Can Columba Bush Speak English?

Listen to her struggle to speak comprehensible English while reading a short speech.

Steve Sailer writes:

The most fundamental issue in politics is “Whose side are you on?” Jeb, who is not a particularly slippery individual, has given us much evidence that primarily he’s on the side of Mexicans, not Americans.

That strikes me as an honorable position, just not one I’d want in my President.

Look, Jeb has been reasonably straightforward about the fact that, emotionally, he prefers Mexicans to Americans. If we Americans are too dumb to figure out the implications of what’s Jeb’s been repeatedly hinting at, well, I guess we deserve what we have coming from a third Bush Administration.

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* In contrast to Jeb!,

I married a beautiful woman from Europe, but I developed no allegiance whatsoever to her country or to her particular people.

On the contrary, my wife is an extremely patriotic American Citizen. I like to tell people she is “one-hundred-and-TEN percent American,” because she is an example of the best kind of immigrant to this country: She is more American than I am.

She loves to see our flag everywhere. She often cries a little bit when she hears the Star Spangled Banner. (I’ve seen the tears well up in her eyes.) She took classes in American history in college. She understands and cherishes what our country is about, and the role it played in securing her liberty. She gets it.

She speaks and writes English at the graduate school level. (She likes to jokingly ask why something isn’t presented in her native language whenever she encounters Spanish translations on signs, government forms — and telephone recordings, “Para Espanol, marque de dos.”)

I’ve learned a few phrases in her native language, which I don’t have to use at all.

She earned a graduate degree in a STEM field at a prestigious American university. (She had already earned one at her own nation’s top institution.) She kicks ass and contributes immensely to this, her beloved country.

Compared to my wife, Columba Bush is an idiot — and so is Jeb!

By the way, my wife enthusiastically supports Donald Trump for president.

Yes, she agrees that Trump is a character, not perfect by any means. She chose him for the same reasons I did — his clear positions on immigration and foreign trade — the two things that together are destroying the United States from both directions.

She also appreciates the fact that Trump is not politically correct. She sees PC as a sad weakness in current America and Western Europe. She and her family were too busy surviving under a leftist dictatorship to develop this particular leftist weakness.

My wife and I fly in the face of the MSM’s condescending claim that Trump supporters are the usual gang of Joe Six-Packs or whatever. We respect Joe Six-Pack and the American Middle Class. They are the core of America that must be preserved and protected. They are the ones being destroyed by lopsided foreign trade with cheap labor countries and by insane importation of cheap labor at home.

We consider ourselves proudly American middle class. We believe this encompasses the vast majority of our people of all educational and income levels. We know where we came from. We hold no pretenses of being anything else, no matter how much we achieve.

We are enjoying a lot of good laughs and serious conversations during this early election season — thanks to Donald Trump and the Several Dwarves.

* One thing that Trump’s run has established, if nothing else, is that there will never be a Jeb! Administration. Even if he still manages to wrench away the nomination, a lot of us will stay home on Election Day, or write-in Bernie, or Trump, or anyone else. The Inner Party will then realize their original script for 2016 in which Bush graciously loses to Clinton. They are in a panic now because Trump is refusing to play by that script, and appears to have a chance of spoiling the movie ending.

Posted in Immigration | Comments Off on Can Columba Bush Speak English?

If you had to choose between 500 Syrian or African refugees dying at sea or moving on to your block, which would you choose?

Mashable: “If this photo doesn’t make you care about the refugee crisis, nothing will”

I don’t care about Syrian refugees and I don’t care about African refugees and I don’t care about Mexican refugees. I don’t expect these people to care about me either.

I care about my friends and my family and my country and my people and I expect other people to feel similarly.

If Syrians and Africans can’t create prosperity in their own lands, that’s their problem. It’s not an excuse I accept to move them into the West. By all means necessary, these people must be kept out. Not every people is an identical fit for America. This country, for instance, has spent trillions of dollars to uplift blacks and it’s not been terribly effective. Either blacks will create prosperity for themselves on their own or they won’t. It’s not the responsibility of non-blacks and non-Muslims to save blacks and Muslims (beyond the type of help that good people extend responsibly to those in trouble).

Posted in Immigration | Comments Off on If you had to choose between 500 Syrian or African refugees dying at sea or moving on to your block, which would you choose?

NorCal Vs SoCal

This essay reminds me of my own experience of California and the dramatic differences between the northern section of the state and the south. I associate Sacramento with depression and Los Angeles with hope.

Dennis McDougal’s granddaughter Megan Cole writes:

When I was ten years old, on the cusp of the great American recession, life as I knew it was split in half when my stepfather got an offer for a better-paying job up North. With the promise of more money to guide us, my erratic family left the chaos of our native Los Angeles behind, and swiftly made our way up the I-5 to finally settle down in the quiet suburb that would become my hometown.

When the U-Haul dropped us off in front of our rental home in Northern California, the first muggy curtains of autumn had already gone down with a vengeance…

Seasons were grueling. Summers were bright and scorching, fall was soft and cool, and winters were pitch-dark and soaked to the bone with rain. From October to February, it was impossible to tell when you were supposed to get out of bed and when you were supposed to go back to sleep, because it looked like the middle of the night all day long.

Posted in California | Comments Off on NorCal Vs SoCal

Who Are The Alternatives To Donald Trump?

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* You raise an interesting question: are *any* of the alternatives to Don T. especially classy/cosmopolitan? Hillary though a valedictorian at a Seven Sisters college and potential meritocratic success story till moving to Arkansas, is a frumpy anti-charismatic girl-nobody-likes-at-the-party. Jeb despite otherwise being a shoo-in for overclass president is named “Jeb.” Christie is a boorish fat guy; Carson is all Jesusy n’ stuff. Biden I find somehow lacking in sophisticated literary eclat. Kasich is obviously mental; Cruz resembles Uriah Heep crossed with Yosemite Sam. Walker is a hick who may not be too bright.

The closest to the elite executive ideal is Fiorina but she’s had health problems and inexplicably continues to make a big deal out of Planned Parenthood’s recycling division.

* Steve Sailer: Cruz might be a high IQ Nixon-type with an unlikable personality.

I like Walker, personally, but Harry Truman is all the upside I can imagine for him if everything breaks right.

Posted in Donald Trump | Comments Off on Who Are The Alternatives To Donald Trump?

Should Israel Take In Syrian Refugees?

That’s crazy, right? Why would the Jewish state want to take in enemy aliens?

Well, does not the same reasoning apply to the West? Why would any Western countries want to take in Muslims, who are famously hostile to the West?

Every people and religion developed in a specific locale and they are not equally suited to every other place in the world. For instance, blacks and muslims have been disasters for every western country that has taken them in.

Chaim Amalek writes: “Every free nation has the natural right to control its borders against invasion and to decide who gets to pass over them and who does not. Hungary has as much right to remain predominately Hungarian and Christian as Israel (to cite another nation that has built mighty walls to keep out unwanted migrants, in her case, from Africa) has to remain predominately Jewish. As for this current wave of Muslim migrants flooding over Europe, what does it say about their religion and their civilization that makes Muslims so desperate to settle in predominately Christian lands?”

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* Israel has actually been treating some Syrian casualties from the civil war there, casualties who, presumably, come across via the Golan Heights. The NYT reported on this a while back, but here’s a JPost article on it from last year.

An excerpt:

Yossi Melman, a leading national security analyst who has written extensively about Syria, told the Post, “Zionism would not collapse if we accept 200 refugees. Why not?’” Hadas Ziv, public outreach director for PHR-Israel, told the Post last week that Israel should press the UN to set up a safe haven in Syria, near the Israeli border, to create a humanitarian escape corridor.

* I was looking at a Daily Mail article and the pictures were shocking. HUGE numbers of fighting age males coming over, way more than the old men, women and children. How many of these are plants? (ISIS threatened to do so a while back.) How many are going to go all Charlie Hebdo? What a colossal clusterfuck.

I ran some numbers. If the refugee total reaching Germany doubles next year, they will have taken in 2.6 million refugees in three years time. (Doubling is a conservative estimate, as the number quadrupled from 2013 to 2014 estimates, and I see no reason to assume things are going to get better.) That’s a population increase of about 3.25%. How in the Hell is Germany supposed to absorb that number? These people have little (if any) of anything. They’re blowing it all. The crazy bastards (the EUs leadership class) are blowing it all up.

* The Reuters dispatch yesterday about unemployed anesthesiologist Syrians in Sweden & Norway, which the wire service bizarrely calls “the Nordics” (not in reporting about any biker gangs AFAICT), was notably retarded. In their list of bad consequences of a flood of jobless Arabs they put “fueling far right parties” in the top priority spot; I would think the most salient bad effect to be: flood of jobless Arabs. Also they cited the Copenhagen synagogue attack as evidence of “hostility to immigrants” — sorta sounds like it could be hostility *from* them, too, doesn’t it?

* The West was evil when it colonized these people’s countries with a thin layer of administrators.

The West is evil when it objects to being colonized by them.

Somehow, it’s the West that is always evil.

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* If they had to stay in Syria the men would have to fight to defeat the other warring factions. Those who are fleeing are using the excuse that they “have” to flee to leave. Christian Arabs have been able to emigrate for decades and their communities have grown weaker and weaker as a result. ISIS atrocity tactics actually have a logic to them. They enable their rivals to be classified as refugees and given special entry status to the West. The rivals leave in large enough numbers to weaken that group which enables ISIS to gain territory.

* The average IQ of the Gulf Arab populations is about 85 in comparison with the average IQ of Western European populations of about 100. But the Gulf Arabs have the will to survive while Western Europeans have become suicidal.

* Kafirs enjoying a higher standard of living than believing Muslims is an affront to Allah.

* Why do Syrians not flee to Israel?

Because the Israelis are smart, sane, and not lead by enemies of the people.

* The refugee crisis appears to be getting worse, and, at minimum we are now being inundated with photos, and memes, that I personally haven’t seen since studying the World War Two period and its aftermath (which, needless to say, also involved huge amounts of refugees.)

This is not the first time that refugees (usually fleeing general anarchy and chaos) have become an issue in history. So then the question is how to handle it.

#1 – The most obvious way is to try to keep them out passively, by building fences and stopping trains, such as Hungary is doing now. However, this leads to photos propaganda (not saying it’s false, but propaganda is what it is) such as the heartbreaking photo of the 3 year old dead on the beach in Turkey. Of course that child could have died in any number of ways, and there’s no one for one correspondence here, but he is already being manipulated as the face of this crisis.

#2 – Another more radical solution is to stabilize the situation of the countries from whence these refugees are coming. Mostly that means Libya and Syria, particularly the latter at this point. In other words, instead of simply controlling one’s border, one seeks to control the area beyond one’s border. So already I see that Commentary magazine is implying that the US and the EU are at fault for not going to war against Syria, or against Iran (because Syria is its client) and so on.

#3 – A further more radical solution is to simply annex or colonize the areas where the threats (violence, anarchy, and refugees) are emerging. In fact this is a component of a lot of wars, partititions, and colonial expansions. Nature abhors a vacuum, and political stability abhors a political vacuum of power.

The bad part about this is that the problem isn’t going to be solved by welcoming refugees, as though that would solve anything anyway, unless one wants to have all of the public spaces in one’s country turned into refugee camps. No, there needs to be the imposition of order, which is going to involve the application of force. Unfortunately a passive posture isn’t going to work anymore. We need to be more alert, more proactive, and even perhaps a bit more hard-nosed.

It is not, by the way, my intention to argue for any more wars that the US must fight for someone else’s pipedream. It does mean that we are bound to interfere a bit more aggressively in the political arrangements of our near and distant neighbors.

MORE COMMENTS TO STEVE SAILER:

* Why should these poor Arabs have to live under the thumb of white racist Europeans when their Arab brothers have plenty of money to construct them nice new homes in the Arab world?

* Well because the “white racist Europeans” – the elites anyway – along with the Israelis and diaspora Jewry would rather have Arab refugees in Europe than Arab solidarity and nationalism ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baathism ) in the Middle East. Which is why they’re trying to destroy the last remaining remnants of Baathism in the Middle East right now, and why they’ll try to leverage the current refugee crisis to finally build up enough support to bomb or invade Syria.

* Qatar doesn’t seem to be doing much to house their fellow Arabs. You know, it’s almost as if Arab elites are more aware than European elites of just how much trouble other Arabs can be …

* Remember that these are Saudi and Gulf State elites, and they’re elites because they’ve been backed by the US and the West, and they’ve been backed by the US and the West because they’ve been anti-Shia and anti-Arab nationalism/Baathism. If they were the kind of Arab elites to support Baathism, they wouldn’t have been elites for long.

* There are entirely vast nearly empty places in Saudi Arabia. It must be cheaper to keep them there than Europe. Same thing for North Africa. There’s plenty of room in Morocco Chad, etc. The EU should pay to take them all to places in North Africa and SA.

* Watch the news reports and videos of the masses of “refugees,” and note how overwhelmingly adult and male they are. These aren’t refugees – they are people establishing a foothold on European soil. Their Third World brides will come later.

Another thing: the rules should be that refugees should have to return after their countries are stabilized. These “refugees” clearly have no plans of ever going back.

* I have been pointing out to anyone who will listen that Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, and Israel have all failed to take a single Syrian refugee. I mentioned that into a heavily left-leaning Facebook chat and it was quite popular with no comebacks screaming racism just yet.

One other thing I learned is that Germany actually sends refugees back after the wars ends. They took a huge number of Yugoslavs in the early nineties but after the war ended they managed to repatriate quite a few of them. So the Syrians paying big money to get to Germany are very likely going to get sent back to Syria in a couple years. That’s the plan at least.

As for Iceland it is pretty dreary there nine months of the year. I think those status whoring Icelanders are pretty safe in that not many Syrians would want to, let alone can or will get there.

The last little cynical thing I was thinking of is that of all the possible migrants in the Middle East / African regions, Syrians are pretty much the whitest. Is Germany being smart by filling up on the whitest refugees but when the next batch of say, Sub-Saharan Africans start arriving in Europe in massive numbers, Germany can rightfully claim they are full and others must take these less-white newcomers?

* Brutally suppressing and crushing internal dissension is critical to developing solidarity and nationalism. The ideological and political infrastructure to implement Arab solidarity and nationalism was challenged and attacked by the US because it was regarded as hostile to its interests.

* India has a giant wall & moat around Bangladesh. Saudi Arabia is building a hi-tech wall against Iraq. China built the world’s longest wall against barbarians thousands of years ago. The Romans built a wall to keep the Scots out 2,000 years ago. Israel has a very tall fence to keep out Africans and if that doesn’t work baton and bean bag rounds.

Walls are in, mate.

* Just suppose that the 1965 Immigration Act was never passed, and furthermore, none of the ‘civil rights’ BS of that era ever got any traction.
Imagine, if you will, that at this day, the USA was still the Wasp dominated nation of old.
Imagine, again, that somehow a bloody civil war had erupted in a still ethnic Belgian Belgium.

Then, it would be likely that the USA would offer any Belgians who sought it refuge, purely on the emotive and instinct grounds that ‘they are our people’.
Such a nation, though, would not make the same offer to Africans or Syrians.

Posted in Immigration, Islam, Israel, Syria | Comments Off on Should Israel Take In Syrian Refugees?

What did Mahatma Gandhi think of black people?

From the Washington Post: Was Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, the revered leader of India’s freedom movement, a racist?

A controversial new book by two South African university professors reveals shocking details about Gandhi’s life in South Africa between 1893 and 1914, before he returned to India.

During his stay in South Africa, Gandhi routinely expressed “disdain for Africans,” says S. Anand, founder of Navayana, the publisher of the book titled “The South African Gandhi: Stretcher-Bearer of Empire.”

According to the book, Gandhi described black Africans as “savage,” “raw” and living a life of “indolence and nakedness,” and he campaigned relentlessly to prove to the British rulers that the Indian community in South Africa was superior to native black Africans. The book combs through Gandhi’s own writings during the period and government archives and paints a portrait that is at variance with how the world regards him today.

Posted in Blacks | Comments Off on What did Mahatma Gandhi think of black people?

Luke Ford Interview Live Stream

Listen here and here.

I am interviewed by a Los Angeles Jewish friend who’s been Modern Orthodox all of his life.

Topics revolve around sex and include:
* How should a healthy society respond to homosexuality
* Sex, love and porn addiction
* Can religion solve addiction?
* Jews, Judaism, rabbis & sex

Posted in Personal | Comments Off on Luke Ford Interview Live Stream

Reality Is Racist

From VDARE: Donald Trump has the usual suspects in shrieking hysterics because of one of his latest Instagram ads.

This is no "act of love" as Jeb Bush said…

A video posted by Donald J. Trump (@realdonaldtrump) on

The ad is being compared to the “Willie Horton” ad famously run by Jeb’s father George H.W. Bush in his campaign against Michael Dukakis.

You might not remember the Dukakis Administration. That’s because it didn’t happen. George H.W. Bush easily defeated Dukakis, winning 40 states and a majority in the popular vote.

However, somehow, the sober and factual “Willie Horton” ad is invariably described as “infamous,” and Trump’s ad about illegal immigrant criminals (well, illegal immigrants who committed more than one crime) is also being described as offensive [Donald Trump Releases Fearmongering Willie Horton-Style Ad About Undocumented Immigrants, by Esther Yu-Hsi Lee, ThinkProgress, August 31, 2015]

The Left’s approach towards the Trump campaign is much the same as the Beltway Right’s. It’s simply concern trolling. Ads like these are seen as bad not because they are ineffective, but because they are too effective, and might get the peasants riled up. Pointing out that illegal immigrants are committing crimes is a hatefact. It’s true, but you aren’t supposed to say it.

Posted in Race | Comments Off on Reality Is Racist

A White Separatist’s Anti-Immigration Stance

Dawn M. Turner, Chicago Tribune, August 31, 2015:

When I finished speaking with Richard Spencer on Sunday afternoon, I better understood why he vehemently opposes immigration, feels the white race will soon be a “hated minority” in America, and supports Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump even though he never imagined he would.

I talked to the 37-year-old University of Chicago grad, who now lives in Montana, because I know that Trump has tapped into a fear that’s deeply felt by people near and far. It’s just that most folks wouldn’t articulate it in the same way, or as willingly, as Spencer, especially to someone like me.

Spencer is president of the National Policy Institute, a think tank. On its website under the name is the creed, “For our people, our culture, our future.” He doesn’t want to be called a “white supremacist” because although he’s a staunch believer in the separation of the races, he says he doesn’t believe in the superiority of the white race.

{snip}

Spencer also doesn’t want to be called a “white nationalist,” because “nationalism is about chauvinism.” Instead, he considers himself a European “identitarian,” which he says is based on white people of European descent understanding who they are as a people and uniting along the lines of their shared historical experiences.

{snip}

“I call myself an identitarian and not an American,” he said. “I think whites will need to be post-American and rediscover our identity as Europeans.”

{snip}

Spencer rails against consumerism, and wants the country to return to a “spiritual dimension.” He describes an America–or any country–that’s racially and ethnically diverse as one in which people are “all thrown into this flat world where they don’t have a historical or emotional connection to the nation.”
He believes America has been a “failed experiment” and that by 2044, when the U.S. Census Bureau predicts people of color will outnumber whites, they will be “a defeated people.”

“But won’t a lot of white people still be in power?” I asked him.

“I don’t doubt that white people will still hold power,” Spencer said. “But those are the managers of white decline.” He referred to Hillary Clinton, whom he called “pathetic.”

{snip}

To be clear, not all of Trump’s supporters share Spencer’s extreme views. But there is a disaffected, angry knot of folks who are afraid they will be and have been steamrolled by immigrants and affirmative action. They wholeheartedly believe a particular way of life continues to be under threat.

So in walks a bold and brash presidential candidate who gives voice to their fears while trumpeting the idea of making America great again.

Although Spencer likes Trump, he doesn’t believe America can be great again.

“That’s backward-looking,” he said. “We want to look forward and think about who we’re going to be. People want to know everything is going to be OK, that my grandchildren are going to be OK.

“Donald Trump is not a white nationalist, or an identitarian. But he’s giving people a sense that ‘your fears are real and we can find a way out’ and this contrasts with other Republicans who say, ‘Your fears are not real.’ ”

Spencer–who has no ties to Trump–said he thought the candidate’s statement on America not being a nation unless it has borders was powerful. And, he’s deeply inspired by the way Trump has gained traction without the conservative establishment.

“If identitarians are going to have a future, we have to operate outside those paradigms,” he said. “Trump is demonstrating the bankruptcy of the GOP and Fox News, and showing you don’t need the Bush family.”

Posted in Whites | Comments Off on A White Separatist’s Anti-Immigration Stance

NYT: Encouraging Presidential Campaigning in a Single Language Is “Divisive”

Steve Sailer writes: “Jeb dividing his campaigning up into two separate languages is, of course, not divisive, it’s diverse! As we all known, divisive and diversity are antonyms. Therefore, people like Trump who encourage unity of the American political information sphere are divisive, while Jeb addressing different audiences in different languages brings us together by making it harder for us to monitor what he’s saying. Diversity enables divide and conquer, so diversity is therefore Good; while unifying the public to resist conquest is divisive and therefore Bad.”

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* I agree that having a single national language is unifying (and generally a good idea), but there’s a sense in which insisting on English is divisive.

The NYT types have gone to extraordinary lengths to insulate immigrant populations throughout the West from being confronted with a basic reality of demographics and political economy (and ultimately good old Darwinian biology): you can’t be simultaneously loyal to two distinct peoples that have different interests and identities. A big part of the purpose of all the schmaltz about “proposition nations” and “who we are as Americans” is to protect immigrants from having to pick sides. Immigrants can use all of the smarmy sophistry of the Left (and the neocons) to rationalize to themselves how there’s nothing more quintessentially American than bringing a bunch of subliterate relatives over from Guatemala or whatever. Because huddled masses.

We want to divide minorities inasmuch as we want to make them choose between the historically Anglo-European nation and the Third World non-nation that the continued importation of their kinsmen is creating. That’s a tough call for minorities to make, since one’s own blood and soil are important to pretty much anyone who isn’t a white liberal. Even so, they chose to come to this country, so they should be made to clarify their allegiance one way or another.

This is the wedge we should be trying to widen, deepen, and exploit, and hell yeah it’s divisive. America or anti-America? That’s the question the folks at the NYT don’t want Hispanics to ever have to hear. Much better for media leftists to keep peddling the fairy tale that the anti-white reconquista and its attendant racial socialism are just one more star-spangled chapter in our dreamy American Dream.

* Isn’t politics supposed to be divisive?

If we want a non-divisive political system, get rid of multiple parties and just have a dictator for life.

Politics, especially democratic politics, is supposed to be divisive. Democracy exists because it accepts that people are divided on issues.

Promoting democracy in the Middle East was bound to cause more problems because all the various factions came out of the woodwork.

Generally, divisions aren’t so poisonous if they’re only ideological: social-democrat vs free markets. If all people are white and disagree on some ideological issues, they can make it work.
But when ideological divisions are accompanied by ethnic divisions, that can be poisonous. Yugoslavia. Israel with Jewish vs Arab divide. Turkey with Turk vs Kurd divide. A diverse nation may not be able to handle democracy well if ideology become tribalogy. Some say Erdogan of Turkey is ramping up violence abroad against Kurds because he’s angry with Kurdish gains in Turkish elections. NYT is full of it cuz it approves of Bush playing racial politics with Mexers but attacks Trump for playing same with whites. If all sides agree to give up racial politics, fine. But as long as blacks, browns, yellows, and the rest play racial politics, why shouldn’t whites, especially if they’re headed to minority status?

Another funny complaint from Libs is that The Right plays to certain ‘insecurities’. Well, no shi*. If everyone felt secure, there would be no politics. Politics is about getting people riled up over insecurities that may be economic, political, national, regional, social, moral, sexual, etc.

MORE COMMENTS TO STEVE SAILER:

* Has Obama ever addressed any group in a language besides English? Like, even reading off a prepared passage?

I thought the old Columbia core required you to take at least 1 language year, but most probably did not mandate fluency. If Barry did Latin or koine Greek that would still be something he’d reference at some point (since he enjoys bragging). Despite having the most multilingual collection of parents and step parents this side of Berlitz headquarters it seems not to have rubbed off on him. Also his published poetry was pretty weak.

Posted in Immigration | Comments Off on NYT: Encouraging Presidential Campaigning in a Single Language Is “Divisive”