Steve Sailer: Brush Up His Spanish: Julian Castro Preps to be Hillary’s Veep

Steve Sailer writes:

One interesting aspect is that the Castro twins, are as far as I can tell from searching out their long lost illegitimate father (a retired schoolteacher in San Antonio), are representative mestizo Mexican-Americans, which might (or might not) be important in a business where so many Hispanic celebrities are either almost all white or are significantly black, but are seldom notably mestizo.

But, weirdly, they look more sort of Filipino than Mexican.

Also, I’ve never seen an explanation of why Julian is the Anointed One rather than identical twin Joaquín. Perhaps a political consultant decided at some point that Joaquín’s name was too hard for Anglos to spell properly?

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* Out of all the crazy things going on in our politics today this is the probably the most offensive & pathetic thing to date.

This man has no experience & with Clinton’s age could very well be POTUS of the USA. How cynical do you have to be to potentially saddle the country with the most unqualified POTUS ever?

This is a microcosm of the inanity of the modern democrat party where identity trumps merit or the well being of the country. I only hope they go down in flames this November. This is absolutely appalling.

* I doubt if Hispanic voters are going to be voting for people who say things like, “Mee casa, soo casa” whether in a broad Midwestern accent or like an authentic Mehikano.

I watch a little bit of Univision frequently, just to aid my comprehension, and I note three things: (1) being able to come to the US, or stay, or return, is an important plot point. (2) Bilingualism is also an issue, even showing up in commercials. (3) Despite the carrying on about Mestizos, the vast majority of the people on this network (which presumably caters to all Hispanoamericanos) look like they just got off a plane from Madrid.

This tells me that Spanish speakers in the US are (1) anxious about their status, (2) want to assimilate but also keep track of their roots, (3) aspire to be Spaniards.

The other thing I would note is that, unlike American television, virtually everyone is straight and looking to hook up with someone of the opposite sex. In addition, the women are always dressed to kill, and act that way, too. Say what you like, but it is refreshing.

* I haven’t watched any telenovelas recently, but — at least up until a few years ago — the standard plot-line was:

episode-1) Boy meets girl
episodes 2 – 25) Boy gets distracted by various sultry temptresses with heaving bosoms while girl gets distracted by various ultra-macho caballeros
episode-26) Boy and girl get married by a priest (or maybe even by the Bishop) in a grand colonial church with a lot of white doves fluttering around.

Hard to criticize, really.

* Another observation on Latin American TV: It’s dumber than a box of rocks. Seriously. I would say that the typical show is pitched at an IQ level of about 94-95. Watching it makes one long for the Anglo middlebrow.

* Telenovelas are aimed at about 85 IQ.

A nice popular comedy show like Chespirito or La Hora Pico is aimed at 95.

Cantinflas used to be aimed at 105 IQ if you wanted to get most of the jokes. His old comedies are still great.

But most popular American TV isn’t exactly The Wire or Arrested Development either.

* You’re being charitably generous with your target audience IQ estimates. But the real 190 IQ stuff comes into play with don Fernando’s Sábado Gigante variety show on Univision. Don Fernando is an uber successful Jewish Chilean national TV personality who has parlayed a gift of babaso gab into a mega fortune entertaining 80 IQ Mesoamericans whilst playing grab-ass on stage with some of the hottest Hispanic hotties to be found anywhere.

* Castro has the gayface. He’s the Hispanic Lindsey Graham.

* Why wasn’t Villaretardo in the mix? Couldn’t climb down off a Telemundo reporter long enough to qualify?

* If Hillary picks Castro, you’ll know right away that she’s learned nothing and doesn’t have it anymore. Lots of Democratic advisors believe the same nonsense that Republicans who wanted Rubio did. If Hillary can’t outthink them, she’s going nowhere.

To win the election, Hillary just needs to seize a couple swing states. Even against Trump, her most dangerous challenge, she needs only one or two with her structural advantages in Electoral College. Pick Sen. Warner or Sen. Kaine and she has Virginia locked down. Against any Republican but Trump, that’s the election right there. Absolutely none of them can win without Virginia and those guys really know how to carry Virginia. (Both have been really popular governors before the Senate.)

Sure, they’re unfashionable old white men, but they’ll win the election for her.

Against Trump, Booker initially seems like a possible candidate, but I’m pretty sure you can’t motivate the Black vote in America by picking a gay Black man. Black voters haven’t yet read the memo about how Democrats must venerate the gays above all else.

Trump might put PA or even MI or WI or NJ into play to overcome VA. Still, locking down VA makes Trump’s job much harder.

* This silly article demonstrates that the growing disconnect between the various elites in this country and the mass of ordinary people has reached intimidatingly dangerous levels. Historically, this kind of divide has been a harbinger of revolution.

* Don’t go see the movie Brooklyn unless you want to get very sad about how nice things used to be. The America of that time was like the beautiful young Irish lass with sparkling eyes. In a short time America turned into an ugly, old, decrepit Red Foxx telling vulgar jokes.

* I wonder how many times Steve had to interrupt the writing of this piece to laugh out loud at the prospect of–Did I read the name correctly: Julian CASTRO??–as Lady MacRodham’s veep. Steve, I commend you for your professionalism in being able to purse your lips, grit your teeth, suppress a snicker and forge ahead.

* I know nothing of Cory Booker other than Wikipedia.
At 46, he never married, and dates Gayle King (61 year old), Oprah Winfrey’s best friend. Gayle King’s Wikipedia page does not mention Booker at all.

A few minutes ago, I showed Booker’s photo to three of my blue collar African-American male employees. They immediately said he was gay because of his soft face and lack of facial hair. Conversation went down hill from there.

* Half of me thinks this is an affected thing for her [Sarah Palin]. If you’ll recall, she didn’t speak in that manner when she was first picked from relative obscurity by McCain – most notably, her RNC speech sent a shiver down the Democrats’ spines (imagining they had spines). She’s sort of adopted the persona of the parodic, SNL version of herself. My theory is that the attacks against her (which, if you recall, were horrendous and media-led) made her cynical and limited any further political career advancement. At the same time, when people attacked her, they were also attacking the broad swath of America and specifically the women who identify with her. She realized that she could monetize this phenomenon and thereafter the cookier, malapropist Palin emerged precisely because it attracted the sneering condescension of the elites. It forms the basis of her ongoing popularity, which she has managed to extend well beyond the short time horizon other losing VP candidates have enjoyed (cf. Lieberman and Edwards, for example).

So, in effect she’s playing a character that the elites love to hate, thus keeping her in the spotlight, and her constituency (feeling, rightly, insulted themselves by proxy) come to her defense at which time she can sell them reality TV shows and books. She’s managed to become very wealthy by way of politics without even spending very much time in the perfunctory elected governmental jobs that usually come before the wealth. She lifehacked politics.

* You ever get the feeling the old progressive/liberal Wasp and Jewish elite finds the intellectual and political mediocrity of POC an unambiguous feature, despite such embarrassments as the Castros? Despite stepping right into our bizarre ethno-political set-up, they are inept at organizing and advocating for themselves. Their imagined place is an inferior one, in a one-party America run by, our elites imagine, their grandchildren.

Charles Manson thought he’d provoke a race war in the Sixties, and when blacks took over but found themselves unable to govern he and his hippies would emerge from the desert to run things for them. Basically the Democratic Party’s plan for the next twenty years. God help us.

Posted in America, Latino | Comments Off on Steve Sailer: Brush Up His Spanish: Julian Castro Preps to be Hillary’s Veep

The Female Orgasm

Chaim Amalek writes: “Some things are best left to women to deal with. It is no more a man’s business if a woman has an orgasm than it is a Somali’s business that Swedish American teenagers are learning torah in public school.”

Posted in Feminism | Comments Off on The Female Orgasm

Michael Bloomberg Contemplates Running For President

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* What does Michael Bloomberg imagine is his constituency outside of New York? Maybe: “People who want a billionaire president, but not a populist billionaire, the other kind, the kind with contempt for non-billionaires.”

* I’m sure all five of Bloomberg’s supporters are excited.

Maybe one of the Koch brothers or Haim Saban can run too. Heck, make it like the California recall election against Gray Davis. Everyone from a porn star (look alike “Mary Carey”) to Ahnuld to Gary Coleman ran.

* “Why shouldn’t I run for president?” muses Michael Bloomberg. “Michael Dukakis was 5′ 8″ too, and he ran for president.”

* I wonder how Trump would campaign against Bloomberg. Bloomberg is the one guy I can imagine Trump holding back against and being deferential towards in the campaign. Bloomberg is a lot richer and more powerful than Trump, and specifically in Trump’s own home base of NYC. If Trump really pissed him off, Bloomberg could make business a lot harder for Trump. Moreover, Trump’s family all went into the same business in NYC, so falling out of Bloomberg’s good graces would impact their prospects as well.

* Trump is more famous for the Apprentice, his books and media persona than for being a developer. There are lots of very wealthy, but little-known real estate developers. So if Trump wins, he’ll really become the second celebrity president after Reagan. There’ve been lots of other celebrity pols – Jesse Ventura, Arnold, Sonny Bono, etc. I have a question: was Reagan the first celebrity politician, meaning the first person to win an election who got famous in entertainment or sports?

* George Murphy was elected U.S. Senator from California two years before Reagan became governor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Murphy

Davy Crockett?

Playwright Richard Brinsley Sheridan (“The School for Scandal”) became an M.P. and famous orator in Parliament.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Brinsley_Sheridan

Clare Booth Luce went into the House in the 1940s after her play “The Women” had been a big hit on Broadway and on screen in 1939.

* Bloomberg is one of the most impressive entrepreneurs ever. He basically started an Internet company in the early ’80s, while raising so little outside capital that he still owns ~85% of it today. He was also a good mayor. But he’s more suited to running Singapore than America.

* I’ve seen Bloomberg a few times in NY, he’s more like 5’6”. Really small guy.

He won’t run. He’d split the anti-gun, open borders, and liberal elitist vote, which could quite literally turn the entire electoral map Red. We’re talking over 500 electoral votes could go Republican.

He’s smart and pragmatic enough to realize that after he does some polling, so he won’t run.

His lane is very narrow: the fiscally efficient liberal authoritarian. Can’t win the White House, but he was actually a decent mayor.

* “The other 49 states”

You can thank George W Bush for that. He was a truly transformative president! Before he came along, rural Southern Real ‘Muricans were the authentic voice of the nation. As late as 2004, after Kerry’s loss, Nick Kristof was telling Democrats that they need to nominate a Southerner, like John Edwards, to win.

W almost single-handedly destroyed the Real ‘Murica brand. Its macho posturing is now associated with “Bring It On” stupidity. Its talk of values reminds people of wide stances and meth-fueled orgies with gay hookers. Its claim to sober, down-to-earth competence reminds people of Great-Job-Brownie, the Iraq occupational authority and the Great Recession.

* Sounds to me like Bloomberg is trying desperately to save his legacy.

1. He only got elected on the basis of 9/11 .

The NY Mayoral election was in the fall of 2001. Rudy Giuliani was term-limited out, and Mark Green was leading the polls, despite Rudy stumping for Bloomberg. NY, after having their carrots-and-peas with Rudy, were done, and wanted the dessert with a good commie like Green.

But 9/11 happened, and Rudy went from “eh, we needed him” to National Hero. NYC paid homage and elected Rudy’s chosen successor just a scant time later.

2. Bloomberg’s policies didn’t rankle too many feathers because the money was flowing. He had an amazing ability to avoid scandal, despite some really bad slip ups. Out of town during the worst blizzard (at the time) on record and the city falls apart? Not a big deal! All your deputies from out of town and actually live and work in DC? Not a big deal! Slashing through term limits? Not a big deal!

Dude was immune because he knew the rules: keep the streets safe with Broken Windows and keep it all clean and paved with Wall Street money.

3. But then, Bloomy tried to step outside NYC with gun control and failed miserably. The NRA loves having his Mayors Against Guns around—they are the Washington Generals. They are a perfect example of insular urban left-wing blue-state thinking that doesn’t play in 90% of America. It must really kill Bloomy that he’s so rich and respected in NYC but outside of it he can’t just buy himself the gun laws he wants. The nerve of the hoi polloi having different opinions from him!

Please run Bloomy! I want to see a Trump landslide!

* Bloomberg consistently loses local elections across the nation despite greatly outspending his opponents. The colorado recall elections for two state senators or the recent state elections in Virginia are examples of how unpopular Bloomberg is. In colorado, bloomberg outspent the pro recall side by a seven to one ratio in two districts that had gone for obama the year before by roughly twenty points – and his candidate narrowly lost one race and got blown out by double digits in the other.

As said above, bloomberg could possibly deliver all but maybe four or five states to the GOP. If I was a republican, I would do my best to insult and anger bloomberg into losing his temper and running third party.

* I think we’re all aware that what’s really been ailing this nation these last 20 or 30 years has been insufficient p0litical attention to the needs of Wall Street billionaires.

* He was a decent mayor because he wisely continued the law and order policies regarding crime that were initiated by his predecessor, Rudy Guiliani. This after the fact “he was a good mayor” well yeah, and he also inherited all the goodwill post-9/11. Let’s not forget that his first term started in Jan. of ’02.

He happened to inherit a NY that had very low crime rates, mainly due to Rudy’s superb policies and the fact that the city had come back from the dark days of Denkins’ single term. All he had to do was not fix what wasn’t broke. And thankfully he had the good sense to do that.

But running for president? Why would he want to do that? For what? To confiscate guns? To ban soda nationally? To, to…..do what exactly? Sanders already supports most of what he wants to do from a domestic policy perspective so they basically would cancel each other out. Would be a devil of a time for libs nationally. “Which hard leftist quasi socialist candidate do you really want to vote for?” If only Ralph Nader could be persuaded to make a comeback and then they’d have the triple crown.

Unless privately behind the scenes, Bloomberg’s people are quietly reaching out to Clinton to persuade her to drop out, but why would she do that? She’s been waiting for nearly ten years and its finally her time, and her turn.

Lets see: Bloomberg = 74; Clinton =ca.70; Sanders=73. Yep, not for nothing are those Dems known as the party of the future.

Oh, maybe Ralph’s angling to be Sanders’ running mate. And Sanders-Nader would be the ideal leftist ticket.

PS: As Ralph will be 82yrs old on Feb. 27, that definitely would make Bernie the youngster with the bold, new, fresh ideas. Yep, a Sanders-Nader ticket could be just what the nation needs at this crucial time, right at the crossroads for deciding the direction for its future.

* How could Bloomberg possibly obtain inside information about anything? It’s not like he owns a vast network of communications devices that he rents out to important people.

* Trump is a long time economic nationalist.He was spouting off about China and free trade 20 years ago. I’ll bet his books might mention it. Against illegal immigration goes along with against awful trade deals.

* I suspect some grifting consultants have told him that in the event of a Trump or Cruz vs. Sanders match a moderate route opens. Except Trump isn’t that conservative and the other two would have deep sizable support of their own. The GOP vote would remain relatively intact while Dems would be more split.

Since the GOP controls the House & the most state legislatures around the country they’d pick the winner in event of no one picks 270.

There’s some conspiracy theory floating around that the House would actually pick Bloomberg in this scenario.

* Bloomberg will run if Trump and Sanders are the nominee. He can then go ‘moderate’ and pick up some votes. Since Trump is seen as far-right due to his ethnic views and Sanders as far-left due to his economic views, Bloomberg then becomes the reasonable candidate. He does seem more serious/boring/mainstream than Sanders and Trump in many ways. The 2nd amendment people are likely going for Trump anyway.

It’s not that Americans are hungering for blue-state billionaire presidents, it’s that a blue-state billionaire might seem a better pick than a self-described socialist with funny hair and, well, Trump. If you’re not boiling mad about immigration as many people here are, Trump doesn’t seem that presidential. I enjoy his poking political correctness–I’d love to see him get a late-night show– but what if we get into a spat with Putin or Xi Jinping and he flies off the handle?

BTW, this would give us a race between two Jews and a guy who let his daughter marry one.

As everyone here has said, he is basically just to the right of Hillary and essentially represents the interests of the elite class. So he won’t run if Hillary wins. And he’s smart enough to know that.

* Bloomberg has made it clear that his plan is to run if it appears neither Rubio nor Clinton will be nominated. There is little doubt, then, about the why: he wants to make sure there’s a Wall Street/Bankster/Cheap Labor Lobby candidate running.

He’s pro-abortion, pro-gun control, and pro-open borders. While his candidacy would quite likely hurt the Democrat more than the Republican I doubt that would factor into his calculations, since Sanders would almost certainly lose to Trump or Cruz anyway.

* I remember when he floated this idea last time and all his buddies in the media peddled soft articles in favor it. One editorial-posted-as-news said Bloomberg is “the kind of outsider Washington needs” I think it was Glen Greenwald who quipped “Yeah, a pro-Iraq war, Pro-Israel open borders billionaire from Wall street- just the sort “outsider” Washington needs”.

* “W” was a terrible president who did incalculable damage, but one thing I don’t blame him for was the Federal response to Hurricane Katrina. That was just a demonstration of how poorly government handles any emergency. The government response to tropical storm Sandy was no better, but the media chose not to highlight that.

Bush got savaged over Katrina so that the media could avoid talking about the appalling, anarchic behavior of blacks when the system breaks down for a few days. That topic must be avoided at all costs.

* The vote is usually about 50/50 Republican/Democrat. If Bloomberg can peel off about half of Dems it’s possible he could get enough Republican voters to make it a competitive race with Trump or Cruz. I don’t think there’s any scenario where a Bloomberg candidacy helps Sanders.

The non-establishment Republican candidates combined are currently polling around 70%. It’s pretty clear that a non-establishment candidate is what the GOP voters want. At best maybe 30% of them could be swayed to vote for Bloomberg, but after they see where Bloomberg stands on pretty much everything the best he can hope for is 20-25% of GOP voters, and I think that’s being very generous. So the national popular vote could go 37-37-25, with Bloomberg and the Republican tied. If that’s what the polls are showing a week before the election do Democrats abandon Bernie in droves? In that case you can sum up the race with two poll numbers: the % of Democrats who stick with Bernie vs. the % of Republicans who hate Cruz/Trump enough to vote for Bloomberg. I think at least 20-30% of Democrats would remain loyal Bernie voters no matter what, and it’s possible, but unlikely, that many Republicans would abandon Trump or Cruz.

The presidential election is really 51 separate races, though, and on a state by state level I don’t see how Bloomberg pulls it off.

* The media uses a lot of unflattering shots of Trump, and he does have kind of a rubbery face and is over-expressive in speeches. But no, he has loads of physical presence when he needs to turn on the gravitas.

* Haven’t you previously noted that we haven’t had many short presidents since James Madison (5′ 4″)? The most recent president as short as 5′ 8″ was William McKinley. According to Wikipedia, the average height of presidents in the last 100 years has been six feet.

* I can’t think of any town in American history other than NYC where its mayors think that their office automatically makes them a national figure. Chicago comes close, but that’s it. L.A. has cultural influence, but its political power has never appeared to me to be all that strong. It’s symbolic power seems to me to have been reflective of California’s as a whole during the postwar boom through the 1990′s, not really as an independent entity. I wonder if some of this may have had to do with what Steve has been pointing out: Southern Cal’s small govt, low regulation strategy turning out to be ineffective in the face of more interventionist government that actually keeps things in favor an a elite that has a progressive veneer.

NYC’s role in national politics may have been small in the early days of this country, but since the Civil War it has been tremendous.

Even with Portland and Seattle emerging as strong cultural centers, the reassertion of the East Coast over the West Coast is really remarkable.

Posted in America | Comments Off on Michael Bloomberg Contemplates Running For President

Is Trump Good For Israel?

A Jewish friend tells me: He is good for Israel, for sure. He’s just not good for neocons. The neocons don’t understand that because they don’t understand that they themselves are not good for Israel. They are not good for Israel because they are not willing to understand that the interests of the US are not the same as Israel. So they promote policy that helps neither country since the only way to ameliorate the difference in interests is to serve neither, but rather to create an umbrella interest of nonsense, like “spreading democracy” to the Arab world. Someone like Trump will do much, much better because he will be honest to himself about crafting policy, in terms of winners and losers.

It’s important that intelligent Orthodox Jews understand that pretending American and Israel interests are the same ends up harming Israel.

Posted in Israel | Comments Off on Is Trump Good For Israel?

Charles Murray’s “Human Accomplishment” Database Is Now Online

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* Much like this year’s Oscars, blacks have (almost entirely) boycotted Murray’s data set: only 5 entries out of 4000.

* Beethoven being tied with Mozart, and Bach a close third, does sound about right, but I do have difficulties believing Wagner was a close fourth at 80/100 (even if I do love his music).

* Remember the Saturday Night Live 1970s sketch, “What if Napoleon had had a B-52 at the battle of Waterloo?” At the end of that we were promised an exposition of the question, “What if God and Superman had a fight?”

Unfortunately, many of the reviews of Human Accomplishment tended to focus on the relative merit of the top 10 or 20 picks. Human Accomplishment introduced (to me at least) the idea of the Lottke Curve; that even high competence is rare, but the supreme competence of certain individuals (e.g., Jack Nicklaus in golf) borders on the superhuman.

* Right: these lists are useful for providing you with fairly unbiased lists for coming up with new hypotheses. For example, going down Murray’s composer list and reading their biographies on Wikipedia, I noticed that a large fraction of the top composers who weren’t the sons of musicians (Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, etc.) were slated by their families to study either law (Wagner, Stravinsky, etc.) or medicine (Berlioz etc.). It makes sense now that I think about it: a large fraction of top composers came from upper middle class backgrounds (Haydn was a rare exception); and down through the centuries, doctor and lawyer were the most common professions to study for. So, a common event in the lives of great composers when young men is the struggle with their families over whether or not they’d give up this music nonsense and buckle down to studying law / medicine.

(But Wagner really is a giant comparable in influence to Beethoven, Mozart, and Bach, although the earlier composers are less long-winded and thus less daunting these days.)

* The angels play Bach for God and Mozart for themselves.

* That’s clever, but about backwards theologically, if one is speaking of the God who experienced the pathos of the cross. Bach’s almost all Easter and very little Good Friday. Mozart’s Requiem is all about Mark 15:34.

* It’s just a matter of time before some commenter says it’s David Bowie.

* Chaim Amalek: “Angels playing Bach? Mozart? What have Bach and Mozart to do with Yiddishkeit? Nothing. For real Yidden, the sound of the cantor singing prayers that were given to Moshe Rabenu on Mt. Sinai is the sweetest music possible. Bach and Mozart are for goyim.”

* Murray concludes that the rate of individual achievement was highest in the period 1600-1900 and declined after 1900. It is couterintuitive but it is what he gets from his data.

* A 20-year old German student was killed after being pushed in front of a train in the Berlin underground. Killer is a 28-year old Iranian refugee who had already stabbed a man at age 14. Unfortunately he’s been in Germany a while so not a Merkeljugend, but if any good comes out of the tragedy it’s that more and more eyes are being opened.

Posted in Charles Murray | Comments Off on Charles Murray’s “Human Accomplishment” Database Is Now Online

Championship Sunday!

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* Don’t forget two important things about the point spread:

1) It’s not a prediction! Bookies don’t really care which team wins or by how much.

2) Ultimately, the wise guys in Vegas don’t set the point spread- bettors do.

A point spread that corresponds closely to the real final score of a game can be disastrous for bookies, and a point spread that’s absurdly off as a prediction can still make bookies tons of money.

The only purpose of a point spread is to ensure that a roughly equal amount of money is best on both teams. As long as that happens, the bookies are happy. If there’s just as much money bet on the Pats and the Broncos at kickoff time, then the odds makers were right to make the Pats a 3 point favorite, even if the Broncos end up winning 49-0.

By contrast, if the great majority of bettors take the Pats, and the Pats win 30-28, that point spread will be a disaster for bookies, even though it was a pretty accurate prediction of the final score.

* Brady’s QB rating this year is way up there, despite the fact that he lost Edelmann and Gronk around week 11 or whatever it was, and only got them back for last week’s game. His numbers have rarely looked better.

The Pats can definitely knock off the Broncos (Brady lacked Edelmann and lost Gronk vs. Broncos and still almost won that game). The real question is would they have it easier vs. the Cardinals or the Panthers? Panthers secondary looks pretty weak, but they look strong otherwise. But so do the Cards. I do wonder about Newton. His rating hovered in the mid eighties until this season, when it shot way up to like 99. Is he really that much better? How much did he benefit from having one of the easiest schedules in the NFL? He had the 2nd best O-Line in the NFL this year (best of the teams remaining) – and one of the best receiving tight ends, despite all the talk about “having no one around him” – which surely didn’t hurt. On the other hand, they sent the Seahawks packing last game, so we’ll see.

As for the Cards, they’re a good team. If they don’t blitz Newton too much today (they love to blitz but it has had zero statistical effect on Newton this year), and Palmer doesn’t choke, they have a good chance at a win. They look about as formidable as the Panthers, so really I guess it’s a toss-up from a Patriots POV. I think it’ll all be about how the ball bounces, like it was in the Panthers-Seahawks game (giving up a pick six is no way to start a playoff road game).

Funny thing is, I’ve been reading these “OMG Denver curse for Brady” pieces all week. Newton’s past performance, psych profile, etc? Nobody’s ever heard of it. Makes me wonder if the Panthers aren’t more vulnerable than the press is admitting. Makes sense, I guess; talking up the black guy is all up side and no down side, the reverse is the reverse.

* The media’s amusing, with their selective eye for stats.

How many “mobile” or “dual-threat” QBs have won super bowls, vs. pocket passers? Dead issue, as far as the media is concerned. I guess nobody wants to be responsible for the “stereotype threat” that ended Newton’s Run.

* Brady has not appeared less ageless as the season has gone on. He has appeared more weaponless, as basically his entire receiving core has been injured over the second half of the season. They are back now, however, and you could immediately see the difference during the KC game last week. Go Pats!

* An interesting question is to what extent Brady’s success is attributable to playing for the best coach and the best organization in football. My guess would be that at least 50% of it is.

Posted in Football | Comments Off on Championship Sunday!

Black Violence

We hear the media talking about police violence, but they rarely say the phrase “black violence.”

A Google News search today found 81,500 results for “police violence” and just 8,390 results for “black violence” and yet blacks in America kill about 500 times as many people than do police.

As Jared Taylor wrote:

Murder would fall by 91 percent in an all-white New York City.

These figures are from New York City’s annual crime report. The report does not calculate crime rates for a hypothetical all-white New York City–the police chief would be fired if he did that–but it includes demographics for the city as follows: Whites: 32.8 percent, Blacks: 22.6 percent, Hispanics: 28.9 percent. To calculate the murder rate if the city were all white, you divide the percentage of arrests that are white by the white percentage of the population: 2.9 percent ÷ 32.8 percent = 8.84 percent. That results in a reduction in the crime rate of: 100 percent – 8.84 percent = 91.16 percent. [See below if you didn’t follow that.]

You can also calculate how much more likely a black or Hispanic is to be arrested for a violent crime than a white. For murder, a black is 31 times more likely and a Hispanic is 9 times more likely. A black is an astonishing 77 times more likely than a white to be arrested for a lethal or non-lethal shooting, and a Hispanic 18 times more likely. Guns are a problem alright–but the problem is overwhelmingly because of blacks and Hispanics, not whites.

Despite liberal dogma, these figures represent real racial differences in crime rates, not police bias. For them to represent bias, the police would deliberately have to arrest innocent blacks and Hispanics and let whites go. It would be crazy to arrest innocent people. New York City juries are racially very mixed and will not convict without good evidence. And does anyone really think the police don’t bother to look for a shooter if witnesses say he was white? Besides, whites are only 51.5 percent of the NYPD, which is 15.6 percent black, 26.7 percent Hispanic, and 6.2 percent Asian.

The figures for New York are not an aberration. Similar data used to be available from Chicago until Rahm Emanuel was elected mayor. According to the most recent data, which are from 2010, a Chicago black was 32 times more likely than a Chicago white to be arrested for murder; a Hispanic was nine times more likely. A black was 38 times more likely than white to be arrested for robbery, and a Hispanic was six times more likely. If Chicago were all white, the murder and robbery rates would plummet by 93 percent, rape by 87 percent, and assault by 85 percent. The figures for Chicago are probably worse now. You can see why the mayor wants to hide them.

Chicago used to report arrests by sex, and men are more violent than women: 13 times more likely than women to be arrested for murder and 19 times more likely to be arrested for robbery. That doesn’t surprise anyone. People are more wary around strange men than they are around strange women–and so are the police. No one shrieks about “sex profiling” when Chicago police arrest a lot more men than women.

Please note that the sex multiples for Chicago–13 times for murder and 19 times for robbery–are about half the black/white multiples of 32 and 38. Men are more dangerous than women, but blacks are a lot more dangerous compared to whites.

Donald Trump’s next tweet should be: “Chicago men 13 to 19 times more dangerous than women. Chicago blacks 32 to 38 times more dangerous than whites.” That’s 113 characters.

If you are interested in the facts on race and crime, you will want to read the update–coming out in just a few weeks–of our report, The Color of Crime. This data in this article is just an advance sample of the eye-opening information we have uncovered.

[How to calculate the crime rate for an all-white New York City. Imagine a city that is 50 percent white and 50 percent non-white, where there are 100 murders every year, and whites commit 10 of them (10 percent). If all the non-whites were replaced by whites who were precisely as likely to commit murder as the whites who already live in the city, the number of murders committed by whites would double to 20. That is 20 percent of the previous annual rate of 100 murders. Since the 90 murders committed by non-whites would not happen, the new murder rate of 20 per year would reflect an 80 percent drop.]

From the Twitter account Black Violence:

* White mother shot by black males while protecting her daughter, critical.

CZfihNoUkAAS9oY

* White teenager turned away from Marines because of his #Confederate tattoo.

CZficB4VIAAzr8q

* 60 year-old white clerk shot to death by black male during robbery.

CZfiXajUEAEWhgp

* Second black male convicted, beat and slit white woman’s throat in 1997.

CZfiUHwUAAAp2Eb

* Black male going to trial for triple murder, Cumberland County.

CZfiNw3UcAEiiAd

* Black male arrested for prostituting missing teenager at motel.

CZfiKLpUAAAk6IX (1)

* Black male robs and takes Payless Shoes store hostage.

CZfiHhNUYAAL7jM

* Former black Raiders player sentenced to life without parole for 3 murders.

CZfiFxMUMAAVp2r

Posted in Blacks, Crime | Comments Off on Black Violence

You Might Be A Cuckservative

More cuckservative memes.

CK4aOefWcAAe3pX1

ck-bghyveaaafqt

Posted in Conservatives | Comments Off on You Might Be A Cuckservative

How Labour turned London into a foreign city: Fewer than half the capital’s population are white British, gangsters from Somalia terrorise the suburbs and even the tramps are immigrants, reveals astonishing new book

Daily Mail:

An Afghan and I once broke into a small house in Peckham. I had met him while researching a report on immigration for the Daily Mail.
We were on a rescue mission. Inside the two-up, two-down property in South East London, every room was packed with beds, mattresses and migrants.
On the landing, grey and scarcely breathing, lay the man we had come to rescue from this awful place.

The other migrants who were there started to shout at us. Apparently, the sick man owed them and their trafficking gang money. We had to hustle him out fast.
I emerged shaken. I had glimpsed a London I did not know existed — one of Third World poverty, exploitation and criminality.
It is writer Ben Judah’s great achievement to reveal that hidden city in his new book, This Is London: Life And Death In The World City.
A young war correspondent, Judah examines his home city as the foreign metropolis it has now become
Since 2001, immigration has transformed the capital. More than half of Londoners are now not ethnically British.
As he says: ‘I was born in London, but I no longer recognise this city. I don’t know if I love the new London, or if it frightens me: a city where at least 55 per cent of people are not white British, nearly 40 per cent were born abroad and hundreds of thousands are living illegally, in the shadows.’
Who are these new Londoners? In order to find out, Judah immerses himself in the migrant world.
He spends a night with the Roma beggars who camp in the tunnels beneath Hyde Park. He stays in a doss-house in Barking, East London. He cajoles an astonishing array of migrants from across London to describe their lives.
Whether a mini cab driver who also washes dead bodies, a Romanian prostitute in a blonde wig, or a wealthy young African with bodyguards hired from his own tribe, they open up to Judah.

The quantity and authenticity of his interviews build up an irrefutable argument. Here, as opposed to what the Left is always telling us, are the real effects of immigration.
Immigration, Judah makes clear, has touched every aspect of life in London and utterly transformed it.
The English upper classes no longer inhabit the splendid townhouses in Mayfair. Suburbs such as Edmonton in the north of the city are no longer home to the aspirational, largely unionised, English working-class.
As for white, East End gangsters such as the Kray Twins, you will only find those in movies.
The same goes for the prostitutes who used to inhabit Soho. Even tramps, for goodness sake, are rarely English any more. Such is the level of liberal propaganda that we have largely remained blind to this startling transformation of our city.
Judah systematically maps these changes — the result of Labour relaxing immigration into the UK.
Left-wingers and the business establishment pat themselves on the back for creating an open city that welcomes the world. In fact, we have lost control of our borders and have no say who comes here.
This week, it emerged that Brussels is attempting to blackmail Britain by saying that if we don’t take as many as 90,000 migrants a year, we will not be able to send failed asylum seekers back to safe countries on the Continent.
Then came the story that a tribunal had ruled that a group of migrants in the Jungle camp in Calais had a ‘human right’ to join family members in Britain. It is a precedent that could have far-reaching implications.
Aside from legal rulings, the truth is that much of our immigration policy is now dictated by criminal trafficking gangs who make a fortune smuggling people into Britain — not our elected leaders and certainly not voters and taxpayers.
It is criminal gangs who decide who comes into the UK and in what numbers. They largely decide what happens to the migrants once they arrive.
In handing our immigration system over to them, we have allowed conditions of unimaginable squalor, misery and criminality reminiscent of Victorian times to take hold.
So how has it happened? Well, get rid of any notion that we are doing the world’s poorest many favours.
Judah quickly discovers that multiculturalism for many migrants is a euphemism for slave labour.
It starts when would-be immigrants listen to the sales pitch of the agents for the people-traffickers. They promise that London is ‘a second paradise’ where ‘every man is rich’.
On offer is free NHS treatment, free housing, free schooling and countless welfare benefits. It is a place of opportunity, security and, above all, available women.
This was a definite pull for one young Afghan working in a butcher’s in Neasden, North West London.
As he put it, in his village, if you slept with more than one person in your life, ‘they shot you in the back’. In Britain, however, sexual opportunities were immense.

The agents explain how to take full advantage of the UK.‘London is a country of rights,’ they say. How very true! If you tell the correct story, they are informed, ‘you will never be sent home’.
And yet, when migrants manage to reach the UK, they all have to pay back the people-traffickers who got them here.
Indeed, it is this debt, sometimes with interest rates of 100 per cent, that lies behind the often appalling working conditions they are forced to accept.
This is the simple fact that the immigration lobby ignore — with appalling consequences for the migrants concerned.
Typical of the views of those Judah met was someone who said: ‘I thought the money would be growing on trees. Six months later, I was crying myself to sleep. I was homeless.’
A Roma violin player in a tunnel beneath Park Lane explains what this means.
‘We’re all here to beg, to work off our debts. We give the enforcers all the money. They told us to come here. But we are never going to make back the loans they gave us to come here. We’re trapped.’
He explains that the people-traffickers are a constant threat to the children migrants have left behind in places such as the Romanian city of Slobozia. Defiance could bring brutal retribution on those they love.
Judah quickly learns that the people who make it here are ‘virtual slaves’. And it is the same wherever he goes. In a hotel laundry room, Africans curse the tricksters who brought them here on counterfeited visas and passports.
A Ghanaian came on a student visa with plans to set up an international business. All he wanted, he said, was to wear a suit and work in an office.
Yet the traffickers never told him what would happen when he tried to work as an illegal migrant.
He used up his savings of five years in a matter of months. Instead of running his own business, he stacks shelves in a warehouse.
Frustrated, angry and exhausted, he knows he has ruined his life. He can never escape, never get home to his children, because his low wages mean he cannot imagine ever paying off his debt.
There is a whole illegal city in London of several hundred thousand people, and nearly half of them are thought to have arrived after 2001.
This is a city hidden from official statistics, but not hidden from employers who take on the workers, no questions asked, through agencies.
Legal workers also have problems because the sheer number of new arrivals push down wages.
A Polish builder explains that, on his work site, the English builders tell him angrily they used to be paid £15 an hour. Now it is £7 an hour. ‘They hate me,’ he says simply.
But then he gripes about the newly-arrived Romanians who, he says, are pushing wages even lower.
Tragically, politicians appear blissfully oblivious to the new realities. They solemnly debate the merits of a ‘living wage’ over the minimum wage.
What planet are they living on?
Certainly, it’s one as far removed as possible from the reality of daily life outside Wickes, the builder’s merchant in Barking, East London.
Here, Judah joined 80 or so Romanians, ‘blank eyes wide with hunger’, touting for work.
‘They pace up and down in their work boots for the next 11 hours, muttering tensely, ‘waiting for a white van’.
This is a reference to the fact, they tell Judah, that the proverbial White Van Englishman is the best type of employer. Whereas Pakistanis, Turks and Poles are the worst.
One explains: ‘They make us fight for work. And they know we have no choice. That we are hungry.’
To such men, the minimum wage is a luxury that they can only dream about. They often work for much less — or, as one put it, for nothing more than ‘one chicken and chips’.
But this story is not just about brutal exploitation. It is also about crime.
Along with immigrants, we have imported the criminal gangs who blight their countries. When it is so easy for migrants to get here, it is just as simple for the world’s nastiest criminals to relocate to the UK, too.
Thus many Somalian gangs terrorise estates in South London and Turkish gangs control North London.
Kurds and Albanians launder their money through the car washes in Tottenham and Kilburn. Vietnamese gangs grow and distribute two-thirds of the strong cannabis on the capital’s streets.

Judah encountered a Grenadian, now a successful cocaine dealer, who recalled moving to the White City estate in West London with his mother when he was 12.
‘We pitched up for a better life, but found ourselves right in the middle of a war zone,’ he recalled.
He said the estate ‘was way more corrupt . . . way more dangerous, more full of disillusion than anywhere in Grenada. Within six months of being here, I had lost 75 per cent of my morals.’
After a few years here, and now a heavy cocaine-user, he woke up to his mother screaming. She’d found his gun in the fridge and bullets on the sofa.
She was crying: ‘Please, please, the police will kill you, the gangsters will kill you! My baby, why, why did I ever bring you to this country?’
The sex industry is another area where our flawed immigration policy has had a malign effect. Now, 96 per cent of prostitutes are migrants. In the main, Albanians have taken over.
Typically, they lure girls from Moldova with promises of modelling jobs, but then rape and traffic them.
I saw the results of this myself when a brothel opened in a house on a quiet, residential street near my son’s primary school in Hampstead.
The mother of one of my son’s friends lived opposite. She was intimidated by the sinister men in leather jackets who sat in the nearby coffee shop all day.
She reported to the police that the girls on the top floor looked underage and never went out. In due course, her car was smashed up.
She suspected this was done as a warning to keep her nose out of it. The police did nothing and she never raised the matter again.
Finally, migration has even changed the nationality of London’s vagrants.
There are now around 5,000 — mostly Polish and Romanians — living rough on London’s streets. In North London, they unload trucks for Turkish shopkeepers in exchange for nothing more than their drink of choice, White Ace cider.
Others have been found roasting rats for food in the back alleys of Tottenham and Haringey.
In this new London, increasingly there is one nationality significant for its absence — white, British-born. Nearly all the migrants comment on this phenomenon.
Ben Judah meets a Pole who works as a registrar — recording births and deaths — in Catford Bridge, who says she works in a position that is perfect to spot the ethnic changes.
She describes the new London where 57 per cent of births are to migrant mothers.
But when she enters the names of the recent dead, they are nearly all of them old white British. Another migrant comments: ‘The English are dying. They are declining fast.’
He recalls in the street markets, there used to be only English voices shouting out, ‘advertising their wares in the Cockney accent. But they’ve gone now’.
A Met policeman, who was born in Nigeria, says: ‘The English are vanishing. London is no longer an English city at all . . . London is a patchwork of ghettos.’
Between 1971 and 2011, the white British share of London’s population slumped from 86 per cent to 45 per cent, overwhelmingly the old Cockney working-class. Cockney, in fact, is predicted to die out in 15 years.
I once visited a school in the East End displaying photos of a class from the Thirties and today. In the first photo, the children were all white. In the second, none of them were.
In some countries, this might be called racial cleansing. In London, it is simply the result of the failed policy of multiculturalism.

On the Old Kent Road, Judah found only one English shopkeeper left — a plumbers’ merchant. He charts the gradual disappearance of the English by the fate of their pubs.
Along this road, there used to be 12: one has been turned into a Nigerian mosque, another into the Afrikiko nightclub, the rest have simply been demolished.
Across London, it is the same story. African churches move into abandoned bingo halls, cinemas and pubs vacated by the old white working-class.
In Brent and Harlesden, the white population has fallen by 30 per cent since 2001.
Suburbs such as Edmonton, once ‘terraces of white respectability’, where the Tory politician Norman Tebbit grew up for goodness’ sake, have now turned into tenements for migrants.
This huge demographic shift is as true for wealthy areas as for deprived.
Half of Kensington & Chelsea’s inhabitants were born overseas — a third arriving since 2001. Forty per cent do not have a British passport.
Global immigration has transformed these areas as radically as it has other parts of London.
The English upper and upper-middle classes find themselves elbowed out of Mayfair, Knightsbridge and Notting Hill Gate — as surely as the white working class has been out of London’s East End.
So how can the relatively honest, tax-paying English compete to buy property with a global elite who, as one wealthy young Nigerian explains, are not paying taxes, and are making their money in countries rife with corruption?
Instead, the next generation of these English retreat to places such as Peckham — as Judah put it, ‘mourning their postcodes’, and ‘bitter like refugees’.
Judah has done an extraordinary job in painstakingly building up a vivid and desperate portrait of London today.
His observations turn an unsparing spotlight on how the British people have been so befuddled by Left-wing dogma and political correctness that too few people have noticed the utter transformation of our capital city.
Too many have failed to question why we lost control of our borders and, having done so, allowed immigrant gangs to exploit migrants.
Also, we have failed to wonder if we are comfortable with this new London, with its extremes of foreign poverty and wealth.
Uncontrolled immigration has changed London for ever. And, most shamefully, not one of our leaders has lifted a finger to stop it.
This Is London: Life And Death In The World City by Ben Judah is published by Picador this coming Thursday at £18.99

Posted in Crime, Diversity, Immigration, London | Comments Off on How Labour turned London into a foreign city: Fewer than half the capital’s population are white British, gangsters from Somalia terrorise the suburbs and even the tramps are immigrants, reveals astonishing new book

‘Western nations are highly individualistic. No non-white countries are’

west

Source.

Posted in America | Comments Off on ‘Western nations are highly individualistic. No non-white countries are’