Would you rather have ten helpings of bliss or have your choice of Hillary or Trump be the next president?
Chaim Amalek: “Raise it to 10,000 and the decision becomes harder.”
Donald Trump is the closest any of us will get to see of Moshiach. Instead of saying, “when moshiach comes”, we say “when Trump is president.”
Paul Sperry writes: Hillary’s rumored running mate, Housing Secretary Julian Castro, is cooking up a scheme to reallocate funding for Section 8 housing to punish suburbs for being too white and too wealthy.
The scheme involves super-sizing vouchers to help urban poor afford higher rents in pricey areas, such as Westchester County, while assigning them government real estate agents called “mobility counselors” to secure housing in the exurbs.
Castro plans to launch the Section 8 reboot this fall, even though a similar program tested a few years ago in Dallas has been blamed for shifting violent crime to affluent neighborhoods.
It’s all part of a grand scheme to forcibly desegregate inner cities and integrate the outer suburbs.
Anticipating NIMBY resistance, Castro last month threatened to sue suburban landlords for discrimination if they refuse even Section 8 tenants with criminal records. And last year, he implemented a powerful new regulation — “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” — that pressures all suburban counties taking federal grant money to change local zoning laws to build more low-income housing (landlords of such properties are required to accept Section 8 vouchers).
Castro is expected to finalize the new regulation, known as “Small-Area Fair Market Rents” (SAFMR), this October, in the last days of the Obama presidency.
It will set voucher rent limits by ZIP code rather than metro area, the current formula, which makes payments relatively small. For example, the fair market rent for a one-bedroom in New York City is about $1,250, which wouldn’t cover rentals in leafy areas of Westchester County, such as Mamaroneck, where Castro and his social engineers seek to aggressively resettle Section 8 tenants.
* Maybe it’s just about the right time to ask the signatories of the letter to the NY Times denouncing Nicholas Wade whether they’d like a Mulligan.
Hysterical obfuscation and conspicuous moral posturing isn’t really a good look for a scientist. They might try to save themselves a little dignity while it’s still possible.
* Problem is, there’s been lots of immigration into England in the last 100 generations. I’m not talking about the recent overflow of Pakistani Muslims, etc, who have come in during recent generations, though they probably are having an effect. They’re just not analyzed here since they focused on people with deep roots in England. I’m thinking alot of this is due to immigration and domination by Germanic peoples over the last millenia or so. Vikings, Danes, the Normans, hell, even the Windsors- They of course would directly bring in many of these phenotypes- blonde hair, blue eyes, lactase, etc- but also if they conquered, set themselves up as kings and leaders, then there would be selection for their traits. They would secure the best resources for themselves, they would probably take many native women for their wives, and likely as they came to be accepted as the local authority many native women would prefer them as they tend to chase after wealth and power. So question is, how much was directly imported in, and how much is selection from within the earlier population? If someone said Americans have evolved over the past few generations to be more brown, is that what actually happened?
* Were you, Steve, the one asking what a preprint is?
A preprint is an article prepared for publication. It is designed to get results out into the conversation, stake ground on certain research, and informally spread ideas. Preprints exist and are in the form of an article that would be submitted to a journal or conference, but often in longer format.
Perhaps no journal will publish it. Perhaps publication takes four years. In certain branches of physics research, like string theory and quantum computing, there were only 2 possible journals to publish in. Waiting for publication was useless for interesting results. More, so few “peers” exist, and all of them want to know what you’re doing anyway, that why bother with the fiction that journaled “peer review” is anonymous or somehow more noble than just letting people read and critique your work.
So preprint archives were invented.in part, to kill off the monopoly of publication, or to get out ideas otherwise unpublishable.
* Rosie, what first attracted you to multi-millionaire Jason Statham?
* When I grew up in the East, Persians had a specific look olive skinned (sabz) with dark hair and dark eyes (prominent nose) with a minority on the lighter side.
Then around early-mid naughties there came a huge wave of well-to-do Persians studying in London from directly from Iran. I was shocked to see that a vast proportion (plurality) had a new “Northern” (Caspian-Azeri) look of much lighter colours.
I thought nothjng of yet but then a friend from Kerman (sort of central-south Iran, the heartland of the Persian people) once randomly exclaimed to me “is it just me or are the new generation of Iranians much whiter?”
Post-revolution the country became much more integrated and the different regions started mixing; the old olive skinned Persian look (which even the Zoroastrians of Yazd sported) became increasingly diluted with mixture of the north (and the Azeri/Caspians of North Iran are particularly fair though ironically the Azeris of Azerbaijan are said to have a more Olive look).
This could be sexual selection on a mass scale in a generation or so. This of course happens in Latin American and especially Pakistan (as you scale up you marry light) but also in Iran the same general principles are operating (rich southerners marrying pale northerners in Tehran).
* Btw, whatever happened to Nicholas Wade and Troublesome Inheritance.
Maybe lack of overly hostile reaction buried it.
Despite the controversy, Bell Curve has entered the contemporary pantheon on discussion of sociology/biology cuz it stirred up so much discussion.
In contrast, Troublesome Inheritance was buried by polite disagreement by MSM.
Say BELL CURVE, and people know the book even if they disagree with it.
Mention Troublesome Inheritance, and it’s like… huh?
* In the fullness of time, truth will out, even very embarrassing truth.
One thing that this result is making obvious is that the truth of ongoing, and significant, selection in human groups is going to be verified from many angles, not just one. The most direct approach of course is to find the set of alleles that lie behind, say, IQ, and show that they are differentially distributed across human groups. Another way is now to show that in certain groups certain areas of the genome connected with IQ show signs of recent selection. I have little doubt that there will other methods to come to the same sort of conclusions.
There will come a time, likely within 5 years from what I’ve been hearing, in which it will be as discreditable for a geneticist or evolutionary biologist to dispute these conclusions as it became for physicists early in the 20th century to dispute the theory of relativity.
Which brings to mind the disgraceful letter sent to the NY Times by a number of geneticists and evolutionary biologists denouncing Nicholas Wade.
How will the signatories of this letter look come this new paradigm? Very much like those dogmatic physicists who rejected relativity. It may be that the single thing they are best remembered for is this disgraceful act of ignorance and suppression: they will be laughingstocks for the ages, a lesson taught to children to warn them of the dangers of ideology and dogmatism.
It really is time for them to get on the other side of this before their reputation and legacies are beyond repair.
* A quadruple bypass IS the surgery, not something you get after surgery. This in itself is quite hard on the body but he apparently had complications after the surgery – he didn’t really fully recover from it. Some people do OK after the surgery and are able to more or less resume their former lives and some people are never quite the same again. Clinton is in the latter category. The way the heart surgeons keep score, if you survive the surgery, it is a “success” for them. They don’t make any promises as to what kind of shape you will be in afterward.
Being a vegan isn’t that great for your appearance either. It’s hard to get enough iron in your diet without red meat and without it people tend to look pale and anemic. Also having a little fat on you makes you look better as an older man – the wrinkles show less.
Bill also has rosacea which creates that horrible looking redness around his eyes and nose.
We are used to seeing celebrity photos that are posed, with makeup and airbrushing and proper lighting, so a brutal flash photo like that is going to be shocking in comparison. In the old days kings used to get their portraits painted and the guy in the painting always looked a lot better and younger than actual man.
Before:
After:
This article is hilarious. Jamie Weinstein is a thought leader? Who exactly does he lead? Who does he influence? Whatever stature he has seems to have been bought by his parents.
All these so-called Jewish conservatives opposed to Trump show that they were never conservatives. They simply used the conservative movement to advance the interests of Israel.
This article vastly understates Trump’s Jewish support. It’s from common Jews, not the Jewish elites. Do you really think regular Jews want more Muslims, more Mexicans and more Africans in America? I don’t think so.
I think it is great that these so-called Jewish conservative who refuse to vote for Trump have been unable to stop his nomination and have been unable to throw Trump supporters out of the conservative movement. Instead, they’re getting left behind by America’s newfound nationalism. Good riddance to them!
This article is about 80% anti-Trump and yet there is much Jewish support for Trump, including among intellectuals. Jews were among the first to board the Trump bandwagon. Loren Feldman and Mike Cernovich were early Trump boosters. Trump’s campaign has always included Jews as his closest advisers. The Jewish role in Trump’s rise is an article yet to be written.
Trump has spent most of his life in New York and he knows the Jews, likes the Jews and they tend to like him.
Jared Sichel writes for the Jewish Journal:
Faced with Donald Trump as his party’s presumptive nominee in this year’s presidential election, Jamie Weinstein, senior editor for the conservative Daily Caller website, said he may have to “take a Tums” and vote for Hillary Clinton — assuming Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee and there’s no third-party conservative alternative.
“Given that you have to vote, and my options are only Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, that’s what I’m left to choose from,” Weinstein said in a recent interview. “And I think Donald Trump is a threat to the American system, whereas Clinton is a threat to our economic wellbeing for four years.”
Weinstein, like many Jewish thought-leaders in the conservative world, says he not only will not support the inevitable Republican nominee — he would prefer another four years of a Democrat in the White House if Trump is the only alternative. And this is not only because of the danger he believes Trump poses to America; he also sees Trump as a long-term threat to conservatism and fears the movement may not recover from a Trump presidency.
Among Jewish #NeverTrump-ers are some of the most prominent voices of conservatism: Bill Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard; Jonah Goldberg, senior editor for the National Review (the magazine ran an entire anti-Trump issue in February); Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby; Ben Shapiro, editor-in-chief of the Daily Wire; nationally syndicated talk-show host Mark Levin; Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin; Elliot Abrams, a former George W. Bush adviser and senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR); Max Boot, also a CFR fellow and a former John McCain adviser; John Podhoretz, editor of Commentary Magazine; Seth Mandel of the New York Post; Bethany Mandel, senior contributor at The Federalist; David Bernstein and Ilya Somin, both law professors at George Mason University and both also writers for the Washington Post’s “The Volokh Conspiracy” blog, run by UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh; and Orin Kerr, a law professor at George Washington University and also a Volokh blogger…
“He is every horrifying stereotype of Republicans that those of us who are actually Republican have been fighting against for years,” Bethany Mandel said. “He’s already destroying all of that work, but he will likely do irreparable damage to the brand.”
Mandel, who lives in New Jersey, said she was particularly turned off by two of Trump’s antics. The first was when he told CNN’s Don Lemon in August that Fox News host Megyn Kelly had “blood coming out of her wherever,” in describing Kelly’s performance during a Republican debate in which she challenged Trump about past misogynist comments. The second was at a November rally when Trump mocked and imitated the disability of New York Times reporter Serge Kovaleski, who has a congenital joint disorder.
Shapiro had his own decisive #NeverTrump moment: “The point where I said, categorically, I will never vote for this human being was when he refused to denounce the KKK on national television two days before the Louisiana primary,” said Shapiro, who supported Senator Ted Cruz. “He panders to legitimately the worst elements in American life.”
…Trump supporters include some prominent people, such as billionaire Republican donor Sheldon Adelson, former Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer, New York Congressman Lee Zeldin and nationally syndicated talk-show host and Jewish Journal columnist Dennis Prager. The Republican Jewish Coalition also came out in favor of the presumptive candidate, issuing a statement on May 4 congratulating Trump after Cruz and Ohio Gov. John Kasich suspended their campaigns, saying Clinton “is the worst possible choice for a commander in chief.”
…Radio commentator and Jewish Journal columnist Dennis Prager has, since early in the nomination process, opposed Trump, but said he would vote for him if he became the nominee. “I said from the outset that if my darkest dreams were realized, and he became the Republican nominee, I would vote for him,” Prager wrote in an email. “The reason is that there is one thing that frightens me more than Donald Trump being elected president, and that is Hillary Clinton being elected president.”
He said Trump’s behavior and positions made him unsure “almost every day” whether he could maintain that position. Asked what Trump would have to do to lose his vote, Prager said, “He tries almost every day.”
Among the many distinctions Prager sees between a Trump presidency and a Clinton presidency: the Supreme Court, natural gas extraction (known as “fracking,” which Clinton has come out hard against during her campaign against Bernie Sanders), and, as he said, “An ever-expanding government taking over more and more of the American economy.”
Prager fears Clinton appointments to the Supreme Court could, for a generation, allow judges to “use the court to pass laws” otherwise not achievable with a Republican-controlled Congress or White House. Asked to respond to #NeverTrump conservatives’ fear that Trump is redefining—or has already redefined the Republican Party—Prager said that will only happen if he “succeeds as president, and doesn’t do so by adopting conservative policies.”
“Then he may indeed redefine Republican and conservative,” Prager said. “I’ll worry about that then. And if he fails, he will give new impetus to the traditional understanding of Republican and conservative.”
…What put Weinstein, the Daily Caller editor, over the edge was an incident in which Michelle Fields, Weinstein’s girlfriend and a former Breitbart reporter, was grabbed at a Trump event by campaign manager Corey Lewandowski as she tried to approach Trump to ask him a question. A Florida prosecutor charged Lewandowski with battery, and then later dropped the charges, but eyewitnesses corroborated Fields’ account, along with audio and video footage.
The sale that Loic Gouzer, Christie’s deputy chairman of postwar and contemporary art, put together at 5 p.m. Sunday, the first of five successive spring evening auctions, at first seemed reckless, filling a catalog with challenging, even disturbing work. With a kneeling Hitler and a wooden grid of potatoes, it was a far cry from the auction staples that can be counted on to command high prices.
* As a young man I worked in an art gallery in Belgravia (i.e. one of the snobbiest parts of London) and I can confirm that the people who buy this rubbish are regarded as a joke, albeit a highly profitable one, by the people selling it. The same attitude prevails among the ‘artists’ churning out said rubbish, very few of whom have any talent beyond a hypertrophied gift for bullshitting.
* I love that the potato thing didn’t sell. Too subtle. You need to hit(ler) these people people over the head. A man with an Auschwitz tattoo being sodomized with a cross. A Madonna with a Down syndrome Christ pissing in his mothers mouth or perhaps the Madonna performing a coat-hanger abortion. Those would be “powerful” pieces.
Trump’s comments turn out to be a lot more mild than I expected. I don’t see a big deal here, but then again, I’m probably jaded.
Washington Post: Over 15 years, radio shock jock Howard Stern and his buddy Donald Trump periodically carried on like towel-snapping “bros” in a locker room, rating women’s tops and bottoms, debating whether oral sex is “important,” and egging each other on about whether they would like to go to bed with a number of people, from Cindy Crawford to Diane Sawyer.
“You could’ve gotten her, right?” Stern asked Trump on-air shortly after Princess Diana’s death in 1997. “You could’ve nailed her.”
“I think I could have,” Trump said.
How about singer Mariah Carey? “Would you bang her?” Stern asked. Trump replied, “I would do it without hesitation.”
Trump’s crude talk on-air with Stern between 1990 and 2005 was part of an image he cultivated as a Manhattan playboy who had so many women that he barely had time to sleep. He was often seen at trendy nightclubs with different women, appeared on the cover of Playboy magazine, wrote in his books about all the women chasing him and publicly boasted about his sex life…
Some of Trump’s most raw language came during his appearances with Stern, when the two would critique women’s looks.
The BuzzFeed list included one clip in which Trump said: “Her boob job is terrible. They look like two light posts coming out of a body.” In another clip, Trump said, “A person who is very flat-chested is very hard to be a 10.”
Stern had a huge national audience and made a name for himself with off-color questions, like this one, to Trump: “Is oral sex important to you? Man to man, and I’ve had this discussion with many men.”
Trump responded, “No, it’s not important to me.”
In his recent interview with The Washington Post, Trump said he and Stern “had great moments” on the air, but he acknowledged he would not have said certain things had he known then that he would eventually be running for office. “Or I wouldn’t have gone on the show because that is the easier way of doing it,” Trump said.
* Point one, the election tropes of Reagan in 1980 are as useful to 2016 as those of Wilkie in 1944 were to 1980.
Point two, Reagan’s legacy is distorted through the lense of post-Reagan Bushian-Cuckservatism. Most of what is claimed to be Reagan’s legacy really stems from that time. This includes:
1) endless foreign wars (starting with Panama and Gulf War 1.0, Somalia, using US military and NATO to support Yugoslavia break-up)
2) modern mass immigration (1990 Immigration Bill)
3) free trade agreements (NAFTA signed in 1992, EU forms in 1992)
4) social issues politicization (started in opposition to Clinton changes in early 1990′s – “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”, reaction to Casey vs. Planned Parenthood which birthed Lawrence and SSM)
Point three look at Reagan’s actual agenda. Much more like Trump than Cuckservatism:
1) Tax cuts and tax rationalization
2) Strong military to back-up foreign policy seeking world peace, seek confrontation but avoid conflict
3) Implacable opposition to Communism as a source of “evil”, no calling them a “political movement of peace”
4) Push-back on unions and strikes
5) Save Social Security as is, no cuts
6) Federalism
7) Protect American industrial might for vehicles, electronics, steel, textiles, sugar,
8) War on drugs
9) Deregulate energy production
* By far the biggest branch of government is the unelected permanent bureaucracy, which is leftist down to its very core. The judiciary also turns slowly – in 4 years or even 8, Trump will barely be able to change the course of that steamship. Trump will be fighting rear guard actions and sabotage from the day he takes office to his last day. Ultimately, the “Reagan Revolution” was just a blip on the trajectory of the “history is on our side” statists. Government just keeps growing and growing like Topsy. Mussolini’s formula applies now more than ever – everything within the State, nothing without the State.
The Presidency is a bully pulpit but ultimately his power is limited, even more limited than the Founders intended. They did not foresee the giant bureaucracy of the modern state nor that the judiciary would have the means to overrule both the President and Congress and conjure up new “Constitutional” rights out of thin air.
* The Presidency has been accumulating more and more power around it for a long time. One could say it started with Andrew Jackson, but it really kicked into high gear with Lincoln, and other important inflection points were the two Roosevelts, Wilson and LBJ. Obama is not so much of an inflection point of it getting worse, but his big sin was bragging about it, boasting about his pen and phone. What this has done is start to get the right out of a Constitutional mode and into an acquire-power-for-its-own-sake mode, in other words, focus on gaining control of the pen and phone. This somewhat explains why Trump defeated conventional rightist opponents, and also explains the burgeoning popularity of #NRx, Dark Enlightenment, and neo-monarchism. Presidents as near-dictators were doing alright when their power center accumulation was not well understood, when they could couch their power under Constitutional rubric. But, dummy Barry just blew that all to hell.
If you’re going to exercise near absolute power, don’t boast about it, lest you want to create competitors who want what you have.
* No, only a Democrat can be an American Mussolini, because our “sclerotic institutions” are in the D’s pocket and don’t resist at all when the dictator is doing stuff that they (not so) secretly favor.
Obama unilaterally announces that 11 million illegal aliens can stay – all of the “sclerotic institutions” who were supposed to provide “checks and balances” in our Constitutional scheme cheer him on (press, academia) or at most shrug their shoulders (“Republican” Congress, judiciary).
If next year President Trump announced that he is tearing up Obama’s decree (two can play this decree writing game) and declaring immediate expulsion of illegals – all of these “sclerotic institutions” will suddenly come to life and do a furious salsa dance, like those “disabled” workers that they catch water skiing. There will be 99 injunctions against enforcing the decree quicker than you can say “restraining order” and if they are lucky it will take to the end of the Trump Presidency for all of these to make their way up to the Supreme Court (and maybe get shot down there). The “sclerosis” is highly selective in one direction. The Overton Window is mounted on a track with ratchets so it can only slide to the left, which is the “right” side of history according to all of our institutions.
* What’s going to happen without Trump is that the mostly white elites will do fine (in the short term), and the and the high IQ Asians will intermarry to the new Brahman class. We will then have a huge mixed race class, largely non-white, who will continue to do all the labor. Certain classes will be fobbed off with sectors of the economy to destroy, but which will do no permanent damage in the end (e.g., DC Metro.) And there will be large black-gray markets that will feature drugs and violence.
How do I know it will end up this way? Look at any Latin American country. Including the People’s Republic of Cuba.
Electing Trump is not really about xenophobia, racism, or any of that. It’s about whether America will remain even functionally a democracy.
* Fareed Zaharia’s folksy, Will Rogers charm will ensure a large audience in the heartland of America.
* I think you’re onto something, Cagey Beast. You’ve identified the perfect running mate for Hillary. Technically, Zakaria is ineligible to be President, but surely we can overlook that. If there’s anyone even more likable, warm-hearted and funny than Fareed Zakaria, I don’t know who it could be. Between HRC’s already sky-high likability and Zakaria’s let’s-grab-a-beer-mate accessibility, the Dems could not lose.
Seriously, I think Fareed Zakaria on screen is the most dislikable person on cable news. He might be a lovely guy in real life, but on screen he is an utterly humorless, smugly superior, pompous little prig of a man. It doesn’t matter who his guest is; I will not watch him. I all but cringe at the sound of his voice (similar reaction to hearing HRC’s voice – see? match made in heaven!). Ugh.
* C’mon, don’t you remember when Reagan said he wanted Jennifer Rubin and Jonah Goldberg to carry his legacy into the future?
* [John J.] Mearsheimer says the odds against a Trump victory are long, but as pres there is no danger of him as an authoritarian because the system is entrenched in democracy and would prevent any basic change.
He suggests Trump will face a total dearth of qualified appointees in foreign policy positions who think like him. They are all neocons it seems.
Hillary Clinton’s stated policy is extremely hawkish according to Mearsheimer, and likely to involve the US in further open ended adventures like Libya, which she was mainly to blame for (and Obama said the war powers act didn’t apply to).
The article below notes he won his contested primary by sucking up the money of an open borders fast food magnate. Illegals love fast food, they both work and eat there. (You will notice that in otherwise white neighborhoods of California, the fast food American patriots should boycott fast food chains both for their health and for love of country.
The article also notes that as president of a small university in Nebraska, Sasse worked to overturn a local ordinance requiring proof of legal residency in order to rent an apartment.
Beltway Open Borders conservatives plus local Chamber of Commerce illegal-hiring businessmen just adore the guy with his perfect Religious Right background on top of his “complete amnesty” stance. In fact they are now trying to talk Trump into naming him as VP in return for ending the NeverTrump movement. Fortunately Trump will be to smart to fall for this trap. If Trump names an amnesty VP, he will be impeached and removed from office within a year.
Since Nebraska is not a competitive state, I hope patriotic Nebraskans here will consider finding some like minded Trump supporters and protesting Sasse’s local offices. Get 8 to 10 people together, figure out a spokesmen (a vet or a woman ideally, but whoever is most articulate), and call up the local media. Also, keep the message very simple: “We are protesting Ben Sasse’s support for job-destroying trade deals and illegal alien amnesty.” The local news stations in smaller towns in Nebraska are really starved for news, a small house fire is often the top story. It should not be hard to get some great free media for Trump.
* I don’t think Congress can limit the immigration cases the Supreme Court hears. It certainly can do so for Courts of Appeal and District Courts, and already has with other areas. Bankruptcy courts were created by Congress to hear just those cases and sit below regular District Courts. Patent cases are treated normally at the district court level, but are appealed to the Federal Circuit, a specialist appeal court, rather than regional appeals courts.
However, all federal courts in high immigration areas are already basically specialists in immigration issues. Here is the largest circuit court’s list of unpublished decisions:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/memoranda/
There are about 24k decisions listed online. Running a restricted search shows that of that 24k, a full third or 8k are appeals from the lower Board of Immigration Appeals. More than 95% of the time the immigrant loses the appeal. And mostly when they “win” it isn’t that they get their green card, but a determination the lower court made a mistake and needs to look at the issue again, where it will probably rule the same way against the immigrant. The main point of these thousands of appeals a year is that it keeps the deportation process from happening for an additional one to two years, and top of all the other ways of delaying things. That’s more time to marry a citizen, engage in legal or illegal work, or create an anchor baby (and Obama’s position is parents of anchor babies should never be deported).
And the 1/3 of the work of appeals courts that are BIA appeals understates the immigration related work, as a lot of the criminal cases deal with deportation of illegals and criminal immigration violations. For example, here is a case where an illegal was convicted of a crime and also for illegal reentry into the USA following deportation. He appealed on the grounds that the lower court judge did not fully explain its sentence: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2016/04/18/14-10502.pdf
And civil cases as well can concern immigration.
* In a way, immigration is about boosting the power of the ‘left’.
But it is also a way of taming and neutralizing it.
There are various kinds of ‘left’.
There is the ‘entitled left’. The more a people remain in a nation, the more they feel ‘entitled’. They feel ‘this is my country’. So, settled working class communities tend to be more demanding. They have Union mentality than Scab mentality.
FDR’s New Deal was about the Settler Left. It was about American Workers demanding more wages, benefits, programs, and protections. It was a real counter-force against the capitalist class, and this kind of settler American patriotic leftism defined the New Deal and much of post-war American Liberalism.
For Jewish elites, the Settler Left was Too White. For the capitalists, it was too troublesome and demanding since the Settler Left Americans had come to feel ‘entitled’. Even the immigrant communities(of late 19th century and early 20th century) had become Settler communities by the 60s.
Also, during the Cold War when the communist side promoted itself as champions of the Worker, the capitalist West had to show that it cared about the Working Class too.
But time passed. Communism lost. And Jews became very rich, and Liberals became better at new fields in Big Business than the Cons did. Look at Silicon Valley and entertainment sectors, and it’s mostly Lib.
As Libs were into arts, culture, and such stuff, they were more into ideas than identity. They preferred to attend film festivals and other cultural events around the world and schmooze with foreign intellectuals and artists than with native dummies and yahoos.
They identified with interest than by ethnicity.
Also, even when Liberal Jewish elites did feel a powerful sense of identity, it only made them feel LESS united with American masses.
When white gentile elites felt a powerful sense of identity, they might identify more with the white masses. But when Jews felt more identity, they felt more Jewish and more at odds with white gentile masses. So, Jews were doubly disassociated from white society. As liberals, they favored globo-cosmopolitanism that allowed them to rub shoulders with cultured and intellectual people all over the world. But even as tribalists, they only felt more disassociated from the white gentile Christian community.
As Jews became more dominant in American Liberalism, they were bound to feel less in common with the mostly white Settler Working Class and Middle Class…. even if both sides were on the political ‘left’. And as Jews and white Libs got richer and richer, they didn’t want to deal with labor issues that could be such a pain in the ass.
And even ‘leftist’ businessmen who offered generous benefits relied on affluent communities that could pay more. Take Starbucks, much lauded for benefits and such. But it’s a business model that will only work in whitopias filled with people with money. I mean people with limited means are not gonna blow $5 on coffee.
Anyway, the Sanders movement shows the fissures on the ‘left’. Even though Sanders and his supporters go along with the Dem Party talking points about ‘diversity’, they represent Settler Left sentiments. They are more ‘entitled’ and demanding because they feel they are Americans.
In contrast, immigrants may join with the Political Left, but they tend to be of the ‘grateful left’ kind. Being newcomers, they feel less entitled and more likely to do as told and work for low wages and even be grateful for it since life was so much worse back home.
The Lib elites prefer the Grateful Immigrant Left to the Demanding Settler Left.
There would be more push against the 1% if the American Left was entirely Settler.
To drown out the Settler Left, the Lib elites have increased immigration. If US is a ‘nation of immigrants’ and if ‘progressivism’ is about ‘privileged whites’ morally deferring to non-white immigrants, then the Settler Left loses confidence and expends much of its energy on serving the newcomers. It has less time and energy to organize against the 1%.
We see this among blacks. Native blacks are more demanding and feel more entitled whereas African immigrants are more grateful and subservient to the Lib elites. (Cosmopolitanism also undermines black power. Valerie Jarret is a ‘citizen of the world’ like Obama, and as such, she feels closer to elite circles than to the Negro kind. Cosmolattos are more likely to collaborate with the GLOB.)
The Lib elites also used the homo/tranny agenda, of course. How can the Settler Left organize against the 1% when they are too busy picketing businesses for not allowing some guy in a dress to wee wee in the women’s restroom?
* It’s hard to really grasp just how much power the President has. For any outrageous-seeming act the president might take, there is an even more dictatorial power that he could employ:
*Anything that has ever been done by executive order can be undone day one.
*Any federal employee can be reassigned to paperclip audit duty, every federal contractor can be barred from performing any action on behalf of the government or using any government information or property.
*Any group from the PTA to the Black Caucus may be declared a terrorist organization and its members imprisoned and its supporters charged with treason.
*Anything that it is legal to do to suspected terrorists can be done to congressmen or judges en masse.
*A simple declaration of emergency gives the President authority to expropriate any defense-related items such as building materials, fuel, food, buildings, medical supplies, and water, and to imprison or conscript anyone he wants for any reason or none.
*A declaration that the US is being invaded allows the president to wage unlimited war in the United States.
