GOP Candidates’ Speeches to AIPAC

Posted on March 21, 2016 by Luke Ford

Steve Sailer writes: “At AIPAC earlier today, Hillary denounced Trump for not being wholly in Israel’s pocket.”

Comments:

* Reaction to what Trump said in his Washington presser – the headline at Israel Hayom (Sheldon Adelson’s paper): “Trump promises to move US embassy to Jerusalem”. Man, they do like him.

* Does every politician have to speak at AIPAC, what would happen if they refused?

* Obama shows up at AIPAC in election years, but tends to skip the ordeal during off years.

* No need to go live stream. It’s all over the cable news networks. Because, you know, there is nothing more important to our presidential election than Israel.

Trump is about to materialize. He supposedly huddled today with people who can help him say all the right things and properly kowtow. Let’s hope he doesn’t talk about the Jewish guy in his building who makes great bagels…or how his accountant is a Jew…etc. (the way he did at the last Israeli-kiss-ass event he attended).

* Trump talking now. Speaking very practically about Iran’s regional ambitions, which are Israel’s biggest concern. I’m impressed.

* Did Trump suddenly decide he’s running for Israeli PM?

* Trump is using a teleprompter for the first time I’ve seen him do it…because, you know, if you say the wrong thing to AIPAC, you’re ruined.

* Trump reminded me of the time Bugs Bunny tossed the conductor out, snapped the baton in two, and totally took over and dominated the orchestra.

* I watched Kasich pay his tribute on MSNBC.

Now Cruz is launching into his worship.

No other foreign country gets this kind of nationally-televised blow job from our candidates. The parties might as well hold a primary in Israel itself.

* I don’t know who is advising Trump on Israel, but the mention of the name “Palestine” was obviously NOT an error. It was a signal.

Speaking of Cruz–gawd, I know he has a retentive, sharp mind, but he’s so damned unctuous in his deliveries. College award winning debaters should at least APPEAR to be less mechanical in every gesture, every pause.

* Interesting pivot by Trump to unite the Republican party behind him. Earlier today he said if you unite behind me we can pick 5 conservative Supreme Court justices over the next few years (which he is going to name now), and if you don’t unite, or if you go third party, we are going to lose the election and lose the chance to remake the Supreme Court.

* A good friend on site has been emailing me updates. He says the crowd liked Trump and there was no sign of the walkout some people tried to engineer.

* Yeah, they panned across the room a few times and he seemed to be genuinely popular.

I’ve got mixed feelings. On the one hand, I wanted someone who would be independent of the lobby. On the other hand, now that he’s proved he’s not dangerous, maybe they’ll let him win?

* I don’t know what to think. Earlier in the day he talked about non-interventionism, reducing aid to Israel and reducing NATO.

Then he makes this pandering speech.

I don’t care how much he swears he loves Israel as long as we don’t get dragged into another war.

Purely from a political skill perspective that was an impressive performance.

* Interesting: no screaming protesters inside the AIPAC hall.

* I wonder if Glen Beck and the other mega-church types supporting Cruz called their “dear friends” at AIPAC asking, pretty-please, if they could give Trump a cold reception, and were told zip it?

* George “The Scold” Will and Charles “The Sage” Krauthammer thought the use of the word “Palestine” was a yuuge error.

* Yes, this speech was a disappointment. He does have a lot in common with Rand Paul, foreign policy wise. Rand’s been pretty pro Israel but still maintained his pragmatic/anti interventionist bent.

This speech and the statement about picking SCOTUS appointments by consulting with Heritage may go a ways in bringing some of the GOPe guys around to supporting him.

After watching Obama humiliate himself today I’m thinking that Trump has an interesting task cut out for himself. He’s clearly never been an interventionist. But he has a visceral loathing for Obama style self-abasement. So the challenge is non-interventionism without losing your dignity, insulting your allies or your position of strength. My sense of today’s various statements is that that is the balance he is trying to strike.

Either that or he’s just crazy. We’ll never know.

* Hopefully this speech will get some of the neoconservatives off his back. You can see from their Twitter feeds that they liked his speech.

* AIPAC made it clear to potential protesters that they would be banned from future conferences if they were disrespectful. I’m too lazy to post the link, but it’s true. Some attendees were trying to organize a walkout but an AIPAC guy put the kibosh on the idea. An email was sent instructing attendees that if they didn’t agree with a speaker they should not go to the speech.

* Link to the text of the speech here:

http://www.donaldjtrump.com/media/donald-j-trump-remarks-at-aipac

Just as I predicted more than a week ago, he got to the right of Hillary on Israel in a large number of ways, including moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem.

He also subtly endorsed the settlements in the West Bank.

You had Camp David in 2000, where Prime Minister Barak made an incredible offer – maybe even too generous.

There you go, the Israeli’s 2000 offer to leave some of the West Bank settlements, keeping East Jerusalem and roughly the best 14% of the West Bank, giving the Pali’s the 86% of the West Bank plus 100% of Gaza, was “maybe even too generous.”

Hillary just can’t go there and has ever endorsed the West Bank settlements. For Trump, even giving up some of the West Bank settlements is “maybe even too generous.” He’s right!

We will move the American embassy to the eternal capital of the Jewish people, Jerusalem – and we will send a clear signal that there is no daylight between America and our most reliable ally, the state of Israel.

I love it. “No daylight” is a pro-Israel dog whistle. Keep tooting it Don!

* The Sydney Murdoch paper in Oz has been hammering the Trump campaign relentlessly with every one of its neocon shills writing weekly columns of 2-minute hate, all of which culminated in a Grand Denunciation: US election: President Donald Trump would be a ‘disaster’ for Australia, analysts warn.

The article included a poll:

Are you worried about Trump becoming US President?

YES (May God have mercy on us all)

NO (Donald Trump is da man!)

That poll led to a shocked follow up article:

Aussies come out in support of Donald Trump in Daily Telegraph online poll

An online poll on The Daily Telegraph showed a surprising 71 per cent of respondents answered ‘No (Donald Trump is da man!)’ when asked ‘Are you worried about Trump becoming US President?’

There were more than 32,000 votes cast in the poll.

Perhaps if Murdoch’s papers actually got to know their readers they wouldn’t find it so “surprising” when their polls go the other way they were advocating. One gets the impression that if Trump were to declare annexation of Oz as part of his election platform that would go down a treat here in Oz.

* This is very frustrating.

The Clinton/Bush/Obama foreign policy has been an unmitigated catastrophe.

The strategy?

Aggressive economic, proxy, air, and/or ground war for regime change in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Yugoslavia, and various ex-Soviet republics.

The cost?

Thousands of dead and maimed Americans, hundreds of thousands of dead Middle Easterners and S.E. Europeans, and tens of trillions of dollars wasted.

The results?

Ruined nations, the strengthening of our enemy Al-Qaeda, the rise of ISIS, the ethnic cleansing of Middle Eastern Christians and other religious minorities, and the migrant invasion of Europe.

Before today, there seemed to be good reason to hope that President Trump’s foreign policy would be a significant improvement over that of his predecessors.

But if we wage war against Iran, Syria and their allies at the behest of AIPAC, as Trump now seems to want, what will be the likely results?

Death, destruction, waste, the strengthening of radical Sunni jihadists such as Al-Qaeda and ISIS, the ethnic cleansing of the remaining Middle Eastern Christians, and a pretext for another wave of migrant invasion into Europe. In other words, a continuation of the Clinton/Bush/Obama foreign policy.

There doesn’t seem to be much choice but to support Trump anyway. Cruz is worse than Trump. Clinton and Kasich are much worse than even Cruz.

The fact remains, those who convinced Trump to change the thrust of his foreign policy have blood on their hands. They may have cost him the general election by weakening one of his most powerful arguments against Clinton – her dismal foreign policy record as First Lady, Senator and Secretary of State.

Ironically, Israel is supremely secure even without any assistance from America. They have the only first-rate conventional military in the Middle East. They have the only nuclear arsenal in the Middle East. They have the world’s best border fence. They have a firmly nationalist government and culture, a replacement level birthrate among their core ethnic group, an immigration policy designed to augment their core ethnic group, and a tax base sufficient to maintain all this.

* The centers of power in America are what they are and Trump has to confront them and pick his battles, he can’t fight on every front and expect to win. It took us a long time to become a puppet of Israel and it’ll take a long time to diminish that influence.

TWITTER:

* 2 ways to filter Trump’s anodyne AIPAKKK speech:
1. recognition of an insurmountable power
2. ego stroking to expose the beast’s underbelly

* 1/ What’s most interesting about #Trump and #Israel is that *no one believe him*.

* 2/ The #AltRight doesn’t think #Trump is a Zionist shill.

And the #Cuckservatives and #Neocons think he’s a crypto-anti-Semite.

Posted in AIPAC, America, Donald Trump, Israel | Comments Off on GOP Candidates’ Speeches to AIPAC

The Grand Project To Turn Women Into Men

Posted on March 21, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comment at the New York Times: Peter Drucker, in his famous essay Managing Oneself, advised strongly the need to understand your strengths and weaknesses, and observed that you can never win by improving your weaknesses, only by improving your strengths. In broader socio-economic terms, we have given women the opportunity to build on their weaknesses (ability to compete against men) and discouraged them from capitalizing on their strengths (youth and fertility). They compete through artifices of fairness and inclusion that are borne on the backs of an ever-dwindling pool of male supporters. We have weakened society as a whole by building on women’s weaknesses in attempts to make them the equal of men, rather than encouraging them in their natural strengths. And while this charade is going on, men are encouraged to adopt feminine attitudes and lifestyles at the expense of their own natural strengths, now deemed unnecessary in the new gender-neutral economy.

Posted in Feminism | Comments Off on The Grand Project To Turn Women Into Men

Why Don’t Men Want To Marry Aging Spinsters?

Posted on March 21, 2016 by Luke Ford

From the Chateau:

A naive beta male wonders why there’s a dearth of single men willing to marry the aging spinsters he knows.

why don’t I know any single men who could be fixed up with a well-educated woman in her late 30s?

Smart people say the stupidest shit sometimes.

This seems to be a common situation among our friends. We know single women whom we believe would be wonderful companions and mothers, but none of the single men whom they are seeking as partners.

Wonderful companions and motherhood potential don’t make dicks hard.

A friend in D.C. says “Single women nearing 40 have spent decades perfecting their adult selves.

That’s their problem, right there. Instead of spending decades perfecting their adult selves, they should have spent some time getting serious with a man while their bodies were still perfect.

Men of the same age are still stuck in their teenage personality.”

Bitterbitch snark for normal, natural male sexual desire for younger, hotter, tighter women.

What is the explanation for this phenomenon?

Hard-on heuristics.

…finding an unpartnered adult male who is in possession of said good stuff seems to be impossible.

For mangy cougars. But for spry springboks, not at all impossible.

Separately, I’m wondering if the large quantity of involuntarily single-and-childless women shows poor life-planning strategies.

That Pill-lubed, anonymous urban living-facilitated cock carousel isn’t gonna ride itself!

These women have advanced education, great job skills, and good careers compared to the American average.

Yeah but do they have clear skin…?

Inadvertently, our plucky White Knight shilling for his starving cougars stumbles upon a payout system that likely incentivizes the pursuit of alpha fux over settling for beta bux.

we must observe that [women’s] after-tax income is in nearly every case lower than if they’d had sex with a dermatologist or dentist in Massachusetts and collected child support.

Note to dermatologists and dentists: if you’re gonna bang a desperate aging beauty, wear your own condom and dispose of it in the toilet.

(Most of these women want two children, which, if properly planned, could easily offer a tax-free cash yield of $200,000/year via child support (multiply by 23 years in Massachusetts).) See this from the Practical Tips chapter:

In most states, the potential child support profits from a one-night encounter are roughly the same as the profits from a short-term marriage. … “Women who want to make money from the system aren’t getting married anymore,” said one lawyer. “The key is recognizing that it is a lot easier to rent a rich guy for one night, especially if he has had a few drinks, than it is to get a rich guy to agree to marriage.”

All women can be mercenary given strong enough incentives, but luckily (for men) most women still strive to have children within a marriage. Single momhood is not (yet) a desired life outcome for psychologically healthy women, despite its inglorious rise over the past forty years. What this means is that for the typical man, the odds of getting fleeced by a woman pulling the ol’ gotcha pregnancy maneuver are low.

Rich men do have something to worry about, especially rich men with Game, because women will lose all sense around them (like men do around barely legal sexpots) and are liable to think pregnancy and child support entrapment are reasonable first date objectives.

From the point of view of having the children that they want prior to the exhaustion of their fertility and from the point of view of financial security, these women would have been better off spending their 18-22-year-old years having sex with married men rather than attending college. That’s not to suggest that 18-year-old child support profiteer is the optimum lifestyle for every American woman, but the fact that it would yield a better outcome measured against their own goals than what the women we know have accomplished suggests that they pursued a pretty bad life strategy.

Here’s a better idea that isn’t compiled in the abstracted kookland of the homo spergonomicus mind:

Women who want kids should get married in their early 20s and start having them by their mid-late 20s, then spend some years at home raising them, afterwards returning to their careers soulfully satisfied and serenely accepting of the fact that they can’t have it all and motherhood necessarily means the corner office won’t be a realistic option for them. No “child support profiteer” shenanigans needed. (Any woman who seriously follows such a cold, sociopathic blueprint deserves all the pain and suffering she will inevitably receive in the romance market.)

Readers: Looking at the 35-45 age group, and restricting to people who have a college degree, above-median earnings, agreeable personality, and responsible habits, what’s the ratio of single women to single men?

Who cares? It’s like asking what’s the ratio of garden slugs to single men. The one will have no influence on the behavior of the other.

The first commenter to the original author’s blog post gets to the heart of it:

Men select for beauty and fertility; both of which are on the decline in the women you mention. They also select for low-conflict behavior, kindness, etc., which may or may not be found among the women you mention.

Reality is, that any guy who is 40 and has his act together, is going to date younger; especially with the horrible economy -there are lots of 28yo women without a clear path to career at this point.

A 37yo with possibly 2 years of fertility left should be looking not for 40 or 42, but for someone about 50 to 54 who is in good shape and still wants to have 1 or 2 kids.

Satanic feminists have lied to women for so long that simple truths like “don’t wait too long to marry and have kids because your fertility window is short and men won’t be interested in you when you’re older and uglier” are willfully ignored or twisted into nostrums of oppression that should be fought against and actively denied through the alchemy of embracing gogrrl, leaned in, cock-hopping, careerist lifestyles that ironically will leave women more miserable than if they had just submitted to the patriarchy’s price of admission.

Posted in Feminism | Comments Off on Why Don’t Men Want To Marry Aging Spinsters?

WP: Trump questions need for NATO, outlines non-interventionist foreign policy

Posted on March 21, 2016 by Luke Ford

It’s as though Donald Trump’s favorite people are Americans.

It feels like every day Donald Trump is making front-page news. He’s a compelling character. It’s hard to stop reading about him.

Conservative Pundit tweets: “George Washington is no doubt rolling in his grave at the prospect that the US might stop involving itself in internecine Mid East wars.”

Washington Post: Donald Trump revealed part of his foreign policy advisory team and outlined an unabashedly noninterventionist approach to world affairs during a wide-ranging meeting Monday with The Washington Post’s editorial board.

The Republican presidential front-runner, for the first time, listed five of the people who are part of a team, chaired by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), counseling him on foreign affairs and helping to shape his policies. They are Keith Kellogg, Carter Page, George Papadopoulos, Walid Phares and Joseph E. Schmitz.

Trump’s meeting with members of The Post’s editorial board covered a range of issues, including media libel laws, violence at his rallies, climate change, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the U.S. presence in Asia.

Trump — who is set to give a major address on foreign policy later Monday before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee — said in his meeting at The Post that he advocates an aggressive U.S. posture in the world with a light footprint. In spite of unrest abroad, especially in the Middle East, Trump insisted that the United States must look inward and steer its resources toward rebuilding domestic infrastructure.

“I do think it’s a different world today, and I don’t think we should be nation-building anymore,” Trump said. “I think it’s proven not to work, and we have a different country than we did then. We have $19 trillion in debt. We’re sitting, probably, on a bubble. And it’s a bubble that if it breaks, it’s going to be very nasty. I just think we have to rebuild our country.”

He added: “I watched as we built schools in Iraq and they’re blown up. We build another one, we get blown up. We rebuild it three times and yet we can’t build a school in Brooklyn. We have no money for education because we can’t build in our own country. At what point do you say, ‘Hey, we have to take care of ourselves?’ So, I know the outer world exists and I’ll be very cognizant of that. But at the same time, our country is disintegrating, large sections of it, especially the inner cities.”

Posted in Donald Trump | Comments Off on WP: Trump questions need for NATO, outlines non-interventionist foreign policy

Trump Wants US Out Of NATO

Posted on March 21, 2016 by Luke Ford

John J.Mearsheimer has said for years that the US should get out of NATO and pivot to asia to contain China.

Daily Beast: In a meeting with The Washington Post’s editorial board, Donald Trump suggested NATO has outlived its usefulness and is a waste of money. According to the Post, the Republican frontrunner questioned the United States’ involvement in the intergovernmental military alliance, charging that some U.S. allies are “not doing anything.” He alleged that “we’re doing all the lifting” on Ukraine while other European powers remain silent. “Why are we always the one that’s leading, potentially the third world war with Russia?” he added. Ultimately, he reportedly concluded, NATO will need to be diminished in coming years: “We certainly can’t afford to do this anymore,” he said. “NATO is costing us a fortune, and yes, we’re protecting Europe with NATO, but we’re spending a lot of money.”

Posted in Donald Trump | Comments Off on Trump Wants US Out Of NATO