Saturday, January 30, 2016

Blind-Siding the War Party — Both Wings

I've made it clear here that I consider our little mass immigration problem paramount this election year. We have at least 20 million illegals now, with more wanting in, and that's on top of the several million who are here legally who never should have been let in. All of the candidates, including Cruz, have shown themselves either to be wishy-washy on the subject or downright traitorous about it.

But the next issue is war. Bush gets all the ink, and, indeed, he started up one of our most unnecessary wars, in Iraq, but if you check, Clinton did plenty of that before him, and Obama likewise afterwards. Of all the candidates, the only ones who are clearly at least reluctant to start up some more new wars are Sanders and Trump.

And I'm not anti war. I'm anti stupid war. And most of our wars have been stupid, and wars in or against Syria or Iran — anywhere in the Middle East for that matter — are very, very, stupid ideas. God alone knows what Bernie would do, but at least he says he doesn't want a bunch of wars. Better in my opinion is Trump's plan, which is to have a military so strong we'll never need to use it. Also, I'm inclined to think that Trump would use military power if necessary for our interests. All the others, again except for Bernie, seem to want to invade the Middle East on general principles.  Justin Raimondo has been anti war for quite some time now. At the site of that name [link], he writes:

Anti-anti-Trump, Anti-anti-Sanders
Extremism in defense of peace is no vice

I haven’t had this much fun in years – of course I’m talking about the US presidential election season, with The Donald taking on all comers, and winning (at least so far), and Berne Sanders burning up the self-satisfied mandarins of the Democratic party Establishment.
What’s great about this spectacle – and one must view it as a spectacle in order to gain maximum enjoyment from it – is that, as none other than Rush Limbaugh points out:
“Trump is so far outside the formula that has been established for American politics that people who are inside the formula can’t comprehend it. They don’t understand why somebody would want to venture so far outside it, because it is what it is, and there’s a ladder of success that you have to climb. And somebody challenging it like this in more ways than one, as Trump is doing, has just got everybody experiencing every kind of emotion you can: They’re angry, they are flabbergasted, they’re shocked, they’re stunned – and all of it because he’s leading.”
As I explained here, and here, one of the ways Trump is upending the rules is that he’s broken with the GOP mandarins on foreign policy. Yes, yes, I know he bloviates about how he’s “the most militaristic person” on God’s green earth, but the fact is there’s plenty of others out there who out-do him in that category. I’ve heard him say he wants to “bomb the s**t out of ISIS,” but aren’t we doing that already – to little effect? When Bill O’Reilly asked him why he didn’t support putting ground troops in Syria, he answered “Do you want to run Syria?” O’Reilly demurred. Trump puffs up his chest and announces he wants us to have “the strongest biggest baddest military on earth” – but you’ll note he invariably adds: “So we’ll never have to use it.”
Most significantly, he doesn’t want to start World War III with Vladimir Putin’s Russia: he’s actually defied the anti-Russian propaganda blitz and said he’d like to be able to get along with Putin. This alone would’ve been enough for the neocons to start a holy war against him, but he’s even gone further than that and said the Iraq war – the neocons’ handiwork – was “one of the dumbest things ever,” and Limbaugh describes their response to a tee (of course without naming them).
Oh yes, it’s great fun watching the waterboarding of the neocons, because they count among their enemies the top two contenders for the Republican nomination, not only Trump but also Ted Cruz. The greasy-haired Canadian earned their ire when he attacked them by name, but as Rosie Gray reports in Buzzfeed they may be reconciling themselves to Cruz because he’s the only viable Not-Trump:
“Some of the hawkish figures who Ted Cruz recently dismissed as ‘crazy neo-con invade-every-country-on-earth and send our kids to die in the Middle East’ … say they’d consider supporting Cruz anyway if he’s the last man between Donald Trump and the Republican presidential nomination.-------------
Read the rest here: http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2016/01/28/anti-anti-trump-anti-anti-sanders/
-----------
Quibcag: Found the illustration on the net.

Friday, January 29, 2016

Everybody hates Trump except the American people.

Ain't it the truth? We were treated last night to a standard group of Republican Presidential candidates who think the way to lead is to lecture.  No. We don't need smarmy Jeb Bush to urge us to be more 'tolerant,' nor do we need Ted Cruz to tell us that it's our responsibility to waste our money and our troops' lives in attempt number 37 to straighten out the middle east. And we certainly don't need illegal immigration loving Rubio to flat-out lie to us about his position on the issue.

As Trump said, either we're a country or we're not, and as long as the Democrats and Republicans work together to keep our borders wide open and our military sacrificing itself all over the world for other people, we're on our way to not being a country, but rather a boarding house for the detritus of Earth and the enforcer for Wall Street enterprises everywhere.

I'm afraid I have never paid much attention to Tucker Carlson. Maybe it's the bow tie. But he just wrote something very insightful about Trump over at the unique blog of Nicholas Stix [link]. Read and learn....

Shocking, Vulgar and Right: Tucker Carlson on Donald Trump



Donald Trump is Shocking, Vulgar and Right
And, my dear fellow Republicans, he's all your fault.
By Tucker Carlson
1/28/2016
Politico

About 15 years ago, I said something nasty on CNN about Donald Trump’s hair. I can’t now remember the context, assuming there was one. In any case, Trump saw it and left a message the next day.

“It’s true you have better hair than I do,” Trump said matter-of-factly. “But I get more pussy than you do.” Click.

At the time, I’d never met Trump and I remember feeling amused but also surprised he’d say something like that. Now the pattern seems entirely familiar. The message had all the hallmarks of a Trump attack: shocking, vulgar and indisputably true.

Not everyone finds it funny. On my street in Northwest Washington, D.C., there’s never been anyone as unpopular as Trump. The Democrats assume he’s a bigot, pandering to the morons out there in the great dark space between Georgetown and Brentwood. The Republicans (those relatively few who live here) fully agree with that assessment, and they hate him even more. They sense Trump is a threat to them personally, to their legitimacy and their livelihoods. Idi Amin would get a warmer reception in our dog park.

I understand it of course. And, except in those moments when the self-righteous silliness of rich people overwhelms me and I feel like moving to Maine, I can see their points, some of them anyway. Trump might not be my first choice for president. I’m not even convinced he really wants the job. He’s smart enough to know it would be tough for him to govern.

But just because Trump is an imperfect candidate doesn’t mean his candidacy can’t be instructive. Trump could teach Republicans in Washington a lot if only they stopped posturing long enough to watch carefully. Here’s some of what they might learn:

He Exists Because You Failed

American presidential elections usually amount to a series of overcorrections: Clinton begat Bush, who produced Obama, whose lax border policies fueled the rise of Trump. In the case of Trump, though, the GOP shares the blame, and not just because his fellow Republicans misdirected their ad buys or waited so long to criticize him. Trump is in part a reaction to the intellectual corruption of the Republican Party. That ought to be obvious to his critics, yet somehow it isn’t.

Consider the conservative nonprofit establishment, which seems to employ most right-of-center adults in Washington. Over the past 40 years, how much donated money have all those think tanks and foundations consumed? Billions, certainly. (Someone better at math and less prone to melancholy should probably figure out the precise number.) Has America become more conservative over that same period? Come on. 

Most of that cash went to self-perpetuation: Salaries, bonuses, retirement funds, medical, dental, lunches, car services, leases on high-end office space, retreats in Mexico, more fundraising. Unless you were the direct beneficiary of any of that, you’d have to consider it wasted.

Pretty embarrassing. And yet they’re not embarrassed. Many of those same overpaid, underperforming tax-exempt sinecure-holders are now demanding that Trump be stopped. Why? Because, as his critics have noted in a rising chorus of hysteria, Trump represents “an existential threat to conservatism.”

Let that sink in. Conservative voters are being scolded for supporting a candidate they consider conservative because it would be bad for conservatism? And by the way, the people doing the scolding? They’re the ones who’ve been advocating for open borders, and nation-building in countries whose populations hate us, and trade deals that eliminated jobs while enriching their donors, all while implicitly mocking the base for its worries about abortion and gay marriage and the pace of demographic change. Now they’re telling their voters to shut up and obey, and if they don’t, they’re liberal. 

It turns out the GOP wasn’t simply out of touch with its voters; the party had no idea who its voters were or what they believed. For decades, party leaders and intellectuals imagined that most Republicans were broadly libertarian on economics and basically neoconservative on foreign policy. That may sound absurd now, after Trump has attacked nearly the entire Republican catechism (he savaged the Iraq War and hedge fund managers in the same debate) and been greatly rewarded for it, but that was the assumption the GOP brain trust operated under. They had no way of knowing otherwise. The only Republicans they talked to read the Wall Street Journal too.

On immigration policy, party elders were caught completely by surprise. Even canny operators like Ted Cruz didn’t appreciate the depth of voter anger on the subject. And why would they? If you live in an affluent ZIP code, it’s hard to see a downside to mass low-wage immigration. Your kids don’t go to public school. You don’t take the bus or use the emergency room for health care. No immigrant is competing for your job. (The day Hondurans start getting hired as green energy lobbyists is the day my neighbors become nativists.) Plus, you get cheap servants, and get to feel welcoming and virtuous while paying them less per hour than your kids make at a summer job on Nantucket. It’s all good.

Apart from his line about Mexican rapists early in the campaign, Trump hasn’t said anything especially shocking about immigration. Control the border, deport lawbreakers, try not to admit violent criminals — these are the ravings of a Nazi? This is the “ghost of George Wallace” that a Politico piece described last August? A lot of Republican leaders think so. No wonder their voters are rebelling.

Truth is Not Only a Defense, It’s Thrilling

When was the last time you stopped yourself from saying something you believed to be true for fear of being punished or criticized for saying it? If you live in America, it probably hasn’t been long. That’s not just a talking point about political correctness. It’s the central problem with our national conversation, the main reason our debates are so stilted and useless. You can’t fix a problem if you don’t have the words to describe it. You can’t even think about it clearly.

This depressing fact made Trump’s political career. In a country where almost everyone in public life lies reflexively, it’s thrilling to hear someone say what he really thinks, even if you believe he’s wrong. It’s especially exciting when you suspect he’s right.

A temporary ban on Muslim immigration? That sounds a little extreme (meaning nobody else has said it recently in public). But is it? Millions of Muslims have moved to Western Europe over the past 50 years, and a sizable number of them still haven’t assimilated. Instead, they remain hostile and sometimes dangerous to the cultures that welcomed them. By any measure, that experiment has failed. 
What’s our strategy for not repeating it here, especially after San Bernardino—attacks that seemed to come out of nowhere? Invoke American exceptionalism and hope for the best? Before Trump, that was the plan.

Republican primary voters should be forgiven for wondering who exactly is on the reckless side of this debate. At the very least, Trump seems like he wants to protect the country.

Evangelicals understand this better than most. You read surveys that indicate the majority of Christian conservatives support Trump, and then you see the video: Trump on stage with pastors, looking pained as they pray over him, misidentifying key books in the New Testament, and in general doing a ludicrous imitation of a faithful Christian, the least holy roller ever. You wonder as you watch this: How could they be that dumb? He’s so obviously faking it.

They know that already. I doubt there are many Christian voters who think Trump could recite the Nicene Creed, or even identify it. Evangelicals have given up trying to elect one of their own. What they’re looking for is a bodyguard, someone to shield them from mounting (and real) threats to their freedom of speech and worship. Trump fits that role nicely, better in fact than many church-going Republicans. For eight years, there was a born-again in the White House. How’d that work out for Christians, here and in Iraq?

Washington Really Is Corrupt

Everyone beats up on Washington, but most of the people I know who live here love it. Of course they do. It’s beautiful, the people are friendly, we’ve got good restaurants, not to mention full employment and construction cranes on virtually every corner. If you work on Capitol Hill or downtown, it’s hard to walk back from lunch without seeing someone you know. It’s a warm bath. Nobody wants to leave.
But let’s pretend for a second this isn’t Washington. Let’s imagine it’s the capital of an African country, say Burkina Faso, and we are doing a study on corruption. Probably the first question we’d ask: How many government officials have close relatives who make a living by influencing government spending? A huge percentage of them? OK. Case closed. Ouagadougou is obviously a very corrupt city.

Read the rest here:
-----------
Quibcag:  No, not really a quibcag, of course. But feel free to pass it around. And please include this URL.

Thursday, January 28, 2016

Richard Spencer on the Meaning of Trump

There are a lot of ways to describe the Trump phenomenon. I've been saying that Trump has positioned himself as a nationalist, while all the others are globalists to one degree or another. Another way to look at it is that Trump has taking the stance that the preservation of the United States as a sovereign nation is more important that all other issues. And that's true, too. All the others, Republican and Democrat, are nattering about 'principles' of one sort or another, and ignoring the main issue of our continued existence as a nation and a people. Whether we balance the budget or not doesn't matter a damn if we turn into a Brazil. And all the things that people like me believe in, like the Bill of Rights and our traditions of freedom will vanish like the morning mist when we move enough Third Worlders in to vote them all out of existence.

Wall Street owns all the other leading candidates, and any that they don't will be bought up if they rise high enough to be nominated. Yes, they'll co-opt Bernie, too, and he'll decide to leave the fat cats alone and finance his socialist superstate by taxing the middle class out of existence.

And every damn one of them plan to bring in millions of immigrants from the Third World, and to lecture the rest of us about "tolerance" and slowly make our expressions of discontent illegal.

Here's Richard Spencer on the Trump Phenomenon.


--------
Quibcag: I didn't photoshop the girl. I found her as is on the net here: http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/1051474-make-america-great-again

Wednesday, January 27, 2016

The new feminist guideline: If the rapist is a protected minority, lay back and enjoy it.

Remember these old stories about grade school? You hear them all the time. Some bratty kid is picking on the other kids, poking them, pushing them, basically aggressing against them in every way he can think of without being overt enough to be noticed. The teacher is either fooled by this or doesn't bother doing anything about it. Then one kid has had enough and punches the little snake. Guess who gets in trouble? Right. That's anarcho-tyranny in a nutshell. Actual criminals get away with stuff, and those who resist the criminals get hauled up on charges because the greatest crime of all is self-defense.

And this happens out of school, too, as we move more and more towards the nanny state operated by little old ladies of both sexes and all ages. In some cities, it's become more dangerous to successfully defend yourself against a mugger than it would be to give up and give him all your money. The cops, you see, just might decide that you've violated the mugger's civil rights. It has happened, and will happen more and more.

And back in the old country, third-world rapists run free, and girls who try to defend themselves must pay a fine. This from VDare [link]:

Anarcho-Tyranny: Danish Girl Fights Off Attempted Rape, Gets Charged By Government

Now that Rush Limbaugh is discussing Sam Francis as a prophet of populism and nationalism, it’s time to reintroduce one of Francis’s key concepts, that of anarcho-tyranny. The law abiding are terrorized and tyrannized while the state contemptuously ignores crime by non-whites.
Francis Fukuyama famously defined the point of political philosophy as helping nations “get to Denmark.” How’s Denmark doing today?
A Danish teenager who was sexually assaulted near a migrant asylum centre has been told she will be prosecuted after using pepper spray to fend off her attacker.
The 17-year-old told police she was targeted in the coastal town of Sonderborg by an English-speaking man, who knocked her to the ground and tried to undress her…
However, as it is illegal to use pepper spray, the teenage girl is set to face charges. It is likely she will face a 500 Krone (£50) fine
Local police spokesman Knud Kirsten told TV Syd: ‘It is illegal to possess and use pepper spray, so she will likely to be charged for that.’
The man who attacked the girl fled from the scene and has not yet been charged. It is unclear if the man was an asylum seeker or refugee.
However, the case has sparked a controversy in Denmark, where there has been increasing reports of sexual harrassment towards women.
This is the end game of gun control. It is illegal to defend yourself, but the state won’t do anything to protect you. In fact, it will import new threats.
Also, don’t look for the European feminists to protest this. In fact, the feminist groups in Germany are currently handing out roses to refugees in response to the mass sexual assaults in Cologne [Cologne Attacks: German Women Respond By Handing Out Flowers To Refugeesby Eve Hartley, Huffington Post, January 23, 2016]
Like all these other leftist movements, feminism isn’t about equality or “love” for women, but a hatred of Western culture and white men so all-consuming you can scarcely believe it exists.
Donald Trump, unlike just about everyone else, at least seems aware about what is being done to Europe.
The Republican front-runner appeared on Michael Savage’s “Savage Nation” for a wide-ranging interview on everything from Democrat candidate Bernie Sanders’ tax plan to predictions of unifying the Republican Party. The billionaire saved harsh criticism, however, for Europe’s attempt to absorb millions of Muslim refugees from the Middle East and North Africa.
Look what’s happening to Germany. Look what’s happening to Brussels. … I don’t know what’s wrong with their leaders. At least we’re not the only ones that have terrible leaders. What’s wrong with their leaders? They’re destroying Europe,” Trump said.
[Trump to Savage: Europe should have listened to meby Douglas Ernst, WND, January 26, 2016]
I hate to disagree with Trump, but I think he’s wrong on one point. European governments (and Obama’s Minority Occupation Government) are engaged in active war against their own peoples. These so-called refugees are simply the foot soldiers. And those who rule the West know exactly what they are doing.
-----------
Quibcag: Now, Sera Masumi is certainly not a feminist, but she sure knows how to kick guys in the head when they have it coming, so I used her to illustrate the quote. She, of course, is from Detective Conan, AKA Meitantei Conan (名探偵コナン)

You will not be assimilated. Resistance works just fine.

It bears repeating: Open borders means mass immigration. Mass immigration will be overwhelmingly nonWestern and nonWhite. That will change the country into something entirely different, with a voting majority completely unfamiliar with, and hostile to, American ideas of individualism, self-reliance, self-improvement, and common decency. Assimilation is not taking place, both because we don't insist on it, and because the vast majority of immigrants, legal and illegal, are both unwilling and unable to assimilate. Anybody who doesn't agree with that lives in a dream world where even Star Trek is too brutally realistic for comfort.

Now, liberals (or progressives or whatever the little dears call themselves these days) are very much in favor of such a result, because they hate the United States and Western Civilization, and the White race and Christianity. If you doubt any of that, just listen to what they say about those things, as opposed to their fulsome praise of everything else, from Islam to communism.

Neoconservatives, who are just mort subtle liberals, for the most part, are happy with the result in the same way, and those who aren't liberals have convinced themselves either that somehow this all won't happen, or that if it does, it's actually for the best because captitalism or something.

And most standard-issue libertarians are just useful idiots for the first two groups. This is in contrast to libertarian nationalists like myself, who want freedom for our nation and who are well aware that inviting in the dregs of humanity will destroy that freedom. In fact, it's the most efficient and sure way to destroy that freedom, which, evidently, is why it's so popular among liberals and neocons and left-libertarians.

From his site here [link], Chateau Heartiste explains

Why Assimilationism Is A Failed Ideology

Cuckservatives adore the idea of assimilation like they do heterosexual sex; from a distance, as an abstract concept. When things between tribes aren’t going well, the cuck pipes up to assert all that’s needed is more encouragement to immigrants to “assimilate” to the American Way of Life. The cuck imagines assimilation as some magical process or cosmic intervention that appears after the requisite number of incantations calling for it by name are scattered throughout op-eds and on TV talk shows.
Now shitlibs are getting in on the assimilation racket (they used to be against it, arguing that America isn’t a melting pot, it’s a salad bowl, but recent trends have them worried the salad bowl is turning into a toxic stew so they’re backtracking to good ol’ assimilation to save their White dispossession project). You’ll hear increasingly frantic calls for Assimilation as Diversity spreads like a black goo over the nation, snuffing out the last strands of societal trust and bonhomie.
Too late. Current events are throwing into stark relief the reality that Assimilationism is a failed ideology, and its failures will become more apparent as there is a rise in the numbers of disparate peoples the ideology must accommodate and manage to meld into a workable social contract.
From Alec Leamas,
It’s not hard to see how a flood of young male and Muslim reinforcements from the Near East and Africa is going to embolden the extant second generation Muslims who may have been born in Europe but who will never be Europeans. The Rapefugees’ behavior is a given; the resident Muslims will be more free to act on their existing fantasies of power and conquest.
This is an insightful point. A tribe’s essence may sleep, but it never dies. It may lie dormant, but it will never go extinct. As new immigrants gain numerical power and ruling class protection in their host nations, the tribal instinct within their second and third generation cousins already in the country is released from its artificial suppression. The few secular liberal minority tokens that equalist leftoids, in a pique of supreme naivete, assume are representative of all of the minority tribe’s people, will recede to nothingness as their half-hearted voices are drowned out by the ululations of their extended family. To put it more bluntly, that smiling taxi driver praising America will revert with a quickness to the mores and standards of his race as soon as there are enough of his kind in close proximity to safely let his assimilationist mask slip.
Assimilationism doesn’t take long to reach diminishing returns, and even to expose the absorbing culture to deleterious regression to the behavioral norms of the immigrants. The more immigrants, and the more different the immigrants, the less likely assimilation is to work, and the more likely assimilationist rhetoric will ramp up to conceal its ineffectiveness.
Assimilation to the host nation’s way of life can work, but only under very strict preconditions:
  1. the immigrants are not genetically and culturally distant from the native population into which they are assimilating.
  2. the number of immigrants don’t exceed a threshold above which their natural born racial characteristics can’t be contained and redirected into expressions more compatible with the host nation’s culture.
  3. the host nation culture has the self-confidence and pride of place to demand total acquiescence to its norms from the arriving immigrants.
Western nations are currently failing on all three assimilation preconditions: Post-1965 immigrants are almost entirely nonWhite, the numbers of them are astronomical, and the host nations have lost faith in themselves while they bend over backwards to assist immigrants in retaining and celebrating the cultures of the homelands they abandoned for Western prosperity.
Even when assimilation “works” — e.g., when Anglo-Germanic America absorbed millions of Southern and Eastern Europeans in the late 19th and early 20th centuries — there are immense costs and miseries that must be overcome along the way. And those costs are never completely paid off. Irish-Americans to this day still vote more Leftist than a typical Olde Anglo-Germanic American of yore would have been comfortable voting. And Italian-American communities have more corruption than adjacent Anglo communities. And don’t get me started on the Eskimos…
But the Irish, the Italians, the Poles, et al are White ethnics, meaning that they aren’t so genetically and culturally dissimilar from Anglo-Germanic Whites that their assimilation into the American fabric was ordained to fail absent the heavy hand of a police and surveillance state to keep everyone in line. Plus, their immigration was halted in the 1924 Act to preserve the Anglo White character of America. Intermarriage with other Whites further helped their assimilation, and this White ethnic intermarriage also contributed to the unique characteristics of Americans relative to their Old Country European cousins. This was a history of ethnicity-mixing among already high-achieving peoples (compared to world standards) that buttressed America’s strength.
So past immigrant waves to the US satisfied, more or less, assimilation preconditions #1 and #2, and from all accounts #3 was also operative up until oh, 1970 or so. The assimilation calculation has changed a lot since then, (but don’t tell the Ellis Island schmaltz shoppers that). Now the US’s immigrants couldn’t be more genetically/culturally different from the Anglo-Germanic substrate, couldn’t be more numerically unmanageable, and couldn’t be more free to avoid assimilation to a native stock American norm in favor of a globalist multikult credo. This is a recipe for the complete annihilation of the historical American culture (and subcultures).
I should mention there’s one other way assimilation can work when the above three preconditions aren’t met: Assimilation to a new norm via race mixing. This is the goal of the globo-homo elite. They want historic America to die in a hodge-podge of race-mixed mediocrities and consumers of perishable goods, who will then assimilate to a new, recombined America that is changed for eternity right down to its DNA.
For the record, the Chateau’s immigration policy proposals (restated here from previous posts) is:
  • sixty year (i.e., three generations) immigration moratorium
  • deportation of all illegals
  • end of birthright citizenship
  • end of H-1B program (and similar wage-gutting loopholes)
  • favored immigrant status extended to NW Europeans when immigration flow is re-opened
  • South and East Europeans receive second favored status
  • immigrants from all other groups admitted based on education/skill and only in trivial numbers
Reading this, I’m sure a shitlib’s head is about to go Scanners, but perspective is a beautiful virtue. A mere sixty years ago, this immigration policy list would have been considered eminently sensible and uncontroversial by the vast majority of Americans. Here’s to hoping Trump Makes America Sensible Again.
----------
Quibcag: I've had the sword girl on my hard drive for some time. Can't remember where I originally found her, but she looks like she means business about immigration.

Monday, January 25, 2016

The Trump Phenomenon Made Simple

Many pundits are witty, but also dull-witted. Some would say tone deaf. To be fair, they understand a lot about how politicians think, but don't seem to realize that non-politicians think in a quite different way, and have different values and goals. Most pundits are either liberals or neocons (liberals who moved over to the Republican party during the Reagan years) and they don't quite understand that most Americans don't think like they do at all. Both liberals and neocons are staunch internationalists, for example, who want to use American military power to straighten out other countries. Most Americans want to use American military power to defend America, a quite different purpose. In like manner, liberals and neocons think America should primarily be a refuge for the human flotsam and jetsam of the world. Most Americans think it should be for Americans, and for immigrants who are both willing and able to assimilate. And that seems to be Trump's message. So we actual patriotic Americans want Trump to be President because he thinks like we do. We don't care about his religion or his marriages or his lifestyle. He's one of us in a way most of the others simply can't be.

And this is from Bob Wallace's site [link]:

"The Voters’ Trump Love Affair Explained in Terms Even Beltway Pundits Can Understand"

I've written several times before pointing out propaganda appeals to the emotions, not reason. As for Trump's "emotional bond," that is what Scott Adams, he of Dilbert fame, refers to as "identity."
Trump is an American populist and an American nationalist. The hell with both parties. I want to see them dead, dead, dead. Traitorous bastards.
Trump will take 47 or 48 states.

This article was written by Selwyn Duke and is from the American Thinker.

Donald Trump’s rise this election season has been historic, amounting to something heretofore unseen in the annals of American politics. Given this, it’s perhaps not surprising that many are still befuddled by the phenomenon. Pundit Charles Krauthammer is bewildered, saying that “for some reason” Trump “is immune to the laws of contradiction.” (In reality, Democrats get away with contradiction continually; the only difference is that the media actually report on Trump’s.) Also in the news recently is that some find his appeal among evangelicals “inexplicable.” Of course, it’s all quite explainable.
Trump is tapping into anger against the Establishment and over immigration and is a plain-spoken breath of fresh air. sounding a nationalistic note in an age where it is not the “elite” norm.
He's not campaigning as conservative but a populist, which, almost by definition, tends to make one popular in an era of mass discontent.
He's a crusader against hated political correctness, which has stifled tongues and killed careers nationwide. And in being the first prominent person to defeat the thought police (at least for now) — and by not cowering and apologizing to them — he has become a hero. And as I wrote, “[W]hen you have a hero, leading the troops in the heat of battle against a despised oppressor, you don’t worry about his marriages, past ideological indiscretions or salty language. You charge right behind him.” This is largely why Trump’s contradictions don’t matter. Yet more can be said.
I often mention the fault of “mirroring,” which most everyone exhibits and is when you project your own ideals, values, priorities and mindset onto others. It’s particularly amusing when pundits and politicians comment on the electorate and speak as if everyone is a politics wonk who analyzes issues logically within the context of a broad knowledge base (pundits themselves often lack erudition and reason; of course, they’re blissfully unaware of it when thus guilty and nonetheless consider those qualities ideals). But man is not Mr. Spock, and logic and reason play less of a role in people’s decision-making than most of us care to think.
This brings us to what Trump now has. It’s something all successful politicians have to a degree and that every iconic one has in spades: an emotional bond with his supporters.
Trump has been criticized for speaking in vague generalities and not providing specifics on the campaign trail. This misses the point. If advertising a product on TV, do you willingly provide mundane details about its ingredients or describe the intricacies of its manufacturing process? That’s more the stuff of documentaries, and, insofar as the vendor goes, would only be found on an Internet product-information page (tantamount to a politician’s policy-position page) provided for those interested. No, you say “Look 15 years younger!” or “Lose 20 to 30 pounds in 6 weeks!” Or think of the circa 2000 Mazda commercial with the young boy whispering “Zoom, zoom!” It was advertising an expensive, hi-tech machine but was invoking the unbridled joy of childhood, thus endeavoring to pique people’s passions. And that’s the secret: capture your audience on an emotional level and they’re yours.
Or think about affairs of the heart. If you’re truly bonded and in love with your wife, it’s not because you first looked at her and, rendering a logical analysis, thought “Well, she’s vibrant and seems to have good genes, so we’d likely have healthy kids; and she’s a darn good cook, and I relish a fine pot roast.” Rather, a true romantic bond is somewhat inscrutable, an emotional phenomenon, not an intellectual one. And it’s powerful enough to cause a woman to follow a man into a life of faith or a life of crime (Bonnie and Clyde); it explains the enduring good marriages — and the bad ones.
Likewise, playing on emotion is not the sole province of morally bad or good politicians — only of successful ones. Hitler did it and Churchill did it; Huey Long did it and Reagan did it. When a candidate stands on a podium expounding upon policy nerd-like or has little to say beyond touting his “accomplishments” (John Kasich comes to mind), they’re proving they don’t get it. Create an emotional bond with the people, and they’re yours. And they will remain yours in the face of others’ intellectual appeals for their affections, for as Ben Franklin observed, “You cannot reason a man out of a position he has not reasoned himself into.” Note that while this relates the futility of trying to shake a person from passionately embraced error, people can also have an emotional attachment to correct beliefs, for the right or wrong reasons and with or without an intellectual understanding (e.g., Plato spoke of inculcating children, who are too young to grasp abstract moral principles, with an “erotic [emotional] attachment” to virtue).
And this is what Trump does so masterfully. When he repeats his slogan “Make America Great Again,” says we’re going to “win” under his administration or speaks of building a border wall and getting “Mexico to pay for it,” it’s silly to wonder why it resonates despite the lack of detail. He’s marketing, not doing R&D; he’s not trying to appeal mainly to the intellect, but the emotions. And you do this with the slogan, not by reciting the list of ingredients. Again, this isn’t a commentary on the validity of his recipe, only on the principles of effective campaigning.
Having said this, if a candidate is the real McCoy, he’ll also have a quality product with a list of ingredients (again, a policy-position webpage) for the discriminating shopper. But if he’s smart he’ll understand that most people are impulse buyers with relatively short memories and recognize the importance of branding himself. Coca-Cola has “Coke is it!” Nike “Just do it!” and Barack Obama had “Yes, we can!” (no, he couldn’t — but it worked). Now, can you think of a GOP candidate other than Trump identifiable by way of a catchy and popular slogan? And it’s no coincidence that “Make America Great Again” was also Reagan’s slogan in 1980.
Of course, stating the obvious, to connect with people emotionally you must capitalize on something appealing to them emotionally. Trump’s bold nationalism does this. What do the others offer? Jeb Bush is associated with saying that illegal migration is “an act of love” and John Kasich with “Think about the [illegals’] families, c’mon, folks!” which might appeal to illegal migrants if they could speak English. And none of the others will even support suspending Muslim immigration — despite deep and widespread fear of Muslim terrorism — which certainly will appeal to Da’esh (ISIS).
It’s as if Trump is courting Lady America with wine, roses and his alpha-male persona, while the Establishment candidates are lead-tongued nerds promising a tent with NSA surveillance, a bowl of soup and squatters on a burnt-out lawn.
------------
Read and comment on the original here: http://uncabob.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-voters-trump-love-affair-explained.html
------------
Quibcag: The cheerleader is Haruhi, of The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya (涼宮ハルヒの憂鬱 Suzumiya Haruhi no Yūutsu)

Sunday, January 24, 2016

Sam Francis yet again!

Talk about a revival. Yes, it's time for Sam Francis to come into his own. Previous blog post here [link]. We seem to be witnessing a realignment. I hope so. There have been several such realignments with the parties in American history. The last really profound one, in my opinion, was Nixon's appeal to the 'silent majority,' many of whom were the small businessmen and lunchbox toters, traditionally Democrats, who later became known as the 'Reagan Democrats' when Ronald Reagan revived and fine-tuned the new coalition that Nixon had begun, also mixing in the former George Wallace supporters.

And now we're witnessing a new such realignment, maybe of pretty much the same sort of people, but the issues driving it all have changed somewhat. All the old issues are still there, but now we have immigration, which was hardly a blip back in 1968, though the die had been cast by Lyndon Johnson, which has led to the mass immigraton mess we have now. Prior to Johnson's destruction of the immigration law which had served us well for 40 years, there had been virtually no immigration by today's standards, and both parties, for the most part, were happy with America being for Americans, and not for the dregs of mankind.

The Democrats are, of course, virtually explicit in their demand that Americans step back and kowtow to the foreign invasion, giving priority to the other over themselves, giving them welfare and affirmative action and first place in everything. The Republicans are hardly less so, with their faux Ellis Island rewriting of history to imply that we were nothing until we were enriched by alien intruders, the more alien and nonAmerican and nonWestern and nonWhite the better.

This, from the Unz Review [link]

Donald Trump, Sam Francis and the Emergence of the Alternative (“Dissident”) Right
----------
Read the original, see a photo of Sam Francis,  and comment here:
http://www.unz.com/article/donald-trump-sam-francis-and-the-emergence-of-the-alternative-dissident-right/
----------
Quibcag: The behavior of the 'conservative leaders' described in the quote seems rather piratical, so the illustration is Kato Marika of Bodacious Space Pirates (モーレツ宇宙海賊パイレーツ Mōretsu Pairētsu)