Luke Ford

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* The goy in Montana who allegedly punched a hostile reporter has comfortably won his special election to the U.S. House. Magically the election has immediately ceased to be an Important Test For The Trump Administration.

Follow up on Montana from Jeff Bezos’ emo blog:

The darker forces that propelled President Trump’s rise are beginning to frame and define the rest of the Republican Party.

When GOP House candidate Greg Gianforte assaulted a reporter who had attempted to ask him a question Wednesday night in Montana, many saw not an isolated outburst by an individual, but the obvious, violent result of Trump’s charge that journalists are “the enemy of the people.” Nonetheless, Gianforte won Thursday’s special election to fill a safe Republican seat.

“Respectfully, I’d submit that the president has unearthed some demons,”

Rep. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.) said.
 

Where is that name familiar from? Oh right, he used to be governor and he got caught having an affair… Anyway. You might think that this pos is going to whine that Trump’s anti media rhetoric has encouraged violence against the media. But actually,

“I’ve talked to a number of people about it back home. They say, ‘Well, look, if the president can say whatever, why can’t I say whatever?’ He’s given them license.”

…

“There is a total weirdness out there,” Sanford said. “People feel like, if the president of the United States can say anything to anybody at any time, then I guess I can too. And that is a very dangerous phenomenon.”

 

The real danger according to this REPUBLICAN is that Trump might make people feel free to speak their minds and criticize their rulers…

* Trump isn’t a liar- he always means exactly what he says at the moment he says it. He always says exactly what he believes at the very second he believes it.

The problem is, like Mr. Toad of Toad Hall, he’s forever changing his mind about what he believes and what he values. Toad was being totally truthful and sincere when he declared that he wanted to spend the rest of his life in a gypsy caravan. He just moved on to something else (in this case, cars) in a hurry, and truthfully claimed, “The caravan? That was just a whim, a passing fancy. THIS is my true calling!!!”

Donald Trump was probably on the level when he said immigration is bad and that we should build a wall. He probably meant what he said. But he’s already lost his enthusiasm for the project, and is likely to move on to another fad shortly.

Which means anybody relying on Trump to do anything he promises is delusional.

* Trump is an enigma inside a riddle, wrapped in a mystery. I suspect he never took any of his policies too seriously to be honest, and I’m not expecting many huge victories on immigration. Anyone who still thinks we’re getting a big beautiful wall for example is dreaming. However, Trump’s near-superhuman election win against BOTH the Bush and Clinton machines was probably the greatest blow against the forces of crypto-communist political correctness I’ve seen in my lifetime. He proved to us they aren’t invincible, and for that he is a hero in my eyes.

* Trump seems to have a cultural affinity to many of his supporters. If he were a Texan he would be accused of telling ‘Texas Tall Tales’, aka being a ‘Cracker’. Not a ‘whip cracker’, or racist, but part of the cultural continuum from the Celtic fringe through appalachia and the south.

We recognize the braggadocio and the blarney, and don’t take him literally. We don’t take it as deep seated dishonesty, as was the case with Hillary. And we think he is on our side, which we never suspected Hillary of being, or Obama after at most the first year.

* Trump’s supporters take him seriously but not literally. Trump’s enemies take him literally but not seriously.

Paul Gottfried writes:

Not all non-American societies are wracked by internal tribal conflict. Many are made up mostly or entirely of one ethnic group. Presumably Poland, Hungary, Lithuania, China, and Japan do not fit Tucker’s parochial picture of “elsewhere.” Tucker’s comments remind me of American immigrants whom I met as a kid who would tell me that everyone outside the United States was starving. One had to wonder how many inhabitants of the rest of the world these acquaintances of my parents had met.

It’s also ridiculous to claim that tribal identities had nothing to do with American politics before the current left came to monopolize our media and universities. I recall when party tickets for municipal officials in mayoral races in New York City were expected to include an Irishman, Italian and Jew. When the late Mayor Daley ruled over Chicago, he selected ward heelers on the basis of their ethnic identification with the Chicago neighborhoods to which they were assigned. Not only were the Poles, Italians, Jews, Irish, and Lithuanians given ethnically compatible liaisons with the mayor’s office. Black politicians in Chicago also got their start as ethnic representatives in the very expansive Daley-machine. Naturally the top posts went to Daley’s fellow-Irish but that’s the way American ethnic politics operated back then in the Windy City. Politics were much more tribal than, to use Tucker’s preferred state of mind, ”ideological.” But pardon my own preference: I didn’t mind the way Daley cut the municipal pie. It was sure better than having “ideological” warfare—or seeing the white working class shortchanged as in Hillary’s version of “inclusiveness.”

I’m also utterly puzzled by Tucker’s fear that we’re all becoming tribal. Does this apply to white Southerners who are watching Confederate monuments—celebrating the heroes under whom some of their ancestors fought—being torn down? Are these Southern “tribalists” receiving the same recognition as Black Lives Matter or do they enjoy the same respect as black politicians who say they’re offended by Confederate symbols? One might think, following Tucker’s logic, that in a society where all tribes are contending for power, Southern whites who valued ancestral symbols would be receiving the same encouragement as those on the other side. But of course this is not the case, because Tucker’s view of our present problem misses the point. Although tribalism has had serious historical consequences, it is not the same thing as multiculturalism. Tucker would do well to understand that the kind of tribalism permitted by multiculturalists is extremely selective and is not handed out to all groups in the same measure.

For years I’ve read and heard establishment Republican and neoconservative commentators warn that if we give in to the demands of black and Latino nationalists, we’d be opening the door to right-wing white tribalism. This has not happened to any significant degree; and where it has, the phenomenon has not resulted from following the multicultural ideology promoted by the left.

Clearly multiculturalists do not value all tribal identities equally. In fact they happily divide us into victimizers and victims. Presumably white Southern male heterosexual Christians are not intended to enjoy the same collective right to an historical identity as, say, a black lesbian or a Muslim gay activist.

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* Chetty is a bouncing betty bullshit artist in regards to race and ancestry. These non-European clowns are never going to understand the historic American nation. That is why over-educated apes like Chetty want to destroy the historic American nation with mass immigration.

The United States is a European Christian nation-state. The ancestral core of the United States is European Christian. Chetty and his obtuse, anti-White crap is getting annoying. Someone ask Chetty why he supports mass immigration. I have noticed that these celebrities of the ruling class like Chetty don’t like to be asked about their support for mass immigration when they are in public and the cameras are on.

* At the risk of sounding maximally ignorant, I look at this guy, I look at Zakaria, I hear that guy on NPR’s TED program talking about how we should give up on schooling altogether and let kids play with computers (literally just googling it as an answer to everything), and I ask:
does it make more sense that India cranks out high-IQ naifs, or does it make more sense that India cranks out Machiavellian tribalists, arguing, in bad faith, for the weakening of a target population?
India is not a paradise of tolerance, it’s a race riot fixed in equilibrium by clearly defined boundaries. Indians do very well here in part because they devote all their time to making a lot of money in a short period (often through fraud), not because they outperform natives in all-things-equal situations. It’s comparable to the way legacy creeps like Jeb pal around with elite Mexican patrone-figures, and think they want the US to be more like a former Spanish colony because they take for granted that their American rank would transfer, but really, person-to-person, the elite of the Spanish-speaking world are incomparably competitive and would eat a Bush alive.
If so, then how is Raj “attacking”?
Well, what would an Indian know about setting up neighborhoods in terms of ethnicity given their history?

* Would wager a small fortune Chetty’s analysis would even break down in large northern cities that are internally segregated. It’s why otherwise goodwhite Park Slope and Upper West Side parents freak out when the NYC Board of Ed dares to suggest introducing nearby project dwellers to their magic dirt public schools. Recall goodwhite supposed comedian Samantha Bee turning into a Southie shanty Irish harpy at the mere suggestion her little darlings might so co-mingle with lower socioeconomic types who happen to be black and brown. The left will not ever deal honestly with race.

* After reading, it looks like Chetty uses integrated to mean socio-economic integration. His Iowa example is suggestive–all the kids go to the same schools, and the adults have limited social activities that they all participate in.

* Fascinating details about the Manchester attacker and his family from the Anglosphere Tabloid of Record–

Long story short, the whole family is crazy and at least one brother knew about the attack a month in advance.

Also, this seems like a real failure for British counter terrorism- the kid trained in Libya AND Syria, had contact with ISIS recruiters in the U.K., and they’d received warnings about him years back.

* Trained in Libya and in Syria.

Libya wasn’t a hotbed of terrorist activity until a few years ago. What changed? Oh, yeah. We overthrew Gadaffi and then left the country in rubble. Then terrorism and ISIS began to flourish.

Syria wasn’t a hotbed of terrorist activity either. Not until two things happened. First of all, the chaos in Iraq (another country that wasn’t involved in terrorism until we violently destroyed it back in 2003) spilled over the border. Second of all, the U.S. began to arm ISIS and other Islamic groups in Syria.

In conclusion, Libya, Syria, and Iraq used to be secular nations with no terrorism. Then America violently destroyed these secular regimes. Now there’s massive terrorism and extremism. This British Muslim suicide bomber trained in both Libya and Syria. 2 countries he wouldn’t have been able to train in a few years ago – before America destroyed two secular regimes. America was assisted in all these military campaigns by many countries, such as the UK.

* I think the main problem is that real estate prices are insanely high. Since status-striver Americans don’t want to marry and have kids unless they can have a reasonable-sized home in a nice neighborhood, a large fraction of Bay Area people are locked out of the marriage market. Perhaps the more marriage inclined go live in Sacramento – or just get out of California completely.

I can guarantee you if home prices were reasonable, fertility rates would be higher.

The problem is that foreigners keep buying property in America, pushing up coastal real estate prices. They do as as investment and also, if they ever immigrate, they can use these properties as a second home. The same is happening in Canada, Australia, NZ, and the UK.

The solution is to kick out the foreign home buyers. Make it illegal for them to own property here. Another solution is to put a massively huge tax on their property, which makes them sell. Once the foreigners stop buying, real estate prices will fall.

I also think a national daycare system, as they have in France, would be helpful too.

* The thing is, Chetty is never going to Notice the things that Steve does because Chetty would like to have a lucrative career, be respectfully interviewed on mainstream outlets and give TED talks.
I don’t know to what extent he is actually Noticing the same things Steve does and is stifling himself, or is Crimestopping himself from even thinking things, but there is no upside for him in becoming a Noticer and finding himself working as a blogger asking for donations in order to provide for his family.

* Raj Chetty is pretty smart, and I bet he is privately noticing all of the same things. As an aside, his dad is also a heavy duty data-driven statistical economist, and the older Indians I’ve met from India are not particularly pc—quite the opposite. Chances are that opinions about minority groups in the United States were not stifled at the dinner table during young Raj’s upbringing, but I speculate.

As you say, he can’t go there, without losing his livelihood and being ostracized from his professional cohort. It takes a lot of guts for an immigrant kid to choose the path of being a loner with ornery and unpopular opinions. I don’t’ know of any. Even Dinesh D’Souza chose that path as a brown-skinned conservative novelty at Dartmouth during the Reagan era purely as a career move.

* You ought to see Indians bullshit their way around an IT company. From the outside looking in (like the Jews), they become better than the natives at the lingo and at exploiting corporate and cultural values for their own benefit.

As the saying goes, “If the camel once gets his nose in the tent, his body will soon follow.” Hire one Indian in a management position, and soon you notice Indians start to sprinkle throughout the corporate cubes. They stick together and act together in ways totally foreign to the natives as the Indians climb corporate ladders … together.

Is this now Satya Nadella became the head of Microsoft and Sundar Pichai the head of Google? I’m suspicious.

The most extreme case I’ve seen is an Indian (naturalized citizen) low-bid and win a major IT contract with the U.S. Department of Defense and then outsource the labor to family and friends in India. How did he win the contract? The contract was awarded on the recommendation of the Defense Agency’s CIO … who was also Indian. Soon after the contract award, the Indian-owned company was awarded another contract to make up for its inability to execute under the original low bid.

Hence, it does not surprise me to see Chetty systematically confuse and obfuscate the meaning of the term “diversity” to support racial and cultural diversity in the United States as the “scientific principle” driving the upward mobility and economic prosperity of White people… as a subtle way of supporting the increased immigration of Indians and others from equally alien cultures and religions.

* Indians are by far the schemiest schemers who ever schemed. Their feigned docile ingenuousness and affability make them all the more formidable; the archetypally inscrutable Oriental of eastern Asia is a rank amateur in comparison. I expect it’s to do with the cacophony of ethnicities, tribes, languages, religions, castes, and so on all crammed into the subcontinent and adopting a hyperdense agrarian and urban lifestyle from time immemorial, unhelped by its location at the nexus of east and west along the Silk Road. These factors all combined to select for some really Byzantine politicking, passive-aggression, backstabbing, and the long con to negotiate the horror-show since seldom was a large enough, homogenous enough contingent around to just kill the other fellow honourably. From Alexander’s time to the British Raj, they were betrayng each other to wholly alien outsiders in exchange for privileges as the running dogs of the conquerers, so despicable and selfish are they. It’s interesting to compare their history to that of the Hellenic city-states to see what rôle geography and a sparse population played in making the latter an honourable people: pastoral, thassalocratic, pastoral, motivated by honour (vs. shame) – just as you say, this Chetty clown will never understand it because it is not in his DNA the way it is ours, and even if he does intellectually understand it, he’ll never admit it because he is not interested in science, knowledge and truth, but rather in his own scheming careerism, true to form for an Indian. Q.E.D.

* It’s true they lack the altruistic cohesion you suggest on any large scale, but exactly the granular infighting and backbiting you describe is why they will handily strike opportunistic bargains with each other (or even outsiders) in the same way, say, two narcotraficantes or mafiosos might to get a leg up over The Man or The Other Fellow. Like thieves, there is no honour among them, but there are plenty of rackets and conspiracies. They also engage in these behaviours with each other more than with outsiders for the same reasons criminals will deal with each other regarding their illicit deeds but not, often, virtuous people: only the equally selfish fellow with his own nefarious agenda can be relied upon not to spill the beans or violate the terms let it bring things crashing down upon him as well….