44% Of American Jewish Households Earn Above $100,000 Per Annum

Posted on October 13, 2016 by Luke Ford

Posted in Jews | Comments Off on 44% Of American Jewish Households Earn Above $100,000 Per Annum

A Fascist Philosopher Helps Us Understand Contemporary Politics

Posted on October 13, 2016 by Luke Ford

Prof. Alan Wolfe writes in 2004 for the Chronicle of Higher Education:

To understand what is distinctive about
today’s Republican Party, you first need to know about an obscure and
very conservative German political philosopher. His name, however, is
not Leo Strauss, who has been widely cited as the intellectual guru of
the Bush administration. It belongs, instead, to a lesser known, but in
many ways more important, thinker named Carl Schmitt.

Strauss and Schmitt were once close professionally; Schmitt supported
Strauss’s application for a Rockefeller Foundation fellowship to Paris
in 1932, the same year in which Strauss published a review of
Schmitt’s most important book, The Concept of the Political. Their
paths later diverged. Strauss, a Jew, left Germany for good and
eventually settled in Chicago, where he inspired generations of
students, one of whom, Allan Bloom, in turn inspired Saul Bellow’s
Ravelstein. Schmitt, a devout Catholic who had written a number of
well-regarded books — including Political Theology (1922), The Crisis
of Parliamentary Democracy (1923), and Political Romanticism (first
printed in 1919) — joined the Nazi Party in 1933, survived World War
II with his reputation relatively unscathed, and witnessed a revival of
interest in his work, from both the left and the right, before his death in
1985 at the age of 96.

Given Schmitt’s strident anti-Semitism and unambiguous Nazi
commitments, the left’s continuing fascination with him is difficult to
comprehend. Yet as Jan-Werner Müller, a fellow at All Soul’s College,
Oxford, points out in his recently published A Dangerous Mind, that
attraction is undeniable. Müller argues that Schmitt’s spirit pervades
Empire (2000), the intellectual manifesto of the antiglobalization
movement, written by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, as well as the
writings of the Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben, recently much in
the news because of his decision to turn down a position at New York
University as a protest against America’s decision to fingerprint
overseas visitors (although not those from Italy).

When I served as the dean of the graduate faculty of political and
social science at the New School for Social Research in the 1990s, the
efforts of the decidedly left-wing faculty to play host to a conference
on Schmitt’s thought brought into my office an elderly Jewish donor
who informed me that he was not going to give any more of his money
to an institution sympathetic, as he angrily put it, to “that fascist.” I was
tempted to tell him, not that it would have helped, that Schmitt had
become the rage in leftist circles. Telos, a journal founded in 1968
dedicated to bringing European critical theory to American audiences,
had started a campaign in the 1980s to resurrect Schmitt’s legacy,
impressed by his no-nonsense attacks on liberalism and his contempt
for Wilsonian idealism. A comprehensive study of Schmitt’s early
writings, Gopal Balakrishnan’s The Enemy, published by the New
Leftist firm of Verso in 2000, finds Schmitt’s conclusion that liberal
democracy had reached a crisis oddly reassuring, for it gives the left
hope that its present stalemate will not last indefinitely. Such
prominent European thinkers as Slavoj Ziûek, Chantal Mouffe, and
Jacques Derrida have also been preoccupied with Schmitt’s ideas. It is
not that they admire Schmitt’s political views. But they recognize in
Schmitt someone who, very much like themselves, opposed humanism
in favor of an emphasis on the role of power in modern society, a
perspective that has more in common with a poststructuralist like
Michel Foucault than with liberal thinkers such as John Rawls.

Schmitt’s admirers on the left have been right to realize that after the
collapse of communism, Marxism needed considerable rethinking. Yet
in turning to Schmitt rather than to liberalism, they have clung fast to
an authoritarian strain in Marxism represented by such 20th-century
thinkers as V.I. Lenin and Antonio Gramsci. And it hasn’t just been
Schmitt. Telos, in particular, developed a fascination with neofascist
thinkers and movements in Italy, as if to proclaim that anything would
be better than Marx’s contemporary, John Stuart Mill, and his legacy.
Schmitt’s influence on the contemporary right has taken a different
course. In Europe, new-right thinkers such as Gianfranco Miglio in
Italy, Alain de Benoist in France, and the German writers contributing
to the magazine Junge Freiheit (Young Freedom) have built on
Schmitt’s ideas. Right-wing Schmittians in the United States are not as
numerous, but they include intellectuals — often described as
paleoconservative — who expend considerable energy attacking
neoconservatism from the right. One of them, Paul Edward Gottfried, a
humanities professor at Elizabethtown College, in Pennsylvania, is
especially prolific. Himself an occasional contributor to Junge
Freiheit, Gottfried defends the magazine for rejecting “the view that
every German patriot should be evermore browbeaten by selfappointed
victims of the Holocaust.” No wonder he has a soft spot for
Carl Schmitt. Gottfried is the kind of writer who puts the term
“fascism” in quotation marks, as if its existence in the European past is
somehow open to question.

But there are, I venture to say, no seminars on Schmitt taking place
anywhere in the Republican Party and, even if any important
conservative political activists have heard of Schmitt, which is
unlikely, they would surely distance themselves from his totalitarian
sympathies. Still, Schmitt’s way of thinking about politics pervades the
contemporary zeitgeist in which Republican conservatism has
flourished, often in ways so prescient as to be eerie. In particular, his
analysis helps explain the ways in which conservatives attack liberals
and liberals, often reluctantly, defend themselves.

In The Concept of the Political, Schmitt wrote that every realm of
human endeavor is structured by an irreducible duality. Morality is
concerned with good and evil, aesthetics with the beautiful and ugly,
and economics with the profitable and unprofitable. In politics, the
core distinction is between friend and enemy. That is what makes
politics different from everything else. Jesus’s call to love your enemy
is perfectly appropriate for religion, but it is incompatible with the lifeor-death
stakes politics always involves. Moral philosophers are
preoccupied with justice, but politics has nothing to do with making
the world fairer. Economic exchange requires only competition; it does
not demand annihilation. Not so politics.

“The political is the most intense and extreme antagonism,” Schmitt
wrote. War is the most violent form that politics takes, but, even short
of war, politics still requires that you treat your opposition as
antagonistic to everything in which you believe. It’s not personal; you
don’t have to hate your enemy. But you do have to be prepared to
vanquish him if necessary.

Conservatives have absorbed Schmitt’s conception of politics much
more thoroughly than liberals. Ann H. Coulter, author of books with
titles such as Treason: Liberal Treachery From the Cold War to the
War on Terrorism and Slander: Liberal Lies About the American
Right, regularly drops hints about how nice it would be if liberals were
removed from the earth, like her 2003 speculation about a Democratic
ticket that might include Al Gore and then-California Gov. Gray Davis.
“Both were veterans, after a fashion, of Vietnam,” she wrote, “which
would make a Gore-Davis ticket the only compelling argument yet in
favor of friendly fire.”

…Schmitt argued that liberals, properly speaking, can never be political.
Liberals tend to be optimistic about human nature, whereas “all
genuine political theories presuppose man to be evil.” Liberals believe
in the possibility of neutral rules that can mediate between conflicting
positions, but to Schmitt there is no such neutrality, since any rule —
even an ostensibly fair one — merely represents the victory of one
political faction over another. (If that formulation sounds like Stanley
Fish when he persistently argues that there is no such thing as
principle, that only testifies to the ways in which Schmitt’s ideas
pervade the contemporary intellectual zeitgeist.) Liberals insist that
there exists something called society independent of the state, but
Schmitt believed that pluralism is an illusion because no real state
would ever allow other forces, like the family or the church, to contest
its power. Liberals, in a word, are uncomfortable around power, and,
because they are, they criticize politics more than they engage in it.
No wonder that Schmitt admired thinkers such as Machiavelli and
Hobbes, who treated politics without illusions. Leaders inspired by
them, in no way in thrall to the individualism of liberal thought, are
willing to recognize that sometimes politics involves the sacrifice of
life. They are better at fighting wars than liberals because they
dispense with such notions as the common good or the interests of all
humanity. (“Humanity,” Schmitt wrote in a typically terse formulation
that is brilliant if you admire it and chilling if you do not, “cannot wage
war because it has no enemy.”) Conservatives are not bothered by
injustice because they recognize that politics means maximizing your
side’s advantages, not giving them away. If unity can be achieved only
by repressing dissent, even at risk of violating the rule of law, that is
how conservatives will achieve it.

In short, the most important lesson Schmitt teaches is that the
differences between liberals and conservatives are not just over the
policies they advocate but also over the meaning of politics itself.
Schmitt’s German version of conservatism, which shared so much with
Nazism, has no direct links with American thought. Yet residues of his
ideas can nonetheless be detected in the ways in which conservatives
today fight for their objectives.

Liberals think of politics as a means; conservatives as an end. Politics,
for liberals, stops at the water’s edge; for conservatives, politics never
stops. Liberals think of conservatives as potential future allies;
conservatives treat liberals as unworthy of recognition.

Posted in Carl Schmitt | Comments Off on A Fascist Philosopher Helps Us Understand Contemporary Politics

‘Gentile sperm leads to barbaric offspring’

Posted on October 11, 2016 by Luke Ford

I am not remotely offended by this sentiment. I suspect that all proud peoples want their women making babies with in-group sperm. Why would the Japanese, for instance, want their women inseminated by non-Japanese sperm?

Blood and soil are the most basic sentiments for a healthy nation.

cug7olnvmaa5mqf

YNET: Rabbi Dov Lior says Jewish Law prohibits sterile couples from conceiving using non-Jew’s sperm, as it causes adverse traits. On subject of single mothers he says, ‘Child cannot be 100% normal’

Rabbi Dov Lior, a senior authority on Jewish law in the Religious Zionism movement, asserted recently that a Jewish woman should never get pregnant using sperm donated by a non-Jewish man – even if it is the last option available.

According to Lior, a baby born through such an insemination will have the “negative genetic traits that characterize non-Jews.” Instead, he advised sterile couples to adopt.

Lior addressed the issue during a women’s health conference held recently at the Puah Institute, a fertility clinic. His conservative stance negated a ruling widely accepted by rabbis, which states that sperm donated by a non-Jew is preferable to that of an anonymous Jew, who might pose a genealogical risk.

“Sefer HaChinuch (a book of Jewish law) states that the character traits of the father pass on to the son,” he said in the lecture. “If the father in not Jewish, what character traits could he have? Traits of cruelty, of barbarism! These are not traits that characterize the people of Israel.”

Lior added identified Jews as merciful, shy and charitable – qualities that he claimed could be inherited. “A person born to Jewish parents, even if they weren’t raised on the Torah – there are things that are passed on (to him) in the blood, it’s genetic,” he explained. “If the father is a gentile, then the child is deprived of these things.

“I even read in books that sometimes the crime, the difficult traits, the bitterness – a child that comes from these traits, it’s no surprise that he won’t have the qualities that characterize the people of Israel,” he added.

‘Kids born to single moms become criminals’
Lior condemned artificial insemination and sperm donation in general, saying that they lead to waste of sperm, unclear genealogy and other Jewish law offenses. He warned against undergoing intrauterine insemination at hospitals, where the workers may mix sperm samples for one reason or another – a major halachic violation.

On the subject of women who freeze their eggs to use at a later date, the rabbi asserted that instead they should concentrate their efforts on getting married younger.

“Our public has been influenced by a part of the Western culture in which every woman, instead of becoming a mother, needs to get a Masters Degree,” he lamented. “The role of women – child rearing – is not less important than an academic degree.” Lior noted that there is nothing wrong with attaining a profession, but it should not be a priority.

Moreover, the rabbi spoke against single women getting pregnant.

“We can understand the desire of every woman to have a child, but according to our Torah it is impossible to address the demand of a certain woman when it can cause someone else suffering,” he said.

“If a child is born without a father, he cannot be 100% normal.” He stated that rabbinical literature defines these kids as “criminals and subjects of other negative phenomena.”

Posted in Jews | Comments Off on ‘Gentile sperm leads to barbaric offspring’

The Second Debate

Posted on October 11, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* LAT / USC daily tracking poll:

. . .

Friday, 10/7: Trump +3.1%

Saturday, 10/8: Trump +2.8%

Sunday, 10/9: Trump +3.1%

* * *

In other words, the Trump-Bush tape revelation, on Friday, barely moved the preference needle, on Saturday, and was a total washout, by Sunday. Early tomorrow morning, we shall see how much the second debate has moved the needle. Clinton had a minute lead on Sunday, 9/11. On Monday, 9/12, after Clinton’s 9/11 collapse at Ground Zero, Trump surged into the lead. Since then, that lead has ranged from a low of 1.8% to an high of 6.7%. Whether this particular poll turns out to be accurate, come 11/8, it is clear that this supposedly mortal wound to Trump’s campaign was much ado about nothing. “Paging Dr. Seinfeld! Paging Dr. Seinfeld!”

* Trump needs to win in order to salvage his reputation. Winners write the history. A Clinton victory assures that Trump’s name is mud, that America was saved from a tyrant who was on the path to becoming a new Hitler. Then there are going to be the weaponized agencies going after Trump and his family. Then the social ostracism where the Trumps become toxic.

Trump needs to win and put his own stamp on history.

* The more I think about it, the more brilliant Trump’s “Because you’d be in jail” line is. It’s pretty much the only thing people will remember from this debate 2-3 days from now.

* Steve Sailer: Tom Wolfe wrote an article about 50 years ago about how everybody in New York City believes they are a Big Leaguer.

Sometimes, even, they are. I remember a taxicab driver in 1984 who got me from Midtown to LaGuardia in 18 minutes because he had timed all the traffic lights and knew the optimal speed was to drive 3rd Avenue at 36.2 mph, so we hit dozens of greenlights in a row. He was a Big League cabdriver!

* I think most military votes would be strongly affected by the email scandal. Higher level govt employees. In short, anyone familiar with history of clearance, importance of clearance, management and leadership. It really rubs people up the wrong way to elect someone to the highest office of the land like that when anyone not politically connected would lose their job or be jailed for the same thing. And she lies about it. It is all kinds of wrong.

* It’s almost amusing to see how insane the media has gone over Trump’s bringing in the women who have accused Bill Clinton of sexual assault.

They seem to be genuinely shocked that Trump might bring up Bill Clinton’s horrible behavior — but how could they possibly be so?

How many shots across the bow did Trump fire beforehand, warning off the Clinton campaign from pushing the sexual angle against him? Did this stop them? Of course not. They really do seem to believe, from Hillary on down, that the usual rules of tit-for-tat simply don’t apply to them. The depth of their belief in this was exposed most obviously in the Machado case, in which it was apparent they didn’t even do the obvious vetting any such figure should require.

There’s a breathtaking arrogance, entitlement, and lack of accountability in their behavior. They seem to have spent so much time sucking on their own exhaust, and isolating themselves from opposed opinion, that they aren’t even capable of entertaining points of view other than their own.

Posted in America | Comments Off on The Second Debate

Is It The Message Or The Messenger?

Posted on October 11, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* Yeah, if only we could find the right messenger and say it in the right way, the left-wing establishment and SJW’s will be OK with someone opposing their whole globalization, invade the world, invite the world agenda.

I thought Pat Buchanan was a fairly innocuous guy, and a DC insider, but it turns out that once he stopped being “Conservative” and supporting Bush I, he was discovered to be a vicious anti-Semite who hated women and blacks, and was an unpatriotic cowardly draft dodger.

I believe something similar happened to Tom Tancredo and Richard Lamm. Both of whom went from respected politicians to hate filled kooks when they started discussing immigration control.

* What Alexander doesn’t get is that if Trump loses, Hillary and her SJW crew both within the government and everywhere else will take it as a permanent defeat for what they regard as the forces of darkness, and will go full speed ahead on the PC agenda — including, of course, installing SC justices who will for a generation see to it that our free speech is limited by “hate speech” rules. It will not matter to them that they have to reverse any number of previous rulings, because those came from an unenlightened age.

It’s easy to imagine that there’s going to be some blowback eventually if they push PC too hard. But there’s no good reason to believe this. Human beings have a great capacity to adjust to new norms, however onerous. If human societies could be as oppressive about, say, sexuality as they were in the Victorian or Puritan era, they can be equally as rigid and punitive about “microaggressions” that violate identity politics norms. The only thing preventing us from going down that slippery slope is our own traditions and laws, and those can be altered over time. It’s really not in any way obvious where the end point of this might be, the stable point where there is so much dissent that it can’t be made any worse — and especially if the political correctness becomes enshrined in law, and identity groups themselves vote to sustain it.

People imagine the PC pendulum must swing back. But it’s swung only one way for any length in our entire lifetimes — how can we pretend to know where that swing must end?

If Trump wins, even if he weren’t to get a second term, and was regarded as a failure, he would clearly represent a potent force in society that couldn’t be entirely ignored. If he doesn’t, it’s not clear why another politician, with more congenial attributes, and the same point of view, and good electoral prospects, would be likely to appear in our lifetime. From the standpoint of the elites, he would in any case be another Trump, and would be subjected to the same treatment for the same reasons.

* Steve, when do you think the PC dam is going to break?

It didn’t break with the Bell Curve, it didn’t break with Summers, it didn’t break with Watson, it didn’t break with Mike Brown, it didn’t break with 9/11…Is there something coming down the pike with the Beijing Genomics Institute that we can hope for?

* The purpose of PC is to conceal the truth. It started with the problem of there being no rational explanation for low black academic achievement other than they are, as a people, not as intelligent as others. This has been known for at least 2000 years and was simply accepted. Since the Civil Rights era acknowledging this fact became forbidden and once it became forbidden it opened the door to concealing other unpleasant realities. Some concessions have had to be made. Women have to compete in separate sports venues, the mentally retarded are not admitted to Ivy League schools and some minimal physical standards can be a condition to hold certain jobs. Beyond that though PC is allowed to run rampant today. A person who cannot walk is not ‘crippled’ they are merely ‘differently abled’ and a black planetarium director becomes the greatest astrophysicist alive.

* While Pat Buchanan is not a Enoch Powell level genius, he’s probably the smartest serious candidate for President we’ve had in the past 50 years and has led an exemplary personal life beyond a few barroom brawls when he was young.

He’s written a dozen books about history, political theory, and demography, which is easy to forget since he has a regular guy persona.

I do not recall the media being especially mean to him in the 1992 primary, but I was a kid then and perhaps they would have been if he had become the nominee as opposed to the guy who was dividing the GOP at the time and sucking resources from the likely nominee.

* Going back to the debate, I was happy to see Trump was not a disaster again, but on policy I was really disappointed.

He abandoned his Muslim ban, a huge winning issue for him. They way he wins if voters are thinking in the voting booth, “Do I want more Muslims in America, or not?” Instead he retreated to the dumb talking point, on which Hillary is in complete agreement, that we can continue to have more Muslims but need to “vet them” more.

On health care, he repeatedly lied about premium increases (no, premiums are not going up more than 50%, I have an Obamacare plan and it has increased about 8% a year, which is typical) and repeated the retarded GOPe talking about about what a miracle it would be if we could sell insurance “across state lines.”

On taxes, he plan is another George W Bush indefensible and massive tax cut for the 1%. There was nothing stopping him from offering a huge tax cut for the middle class, something easy to understanding like cutting the payroll tax or exempting all income below $50,000. The one thing good he said was about the carried interest loophole, but that was too wonky for 95% of Americans to understand.

* The Vagina Defense Force is the problem here.

The actual recording of Trump’s comments is filled with laughter. It’s two guys boasting and catcalling. So what if there is x-rated language.

Trump specifically was talking about the CELEB-OBSESSED women and other women of the type that move around famous billionaire guys like moths around a flame.

The real travesty here is ignoring the daily reality of good looking famous rich men getting the green light from huge numbers of women. Every day.

Otherwise normal women are frequently complete sluts for celebrity men. Deal with it, America.

I guarantee that the married woman in question loved the attention from Trump. She knew exactly what was going on.

Once again the global vagina defense force wants to have it both ways. They want presumption of non-sluttery and the freedom to act like a total slut around super alpha males.

“You can have it all, baby!”

* You don’t need to look for a respectable messenger in order to win. You first have to win and then suddenly you’re respectable and respected.
First you defeat the PC establishment and then you can safely send Murray, Watson, Buchanan and Sailer on a lecture tour.
Nobody’s ever won a political fight with arguments.

* Sure, Trump is a flawed vessel for the nationalistic and anti-PC spirit.

But he has a unique combination of eff-you money, star power & communication mastery to weather the massive onslaught from all sides that the globalist & elitist forces are throwing at him.

Nobody else right now could do what he is doing. If he can survive, others with less obvious flaws will follow. But first, a nationalist, anti-PC politician has to survive.

* A producer at The Apprentice claims he has footage of Donald Trump saying the N word. This is suppose to be the October surprise from the Left.

Steve should do a blog about this and point out that our current president Barack Hussein Obama has also said the N word.

* Seriously, does any adult talking about this crap on TV not know the basics of normal heterosexual relations, which involve a series of escalating steps initiated by the man toward greater physical intimacy, and the various cues involved, almost all of them NON-VERBAL? That what Trump was talking about is perfectly fine at the start, middle, or end of a physical encounter between heterosexual adults, all depending on a CONTEXT which adults are supposed to understand as if an unspoken language? Groping, if you faithfully communicate in this language, is just another word for foreplay.

Not saying that the tape is any good for Trump, but there is nothing legally or even ethically askew about it and any grown man or woman damn knows it. It is simply a matter of manners and- for a dwindling share of the population- morals, and no more problematic than breaking wind in public; problem for Trump is that the electorate is perfectly within its rights to decide for a President on those grounds.

** To be fair to Alexander, the million leaked credit cards #’s from ASHLEY MADISON from men who really think there any normal women out there trolling for one-off sex on the Internet shows the cluelessness out there is pretty broad.

* They were talking about how their celebrity caused women to be receptive to their advances, which is not exactly a shocking observation.

Never in human history has a man seduced a woman by leading off with “do you consent for me to kiss you/place my hands upon your body?” He talked about moving in aggressively but didn’t say anything to indicate he wouldn’t take “no” for an answer. Anderson Cooper saying something along the lines of “You were talking about sexual assault. You realize that, right?” was one of the most infuriating moments of the debate. Sexual assault is more like, I dunno… maybe holding a woman down, biting her lip open and telling her to put some ice on it after you’re done raping her.

* It’s the messenger not the message.

Powell hamstrung the anti-immigration movement for decades. Anyone arguing the case was labelled powellite.

Instead of sticking to reasonoable arguments about the inadvisability of turning Britain into a multi-ethnic state, he littered his speech with soundbites like “rivers of blood” and “grinning pickanninies”. Pure stupidity.

I don’t blame Powell personally, he was probably on the autistic spectrum, IMHO.

The pity of it was that he became the poster boy for the anti-immigration movement.

* There are a bunch of reasons [Steven Pinker has not gotten into trouble with the PC police], some of which are worth imitating for those who want to take HBD more mainstream.

1. He’s careful and moderate with his language
2. He’s witty
3. He tends to present the data but let the reader draw their own conclusions
4. He does the “safety in numbers” tactic of publishing the most controversial research with 10+ co-authors
5. He limits his association with deplorables (though he does seem to retweet some academic deplorables)

Some factors more unique to him:

1. Jew privilege (did not save Larry Summers, but university president is a more vulnerable position to Watsoning than tenured professor)

2. He has mentored a lot of the smartest people in the field. This is made easier by the fact that psychology does not exactly attract great minds like physics does, and he is a senior tenured Harvard professor.

* He does not discuss racial differences, which is the politically correct third rail in academia. According to Cochran, Pinker told him and Harpending that if he tried to test their Ashkenazi Jewish theory he would be out of job at Harvard. He knows were the fault lines are, and will not cross them.

* The “Trump tape” wasn’t boasting. It was a process to get himself in character for the TV show he was about to act in. He had to become that character, the Braggart New York Boor. He used to do that character a lot in his rally speeches, “I’m really really rich.” The audience knew what he was doing.

Isn’ t that what “method” acting is, where they become the character? I think I read that Meryl Streep became that bitchy career the whole time they were filming “Devil Wore Prada.” Anne Hathaway said something like at the start of filming Meryl told her that was the last time Anne would like Meryl.

He was playing the Braggart NY Boor doing locker room talk. He’s a pretty good actor in that character he created. Its not Hamlet but its a different person from the way he was in interviews 30 years ago, even though he kind of said he same stuff.

* The question is “would someone classier, smarter, more knowledgeable than Trump have done better or worse than he’s doing now, all else being equal?”

I don’t know. Pat Buchanen is classier, smarter and more knowledgeable than Trump, he ran on very similar issues twice, and he did worse. But there could have been lots of reasons for this. Ceteris is never paribus in history. Maybe the time wasn’t right.

The most popular blog on the net is Perez Hilton’s. I think Perez’s IQ is close to the population mean, and I’m guessing that this helps him connect with millions of readers. If Steve set himself the goal of creating the most popular blog in the country, would he have succeeded? Maybe not. Maybe you have to be average, or at least close to it, to connect with the masses. Maybe this is one of those things that one can’t fake.

And maybe it’s more important for a populist politician to connect with the masses viscerally because all of the media will be against him and he’s not going to be able to run a lot of ads.

Leftism uses people’s social aspirations. It’s convinced people that it’s upscale, hip, trendy, cool. But lots of people have given up on being cool because of their age, weight, bad looks, bad jobs, lack of smarts, etc. That incentive doesn’t work on them. So they’re less repulsed by political messages that have been declared uncool by the media. They’re the natural constituency for an anti-establishment politician.

What’s the alternative? To redifine what’s cool, hip and upscale? That would be very, very difficult. An upscale spokesperson for unconventional political ideas is perceived as an irrelevant exception. Because he actually is an exception.

Has any nationalist pol succeeded at attracting the intelligentsia in any country in modern times? I can’t think of any. But getting a majority by mobilizing the working and lower middle classes – that’s been done in other countries. It’s harder to do in America than in Eastern Europe, for example, because Americans are divided by race. But it’s conceivable even in America. Trump will probably only lose by a few points.

* It could only have been Trump. Maybe in the future there will be a conventional politician who holds crimethink opinions who will have the cajones to step into the breach and be an articulate, reasonable voice for common sense… but as they say these days common sense ain’t so common.

It was the improbable combination in Trump of being opinionated, vain, arrogant, a prominent celebrity, and hewing to a certain strain of mid-century blue collar Archie Bunkerist common sensical political opinion that led us to where we are. Not only was he able to express what apparently 60% of white people are thinking, he was able to con the media into giving him millions of dollars of in kind campaign contributions of air time by being inherently newsworthy given his 30+ year history of making himself a public spectacle.

But it’s too true that pretty soon only 40% of white people will be able to admit to themselves that our country is good and the form it had before mass importation of third world people was worth preserving. And that means that it’ll be more like 30% of all voters who will even be interested in the good old days.

Which is so annoying. I work in a very g-loaded profession, and amongst my colleagues any opinion other than thinking Trump is an annoying clown with monstrous opinions is completely unheard of. And yet… their revealed preferences of who they would like to associate with reveal they don’t really think that a society made up of no-skill third world toilers is as good as a high trust society made up of people like them.

They don’t marry Salvadoran nannies and they certainly wouldn’t let their daughters date the sons of Afghani cab drivers. And of course their daughters wouldn’t want to date those people. They aspire to home ownership and middle class upstanding citizenship, but don’t give a moment’s thought to the fact that those things are so much more affordable in flyover country than in the coastal elite cities where they live, or why. They don’t seem to think that masses of people cramped into favelas on a hill with an elite caste of millionaires living down below in luxury gated communities is a good thing, and yet they never think twice about the open borders consensus and the PC culture that implies that we have to welcome in billions of third world immigrants.

That’s the thing that’s so annoying about our new PC overlords: the ethos that is driving this whole shitshow is just so insipid. Everyone is beautiful in their own way! There’s no value judgment to be made between a nobel prizewinner and a Pakistani goatherd– each has their own gifts to bestow to the mixed salad that is 21st century America!

It really is shameful that all 16 other Republicans who saw fit to run for President this year couldn’t articulate what really is a quite simple message: you don’t have to pretend about the Emperor’s clothes anymore. That tells you all you need to know about the state of the Party in 2016 and its chances going forward if they don’t find some new people who are actually willing to engage with the way the world really is and not how it appears in a Jack Kemp pamphlet from 30 years ago. Maybe capital gains tax rates were an important thing to argue about back in that much simpler time when there were just blacks and whites and the country wasn’t on the verge of permanent one party rule, but nowadays we’re in an existential crisis. So if no one credible was willing to engage with the way the world actually was, we had no choice but to go with Trump.

So sure, blame the messenger, he’s obviously a cad, and much worse, too. But to have picked Jeb or Carly or whatever was to pick no one and to concede before the fight was even started. What would Alexander have had us do? Nominate Jeb, have him lose anyways, let HRC let in another million Muslims and another 5 million Latin Americans, and 4 years later wait for an articulate, debonaire nationalist who may or may not (probably would not) have been coming? It’s insane.

* Enoch Powell’s ambition as a young man was to become the Viceroy of India. This was not delusional on his part.

The British ruled India through the Indian Civil Service, an elite corps of mandarins. Entrants were 20 to 24 years old, and had passed through one of the great British boarding schools or finished university. University was not required. A young man at 18 who had passed through an English boarding school was expected to have the intellectual, writing, and speaking skills— and maturity—to begin to learn the work of ruling a country.

Between the ages of 20 and 24, and after a suitable training period learning a local language and local customs, they became “district collectors” or “district magistrates.” These young men had the power of taxation, administration, and life and death over an entire district or county of a hundred thousand natives or more.

They grew up fast back then, and were expected to do great things.

Today, Goldman Sachs trainees attend Outward Bound courses.

Posted in America | Comments Off on Is It The Message Or The Messenger?