George Will – Nerd & Big Man

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* A CPAC or three or so ago [George Will] was the keynote speaker and I wound up in his immediate vicinity before the dinner plates came out. What struck me, aside from his tall height, is how…luminescent the guy is. First of all he must have been wearing makeup; second the guy’s hair shimmers like gold, it really does. Anyways he carries himself with the mien of, well, of George F. Will, in the midst of a conservative pilgrimage to his Nation’s Capital. Though you might have been expecting more of a sheer nerd.

But he’s a Big Man, no doubt.

So though Steve’s distinctions are fun to notice, these ideas, they’re all relative. George Will will not so much look like the big man if and when they induct him into the baseball hall of fame, would be my intuition.

* Ah yes the evolution of George F. Will is a book in itself. I mean Statecraft as Soulcraft to the Cato Institute’s favorite columnist; he must have some heck of a memoir in store. I started out an avid reader of his columns, and as he once said of Murray Kempton, the finest practitioner of the columnist’s craft would be Dr. Will himself in my book. But clearly, from his last column on Trump, his style has, well, deteriorated by taking over. Something like what happened to Hemingway:

“His subject had become Ernest Hemingway and he had to keep developing the character. “How do you like it now, gentleman?” was the false-jocose line Lillian Ross heard him say, over and over, about his role in some uninteresting goings-on. The famous Style became performance, began eyeing itself, imitating itself. It developed formulae: flat nouns, short clauses linked by “and.” The day came when he could live with none of this any longer.” -Hugh Kenner

Change that last he to we and you have me. I no longer read George F. Will, though I remember when I thought I always would.

* Will is stuck in the rip current that mainstream conservatives found themselves in after Reagan. They thought that they had successfully carried out a successful revanchist campaign that cemented their place on the political landscape. Meanwhile, the counter-culture had embedded itself in the major cultural institutions and thereafter gained near absolute hegemony in news media, entertainment media, the academy. From there, they metastasized to gain appointments on the boards of museums, professional associations, and so forth – any institution not explicitly “conservative” (and later, even those that are).

Being conservative politically but also temperamentally – of great importance to him both being and being perceived as cultured and erudite – respectability is a sine qua non. And since the entire greater culture is dominated by Leftists and social insurgents they can confer or deny respectability depending upon one’s stated beliefs and behaviors. And so a man who was no doubt scandalized by Bill Haley and the Comets now advocates for the Republican Party to repudiate its position on State solemnized sodomy. He does this, but of course just a moment or two too late for a grant of full respectability – it’s more like a conditional pardon that is granted to him. And so he’s forever struggling to make headway to shore against a prodigious current but being pushed further to sea with every stroke.

So, where is the man? Where is George Will? What has he conserved with all of his gum flapping and spilled ink? What has he served to be other than the agent who consolidates the Left’s radical change and puts further opposition beyond the pale of respectability? Who is he but an older, stodgier, fussier version of any of his interlocutors from twenty five years ago?

In his mind’s eye, he would no doubt identify himself as Thomas More, but we can all see he’s Norfolk, mistaking expediency for “proportion” and propriety:

Of course, even after acceding to the King Norfolk is later sentenced to death but spared only due to the former’s death. And likewise Will had an invitation to speak at a college campus rescinded for failing to accept the paradigm of spectral evidence and denial-as-evidence-of-guilt in the recent campus rape hysteria. They deny him even the respectability for which he’d sell his eternal soul.

* Due to their intellect and methodical nature, a lot of nerds can learn the “big man” type techniques and become very good at them. There are a lot of introvert salespeople who have become very good at their craft because they are students of the game. Public speaking is a skill that can be learned. Interacting with the opposite sex successfully is a skill that can be learned.

Public speaking is something that white guys can excel at in their typical way of planning, kind of like pre-planned dance routines as opposed to impromptu African style dancing. Being able to think quickly on the feet and adapt verbally (like Trump does so well) in a debate is something I think you are mostly born with, though practice does make one better at it. And that is a very helpful “big man” technique.

* I noticed the same thing in high school, college and 20s with certain guys who were, shall we say, good with the ladies. Even if they were fairly masculine in general, they definitely had a feminine side. It’s what let them playfully go back and forth with the ladies.

I tended to do reasonably with women when I treated everything as a game, but I could only maintain that persona for so long, since, in my heart, it wasn’t. But for those “players,” it wasn’t an act. They really liked the game – and so did the women.

* George Will hasn’t been George Will since his first marriage broke down in dramatic fashion (his clothes on the lawn, etc.). All of his sensible social-conservative instincts also went out the window–his religious faith too, I gather. Now, according to George, sodomy and bardashery are akin to left-handedness.

* Most of the men I have known who are successful with women are ultimately quite boring to me as they tend not to be serious.

* Jerry: “No, Elaine and I we’re just discussing whether I could admit a man is attractive.”

Kramer: “Hmm! Oh! Yeah. I’ll tell you who is an attractive man; George Will.”

Jerry: “Really!”

Kramer: “Yeah! He has clean looks, scrubbed and shampooed and….”

Elaine: “He’s smart….”

Kramer: “No, no I don’t find him all that bright.”

Posted in George Will | Comments Off on George Will – Nerd & Big Man

The White Vote

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* One thing reporters never do when they disparage white voters is to thank them for giving us a functioning democracy. The fact that an all-time blowout of the total white vote for one side was 60% doesn’t seem to get mentioned in the positive light it should. Blacks routinely vote 95% for the democrats. If whites voted like that, we wouldn’t even need to have an election. It would be a forgone conclusion.

“Mr. Romney came close, running up his white vote totals in Southern states such as Mississippi (89 percent), Western states such as Arizona (66 percent) and Plains states such as Kansas (64 percent). But Mr. Obama was more competitive in the battle for the white vote elsewhere, including Colorado (44 percent), Wisconsin (48 percent), Minnesota (48 percent), Iowa (51 percent) and New Hampshire (51 percent).”

Even in MS the white vote did not break for the GOP like the black vote breaks for the democrats. And as we can see in other states, the white vote seems to be a 50-50 proposition which is up for grabs each election cycle.

“If Mr. Trump’s emotion-charged appeals to white voters increase his performance among that demographic, political physics suggests the Democratic nominee might surpass the 80 percent support from nonwhite voters that Mr. Obama attracted in 2012.”

So evidently the rest of the nonwhites averaged 80 percent for one side. Our new democracy is going to be great.

Keep in mind there are about 45 million blacks. If they were their own nation, they’d be on par with Poland. Or they would be larger than Greece, Sweden, Finland, Norway and Denmark combined. Yet they vote 90% plus for one party. Where in the world do that many people vote in those numbers for one party? I recall Saddam had a reelection in Iraq shortly before the Iraq War and won something like 99 percent of the vote. And that was in a dictatorship. Black Americans voting habits are more on par with the citizens of a dictatorship than that of a democracy.

Yet the reporters who bash the whites never give whites the credit they deserve for giving us such a vibrant democracy. Remember we only have contested elections because the white vote seems to respect the process and doesn’t bloc vote. Would it be too hard for the reporters to give them some props?

* Trump picked up the $100 bill laying on the floor by advocating for the interests of the white working class with respect to immigration and trade. There’s another $100 bill laying on the floor and everyone is ignoring it because it requires forthrightly talking about race, that $100 bill is the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Act and this could be a goldmine, like the Willie Horton ads. Do people really want to empower Democrats to destroy their home equity by diversifying their neighborhoods with inner city minorities living in Section 8 housing?

I’m betting going all-in on attacking AFFHA would neutralize anything that the Democrats would do to attract middle and upper class whites.

* If whites routinely voted 90% for one party (like blacks) or 70% for one party (like Hispanics) then America would have long been a one party state. Blacks have been voting for Clinton in the Democratic primaries at what? 70-80% levels? Even in their own party they bloc vote. WTH?

* Trump is the only Republican that can break the Democrat stranglehold on the black vote. He could win 25% of that vote and the reason? – absolute hatred of immigrants, especially Latins among working class blacks. My wife occasionally works in an inner city hospital and sees black patients. Months ago she came home in amazement and asked me: who do these patients, especially the elderly ones, love? Answer? Trump. Why? In one word, Mexicans. Now maybe the relentless media attacks will have an effect, but I doubt it. Due to the changing demographics Trump is probably the only Republican who can win now. Every Republican starts out at minus 10. Trump won’t. Hillary may find the anger of blacks does not help her.

Posted in America | Comments Off on The White Vote

Election Open Thread

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* If he quadruples the Border Patrol (Democrats like increasing the number of Federal employees) and adds the élan of a Teddy Roosevelt like contingent of mounted Border Patrol agents in the areas where a physical fence is deemed “infeasible” due to topography he will come across as a tough-minded strategic thinker with cool cavalry and mounted infantry tactical knowledge (The white guys who’ll put him over the top in the election are quite knowledgable about these sorts of thing.)

* I am predicting something is going to happen to his 757 if he continues to appear to be the nominee. I don’t think it is too hard to mess with some component so that it comes off in flight. I doubt they would want to do an Abe Lincoln on him which would be recorded by thousands of smartphones and turn him into a martyr. The plane crash due to mechanical failure is a possibility.

* The recent beheading of a young Russian girl by a Muslim nanny, who then paraded through Moscow with the head, was mostly ignored by the main Russian news sources – the same ones who went nuts with a fake story of a Russian kid being crucified by Ukrainian Christian “Nazis”. They love reporting Western problems with multiculturalism but according to nationalists they cover up crimes against ethnic Russians in their own country to protect their own multiculturalism.

Posted in America | Comments Off on Election Open Thread

Chaim Amalek: ‘Is the Washington Post calling on its readers to profile?’

WaPo Editorial: Bystanders could have helped prevent the deaths of these two young women

ON THE night that University of Virginia student Hannah Graham disappeared, two people saw her with the man later convicted of killing her. Both noticed something amiss. “He’s gonna [expletive] her up,” one witness said of Ms. Graham’s murderer; he “did not look friendly” was the assessment of another. Neither took action, which should prompt questions — not to cast blame, but to focus attention on the need to educate and empower bystanders to intervene.

New details about the circumstances surrounding Ms. Graham’s murder were revealed in court documents that accompanied the conviction and sentencing of Jesse L. Matthew Jr. In retrospect, it seems obvious that someone should have done something that Friday night in September 2014 when Ms. Graham, 18, disappeared from Charlottesville’s Downtown Mall. Likewise, people who passed by 20-year-old Morgan Harrington, another victim of Mr. Matthew, the night of Oct. 17, 2009, as she stood alone and obviously intoxicated trying to thumb a ride from a concert, probably wish they had acted differently. Law enforcement officials as well as advocates for sexual assault victims pointed to the natural tendency not to get involved; “human inertia” was the label used by one official involved in the Virginia cases.

It’s important, according to those involved in bystander intervention programs, to acknowledge that asking people to step up and do something when they see a problematic or questionable situation can be difficult. Is this really an emergency? If it’s not, won’t I be embarrassed? Why aren’t others taking action? And then there can be uncertainty about what specific action to take.

Posted in Blacks, Crime | Comments Off on Chaim Amalek: ‘Is the Washington Post calling on its readers to profile?’

Ben Shapiro: ‘Our likely nominee is a sexist asshat’

I reply on Twitter:

* Calling a woman unwatchable is sexist? When did you become a slur merchant like the left?

* Will you soon start throwing slurs like Islamophobic, homophobic, lookist, ageist, racist (we must destroy their careers!)?

* Does the Torah ever mention the sin of sexism? Where did you get the idea of any such thing as “sexist”?

* When did Orthodox Jews start calling people “asshats”? Is that a common term in the Talmud?

* “He is a real threat, an actual threat, to the livelihoods of many Republicans living in Washington.” – @TuckerCarlson on @realDonaldTrump

Ben Shapiro finds Donald Trump in poor taste. In 2010, Ben Shapiro tweeted: “Israelis like to build. Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage. This is not a difficult issue. #settlementsrock”

Posted in Ben Shapiro | Comments Off on Ben Shapiro: ‘Our likely nominee is a sexist asshat’

Murray Rothbard Would Have Loved Donald Trump

From Radix Journal:

A few months ago Richard Spencer noted that for all the hate Libertarianism Inc. was giving Donald Trump, the late libertarian polymath Murray Rothbard probably would have liked him and his candidacy quite a bit. Now that Rand Paul has dropped out, libertarians have largely abandoned electoral pursuits, and their institutions are going a bit schizophrenic, like Students for Liberty palling around with the likes of Pussy Riot and the insufferable George Will. Some of the old figures in what was termed “Paleolibertarianism” are even moving into the Trump camp. In light of all of this, let’s remind them that one of their most adored figures had quite a bit to criticize about the Current Year of his day.

Jews

Trump, despite obviously knowing many Jews in his elite New York City circles and having an adored daughter who converted to Judaism, is not afraid to tell the Republican Jewish Coalition:

“I don’t want your money, therefore you’re probably not gonna support me.”

Similarly, Murray Rothbard, despite being Jewish and having been immensely influenced by many Jewish intellectuals (Ludwig von Mises and Ayn Rand to name just two), delighted in skewering Jewish shibboleths:

Schindler’s List is a movie which has become not only Politically Incorrect but even to be less than worshipful about, since it purports to enable us, for the umpteenth time, to Learn About The Holocaust (the latter term always capitalized to emphasize solemnity and to assert its Absolute Uniqueness in the grisly world historical record of mass murder). And yet anyone who tries to Learn About History by going to a Hollywood movie deserves to have his head examined.

The Rich

Trump has become something of a “class traitor,” (as noted by everyone from the Weekly Standard to the New York Times) railing against the super rich, the job exporters, etc:

The hedge fund guys are getting away with murder. They’re paying nothing and it’s ridiculous. I want to save the middle class. The hedge fund guys didn’t build this country. These are guys that shift paper around and they get lucky.

Murray Rothbard felt the same way. After flirting a bit with Ross Perot’s first presidential candidacy, in no small part because of its Middle American Radical trappings, but more on that later, Rothbard was livid Mr. Perot dropped out (before eventually jumping back in), and noted:

Never trust a billionaire. I have had personal experience of several billionaires, and this was the conclusion that has reluctantly but inexorably forced itself upon me. Never trust them; they are killers of the very dreams they themselves create.

And do not forget, of course, that those “several billionaires” Rothbard spoke of included the infamous libertarian Koch Brothers, who had fallen out with Rothbard decades earlier, and in a state of apoplectic shock of the rise of Trump.

David Duke

The infamous maestro of White identity electoral politics has said some nice things about Trump, much to the media’s delight. And while Trump has disavowed him, the similarities between the two men are undeniably there, and Trump sure was pleased to add Louisiana to his list of victories.

Rothbard in his day defended and even admired David Duke back when he was running for governor of Louisiana, writing in 1992:

It is fascinating that there was nothing in Duke’s current program or campaign that could not also be embraced by paleoconservatives or paleo-libertarians; lower taxes, dismantling the bureaucracy, slashing the welfare system, attacking affirmative action and racial set-asides, calling for equal rights for all Americans, including whites: what’s wrong with any of that?

War

This one is simple, Trump has heroically slammed George W. Bush’s evil and moronic wars on the debate stage with other Republicans, and Rothbard never saw an anti-war alliance he did not like.

White Genocide and the Authoritarian Right

Trump has gotten plenty of flack for retweeting something an account called “White genocide” posted, along with retweeting Mussolini quotes.

Rothbard, it should be recalled, favored the Serbs in the Balkans wars, as a child trolled his Communist family by asking, “What’s so bad about [Francisco] Franco, anyway?”, and admired Joe McCarthy, writing in the early ‘90s:

The unique and the glorious thing about McCarthy was not his goals or his ideology, but precisely his radical, populist means. For McCarthy was able, for a few years, to short-circuit the intense opposition of all the elites in American life: from the Eisenhower-Rockefeller administration to the Pentagon and the military-industrial complex to liberal and left media and academic elites – to overcome all that opposition and reach and inspire the masses directly. And he did it on television, and without any real movement behind him; he had only a guerrilla band of a few advisers, but no organization and no infrastructure.

Remind you of anybody?

Pat Buchanan and the Segregationists of Yore

Trump is constantly being compared to Pat Buchanan, George Wallace, and the like. The implicit smears aside, there is a great deal of truth to this — ever hear about the Middle American Radical?

Rothbard excitedly endorsed Pat Buchanan in 1992 and supported Strom Thurmond in his college days — not to mention his identification as a copper head.

Crime

Trump talks tough on crime — and is willing to talk about the racial and immigration dynamics behind it, do I even need to bother with a link here?

Rothbard wrote:

Take Back the Streets: Get Rid of the Bums. Again: unleash the cops to clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go? Who cares? Hopefully, they will disappear, that is, move from the ranks of the petted and cosseted bum class to the ranks of the productive members of society.

Conclusion

I would like to say, in sum, the Murray Rothbard was in many ways a lot more of an “alt-right-er” than Trump is today, and probably ever will be. Rothbard personally knew and corresponded with Sam Francis, kept company with Jared Taylor, he endorsed racial separation, and as pointed out earlier, he never disavowed David Duke. Regardless, there can be no doubt that if Murray Rothbard were alive today, he would be happily riding the Trump Train.

If that’s libertarianism, count me in.

Posted in Donald Trump | Comments Off on Murray Rothbard Would Have Loved Donald Trump

Why Does Steve Sailer Seem So Subdued During His Season Of Triump?

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* I’m not the first to note, Steve, that you’ve been strangely subdued throughout the primary process, even though it represents a culmination (of sorts) of all your political writing over the past decade and a half. If Trump isn’t following the Sailer Strategy (via Coulter via Brimelow), then he is following a strategy that’s a blood relative to the one you’ve sketched out. I sense that you are nervous about Trump, and I get it. He could destroy immigration populism for a generation (either by winning or losing the election), he could get crushed in the general election only to have his signature issues succeed very rapidly and generally (think Goldwater in 1964), or he could actually Make America Great Again.

One must make choices in life. It’s time to spin the chamber, Boris.

* My guess is that Steve is not overly effusive because he doesn’t want to jinx things. Maybe that’s projection on my part.

One of Steve’s strengths is his judiciousness, his lack of rush to judgment, and his tendency to keep a cool head. This is in spite of evidently some of his motives being driven by emotion, a yearning for an earlier and better America (I think). In another life, I think he would have made a good justice. It’s too early to know how good a Trump administration will be, and Trump is not the literal embodiment of Steve’s ideas. That being said, perhaps closer than most think.

Funnily enough though, I am not the first to call Trump a Citizenist, though certainly one of the first, judging by google. You would think that Trump was going to cancel AA and start shipping African-Americans to Liberia, the way the media and BLM carries on.

Does Steve remain a citizenist? I am not sure and I think I would rather not know.

* No politician is trustworthy. No politician can be counted on to carry out promises he made during a campaign. In 2008, Obama ran claiming that he was against gay marriage and that his healthcare plan would not require a mandate. Of course Obama was for gay marriage, but it was to his political advantage to say he was not (black church ladies matter!). Any universal healthcare plan requires a mandate, but it was to his political advantage to say his did not while Hillary’s did. The astute voter has to intuit what the politician will actually do and figure out which parts of his platform are “boob bait for the bubbas.”

Donald is the only candidate that regularly says that America gets into pointless wars, wasting money that would be better spent here. He is the only Republican willing to denounce W for the disastrous war in Iraq. He has said we would have been better off leaving Saddam in place. He doesn’t see why we can’t get along with Putin, rather than constantly insult and provoke him. So when he talks about how strong our military will be under his presidency and how we’re going to smash ISIS, I assume that he’s tossing out the requisite boob bait, but will conduct a far more circumspect foreign policy than the other candidates.

Candidates are in a quandary when they’re asked how they’re going to balance the budget or fix the schools. Our debt and entitlement expenditures are growing exponentially and no politician can change that, but no one running for president can admit it. As long as the school-age generation is far more non-white than it ever has been, our schools are going to be worse, but, again, no politician can acknowledge that. So on questions like those, I forgive Trump his meaningless BS answers.

What I would realistically expect from a Trump presidency:
Border control
More illegals deported
Action against sanctuary cities
More advantageous trade deals
No pandering to black criminals
No more demonizing/harassing law enforcement
A quiet death for Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
Less meddling overseas

As far as I’m concerned, that would Make America Great Again.

* I have watched Trump closely on his well covered primary victory speeches and his news conferences. This man is going to govern from the middle. He even says as much if you actually listen to him. Paul Ryan is going to be his main political ally just as Pelosi was for Obama.

Trump constantly says one needs to stake out an extreme opening position in order to get close to what you want when the deal closes. His “wall” with Mexico is going to end up as more border enforcement with an expansion of the border patrol, some sort of compromise on resident illegals, and enforcing the legal limits on immigration which can get a majority in Congress to go along with which is what “comprehensive immigration reform” has always meant.

He takes the traditional Democrat approach to Social Security which is to leave it as it is.

He clearly plans to stop twerking the Russian bear’s nose and let them exercise power in their centuries old sphere of influence.

This man is going to deal with congress like Reagan and Clinton did and not eschew achieving majorities on bills that include some Democratic votes. After all, even if he wins the presidency he may well be facing a slight Democratic majority in the Senate. As a result be prepared for somewhat more stringent demands for reciprocity on trade deals which he can certainly muster a majority vote for in Congress.

Trump is actually a practical moderate with a burning desire to get to “yes” in negotiations and an ego the size of Bill Clinton’s. His main failing is his propensity to shoot his vulgar mouth off before engaging his brain when he is personally insulted.

Despite vicious video attack ads calling him a NAZI and street protests and riotous behavior from the SJW/Occupy crowd, he will beat Hillary in the fall as she will experience low turnout and fail to even achieve 30% of the white male vote which will be a new low among this demographic for Democrats.

* One of the bitter black women over at Lipstick Alley posted the full Kevin Williamson NR column where he states the white underclass deserves to die, in case anyone wants to read without paying the NR cucks. Unsurprisingly, they agree that whitey deserves to be trampled underfoot by the globalists because slavery.

* It wasn’t a terrible theory last summer.

It’s a terrible theory now.

Even if he was encouraged to run in order to help Hillary, it was a risky bet and has obviously failed.

Someone like Trump is like fire: can be a useful tool if properly contained, but easily can get out of control and do an incredible amount of damage.

He is too old and too rich to be bought off, and he is too narcissistic to be content with behind-the-scenes power like Rove, Soros, Adelson or Kochs.

Encouraging Trump to run will likely turn out to be the dumbest thing the Clintons have ever done.

* What do you think are the one or two key issues in the 2016 Presidential election?

Most useful for discussions if the answers are very short. As pithy as I can get them:

1. Mass immigration should be stopped because it destroys what’s best about America: decent wages for working people, the social safety net, tolerance, and environmental quality.

2. With good reason, many working-class white Americans feel that the country’s elites are hostile to their economic interests and cultural values.

* Schwarzenegger’s career in California might be a good model, or Jesse Ventura’s in Minnesota.

There’s a big issue though with the President being head of state as well as government, which means the President is supposed to not shoot his mouth off. Obama’s mildly frank interview in the Atlantic appears to have peeved various foreign countries. What’s a Trump presidency going to look like?

Posted in Steve Sailer | Comments Off on Why Does Steve Sailer Seem So Subdued During His Season Of Triump?

OK Kosher Takes Over Kehilla Kosher, Kosher Restaurants Worried

I hear: OK.org is the second largest national kosher organization.
Wants to take the keys away from owners. Mandatory Mashgiach temidi$$$$.
Will put the small guys out of business. OK doesn’t care!
Well firstly, their base monthly fee is going up, though they haven’t indicated how much. I’d say no less than $1,000 a week!
For the Mashgiach temidi, only the Mashgiach will have keys.
No entrance without the Mashgiach.
Unless you can lock up all the fridges separately.
People also don’t want to go to RCC, because they feel they are corrupt, sporadic in their policies and unfair.
The next tier of Kashrus, say Rabbi Benzaquen of KOLA, is not accepted by all. But, if you sell to a major organization, say a school, they require a higher level Hashgacha.

Posted in Kashrut | Comments Off on OK Kosher Takes Over Kehilla Kosher, Kosher Restaurants Worried

Haaretz: Why America Has a Trump and Israel Doesn’t

David Rosenberg writes:

The Donald appeals to the American underclass that’s been ignored. In Israel, those with grievances are the middle class and they prefer more respectable protest candidates.

Some say Netanyahu is Israel’s Trump. Just like The Donald, Bibi’s been accused of appealing to the voters’ baser instincts, particularly their racist ones. Just like Trump, he is at once part of the establishment and loathed by it.

Trump is promising to build a wall on the Mexican border. Bibi already built one along nearly all of Israel’s borders, although he didn’t get the Arabs to pay for it.

But  even if there are some similarities, Bibi isn’t Israel’s Trump. Israel doesn’t need a Trump.
Israel experienced many of the same economic upheavals America has, but not all of them. Trade liberalization killed off the Israeli textile industry, and unions are much weaker and represent a much smaller part of the workforce than three decades ago.
But that is only half the story. The Mizrahi underclass has made strides over the last decades and is closing the economic gap with the traditional Ashkenazi elite. The monopolies so loathed by the media and policy makers – the banks, Israel Electric Corporation, the ports and so on – have ensured good salaries and job security for a great many blue collar and middle class Israelis. Israel’s banks haven’t been allowed to run wild.
Unlike America, the Israeli economy has made remarkable progress over the last decade generating new jobs. More and more people are entering the labor force, especially people in the lowest income groups, and unemployment is touching record lows. Income inequality has been growing, but interestingly enough, it’s been widening between the middle and upper classes; at the lower end of the spectrum it has been narrowing.
Israel has a big population of poor. But they don’t see themselves as an economic class but as part of their community – ultra-orthodox, Arabs or Orientals. They for parties that represent their communities, not for Trump-like troublemakers.
If there has been anybody suffering in recent years, it’s the Israeli middle class, but it expresses its displeasure in its own, well-mannered way. No bombastic Trumps for them! Israel’s middle class held polite demonstrations in the summer of 2011 to protest the high cost of living and voted for disruptive but respectable politicians like Yair Lapid in 2012 and Moshe Kahlon in 2015. And, unlike the American underclass, Israel’s middle class is slowly getting its way. The cost of living is gradually moderating, and home prices will follow.

I think this is a foolish column. When I think of Israeli politicians, “respectable” is not the first word that comes to mind.

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* Israel’s elite know that their allegiance is to the Israeli people. Immigration, foreign policy, economic policy is is determined by the idea of what’s best for Israel. This is true for the Israeli Left and Right. No need for Trump.

* Gee, it must be nice to have a country governed by those who generally look out for their own people. Apparently none of us are allowed to have that though because it will lead to a new Hitler.

* “Well-mannered” and Jews/Israelis in the same sentence!

* So it’s okay to be a nationalist in Israel. Patriotic even. Here you’re just a dangerous home-grown bigot who should be watched for signs of terrorism. Seems really fair considering who leads the charge against American nationalists.

* Israel does not need Trump because their Parliament is 2/3 Trumps. Every politician in the center/right in Israel speaks and acts exactly like Trump. 2/3 of the people of Israel speak exactly like Trump. There was no controversy over Israel building a wall to stop illegal infiltrators for example (a brilliant phrase we should imitate) – except at Haaretz which is a left wing rag, ignored in Israel itself, although always quoted by the foreign press.

* I am sure a lot of people in Israel have noticed that Trump sounds like an Israeli politician.

Posted in Donald Trump | Comments Off on Haaretz: Why America Has a Trump and Israel Doesn’t

Donald Trump’s Feminine Side

Much of what Donald Trump has said and done has struck me as bad. I don’t like it that he takes every criticism personally. He says things that make me wince. He’s often gauche. And yet Trump is sailing to the Republican nomination, so what do I know?

Donald Trump is the prole whisperer (a comment I read on Steve Sailer’s blog). He’s the most Australian candidate I remember in America, perhaps the most Israeli candidate too.

Steve Sailer writes: Another feminine aspect to Trump is that he Takes Everything Personally. Trump’s is an extreme version of this trait that’s actually pretty common among Big Men, who, in contrast to Nerds, are very aware of their individual human relationships.

In contrast, Reagan tended to be focused on principles and used individuals in his speeches as examples of general patterns. A competent newspaper columnist, Reagan was fairly abstracted and disengaged from actual individual people around him (as his children regretted), especially for a movie star. Reagan always regretted losing out to Humphrey Bogart the roles of Rick in Casablanca and Fred C. Dobbs in The Treasure of Sierra Madre, but Bogart was an all-time great at being in the moment with his costars, while Reagan as an actor was a little bit like Ben Affleck: serviceable, but not fully engaged. Reagan was a fine craftsman of acting, but not a genius at it.

I’ve always wondered why the key moment in the 1980 presidential debate was Reagan joshing Carter with “There you go again.” I never understood what was so awesome about it, but I think now that it was the moment when Reagan came down to the man0-a-mano level and exerted interpersonal dominance by dissing the President to his face. But then I’m not a Big Man, so I only understand these things at an abstract/empirical level, while Trump has an extraordinarily intuitive sales talent.

* Yeah, the further up the chain you go, the more petty people become. It’s why all those jokes about losing to the boss at whatever you’re playing with him rings true: bosses aren’t interested in winning fair and square, they’re interested in being the boss. Napoleon used to cheat his own officers at cards, and openly, too, because his ego was so vast that even with all of Europe cowering at his feet, he still needed to win the game in front of him. Or read What Makes Sammy Run? and marvel that the main character, even after becoming a Hollywood producer, still makes his childhood bully work for him as his servant, just for the mental satisfaction of watching his former childhood tormenter wriggle under his thumb.

And not only are powerful people petty, they keep lists about who was wronged them just to get back at them. Nixon was famous for his Enemies List, but all big politicians have them; Obama has been revealed to have one, although the press of course didn’t call it an Enemies List. Sociopathy is what’s needed to get ahead in bureaucratic situations, especially corrupt ones. Or at least extreme narcissism.

Women are better at backbiting politicking, so historically when a civilization gets to a point where it has a top-heavy bureaucracy and a regular army, you see more women gaining positions of power.

* I wrote a post about Trump last summer where I described him as the leverage candidate. He is the most self-aware candidate we have seen since Nixon. Trump thinks about how others hear and see him, even while he is giving one of his off-the-cuff speeches. It’s what make him a great salesman and a great real estate tycoon. He’s always away of the group dynamics and how others are responding to him.

He leverages his assets like no other candidate. As soon as he gets a positive response from the audience. he immediately starts to build on it. He’ll hammer home that idea and own it in your mind, then he starts looking for the next good deal in your head. It’s fun to watch, even for someone like me, who is not a big fan of Trump.

Posted in Donald Trump | Comments Off on Donald Trump’s Feminine Side