Monday, February 29, 2016

Let's Hear from David Duke

The antiTrumpers are going crazy over what they say is an "endorsement" of Trump by David Duke. This sets it all straight.

Karol Traven on Trump's popularity with actual Americans

Guest post by Karol Traven:

I have this whole rant about contempt and class and perception and verbal intelligence. I reference the court of the sun king and everything.

Suffice it to say....if you want to know why Trump is so popular? You know the rubes? with their (yuk yuk) fatasses and dirty shirts and fireworks and (yuk yuk) low verbal intelligence making them eminently mockable on the TV shows of high verbal intelligence folks like John Oliver?

They figured out the joke. They figured out that you, glib soft handed, high verbal intelligence, urbanites....hate them. Genuinely see their beliefs and deaths as laughable.

And BOY are they pissed. I do not really GET how deeply, fundamentally enraged these heavily armed, skilled hunters, often ex military with combat experience, and high technical skill.

Probably because theyre really nice. Oh, they're loud mouths. But very very nice people. Who aren't stupid. They just arent....glib.

And they're so f*cking pissed.

I'd seriously reconsider the glib and mockery levels. A lot.

Jeff Sessions has endorsed Donald Trump

I base my support of Trump on two things. First, what he says that I agree with, that the other candidates either don't say or actually reject. The two basic things are that he wants to have a sane immigration policy with no amnesty, and that he wants us to have good trade deals that are to our advantage and that don't give the store away to foreigners. Both these things have to do with national sovereignty, a principle that Trump seems to value, and to which most of the other candidates are either indifferent or downright hostile.

Second, I base my support on the fact that several public people whose opinions I respect have endorsed Trump. Among them are Ilana Mercer, Pat Buchanan, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Sarah Palin, Duncan Hunter, Phyllis Schlafly, and now, Jeff Sessions. If you don't know about Sessions, google him. He's one of the best men in Congress.

At his blog [link], Vox Day says the following about the Sessions endorsement:

Jeff Sessions endorses Trump

The general impression is that this endorsement should finish off Ted Cruz once and for all:
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama) endorsed Donald Trump at a campaign rally in Huntsville Sunday evening. Sessions promised a "Gang of Eight" type of immigration reform bill would not will be passed in a Donald Trump presidency.

"There is an opportunity this year, Tuesday, and we have the opportunity -- we have an opportunity Tuesday. It may be the last opportunity we have for the people's voice to be heard. You have asked for 30 years, and politicians have promised for 30 years to fix illegal immigration," Sessions said.

"The American people have known for years these trade agreements have not been working for them," Sessions stumped. "We now have and will soon have a vote on the Transpacific Partnership TPP), Obamatrade, and it will damage America. It will create a commission that undermines our sovereignty, and it should not pass. Donald Trump when he gets elected president will see it does not pass."

Sessions said Trump is not perfect, but nobody is and endorsed the candidate.

"This movement, he doesn't take money from political groups and lobbyists. He is committed to leading this country in an effective way. You know, nobody is perfect. We can't have everything, can we, Mr. Trump? But I can tell you one thing, I think at this time in my opinion, my best judgment, at this time in America's history, we need to make America great again!" Sessions said, repeating Trump's campaign slogan.

"I am pleased to endorse Donald Trump for the presidency of the United States," Sessions endorsed.
Given that Sessions is supposed to have written Trump's immigration plan, this is hardly a surprise. But combined with Christie's endorsement and Maine Governor LePage's endorsement, it means that the preference cascade among officeholders has started and it's only going to increase.

All of the conservatives nattering and bitching about how Trump isn't a conservative are behind the times and missing the point. It doesn't matter what your national policies are if you don't have a nation. First things first. Sen. Sessions recognizes that.

Does that mean Trump can be trusted to build a wall, to deport all the illegal immigrants, and severely reduce the flow of immigration? No. But a) he's the only candidate who might, and b) he's the Republican nominee.

Deal with it and decide if you prefer President Trump or President Hillary. Because those are now your two choices.
Quibcag: Don't know who did the illustration, but I found it at Sankaku Complex here:

Sunday, February 28, 2016

Hatin' on the Trumpster, Democrat and Republican Alike

We all know why the left hates Trump. He stands for all the things they're against, and seems to be against all the things they like. The left loves masses of immigrants, of course, because they hate, explicitly or otherwise, the basic American person and all his attributes. And the best way to put such people down is to bring other people in to replace them. Leftists hate Americans so much, they even want to bring Muslims in, who are some of the most illiberal people in the world, because they hate Americans more than they love themselves. Hard for normal people to understand, but leftists are that way.

And the left is also hostile to Trump's talk of renegotiating trade deals and his plans to discourage American businesses from relocating plants overseas. And this is especially interesting, because the old left, which actually was supportive of the working class, opposed that sort of thing just like Trump is doing now. But the modern left is all hipsters and academics, and wouldn't recognize a lunchbox if they got slugged with one.

And of course Trump's rejection of Political Correctness especially enrages the left, because PC is basically their religion. PC's other name "cultural marxism," makes the left's attitude towards it somewhat easier to understand.

But why does the so-called "conservative" Republican establishment hate Trump so much? The conventional wisdom is that they're opposed to the left and its preferences, so you'd think they'd be glad to have Trump on hand to slap the lefties around. But no. John Craig explains why this is at his website here [link]:

Why does the Republican establishment fear Trump?

There's been a fair amount of publicity about how the functionaries in the Republican Party dislike and fear Trump. But why, exactly?

If you ask them, they'll say he's not electable. They've felt this way from the beginning, and backed Jeb Bush instead.

Some Republican stalwarts have also said Trump isn't a "true conservative" because in the past he's supported abortion and a national health care plan. But Trump is in fact far more conservative on the issues which have resonated with voters than the Republican establishment has been.

Trump has spoken out against illegal immigration far more strongly than any other candidate. This makes the establishment uncomfortable because they ware terrified of being accused of racism. But turning a blind eye to illegal immigration helps also big business by driving down their labor costs.

This is the issue on which their -- i.e., their donors' -- interests are most directly aligned against the middle class.

Big business also likes to farm plants out to India, China, the Philippines, and Mexico without penalty. They also like being able to reincorporate in Ireland and other tax havens.

Trump has spoken out against these practices. He has also suggested that hedge fund managers out not to have their management earnings taxed at the long term capital gains rate. (Hint as to where the Republican establishment stands on this issue: hedgies donate big bucks to the GOP.)

There's also the discomfort caused by Trump's criticizing of Republican orthodoxy. But who has more credibility: Trump, for saying that the Iraq War was a mistake, or the Republican Party, for refusing to acknowledge that?

Trump also ignores the rules of political correctness. Before him, no major Republican figure dared suggest that illegal immigrants from south of the border committed crime disproportionately, or even raise the possibility that we might reconsider allowing Muslims in until we can screen the terrorists better.

The Republican establishment, naturally, found this embarrassing. But polls show that a majority of Republicans and plurality of all voters agree with Trump about Muslim immigration.

Trump has also denounced the soft corruption of campaign contributions. This scares not only the big business donors, but also all the Senators and Congressmen hoping to eventually make a handsome living on K Street.

The Republican Party has always paid lip service to the middle class, but has enacted policies which favor their rich donors. And that's where Trump really scares them. If they can't control him, donors would have less reason to give the Party money. Even worse, Trump might try to reform that system.

It is true that Trump has turned every criticism he's received into a personal vendetta, and part of the job description for the Presidency is "thick skin." Calling Carly Fiorina ugly was ugly, saying Megan Kelly was "bleeding from her wherever" was a poor choice of words, and saying John McCain wasn't a war hero was ridiculous. But so far, none of the salvos from this loose cannon have backfired.

Yes, Trump is a bully and an egomaniac. But that's not why the Republican establishment fears him.  The real reason is, they want to keep their donors happy.

Otherwise, their spigot gets turned off, and then who would support them?
Quibcag: Here we have Tendo Nabiki, of  Ranma ½ (らんま½), eating a sucker. Best I could do.

Saturday, February 27, 2016

Trump could be a phony, sure, but Rubio and Cruz are 100% certified phonies.

The antiTrumpers keep telling us over and over again that we have to be skeptical of Trump and that we can't trust Trump. Sure. That's true of just about all candidates for President, past and future. We should be skeptical because we can't read his mind, any more than we can anybody else's. But why is it only Trump that we are cautioned about this way? Since he transformed into a political person —which he wasn't before — he's been consistent about things. And his explanation that, as a businessman, it was his intention to get along with everybody, from Hillary to Saudis in bedsheets, has the ring of truth about it.

But the antiTrumpers seem to want me to consider Trump an undependable liar, and at the same time take the other candidates at face value. It is to laugh.

Surely I don't have to tell the readers of this blog that Rubio is a complete blank. Do I? I mean, he was a member of the Gang of Eight, working hand in hand with Chuck Schumer, to try to force amnesty for millions of illegals down our throats. Got that? There is no reason to believe anything Rubio about anything whatever, anytime. He is a crawling horror. A vote for Rubio is a vote for giving amnesty to the millions of illegals here now, and attracting thereby millions more.

As for Carson, yes. Nice man. Doesn't know much. Wussy personality. Not really what anybody wants for President, seriously. If Republicans really want their own Black President, Alan West is standing right there.

Kasich, like Trump, only to a much lesser degree, is an nice contrast to the girly-boy feeling we all get when watching Cruz and Rubio perform, but only in contrast. Remember that he's fine with amnesty too, and wants to start World War III by arming Ukrainians. And he likes war in general, like most of our current cohort of lifelong civilian politicians.

But we're tempted to think more highly of Cruz, who is touted as more conservative, and some kind of Senate gadfly who doesn't get along with "establishment" Republicans. Like hell. Here's what Mickey Kaus has unearthed.

If Amnesty Wins, Blame Cruz

Mickey Kaus

If an immigration amnesty bill passes in this Congress-and there’s a definite chance it will–I know whom I’ll blame: Senator Ted Cruz. This might seem odd, since Cruz opposes amnesty. It’s not. Cruz was the national politician best positioned to stop the bipartisan, MSM-backed push for “legalization first.’ He not only failed to rise to the occasion, he’s recently increased its chance of becoming law.
The two-count indictment:
1. He didn’t step up in the Senate: As a charismatic Latino apostate, Sen. Marco Rubio quickly became the leader of the pro-amnesty faction in the Senate.  The anti-amnesty faction (composed entirely of Republicans) … well, they needed a leader too, especially a Latino leader, especially leader who was also a potential presidential candidate (and who could therefore scare all the other waffling presidential candidates with the possibility that he’d run against them on the immigration issue).  Such a spokesman would be in the press and on the Senate floor, day after day, making the case against the “Gang of 8” con job even if it risked costing him some MSM and donor support.  Cruz would have been perfect–he can be brilliant in argumentative give and take. But he didn’t do it. Instead, he contributed the minimum necessary to maintain his credibility as a foe of the Gang of 8: promoted an online petition, gave a nice floor presentation and a couple of cogent outdooraddresses to African American marchers and Tea-Partiers rallying on the mall. But the job of actually leading the opposition, day in and out,  fell to Sen. Jeff Sessions–who was organized, forceful and logical but couldn’t bring the PR heft to the fight that Cruz could. You got the impression that Cruz felt the Senate was a lost cause, and he behaved accordingly–which made the Senate close to a lost cause.

Read more:

And this, from the Christian Science Monitor:

Ted Cruz on immigration: How his views have shifted

The change of heart on immigration reflects Ted Cruz's small but important shift to the right on one of the presidential race's hottest issues

Ted Cruz has for months repeated that when it comes to immigration, he has never supported granting "amnesty" or "legalization" to people in the United States illegally.
He's half right.
Cruz once advised a White House working group that crafted President George W. Bush's ultimately unsuccessful 2004 immigration overhaul, which sought to offer temporary work visas to millions of people in the country illegally. He also was Texas state chairman of a conservative Hispanic organization that advocated for Bush's proposal.
And, in the Senate in 2013, Cruz sought to amend a sweeping immigration overhaul carried by one of his now presidential rivals, Marco Rubio. Cruz wanted to remove the possibility of obtaining U.S. citizenship, but didn't touch language allowing for a pathway to legal immigration status for those here illegally.
Cruz's past public statements seemingly supporting immigration reform with his amendments came back to haunt him during a Republican debate last month in Iowa — and the issue could prove thorny yet again for him during Saturday night's debate in Greenville, just a week before the South Carolina primary.
The change of heart on immigration reflects Cruz's small but important shift to the right on one of the presidential race's hottest-button issues, as a candidate who is already a tea party darling looks to further solidify his conservative credentials.
Read the rest here:
Thanks to Jack Kerwick for pointing out these two articles to me. [lin
So, I'm advised to reject Trump, who just might do what he says he'll do, in favor of Rubio and/or Cruz, both of which are clear liars and hypocrites? Uh-uh. I'll be voting for Trump, thank you.


Quibcag: I was looking around for the three witches who told MacBeth that he would be king, kingmakers, you see. Couldn't find them, but I found the three little witches from Little Witch Academia (リトルウィッチアカデミアRitoru Witchi Akademia). A whole lot cuter, I think you'll agree.

Diversity vs. Compatibility, According to Fred

Somebody, I can't remember who, in the wide array of libertarian thinking, pointed out once that "pollution" is a bit of a misleading word, in that it makes you think of "pollutants" as intrinsically bad things. Actually, in many cases, they're just things that are in the wrong places. Things that would be benign or even valuable elsewhere. That's the whole idea of recycling trash. It's a pollutant on the street but you can pick it up and make good stuff out of it. So when it comes to waste paper or plastic bottles, it's not a matter of good or bad, but of compatibility with surroundings. When it's full of water in your refrigerator, a plastic bottle is a good thing, a valuable thing. But when it's lying in the gutter, it's pollution.

And that applies to people. As far as I'm concerned, there's no problem with, say, Muslims. They're fine in Tunisia or Turkey or Turkmenistan and, for the most part, function as well as most people. The problem comes when they wind up in the wrong place, like in the midst of a bunch of Hindus or Christians. Then watch out. And you can say the same thing about Christians, of course. They're fine in Poland or Portugal or Poughkeepsie, but smack down a bunch of them in LIbya or China and, again, watch out.

And that applies not just to religious divisions, but to racial, ethnic, and linguistic divisions as well. You can think up plenty of examples for yourself. Icelanders and Bangladeshis seldom fight because they seldom see one another.

Now, obviously, there are degrees of incompatibility. Muslims tend to be incompatible with just about everybody else, while, say, Zen Buddhists are easier to get along with. But as Fred points out, even the nicest groups will develop friction and animosity when forced into close association. This is from Fred's website here [link]:

Diversity: A Civilizational Nightmare

A tribulation of following the news is the desperate peddling—it would appall an Amway salesman– of diversity, said to be our strength. Oh? Exactly why it is our strength is never specified. It seems to have brought no benefit beyond crime, rape, and genital mutilation. While the desirability of these advances is beyond dispute, it nonetheless seems to me that diversity has minor drawbacks worthy of consideration.
So, brothels and cisterns, let us look at some of the resplendent marvels of diversity, and the onward march of human betterment and happiness attendant thereunto. What have been the relations between:
In Germany, Germans and Moslems. In Canada, Frogs, Anglos, and Indians. In the US, blacks, whites, browns, and Moslems. In Sri Lanka, Tamils and Sinhalese. In Sweden, Swedes and Moslems. In Ireland, Prots and Catholics.  In Rwanda, Hutus and Tutsis, or maybe Tutus and Hutsis. In India, Hindus and Moslems among others. In Israel, Jews and Arabs. In France, French and Moslems. In Sudan, Moslems and Christians. In South Africa, Xhosa, Bantus, and whites. In Iraq and elsewhere, Shias and Sunnis. In Xian Jiang, Chinese and Moslems.  In Spain, Basques, Catalans, and the rest. In Germany, Jews and Germans. In Turkey, Turks and Armenians and Kurds. In ISIS-land, Moslems and Christians, Sunnis and Shias. In Indonesia, Indonesians and Chinese. In Holland, Dtuch and Moslems.
Most of these happy proximities have produced bloodbaths, actual genocide or attempts at it, forced migration as when Uganda threw out its Indians, mass butchery by machete as in Rwanda, repeated bombings in London, and such like exuberances. Other disasters are still only in the simmering stage. Americans are among those being simmered.
From which one might conclude that diversity is the principal cause of human unhappiness, mightn’t one?
In America the pattern holds. We are seeing serious and increasing racial attacks by blacks on whites and the looting of shopping malls that has now become traditional, like picnics on the Fourth of July: hunting and gathering. The importation of Moslems is reaching the point at which they can become the grave and irremediable problem that they are everywhere else. The growing Hispanic population causes friction, particularly in the Southwest and provokes cries for expulsion.
Lay the blame where you will: on white racists, black racists, racists of whatever color, on God or genes or sunspots. But reflect, though, on how very much of the trouble reported daily in the news arises from diversity. For example, achievement gaps, suspension rates in schools, rapes, honor killings, shootings by police, shootings of blacks by blacks, complaints of discrimination, interracial gang-beatings, affirmative action, mass demonstrations, actual terrorism, shootings of cops, demands for censoring of books and the removal of statues and the renaming of highways. Diversity is by a wide margin the worst nightmare facing the US.
All of which would suggest even to the birds of the air, the kine of the fields, to box turtles and retarded marmosets and the  alert among  the great apes that diversity is a terrible idea. Mix different kinds of people and you get trouble. In politics, diversity also grates. Those most afflicted by the twin scourges of liberalism and conservatism despise each other and do not willingly associate. Feminists and men, city slickers and rednecks, dogs and cats—all hate each other. So what should America’s response be?
Read the rest here
Quibcag: The cute little girls symbolizing Japan and the USA are from Hetalia: Axis Powers (Axis Powers ヘタリア)..

Friday, February 26, 2016

Peggy Noonan Knocks It Out Of The Park

The talking heads just don't seem to get it. They've been calling for Trump's collapse from day one. And the very things that they believe will sink him are the things that are making him more and more popular. The bozos at CNN tried to torpedo him by bringing in a newsbimbo from Telemundo, because, of course, the typical American voter is really going to hate Trump if he fails to genuflect to a foreign-ish questioner. And the news in general were delighted that the former President of Mexico  used the f-word on Trump. Again, Joe Sixpack American voter was sure to be horrified that Trump had so upset a foreign guy with a foreign accent. And they're also sure that a denunciation of Trump and a warning agains voting for him from a Communist Chinese official, of all people, is going to make people afraid to vote for him. And I can remember when the same clown-pundits were sure that Reagan's calling the Soviet Union "Evil Empire" would spell the end of Reagan. Instead, it signaled the coming end of the Soviet Union. Sheesh.

These people live in a dream world where American voters are hipsters, just like them, and are going to be repulsed by Trump's aggressive, masculine nationalism, and will vote for one of those wussy Cubans instead. No. Americans are, believe it or not, a nationalist people who want their government to be vigorously and aggressively pro-American. The don't want their jobs given away to illegal or legal immigrants. And they don't want their factory jobs to disappear overseas. And they don't want to push one for English.

The voters in America, you see, aren't a bunch of latté-sipping SJW's. They're working people, or people trying to work. They're the Silent Majority, the Forgotten Man. They're wage-earning Republicans and Democrats. They're small business people. And they're tired of taking second place to everybody else, be they Black Lives Matter or La Raza or a bunch of immigrants from everywhere.

And Peggy Noonan knows what's going on. This, from her site at [link]:

Trump and the Rise of the Unprotected

Why political professionals are struggling to make sense of the world they created.

We’re in a funny moment. Those who do politics for a living, some of them quite brilliant, are struggling to comprehend the central fact of the Republican primary race, while regular people have already absorbed what has happened and is happening. Journalists and politicos have been sharing schemes for how Marco parlays a victory out of winning nowhere, or Ted roars back, or Kasich has to finish second in Ohio. But in my experience any nonpolitical person on the street, when asked who will win, not only knows but gets a look as if you’re teasing him. Trump, they say.
I had such a conversation again Tuesday with a friend who repairs shoes in a shop on Lexington Avenue. Jimmy asked me, conversationally, what was going to happen. I deflected and asked who he thinks is going to win. “Troomp!” He’s a very nice man, an elderly, old-school Italian-American, but I saw impatience flick across his face: Aren’t you supposed to know these things? 
In America now only normal people are capable of seeing the obvious. 
But actually that’s been true for a while, and is how we got in the position we’re in.
Last October I wrote of the five stages of Trump, based on the Kübler-Ross stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. Most of the professionals I know are stuck somewhere between four and five. 
But I keep thinking of how Donald Trump got to be the very likely Republican nominee. There are many answers and reasons, but my thoughts keep revolving around the idea of protection. It is a theme that has been something of a preoccupation in this space over the years, but I think I am seeing it now grow into an overall political dynamic throughout the West.
There are the protected and the unprotected. The protected make public policy. The unprotected live in it. The unprotected are starting to push back, powerfully.
The protected are the accomplished, the secure, the successful—those who have power or access to it. They are protected from much of the roughness of the world. More to the point, they are protected from the world they have created. Again, they make public policy and have for some time. 
I want to call them the elite to load the rhetorical dice, but let’s stick with the protected.
They are figures in government, politics and media. They live in nice neighborhoods, safe ones. Their families function, their kids go to good schools, they’ve got some money. All of these things tend to isolate them, or provide buffers. Some of them—in Washington it is important officials in the executive branch or on the Hill; in Brussels, significant figures in the European Union—literally have their own security details. 
Because they are protected they feel they can do pretty much anything, impose any reality. They’re insulated from many of the effects of their own decisions. 
One issue obviously roiling the U.S. and western Europe is immigration. It is THE issue of the moment, a real and concrete one but also a symbolic one: It stands for all the distance between governments and their citizens. 
It is of course the issue that made Donald Trump. 
Britain will probably leave the European Union over it. In truth immigration is one front in that battle, but it is the most salient because of the European refugee crisis and the failure of the protected class to address it realistically and in a way that offers safety to the unprotected.
If you are an unprotected American—one with limited resources and negligible access to power—you have absorbed some lessons from the past 20 years’ experience of illegal immigration. You know the Democrats won’t protect you and the Republicans won’t help you. Both parties refused to control the border. The Republicans were afraid of being called illiberal, racist, of losing a demographic for a generation. The Democrats wanted to keep the issue alive to use it as a wedge against the Republicans and to establish themselves as owners of the Hispanic vote.

Read the rest here:
Quibcag: Sera Masumi, of Detective Conan, AKA Meitantei Conan (名探偵コナン), pushes back, as she usually does.

You go, girl!


Thursday, February 25, 2016

Steve Sailer's Republican Debate Open Thread

Steve Sailer has an open thread going on at his site [link], and like most of his posts, the comments are pure gold. I got the quibcag quote here from them, as a matter of fact. It's a doozie of a quote, but note that NC is talking about the orthodox left-libertarians here, and not the rational libertarian nationalist like me and many others who choose survival You should be reading Steve all the time, of course, but this is especially juicy and about an especially juicy debate, so click and enjoy.
Quibcag: I don't know where the illustration came from, but it's the only buok-as-weapon picture I could find.

Being Lied To

Why do people support Trump? The pundits have lots of reasons, all pretty much wrong. Some say that Trump supporters are "angry," implying that there's nothing to be angry about, I guess, and that it's a sign of imbalance. We should all be delighted as hell at the path the country's been on for the past decades. Another way of making the same snarky point is that Trump's supporters are "haters," a favorite word the left uses to designate people who disagree with the leftist narrative for whatever reason. Another way they like to put it is that Trump "appeals to base instincts."

The fact of the matter is that all the other candidates are fools who don't know what the truth is, and therefore can't tell the truth, or that they're liars who carefully don't tell the truth, because it would mess up their liberal/neocon narrative.

And what do they lie about? Mostly they lie by misdirection, trying to get us all worked up about abortion, which Republicans have never done anything to slow down, getting us all exited about overthrowing yet another Middle Eastern dictator which will have nothing but bad consequences, like the last few times, and talking about income inequality while very carefully ignoring the cause of it.

They lie by not mentioning the immigration crisis, until Trump rubs their noses in it. Rubio has spent his Senate career fighting to legalize all the illegals, and attract more to move in. That is the case, and he's lying like mad about it now. Cruz is little better, and has mostly just ignored the crisis. Kasich is on record as saying illegals are just peachy. And they also lie by omission about the loss of jobs to other countries.

These are the two biggest problems we've got, folks. Loss of jobs, due to our letting industries move out to foreign countries, and also due to bad trade deals with other countries, and massive immigration, legal and illegal, which also of course destroys jobs for Americans and also hikes their taxes when they do have jobs.

Who's telling the truth about these two problems? Yep, Trump and Trump alone. Here's what Bob Wallace says, from his site here [link]:

Win or Lose, Trump is Destroying Both Traitorous Parties

He's called out Dubya Shrub as the mass-murdering war criminal that he is, who deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison.

He's called out Bill Clinton as the sexual predator he is (actually a white trash serial rapist who deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison, too).

Will he call out Hillary Clinton as the drunken carpet-muncher she is? How can the deluded think this warmonger is a liberal?

Will he call out Marco Rubio as the fag he is? And an open borders one at that?

Will he call out the press as the chronic liar it is? (There is a European saying: "He lies like print.")

The outragious he gets, the more the mass of people love him, because he's telling the truth.

Both parties all been crapping all over this country for 40 years, and I want to see both of them destroyed - dead, dead, dead.
Quibcag: The girl is Amy, from Gargantia on the Verdurous Planet (翠星のガルガンティア Suisei no Garugantia). She has a navel. Get it?

A VP for the Trumpster, Part II

A few posts ago I suggested that Trump consider General Mattis [link] as his running mate. I still think    he'd be a good choice, but now I have a better idea. It took a news item to jolt me. Duncan D. Hunter endorsed Trump. [link]  Now, don't confuse Duncan D. Hunter with his dad, Duncan L. Hunter, whom he succeeded in Congress, and who had his own run for President that never quite got off the ground some time back. You can read about Duncan D. here [link]. He has the right idea about immigration, which would make him a better running mate than Cruz, Rubio, or Kasich, who have immigration records ranging from horrible to ambiguous, and he also has all kinds of conservative credentials and a  fantastic military record.

Do use the comments section to comment on this, one way or the other. And if you have any other ideas about who should be Trump's running mate.

Tuesday, February 23, 2016

Liberal Nuance — There Isn't Any

Liberals almost never argue, but instead accuse. If you disagree with them on any policy whatsoever, it's not because you reason differently than they do, or that you have different facts to work with, but because there's something wrong with you. Usually, it's because you're 'ignorant,' which is liberal duckspeak for not following the herd. On other occasions, or even on the same occasions, it's because you "hate" something or other, like poor people or women or brown people or Muslims or foreigners or homosexuals or whatever is trendy at the moment. Essentially, you're either on their side or you're an evil person.

Another thing they're fond of accusing you of is "fear." Recently, on some forum or another, a liberal (one of those liberals, I believe, who thinks he's a libertarian), reacting to my arguments against open borders, said that I "hate brown people." Only possible explanation in his groovy little fantasy world. It's either all or none with his sort, you see. Either I want the borders wide open with no restrictions whatever, or I "hate" those who would immigrate.

And liberals insist that our side always thinks in terms of black and white with no gray areas.

It's either unquestioning, unskeptical acceptance of something, be it immigrants or sexual deviants or one sort of obscenity or another, or you "hate" whatever it is. No room for prudence, or any kind of nuanced judgment of anything. That's the way liberals see the world, of course. All tradition is bad, all innovations are good. All things American (or British, or whatever, depending on the liberal's nationality) are bad, all things foreign are good. All White people are bad, all nonWhite people are good and noble. There's a slight exception in that last one for White liberals.  They're all right, of course.

Getting back to "fear," if you don't want illegal immigrants, it's because you're afraid of them, not because you think they're a detriment to the country. If you think homosexual marriage is idiotic, it's because you're afraid of it. This is why silly words like "Islamophobia" and "transphobia" are so populat among liberals.

Here's a reprint from Anonymous Conservative [link] that explains this further,

Xenophobia and Fear

Pregnant women in their first trimester, as it turns out, also exhibit more ethnocentric and xenophobic attitudes than those further along in their pregnancies. That’s a trend researchers have found across studies and across borders: The more vulnerable we feel to disease, the more likely we are to want to build a proverbial wall (and make Mexico pay for it!). One early study by Schaller and others found that people who are more worried about getting sick are more likely to associate foreign groups with danger and have more hostile attitudes toward foreign-immigrant groups. In another experiment, Canadians who were shown images of infectious diseases were less likely to support immigrants from exotic-seeming countries, such as Mongolia, than were those who saw images of other types of threats, like car accidents. 
The findings have held up across cultures. Over the course of several studies, Murray and Schaller have found that countries that suffered a greater prevalence of diseases like malaria and leprosy were also more likely to be collectivist and conformist, as measured by things like personality variation among the country’s citizens and the number of left-handed people. (In some more traditional cultures, naturally left-handed kids are forced to train themselves to become right-handed.) The two researchers have also found that people in more disease-addled countries are less likely to be extroverted or open to new experiences. If people would just behave traditionally, act in unison, and eschew strangers, the behavioral immune system’s thinking seems to be, maybe they wouldn’t catch diphtheria. 
Could a subconscious fear of disease be part of what’s prompting Trump supporters to cheer his plan to ban Muslims and Mexicans?
I want to attack liberals for trying to link these things with fear. To me, it feels as if it is a clear case of the liberal trying to make more competitive psychologies sound cowardly to the passing observer, unlike the brave liberal who proudly lets his wife, his family, and his nation be cuckolded by savage foreigners, as he sits in the corner watching without all that cowardly fear.
But I suspect that my initial feelings about the situation are mistaken. I suspect our larger amygdalae are not just better at discerning danger, and motivating us to oppose it. I suspect that our more complex amygdalae apply a similarly more complex suite of feelings to our brain to motivate us in a more complex variety of ways – and the liberal brain is completely unable to even begin to understand any of it.
It has often been said, liberals are sheep with only two speeds – graze and stampede. That liberal amygdala tends to either be coddled by ignorance, obliviousness, or outright denial into a state of blissful narcosis, or it is in epic panic mode, with no ability to discern nuance. The more liberal you go, the more the radical Muslim ISIS follower is a fine bloke to have a beer with, while a brief talk with Milo has them dropping like flies from mental breakdowns. The amygdala of a liberal is either at a panic level of zero, or redlining just above ten as it sparks and smokes into meltdown.
K-strategists are different. K-strategists analyze circumstances, and receive from their amygdalae a more complex motivational force. Like any human, K-strategists can feel utter panic, and feel driven by their amygdala to seek a pathway to escape – liberals understand that just fine. 
A K-strategist may also feel a temporal fear-like-aversion which they know exists only temporarily, motivating them to execute a momentary tactical retreat, in preparation for a ruthless counter-attack. That is more of an intellectual, “don’t do that” aversion feeling, than what a liberal would describe as fear. It is like seeing a hot stove and not feeling fear, but knowing not to touch it. I don’t think liberals understand that one at all, judging by the easily-avoidable, stupid things they do which any idiot could see are going to hurt later.
The K-strategist may also feel anger, even feeling driven to die on the tip of a sword if necessary to stymie some enemy – a motivational force which I suspect could not be explained to a liberal any more than I could explain to you what another color beyond the visible spectrum looked like. You know what red, orange, green, blue and purple look like? You know how they are all different from one another? Picture another color just like them, but just as different from them as they are from each other – a color you have never seen. Liberals just don’t fearlessly die for their causes – they lack the emotional motivator. It is an emotional color they can’t imagine, having never seen it. It is a color beyond graze, and stampede. Kind of like stampede, only in reverse, turned around 180 degrees, and motivated by something completely different.
K-strategists can even feel love, and it will mix in the amygdala to create a mixed drive which will leave them motivated to die for that. The military man who jumps on a hand grenade can’t really see a description of his emotional drive reduced to the fear we see liberals castigate us for, or anger at any individual. It is an amygdala-applied cognitive force which I suspect you could never explain to a Bill Clinton. To him it is a color, just like red, but different from any other color he has ever seen. It isn’t stampede, or graze, or even stampede in reverse and turned around – it is like flying straight upward, for a totally different reason than motivated any of the other actions. 
So when a liberal sees a K-strategist do something, and says, “They do that because they are afraid,” I think they are just looking at all the emotional colors they have ever seen, namely blissful ignorance and utter panic, and trying to liken the behavior they see to some emotional color which they are familiar with. If it isn’t consistent with bliss, it must be fear. 
More and more, I think living within a liberal brain is one of the worst curses life could inflict upon you. From the lack of richness in one’s emotional life, to needing therapy after hearing Milo speak for a few minutes, it just seems as if liberalism is a living nightmare which liberals would really want to wake up from, if only they knew how nice it is to not be afflicted with the amygdala-deficiency underlying their malady. 
Unfortunately for them, conservative thought processes are a cognitive color they have never seen
Quibcag: The shepherd girl is, of course Hatsune Miku.

Monday, February 22, 2016

To Hack or not to hack?

I haven't commented on the Apple phone hacking controversy because I'm not sure what the issues are — Apple says that opening one phone would make all phones vulnerable, and others say not so — and it's technical beyond my job description. So I frankly don't know, and I've heard good-sounding arguments on both sides. But Federale [link] says something quite different than what I've been reading elsewhere and it's rather though-provoking. Make of it what you will.

Indians, Jews, and Homosexuals Ally With Muslim Terrorists

In the no surprise department, the tech industry and their Jewish, Indian, Homosexual, and Tranny leaders are supporting the fight by Apple, and Apple's homosexual leader, Tim Cook, to defy a lawful warrant from a U.S. Magistrate to cooperate with the search of an Apple iPhone. All to protect a Muslim terrorist killer, Syed Rizwan Farook. This is a coalition of outsiders and America haters that the tech industry is notorious for. [Tech Industry Slowly Rallies Behind Apple In iPhone Fight, by Jessica Guynn, February 20, 2016]

Sundar Pichai, CEO of Google, was the first head of a major tech company to side with Apple, saying in a series of tweets on Wednesday that "forcing companies to enable hacking could compromise users’ privacy" and would set a "troubling precedent..."
Facebook followed with more forceful language on Thursday, warning of a "chilling precedent" and pledging to "fight aggressively" against government efforts to "weaken the security" of consumer tech products.
CEO Jack Dorsey tweeted Twitter's support, later on Thursday: "We stand with @tim_cook and Apple (and thank him for his leadership)!"
Of course, it is all based on lies. The U.S. Magistrate has not ordered Apple to change their operating system, but just to disable security features on a single phone, issued on an All Writs Warrant based on probable cause. But they continue their lies about mythical "backdoors."

On Wednesday, Microsoft's president and chief legal officer Brad Smith tweeted a link to a trade group statement, saying "essential to have broad public discussion on these important issues." Late Thursday Smith tweeted the link again and made a stronger statement: "In a world where we need to keep both the public safe and privacy rights secure, backdoors take us backwards."
Tellingly, Pichai, the CEO of Google, is an Indian immigrant, and has no understanding or love of America. Like most Indians from Tamil Nadu, he was raised on anti-American propoganda from the Congress Party and the various Indian communist parties that dominate politics in that low IQ southern Indian state.

Tim Cook is, of course, a homosexual, who has a deep and abiding hatred of the 98% of Americans who find anal intercourse between two men and the other perversions associated with homosexuality abhorrent. He's angry that Americans reject his mental illness, so he wants to see as many normal Americans killed, like those who were killed in San Bernardino by Sayed Farook.

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg is also a notorious hater. As a Jew, he has always seen himself as an eternal outsider and acts the part to hilt. He hates Americans because they won't work for him for slave wages. He openly wants to replace his American workforce with Indian and Chinese H-1B visa holders, who offer a compliant workforce at low wages. No wonder he needs an armed security force to protect him. And he's apparently a jack-ass, hogging parking in his neighborhood, pissing his neighbors off in his parking tight part of San Francisco.

Twitter and its Chief Executive Officer Jack Dorsey is another case. He's a notorious Cultural Marxist, with a crazy tranny on his management staff. He has also recently began a campaign to suppress freedom on speech on Twitter, targeting conservatives like Robert Stacy McCain and Milo Yiannopoulos.

Not coincidentally, the terrorist in question, Syed Rizwan Farook, is the son of immigrants from the Indian subcontinent, as un-acculturated as Pichai. Both Farook and Pichai suckled at the teat of anti-Americanism either in India or in a South Asian family and in Indo-Pakistani mosques. More interesting is that Muslim terrorists are responsible for the death of millions of Indian Hindus and are the most anti-Semitic group in the world. So why Zuck and Pichai pander to Islam in this case is strange. The only explanation is they consider themselves above the law, and more importantly, not part of the community, but something separate from the rest of America, which is the most likely explanation.

Furthermore their attitude to homosexuals like Tim Cook are murderous. But for Cultural Marxists, the near enemy, America and Americans, is always their target. Their mental illnesses keep them from realizing that Islam will be their death, but then homosexuality in particular is a suicidal death cult, with many of their sexual fantasies involving rape, humiliation, torture, and murder. Consequently, Islam is right up their alley, so to speak. And with all their personal security, they clearly see themselves as not susceptible to Muslim terrorism, or so they think.

From a professional standpoint though, a security team of 16 spread over three 8 hour shifts is not much to a determined assassin. So Zuck and his ilk are much more vulnerable than they think. They think they're the smartest people, but outside their narrow area of expertise, not that bright. Zuckerberg's home in the Dolores Heights area of San Francisco, has no set-back or blast fence, what security professionals describe as the first layer of physical security, so the favorite tactic of Islamists, the car bomb or suicide bomber, can easily hit Zuck's new home. If the next Syed Rizwan Farook plan the next ISIS attack on an iPhone, cosmic justice will be served. Zuck is also infamous for wandering the streets without a protective detail, so a simple assault like Farook's on the San Bernardino County office will be easily accomplished by the next Islamic State attack team if they decided to target Zuck. Also, Zuck appears to be hiring the bottom of the barrel for security, including a possible illegal alien, which is very common in the security guard business. So, where Zuck is trying to save pennies, he is being pound foolish.

The tech industry seems to attract the alienated, in every definition, from our society; immature self-proclaimed outsiders with no love or sense of community beyond their own visions, perversions, hatreds, and mental illnesses. They must not be above the law, and need to be held accountable. One hopes that Trump's 45% tariff on Chinese goods hits Apple good and hard. They deserve it for allying themselves with radical Islam, and driving their manufacturing employees to suicide.

Zuck Mansion
A Security Nightmare Indefensible Against Suicide Attack
Quibcag: Found the illustration on the net.

Trump's a conservative, NOT a neoconservative.

Trump has been mischaracterized more than any other candidate in my memory. There seem to be three basic groups who are making stuff up about him. The first are the Democrat-progressive-liberals, who know that he'll certainly mess up their little playpen, and are calling him racist and bigoted and all the usual names the apply to those who oppose them. The second group are misled conservatives, who don't see that Trump's policy is the most effectively conservative — being nationalist as opposed to globalist, and smacking down political correctness wherever it pops up — while the other pseudo-conservative candidates are nothing more than Democrats-lite, really. And the third, most powerful group is the Republican establishment, who are committed to globalism, endless intervention abroad, and massive immigration, pretty much the same as the Democrats.

Tyler Seth puts it this way:

Trump isn't playing to America's worst instincts.

I'm tired of hearing Bernie supporters say this.

These people need to look in the mirror.

Bernie appeals to the entitlement mentality. He appeals to the urge to get something for nothing. He's essentially bribing voters with the promise of free money.

He blames everything on the rich.

Seriously, f*ck that communist demagogue.

He's pushing lies and easy answers.

In contrast, Trump is telling hard truths.

Islam is a dangerous religion that has a drive for conquest built into its foundations.

Mass immigration will bankrupt Western nations and displace our people in their own homelands.

China isn't a long term ally. It's an alien civilization looking after its own interests.

Our leaders have grown weak and are impeded by political correctness.

This isn't demagoguery. It's quite the opposite. He's come bearing bad news and is asking his countrymen to rise to the occasion.

He's not some salesman peddling sophistry and utopia.

Quibcag: Anime girls in Trump hats are all over the net. Very gratifying.

Sunday, February 21, 2016

Who is Donald Trump?

Analogies are never perfect, but they're fun and sometimes informative, and at least, if at all appropriate, a good starting point for a deeper discussion. Trump has lately been compared to a lot of historical figures, from Hitler (of course — the left compares all their opponents to Hitler) to Andrew Johnson (I'm still trying to figure that one out.

My own favorite comparison is Andrew Jackson — firmly patriotic, full of energy, about as politically incorrect as you can get, and always ready for a fight. And a champion of the the ordinary working-class American as opposed to the elite.

It's also appealing to compare him to Teddy Roosevelt, for many of the same reasons, and also for his attitude about immigrants: He said, back in 1907:

We should insist that if the immigrant who comes here does in good faith become an American and assimilates himself to us he shall be treated on an exact equality with every one else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed or birth-place or origin.

But this is predicated upon the man’s becoming in very fact an American and nothing but an American. If he tries to keep segregated with men of his own origin and separated from the rest of America, then he isn’t doing his part as an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. . . We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding-house; and we have room for but one soul loyalty, and that is loyalty to the American people.

Hard to argue with that one. Unless you're a liberal or a neocon, of course. None of the current candidates, again with the exception of Trump, would dream of saying such a racist, bigoted, etc. thing.

And some have compared Trump to Henry VIII, because of his dust-up with the Pope, which is a bit of a stretch.

It's more useful, I think, to compare him to previous political insurgents, who changed, or tried to, the direction of political philosophy in this country. Goldwater is an obvious example, and you can throw in Reagan, both Wallaces, Thurmond, of course, and even Lindbergh, though he never really followed through. And you can make a case for comparing him to Henry Ford, who was both a great businessman and a political thinker.

And then you have Perot, which I really think is a bad comparison, because he operated as a gadfly and didn't really, I believe, want the responsibility of the Presidency.

But the best recent example is Pat Buchanan.  This is from Buchanan's own site [link]:

Pitchfork Trump

By Ben Domenech at The Federalist

Buchanan’s culture war speech to the 1992 convention is one of the greatest American statements of fiercely populist social conservatism, warning of the apocalyptic decay to come.

Donald Trump has been compared to Pat Buchanan often enough, by many commentators. He shares Buchanan’s views on a host of topics, at least conditionally – on immigration, foreign policy, and trade, he gives lip service to Buchananite ideas, and his support from blue collar Americans seems similar to Buchanan’s.

Those who make the comparison also tend to be cautioning against reading too much into Trump’s early success, because Buchanan won 4 of the first 6 contests in 1996. But there are a couple of key ways Trump is different than Buchanan, and those differences indicate why he is a much greater candidate in terms of his potential to win the nomination and the presidency.

Buchanan and Trump share a view of economic nationalism that appeals to the working class and offends elites – but Trump does so from a position of great accomplishment within the American economy. This gives working and middle class voters a lot more faith in his ability to turn things around compared to someone who had worked as a commentator and a political aide for the bulk of his career.

The possibility of a recession approaching on the horizon tends to push voters toward Trump, who can tout his personal wealth and his record of job creation within his companies as a stand-in for economic policy chops. This success also gives him the capacity to self-fund his campaign, which has a unique appeal for an electorate hungering for the leader who will not be bought.

Trump is a truly national figure with much broader personal appeal and awareness than Buchanan – who was certainly a prominent political commentator, but only really known within that space. The gap between American devotion to reality TV and American devotion to The McLaughlin Group is wide indeed. The Trump brand is immediately recognizable to the low-information voter in a powerful way, and it speaks to a certain American combination of in-your-face accomplishment and brash decadence. The Buchanan brand was insurrectionist, as is Trump’s, but it was much more ideological, and far more narrow in appeal.

The most important distinction between the two, however, may have to do with faith, and Trump’s well-evident lack thereof. Right From The Beginning, Buchanan’s 1988 memoir of growing up from a rabble rousing Georgetown juvenile delinquent to Dick Nixon’s hatchet man – an entertaining book which everyone should read – is knit together by his Catholic faith and his devotion to the church, a far cry from the New York billionaire who a few weeks ago tried to put money in an Iowa communion plate. Buchanan’s culture war speech to the 1992 convention is one of the greatest American statements of fiercely populist social conservatism, warning of the apocalyptic decay to come.

Trump exists in a post-apocalyptic world for social conservatives, and he exists in it as an avowed secularist who gives off enough signals that he seems like an ally. So the culture war he fights in place of Buchanan’s is about political correctness, not abortion and gays. His secularism makes him difficult to balance against. The usual frame for greedy Republicans is that their faith makes them a hypocrite, but unlike other Bible thumpers, no one believes Trump has actually read the Bible.

In the wasteland, the strongman bully seems more tempting as a warrior against the foe than the soft optimist who speaks to our better angels. So instead of Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God or the Prosperity Gospel and Why God Wants You To Be Rich, Trump promises he will “make them say Merry Christmas” – and that is enough for the shell-shocked evangelicals of South Carolina, who have in the past two decades seen “them” do everything Pitchfork Pat predicted and worse.

Ben Domenech is the publisher of The Federalist
Quibcag: I don't know where the illustration came from originally, but I found it here [link[.