Luke Ford | No sacred cows.

A few weeks after Senator Marco Rubio joined a bipartisan push for an immigration overhaul in 2013, he arrived alongside Senator Chuck Schumer at the executive dining room of News Corporation’s Manhattan headquarters for dinner.

Their mission was to persuade Rupert Murdoch, the owner of the media empire, and Roger Ailes, the chairman and chief executive of its Fox News division, to keep the network’s on-air personalities from savaging the legislation and give it a fighting chance at survival.

Mr. Murdoch, an advocate of immigration reform, and Mr. Ailes, his top lieutenant and the most powerful man in conservative television, agreed at the Jan. 17, 2013, meeting to give the senators some breathing room.

But the media executives, highly attuned to the intensifying anger in the Republican grass roots, warned that the senators also needed to make their case to Rush Limbaugh, the king of conservative talk radio, who held enormous sway with the party’s largely anti-immigrant base.

So the senators supporting the legislation turned to Mr. Rubio, the Florida Republican, to reach out to Mr. Limbaugh.

The dinner at News Corporation headquarters — which has not been previously reported — and the subsequent outreach to Mr. Limbaugh illustrate the degree to which Mr. Rubio served as the chief envoy to the conservative media for the group supporting the legislation. The bill would have provided a pathway to American citizenship for 11 million illegal immigrants along with measures to secure the borders and ensure that foreigners left the United States upon the expiration of their visas.

It is a history that Mr. Rubio is not eager to highlight as he takes on Donald J. Trump, his rival for the Republican presidential nomination, who has made his vow to crack down on illegal immigration a centerpiece of his campaign.

Those discussions of just a few years ago now seem of a distant era, when, after the re-election of President Obama, momentum was building to overhaul the nation’s immigration system.

The senators embarked on a tour of editorial boards and newsrooms, and Mr. Rubio was even featured as the “Republican savior” on the cover of Time magazine for his efforts to change immigration laws. He already was being mentioned as a 2016 presidential contender.

Now Mr. Trump has become the Republican leader in national polls by picking fights with Mr. Ailes and offending the Latino voters whom Mr. Rubio had hoped to bring into the Republican fold. And while Mr. Rubio ultimately abandoned the bipartisan legislation in the face of growing grass-roots backlash and the collapse of the conservative media truce, he, and to a certain degree Fox News, are still paying for that dinner.

Fox’s ratings remain strong, but its standing among Republican viewers, influenced by Mr. Trump’s offensive, has dropped to a three-year low, according to YouGov BrandIndex. And Mr. Rubio’s opponents, for whom Mr. Schumer, a Democrat from New York, has become the ultimate villain, continue to depict the Florida Republican as a duplicitous establishment insider.

“If you look at the ‘Gang of Eight,’ one individual on this stage broke his promise to the men and women who elected him and wrote the amnesty bill,” Senator Ted Cruz said of Mr. Rubio during Thursday’s Republican debate. And as Mr. Rubio defended himself, Mr. Trump’s campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, posted “MARCO ‘AMNESTY’ RUBIO” on Twitter.

The so-called Gang of Eight was four Democrats and four Republicans, including Mr. Rubio, who drafted an immigration bill in 2013. It passed the Senate but was stymied by conservative opposition in the House.

Details of the dinner, and a previous one in 2011, were provided to The New York Times by an attendee of one of the meetings and two people with knowledge of what was discussed at both get-togethers.

None of the attendees agreed to be identified for this article because the conversations were supposed to be confidential.

But on Monday, Mr. Limbaugh shed light on his interactions with the senators when he told a caller frustrated with his criticism of Mr. Rubio that the immigration position the senator had advocated “comes right out of the Gang of Eight bill.”

Mr. Limbaugh added, “I’ve had it explained to me by no less than Senator Schumer.”

Mr. Schumer declined to comment for this article. But before Mr. Obama’s re-election and soon afterward, he could hardly stop talking with conservative senators and media power brokers about the chance to pass comprehensive immigration legislation.

As early as March 9, 2011, Mr. Schumer joined Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and another eventual member of the Gang of Eight, at the Palm restaurant in Manhattan, where they made their case to Mr. Murdoch, Mr. Ailes and Mr. Limbaugh in a private room. The senators argued how damaging the word “amnesty” was to their efforts, and walked Mr. Limbaugh through their vision for an immigration overhaul.

The senators were especially eager to try to neutralize conservative media, which proved lethal to a big push for immigration changes in 2007. A study by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism showed that conservative news shows had devoted about a quarter of their time to immigration.

In late 2012, after Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee, lost the presidential election in part because of his dismal performance with Latino voters, Mr. Rubio joined the fight. On one Sunday alone in April 2013, he made an appearance on seven talk shows to advocate the immigration overhaul, including on “Fox News Sunday.”

Mr. Rubio also reached out to other conservative power brokers, including the radio hosts Mark Levin and Laura Ingraham, telling them that the legislation did not amount to amnesty. The Fox anchors Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly became more supportive.

At the time, The Washington Post reported that Mr. Rubio’s advisers were monitoring to the minute how much time the hosts devoted to immigration, and that “they are heartened that the volume is much diminished.”

Mr. Rubio publicly and privately worked to assuage the fears of Mr. Limbaugh, who on air called him a “thoroughbred conservative” and assured one wary listener that “Marco Rubio is not out to hurt this country or change it the way the liberals are.”

On Jan. 29, 2013, the same day Mr. Obama highlighted immigration in Las Vegas, Mr. Limbaugh had Mr. Rubio on as a guest to talk about immigration and called him “admirable and noteworthy” during a warm conversation about the bipartisan immigration plan.

“I know for you border security is the first and last — if that doesn’t happen, none of the rest does, right?” Mr. Limbaugh lobbed.

“Well, not just that,” swung Mr. Rubio. “That alone is not enough.”

The conversation concluded with Mr. Rubio saying: “Thank you for the opportunity, Rush. I appreciate it.”

“You bet,” Mr. Limbaugh said.

COMMENTS TO STEVE SAILER:

* I really have to wonder why we’re seeing this news from three years ago on the NYT now, in what might be the most important (i.e., maybe the last, for all practical purposes) weekend of Rubio’s campaign. Honest journalistic integrity, to show Republican voters the man they might be electing? Or a troll, to ensure the nomination of Trump (whom I assume most NYT reporters would assume is unelectable)?

* This piece quotes the NY Times as saying “The bill would have provided a pathway to American citizenship for 11 million illegal immigrants along with measures to secure the borders and ensure that foreigners left the United States upon the expiration of their visas.”
This is absolutely false. The Rubio Schumer bill had nothing binding about enforcement. It called for the Homeland Security Secretary to come up with a “plan.” If after a few years DHS did not produce a plan a “commission” of border state governors would be formed to produce a “plan.” In the meantime the amnesty would go through.
When many Republican legislators complained about the absolute lack of enforcement in the Rubio Schumer bill, Schumer replied that any attempt to write enforcement into the law was a “deal killer.”
Every attempt to put amendments mandating enforcement was defeated in the Senate.

* For business owners, this [support of mass immigration] is based on a realistic view of their class interests. Namely, higher ROI thanks to lower-paid and more-tractable employees. For politicians, it’s the gusher of donations from the capitalists, and the intoxicating delusion that masses of pliable low-information amnestied mestizos will vote the straight Elephant ticket. And for the consultant class, the Willie Sutton explanation suffices.

* Rush Limbaugh is worth over $400 million (double Romney’s net worth). He made a lot of money off the class of Americans who will be further hurt by the increasing illegal immigration and third-worldization of this country. But I guess if they just keep hammering on Reagan, the Constitution, conservative principles, rugged individualism, et al., it will simply foster a cognitive dissonance between the globalism preached and pushed by mainstream conservatism and the America they knew and love vanishing in front of their eyes.

* If Rubio coordinated with media to push the Gang of 8 bill, then I wouldn’t be surprised if the powers that be are pushing this story to finally sink Rubio, get the establishment cucks all in a panic, and then have Romney swoop in to save the day and everyone, sighing with relief, will rush to him as the savior. It looks better for Romney to come in as a savior rather than just another guy who is now competing with Rubio for the mainstream lane. Savior has more drama than being another “also ran.”

Everyone had their shot and they couldn’t close the deal. What is going to create a surge for Rubio or even Cruz? Romney would be the dramatic dues ex machina for the panicking diehards and his entry would capture a number of news cycles. That’s how depleted the Republican presidential bench is – Romney lost Super Tuesday in 2008, lost the election in 2012, but is now seen as the savior of the party in 2016. Keep repeating what fails but hope that this time it will work.

Why didn’t Romney endorse Rubio before Super Tuesday, a time when Rubio really needs a boost in order to catch Trump?

This NYT story can’t be news to the press, they’ve had to have known for a long time. Maybe they were holding it back to release it against Rubio at a critical time in order to help Hilary but now seeing that Rubio is floundering maybe it was a use it or lose it decision point.

I still like my Romney conspiracy better. That would give Trump a fresh target to wail against. That would be fun.

* Rush almost single handedly defeated the amnesty bill that Bush tried to cram through in 2008. I remember the broadcast vividly. He was the one who notified the rank and file that the bill was effectively amnesty. The Establishment eventually relented after a thousands of phone calls from Rush-inspired voters.

I haven’t listened to Rush very much in the last few years and it may indeed be true that he was MIA in the fight against amnesty in 2013, but I’d like to hear his side before judging him. He has earned that.

* The GOP establishment only cares about free trade, business opportunities for the donors, tax cuts for the rich, not making the rich pay for anything, maintaining jobs for conservatism, inc. types, and unconditionally supporting Israel. In that light, it’s not hard to determine their calculus: demographic changes are making it harder for conservatism, inc. to win elections; therefore, throw working class whites (people they don’t care about or advocate for) under a bus and embrace Hispanics in a desperate attempt to maintain the status quo for the establishment – candidates that support tax cuts for the rich AND can still win elections without abandoning establishment priorities. Seems bizarre, but only to those looking inside.

Posted in America, Conservatives, Journalism, Politics | Comments Off

NYT: The Faces Of American Power Are Mostly White

Posted on February 27, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* What percentage of the NYT list about who “controls” Hollywood and music are of Jewish origin?

If people shared that NYT article and pointed out that 40%-80 percent of those industries were controlled by a group that comprises 2% of the population, the NYT would think twice about running another “old white men” *cough cough* article.

* More tedious anti-White stuff, by conspicuous status signalers on how well-off they are, they don’t have to worry about a tidal wave of the Third World coming in.

What this signals to the ordinary White man is that the door is closing, forever, to any ambition they might have to even a middle class life. Its like a Trump election ad, given that an anti-White jihad will get up every White person’s back that is not extremely secure, meaning Hollywood big shots who made their pile and a few other corporate types.

Lets be honest about what this really is — slavery justification shaming. Most of the “prosperity” since the 1970s consists of semi-slave labor of illegal aliens working dangerous jobs with low pay and making the labor costs of elites and those who aspire to be elite but remain stuck in the chattering classes just dirt cheap.

All those “fabulous” ethnic restaurants? Or hipster trendy ones? Built on slave illegal labor. Same with the kitchen and bath remodels, the coke supplied to people like Matty Yglesias, who thought Evelyn Waugh was a woman, and the hookers supplied to the various media/corporate types. [The Secret Service penchant for Latina hookers is likely something just picked up by the examples of the people they protect and serve under — in other words Washington’s upper management.]

* I’m very concerned that someone is going to take these graphics and highlight the Jewish Americans among them and then post it on Twitter. And this will give the very unfair impression that the horrible trope that Jews have power in America is actually true.

* The key strategy of Cultural Marxism is to enlist sexual minorities as vanguards of the “revolution” AKA “What is good for Jews?”.

LGBTers may make up 2-5% of the population but they make up 30-40% of the NYT editorial board and an even higher percentage of its non Jewish membership.

The “intersectionality” of non-white and/or LGBT and/or Jewish accounts for much of the ferocity of the “Anti-White” hatred in the Cultural Marxist Media.

This extends to the Neoconservative movement as well where there is an active enlistment of various stooges who are closet cases, like Lindsey Graham, Rubio, Richard Lugar????….

The question remains that while Rubio is obviously gayer than a 3 dollar bill and therefore a blackmailed Neocon lackey, what really qualifies Ted Cruz as a true minority and a “friend” to Jews???

Ted Cruz true “minority status” is that he is an ultra fringe Christian Dispensationalist/Zionist who believes that Israel is entitle to lands as far north and east as the Euphrates and west to the Nile.

The problem with Trump and his supporters are that they are overwhelmingly cisgendered Christian whites who are not Dispensationalists.

* The power in Challahwood is “mostly white”?

Oy vey, I’m cancelling my subs to two dozen Jewish newspapers and magazines that have assured me otherwise all these years!

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/dec/19/opinion/oe-stein19

http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/193450/run-this-town

See the piece on the Thalberg Award at the bottom of the second piece. Oscar? Who cares? The real winners get an Irving.

* How terrifying that the founding demographic of a country be so prominent in the country’s political leadership and institutions. More hand wringing is required to fix this problem. I bet the staff who write for the NYT are a near representation of the USA as a whole, after all I’m sure they wouldn’t want to be called out on their hypocrisy.

* Just another complaint that Blacks don’t pull their weight in American society. It is rather repetitive, don’t you find?

* It’s obviously stupid to say that Menendez, Rubio and (especially) Cruz aren’t white, but there would be some logic in it if one was engaging in some sort of pro-white advocacy. For instance, a radical white supremacist who couldn’t stand seeing a single nonwhite in the Senate might say “look, there are six nonwhites in the Senate! This is outrageous!” As long as no one challenged the premise that Menendez, Cruz and Rubio aren’t white and the premise that having more than three nonwhites in the Senate is bad, the white supremacist would have a very solid case.

What I really don’t understand is why these SJWs cry about too many white people in power (or as Oscar nominations) while simultaneously counting white people as non-white. Here we see this with Cruz, Menendez and Rubio and I’ve also seen it done with white Mexicans counted as non-white in an article about how the #OscarsSoWhite. I mean obviously SJWs are stupid but one would think that, at least at the purportedly elite level of the NYT, they could find SJWs that have enough sense to not sabotage their very own arguments. I guess there’s not a single SJW with a triple digit IQ.

Posted in America, Jews | Comments Off

American Jewry’s Disgraceful Hypocrisy

Posted on February 27, 2016 by Luke Ford

Uri S. Segelman writes: Of course Israel is the Jewish State, and affirming such may be among the least controversial things one could possibly say to a group of American Jews. [And when I say “Jews,” I mean people affiliated, to some degree, with the faith, even if they are not Orthodox.] To these people, Israel being the Jewish State is simply taken for granted. So if one told this same group that the United States ought to support Israel, the Jewish State, and recognize her as such, he would be as equally uncontroversial.

Why is it then that when I raise my voice in support of nationalism and self-determination for the peoples of Europe, I am met with skepticism, if not downright contempt? Why is it that when I praise the nationalist parties of Europe (many of whom are actually Zionistic), I am questioned with unease?

It appears to me that the same people who so vehemently call for Israel to be Jewish lack that same vigor when calling for France to be French, Germany to be German, or Sweden to be Swedish. Indeed, a lack of vigor would actually be satisfactory. In fact, it’s not even that: those same Zionists, by and large, fight against the nationalist sentiments in Europe. The establishment Jewish groups in the US, all of whom lock arms for Israel and lobby the American government to categorically support her at every turn, are the same groups that consistently call for open borders in Europe, increased immigration from the Middle East, a full-out embracing of multiculturalism, a weakened national culture, and a diminished Church. They are the same groups that slander and defame leaders like Le Pen in France and Wilders in the Netherlands. They are the same groups that push for the death of Europe and her people.

Quite plainly, any Jew in the US who calls for American support for the Jewish state but condemns the nationalists in Europe is a hypocrite. He is a hypocrite for the very simple reason that he wants national self-determination for a people in one part of the world but not for another in a different part of the world. He is a hypocrite because he wants his country, the US, to protect the nationalist and ethno-centric aspirations of Israel, his homeland, but not those of Europe.

But it’s even more nuanced than this. The peculiar position of these Jews is not so much in their exclusive nationalist desires for one state. It is in their exclusive denial of such nationalist rights to the peoples of Europe. For some strange reason, there is a hate for the European race, and that hate translates into a desire for its ultimate destruction. After all, what better way to crumble Europe than to replace its volk? As it is said, “demography is destiny.” Every other country on the planet, especially including the Jewish State of Israel, is entitled to national self-determination—to an ethnic nation-state. Why must Europe be left out?

The hypocrisy is glaring, and all those who praise Netanyahu and scorn Le Pen are guilty.

One common response, however, is that the nationalist Right in Europe is “anti-Semitic.” (Of course, this term has lost so much of its substance. As Joseph Sobran, an accused anti-Semite, wrote: “an anti-Semite used to mean a man who hated Jews. Now it means a man who is hated by Jews.”). First off, the Jew should not be all that confused when the European he’s trying to destroy distrusts him. But secondly, the hard truth is that Europe is becoming less safe for Jews, regardless of who is in charge. And in fact, the perpetrators of day-to-day anti-Semitic attacks are Muslims. Leftist rule has only ensured a growth in the Muslim population in Europe, which, as we have seen when Israel conducts operations against the Palestinians, spells doom for Europe’s Jews. The Muslims in Europe are the ones who have brought back the pogroms of old. At least the Right has pledged to stem immigration from the Middle East.

In short, I do not think the “who’s better for the Jews” question is relevant here. The short answer is: probably no one. [However, the majority of the far-Right parties in Europe have rooted out all traces of Nazism and anti-Semitism, and are often vigorously pro-Israel, unlike their Leftist counterparts who criticism Israel at every turn].

…The displacement of a people is no small exploit, especially a people that has played such a critical role in human history in the creation of Western civilization. With Europeans’ dwindling birthrates, the necessity to preserve the national identity of the European peoples becomes ever more important. Jews, whose homeland is the world’s shining example of the ethno-nation state, should be at the forefront of this fight. Jews, who understand better than most people the importance of continuation and preservation, should be at the forefront of the fight for Europe. It is selfish to stay out, and hypocritical to counter.

Unfortunately, the Jews seem to be on the wrong side. Again.

Posted in America, Israel, Jews, Nationalism | Comments Off

The Migrants of Calais

Posted on February 27, 2016 by Luke Ford

Christopher Caldwell writes:

In January, INSEE, France’s national demographics bureau, announced that the life expectancy of French people of both sexes had fallen for the first time since World War II…

Even if Paris does not need a middle class, it desperately needs a lower class. Those symbolic analysts require people to chop their sushi, mix their cocktails, dust their apartments, and push their children’s strollers and their parents’ wheelchairs. This means immigrants — and increasingly it means only immigrants. Because who would you rather have washing your bathtub for 12 euros an hour? A laid-off factory worker who used to get 30 euros an hour and seven weeks’ vacation and who is now looking daggers at you? Or a polite woman from Mali, for whom the smell of Formula 409 is the smell of liberation? The banlieues are an integrated part of the world economy. There is now an immigrant-descended petite bourgeoisie. Naturally, as rich people monopolize the private housing stock, poor newcomers monopolize the welfare housing. Far from being a drain on rich people’s taxes, these projects provide subsidized housing for their servants. Big problems will eventually come, because there is no next rung on the social ladder onto which the migrants’ children can step. But this is not an acute problem just yet. For now, worrying about the banlieues is something of a red herring.

Posted in France | Comments Off

Steve Sailer Contest: Name the Proposed Anti-Trump 3rd Party Being Considered by GOP Donors

Posted on February 27, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* It would be a great idea to come up with some prospective names for a 3rd party representing these folks. The AEI party? The Cuba Libre party? The WSJ Editorial Page Party? The Vail Party? Likud-USA? The Act of Love Party? The 4 More Wars Party?

* Or maybe The We Hate You Party …

National Association for the Advancement of Conquistador People …

National Association for the Advancement of Billionaire People …

* Foam Party?

Inner Party?

Metrosexual-Boot-Stomping-on-an-American-Face-Forever Party?

* Goy Division

* Fair Play for Cuba Committee

* This just shows how bad the mainstream Republicans are. Of course, they still brag about helping to get the Civil Rights Act passed.

They want to destroy the US just like the Dems. Oh, but they’ll keep taxes down on the rich. That’s something I should really care about, not.

* People’s Front of Judea
The Whining Wrath
Bourgeois Globalist League
The NeoConservative NeoLiberals
The Establishment Front
Cheap Labor League
Corporate Struggle

* The Donner Party (cannibalizing White America)

* Future Of American Millenials–The FOAM Party!

* The Whining Wrath is really good.

* Or the “Burn This Bitch Down Party”. That would be REALLY diverse!

* Maybe it should be like other shady groups and have no name at all? It can just be referred to as “our thing”, “our friends in Florida”, “some important people” or, like in Point Blank, “The Organization”.

* The Anti-Semite Silencing (ASS) party.

And we do not control the media!

* I spent 100 million and all I got was this guac bowl party.

* La Cosa Nueva

* This guy is going real-time analysis on the characteristics of pro and anti Trump voters.

The strongest correlation of Pro-Trump voters – percent of county living in poverty.
Next strongest, percent of county which is biracial. Followed by percent of county which is black, followed by percent of county which is Hispanic, followed by percent of county which is foreign born.

Hmm. Anyone notice a pattern developing?

Then the anti-Trump voters tend towards:

Percent of county with higher than HS grad.
Followed by percent of county which is white and non-Hispanic, followed closely by percent of county which is white alone, followed by a number of income metrics.

What jumps out to me is that exposure to diversity strengthens the appeal of Trump and isolation from diversity predicts people scratching their head and wondering why the Trump phenomenon is taking place.

* Likud, the American chapter.

Jewish Billionaires Party.

Neocon Party.

NeoLiberal Party.

Globalist Party.

The Chosen Party.

The Israel First Party.

The Judeo-American Empire Party.

The Zionist Party.

* Bernie Sanders is fighting a similar fight with the Democratic Party but their ‘Establishment’ has already won that battle. In spite of the fact that Liberals like to think of themselves as more open minded and tolerant than conservatives, Sanders campaign is entirely limited to taking money from the 1% (white people) and transferring it to the more vibrant among us. Discussing immigration, crime, education, labor, public infrastructure, or anything else outside of the lens of “diversity” is strictly verboten. Instead of a boot stomping on his face, BLM publicly humiliates and paper trains him like a bad puppy.

* It’s not minorities that are voting for Trump, it’s whites who are forced to live around a lot of minorities, that is, they get to experience the joy of diversity for real while the anti-Trump voters, more isolated from minorities, get to experience diversity as a dream-state, and so they idealize it.

* Perhaps the most important people in the world at that point would be the commanders of submarines with sea-launched ballistic missiles carrying nuclear warheads. Once at sea they are basically unfindable even by their own navies, and captains are in complete control of the information available to the crew. Imagine a captain willing to back a faction in a civil war with even one nuclear attack–and Ohio class submarines carry 24 missiles. (I am aware that it takes three people to launch a missile, but finding three like-minded people on a submarine might not be that difficult.) I know nuclear submarine crews are carefully screened, but I wonder how one screens for those kind of attitudes.

* The Republican party has a winner in Trump and yet they don’t want him? One might think they’d be overjoyed at having a hot property and yet here they are trying to undercut him. Seems strange but this exposes how the alleged two party system is just a rigged insider’s club. Don’t be surprised if they’d prefer Hilary becoming president to that of one from their own party.

* What will happen if Trump wins the nomination and wins the general? Will these hack Republicans admit they were wrong about everything and that Trump helped their party expand more than their policy papers admitted?

It is amazing how Rush Limbaugh is sounding a lot like Sailer when it comes to demographics and voting patterns–he laid out how the Republicans are retarded for thinking hispanics will ever vote for Republicans in a big way. Even Krugman is surprised by the Republican establishment don’t understand that voters don’t give a damn about cutting Social Security and Medicare. With Trump’s campaign I’m seeing Sailer’s strategy to victory in play against the media, and against the “conservative media” that exists in Washington DC and New York.

* This presidential race is starting to sound like a Houellebecq novel. This is a two-party version of the political maneuvering that transpired in Submission. The Neo-Cons teaming up with the left to defeat the populist right.

* “Netanyahu personally attacked Trump’s immigration proposals.”

And that was after Trump made a TV spot for Israeli TV endorsing Netanyahu too. That’s some real loyalty there.

* Netanyahu was under pressure from Leftist and Arab MKs (links available on demand) to ban Trump from visiting. He didn’t want another headache or the risk that his coalition (which includes a number of lefty douches) would fall apart, nor did he want to get in further trouble with Europe (where Trump is almost universally loathed) so he issued a weaselly statement about how Israel is a democracy that respects all religions and his reception of Trump should not be treated as an endorsement of his policies. Of course this was a pathetic wimpy thing to do, and dumb as well, in retrospect, but that’s Netanyahu all over, an unprincipled man with no vision perennially thinking about how to ride out the next week.

* Can you name one pundit or hack ever admitting to being wrong on something? Punditry is the best job in America bar none. You never get fired for being wrong. You just show up. Performance doesn’t count.

* Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Davos

* You’ll Get Nothing And Like It Party
Marco Roboto Party
The Third Party
Nationalism for Me, Not for Thee Party
The Walls Are For Israel Party

Posted in America | Comments Off

Steve Sailer: Why Bernie’s Free Stuff Platform Won’t Carry South Carolina Blacks

Posted on February 27, 2016 by Luke Ford

Steve Sailer writes: In theory, Bernie Sanders’ platform of Free Stuff ought to appeal to black Democratic voters in South Carolina today. But in black politics, in both America and Africa, 19th Century European socialist logic doesn’t have much emotional appeal. It’s too abstract and impersonal.

Instead, black politics is mostly about the Big Man Gets Paid (and, in these enlightened times, the Big Woman Gets Paid.)

Hillary simply has a longer track record than Bernie of seeing that local Big Men and Big Women get their cut.

COMMENTS:

* Hillary has better name recognition. This is especially important with low-info voters. And most of the Black pols are for her. They want to be on the winning team, plus some may be paid by her campaign to get out the vote. I think I remember James Carville once bragging about bribing Black pastors. Would Bernie do that? Would he even reward his endorsers with jobs and the like if he somehow managed to win, or would he consider that sleazy?

* Also, truly poor people already get all kinds of free stuff. Bernie’s platform is for not-quite-successful white baristas who want enough free stuff to make them look upper middle class.

* Also, we already have socialism for blacks. Bernie just wants to extend the free handouts to whites. So, he isn’t really offering much new to blacks.

* The alternative theory is that poor blacks sell their votes. The sale is mediated through church or civic organizations.

Ed Rollins repeated claimed he could do this:

“We went into black churches and we basically said to ministers who had endorsed Florio, ‘Do you have a special project?’

Historical note, republican Whitman won the the race. Florio was the last governor of NJ to completely fund the state pension system.

* “The alternative theory is that poor blacks sell their votes. The sale is mediated through church or civic organizations.”

All urban democrats know this, but what gets me is that none of these black churches ever get their non-profit status revoked, whereas a white church that tried the same tactic would be under IRS scrutiny very quickly.

In a particularly weird example of this, Seattle’s homosexual mayor Ed Murray won office by buying off Somali imams who then publicly reminded him of this when he tried to shut down their hookah parlors. Naturally, he backed down.

Posted in Blacks, Democrats | Comments Off

Steve Sailer: Trump and the Tangible

Posted on February 27, 2016 by Luke Ford

Steve Sailer writes: Marco Rubio’s latest tactic is to denounce Donald Trump as a “con man,” pointing especially to the risible Trump University venture.

But a problem with this line of assault is that the landscape is full of giant buildings with Trump’s name on them, such as the 98-story Trump International Hotel and Tower on a great site on the Chicago River, which the Trump Organization managed to open in the teeth of the financial crisis in 2009. (The Chicago project was a storyline on Trump’s reality show The Apprentice.)

Voters tend to be impressed by the construction of tangible things, especially huge ones patronized by famously rich and demanding celebrities. We’ve all managed, at minimum, home improvement projects and recognize that they require a lot of work and a lot of decision-making. Looking at this enormous luxury hotel / apartment building, it’s pretty obvious that a lot of sweating the details went into it.

A big part of Mitt Romney’s problems in 2012 was that his business career, while no doubt energetic and cognitively demanding, mostly involved intangible financial abstractions and what PR people like to call creative destruction (i.e., laying workers off). He had something to do with Staples, but other than that, the Romney people could never seem to offer much inspiring detail on what he’d been up to.

COMMENTS:

* I was just reading an article recently–can’t remember where–that sneered at Trump because he would have made more money if 30 years ago he’d just put it all in T-bills.

That largely ignores the many jobs that Trump provided. So basically, he “spent” his money on America. The guy likes deals, he’s always wanting more, and he often loses. But in the meantime, actual jobs–not consulting jobs, either–are available.

* Working middle class white people better identify with Trump’s fortune than Romney’s fortune, because Trump making his fortune involved the hiring of a lot of working middle class white people to build his big shiny things.

* These calculations ignore that he’s also spent a lot of money on living large. He could have lived in a hut and saved all his money, but he seems to have had a pretty good time spending it.

By the way, I think there’s a subconscious connection between Trump’s current popularity and how 9/11 made people feel solidarity with New Yorkers, with Trump as the rest of the country’s image of a New Yorker.

Post 9/11, Americans seem to be prouder of New York’s gaudiness than they were before. It helps explain some of the popularity of superhero movies, such as Spider-Man in 2002.

The basis of Trump’s success was betting big on New York in the late 1970s. His optimism succeeded because of all the wealth generated in intangible ways on Wall Street from 1982 onward. But Trump represents wealth that everybody can understand and identify with: building big beautiful buildings.

Everybody has managed a home improvement project or two, so we can understand that putting up huge buildings where the fit and finish are good enough for celebrities must be a difficult job.

* I think you underestimate how many middle class and poor people know that Trump is a serial exaggerator (to be kind) but they like him because they don’t think any better of the people he’s running against. My barber told me yesterday that he knows Trump is a liar but so are all of those politicians he’s running against and at least he’s not another career politician.

My barber also said he enjoyed Trump’s campaign because of the pro wrestling aspect of it – the smack talk, finger pointing, etc. & how Cruz, Rubio etc are having to embrace Trump’s tactics. He thought that it exposes the system for what it really is.

My white collar friends and co-workers just reference President Camacho from Idiocracy.

* The national focus on New York also got sharper when Jimmy Fallon took over at the Tonight Show after Jay Leno mercifully quit phoning it in from Burbank. The new show, although not to everyone’s taste, is much more attuned to a younger, more circumspect audience. Cause, effect, both, coincidence? In any event, people probably notice New York more now, and if they didn’t then Trump would speak louder. Many Americans really want to feel proud of their country, which the parties don’t acknowledge.

* The problem with people listing all the negatives of Trump is that they give us no alternatives. Yes, Trump has skeletons. Yes, Trump has done stuff we are not proud of. He is a bragger, womanizer, etc.

OK, fine. Now whom do you suggest we vote? Most people on this blog consider immigration to be the biggest single issue. What other candidate is going to tackle it? With Trump we get a slim chance of attacking this issue versus zero chance with the others.

If Pat Buchanan were running, I’d support him. Trump is basically running on Pat’s platform of immigration, trade and to some extent non-intervention.

So if you are going to slam Trump, and in some cases rightly so, please give us an alternative that we could support with a straight face. Not one that a neocon could support. Not one that a progressive could support. But one that the majority of this blog’s readers could support.

* The other thing is that we’ve all had our sense of outrage numbed by two things over the last few years:

1) The seemingly endless string of goofball publicity stunts by supposedly serious and respectable politicians. Obama is the undisputed master of this but there are so many imitators.

2) The literally endless amount of politically correct screeching and shaming we all get hit with anytime we interact with the media or web. I’d guess the average person is exposed to about five or six “boy who cried wolf” outrages of this sort every day. We’re all totally numb to it now. Only the teenage girls and gays can manage the level of moral hysteria demanded of us.

* I just appreciate Trump as a ‘wrecker’.

Another thing. The sleaze factor paradoxically protects him because there is no pretense of being respectable.

This is how Howard Stern got away with so much stuff. Since he was shameless, you couldn’t tag him with anything. He’d just laugh and say So What?

This is where Romney was vulnerable. He looked some perfect 1950s TV dad. So, the dirt on him made him look really dirty.

Trump, like Clinton, wears his dirt on his sleeve.

In another time, I would have been offended by Trump, and in some ways, still am.

But this nation is so far on morals, decency, sanity, and etc., who cares?

It’s just a matter of who can wreck the system better.

The system needs to go.

* Romney had a “fire in the belly” problem (the lack thereof). Jeb had a similar deficiency. Or was it “low energy”?

Trump seems quite robust in this area.

* Trump’s really running a meta-campaign on these levels. He’s mocking the PC-folks, baiting them, and then going so over the top outrageous they “literally can’t even”, making his fans roar and boosting him in the polls. And then he decided that if Obama could spend one night a week on the Daily Show and the The Tonight Show answering softball questions, he could do such nonsense better, since he’s got more TV experience as a reality star.

In other words, Trump’s trolling. Gloriously.

Posted in Donald Trump | Comments Off

Blacks Bury Bernie In South Carolina

Posted on February 27, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* Another in the long line of warnings: true ethnic diversity is worst for Jews.

* According to exit polls, Hillary won 84% of the black vote. Which isn’t surprising. Why would any black person vote for a 74 year old Jewish Guy from Vermont over Hillary Clinton (Mrs. First Black President)?

Blacks, Hispanics, and other minorities are going to vote for Hillary. Bernie never had a chance.

* It is probably good that the white millennials get to watch Bernie being taken out by the black vote. They need to learn early on where they stand in the Democrat’s coalition.

* Steve obviously remembers “Bridget loves Bernie” a TV sit-com about a Jewish boy and Catholic girl marriage in the 1970s.

IRC, it got canceled because Catholic and Jewish groups objected. Evidently, it was too radical for the 1970s. People were OK with a Black-white couple on The Jeffersons. but Jew/Gentile was just a bridge too far.

* Do blacks ever vote in non block-like fashion? I am always amazed at their disproportionate skewing in the general election. But in the democrat primary you’d think it might be closer to a 50-50 split. After all it pits two candidates who can’t bend over enough to get their vote. Yet even among two friendly democrat candidates they skew big time for one over the other.

* Some Jews may think they’re not white (Mike Wallace), and some Jews may think Jews and blacks have lots in common (Sarah Silverman), but to blacks Jews are the whitest whites of all. I think that’s part of what’s going on.

* “They supported her over Mr. Sanders by a 5-to-1 ratio, while he won the bulk of white voters, according to early exit polling.”

I love this outcome. I enjoy the prospect of white liberals coming to terms that there is no place for them in the Democratic Party.

* Odd that white nationalists and Jewish worldviews could be so similar and yet they are enemies. Narcissism of small differences indeed.

* Blacks can’t relate to white nerds at all. No respect for that.

All blacks want to grab the mic out of Bernie’s hand. That is their natural reaction to his lack of charisma.

Blacks can’t relate to Simon & Garfunkle. Not at all.

Highly charismatic white guys like Trump, Aaahnold Terminator, Stallone etc. may not get black votes but they get respect.

* Most American blacks dislike and distrust Jews. They’ll take a White Gentile over a Jew any day of the week.

Posted in Blacks, Democrats, Jews | Comments Off

Iowa students admonished for “Trump!” chants at hoops game

Posted on February 27, 2016 by Luke Ford

No wonder the old lefties are scared! Americans are discovering that they have group interests. Just like Jews think about what’s good for the Jews and blacks think about what is good for blacks, Americans are starting to think about what is good for them.

If American Jews want to get in the way of the resurgent American nationalism represented by Donald Trump, then a resurgent American nationalism could turn against Jews.

REPORT:

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — A group of Iowa high school students has been admonished for seemingly using Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s name as a racial insult during a boys’ basketball game.
The chant occurred Monday during a playoff game between Dallas Center-Grimes in West Des Moines, a largely white school, and Perry, a more diverse school north of Des Moines.
According to DCG activities director Steve Watson, roughly a dozen students out of the 120 or so in attendance chanted Trump’s name after their team lost to Perry.
Trump has drawn fire for saying that illegal immigration from Mexico brings rapists and drug dealers into the U.S., among other things.
Watson says the chant was uttered three or four times before administrators stopped the students. He declined to say whether the students were disciplined, citing privacy policies.

This made the Iowa news.

FOX 5 NY reported:

A group of Iowa high school students has been admonished for seemingly using Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s name as a racial insult during a boys’ basketball game.
The chant occurred Monday during a playoff game between Dallas Center-Grimes in West Des Moines, a largely white school, and Perry, a more diverse school north of Des Moines.
According to DCG activities director Steve Watson, roughly a dozen students out of the 120 or so in attendance chanted Trump’s name after their team lost to Perry.
Trump has drawn fire for saying that illegal immigration from Mexico brings rapists and drug dealers into the U.S., among other things.
Watson says the chant was uttered three or four times before administrators stopped the students. He declined to say whether the students were disciplined, citing privacy policies.

Posted in Donald Trump | Comments Off

Jewish Editor: Trump’s America is bad, very bad, for the Jews

Posted on February 27, 2016 by Luke Ford

Here is Andy’s self-description: “Andrew Silow-Carroll is the editor in chief and CEO of the New Jersey Jewish News, an award-winning weekly newspaper published in four editions and on the web. He was previously the managing editor of the Forward newspaper, and host of “With the Editors,” a public affairs roundtable broadcast on The Jewish Channel. A Mandel Jerusalem Fellow and former Spielberg Fellow at CLAL, Andrew has spoken, taught, moderated, or served as scholar-in-residence at the invitation of many of North America’s largest Jewish organizations.”

From the Times of Israel:

Trump’s America is bad, very bad, for the Jews
Two of my favorite television shows are about what I think it’s fair to call the “New America.” In Master of None, on Netflix, Indian-American comedian Aziz Ansari plays a struggling actor in a very real and diverse New York. His best friend is the son of Chinese immigrants. His girlfriend is white. And the plots have revolved, pointedly but never heavy-handedly, around the portrayal of minorities in mainstream media, and the struggles of immigrants chasing the American dream.
In Transparent, on Amazon, an alarmingly and hilariously dysfunctional Los Angeles family comes to terms with their father’s late-life realization that he (she) is transgender. Jeffrey Tambor plays Maura Pfefferman, the aging Jewish college professor who ditches a lonely suburban life for one in which gender and sexuality are fluid. Both of his daughters enter into same-sex relationships, and the question of whether they are gay, bi-, or adventurous seems to be left intentionally ambiguous. A son, Josh, is straight, promiscuous, and desperate for love.
Both shows represent a multicultural, urban America in which differences of all kinds are not just tolerated but celebrated. The immigrant characters in Master don’t need to prove themselves to the American “mainstream,” whatever that is, and don’t apologize for expecting America to live up to its promises. The LGBTQ characters in Transparent don’t suffer for their natures or their choices — at least when it comes to gender and sex (the Jewish characters mostly suffer from one another, but that’s an old story).
…”Mr. Trump’s popularity with white, working-class voters who are more likely than other Republicans to believe that whites are a supreme race and who long for the Confederacy may make him unpopular among leaders in his party. But it’s worth noting that he isn’t persuading voters to hold these beliefs. The beliefs were there — and have been for some time.”
And that, ultimately, is why I see Trump as a threat, not just in what his candidacy means for America as a whole, but what it means for us as Jews. His message — of distrusting the foreign, of rejecting the new, of abhorring pluralism — is directly opposed to our history in this country and our best interests as a minority. And it is empowering people who reject the very notion of racial and ethnic diversity.
It’s not immaterial that Transparent is immersed in a deeply Jewish environment. The Pfeffermans stock up for the Yom Kippur break-fast at Canter’s Deli, Josh falls in love and impregnates his mother’s rabbi, a daughter is haunted by a grandmother’s youth in Weimar Berlin. The sexual and gender journeys taken by its characters are on a continuum with the social and religious upheavals experienced by their forebears. Jews flourished in this country because we had the freedom to shed the burdens of the past and embrace a future of opportunity.

Posted in Donald Trump | Comments Off