump through all the media’s hoops without complaint or they will destroy you. Sure, Trump is a well-connected and already famous billionaire but others will follow. To me that matters more than what he’ll say at AIPAC. The mass media shakedown operation – and the low cults of spin and PR that built up to appease it – are a far greater burden on us here and now than Bibi’s Israel.

* I was completely unaware of AIPAC until a few years ago, when the father of a boy on my son’s soccer team introduced me to it. The man was a Muslim immigrant and was very pleasant, intelligent, and fairly westernized. On the day we met, after we’d been talking for about 25 minutes, he started complaining to me about the disproportionate influence that AIPAC has in the U.S. I asked him what AIPAC was, and he told me, but he seemed very surprised that I had to ask.

* Seems that “diversity” is America’s “greatest strength,” but not Israel’s. The Jews are raising the height of THEIR border wall… while many if not most Jewish liberals in the U.S. are calling Trump “Hitler” for proposing an American border wall.

* First of all, Trump has two choices, more or less. He can do what they want, and lose the alt-right but hopefully gain a few rich Jewish guys on his side. He can snub them, and keep the alt-right and perhaps inflame the remainder of the media against him.

I don’t know how much he needs the alt-right at this point. He might want to be portrayed as more centrist now that he’s running for the more liberal state picks, and eventually for the country as a whole, including people who don’t vote in Republican primaries. People outside the alt-right are a lot more annoyed over trade and immigration than they are over Israel.

Or, he might do something I haven’t thought of yet. He’s the Artist of the Deal, I wouldn’t be surprised. He might, for example, guarantee Israel’s safety in case of a direct attack on them but refuse to aid them in proxy wars like Iraq–enough to keep people worried about their relatives over there happy but still enough to please isolationists. Like I said, the guy’s smarter than me. I don’t know what he’s going to do.

There’s a natural human tendency to think if a guy’s on your side about something you care about, he’s on your side about everything, which explains the idea that a guy who let his daughter marry a Jew and does real estate in New York is an anti-Semitic avenger.

* I don’t see much difference between AIPAC and BlackLivesMatter and I’m quite sure many Americans feel the same way.

That said, Trump strategy for this speech should be to provoke the AIPACniks into booing him and then getting the media establishment and all the other candidates to support AIPAC like they backed BLM in Chicago last week.

The key is that on the surface level Trump must stay squeaky clean.

Start by attacking PAC money in politics and repeat the “you will not like me because I will not take your money”

Next, move on the complimenting Israel and saying how much America has to learn from her. For example Trump can talk about Israel foresight in building their wall — Trump can neg it a little by saying ours will be more beautiful.

Move on to Israel not accepting Syrian refugees. High praise for this move. Extra points for pointing out the official reason is that taking refugees would undermine Israeli identity. he probably wouldn’t go that far though.

Move on to Israeli enhanced interrogation techniques and the destruction of terrorist houses. Point out how Trump is attack for proposing similar policies in America. The triggering should be in full effect at that point.

The AIPACniks will have either started hissing and howling as they march out or they will sit there quietly and take it. Either way Trump wins, he wins more if they walk out. Once they walk out Trump can blame it on the fact he will not take their money!!

Bernie and Hillary will hopefully have gone on before him and will have criticized Israel for certain things. Trump can ask why did they walk out when I praised them but cheered loudly after Sanders and Clinton said less nice things about them?

* Disliking AIPAC is not the same thing as disliking Israel. I have nothing against Israel existing, being a nation, being a jewish state, defending itself, etc. I do dislike AIPAC – for the undue influence they wield over american politics. Why should every major candidate for President of the United States knock head before that one particular ethnic lobbying group? Why should Israel be more consequent for the american government than, say, Ireland?

* If Trump is smart he will hire an AIPAC operative and to help him write a speech agreeing 100% with their agenda, and keying him into the right terms to use. For instance, don’t say “occupied territories.” I’m not even sure what the right term is myself, I think it is “Judea and Samaria,” or or something like that.

It wouldn’t hurt to give a mildly worded version of his temporary shutdown on Muslim immigration. AIPAC can’t officially endorse this, but it will be music to most of their ears, and signal that he is objectively more pro-Jewish and pro-Israel than Hillary. Moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem and explicitly endorsing settlements are two more key issues where he has a unique degree of freedom to out-Jew Hillary.

Trump has everything to gain and nothing to lose here. Middle America, to the extent it has an opinion, loves Israel, and evangelicals are one of his weak spots with the base and on average more pro Israel than even secular Jews.

If Jews are 4% of the white vote, and Trump needs an extra 4% over Romney’s share, going from ~25% of them who voted for Romney and McCain to 50% of them is both a realistic goal and gets him a quarter of the way to victory. I even think 55% is a realistic goal, which gives him 30% of what he needs to win. And that isn’t even counting the fact that being extremely pro Israel, far more than Hillary, will depress her fundraising.

Also, Hillary’s arms are tied. Anti-Israel voters, while they don’t provide any funds to her campaign, do provide volunteers and votes. They will grudgingly put up with the normal Dem pro-Israel party line out of necessity, but will rebel if she tries to go as far as Trump is free to. No way will she explicitly endorse settlement policy without turning off Muslim voters and the academic far-left.

Posted in Donald Trump | Comments Off on Trump Marches Into AIPAC Monday

Will A Trump Victory Dislodge The Neo-Cons?

Posted on March 16, 2016 by Luke Ford

Paul Gottfried writes: Although I fully share the jubilation of others that Donald Trump may be taking a wrecking ball to the GOP establishment, I don’t hold the view that Trump’s candidacy will reduce neoconservative power. Matthew Richer, Justin Raimondo and other writers whose columns I usually welcome all believe that Trump’s rise as a Republican presidential candidate may help bring down his bogus conservative enemies. The more Trump’s popular support soars, the more the neocons have supposedly turned themselves into paper tigers. The establishment Republicans whom they “advise” have not marginalized Trump; nor have the neocons and their clients been able to elevate as GOP frontrunner someone who serves their purposes. The fact that prominent neocons like Robert Kagan have indicated their willingness to vote for Hillary Clinton instead of a GOP presidential candidate they don’t want, has underscored the emptiness of their opposition to Mrs. Clinton. The neoconservatives’ willingness to abandon the Republican side in the presidential race if they don’t get their way dramatizes their deviousness and arrogance. Presumably others will now abandon these power-hungry careerists and perpetual war mongers.

Unfortunately, I expect none of this to happen. Indeed it would not surprise me if the neocons exhibited the staying power of the Egyptian New Kingdom, which ruled Egypt for five hundred years (1570-1070 BC) despite such occasional setbacks as military defeats. What neoconservative publicists are now doing when they bait and switch, does not seem different from what they did in the past. Prominent neocons have not consistently taken the side of eventually victorious Republican presidential candidates. In 1972 Nathan Glazer, Daniel Bell and other neocon heavyweights backed McGovern against Nixon, yet neocon and Democrat Daniel Moynihan carried great weight in the Nixon administration. In the presidential primaries in 1976 Irving Kristol and most other Republican neocons backed Gerald Ford against Ronald Reagan; nonetheless, after Reagan’s victory in 1980 neoconservatives William Bennett and Eliot Abrams came to play highly visible roles in the Republican administration.

Conceivably even if Robert Kagan and his friends support Hillary Clinton against Trump, they would still remain prominent, well-connected “conservatives.” The neoconservatives’ power and influence do not depend on their willingness to march in lockstep with the GOP. Their power base extends into both parties; and if most neocons are currently identified with the “moderate” wing of the GOP, providing their political ambitions are met and their foreign policy is carried out, other recognizable neocons like William Galston, Kagan’s wife Victoria Nuland, and Ann Applebaum have identified strongly with Democratic administrations. Neoconservatives will not likely cease to be part of the political and journalistic establishment, even if some in their ranks chose to back Hillary against the Donald.

Even less likely, will they cease to be a shaping force in a “conservative movement” that remains mostly under their wing. Since the 1980s neoconservatives have been free to push that movement in their own direction, toward a neo-Wilsonian foreign policy, toward the defense of what they celebrate as a “democratic capitalist welfare state” and toward a gradual acceptance of leftist social positions, as being less vital to “conservatism” than “national defense.” Neoconservatives demand that the government be pro-active in relation to the rest of the world. They and those politicians they train speak of “leading from the front” and place special emphasis on the protection of Israel and continued American intervention in “trouble spots” across the globe.

Neoconservatives have their own characteristic American nationalism, which is based on both energetic involvement in the affairs of other states and calls for further immigration, which now comes mostly from the Third World. Both of these foundational positions are justified on the grounds that American identity rests on a creed, which stresses universal equality. Most anyone from anywhere can join the American nation by adopting the neocons’ preferred creed; and once here these “new Americans, “ it is argued, will become hardy defenders of our propositional nationhood while providing the cheap labor needed for economic growth. Perhaps most importantly, neocons have no trouble attracting corporate donors, who hold their views on immigration and their fervent Zionism. Australian newspaper baron Rupert Murdoch, who finances their media outlets, has been particularly generous to his neoconservative clients but is far from their only benefactor.

The hundreds of millions of dollars that are poured into neoconservative or neoconservative-friendly policy institutes annually are not likely to dry up in the foreseeable future. A meeting just held on Sea Island off the coast of Georgia for the purpose of devising and executing a plan to bring down Trump, included, according to Pat Buchanan, all the usual suspects. Neocon journalist Bill Kristol,, executives of neocon policy institute AEI, and Republican bigwigs and politicians were all conspicuously represented at this gathering of the “conservative “ in-crowd , and gargantuan sums of money were pledged to destroy the reputation of someone whom the attendees hoped to destroy.

If the neocons were falling, certainly they are hiding their descent well. Finally, there seems to be a continuing congruence between the liberal internationalism preached by neoconservatives and such architects of America’s foreign policy as the Council on Foreign Relations. Although the Old Right and libertarians may lament these troublemakers, the neoconservatives do not labor alone in imposing their will. They are the most out-front among those calling for an aggressive American internationalism; and this has been a dominant stance among American foreign policy elites for at least a century.

It is hard to imagine that the neocons will lose these assets because they’ve been branding Trump a fascist or because they’re unwilling to back the GOP presidential candidate, no matter who he or she is. Powerbrokers in their own right, they don’t have to worry about passing litmus tests. They enjoy unbroken control of the “conservative movement,” and benefit from the demonstrable inability of a more genuine Right to displace them. Matthew Richer asks whether Donald Trump’s election would spell “the end of NR’s influence over the conservative movement in America.” The answer is an emphatic no, unless those who distribute the funding for the neoconservative media empire decide to close down this particular fixture. Otherwise Rich Lowry and his buds will go on being funded as agents for disseminating neocon party lines.

Moreover, those featured in NR‘s printed issues and/or on its widely visited website are routinely invited on to Fox-news and contribute to other interlocking neoconservative enterprises. Rich Lowry and Jonah Goldberg will not be thrown out of work, because they dumped toxic waste on Trump. And Max Boot will not lose his position at the WSJ because of his over-the-top tirades against Trump, after having railed non-stop for several weeks against Confederate monuments and Confederate Battle Flags. There is nothing the neocons say when they’re reaching leftward or revealing their leftist colors that the leftist media aren’t also saying, even more stridently. Pointing out the silliness of neoconservative assertions about history or the current age may help us deal with our irritation. It does not mean that we can dissuade those who fund the neoconservatives from giving them more money. They are being kept around not for their wisdom or the elegance of their prose but because they are useful to the powerful and rich.

Finally I should observe that the neocons have done so well in marginalizing their opposition on the right that it seems unlikely, as George Hawley points out in Right-Wing Critics of the Conservative Movement (University of Kansas, 2016), that the balance of power between the two sides is about to change. How exactly will a genuine Right that has not been contaminated by the neocons gain enough influence to replace them? How can such a Right, given its modest circumstances, even compete with the neocons for access to the public and for friends in high places?

The neocons would never yield ground to competitors on the right. Indeed they have fought them so relentlessly, because they view them as nothing less carriers of anti-Semitism and other things that the neocons fear. Further, leftist allies would join the neocons in preventing our side from ever gaining ground. And this kind of alliance has worked well before, e.g., when the neocons made their opposition disappear with an assist from the Left in the 1980s and early 1990s. Although there are isolated journalists like Ann Coulter and Pat Buchanan who resist the neocons from the Right while enjoying prominence, these are the exceptions. Most of those who attack the neocons from the right languish in relative obscurity. Indeed most right-wing critics of the neoconservatives, as Hawley underscores, have been effectively removed from media visibility. This isolation suits the regular Left as it does the Left’s more moderate neoconservative wing.

To those who hope to see the neocons swept from power as Donald Trump and his backers prosper politically, I am offering the sobering message that your expectations are unrealistic. Although the neoconservatives can be challenged from the Right, such a challenge can only work on the media level if the would-be counterforce is as well-equipped as what it’s fighting. Simply saying that the neocons are losing ground or are now in freefall won’t make one’s wish come to pass. Needless to say, I’d be delighted if proven wrong in this matter.

COMMENTS:

PG: The last commentator raises a good question about how neoconservatives reconcile their view of Americanism as a universal creed with their fervent support of the Israeli nationalist Right. There are two answers: One, some neoconservatives, most conspicuously Douglas Feith, affirm the validity of the double standard, by arguing that unlike the US , which was founded as a “propositional nation,” Israel was created as an ethnic nation. Because of its function as a Jewish homeland, its cooperation with the US, and its exemplary democracy, Israel is the best ethnic nation.The other answer is that Israel exemplifies global democratic ideals and human rights and therefore deserves the support of America as the most powerful example of the same ideals. Needless to say, a neocon who starts with the first answer will often elide into the second, and then go back to the first.

* The U.S. was created as a “propositional nation” specifically among white, ethnic English Protestants who subscribed to Locke’s Second Treatise and the English Bill of Rights of 1688. As Washington wrote in his Farewell Address, “With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits and political principles” to which he might just as well have added “race, language, and ethnicity,” as Indians and blacks, who were unfamiliar with Locke and English law, were rightly excluded from the polity.

“The other answer is that Israel exemplifies global democratic ideals and human rights and therefore deserves the support of America as the most powerful example of the same ideals.”

This second answer contradicts the first, and thereby renders itself an oxymoron. Israel cannot simultaneously be an “ethnic nation” and a specifically “Jewish homeland” AND exemplify “global democratic ideals.” If Israel exemplifies “global democratic ideals,” it should give Palestinians and other Arab Muslims an unlimited “right of return” along with the franchise, and see how long it lasts.

Frankly, I am not opposed to Israel asserting itself as a Jewish ethic state, so long as the U.S. can assert itself as a white, Christian state. The idea that what is good for the goose is not good for the gander strikes me as rank hypocrisy.

* The truth about the Neocons: 70% of their stuff is good, at least in the old days, before they became feminists and gay rights activists. Further, I don’t see why we shouldn’t support Israel, its not like we need another failed state in the Middle East. If you need further proof, just look at who supports the Palestinians.

Now, Wilsonian Interventionism is completely nuts, and imperialism on the cheap, that is, sans the high birth rates, malevolent levels of ethnocentrism, and political ruthlessness necessary for successful imperialism, is a couple delusion. Further, the neocons clearly don’t play well with others, but. . .

The further back you go in the neocon movement, the sharper the thinking, the clearer the understanding, and the stronger the determination. The fact is, the modern neocon is completely decadent, no ideas, no insights, no knowledge, they are just a well-funded army of second rate hacks. Give a moron a big megaphone, even a WSJ-sized megaphone, they remain a moron. So whatever their structural advantages, it is hard to see the dynasty continuing past a third generation, notwithstanding Paul Gottfried’s prophesy. House Rothschild they are not.

* “What is a Neocon?”

A liberal secular humanist that goes to the synagogue (maybe church) from time to time, pays lip service to the societal benefits of religion, claims that anyone who wants to block immigration or fight the welfare state is an anti-semite, adores America supporting Israel, laughs supportively at the stupidity of zionist evangelicals, gets a stiff one everytime America topples an Arab regime in the name of holy (but utterly unattainable) democracy, and, MOST IMPORTANTLY doesn’t really hold any real convictions that they wouldn’t ditch in 2 seconds if it meant their media or political career could be advanced by doing so.

* Mr. Gottfried makes a lot of good points.

It is true that Neocons will have lots of money on their side.

But no amount of money can sustain a broken narrative.

I mean neocons pumped so much money into Jeb and Rubio, but it didn’t matter.

When something is dead, it is dead. It cannot be revived with money alone.

Is Neoconism dead? Not really, but it fails with all groups.

Why would Libs and Progs need Neoconism?

And white Cons no longer care about neocon talking points.

Ann Coulter and Ted Nugents’ tweets are of the times.

Identity politics is the future, and Neocons only have identity for Jews, not for whites.
This is where the narrative is falling apart.

* Reason.com: “Because of Strauss’ teachings, Kristol continued, “There are in Washington today dozens of people who are married with children and religiously observant. Do they have faith? Who knows? They just believe that it is good to go to church or synagogue. Whether you believe or not is not the issue — that’s between you and God — whether you are a member of a community that holds certain truths sacred, that is the issue.” Neoconservatives are “pro-religion even though they themselves may not be believers.”

* There are two sides to the media – reporting on events (which only the professional MSM has the resources to do on a large scale) and interpretation of these events (which anybody can do). The MSM has already lost control of the later, which is why it heavily censors comments on opinion articles, but still controls the former.

However, the MSM is suffering from a serious profit crisis and doesn’t have the luxury of ignoring stories it doesn’t want to talk about for ideological reasons (like how badly neo-con friendly candidates are doing in the polls). The oxygen of publicity is a vital aspect of political success and Trump knows that while the MSM may be biased against him, it can’t afford to ignore interesting, politically incorrect stories that will draw in readers and viewers.

* Ilana Mercer has been prescient about Trump, I think he can shake things up by defining and expressing the aforementioned interests. In foreign policy, Trump will not rush into war, and might allow developments in Israel’s neighbouring countries which will lead to Israel doing what it needs to do and most Jews who actually live in Israel want to do. Neocons don’t dare consider the said option, but if under a Trump presidency Israel sent its problems across the river, that would discredit the neocons as useless to Israel. The neocons would lose confidence and have to shut up about the desirability of immigration, if Trump brought about the transfer that according to Mondoweiss most Israelis want. Benny Morris also thinks it is the best option.

* Israel’s 1967 acquired Arabs represent one side in a conflict and conflicts have outcomes, not solutions. As you helpfully point out the West Bank Arabs’ view of just desserts means they will never accept anything less than a real state which cannot happen unless an Israeli government orders most Jewish settlers to leave. The Israeli government did do this some extent in Judea and Samaria in 2008 a mass expulsion of Jewish settlers by the IDF is surely impossible given how many there are now. Apartheid or full rights for the West Bank Arabs are no more acceptable than an Israeli state mandated withdrawal, because both the former mean the inevitable end of a Jewish state.

A spread of the current Sunni radicalism into Jordan would mean war against the Jews and Israel would become involved. I think Trump thinks getting involved in Sunni wars to uphold failed state entities should be avoided, and he would not object to Israeli operations against a West Bank Arab fifth column. Of course it all depends if the west bank Arabs take the side of an ISIS type government in Jordan against Israel. I think they might well. Trump is the best hope for Israel to get out of the impasse that they are locked into by current US policy, and the neocons concentration on Iran. Compared to the ever-growing internal Arab threat, Iran is irrelevant.

* Gottfried’s reasoning:

A) I hate neocons
B) I hate immigration
C) Ergo, neocons must love immigration.

As a matter of fact, neocons are all over the place on immigration, from those that want basically open borders (Max Boot) to those who are almost Sailerian (David Frum), with many in between (Bill Kristol). Immigration is nowhere near central to neo-con thinking, nor are they unified on the topic.

* Neo-conservatives are people that firmly hold to Wilson’s idea of democracy and it’s spread. Wilson had the idea that everyone had an American inside them trying to get out and he was willing to go on a crusade to establish American style democracy around the world. That leads to the nonsense of nation building like we have seen attempted in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Neocons were firmly in the camp of the Democrats as recently as the 70s. After Carter’s incompetence as POTUS, the neocons infiltrated the GOP and burrowed under the skin of the GOP to feed like the parasites they are. US foreign policy has been dominated by Neocons since about 1982.

Unfortunately, the most prominent Neocons, such as Feith and Perle are US Jews and some have, as a result, made the accusation of the term “neocon” being a synonym for Jews. That is a false accusation used to try to quiet criticism of the Neocons.

* I first encountered the neocons and that name for them in the 1980s, looking back at their work in the 1970s. Most of the attention seemed to be on their writing on domestic social issues like welfare and education, their application of social science techniques [admittedly learned while they were collectively in leftist New York academia but professional techniques nonetheless], and their comparatively reactionary observations and conclusions about the collapse of the black family and society, the limits of social policy, the negative effects of welfare, and the limits of education to remedy any of this. Granted, not driven by behavioral genetics, but still looking like the sort of thing one might hear from Derb even now.

How did all that square with their emphasis on Wilsonian foreign policy, which demands a very high expectation of what government intervention can do, quickly, on a large scale, and against even more intractable and rooted norms?

And what happened to drive neocons on the domestic policy side toward acceptance of leftist social positions their movement started out criticizing?

Separately, “democratic capitalist welfare state” doesn’t sound all that different from proto-Trumpism. He seems entirely at home with and in favor of medicare, single-payer, social security, as do the bulk of his electorate. He does not seem to be running a campaign on tailored marginal tax cuts. And he and Sanders are the only candidates even theoretically opposing hard core neoliberal globalism, the main force for gutting electoral democracy, welfare systems, and national statehood.

* If foreign policy is to be cold, rational, and about the survival of the American nation, these were valid motives to intervene, even in Asia [as it happens I would except Vietnam from that; it probably was never necessary or a good idea, at least the way it was done, outside the realms of Kenndy/Johnson ideology]. Intervention in Europe was 100% in the interest of the US, even in 1917. A German Europe, even under the Kaiser, would have been less beneficial to the US than one that remained divided among several more or less equal powers. [The US interest and the British one were the same on that]. A German Europe in the 1940s would have just meant the US was in a Cold War with the old world, earlier, and with richer and more useful countries ceded in advance to the enemy than was the case in 1945. So, Americans would not have been speaking German. Maybe never, certainly not in the first generation or two. But many more of the people America had to work with in the world would have been speaking German than ever spoke Russian.

If foreign policy is to be about sentiment and emotions, which is often the prevailing mode on this site [‘we should only fight for Americans’ freedoms’ is not actually that unrelated to ‘we should fight for everyone’s freedoms’, and itself could result in unwarranted adventurism the next time the US gets it in mind to go to war to avenge some American citizen who did something stupid or went somewhere dangerous without adequately informing himself or herself of local conditions and has fallen victim to local laws and or political events] then perhaps gratitude is in order.

The US enjoyed a long period of peace and security in the western hemisphere and was able to promulgate the unbelievably presumptuous and imperialistic Monroe Doctrine to extend its paternalism across the Americas only because the Royal Navy controlled the Atlantic. Once the bilateral disputes were settled in the wake of 1812-15, American ships engaged in commerce throughout the world on seas largely defended by the British. Fighting for their freedom was returning a favor. Ditto France, pain though they might be and quasi-war of the 1790s notwithstanding. Until 1917, the US had not repaid the independence won for them by the French army and navy.

Still, I get your sentiments. If Americans were a mature people, it would not be necessary to couch everything in chants of “Freedom!”. Instead, this mentality has been exported and now peoples like the British can only do anything if it is cast in similarly simpleminded terms. Although the specific ideas vary a bit.

Of course, America’s policy of sending conscript armies to places like Korea and Vietnam was never going to end well.

* Trump would create space for a new conservatism or populism and I assume that the some conservatives will continuing being as opportunistic as they have always been and cling to the republican Trump presidency. Assuming I’m right and that conservatives will start to tailor the ideology it would mean a partial , and perhaps irredeemable, break in the neocon led movement as we have known it. The mere fact that neocons have already decided that they are anti-Trump means a potential intellectual civil war is looming if Trump is elected. There will be a time for choosing and thankfully I suspect a fair amount of conservative opportunists will follow the power. Furthermore if Trump creates a new winning coalition for other Republicans to emulate it would also weaken the neocons who have long been telling Republican politicians how to win.

In short, a Trump victory signifies a coming weakness of neoconservatism’s hold on the movement. The alternative right/paleo’s have only needed an opening and they might finally get one.

* That timing and that “Compassionate Conservative” are the real keys. The neocons prosper because the Republican party leadership and Conservatism, Inc. can’t deal in any way, shape, or form with race in American politics, and they need furrin’ enemies to take the minds of their overwhelmingly white constituency off of that fact (the rubes went for it!). Off of the fact that the petty con-men and small town shysters that run the Republican party aren’t going to do a thing about the left/non-white coalition’s destructive white-hating racism They’re so cowed by the racist left that they’re even siding with them and excusing the brown-shirtism being used against their own party. The neos will exist as long as the Republican party exists in its present form as an amoral business lobby masquerading as a political party.

What makes a cuck a cuck is not that he isn’t pro-white, or that he doesn’t support serious immigration restrictions, etc., it’s that he collaborates with the very real and murderous white-hating racism of the political left while denouncing the largely fictional racism of whites. Anti-racism is a code word for anti-white isn’t just a tag, it’s reality, and as long as the rank and file of the Republican party and conservatism go along with the charade, go along with their own destruction, there will be a place for neocons in the Republican party.

* If one considers the Right as being dedicated to shrinking the %GDP of .gov spending to pre-WW1 levels, then the neocons are certainly against that. Of course, about 80% of the US shares that position.

The first generation, or the real intellectuals, of the neoconservative movement were made up of people who had experienced WWII, and the rapid destruction of the legitimacy of fascism as a political concept. Further, as some of them were former Trotskyites (Podhoretz and friends), they thought you could defeat Stalin’s communism (which they called red fascism) just as quickly. More or less it looked in the early 90s that they were right on that part.

That brings us to the second generation, or the regressed to the mean. Today we don’t have a massive clash of ideology, despite attempts to promote jihadism as such. We are in a civilization level struggle with Islam, but we also have equally important internal conflicts. To add more confusion, the neocons won’t identify Islam itself as the enemy. (You might mention Frank Gaffney, but he’s one guy with little influence). I consider this a strategic error on this part, in order to preserve their immediate position on mass immigration.

To understand their foreign policy position, as distinct from the rest of the liberal internationalists, its mainly a tendency to resort to ‘hard power’ earlier than others. During the Bush years the left considered the neocons to be ‘averse’ to diplomacy, but that isn’t really the case. Just look up a certain John Negroponte. Their real difference is a neocon skepticism towards ‘soft power’. They like bombing things, but don’t actually like occupations and rebuilding. (Quite an irony for those that consider them the key drivers of the Israeli ‘occupation’)

But to a man they all hate Russia, and I can only explain this in terms of ethnic hatred due to their roots as Eastern European Jews. The average Joe Sixpack conservative might believe that Putin is still a Communist, and the slightly more informed would say something about Dugin wanting world domination. I honestly think the foreign policy establishment has pegged Putin exactly, they fear him because he is a real nationalist that challenges the liberal post-1945 cultural order.

* Neocons are strong in politics because they are supported by the Donor Class. Once a non-owned candidate like Trump becomes president, neocons won’t have influence in his administration.

If patriotic conservatives (Coulter, Sessions) gain power in the Trump administration, that’ll translate into media clout too.

Neocons won’t be gone, but they’ll be marginalized to an extent.

* To recap: the core of the problem is that we have some very wealthy people who control large sections of the media and academia. As long as these people continue to throw their money and patronage at the neocons, the neocons will be invulnerable to either public opinion or the press of reality. By analogy, it’s like you are fighting a guerilla war, and the enemy has a safe haven over the border and an external source of supplies that you can’t touch. You can beat them back temporarily but never get rid of them, the war will continue.

On the other hand, one sign of light: Trump trashed Dubya’s stupid Iraq war, and not only got away with it but rose in the polls. Ditto when Trump bad-mouthed Senator (bomb bomb bomb Iran) McCain. If the general public comes to regard the neocons as corrupt and ridiculous, if they can maintain this healthy skepticism even when someone less flamboyant than Trump is leading the way, perhaps there is some hope for us after all.

They say that a Democracy needs an informed electorate. I don’t think that’s right. First and foremost, a real democracy needs a skeptical electorate.

Posted in Israel, Neoconservatives | Comments Off on Will A Trump Victory Dislodge The Neo-Cons?