Jewish Republicans I know love Marco Rubio. Dennis Prager says he’s the most electable Republican candidate for president.
Bruce Bolton tweets: “John Edwards comparison is three-fer 1. Pretty boy light weight, 2. scandal floating under surface, 3. and he lost, unlike Obama.”
Steve Sailer writes: …Rubio has been pretty much a wholly owned subsidiary of billionaire Miami auto dealer Norman Braman. This almost inevitably turned Rubio into the cabana boy for the Dade County Likud Party Billionaire Boosters Club. From the Jewish Telegraph Agency:
NEW YORK (JTA) – After Marco Rubio’s strong performance in Wednesday night’s Republican primary debate, many Americans are taking a second look at the U.S. senator from Florida. Here are a few things American Jews might want to know about him.
1. Rubio had humble beginnings — and rose quickly
The junior senator was born in Miami in 1971 to Cuban parents who moved to the United States in 1956 and later found work in bartending and housekeeping. After high school, Rubio paid for his first year of college with a football scholarship and then took out student loans. Rubio later repaid $100,000 in student debt out of the $800,000 advance he received for his 2012 book, “An American Son.” (He also sprung for a fishing boat.) While studying law at the University of Miami in the mid-1990s, Rubio interned for Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R.-Fla., the first Cuban American elected to Congress and a staunch supporter of Israel. Rubio won election in 2000 to the state legislature, the Florida House of Representatives, and became its youngest-ever speaker in 2005. In 2010, Rubio was elected to the U.S. Senate, defeating Florida’s governor, Charlie Crist.
Billionaire auto dealership magnate Norman Braman, a past president of the Greater Miami Jewish Federation, isn’t just the single-largest backer of Rubio’s presidential campaign. Braman also helped finance the young senator’s legislative agenda, employed Rubio as a lawyer, hired Rubio’s wife (a former Miami Dolphins cheerleader) as a philanthropic adviser, helped fund Rubio’s position as a college instructor and assisted Rubio with his personal finances. In 2010, Braman and Rubio went to Israel together shortly after Rubio’s election to the U.S. Senate.
“Gee, Mr. Braman, I never thought about Israel like that before!”
A Rubio-Sanders race might be interesting in that Sanders is ethnically well-positioned as an old Jew from Brooklyn who was a kibbutznik for awhile in the 1960s to call out Rubio’s neocon extremism.
COMMENTS:
* By dropping the Os, he could be Marc Rubi, the Flaming Kid. That would endear him to two excitable minorities with lots of money to donate.
* Rubio hasn’t done anything or earned anything in his life that hasn’t come out of Braman’s pockets.
* The father of the EU was a rich aristocratic mongrel (Austrian-Japanese) married to a jewess, he wrote a book in the 1920s called ‘Practical Idealism’ where he imagined a future mongrelized Europe ruled by a Jewish elite.
* As Steve has pointed out before, when discussed in publications intended for the private consumption of Jews, the information contained in this article is considered interesting and important. If it were published in the New York Times, there would be an outcry about anti-semitism.
* Since Bush flamed out, Rubio has found a new and even richer sugar-daddy – the hedge-fund manager, sovereign-debt-collector, and gay-rights champion Paul Singer.
Rubio is the Republican Party’s rent-boy.
* The puppeteering of American politicians by wealthy Jews is progress!
And don’t you forget it!
And don’t you talk about it either!
* In opening for introducing Donald Trump tonight in New Hampshire, Ann Coulter took a lavender swipe at Lindsey Graham, and another at Marco Rubio, the latter with a carom at the Current Occupant.
* Politico came out with an article last week about how easy it is to rig elections in the US.
The takeaway is that it is really easy. Usually no one observes the actual counting of the ballots, which are often done anyway by computer programs run by companies that often are backing candidates competing in the same elections (eg Microsoft and Rubio). Sometimes these companies are foreign owned. It amazes me that no one seems to care much about this.
The article didn’t mention that unlike in other countries, where civil servants who are supposed to be neutral oversee the elections, elections in the US are run by boards composed of local Democratic and Republican hacks.
* There is some irony that the Jew in the race is the least pro Israel. And he is still very pro-Israel.
* Rubio’s first book that he received the $800,000 advance for, and which has sold a staggering 37,000 copies, was published by Sentinel. Looks like a donation to me though I am not in publishing.
As the web site says, “Meet Sentinel.”
http://www.penguin.com/meet/publishers/sentinel/
Adrian Zackheim
Founder, President, and Publisher
Will Weisser
Niki Papadopoulos
Natalie Horbachevsky
* [Tim] Carney is pretty sharp. He’s highlighting this for a good reason.
He’s been begging the Rs to go populist for a while: take an anti-crony capitalism stance after the 2008 crash…
He was featured as a prominent anti-war “conservative” more than a decade ago.
His insights have tracked Sailer-type insights, though Carney is more inside baseball with his ExIm bank crusade and beltway libertarianism…
* “Can you imagine how much better Trump would’ve done with competent GOTV effort?”
GOP turnout was 50% over the highest ever. If Trump hadn’t done a good job of getting out the vote, he’d have been running neck and neck with Ben Carson.
Cruz had a brilliant ground game. Cruz has run an excellent campaign, given his unappealing character. Rubio didnt’ turn voters; a lot of them came out specifically to vote for him because they hated Trump.
* Then that’s a regional prejudice thing. Let’s call it what it is. The same thing that worked to Cruz’s advantage will hurt him in NY; NJ; New England perhaps the Upper Midwestern states and possibly in CA; OR; WA.
Again, Trump may need to win the Northeast, the Pacific states, (except for Carly, no candidate hails from the Pacific so that region’s wide open), and carry the Upper Midwest.
Like in the November election, the Upper Midwest with its precious 60plus electoral votes, may just hold the balance for Trump to get the nomination.
If Cruz wants to go there with his “NY values” smear, Trump can match him in the Upper Midwest and Northeast with “You really want a dumb hick in the White House? Seriously? Is he even from America?”
Cruz started it. Let Trump finish it.
But yep, this year the CA/Pacific along with Upper Midwest states may just hold the cards for Trump. Be interested to know when CA/WA/OR/Pacific region hosts their primaries this yr.
* Trump is financing his own campaign and is trying to do it on the cheap. He didn’t want to spend the money needed to establish a ground game.
* For someone who is supposedly very good at “winning,” he certainly did not show much. He had virtually no “ground game” in Iowa, and essentially ran a celebrity campaign – all free (earned) media and giant rallies, but no serious organization or grassroots/ground-pounding hard work. He ended up fitting the NYC stereotype in the Midwest – all talk, no work.
And Cruz showed that he can organize. It’s not just that his locked up the “evangelicals” and turned them out. He had a highly organized and efficient team on the ground with excellent data analytics. And on top of all that, he WORKED. He and his wife personally called people who needed to be persuaded back to his cause. He showed that he wanted to win, could win, and did win. Cruz’s magna cum laude and editor of law review weren’t just affirmative action honorifics. He is definitely brains + hard work.
In Iowa, at least, Cruz showed that he could run the trains on time better than the supposed businessman with “real world” enterprise experience. New Hampshire will be a tougher slog for Cruz, for sure, but it will be VERY interesting how well his national organization performs versus Trump’s yet-to-materialize infrastructure.
As I mentioned here before, politics is a team endeavor. Candidates are merely the vessels through which the aspirations of others are channeled. I have yet to see any evidence that Trump gets this. He still seems to be stuck in the celebrity mode, not serious candidate mode, as his squabbles with a politically insignificant journalist immediately before the vote demonstrated. Calling someone else’s wife a “bimbo” is never a good look for anyone let alone someone running for the land’s highest elected office.
Posted inJews|Comments Off on Steve Sailer: Marco Rubio Is the Flamingo Kid
The economic gap within the African-American community is one of the most important factors in the rise of Black Lives Matter, led by a new generation of college graduates and students.
By HENRY LOUIS GATES Jr. FEB. 1, 2016
… The class divide is, in my opinion, one of the most important and overlooked factors in the rise of Black Lives Matter, led by a new generation of college graduates and students. I hear about it from my students at Harvard, about the pressure they feel to rise, yes, but also the necessity to then look back to lift others.
I asked Kimiko Matsuda-Lawrence, a senior, what was behind the racial unrest on campus. Ms. Matsuda-Lawrence is co-founder of “I, Too, Am Harvard,” a multiplatform campaign that gives voice to students who often go unheard and that brought the concept of micro-aggressions into the light. …
Here’s an NYT video of Kimiko Matsuda-Lawrence complaining about a child who touched her hair. Judging by the voluble video, Professor Gates’ assumption that Ms. Matsuda-Lawrence “gives voice to students who often go unheard” seems more gentlemanly than realistic. The two non-Asian black coeds sitting with her can’t seem to get a word in edgewise.
(By the way, back in 2004, Gates and Harvard Law School professor Lani Guinier pointed out that most of Harvard’s affirmative action slots for black students seem to go to exotics, either foreign or immigrant elites or individuals with a non-black parent, rather than to normal American blacks. Gates and Guinier seemed to give up this observation with the subsequent rise of the ultra-exotic Harvard Law grad Barack Obama. But I wonder if Kimiko Matsuda-Lawrence’s bid to become the loudest black activist on the Harvard campus triggered any troubling memories in Gates?)
Will the fight against police brutality, symbols of the Confederacy and society’s plethora of micro-aggressions become the basis of a broader movement for the improvement of underfunded public school education, for the right to a job with decent wages, and for the end of residential segregation that relegates the poor to neighborhoods with murder rates as alarming as those on the South Side of Chicago?
What is certain is that the outrage that led to Black Lives Matter and its spinoffs will be with us for years to come unless these legacies of slavery and Jim Crow become remnants of a racist past.
COMMENTS:
* Has anyone established the base unit for microaggressions? How bad is a single “aggression”. I propose that the unit be all of WWII. World War II was a single “aggression”. Thus, asking to touch someone’s hair is one millionth as bad as that particular global conflict. As another example, the holocaust was roughly a deciaggression. Etc.
* Imagine that, a black woman who’s vain about her “weave” and is ready to pummel anyone who touches it. You never see that.
* Kimiko’s blonde hair dye is an aggression against reality, but I’m not sure of its exact magnitude.
* Micro-aggression would be a good name for a bug eyed neurotic Chihuahua. That, or Diesel.
* If she asked for a light for her cigarette, spliff, or crack pipe and the flame set off her hairdo, would said flames constitute a “microconflagression”?
Just askin’. That do and weave and chemical slick on that woman’s head reeks of Michael Jackson, circa 1985 Pepsi video.
Posted inBlacks, Harvard|Comments Off on Microaggressions At Harvard
From Gawker: The Intercept disclosed today that a former reporter for the national-security focused website fabricated quotes and invented sources for a number of stories published last year. According to a post published on Tuesday afternoon by editor-in-chief Betsy Reed, that reporter, Juan Thompson, went so far as to register fake email addresses, including one in Reed’s own name, to deceive his editors about the extent of his fabrications:
An investigation into Thompson’s reporting turned up three instances in which quotes were attributed to people who said they had not been interviewed. In other instances, quotes were attributed to individuals we could not reach, who could not remember speaking with him, or whose identities could not be confirmed. In his reporting Thompson also used quotes that we cannot verify from unnamed people whom he claimed to have encountered at public events. Thompson went to great lengths to deceive his editors, creating an email account to impersonate a source and lying about his reporting methods.
Shortly before Reed’s post, The Intercept prepended lengthy editor’s notes to five of Thompson’s prior articles. Four of the notes amount to severe corrections; the fifth, attached to an article containing quotes attributed to a cousin of the white supremacist Dylann Roof, indicates a total retraction: “After speaking with two members of Dylann Roof’s family, The Intercept can no longer stand by the premise of this story. Both individuals said that they do not know of a cousin named Scott Roof.”
In the now-retracted article, Thompson had claimed that “Scott Roof” had speculated during a phone conversation that Dylann Roof may been driven to murder nine black churchgoers at a Charleston, South Carolina church because “he kind of went over the edge when a girl he liked starting dating a black guy two years back.” Thompson’s report was picked up by dozens of other news outlets.
{snip} Prior to The Intercept, Thompson had reported in Chicago for DNAInfo and the local NPR affiliate, WBEZ.
Juan Thompson
Based on his Twitter account, Thompson appears to be invested in the outcomes of other journalism controversies. In several tweets from last year, for example, he argued that former BuzzFeed editor Benny Johnson, who was fired for committing widespread plagiarism in the summer of 2014, would not have been been able to bounce back so quickly (to editor positions at National Review and the Independent Journal Review) if he were not white:
White reporter commits plagiarism, moves on to bigger things. Whereas Blair is a pariah, this is white suprmcy. Yuck. http://t.co/c2zzs7EsUk
I suspect that Donald Trump will take a more skeptical view of the benefits of a close relationship with Israel than any other candidate in the race. Trump is a realist. He’s an American-firster like Charles Lindberg.
One of the most common misconceptions about Donald Trump is that he is opportunistic and makes up his views as he goes along. But a careful reading of some of Trump’s statements over three decades shows that he has a remarkably coherent and consistent worldview, one that is unlikely to change much if he’s elected president. It is also a worldview that makes a great leap backward in history, embracing antiquated notions of power that haven’t been prevalent since prior to World War II.
It is easy to poke fun at many of Trump’s foreign-policy notions—the promises to “take” Iraq’s oil, to extract a kind of imperial “tribute” from U.S. military allies like South Korea, his eagerness to emulate the Great Wall of China along the border with Mexico, and his embrace of old-style strongmen like Vladimir Putin. But many of these views would have found favor in pre-World War II—and even, in some cases, 19th century—America.
In sum, Trump believes that America gets a raw deal from the liberal international order it helped to create and has led since World War II. He has three key arguments that he returns to time and again over the past 30 years. He is deeply unhappy with America’s military alliances and feels the United States is overcommitted around the world. He feels that America is disadvantaged by the global economy. And he is sympathetic to authoritarian strongmen. Trump seeks nothing less than ending the U.S.-led liberal order and freeing America from its international commitments.
Trump has been airing such views on U.S. foreign policy for some time. He even spent $100,000 on a full-page ad in the New York Times in 1987 that had a message remarkably similar to what he is saying today.
With his background and personality, Trump is so obviously sui generis that it is tempting to say his views are alien to the American foreign policy tradition. They aren’t; it is just that this strain of thinking has been dormant for some time. There are particular echoes of Sen. Robert Taft, who unsuccessfully ran for the Republican nomination in 1940, 1948 and 1952, and was widely seen as the leader of the conservative wing of the Republican Party. Taft was a staunch isolationist and mercantilist who opposed U.S. aid for Britain before 1941. After the war, he opposed President Harry Truman’s efforts to expand trade. Despite being an anti-communist, he opposed containment of the Soviet Union, believing that the United States had few interests in Western Europe. He opposed the creation of NATO as overly provocative. Taft’s speeches are the last time a major American politician has offered a substantive and comprehensive critique of America’s alliances.
Trump’s populism, divisiveness and friendliness toward dictators is also reminiscent of Charles Lindbergh, once an American hero, who led the isolationist America First movement. In some areas, Trump’s views go back even further, to 19th-century high-tariff protectionism and every-country-for-itself mercantilism. He even invokes ancient Chinese history, telling Bill O’Reilly last August that his idea for a wall across the U.S.-Mexican border is feasible because “you know, the Great Wall of China, built a long time ago, is 13,000 miles. I mean, you’re talking about big stuff.”
***
Trump’s starting point and defining emotion on foreign policy is anger—not at America’s enemies, but at its friends. In a lengthy interview with Playboy magazine in 1990, Trump was asked what would a President Trump’s foreign policy be like. He answered: “He would believe very strongly in extreme military strength. He wouldn’t trust anyone. He wouldn’t trust the Russians; he wouldn’t trust our allies; he’d have a huge military arsenal, perfect it, understand it. Part of the problem is that we’re defending some of the wealthiest countries in the world for nothing. … We’re being laughed at around the world, defending Japan.”
He then elaborated on his skepticism of allies. “We Americans are laughed at around the world for losing a hundred and fifty billion dollars year after year, for defending wealthy nations for nothing, nations that would be wiped off the face of the earth in about 15 minutes if it weren’t for us. Our ‘allies’ are making billions screwing us.”
Trump has long believed the United States is being taken advantage of by its allies. He would prefer that the United States not have to defend other nations, but, if it does, he wants to get paid as much as possible for it. No nation has come in for quite as much criticism from Trump as Japan. “It’s time for us to end our vast deficits by making Japan and others who can afford it pay,” Trump said in an open letter to the American people in 1987. “Our world protection is worth hundreds of billions of dollars to these countries and their stake in their protection is far greater than ours.”
In the intervening years, he found new targets but he never let go of his antagonism toward the Japanese. On the campaign trail recently, he took the unusual step of promising to renegotiate the 1960 U.S.-Japan Treaty. “If somebody attacks Japan,” he said, “we have to immediately go and start World War III, OK? If we get attacked, Japan doesn’t have to help us. Somehow, that doesn’t sound so fair. Does that sound good?”
He has also criticized other allies. In 2013, he said, “How long will we go on defending South Korea from North Korea without payment? When will they start to pay us?” He has made the point again on the campaign trail. In an interview with NBC, he said, “We have 28,000 soldiers on the line in South Korea between the madman and them. We get practically nothing compared to the cost of this.”
Trump doesn’t let Europe off the hook, either. Several years ago, he wrote, “Pulling back from Europe would save this country millions of dollars annually. The cost of stationing NATO troops in Europe is enormous. And these are clearly funds that can be put to better use.” On the campaign trail, he complained that Germany is not carrying more of the burden of NATO and asked why the United States should lead on European security…
If he did get elected president, he would do his utmost to liquidate the U.S.-led liberal order by ending America’s alliances, closing the open global economy, and cutting deals with Russia and China.
He would find this hard to do, not least because the entire U.S. foreign policy establishment would be opposed to him and he needs people to staff his National Security Council, State Department and Defense Department. But there is real power in the presidency, especially if there is clear guidance about the chief executive’s wishes. In any event, the mere fact that the American people would have elected somebody with a mandate to destroy the U.S.-led order might be sufficient to damage it beyond repair…
Lindbergh led a national movement that was divisive, xenophobic and sympathetic to Nazi Germany…
Some, like Ted Cruz, tried to deal with the shift in sentiment by cozying up to pro-American dictators and abandoning support for democracy promotion. Cruz even used the isolationist term America First to describe his foreign policy. But Cruz seems to have thought little and said even less about America’s global role outside the Middle East. Ironically for someone with the reputation of being exceptionally smart, he lacks Trump’s detail and substance.
It is in this vacuum that the long-dormant Taftian foreign policy has made an unexpected comeback in the hands of Trump. What happens next is anybody’s guess. It is hard to see how the Republican foreign policy establishment, which is steeped in American primacy and a U.S.-led international order, endorses an isolationist strain of thinking that has long been presumed dead. A split seems more likely than reconciliation.
In any event, if Hillary Clinton secures the Democratic nomination, as expected, and Trump maintains his huge lead over the GOP field, a Clinton-Trump race would present two starkly different views about America’s global role. For the first time since World War II, Americans will be asked to give their view on the most fundamental question of U.S. foreign policy: Do they want a U.S.-led liberal order or not? Internationalists will have to explain all over again why the United States flourishes and benefits from a healthy international system. Taft and Lindbergh lost before, but it would be a mistake to underestimate the messenger this time.
Posted inAmerica|Comments Off on Donald Trump’s Remarkably Consistent Worldview
Trump’s narrow definition of “national interest” does not include things like democracy promotion, humanitarian intervention, the responsibility to protect people from atrocities or the advocacy of human rights abroad. Trump believes that economic engagement will lead to political opening in the long run. He doesn’t think the U.S. government should spend blood or treasure on trying to change other countries’ systems.
“This is a long game; it’s not a short game,” Clovis said. He faulted neoconservatives who “think you can go out there and in three weeks after Iraq collapses you can create a constitutional democracy over there.”
The Trump campaign thinks of this approach as pragmatic and realistic. Like classical realists, Trump wants to deal with states and governments, not non-state actors or international organizations. That, according to his advisers, is why he sometimes seems to praise strongmen who lead their states as executives with absolute power. Trump sees Putin and other dictators as businessmen doing what any CEO would do, fighting for their organization.
If they’re being intellectually honest, they would. Trump’s team hits on the major realpolitik talking points with respect to American foreign policy in these sentiments: a reluctance to expend U.S. blood and treasure overseas, an assumption of other states as rational unitary actors maximizing their interest defined as power, a reluctance to export American values, and a deep disdain for neoconservative approaches to the world. We also know from Tom Wright that Trump evinces a strong relative gains view of great power politics, checking another realist box. And a lot of what Trump is saying resonates with American attitudes on this subject.
So here’s my question to academic realists: After reading complaint after complaint after complaint that realism has been marginalized, it turns out that the leading candidate for the GOP nomination for president this year is a budding realist. He certainly sounds more realist than, say, Marco Rubio or Hillary Clinton. And yet questions have been raised about his foreign policy gravitas.
This is the perfect moment for realists to intervene in the marketplace of ideas and publicly endorse Trump. Sure, he’s not a perfect realist, but that candidate doesn’t exist (much like the perfect neoconservative or perfect liberal internationalist doesn’t exist). Sure, he has said some controversial things, but academic realists have not shied away from controversial pronouncements either. If realists really want to have some skin in the American foreign policy game, they will not find a better vessel than Trump.
For all I know, academic realists are secretly advising Trump. But this is about the marketplace of ideas and speaking truth to power. The public, particularly the GOP public, is anxious about American national security. They deserve to know whether what Trump is saying is consistent with a viable foreign policy worldview. For a school of thought that believes it lacks influence, this is the perfect moment to marry its rigorous, severe logic with the emotive language of a flesh-and-blood candidate for president, and possibly help to reduce that candidate’s massive unfavorables in both the country and the foreign policy community.
Posted inAmerica|Comments Off on So when will realists endorse Donald Trump?
Sources close to the campaign told me Trump has also spoken with controversial historian Daniel Pipes and Israel’s current envoy to the UN Danny Danon, among others.
Sources close to the campaign tell me that Trump’s foreign policy proclamations are not ad hoc; in fact most are planned months in advance. For example, on Dec. 7 when Trump announced his idea to ban Muslims, it appeared to be a response to the terror attack in San Bernardino only days earlier. Sources close to the campaign say it had planned to announce the policy well before that attack happened.
Clovis said there was a huge amount of preparation that preceded Trump’s call for a pause in Muslim immigration.
“Do you think for a minute we would send the leading presidential candidate out, if we did not have the law, the history, and the Constitution on our side? Think it through,” he said. “We know exactly what we want to do and when.”
Trump’s advisers also claim that Trump’s wide-ranging foreign policy proposals, which include renegotiating the U.S.-Japan alliance treaty and outsourcing the Syria problem to the Russians, all fit into an easily understandable set of three “organizing principles” that form Trump’s governing doctrine on foreign policy.
“One, we want to take a very clear worldview in our foreign policy, dealing with the national interest, and let that be our organizing principles. Two is that we want to make sure that we engage in free markets, but we want those markets to be fairer as well. And three, if we do not have strong economic recovery, we can’t do the other two,” said Clovis. “If that’s not a Trump doctrine, I don’t know what is.”
The practical application of that doctrine plays out in several ways. Trump’s narrow definition of “national interest” does not include things like democracy promotion, humanitarian intervention, the responsibility to protect people from atrocities or the advocacy of human rights abroad. Trump believes that economic engagement will lead to political opening in the long run. He doesn’t think the U.S. government should spend blood or treasure on trying to change other countries’ systems.
“This is a long game; it’s not a short game,” Clovis said. He faulted neoconservatives who “think you can go out there and in three weeks after Iraq collapses you can create a constitutional democracy over there.”
The Trump campaign thinks of this approach as pragmatic and realistic. Like classical realists, Trump wants to deal with states and governments, not non-state actors or international organizations. That, according to his advisers, is why he sometimes seems to praise strongmen who lead their states as executives with absolute power. Trump sees Putin and other dictators as businessmen doing what any CEO would do, fighting for their organization.
“Mr. Trump looks at them and he says, ‘OK, I know exactly what kind of man you are and I know when I sit down at the table with you I can get your measure,’” said Clovis. “That’s really the calculus that’s in place.”
Clovis said the problem in the Republican national security establishment is that the experts see everything in “micro-tactical” terms and want to solve problems immediately rather than taking a longer historical view. He said Trump’s narrower vision of America’s national interest is designed for the everyman.
“People get it,” Clovis said. “And you know what, he’s absolutely right.”
Sam Nunberg, who advised Trump on foreign policy early in the campaign before having a falling out with Lewandowski, told me that Trump’s foreign policy was “Reagan-esque realpolitik,” a stance designed to be able to make policies based on circumstances without being burdened by ideology.
“Reagan would go after Qaddafi, but he would do business with Saddam,” he said. “It’s a case-by-case basis of what’s in American interests.”
Posted inAmerica|Comments Off on Donald Trump’s America-First Doctrine
* Mahatma Gandhi was arguably a white supremacist. Gandhi’s rise to fame was in South Africa fighting for rights for wealthy Indians.
He firmly believed, “that the white race of South Africa should be the predominating race.”
He had deep contempt for the blacks, which he called Kaffir, as a race, “Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilised – the convicts even more so…. The reader can easily imagine the plight of the poor Indian thrown into such company!”
He preached, “We believe as much in the purity of races as we think they (the Whites) do… by advocating the purity of all races.”
Of course, the dominant elites of today paint a completely different picture to suit their goals.
* I’d like to see a movie about the super racist, black hating, caste system supporting, ultra violent Gandhi who in his seventies slept naked with teenage girls and personally administered them enemas.
* People with experience on the ground considered the total disbanding of the Iraq government and social structure to have been a huge mistake, resulting in, at the least, the insurgency costing thousands of American lives.
But, consider this: virtually all the actions of the George W Bush and Obama administrations have had the objective of replacing rather secular governments in the Middle East with an Islamic government. Afghanistan is excluded, of course, as it already had an Islamist government.
Can we conclude that such uniform direction is simply the result of stupidity?
* Poles, at least, contributed enormously to the USA. Very many eminent scientists etc are/were of Polish descent, although you don’t hear about it. Poles are not a boastful people.
Likewise, there were/are many eminent Sicilians who contributed to the USA in all sorts of ways, yes, including crime – I got that in first.
* Both men and women can have unrealistic standards but society has changed so that women don’t have to suffer the consequences of having unrealistic standards as much as formerly. When I was married, my wife complained about us not having enough money to buy a house or for her to quit work. We eventually broke up and she went off looking for a better guy. She never found the better guy and ended up on welfare. Meanwhile, as I got older I made more and more money and am now very well off. Even though my ex-wife is no longer married to me, I am still supporting her and a lot of other women like her through my taxes. I may want a super model but if I can’t get one on my own I certainly wouldn’t expect the government to provide me with one. Many women, though, would certainly go for having the government force men they aren’t married to be their economic provider. All you need to do is look at the voting patterns of unmarried females.
Plus one of the downsides of feminism was that it gave women the idea that they had a right to be happy, and if they weren’t, it was the fault of some guy.
See all the happy talk from divorced women in their 40s and 50s on any dating web site. Makes you wonder why they’re divorced if they are as special as they describe themselves. Delusional is a better word.
“The best protection (as the United States has demonstrated) is to institutionalize the concept of tolerance and diversity and to work tirelessly to ensure that the powerful impulses to segregate and divide are quashed. It is not easy. But it has made the United States the most successful experiment in cultural diversity in history — though only after a series of horrific errors, including slavery and the genocide against Native Americans and the devaluing of the role of women, were ultimately remedied. We’re not there yet.”
The atrocious, atomized, cultureless, homogenized, a-communal, faithless, greed-besotten sewer that is contemporary America is what he thinks is paradise. He might as well put an “I love Wiemar” bumper sticker on his car.
* It’s a racket. They identify as white when it suits them – as in when they’re writing pieces about how “We” whites need to share power and opportunities with other groups who haven’t earned them by objective standards. It’s usually framed as an admission – in other words, the author is admitting on behalf of whites that “we’re all awful and have unearned privileges” and therefore need to accept the aggressions of other groups passively. But when it suits them they consider themselves a “model minority.” Grandpa was excluded from the Country Club (the same one that excluded Catholics) after all. So all of the tacit, off the books networking and chauvinism and favoritism is remedial while in the very next breath they preach the false gospel of diversity, grievance, and affirmative action.
See an example of the weaselly, unctuous doubletalk and twisted logic.
Note that Judaism isn’t about honoring a covenant with God, worship, a code of moral behavior binding upon the individual, taking up the mantle of your dead forbears and passing it down to your issue or the like – rather, it’s about engaging in left wing agitation and punching down at badwhites. The only heartening thing about the piece is the comments.
* This end-part of the documentary is worth considering:
“… major flaw in the Spartan system. Its pathological elitism… Sparta was running out of Spartans… Spartan numbers were dangerously low. It produced a body bag syndrome.”
Today’s West is very different from Sparta, of course. Spartan society was very repressive and exclusive. The modern West is libertine and inclusive, especially with open immigration. Also, if only pure or near-pure Spartans could be citizens of Sparta, the modern West is more like the Roman Empire that granted citizenship to lots of different peoples.
But in a way, there is a common theme between Sparta and the modern West.
While the official ethos of the West is about equality and the People, the actual socio-economic reality plays out differently. There is a huge discrepancy between the Said and the Done. More than ever, white people are more elitist than ever. And because their standards are so high — like with the high IQ couple in the opening of IDIOCRACY — , they can only accept the best and feel contempt for everything else.
(Google uses the Frederick Douglas doodle as ‘virtue signaling’, the equivalent of aristocrats wearing golden crucifix necklaces. It speaks egalitarianism but serves elitism. Indeed, the reason why such elites be so full of put-on compassion for blacks is because they can afford no to live close to them. But those who’ve seen the reality come to know better.)
Educated whites are all about best jobs, best lifestyles, best schools for their kids. They may want to have kids, but not if the kids will get in the way of their success. And competition is more fierce than ever because of massive immigration. In many top schools, whites are squeezed by Jews, Asians, and affirmative action.
So, they cannot take it easy at all. When people like Zakaria and Chua berate white folks for not being competitive enough, they leave out the fact that Asian competition has increased the pressure on everyone.
Also, with generations of Americans who only knew affluence, good isn’t good enough. The greatest generation knew poverty and war, so good was good enough. Boomers were more indulgent, but even they knew something about hardships from listening to their parents. Also, they had an idealistic streak that said life isn’t all about money. But since the rise of Gen X, it’s been money, money, money, status, status, and status. It’s like what they say in RISKY BUSINESS.
Also, because white folks have no pride left cuz of the cult of ‘white guilt’ and PC, they can only find meaning in status and money; they no longer own the morality and righteousness.
Also, as racial segregation has come under attack, whites can no longer breathe freely and take for granted the living in safe white communities. They come under threat of integration with the Negroes. So, whites must make more money to ensure that they and their children can afford to live safely away from crime and social pathologies. Even as Libs are ideologically for racial integration, in terms of what they actually DO, they want to out-compete others so that they don’t have to live next to dangerous blacks. Also, having money and power means you can use Section 8 to drive out Negroes or use Stop-and-Frisk to pressure Negroes to behave.
Also, globalism threatens the middle class and working class. There was a time when white people without too much smarts or credentials could hope to get a decent playing manufacturing job and raise a family. But it is now much more difficult. To be average and normal is to be nowhere today. You have to win and at least be upper middle class. Everything else is nowhere. Since you have to work so hard to make it and rise up, you put family and having children behind. Also, since your children have to do really well to have a good life in the New America, you only want to have kids with high-IQ spouse and send the kid to the best schools. So, you might say all the nice-sounding libby-diddy egalitarian-inclusive stuff, but you cannot tolerate a spouse who is beneath your standards and you cannot feel inclusive about having a kid who is anything less than the best. (Of course, if you’re really well-off like Chelsea Clinton or the Romney’s, you might adopt some African baby as virtue-signaling).
Also, globalism has boosted radical individualism above all else. While proponents of globalism talk of all of humanity co-mingling and loving one another, the fact is it is difficult to maintain any kind of meaningful community with too much diversity. It’s one thing to be a German who feels part of German community. But if Germany were to fill up with tons of non-Germans and if these newcomers were to be considered ‘Germans’, the meaning of Germanness would go out the window. So, is a working class German supposed to regard marauding gangs of Africans and Muslims as fellow German brethren? Really? How can any German find meaning from German-ness from such lunacy. Some might suggest that Germans should just reject the very idea of Germanness and just see themselves as part of the ‘human race’. But the human races, ethnic groups, religions, and nationalities are too different, varied, and at odds to encourage and sustain any real kind of ‘brotherhood of man’ utopianism.
As globalism undermines meaningful nationalism, the ONLY game left is ultra-individualism to ensure that ‘me, me, me’ will make it and remain above the fray of increasing problems from diversity. This is what the EU elites are about. They talk about cooperation and diversity, but they are all about ultra-individualism so that they themselves won’t be affected by the global tide. They are perched on their individualist hills of privilege and don’t get swept up like the rest of the population. Globalism turns into ‘every man for himself’.
The best and most meaningful social unit for modern man is nationalism with strong borders. Over time, people within the borders develop a sense of common identity and unity. They have a balance of individualism and communalism. America used to be like this. Though globalists offer the promise that open borders will lead to more communalism and cooperation, the result is the very opposite. It is asking too much for a people of a nation to identify with ALL THE WORLD. For one thing, most peoples around the world look different, think different, have different interests, different histories, different narratives, different taboos, etc. Despite all the rhetoric, there is no unity but just a lot of division and distrust. In the current West, Nationalist communalism has been dealt a fatal blow, and Globalist communalism(“It takes a Village” nonsense) remains forever out of reach and impossible. So, what is the only game left? Ultra-individualism to make it to dry land while the rest of the world comes under the globalist deluge. It’s like the privileged couple in A.I.: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.
I would worry less about icebergs melting and seas rising than about borders melting and demographic third world tides rising and crashing into richer nations. The tsunami of the black sea from Africa and brown sea from India especially seem daunting, especially when the Indian government says it plans to export 300 million dotkins to other nations!!!
It’s like someone refusing to fix the broken plumbing and demanding that OTHER apartments take the water to relieve the room with the broken pipe.
Of course, Jews understand that nationalism and ethnicity are the best foundation for communal feeling and cooperation. It seems to work for Israel. Also, Jewish birthrates seem to be stable in Israel because there is a sense of common Jewish identity and purpose. Rich Jews tell middle Jews and poor Jews that they care about them and that they are all in it together. Rich Jews offer incentives for middle Jews to have kids and raise families. And even if middle Jews and poor Jews don’t have much, they have pride and meaning in being part of a Jewish nation who are taken care of and led by Jewish elites who care about Jewishness. It is not about ‘every Jew for himself or herself’. There is Jewish individualism but also Jewish communalism.
In a national-and-racial America than a globalist one, white elites would reach out to white masses. White elites would pursue policies that favor the interests of white masses. Thus, white masses would feel confident and proud. And they wouldn’t feel they must win, win, and win to have a meaningful life. You wouldn’t have to a total winner. Even if you’re a middle-class white or working class white, you would feel as a part of an identity, history, and community. It’s like South African white elites used to take care of their own, like Zionist Jews in Israel did.
But globalism says the white elites must not favor their own race. On occasion, white Americans may favor their own nation IF AND ONLY IF the national interests ‘coincide’ with those of globalist Zionists. So, Americans can be PROUD to be American in their patriotic hatred of Russians and Iranians(who pose no threat to white Americans and are targeted by the West ONLY BECAUSE Jewish elites don’t like them). So, whites can be patriotic American nationalists who hate Russia… but they better shut up about out-of-control immigration that is doing far greater harm to the US.
This goes for Negroes too. Negroes would actually do much better to find a way to work with white folks. White folks have most to offer to Negroes. White folks feel most conscience toward blacks. But globalism and mult-culturalism have convinced blacks that they should just growl at whites while allying with immigrants. But it’s the immigrants who are taking black jobs.
Anyway, if we ignore the bogus rhetoric and focus on the actual reality, globalism has increased pathological elitism among whites, especially white Libs. Whites can no longer be assured that this is their country or that elites care about them. If anything, elites in media hire punks like Zakaria who gloat and say, ‘you whiteys are dying off, haha’. White masses can no longer rely on white elites doing what is best for white people. And since the economy has been globalized, ‘American’ businesses will move capital and jobs all over the world to stay afloat and to maximize profits. At this point, even patriotic Americans cannot keep their factories in the US since they will lose out to others who send factories to nations with cheaper labor. Things have gotten so hectic that all white men and white women must work, work, and work to ‘thrive’. Thrive Mind is the New Hive Mind. So, forget about family and kids. They get in the way.
So, whites better win, win, and win cuz the game is now only about winners and losers with nothing in between. And the game is purely economic since whites are not allowed to have racial, national, historical, or cultural pride. In the past, one could be a white person with little but still find meaning in being a proud white man or an American. Now, such isn’t allowed. And this isn’t only true in the West but even in the third world and non-West. Latin American elites are now just cucks of US-style globalism. Japan, Taiwan, Korea, Singapore, and etc are all following suit. They too suffer from white disease. Globalism, ultra-elitism, materialism, and PC have destroyed their birthrates. In Vietnam, young generation is raised on homo worship than on national pride. Russia resists but has come under tremendous economic and political pressure to go whole hog on globalism. Poland and Hungary resist, but they don’t have the firepower of globalism as controlled by US and EU dominated by Kosheria.
People in the advanced world have grown accustomed to the good life and can’t conceive of life’s meaning without more and more affluence.
Not long ago, the good life was buttressed by some degree of nationalism. The French were pretty nationalistic well into the 60s. Germans even through the early 90s believed in unique German identity.
But PC and globalism undermined nationalism. So, there is no meaning to life other than money, money, money, and status, status, status. Nationalism was supposed to be replaced by PC multiculturalism and worship of ‘diversity’, but it is near-impossible to feel meaningfully ONE with the entire world. I mean what does a Hungarian have in common with a Mexican, Zimbabwean, Kenyan, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Bolivian, Iranian, etc? The only meaningful identity for him would be Hungarian and then European. But such an idea is considered ‘far right’ and ‘neo-Nazi’. Worse, what kind of identity and meaning is ‘white guilt’ and ‘white shame’ and obsessing incessantly about Nazi in every cupboard and everything-is-’racist’?
When ultra-individualism and pathological elitism are the modes of white people in the New West, birth rates will naturally plummet. The successful will have kids ONLY IF they can be assured that their kids will be the best and go to best schools. Unless your kids win in life, they have no value.
But birth rates will also decline among other whites since they see no meaning to life except in winning. Knowing that they cannot win and will be deemed losers, what’s the point of marrying and having kids? And when even modestly stable lives are often beyond the reach of many white folks, why take a risk with family? (Some women have babies out of wedlock with ‘bad boys’ because they see it as ‘winning’. Since rappers, athletes, and punks dominate pop culture, a lot of trashy women have been Kardashianized. They become economic losers by mating with such lowlife punks, but since bad boys have the alpha-male winner style, even poor trashy women think they are winners by having the kids of top warrior thugs. It’s a jungle-tribal-primal concept of winning. Some white libs combine economic victory with primal victory. They make good money and win economically, but they also want a taste of tribal-primal victory, so they invite negroes to hump their wives in acts of ‘cuckoldry’. Even as they lose to the Negroes who do their women, they feel as victors cuz they can afford to provide such jungalo pleasure to their women and know that the women will remain married to them cuz they got the money.) There was a time when just being white, proud, and American was enough to want to have families. And even though every parent wants his or her kid to do well, there was love for kids and a sense of value in having them simply because it was deemed to be meaningful to be white, proud, and American. But such feelings are gone. Furthermore, too many white guys grow up tarded and think culture is getting tattoos on their ass, and too many white girls think culture is ‘twerking’. When many lower-class do have kids, it is as single mothers with men who don’t even stick around.
Indeed, libertine-ism has increased both extreme vulgarism and hyper-elitism. When US had a culture of shame, even the lowly folks knew it wasn’t proper to act too wild and crazy. This had a restraining effect on the masses, even the Negroes, most of whom were married and maintained family life. Since acting like pimps and whores were out of question, most men and women got married to enjoy sex and to have kids.
But libertine-ism has turned lowly blacks and whites into animal-beasks with no sense of moral vision.
The culture of shame also had a restraining effect on the rich who were frowned upon if they acted too out-of-control with their riches. But in our libertine era, not only do the lowly folks act like total animals but rich folks act like decadent self-indulgent kings-and-queens like Herod in JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR, especially with homo-worship as the new religion of the West.
When winning is now so much about flaunting what you got — vice-celebrating as well as virtue-signaling — it isn’t good enough to win little. You have to win big. I suspect Bernie-Sanders-Socialism of upper-middle class folks is really about the resentment of the affluent for the super-affluent.
When it comes to the likes of Rothkopft, we should do as they do, never listen to what they say. Rothboy will never ever suggest for Israel what he suggests for the West.
In a nutshell, how the ‘best’ feel about the rest under globalism:
* The reason that men want to become elite (i.e. to acquire wealth and power) is to gain access to hot females. For them and their sons. Period. So Jewish male’s pronounced success at becoming elite led them to interbreed with shiksas, but not the reciprocal. The medieval Jews in Europe bred so successfully that they began taking prole jobs, at which point the prole natives (80%+ of the population) really got restless. (Leading to the Pale of Settlement, leading to Jews outreproducing to the point they were legally barred from buying farms to compete with indigenous slaves, leading to famine among Pale Jews, leading to the Bolshevik revolution…)
Jews have been very successful at becoming elites. But, because they’re easily distinguishable from most Europeans, most of the time, both in attitude and appearance, the Europeans whose elite they join automatically resent being partially ruled by outsiders. Welcome to humanity, that always has been and always will be how groups of discernibly different humans behave regarding resource scarcity competition.
Regarding your point about mate poaching leading to host-population backlash, you’re right. That and various other things Jewish elites do (arising from their intelligence and personality genes) pisses off the non-elite gentile host population and leads to “populism,” which Jewish voices typically denounce. Populism ranges from simple things like the 1920s introduction of an immigration moratorium, at the gentle end, to pogroms and Nazis at the really angry end. Remember: to hate is to want something to disappear. When Jewish elites overstep, as they inherently do by outcompeting others for resources (again, the definition of being elite) and not being able to stop themselves when they’ve had enough (e.g. America is sufficiently diluted to forestall the possibility of another Holocaust happening here. Stop the diversity crap!), native peoples who are facing resource scarcity want them gone.
* Like a smart businessman, Trump decided not to devote a lot of resources to Iowa, especially when the polls, until recently, showed him consistently trailing Cruz. Take the example of Mitt Romney, who in 2008 devoted a lot resources to Iowa (including spending a substantial sum on the meaningless “Ames Poll”) and lost by a healthy margin to Mike Huckabee, who, of course, went on to do very poorly in New Hampshire. In 2012, Romney didn’t spend a dime on the Ames Poll and little time in Iowa up until the last moment and initially was proclaimed the winner of the Iowa caucuses until a later recount showed Rick Santorum actually won by a narrow margin. Romney went on to win 39% of the NH primary, while Santorum got slightly under 10%.
I predict that the same result will occur this year. While Iowa and New Hampshire appear to be similar on the surface, with the same percentages of whites and same percentages of Hispanics, evangelicals do not play nearly the role in NH that they play in Iowa. That’s why politicians who do well in Iowa (Huckabee, Santorum) do miserably in NH. The polls have been showing the same pattern this cycle. That’s why I expect both Cruz and Rubio to do far less well in NH than they did in Iowa and Trump to win by a very healthy margin.
* DSA was founded by Michael Harrington, who was an old-timey Midwest Dorothy Day/settlement house type socialist. (He was born in St. Louis.) He became an ex-Catholic but reviled the pro-Stalin/pro-commie Catholics and Jews who were pushing Bolshevism. He was vehemently anti-Communist. He warned strongly that as people evolved past the need for religion, the values of “Jewish and Christian” western civilization not get lost. To my knowledge he never left his adopted home borough, Queens. (Link)
He was brilliantly prescient on the matter of globalization and western civilization. But I wrote him off in the mid 1980s as he refused to consider emerging research on genetics and race/intelligence. But I think he was probably a very good man. Just, like many Irish Catholics of his generation, not well adapted for anything after the 1970s.
Bernie was more the kind of NY Jew who did the civil rights tikkun olam thing in the ’60s…but fled to the Jewish agrarian heartland to the north as soon as he could, and stayed there. I view this as his pronouncement on how he feels both about white mainstream culture AND black/Puerto Rican culture.
To this day Bernie doesn’t know what to do about blacks, while the rest of us have had to muddle along in the Cibbil Frights Moooovement, right up to its apotheosis of vehement anti-white racism, without being able to look away politely and be jetted off to our next opportunity.
And like all SJWs he’s good at hawking ideology, not praxis, and doubles down on failure every time.
* I heard Laura Ingraham state last night on FOX that Rubio will be the Republican nominee. I think the road is far too long and Rubio is not doing terribly well in subsequent state polls (including Rubio’s home state of Florida) to be making such a prediction. But then Laura Ingraham does work for FOX. One other interesting thing I observed last night before I turned off the TV was that ace journalist Megyn Kelly, while trumpeting Cruz’s victory in Iowa, did not once make any observation about the poor history of Iowa winners in the next primary in New Hampshire. Here are winners of the Iowa caucuses and the NH primary the past six contested elections going back to 1980:
1980 GHW Bush Reagan
1988 Dole GHW Bush
1996 Dole Buchanan
2000 GW Bush McCain
2008 Huckabee McCain
2012 Santorum Romney
The history is so clear that it was a journalistic act of malpractice to not bring it up.
* It is really quite amazing that the white male has no real alternative other than the Republican party controlled by the Jewish Neocon warmongers.
* Both Paul in 2012 and trump in 2016 were ahead in the polls and ahead in the entrance polling yet managed to lose Iowa. I am sure the establishment hating both of them has nothing to do with those results, especially the missing precincts in the 2012 recount that included three college precincts that were missing.
* Who wins the general election is mostly determined by the economy, so Republicans will end up winning around 50% of the time and policy positions only change those odds on the margins. What actually matters is who wins the Republican primary.
In Congress this is even more salient. The vast majority of districts in the country are either solid Democrat or solid Republican. So if you’re a Republican, your only concern is about winning the Republican primary. The general election is an afterthought.
If Trump wins the primary, it will show aspiring Republican politicians that there’s a huge market for policies that actually benefit white middle class voters. It’ll only be a matter of time before you have more polished, experienced politicians running on the Trump playbook.
TEL AVIV – The boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement targeting Israel is nothing more than old fashioned anti-Semitism disguised as political activism, Michael Lucas, a gay pornographic film actor and director, declared in a radio interview on Sunday.
Lucas is founder and CEO of Lucas Entertainment, New York’s largest gay adult film company and one of the biggest gay porn production companies in the world.
The BDS movement is “all about political correctness but basically it’s all about good old Jew hatred,” he said.
“It’s all about anti-Semitism. They hate Jews. Now we have a new word: Israel. It’s really considered after the Holocaust to be very inappropriate and low class to say, ‘We hate Jews.’ So they say, ‘You know, we disagree with the Zionist policies. Israel get out from the West Bank. Get out from Palestine.’ Why the hell and how dare the world tell Israel that Jews should leave Palestine, that Jews should leave the West Bank.”
Lucas made the comments on “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio,” the popular Sunday night talk-radio program broadcast on New York’s AM 970 The Answer and Philadelphia’s NewsTalk 990 AM. Klein doubles as Breitbart’s Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter.
Lucas was speaking after over 200 rowdy BDS protesters stormed the gay rights Creating Change Conference at the Chicago Hilton on Friday and used intimidation tactics to cancel an event hosted by A Wider Bridge, an organization that advocates the relationship between the “LGBTQ communities of North America and Israel.”
The National LGBTQ Task Force, which organized the conference, had weeks earlier cancelled the Wider Bridge reception but reinstated it last week after pressure from major Jewish organizations, including the Anti-Defamation League.
Israel is “losing the fight in the U.S.,” Lucas warned. “Those anti-Israeli groups are successfully convincing Democrats and liberals that Palestinians are the underdogs. And people usually don’t think for themselves.”
Lucas has been a staunch supporter of the Jewish state, writing opinion pieces targeting Israel’s critics in such publications as The Advocate, Huffington Post and Pink News. He also released a gay porn film titled “Men of Israel,” which was reportedly the first such film shot on location in Israel and using an all Israeli and all Jewish cast. Lucas called the film “a bold move to promote Israeli culture and tourism.”
Writing in Out Magazine last week, Lucas slammed the anti-Israel protesters at Friday’s LGBTQ event in Chicago as “thugs” who were “not interested in dialogue. They comprised an enraged gang filled with Jew-hatred, bent on intimidating and silencing LGBT Jews who have any connection to the state of Israel.”
His Israel advocacy has not been without consequence, however. Lucas says anti-Israel protesters follow him to speeches at universities and stalk him at public events in the porn industry.
“In the gay world I have made lots of people hate me,” he told Klein. “There were a lot of calls from the gay community overall to boycott my films. That was funny. Good luck.”
Lucas slammed his critics as uneducated, explaining they are misusing the word “racism.”
He stated:
People accuse you of racism because you speak for Israel. That’s not actually racism. Palestinians and Muslims are not a race. Such a terrible use of the English language. Speaking for Israel does not make you more popular. It gives you accusations of racism. Of Islamophobia – whatever that means. And you become politically incorrect. It’s all about political correctness but basically it’ all about good old Jew hatred. It’s all about anti-Semitism.
* A poll conducted a couple of days ago and an entrance poll at the caucases today showed Trump leading, but he’s losing the actual caucus vote. It’s hard to admit being for Trump in public. The other primaries will be decided by secret ballot, where Trump’s opponents won’t have this advantage.
* Rubio wants to increase neocon wars, flood the U.S. with cheap labor (illegals), and support TPP. Ted Cruz wants to quintuple H1B visa workers, support TPP, et al. I say fuck conservative middle America. They had one last chance with a non-politician billionaire. But they’re too stupid to know what’s good for them. I’m a 2%-er living comfortably in Massachusetts. Fuck those evangelical losers with low IQs in flyover country and I’m done caring about them.
* What’s great about those numbers is how much room for growth there is in there for Cruz vs. Rubio. Forced to choose between the two is a Trump/Paul/Carson voter more likely to choose Rubio or Cruz?
68.4% of the vote appears to be going to the Fuck RINOs Party. That’s the number we see over and over again nationwide – polls showing ~70% of GOP voters wanting anyone but an establishment candidate. Win or lose in November this revolt isn’t dying anytime soon.
* I think the very fact that Trump firmly staked a claim on what was believed to be a politically untenable position – building a wall and expelling illegal immigrants, confirms that he is sincere in this position and will attempt to follow through. If he didn’t want to do it, why in the world would he campaign on that platform when the conventional wisdom was that it was stance held only by racist Nazi sympathizers? I think Trump was truly convinced by Coulter’s book.
I also think it’s safe to believe in his trade protectionist positions. He is on the record advocating a more pro-America stance on trade deals since the 80′s.
I have no idea if he can be expected to follow through on his rhetoric with respect to guns or abortion, but I don’t really care much. The 2nd Amendment will still protect our guns rights, and nobody has done anything about abortion for 40 years so there’s no reason that Trump will do anything different.
* Iowa has picked the correct GOP candidate 3 of the last 7 contested races so all the losers have something to cling to tonight. Cruz won by throwing bibles around and that means he has zero chance in New Hampshire. But, Rubio will be the darling of the Conservative Industrial Complex now so my guess is they drag him over the line in New Hampshire.
The funny thing to me is we’re going to get Clinton – Lazio 2.0 in the general with Bootsie playing the role of Rick Lazio. If I did not know better, I’d think these things are scripted.
* I’m disappointed, but I don’t think Trump sitting out the debate had anything to do with it. Certainly, there weren’t a lot of Trump voters going to Rubio.
What appears to have happened is that turnout was high, and a lot of that turnout went to Rubio or Cruz, both of whom were energized by fear that Trump might win.
However, Trump had to have done pretty well to keep 24% of the vote, which means he wasn’t asleep at the wheel.
Immigration isn’t a big deal in Iowa, and in fact, shockingly, many learned that the cities are “sanctuary cities”, meaning they’d lose funding under Trump or Cruz.
Trump had a good speech. That shows he’s in it to win it. Let’s hope he comes out hard for immigration restriction. And if there are too many anti-restrictionists out there, then it’s justs not the time.
* Holy shit, look at Bill Clinton. He’s a f–king vegetable. It looks like he’s actually dead and embalmed, and they’re just jerking his body around with strings.
* 8 out of 10 Trump supporters don’t have college degrees and many of them have never voted before. You need an army of volunteers knocking on doors and dragging these people to the polls. Otherwise, they’ll be sitting at home watching TV. Trump should seriously consider investing more in a serious ground game. Being a New Yorker, a celebrity, a TV star, and having enjoyed all the media coverage and favorable poll numbers for the past 6 months, Trump probably underestimates the basic mechanics and nitty gritty of electoral politics.
* Cruz made a good case before the election that, if you want anyone other than Trump to win, you should vote for him in Iowa, because a) he had the best chance of beating Trump there and, b) If Trump won Iowa, the race would be over.
* It would seem that many Iowa Republicans saw Cruz – who is also described (wrongly, to my sense of matters) as an “outsider” – as the safer “outsider” choice to Mr. Trump who is an actual outsider. Cruz’s Iowa ground game was also far more muscular than Mr. Trump’s nonexistent one. All that considered, in national terms I might lean toward reading their numbers as an actual tie.
The real shock is Rubio’s strong third-place numbers. How a Midwestern Republican could vote for Rubio is beyond my power to comprehend. But then Iowa has had some twenty-to-thirty years of LaRazatino meat-processing & stoop labor immigrants whose Chamber of Commerce employers may be more than a little inclined to support a rat like Rubio.
Sanders’s numbers come as no shock at all. For the last two weeks Enemedia-Pravda have been giving Sanders a propaganda boost at the same time as they’ve been boosting Hilligula while also reporting on the latest State Department release of her cavalierly handled “special access programs” e-mails. If Sanders runs away from Hilligula in New Hampshire, look for Enemedia-Pravda to worship Sanders in exactly the same way they worshipped candidate Obama – and to promote Hilligula as Sanders’s top veep choice. To me the most depressing thing about Sanders is this: Sanders is purely the product of forty years of the radicals’ takeover of public edudoctrination of America’s children – including children of blue collar Americans who have been most grievously screwed by Sanders/SJW types.
* Suppose in order to win the nomination, Trump may have to simply remain competitive in the Bible Belt states, and win outright in such states Northeastern/Rust Belt/Upper Midwest/Pacific as NY; PA; New England as well as OH; MI; WI; IL; and also CA; NV; CO; out west. Could that be done?
Because if all the Bible Belt primaries want is for someone to read the Bible to them and not really discuss the issues, then son of a preacher has it pretty easy. Trump’s great ace in the hole or, “Trump” card may just be that he’s from the Northeast and perhaps could use that to his advantage in the West, where social issues/religious language isn’t as strongly appealing in a primary, particularly in CA. As the US’s biggest state ergo it must also carry the most delegates (even though most of the time the primary race is pretty much over by the time CA primary voters go to vote).
* There’s an earlier shot of the three family members on a stage with Bill in the middle. They are all holding hands, and it looks like he actually needs support to stand. He has fallen so far, so fast that it’s impossible not to notice.
It’s not just his physical state that alarmed me somewhat. Did you catch Hillary’s wild eyes in her victory speech? She looked ready to leap from the stage, jump in the cab of a long haul truck, and drive an all nighter to Oregon. Whatever she’s on, it’s the good stuff.
* Iowa was always one of Trump’s weakest states. Unfortunately the chance he might win it, as was indicated by the most recent polls, makes this feels like a loss rather than a solid start. Thankfully he is so far ahead in NH and SC I can’t see those results changing. Ultimately there has been little change in the delegate number he has won, one less than had he won. The result does explain why Cruz started attacking Rubio though.
* Veganism seems to have sapped Bill’s powers.
* Rubio is the new GOP mafia darling since Jebra is a dud. Could there be something nefarious going on? Check out where and by how many votes Rubio surprisingly came in a strong number ONE.
* Rubio’s showing stinks of fraud. None of the polls hinted at anything of the kind, and he’s not the sort of candidate who gets massive grassroots support that might be underrepresented in the polls (e.g. Ron Paul in 2012). And the voting software was provided by a major Rubio donor (Microsoft).
* Cruz doesn’t even have a path to win the nomination. He will get schlonged in any state without a heavy population of evangelicals. Your choices, if you’re supporting a Republican primary candidate, comes down to Trump or Rubio/Bush et al.
But I’d argue you’re wrong about Cruz’s general election electability.
He does very well with “very conservative” voters, hence the Iowa win. But he won’t carry swing states. Take a look at the Obama-Romney map and try to find 270 for Cruz. Its tough.
Trump can win Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, and he may even put New York and New Hampshire in play. He’s stronger in swing states mostly due to Trade and secular appeal.
* Cruz’s Swaggert performance was quite funny. Mike Savage said on his radio show that “For a moment there I thought Cruz was going to pull a snake out!”
* No surprises here. A lot at risk. The Establishment wins again … as it must to keep the system going. I wonder how much political chicanery went on behind the scenes. We not only have a rigged economy. We also have a rigged electoral system.
The Republicans don’t get it. Imagine running Romney as a candidate for President … someone from among the Wall Street M&A insiders who promises to increase jobs. [?] Imagine running Cruz as a candidate for President … someone whose wife is a principal at Goldman Sachs and who has taken political loans from Goldman Sachs in the past. [?] So obvious …! Why can’t Republicans camouflage their hand a bit better?
I can imagine a third party run that splits the vote. If Trump runs as an independent, Cruz is “toast”. If Sanders runs as an independent, Hillary is “toast”. If necessary, let’s hope both run as independents. Then, no one can credibly claim they were elected to the presidency with something like 25%-30% of the vote. Sometimes a stalemate is best so that the “winner” cannot press the illusion of empowerment.
* The truth is that the liberal media-driven campaign has won again. They made massive and concerted effort to paint Trump a second coming of Hitler. And it worked – huge caucus turnout meant that people in Iowa went to caucus in droves with one main goal: stop Trump.
Face it: the tiny number of people who control 90% of our media had won almost every war they waged against core American population: offshoring, trade agreements, immigration, restrictions on freedom of speech, feminism, homosexuality, wars abroad. Guns are the only exception. (But wait, that win will come, too).
* We’ve just witnessed jeb’s campaign blow through a huge war chest for negligible results. Do the consultants working for him suffer any consequences in their careers? Do they have to go work for some small time incumbents in impregnable districts to rebuild credibility? Or can they just blame Jeb as a bad candidate and hop right back on high profile senate and presidential campaigns?
* “baby boomers are truly the worst generation”
I’m one of them and unfortunately there is too much truth in what you say. We erred in not telling our children that the whole inclusion thing was just a passing fad, conceived of and spoken in a fog of pot smoke. “Hey kids, you weren’t supposed to take it seriously.” After all, we didn’t. Although we marched with blacks during protests on campus, just look at who we chose for neighbors when we went to buy a house and start a family. Not a groid in sight.
But our daughters really believed that they were supposed to earn their liberal bonafides by dating black guys. And our sons listen to mono-tonal ghetto music on the radio to the exclusion of everything else. The music put out by modern white guys is tepid and thin, a distant echo of the muscular, melodic Rock of our, the baby-boomer generation. Modern white-guy music is a thin cry of anguish at being ignored by the wider culture in general and white girls in particular.
And our election of rootless Obama, an abandoned, mixed-race, foster child, adopted out to a family of an alien culture and then raised by his Grandparents was and is the perfect expression of our dazed and confused state. We attributed magical powers to him and bestowed honorifics upon ourselves for our open mindedness and magnanimity in helping the symbol of a prostrate race off the mat. But self congratulation is not an adequate map or basis for a plan for moving forwards.
So, we’ll just throw it all at you and leave it to your generation to figure out.
Good Luck!
* Iowans are not natural Trump supporters, even in the absence of the evangelical Christian and ethanol subsidies. Trump, to many Iowans, is an abrasive New York real estate/casino developer on his third trophy wife. His claim to fame is a television program in which he summarily fired a contestant a week. Moreover, his principal policy difference with the rest of the Republican field, immigration, is something that doesn’t yet resonate with most Iowans. Iowa has only limited immigration, so it’s still the smiling Mexican restaurant owner, and not the drug gang that Iowans think of when they think immigration.
So I’m surprised that Trump did as well as he did. It tells me that, even in Iowa, Donald Trump is tapping into an anxiety about where the country is headed. The dead heat between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders on the Democratic side, also tells me the same anxiety is being felt there as well.
From Breitbart: As first-in-the-nation Iowa voters prepare to caucus, open borders financier Mark Zuckerberg weighed in on the race through the president of his powerful immigration lobbying firm, FWD.us.
In a Monday CNBC interview, FWD.us President Todd Schulte made clear his view that Iowans should reject the candidacy of Donald Trump.
For the first time, a major party [is] putting forth people who are saying they are going to round up and deport 11.5 million people; they’re going to eliminate high-skilled immigration… And look, that may get you a win or second place in the Iowa caucuses. That is just a horrible and fatal position in a general election.
Shulte elaborated just a few hours ago with more attacks on the GOP frontrunner. Schulte tweeted: “Trump’s a hack, runs for [sic] policy specifics. Be it immigration, trade, foreign policy – answer is always he’s a strongman, others are weak.”
Schulte continued: “On immigration, he wandered into something awful that credentialed past apostasies as ok – rounding up every last undocumented immigrant.”
Zuckerberg’s FWD.us is also backed by tech giant Bill Gates. Gates has argued for the unlimited admission of foreign workers authorized to take American jobs.
FWD.us is also backed by other supporters of mass immigration, such as Google’s Eric Schmidt and former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer.
Todd Schulte was named president of the organization in September of last year after his predecessor, Joe Greene, was reportedly “forced” out after revealing his organization’s apparent view that foreign workers are better than Americans.
This is not the first time Zuckerberg’s lobbying firm has attacked the GOP frontrunner.
Ahead of September’s CNN GOP debate, Zuckerberg’s immigration firm released an attack ad targeting Donald Trump, in which the lobbying group lectured the Republican Party on the need to pass so-called “immigration reform,” by which FWD.us means mass amnesty combined with more foreign workers on visas for big businesses.
Similarly, following the release of Donald Trump’s immigration policy paper last summer, Schulte wrote a blog post on the FWD.us website in which he described Trump supporters as “hard-line anti-immigrant restrictionists” who “rant that immigrants are taking jobs away from ‘real’ Americans.”
The number of immigrants in the U.S. is currently at a record high of more than 42 million. Nearly 1 in 7 U.S. residents was born in a foreign country. In eight years time, the foreign born share of the U.S. population will reach an all-time high. If Silicon Valley’s lobbying efforts prove successful, that record will be shattered with even greater force and rapidity.
Posted inAmerica, Immigration|Comments Off on Mark Zuckerberg Warns Iowa Ahead of Vote to Reject Trump
"This guy knows all the gossip, the ins and outs, the lashon hara of the Orthodox world. He’s an [expert] in... all the inner workings of the Orthodox world." (Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff)
