Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* Paul Ryan announced today (or yesterday) that a Republican candidate must always renounce “bigotry”, no ifs and whens.

* I’m waiting for a GOP’er with balls to declare BLM a hate group.

* I’m waiting for Black Lives Matters to declare Trump supporters a hate group. In the pages of National Review.

* Super Tuesday, like most of the primary season, has largely turned on the issue of immigration. So far, only one major candidate has sounded constant and consistent on true reform (e.g. one that includes building a wall; securing the borders; a moratorium on Muslim immigration; etc).

Yesterday’s NYT’s article concerning the Gang of 8, Rubio, and how the donorist classes actively pursued FOX news/conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh, Levin, etc. to help promote or “sell” immigration/amnesty to conservative rank and file grass roots members is quite informative. That the powers that be felt the need to manipulate the entire issue and frame the debate into a “the yokels out on the hinterland have to be cowed into accepting what’s right for them”

I hope that Mr. Peter Brimelow of VDARE, a true honest patriot on the issue of immigration for well over twenty years will read this: Sir, as you’ve written yourself before in past articles regarding the recalcitrance of some Conservatives not to support patriotic reform, well, now we know why. As you yourself made mention that when you talked to Rush about the issue of immigration, he basically couldn’t be bothered. He couldn’t be bothered to lend his voice and take a public stand vs. a policy (amnesty) that would have dire far reaching consequences for decades to come.

Today we know why: Rush was AWOL and basically sold out the rank and file US voters who care deeply about the issue of immigration and the consequences that are coming. Rather than support a candidate who has made the immigration issue the centerpiece of his campaign, he chose to support Marco Rubio, handpicked by the Gang of 8 to publicly sell the ordinary GOP voters on the issue. When it came time to put principle above personal pride, Rush couldn’t be bothered and went AWOL on the immigration. I hope, sir, that you will make mention of this in a future article on VDARE.com; Rush isn’t on the right side of immigration and now we know why.

As Steve likes to say, “If you can’t trust Senator Schumer to save the GOP, who can you trust?” Well, guess we can’t trust so-called Conservative leaders who nothing more than shills for the donors and open borders lobbyists. It is sad but not entirely surprising that many of them now are backing away from their own words while still refusing to endorse the one candidate who has consistently sided with patriotic immigration reformers such as Peter Brimelow over at VDARE.com (among others).

* I would love to see Trump campaign here in CA and put it in play though and freak out the Democrats. He could pull it off. The thing the bribery class and elites compose only small segment of our population and the only reason the state is Blue is because of the police, prison and state workers unions. Numerically they’re small. Since Trump isn’t running on a union bashing platform he’d probably get a lot of their votes as well.

And yeah it’s also Blue because the CA GOP ran nothing but amnesty proponents which killed off voter interest, they also made sure their bench of candidates remained pathetic.

* As I remember the deceitful attempts to get the Gang of Eight bill through the House, this happened about the same time that Rush’s old contract was running out. He was supposedly negotiating a new one but I think he secretly had the plan all along to launch his EIB network and get a piece of the pie from everybody on the lineup.

I used to listen to him in the morning on my way to work on a house I bought and on the way home listen to Hannity. I do not recall him ever making much noise about amnesty or the attempts by Sessions to detail all the hidden stink that was in the bill. I remember one of Sessions speeches on the Senate floor when he said “If an American were to do this he would be in prison!”.

Rush never seemed to say much about it. My guess was that Rush was getting part of the advertising revenue from the EIB network and Zuckerberg’s deceitful PAC was advertising heavily on it. They did the standard trick of giving you half the story (are you for strong border control…) and never mention who they are or what they really stand for. Then they tell you to go to their web site or call their 800 number where you would be added to the list of people who support Zuckerberg’s position, thinking you have voiced your disapproval of amnesty but actually have been counted as a supporter of the Gang of Eight. This of course would be leaked out by the House to the media, all the support the bill has, and rammed through in the middle of the night based on the phony numbers.

* The only thing I remember about Rubio this week was his interest in Trump’s penis. #trump

* Overall Trump’s been doing roughly as expected, at worst only slightly underperforming. The best news for him is that while the race is clearly Trump vs. anti-Trump, all of the anti-Trumps are doing well in some places and poorly in others. Kasich is only relevant in New England, but all other anti-Trumps are flopping. Cruz won Texas and Oklahoma but is a nonentity in Virginia, and Rubio looks like he could fall short of 20% and get shut out in some places. This outcome will likely not be good enough for Trump to wrap things up, but it’s still good enough to show that no other candidate can outright beat him, and that could be enough for party regulars who may not like Trump but want to avoid a brokered convention to get on board.

* Donald Trump, speaking extemporaneously at his press conference, sounds incredibly lucid and presidential. He even used the word ‘bucolic,’ correctly I might add. He’s a very smart and perspicacious man.

* Trump’s Policy (the only one you care about, anyway) is actually long-term thinking at its finest. It’s the Globalists who don’t give a damn what happens to western civilization, or the people who should inherit it. “Anti-racist” whites are morons too stupid to think about the future in any substantive way. If they weren’t, they’d know they are making a losing bet (as things are going now: if anti-whites are right, we gain nothing, if they’re wrong we lose everything; if “racists” are right we lose everything, if they’re wrong we lose nothing).

* Trump during his press conference compared Rubio to a version of a no-talent Don Rickles. Trump has a talent for labeling events or opponents in a way which is very descriptive.

I like how Trump brings up the point about whether Clinton “will be allowed to run” due to her crimes and how people who committed lesser crimes than hers are serving long prison sentences. This stands out because no one else is talking about it, so his statements pack more of a punch.

* So Trump just gave a press conference rather than a victory speech and it was great. In my lifetime no one has sounded that presidential besides Pat Buchanan in 92. Trump is more Buchanan than Pat Buchanan. Could that be true?

* As he’s been saying, “I can act Presidentially.” Yes, he can. It was a press conference in FlA, not a rally celebrating his Super Tuesday totals. There was a line of American flags behind him…and Chris Christie, standing as VPs usually do.

He took many questions. Yes, this was the beginning of his, “I can talk policy and I can unify the party (with REAL people I represent) and I can now begin running for real against Hillary.”

Another way of saying this is that many elite Jews were wrong. Jews dominate the American media. About half of the leading pundits are Jewish. Elite Jews help set the Overton Window in America. And these Jews had no clue about the rise of Donald Trump. No clue. And that scares many Jewish elites.

Jews tend to have a distaste for populism and gentile nationalisms because almost by definition, such movements exclude Jews.

While there is no reason to believe that Donald Trump will be hostile to Jews, I wonder if his rise presages the decline of Jewish power in America?

I haven’t done a scientific study, but impression is that Jewish pundits and Jews in the MSM in general were about the last group to grasp the power of the Donald Trump phenomenon, and this says a great deal about them and how they see the world, and how out of touch they are with the concerns of non-Jewish Americans, particularly non-Jewish white Americans.

America isn’t just a country whose primary purpose is to be user-friendly for Jews. America, like Israel and Japan and France, has its own mores and values and visions. It is not the purpose of America to serve Jews or Israel or blacks or Muslims or latinos. America was created by white Protestants.

I can’t help noticing that the people with the most contempt for Trump and his followers in the following article are Jews — David Remnick, Nate Silver, Jonathan Bernstein. I’ve also heard Jewish pundits such as Dennis Prager and Bill Kristol pour on the contempt for Trump for months now. It seems like the most visceral hatred for Trump among both Republican and Democrat elites comes from Jews. Perhaps Jews are more sensitive to and afraid of seismic shifts like this one because Jews often see themselves as a tiny and defenseless people, and history’s perpetual victim of the goy’s rage and stupidity.

From Politico:

David Remnick, editor of The New Yorker, told his readers last summer that Donald Trump was running for president to promote his own brand and that the “whole con might end well before the first snows in Sioux City and Manchester.”
That was quite measured compared to James Fallows, the national correspondent of more than three decades for The Atlantic, who wrote confidently — and with his own bold for emphasis — “Donald Trump will not be the 45th president of the United States. Nor the 46th, nor any other number you might name. The chance of his winning the nomination and election is exactly zero.”
Story Continued Below
Those two mandarins weren’t alone in dismissing Trump’s chances. Washington Post blogger Chris Cillizza wrote in July that “Donald Trump is not going to be the Republican presidential nominee in 2016.” And numbers guru Nate Silver told readers as recently as November to “stop freaking out” about Trump’s poll numbers.
Now all these journalists, and more, are coming to grips with their mistaken assessments. And some, too, are freaking out.
In an interview this week, Remnick sounded both shocked and sad about Trump’s success, saying it was “beyond belief” and reflects an “ugliness” that appeals to “every worst instinct” in America.

“The fact that so many of us, all of us, were wrong in predicting anywhere near the extent of his success so far, may be partly due to the fact we didn’t want to believe those currents could be appealed to so well and so deeply and successfully,” Remnick said.
Indeed, the knowing skepticism about Trump’s chances that Remnick expressed last summer was quite common throughout the journalism industry, from the most serious magazine journalists, writing with the voice of history, to most street-savvy, ear-to-the-ground bloggers: Trump had a polling ceiling; the Republican establishment would coalesce to bring him down; he didn’t have a sufficient ground game; one giant gaffe would inevitably bring him down; and on and on.
But barring an unprecedented convention floor fight, all signs point to the unimaginable. Trump most likely will be the Republican nominee for president.
Some columnists are still holding out the belief that Trump won’t actually win the nomination — while acknowledging that their sweeping dismissals of the possibility were off the mark. And yet, others say we’re witnessing a sea change moment in this nation’s politics.
Now, months later, Fallows acknowledges he shouldn’t have been so categorical, but warned in an email that Trump is an idiosyncratic phenomenon.
“[E]veryone (including me) has had to learn that one or another line-crossings and rule-breakings that would have stopped any previous candidates allow Trump to keep rolling on through,” he wrote. “I think an underappreciated factor here is the combination of Trump’s distinctive skill, and a changed nature of this cycle’s primary. Trump’s distinctive skill is not so much as a business executive, where his record is mixed, but as a TV performer. There’s a particular set of skills that go with reality-TV competitions, and Trump is great at them!”
There’s as much risk of “over-learning” the lessons of Trump, Fallows said, as ignoring them.
“I think it’s possible to observe what’s happening, as it happens. But this year’s circumstances — for the party, and for this man — are so unusual, in fact unprecedented, that I’m cautious about drawing up any new rules. We see how the Trump era goes, and then, we’ll see whether the landscape has been changed for the long term,” he wrote.

“The Fix” blogger Cillizza was one of the first to acknowledge that he was wrong to say “never.” Just a month after writing that “Donald Trump is not going to be the Republican presidential nominee in 2016,” he changed his tune, learning to never say “never” in politics.
“I had NEVER EVER seen a reversal in how people perceive a candidate who is as well known as Trump — much less a reversal in such a short period of time. I based my conclusion that Trump would never be a relevant player in the Republican primary fight on the ideas that once people 1) know you and 2) don’t like you, you can’t change those twin realities much,” he wrote. “That was 100 percent true. Until Donald Trump proved it (and me) wrong.”
Silver, founder of the FiveThirtyEight site, told an audience at the 92nd Street Y in New York in September that he didn’t think “Trump is very likely to win the nomination, in part because he’s not really a Republican,” and last month Silver put Trump’s chances of winning the nomination at only about 50 percent.
Now, though, a new reality seems to be setting in.
“‘With the exception of the 2016 election,’ will be a common phrase in Ph.D. dissertations in 2044,” Silver joked on Twitter last week.
“This time, we really might be in the midst of [a political realignment]. It’s almost impossible to reconcile this year’s Republican nomination contest with anyone’s notion of politics as usual,” Silver wrote this week. (Silver did not respond to requests for comment.)
Fox News’ Chris Wallace was more contrite, saying in an interview that Trump’s success proves “no one knows anything” and that analysts should stick to analyzing, not predictions.
“This has really been a huge case of humble pie to everyone in my business, myself included,” Wallace said. “Lord knows I didn’t think Trump was going to run. When he did run, I thought he had destroyed his candidacy half a dozen times. So I think one of the things you learn is that you don’t know as much as you think you know. That anyone who would be foolish enough to think that they’re an opinion maker or opinion shaper, really, this has been a case lesson in the American people will make their own decision for themselves, and that’s healthy.”
Bloomberg View’s Jonathan Bernstein isn’t so ready to admit that he was mistaken about Trump’s chances. He has held for months that Trump does not have a serious chance of being the nominee. On Monday, he wrote it’s still “quite likely he won’t be” the nominee because many Republicans will band together to stop him even if he has a big lead after Super Tuesday.
“So in 2016, many but not all of the normal incentives pushing parties to unify won’t apply if Trump is nominated. This leaves top Republicans with a difficult choice — and strong reasons to pull out the stops to defeat Trump before he grabs the nomination,” Bernstein wrote. (Bernstein didn’t respond to requests for comment.)
There’s still time for everyone, or no one, to be proven wrong. But whether Trump actually clinches the nomination, Trump’s candidacy will likely forever change how future candidates are covered.
Remnick pointed to the Philip Roth anthology, “Reading Myself and Others,” which raised the idea that in the United States, it can sometimes become impossible to write fiction “when the craziness of American reality so outstrips the imagination of even the most freewheeling novelist.”
“We’re in one of those moments,” Remnick said. “It’s enough to say, obviously considering where we are, everyone was wrong. And this gives Trump great joy, I’m sure.”