One Day The Goyim Will Awake

Posted on August 21, 2015 by Luke Ford

From Chateau Heartiste: “One day, the wronged part of white America will notice the boot on its face. How they’ll respond, is anyone’s guess. Perhaps they’ll have learned to love being ground to dust. Or perhaps they’ll shed their inertia, and execute an escape move. If reaction fully unleashed, to be followed by a finishing move.”

Posted in Whites | Comments Off on One Day The Goyim Will Awake

Why are women drawn to men behind bars?

Posted on August 21, 2015 by Luke Ford

Chateau Heartiste: “It’s informative to compare and contrast the rationalizing behavior of women with law-abiding betas and alpha killers. Women have no trouble, no trouble at all, believing negative things about their beta hubbies, and will often go to great lengths to exaggerate those negative impressions so that their transition away from the beta to a world of freedom to pursue anti-betas is as painless as possible. This behavior is quite unlike what we see women doing with alpha assholes, for whom every readily apparent flaw is instantly and vigorously denied or waved away by their women with the acumen of a star lawyer on a cocaine-fueled semantics bender.”

The Guardian: Three years ago a German waitress called Dagmar Polzin fell in love with a murderer while waiting at a Hamburg bus stop. She saw his photo on a Benetton anti-death-penalty poster. Bobby Lee Harris, a North Carolina man with an IQ of 75, was on death row for stabbing his boss to death during a robbery on a shrimp boat. Polzin was overwhelmed by the picture,
“It was something in his eyes,” she later said. “There was this remorse, sadness. I was attracted. I knew he was the one.”

Within the year Polzin and Harris were engaged and she had moved to America to live with his family. This story seems a little surprising, but if you see the picture that Dagmar fell in love with it is, frankly, astonishing. He may have many charming accomplishments to recommend him as a husband, but Harris is not a bonny boy.

Polzin’s romance is not an isolated incident: no matter how extreme or appalling the crime with which they are associated, it seems there is always a woman keen to stand by the man. It was recently reported that Ian Huntley, the Soham man charged with the murders of schoolgirls Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells, receives bundles of fan mail from women every week – many containing photographs of themselves.

Prison romances seem in no danger of dying out. But the cliche of the prison bride as wig-wearing trailer-trash is misguided: the women come from all sectors of society. Carlos the Jackal become engaged to his lawyer last year. The famous Glasgow hard man Jimmy Boyle married a psychiatrist he met in prison. The most common form of contact, certainly for many of the 100 or so British women currently engaged or married to American men on death row, is through anti-death-penalty campaign internet sites.

These correspondence schemes provide heart-wrenching photographs of young men alongside explanations for their crimes and pleas for contact. One young Alabama death row inmate ends his request for pen pals with the statement “loneliness is a terrible thing”; another finishes, “a friend is waiting”. All promise to reply to any letters.

In her book, Women Who Love Men Who Kill, Sheila Isenberg examines the phenomenon of prison lovers and finds genuine and universal bewilderment among the women at their situation. Even if they have had a series of romances with prisoners or, like one British woman, been engaged to several death-row inmates – all of whom were executed – they still claim not to have chosen that course for themselves. Karen Richey’s partner, for instance, is on death row in Ohio. Karen says that she wasn’t looking for a love affair when she made contact with Kenny, a 38-year-old Scot: “My war cry is that I only wanted to be a pen pal. Kenny insists this is going to be on my grave stone.”

It takes considerable effort to meet men in secure containment facilities. Many women will write to a number of prisoners before they finally make a sustainable connection. They may even take on voluntary jobs in prison, or go on blind-date visits with men they know only by reputation.

As on the outside, famous people attract a disproportionate amount of attention because of the glamour that surrounds them and ordinary people’s desire for vicarious celebrity. Serial killer Richard Ramirez, the so-called Night Stalker, who murdered and dismembered 13 people in the 1980s, had no trouble finding a bride. Doreen Lioy started writing to Ramirez after falling for his picture in the paper. They were married in 1996 in the prison waiting room.

Both Ramirez and Ted Bundy, a rapist-murderer who was suspected of murdering 35 young women, attracted gangs of admiring groupies who sat patiently through their court cases. Even John Wayne Gacy – not the most eligible man, with a history of drugging, raping and murdering 30 young men in Chicago – ended up marrying a woman he met while awaiting the death penalty.

So what other reasons could there be for so many women being attracted to convicted criminals? Isenberg suggests that vicarious murder may sometimes be a motivating factor. It is easier for the lovers of these men to overlook violence if they have considered it themselves: “Even while she denies his culpability, it is his ability to murder that attracts her. He acted on his rage, however unsuitably. [The woman] could never act on her rage. So [his] murder is [her] murder,” she says.

It is certainly true that many prison brides have a history of violent relationships. Isenberg draws positive conclusions from this, arguing that an imprisoned partner may be a healthy strategy for women who are attracted to violent men, allowing them to engage without putting themselves in physical danger.

Religious fervour is another, more obvious motivator. Evangelical Christian schemes bring women into contact with prisoners and provide a basis for intense emotional interaction.

Jacquelynne Willcox-Bailey’s book Dream Lovers: Women Who Marry Men Behind Bars is a series of interviews conducted with Australian women. The most melancholy story concerns two middle-aged Christian sisters, Avril and Rose, who left long-term “boring” marriages for men in prison. One man had been convicted of a string of minor property offences, the other man had killed his previous wife. His new wife, Rose, said: “I have faith that if you’re genuine with the Lord you’re a new person. A lot of people have said I should be worried about him because of what he did and his background – which is pretty awful and violent – but I have no fear.”

Despite the women’s faith, both relationships ended tragically: a week after his release the thief bludgeoned Avril to death with a hammer. The other husband ended up back in prison after trying to cut Rose’s ear off and pull out her teeth with pliers.

However, it is rare that the most disturbing type of relationship is formed. Hybristophiliacs are sexually excited by violent outrages performed on others. These women often send pornographic pictures of themselves to prisoners. The self-styled “most violent prisoner in Britain”, Charles Bronson, publishes photos he receives on his website.

Posted in Dating, Feminism | Comments Off on Why are women drawn to men behind bars?

Donald Trump’s F-Bombs

Posted on August 21, 2015 by Luke Ford

Dennis Prager writes May 3, 2011:

The following comments were made in a public speech last week by a man considering running for president of the United States.

On gas prices: “We have nobody in Washington that sits back and says, ‘You’re not going to raise that f***ing price.’”

On what he would say as president to China: “Listen, you mother f***ers, we’re going to tax you 25 percent.”

On Iraq: “We build a school, we build a road, they blow up the school, we build another school, we build another road, they blow them up, we build again. In the meantime we can’t get a f***ing school in Brooklyn.”

The man is Donald Trump. And the words render him unfit to be a presidential candidate, let alone president. They also evidence a need for some Republican-party soul-searching as to how a group of Republican women could laugh and cheer at such language coming from a would-be presidential candidate.

…Last week, Donald Trump may have made his one contribution to American history. His recent speech was the first of a person seeking the presidential nomination of a major party to use such language. Had he used the F-word once and apologized, I would not have written this column. But, and this important, he used it once, and upon seeing the enthusiastic reaction, felt encouraged to use it again and again.

The audience’s reaction is even more important — and more distressing — than Trump’s use of the word. Had there been booing, or had someone who invited him arisen to ask that he not use such language, or had some of the women walked out, the good name of the Republican party and of conservative values would have been preserved. But if Republican women — and I emphasize both the party and the gender — find the use of the F-word by a potential presidential candidate amusing, America is more coarsened than I had imagined. If we cannot count on Republicans and conservatives to maintain standards of public decency and civility, to whom shall we look?

Posted in Donald Trump | Comments Off on Donald Trump’s F-Bombs

The Nature Of Race

Posted on August 21, 2015 by Luke Ford

J. Fuerst writes: It is frequently asserted: firstly, that the word “race” is meaningless; secondly, that races are not, biologically speaking, real; thirdly, that while there do exist biological races in other animal species, there are none in ours; and finally, that any biological differences between the human races are meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

It is infrequently acknowledged that the first through fourth statements can not all be true at the same time: if “race” is meaningless, it makes no sense to say that it is non-biological; if it is nonbiological, it can not exist in nonhuman animals; and so on and so forth. Nevertheless, these four contrary claims, individually flawed as they are, are thought by many to constitute, in composite, an ironclad argument against any attempt to characterize certain divisions of Homo sapiens as biological races. (Presumably it is not yet considered ‘scientifically racist’ to study biodiversity in other animal species, though we can not be sure.

There is, of course, an element of truth to all four of the stated claims: the word “race” indeed has no unique definition; anyone can deem that whatever genetically based differences exist between human populations are unimportant; there are race concepts which are fundamentally non-biological; and there are biological race concepts (frequently made of straw) by which there are no human biological races. All of this is true, and rather trivial, but since the statements are so often taken to mean something true and nontrivial – that there is no robust sense in which human biological races exist – we feel compelled to provide a precise conceptual framework for
biological race.

Posted in Race | Comments Off on The Nature Of Race

‘Are Republicans For Freedom Or White Identity Politics?’

Posted on August 21, 2015 by Luke Ford

Ben Domenech writes: Donald Trump could transform the Republican Party into a coalition focused on white identity politics. We’ve seen this in Europe, and it’s bad.

Now that we have had time to observe the Donald Trump phenomenon, there is enough evidence to make a clear assessment of what it represents. The rise of Trump is an epic expression of frustration with the American political system, and it is a natural outgrowth of frustrations with America’s changing demographics; the hollowing out of white working class values and culture, as Charles Murray has documented extensively; and what life is like when governed by the administrative state, where the president increasingly acts as a unilateral executive and elected representatives consistently ignore the people’s priorities.

At its best, these frustrations would be articulated by the Republican Party in ways that lead to more freedom and less government. At its worst, these frustrations cast aside Constitutional principles, encourage dictatorial behavior, and become the toxic political equivalent of the two Southie brothers who claimed Trump inspired them to beat up a Hispanic homeless man.

Dismiss Donald Trump if you will, but tonight in Alabama he is expected to draw 35,000 people. Try to do that with any other presidential candidate. The phenomenon is real, and the danger Trump presents for the Republican Party is real. Even without winning the GOP nomination, which is still a remote possibility at best, his statements have tapped into a widespread anger that has the potential to transform the Republican Party in significant ways. Ultimately, Trump presents a choice for the Republican Party about which path to follow: a path toward a coalition that is broad, classically liberal, and consistent with the party’s history, or a path toward a coalition that is reduced to the narrow interests of identity politics for white people.

Posted in Donald Trump | Comments Off on ‘Are Republicans For Freedom Or White Identity Politics?’

Donald Trump Doesn’t Suffer Fools Gladly

Posted on August 21, 2015 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* Trump has an incredibly strong frame, and total self-confidence.

No fake laughs, no going along with some clownish foolishness in order to be polite.

You can’t help but love the guy; and even if you don’t, you’ll certainly respect him.

* Trump actually is the rare Ivy Leaguer with street-smarts and the ability to read people.

* Btw, the term ‘persona’ has a rather negative connotation, I find; it suggests that somebody is acting and isn’t authentic. That’s definitely not the case with Trump. With him it’s really ‘what you see is what you get’ – and he’s largely born like that, it wasn’t learned through reality TV.

Rather than ‘persona’, in his case I’d simply speak of personality.

* The Vox article proceeds on the faulty premise that “The Apprentice” made Donald Trump what he is today, which is putting the cart before the horse. He wasn’t exactly a totally unknown person before he landed “The Apprentice.” He got that reality show because everybody knew of Donald Trump already. He was a fully formed man when he got “The Apprentice.” I’m sure the experience with a reality TV show educated him somewhat, but he brought a lot of experience and background to that TV role, where he was essentially playing himself.

* I met Trump six years ago and spent a half-hour with him and his people/sons (non-business related). My experience was kind of like Steve Sailer’s experience meeting Michael Milken. Except Trump was very nice with overpowering charisma. Trump has a rare combo of extreme confidence, extreme intelligence, and extreme perceptiveness. Which comes across as no bullshit. Every time I’ve tried to imitate his style in my job (polite, no-BS, succinct language) I can see people react very positively and deferentially. But then I revert to my very friendly and unassuming self and they run all over me.

I love Trump’s take on Bill Cosby:

“…I was never a fan. His humor was always, like, slow and stupid to me. I never saw it. And then he’s obviously got this stuff. What amazes me is he was so quiet and then you see these depositions. What was he doing? Was he drunk? You see he admitted all this stuff on top of everything else. I think he’s weird. And I never found his humor good at all. Just sit in a chair, talk very slowly? And I say to myself, “What’s this all about?”

* Trump has said on many occasions when he was asked about his kids’ personalities or, for that matter, about his own, that “people are largely born the way they’ll be the rest of their lives.”

I loved that– a public man who is now a politician who understands nature trumps nurture and isn’t afraid to say it. He did go on to speak of how much he learned about business from his father, whom he clearly reveres. He said, “My dad was a really, really tough guy. He had always been that way and I learned a lot from him.” He said it was his daughter who seems to be most like him, at least when it comes to business.

I think he’s made a conscious choice NOT to use the old “nature is stronger than nurture” but he’s sending signals that he sees this as important. I am sure the progs are freaking. I have a liberal friend who freaked at that pronouncement.

* WP: “No one has figured out how to handle Trump,” said former New Jersey governor Tom Kean Sr. (R). “Everyone underestimated him terribly from Day One. But as someone who knows him and knew his father — the whole family — I can assure you, that was a mistake.”

* By boldly and plainly laying out what he will do regarding immigration, Trump was able to in one stroke completely destroy whatever chance the rest of the Republican field had of being duplicitous. Candidates such as Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and to a lesser degree Scott Walker held an appeal for immigration patriots because they MIGHT possibly do something, anything, to control immigration. All of them knew the American people’s plight and would hint and suggest possible actions as a way of giving what was probably a false hope while simultaneously licking Sheldon Adelson’s fingers. The fact that there is so much groaning and wailing coming from the mass immigration types should tell us that these proposals, if enacted, will largely work.

* The funny thing is that after invading numerous peoples spaces and privacy he (Baron Cohen) and his wife are very private themselves. They remain cloistered away in comparison to most showbiz couples.

* MORE COMMENTS:

* To be sure Trump is a loudmouth vulgarian, but he is also the only person giving voice to the despair of people — not just in the US, but the EU, Australia and Canada as well — who see their societies becoming unrecognizable as a result of wave after wave of mass immigration from unassimilable, if not overtly hostile, cultures. In the face of this despair, the political, governmental, and media elites have just one message for the people of the west: The countries you were born in, grew up in, and perhaps loved are gone, and they’re never coming back; so just get over it. Your home is no longer your home, your customs and your culture are passe. And so: We are bringing in more people than we can ever hope to assimilate, we are importing more poverty than we can ever hope to alleviate, and we are introducing more security risks into the society than we can ever hope to monitor. We elites did all this to you without even asking; nevertheless, if you object in any way you’re obviously a bigot, and we have no interest in hearing what you think about the matter. But we do have one question: Who is this Trump guy, and why are so many people supporting this simpleton?

Truth be told, to the elites the US isn’t even a country with a people and a culture; rather it’s just a labor market and a consumer market. And what the elites want (and get) from both parties is the freedom to maximize return on capital by managing these two markets without interference from the government. As a result, Microsoft can layoff 20,000 workers while simultaneously plumping for a massive expansion of the H1B visa program claiming all the while that the US is short of workers with technical skills. And nobody in either party (except Jeff Sessions) says a word . . . That’s the way the system works.

* Trump is far from being my ideal candidate. If a pollster had called me a week ago, I would have given Trump an unfavorable rating.

I still like Walker — and many other candidates in this race.

Trump, however, is the only candidate pushing to get rid of birth-right citizenship for the children of visitors. I think the electorate’s support for Trump’s position on that issue is overwhelming, even among Democrats. If a Constitutional fix turns out to be necessary, then a President Trump would push for and accomplish that fix.

Birth-right citizenship is only one issue in the illegal-immigration controversy, but it’s a good good indicator of seriousness. The rest of the candidates’ passivity on that issue tells me they will be passive in the entire immigration controversy. We need a political fighter.

We need a presidential candidate who will compel the Democrats to explain publicly why US citizenship should be granted to the children of birth tourists and to explain many other outrageous immigration policies.

* Steve’s offhand suggestion that Trump “stumbled” onto the immigration issue is something I’ve thought for a while. I’m not sure Trump came into the race to champion the cause, but of all the potential memes he threw out, that was the one that generated the most excitement, and now he’s running with it as a market-tested winner. And the timidity of the competition means he’s cornered the market on immigration as a campaign theme.

I don’t mean to say that he’s insincere in his embrace of the issue. And certainly his clear appreciation for Sessions, Coulter (and by extension, Sailer) is heartening. But it does make me wonder whether Trump would settle for a compromise deal down the road if that suited his purpose.

* Following is a passage from a Washington Post article, dated Aug 18, titled “Fading in the polls, Scott Walker aims to attract Trump voters”:

Stanley S. Hubbard, a conservative billionaire who oversees a Minnesota broadcasting company and has donated to Walker’s campaign, said the candidate has promised that he would not push a “social agenda” as president and is simply expressing his personal beliefs when asked. …

Hubbard strongly opposes one immigration measure pushed by Trump this week: a call to stop giving citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants who are born in the United States. Walker said in an interview Monday that he would support ending birthright citizenship, then said other reforms might make that unnecessary.

Hubbard said that he “might really quickly change my allegiance” if Walker pushed for such a repeal, and that he “did not get a real straight answer” from the candidate at his Tuesday lunch. But Hubbard, who came away ready write more checks to help Walker, added: “I got the feeling that he is not at all anxious to talk about taking away those rights.”

This is why Walker supporters are becoming Trump supporters.

* Sure, Walker and Cruz can mimmic what they see is working. But, are they real, or are they opportunists? Trump took the initiative, and you gotta admit, he had to have the balls to do it. Why would anyone believe a sorry “me-too” at this point? Cruz already proved himself a phoney the last time around.

* Steve’s analysis of DT is perfection. He most certainly read Anne’s book, and, he likes women, and has always been very good at ascertaining what women like, want, and need – this is why the lavishness of his hotels & apartment buildings is so over-the-top. He knew people liked bling like magpies before many, yet he was clever to insert the “to the manor born,” design aesthetic simultaneously, like some fashion designers. But, he knew that glitz goes a long way if you can only afford one night at the now, defunct Trump Casino in AC. “You can feel like a million bucks.”

In fact, Miami, which is the center for the wealthy from S. America, and their top-choice retirement community, is the perfect Trump city. It is not out of the question that the Latino vote, whatever that is, may go big for Trump. Glamor, glitz and bling are par for the course in Miami. Liposuction, botox, lifts and weaves of any kind are mainstream.

At the same time, he may very well understand how former “soccer moms,” or “security moms,” (around 9/11) think. Now, I would venture to guess that women (especially boomers and genX’s) with college and HS kids today, may soon be called “student-loan-anxiety-moms; heavily-burdened-by-unemployed-grad-moms; fear-of-what-H1B-will-do-to-their-grad moms; forever-minivan-driving-moms; no chance-to-retire-to-Florida moms; no chance-to-retire-moms.”

And, it is so true that people of all political beliefs are looking for a strong man to state his opinions, whatever they are. Trump learned quickly that immigration is the biggest thing this election (I think I mentioned that about immigration a while back) and, people are responding… much to the gnashing of teeth by many who are revolted by The Donald.

* “I don’t know why Trump is using Hollywood Reporter to cast his message….”

Actually, he delivered the same lines at a live news conference last evening in New Hampshire, part of which was carried live by Fox News. I caught the last 5-10 minutes starting at 7 p.m. EDT, and I don’t know how much of the earlier conference they carried and I happened to miss. Those 5-10 minutes were very revealing. Trump was masterful. He was more in command than any President I have seen, and I have been watching press conferences since JFK. He had total command and was characterizing individual reporters he was calling on in a light hearted fashion (even when his remarks were critical of the reporter). I would imagine he won a whole boat load of voters with that performance.

Posted in Donald Trump, Immigration | Comments Off on Donald Trump Doesn’t Suffer Fools Gladly

William S. Lind: Obama Is Right About Iran

Posted on August 21, 2015 by Luke Ford

William S. Lind writes: Real conservatives hate war. War is the most expensive activity the state can engage in. Its outcome is always uncertain. Only revolution is a more powerful agent of social and cultural change, change conservatives exist to oppose (and war may be a prelude to revolution). Large standing armies are both an enormous expense and a threat to the rule of law. No wonder Edmund Burke, when Parliament was debating a possible war in the Low Countries, exclaimed, “A war for Antwerp? A war for a chamber pot!”

President Obama was thus right in both senses of the word when he said on August 5th of his deal with Iran, “Let’s not mince words: The choice we face is ultimately between diplomacy and some sort of war–maybe not tomorrow, maybe not three months from now, but soon.”

The President was right because, in the end, we have two choices: a deal with Iran, or war with Iran. There is no evidence we could negotiate a better deal than the one the Obama Administration got. All the (well-financed) debate you will hear and read over specific terms of the deal are irrelevant. If we reject it, for whatever reason, we are on course for yet another war in the Middle East.

If Congress rejects the Iran deal, Iran will see no path to removal of the economic sanctions that hurt not just the regime but the Iranian people. The Iranian public will agree with the radicals that American enmity is implacable. The regime and the people will come together in favor of a greatly expanded nuclear program, one that will include numerous nuclear weapons and delivery systems for them. They will be able to purchase both the know-how and the systems themselves from Noth Korea, which has them now and would probably be happy to sell them tomorrow. That could reduce Iran’s “break-out time” to weeks.

Posted in Iran, Israel | Comments Off on William S. Lind: Obama Is Right About Iran

Donald Trump & The Jews

Posted on August 19, 2015 by Luke Ford

Peter Brimelow writes: Donald Trump has come under intense attack for his stance on immigration. But, for those who remember, it is significantly less intense than the barrage that met Pat Buchanan when he ran for President. One obvious but unspoken reason for this: Trump simply has not riled up the organized Jewish community as much—yet.

Partly this is cultural. Unlike Buchanan, Trump appears to be a comfortingly nominal Christian. And, as a recent JTA/ Times of Israel article put it:

Trump is from New York, works in professions saturated with Jews and long has been a vocal supporter of Israel. His daughter and two grandchildren are Jewish, the executive vice president of his organization is Jewish — and Trump certainly has chutzpah.

When it comes to Jewish ties, no GOP candidate trumps Trump, by Uriel Heilman, August 8, 2015

Indeed, Trump’s instant, violent and histrionic reaction to any perceived check, while apparently utterly stunning to the Washington-based political elite, seems actually perfectly normal to anyone who has lived in Manhattan (or, for that matter, has had a Jewish girlfriend).

But can it last? I would say no. The blind commitment of American Jews to the post-1965 policy of mass immigration, alas, has proved (with notable exceptions) at least as strong as their commitment to Israel. Already you can see the emotion kicking in: Ross Kaminsky (email him) writes in Trump’s shameful immigration plan (American Spectator, Aug 18 2015):

His plan to require businesses to “hire American workers first” has the stench of xenophobia backed up by the fist of government. Perhaps as a Jew I’m overly sensitive, but when I hear Trump speak I can’t help but think of “Germany for the Germans.”

(Link in original). Kaminsky is clearly not at all “sensitive” to how insulting this must appear to the nation that defeated Hitler.

On the other hand, Donald Trump’s reaction to this attack, when it inevitably materializes, will be on present form something to see.

Posted in Donald Trump, Immigration, Jews | Comments Off on Donald Trump & The Jews

Steve Sailer: Carlos Slim’s NYT Again Concern-trolls GOP

Posted on August 19, 2015 by Luke Ford

Steve Sailer writes: “How many times over the years have I read this same article? This may come as a surprise to the editors, but relentless repetition doesn’t make it more sincere.”

NYT:

Republicans thought they had learned a lesson after 2012: Turning off Latino voters ensures defeat in the general election.

But as the disruptive presidential candidacy of Donald J. Trump continues to gain support, his hard line on immigration has driven rivals to match his biting anti-immigrant language and positions long considered extreme. It risks another general election cycle in which Hispanics view the party as unfriendly no matter who the nominee is, Republican strategists warned.

Low IQ groups will always vote for more government services. In other words, blacks and latinos will never vote for the GOP en masse.

The average black IQ in the USA is 85 and the average latino IQ is 90. Whites average 100, East Asians 105 and Ashkenazi Jews about 110.

Posted in Latino | Comments Off on Steve Sailer: Carlos Slim’s NYT Again Concern-trolls GOP

What Inspired Donald Trump’s Immigration Jihad?

Posted on August 19, 2015 by Luke Ford

Steve Sailer writes: What’s behind Trump’s sudden rise to Public Enemy No. 1 of the Establishment? They tried bankrupting him over his immigration skepticism in June (even the golf tour cut business ties with Trump), and tried blacklisting him in July for not being reverent toward John McCain. But now, in August, Trump is doubling down on the issue he seemingly stumbled upon: immigration.

“Trump recognized that immigration skepticism had matured as a philosophy, but nobody running for president was selling it.”

What’s been going on?

First, Trump is always looking for an underserved market, especially one that aligns with his innate personality. Of course, he’s hardly infallible at judging which way the winds are blowing. In this century, he’s poured a lot of money into golf courses in the teeth of the worst golf recession since the 1930s (although golf seems to be finally growing in popularity in 2015).

But Trump made at least one historic call: When he started his lavish Trump Tower in the 1970s, the Dow Jones hadn’t hit four digits in a decade. It seemed then like a ruinous bet. When he finished it in booming 1983, however, it was exactly what the newly rich suddenly realized they wanted.

My hunch is that Trump read Ann Coulter’s ¡Adios, America! a few weeks before his campaign announcement and recognized that immigration skepticism had matured as a philosophy, but nobody running for president was selling it. (The central joke of Coulter’s book, one that Trump’s candidacy now makes even funnier, is that white liberals don’t realize that by amping up immigration, they are making their purported worst nightmares come true. And not just economically, but also culturally: the ostentatious Trump brand of luxury high-rises promoted by his reality TV show appearances, for example, is not one that would appeal as much in a more rooted society with more discriminating tastes. But in multicultural, globalist New York, Trump’s self-promotion over the decades has successfully made his name synonymous with that most broadly appealing value of the age, money.)

Why weren’t they?

Candidates who aren’t entertaining enough to get themselves free airtime are beholden to wealthy donors. And one of the strongest forces in the world in recent decades has also been one of the least discussed: class solidarity among billionaires.

Now, you might think that having a billion dollars would free you to indulge in a Trump-like blast of a good time telling unwelcome truths. But in reality, we largely have a highly disciplined class of the extremely rich, who gather frequently in Davos and Aspen to be informed of the latest talking points about why any resistance to them is racist.

While the rich and powerful used to gloomily plot together in secret Bilderberg confabs, the current generation finds it more effective to invite the media to their conferences on how to fight nativist bigotry (and, by the way, high wages) by flooding working-class neighborhoods with Third Worlders. Thus, billionaires and journalists have become coconspirators against the public weal. That’s a tough tag team to beat.

Posted in Donald Trump, Immigration | Comments Off on What Inspired Donald Trump’s Immigration Jihad?