The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRussian Reaction Blog
Reactions to Sri Lanka Attacks
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

I looked at all the people with more than a 2% chance of becoming US President in 2020 according to PredictIt.

There are some patterns here.

Biden: Hasn’t Tweeted since April 19.

Not a credible contender, but honorary mention goes to:

 
Hide 68 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. I suspect that, for a complete analysis of the events, you should listed the number of likes on FB, and the number of Reddit subscribers.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
  2. What’s truly impressive there is that Buttigieg already has nearly a million followers, have of which are from the last month alone.

    Maybe America can join my country in the club of nations led by gay manufactured candidates.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
  3. @Dacia 'n Soros

    It’s not about likes, but the content. Notice anything?

  4. @Anatoly Karlin

    I highly doubt any of the above works today. In particular, Harris and Warren don’t seem the sort of people who would skip a good weekend’s rest. It’s likely that Trump’s tweet is the only one written by the account owner. Their PR people, who are not necessarily the brightest (Sun/Sat shift must be college interns), operate under very simple rules, possibly fitting one one page: “If shit happens on the other side of the world, tweet something compassionate, and include something about X”, where X is “God”, “democracy”, “minorities”, “environment” or whatever their candidate wants to reinforce this month.

    They are as predictable as Weihan Zhang, who is likely going to write “my friends please avoid Sri Lanka until I advise is safe. Violent bn stole Christ’s shoes”.

    Therefore, none of the above tweets is a surprise in any sense.

    In other words, nothing new has happened. I wouldn’t analyze something that is essentially nothing.

  5. @Anatoly Karlin

    Only Tulsi Gabbard mentions God or Jesus Christ and his message. The rest seem to see religion as a lifestyle choice and that they, as liberals, think no one should be killed for their lifestyle choice.

    • Agree: Bliss
    • Replies: @dearieme
  6. dearieme says:
    @Cagey Beast

    It’s interesting that it’s the Hindu who gets the point. By golly, that girl is by far the best of that bunch.

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
  7. Hail says: • Website
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Notice anything?

    Here is what I notice:

    Of the eight people listed in the OP (the absent Biden would make nine),

    – text-string “Christ-“: three hits (Yang, O’Rourke, Gabbard) [‘Jesus’: one hit, Gabbard]
    – text-string “Easter”: three hits (Harris, Warren, Gabbard)
    – text-string “church-“: two hits (Trump, Warren)
    – text-string “Islam-“: zero hits.
    – text-string “Muslim-“: zero hits.
    – text-string “minorities”: one hit (Buttigieg).
    none of the above: Sanders.

    A political/personality analysis here would yield these three categories:

    – (1) Those willing to explicitly identify Christians (by name) as the victims. The three who include the word “Christ-” in their tweet (Yang, O’Rourke, Gabbard) reveal that they do have some degree of political courage and/or are not beholden to serious post-West identity politics baggage (and/or want to convey same to voters; as politicians, that may go without saying but should be noted anyway). (The post-West attitude I mean is either ethnomasochist or just non-West/anti-West in the Ilhan Omar mold). From my perspective, the three in this category look best.

    – (2) The smug, post-Christian, post-West, and/or PC-coward crowd. The three whose tweets include neither “Christ-” nor “church-” at all (Harris, Buttigieg, Sanders) reveal themselves to have profoundly anti-national political instincts, and are to some degree at-least-passively anti-Christian and/or “post-West” in attitude — and/or they self-censored for fear of offending the Ilhan Omar bloc, perhaps a distinction without a great deal of difference. For me, this category looks worst.

    Buttigieg, though, should be singled out for the top prize within the shabby category (2) for cramming-in the word “minorities” in his tweet (“rising terrorism against foreigners and against minorities in worship” [cringe]).

    – (3) The middle-grounders. The remainder are somewhere between (1) and (2): Trump, Warren (and Biden — though he did not tweet, one could really imagine him here). These are those not willing to explicitly identify-by-name the attacks as having been against “Christians,” but who also do not necessarily omit that fact entirely as in those from category (2) above. (Warren uses “Easter” and “church;” Trump uses “church”).

    – (4) Those willing to use the words “Islam-” or “Muslim-“: None (so far?).

    Category (4) is complicated by the fact that the U.S./world media, as of Attacks+20hrs, have not explicitly identified Muslims as behind the attacks, despite leaks saying as much — even the terror group that was responsible has been apparently identified, info easy to find on twitter but not much reported in the Western MSM, only in independent media and Indian media. (It is almost as if there is an MSM gag order on attributing blame to Muslims.) As such, there is certainly no way a leading U.S. presidential contender would use the words ‘Islamist’ or the like first. (Trump circa 2016 might have.)

    We could wait for Attacks+72hrs to see if any of the presidential candidates, even the dozen-plus who are in the race but fall just below Anatoly’s threshold, tweet anything with “Islam-” or “Muslim-” (or a close defacto synonym like “jihadi”).

    Right-wing populist politicians of Europe would be much more likely to qualify for (4). Marine Le Pen tweeted (in French) “My thoughts go once again to the persecuted Christians around the world and especially to those of the #SriLanka, bereaved by heinous attacks and targeted for their faith. MLP.” Trump, following his metamorphosis into the bland Couch Potatus, is also quite unlikely to say something like this (“the persecuted Christians around the world”). Not impossible, but very low probability as of 2019.

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    , @KenH
    , @anon
  8. @dearieme

    I think so too. She may have a real impact on politics as the Democrats’ nomination process rolls on. I also think her style and content would be formidable against Trump’s limited playbook. His insult comedy works on people who are easily rattled and who appear to the audience as a pompous stuffed shirt getting justly deflated. Tulsi Gabbard isn’t like that on either count.

    • Replies: @dearieme
  9. @Hail

    Thanks. Brilliant answer!

    Out of curiosity, I just looked up Hillary Clinton. She takes the cake.

  10. Combing these reactions is fascinating. A Rorschach test, if you will.

    For instance, here is Theresa May (Cat 3, verging on 2 for juxtaposing churches with hotels so casually) vs. Corbyn (surpisingly – or not so surprisingly – a solid Cat 1):

    • Replies: @DreadIlk
    , @Plato's Dream
  11. Dmitry says:

    It’s interesting to compare, if you assume they wrote the message themselves (and not their social media manager).

    For Trump, even though he probably does not write that statement (as it is not his normal writing style), it’s consistent with his personality anyway to ignore the religious side – it’s not a secret Trump is completely secular and finds it uncomfortable to discuss a religious aspect.

    At the same time, he has the majority of the American Christian community, and very religious politicians supporting him, through the Republican Party.

    Ted Cruz is the most important politician I could find, with such a religious message on Twitter.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
  12. Dmitry says:
    @Dmitry

    Navalny closer with Ted Cruz…

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
  13. @Dmitry

    So true. Is this Navalny’s statement as well? I can’t read Russian, so it all looks the same to me:

    Звёздным часом Knorr стала франко-прусская война 1870—1871 гг., которая стала катализатором разного рода инноваций в военном деле, в том числе и в плане снабжения войск, — до этого полевые части пехотных, артиллерийских, кавалерийских и других войск зависели от громоздких обозов, сковывавших их передвижения и ограничивавших способности к манёвру,

    I got this from Yandex Translate when I ran Navaly’s tweet through it:

    A monstrous terrorist attack in Sri Lanka with an obvious motive of religious hatred. Condolences to the families of the victims. Rays of support to all Christians of the world.
    https://translate.yandex.com/?lang=ru-en

    It was easy to do too.

  14. KenH says:
    @Hail

    Great points, but notice Trump’s bland and neutral tweet about the Islamic terror attack. On the campaign trail he practically shouted “radical, Islam terror” from the roof tops and tweet tops and demanded that the media and Democrats “call it for what it is”. But now that he’s president he gives us a bland, Obamaesque type of tweet regarding the incident.

    Trump didn’t even have the guts to acknowledge the victims as Christians, only as “138 people” as if the dead were comprised of Buddhists, Hare Krishna’s, radical vegetarians and some Christians. It’s very possible Javanka has access to his Twitter account and belted out that tweet. Even Beta O’ Dork acknowledged the victims as Christians.

    Had white nationalists done this do Muslims or non-whites anywhere in the world every elite tweeter listed in Anatoly’s column would have shouted WHITE NATIONALIST in all of their tweets. Just like they did in the Brenton Tarrant incident even though he claimed to be an admirer and acolyte of communist China.

    • Replies: @216
    , @Dmitry
    , @Pericles
  15. 216 says:

    The chilling factor is that Pious Pete immediately engaged in victim-blaming. His statement barely hides a moral equivalence between the “Alt-Right” and Islamist terrorism. The implication is that Trump is collectively responsible, for ginning up hatred of minorities and foreigners.

    I find Pete even scarier than Harris, which I previously did not think possible.

    • Replies: @Kevin O'Keeffe
  16. 216 says:
    @KenH

    On the campaign trail he practically shouted “radical, Islam terror” from the roof tops and tweet tops and demanded that the media and Democrats “call it for what it is”

    Rube bait

    Wake me up when “Asiatic Barred Zone” is back on the table.

  17. Dmitry says:
    @KenH

    Presidents will have a social media manager, who writes some of their tweets. For example, when Trump is playing golf outside, there still needs to be someone to comment something. It’s surely likely, this Tweet is written by his staff from this style of writing: “The United States offers heartfelt condolences”.

    That’s probably why some of Trump’s tweets sound strangely impersonal and boring, while others are the opposite (when he writes himself). Because the spokespeople would lose their job if they wrote something which disagreed with the president, or created controversy – so they will have an incentive to write very impersonal tweets.

    By the way, to compare with the crazy Twitter account of the American president, when he writes his own Tweets.

    President of Russia’s spokespeople account is impersonal to a whole different level again (the English account is just translation of the Russian account). It’s written by staff, and an example of the impersonality of when a president does not know what Twitter is.

    • Replies: @KenH
    , @songbird
  18. KenH says:
    @Dmitry

    That’s very plausible and might explain why some of Trump’s tweets seem so uncharacteristic of his usual, somewhat bombastic and take no prisoners style.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
  19. Dmitry says:
    @KenH

    It’s seems more like it is one of the Tweets written by his team.

    Tweet writes “The United States offers heartfelt condolences”. However, if it was written by Trump’s own fingers on his own iPhone, instead of by his team, it would surely write something like “My offer of heartfelt condolences.”

    Also he is sometimes like

    • Replies: @KenH
    , @Hail
  20. KenH says:
    @Dmitry

    Those two tweets exemplify the bombast and plain talk that he’s known for. So you’re right that some of the more pedestrian tweets are likely written by an intern, other staff members or even Ivanka or Jared while Trump is busy playing golf, in the bathroom or talking dirty to Bibi Netanyahu .

  21. KenH says:

    The stock excuse from Muslims and their sympathizers after an Islamic terrorist attack (usually in the U.K. or Europe) is that it is only retaliation for invading Muslim nations like Iraq or sending a few dozen occupation troops. The Islamic terrorists are dismissed as “fake” Muslims who have perverted an otherwise great and peaceful religion.

    But the last I checked the Sri Lankan Christians haven’t taken part in any military actions against Muslims or molested them in any way to invite such a bloody and lethal attack. And neither have the Phillipine Christians who’ve also been victims of church bombings and Islamic terrorism. And neither have the Egyptian Christians who’ve also been periodically victimized by Islamic extremists the last several years.

    So Muslims, philo-Islamic whites and leftards can scurry to craft all of the talking points they want, but unless someone can enlighten the class this looks like naked terror and religious hatred and intolerance of non-Muslims that the so called Islamophobes have warned Westerners about importing into their nations.

    • Replies: @216
  22. DreadIlk says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Damn if only he wasn’t a communist. This thread has made something clear to me that I have not noticed or was ignoring for some time. There are a lot of people on the left that I find acceptable/tolerate now that I did not couple of years ago.

    • Replies: @dearieme
  23. 216 says:
    @KenH

    The stock excuse from Muslims and their sympathizers after an Islamic terrorist attack (usually in the U.K. or Europe) is that it is only retaliation for invading Muslim nations like Iraq or sending a few dozen occupation troops. The Islamic terrorists are dismissed as “fake” Muslims who have perverted an otherwise great and peaceful religion.

    Regardless of the facts, this narrative is helpful to our movements. Anything that weakens the military-industrial complex furthers the chances that we get self-determination. We should promote “blame America first” at many opportunities.

    So Muslims, philo-Islamic whites and leftards can scurry to craft all of the talking points they want, but unless someone can enlighten the class this looks like naked terror and religious hatred and intolerance of non-Muslims that the so called Islamophobes have warned Westerners about importing into their nations.

    The J-left media is just going to memory hole the attacks, which occured in a country unfamiliar to Americans, and slightly familiar to CANZUK.

    Two decades of Islamophobic swine right has not resulted in an immigration moratorium, rather, pro-immigrant sentiment is higher than ever.

    White and J-Leftists are terrified to varying degrees of a right-wing “Christian theocracy” or global warming. Being rendered into a ethnic minority is their explicit goal, not a fear. They only turn against Islam if the immigrants start voting for right-wing parties.

  24. Hail says: • Website
    @Dmitry

    It’s seems more like it is one of the Tweets written by his team.

    This is common for most politicians, but I haven’t heard of it before in Trump’s case. Do we have evidence that Trump uses a ‘team’ to occasionally tweet?

    I do think what you say is possible. I would point out a few things, though, that make me think he wrote it:

    – The bland Sri Lanka tweet says “[sent via] Twitter for iPhone” just like his others.

    – It is timestamped 7:20am U.S. Eastern Time Sunday, definitely not a likely time that some low-level staffer in charge of doing bland tweets would be on the job. Unless someone is kept on-call 24 hours to do that.

    – The 7:20am Sri Lanka tweet follows closely before/after some definitely-Trump tweets bashing Mueller and Democrats.

    – The tweet uses some typically Trumpian phrasing: “…more than 600 badly injured” (gratuitous addition of the word ‘badly’); “…to the great people of Sri Lanka” (typical Trump-style adjective-compliment, especially the word “great”); ends in an “!”, which is not what I would do if I were in charge of bland-tweeting condolences. A scan of his recent tweets shows that he ends just about every single tweet nowadays with an “!” except when he is quoting someone. (Admittedly, if a staffer was doing some of the tweets, they would obviously copy Trump’s style to an extent.)

    • Replies: @Hail
  25. KenH says:

    Two decades of Islamophobic swine right has not resulted in an immigration moratorium, rather, pro-immigrant sentiment is higher than ever.

    Maybe among members of the establishment, but not among the deplorables. Trump was elected because he promised to lower legal immigration and build a wall on the southern border. Trump’s followers still want that and if anything anti-immigrant sentiment is building every time ungrateful third worlders like Omar Ilhan opens her mouth to trash the nation and people who so graciously took her and her Somali swine into this nation.

    • Replies: @216
    , @Denis
  26. Hail says: • Website
    @Hail

    The bland Sri Lanka tweet is one of ten that @realDonaldTrump made in the past 24hrs, as of this writing. It may help us to look at them in chronological order and by theme.

    _____________________

    [From earliest to most recent] (U.S. Eastern Daylight Time)

    1- (at some time between 10pm Saturday and 7am Easter Sunday) Retweet of Sean Hannity bashing James Comey.

    2- (at some time between 10pm Saturday and 7am Easter Sunday) Retweet of right-wing journalist Byron York’s story “Kushner cleared of seeking Russian money.”

    3- (7:04am) Trump says Happy Easter by bragging about the economy, for which he is mocked by many former core supporters. (An early draft of the tweet is said to have been “The GDP has died, GDP is risen, GDP will come again!”)

    4- (7:20am) The bland Sri Lanka tweet.

    5- (7:40am) Praises a NYT op-ed which argues “Media owes Trump an apology.”

    6- (8:37am) Attacks Mueller Report.

    7- (8:51am) Attacks Democrats for wasting time.

    8- (9:55am) Boasts about low unemployment.

    9- (10:23am) Attacks Democrats and Mueller investigation.

    10- (6:35pm) Attacks Democrats and says they are guilty of unspecified crimes.

    _____________________

    Comment 1: I would suggest the strongest possible reason why the Sri Lanka tweet seems so bland is simply that he is a lot more concerned (7 of the above 10 tweets) with his feud with/vendetta against Democrats, or boasting about the economy (2 of 10 tweets, including the one that bizarrely equates Easter with GDP growth; almost as if he doesn’t know what Easter is, and that to him it is some generic “calendar place-holder” date like ‘Flag Day’ in June). = He just cares a lot less about some terror attack in Sri Lanka.

    (And this is the most significant terror attack of 2019 so far: Reports now have the death toll at 215, with potentially several times that injured; it may thus push 1,000 victims by the end, of which a very large majority are local Christians and a large minority foreigners [at least 36 foreign citizens among the dead, per one report].)

    Comment 2: Even if the theory that a staffer wrote the Sunday 7:20am “bland Sri Lanka condolences tweet” is correct, we see what looks like the real DJT tweeting regularly throughout the morning and again in the evening. He could have made another Sri Lanka tweet at any time with stronger language (e.g., used the word “Christians”). He didn’t.

  27. Give Tulsi a chance. She might end up suprising us, once people hear her on the campaign trail and in the debates. She’s probably the only one I might end up voting for, that’s for sure.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
  28. songbird says:
    @Dmitry

    I actually sort of like this – it seems more honest. Less feminine, less phony (I cannot believe that old whore Kamala Harris prays) and less showy. And therefore less American.

    Anyway, these other tweets, though of course text, are a tacit endorsement of soundbite culture. The idea that the primary function of our leaders is not to be accountable, but to show their wisdom and empathy by commenting in reply to whatever topic the media chooses for the day. And sometimes they seek denunciations in order to unperson people who are strangers.

    None of these are a rational formulation of policy. The homo even tried to hijack it to further globohomo – the exact opposite of what should be the conclusion.

    Putin seems to serve the basic requirements of diplomacy and nothing more. The tweet is not maudlin, nor even very informative (which is something news organizations should attempt to be.) Evidently, no time or thought was wasted on it. For this reason, it appeals to me.

    • Agree: Hyperborean
  29. anon[233] • Disclaimer says:

    “What’s truly impressive there is that Buttigieg already has nearly a million followers, half of which are from the last month alone.”

    Much of those followers are probably fake. American political campaigns now routinely contract PR firms that create millions of fake social media followers to make a candidate look more popular than he really is. A few years back, Twitter purged millions of fake accounts from both Obama and Trump. I wouldn’t be surprised if this wasn’t an example of manufactured popularity in the case of Buttigieg’s Twitter followers.

    • Replies: @Dacia 'n Ciolos
  30. 216 says:
    @KenH

    Rep. Omar has gotten away with the capital crime in US politics.

    I don’t see any movement among 2% voters/Donors into the GOP camp.

    The Conservative Party campaigned three times on cutting immigration in the UK (’10,’15,’17) and has done nothing of the sort when in government.

    Boorish anti-immigration sentiment has the effect of radicalizing elite cosmopolitanism. We have to change tact.

    • Replies: @KenH
  31. peanut says:

    The response – go back to the 80s when jihadis were freedom fighters and pretend Russia is trying to conquer the world/poison their bodily fluids. Maybe Gina Haspel has some pictures of Easter bunnies who were poisoned by Russian hackers.

  32. I don’t have a Twitter account, but how about this:

    Remind me again why Brandon Tarrant is a bad guy.

    • Replies: @Mitleser
  33. Bliss says:

    Worth noting:

    Bernie and Pete are the only ones who neglected to mention any of the following very relevant words: Church, Christians, Easter.

    Tulsi made by far the best tweet of all, and it is worth repeating:

    My heart is with Sri Lanka on this #EasterSunday, w/hundreds killed & wounded in a horrific attack as they gathered in prayer. On a day devoted to love & peace, may we remember Jesus Christ’s message of love – for God & for each other – as we commit to defeating hate with love.

    — Tulsi Gabbard (@TulsiGabbard) April 21, 2019

    Amen sister. Amen.

    • Replies: @Hail
    , @Pericles
  34. Wilkey says:

    The killings in Sri Lanka shock us all. Near and far we have seen, many times now, rising terrorism against foreigners and against minorities in worship. America must help lead the world in resisting all such deadly hatred. – Pete Buttigieg

    Obviously dishonest by virtue of omission in that he refuses to name the victims or the perps.

    Subtly dishonest in that he undeniably suggests that what happened in Sri Lanka is happening in the United States.

    Blatantly dishonest, in that it suggests that the violence was the act of a majority group targeting a minority group, when in fact that’s not what happened. Muslims in Sri Lanka are themselves a small minority (10% of the population vs. 70% Buddhist and 13% Hindi). Granted they are more populous than Christians (7%) but not by much. So they were a minority attacking another minority.

    Add to that the fact that the “foreigners” who were targeted weren’t immigrants, but merely tourists.

    Additionally, the problem as it applies to the United States, and increasingly other Western countries, is that interracial and inter-religious violence is far more likely to be committed by minority populations (blacks, Hispanics, Muslims) against majority populations than the reverse.

    How many ways can Buttigieg manage to lie in a 38 word tweet?

    • Agree: songbird
  35. anon[332] • Disclaimer says:
    @Hail

    …the U.S./world media… have not explicitly identified Muslims as behind the attacks, despite leaks saying as much — even the terror group that was responsible has been apparently identified, info easy to find on twitter but not much reported in the Western MSM, only in independent media and Indian media.

    I don’t know what’s true and what isn’t, but surely if there was one topic on which to be a little skeptical of what one reads in the Indian press, Islamic terrorism is it. They aren’t exactly sentimental about Muslims over there.

  36. notanon says:

    attack on churches and hotels

    odd choice of words and odder that both Trump and May used them.

    same with “easter worshippers” which i think both Obama and Clinton used.

    it’s like they get their talking points from the same source.

  37. The only one using the correct terminology is Warren, who described it as an “act of great evil,” not to be confused with a Bushian “act of love”—i.e. migrating to the USA for welfare & low-wage jobs that keep migrants under the earned-income limits for welfare.

    The phrase act of love drips with idealized emotion, even though working the system is an emotionally detached, calculating process. The phrase act of evil likewise drips with emotion, but in the case of mass murder, the emotion matches the magnitude of the crime.

    Bernie called this mass murder of 138 horrific—a word we all use a lot, interchanging it with heinous, to avoid calling an intentional murderous act tragic. Tragic is an appropriate term for a horrible accident, but not for the intentional slaughter of one, much less 138.

  38. Hail says: • Website
    @Bliss

    Ironic that Gabbard emerges, at least in this case, as a lonely voice for something like a self-confident Christian West, given her own significantly multi-racial origin (largely via Samoa) and peripherally-American-at-best upbringing. (OTOH, maybe those things specifically give her a lot of political flexibility.)

    See here for a series of screenshots (the above is one, displaying her 23andMe) of Gabbard’s appearance on Finding Your Roots this year.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
  39. Pericles says:
    @KenH

    Had white nationalists done this do Muslims or non-whites anywhere in the world every elite tweeter listed in Anatoly’s column would have shouted WHITE NATIONALIST in all of their tweets. Just like they did in the Brenton Tarrant incident even though he claimed to be an admirer and acolyte of communist China.

    Since I haven’t recycled it yet, the frontpage headline of the Financial Times the day after was ‘Gunman kills 49 in New Zealand as tide of far-right violence rises – Australian charged with mosque attacks – Inspiration from 2011 Norway killings’.

    Not much of a tide if you ask me.

    • Replies: @KenH
  40. Pericles says:
    @Bliss

    Bernie and Pete are the only ones who neglected to mention any of the following very relevant words: Church, Christians, Easter.

    “Buttigieg is a devout Christian,[71][72][73] and he has said his faith has had a strong influence in his life.[74][43]” lol

    • LOL: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @Curious Person
  41. Biff says:

    Before I can even comment I need only one question answered – attacks/bombings require money – who supplied it?

  42. @Pericles

    What exactly was the influence of these passages upon his life?

    In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

    Romans 1:27

    He said to them, “Have you not read that He Who made them in the first place made them man and woman? It says, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will live with his wife. The two will become one.’

    Matthew 19:4-5

    • Replies: @Pericles
  43. Obama:

    Exact phrasing (“Easter worshippers”) as Hillary Clinton.

  44. LondonBob says:
    @fitzhamilton

    The Israelis won’t allow her any publicity but the debates could be when she breaks out. Personally I think she has a very good chance and her chances greatly underestimated.

  45. LondonBob says:

    Battygay’s tweet is vile.

    Trump’s tweet is unsurprisingly dry given what has happened, what are people expecting?

    • LOL: Curious Person
    • Replies: @Mitleser
  46. LondonBob says:
    @Hail

    That all looks gibberish. Basically she is three quarters NW European and a quarter Samoan.

    • Agree: Bliss
    • Replies: @Hail
  47. @Anatoly Karlin

    According to the Venerable Bede, the English word “Easter” comes from the name of an Anglo-Saxon month, which in turn was named after the goddess Eostre. With that in mind, “Easter worshipper” sounds decidedly pagan, which perhaps explains its popularity in this clique.

    • LOL: Anatoly Karlin
  48. About Corbyn. I don’t know much about him, and he likely has all kinds of terrible ideas to implement were he to become PM, but he seems not without principle, and he’s hated by a lot of the right people, so he must be doing something right. However, if I were a right wing Brit, I would consider George Galloway a more worthy opponent.

  49. Pericles says:
    @Curious Person

    Nowadays, the excuse appears to be ‘God made me a sinner, so I’ll be a sinner, just as He wanted’. Just a liiiittle bit amateur Talmudic. Or possibly a lot.

  50. Pericles says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Lol, so exactly what do you pray to, Barry?

  51. Mitleser says:
    @Diversity Heretic

    Because of what he did to Martin Sellner and his movement.

  52. KenH says:
    @216

    Republicans have been playing us for fools since the early 90’s. In the 1994 primaries, the year of the “angry white male” they promised to end affirmative action and secure the southern border Instead we got tort reform, a repeal of Glass Steagall and dithering on immigration and affirmative action. The Republican donor class always wins.

    Boorish anti-immigration sentiment has the effect of radicalizing elite cosmopolitanism. We have to change tact.

    And boorish pro-immigrant sentiment and mass immigration is radicalizing the plebes. Their lies about the greatness of mass immigration have worn thin and I’m astonished at how many whites now see through the the snake oil that they’re vending.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  53. dearieme says:
    @Cagey Beast

    My own advice to Trump is to recruit the lass as his VP candidate. After all, he used to be a Dem.

    I like the idea of two Dems being the Republican candidates against two socialists being the Dem candidates.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  54. dearieme says:
    @DreadIlk

    Come off it, he spent his career encouraging terrorists.

  55. @KenH

    It goes back to at least 1964 when Barry Goldwater embraced “states’ rights” to secure support of Southern voters. He was blown out in a landslide, but Nixon refined and perfected the strategy.

    There’s more to it than just the Donor class. Republican politicians are cut from a certain mold and idealize traditional Republican ideas like powerful armed forces (or at least expensive armed forces…), unilateralism in foreign policy, tax cuts, etc.

    Immigration policy is not something these people are very interested in. If you look at the voting records of Republican Congressmen on immigration they’re all over the map. Democrats meanwhile are now converging uniformly on open borders voting records.

    Republican donors are obviously interested in cheap labor but few are obsessive open borders zealots. Rather they generally support policies which reduce the cost of labor. Sometimes this means tinkering with work visas rather than demanding more. For instance they’ve tried to eliminate the requirement for H2 visas that employers provide transportation and housing (unsuccessfully).

    To Republican officeholders, and for that matter most voters other than us and white (and Jewish) liberals, immigration is just another policy issue. They may favor a reduction in immigration or adequately securing the border, but this is just another issue no different than education policy, agricultural subsidies, defense procurement, etc.

    Other than the pervasive HBD-denialism, it seems that the main factor behind this ridiculous view is the inability to think mathematically. Or more specifically, the inability to comfortably deal with statistics and exponential functions. You can see this also in how ordinary people handle money. Just talk to the ordinary average nobody about the cost of driving. Most only consider the cost of gasoline. If you’re lucky the sap you’re talking to will add in the cost of his car payment. Depreciation is a deeply mysterious concept to ordinary people.

    Fortunately GOP voters and newer officeholders are radicalizing on the immigration issue, which was never the case before. GOP voters now list cutting immigration as their top priority, and ambitious young (for politics) Republican officeholders like Ted Cruz and Tom Cotton have capitalized on the issue.

    • Agree: 216
    • Replies: @KenH
  56. @dearieme

    The first rule of selecting a running mate is to not [email protected]#$ it up.

    Dropping your generally well-liked and inoffensive Vice President who belongs to an important faction of your party sounds like [email protected]#$ing up to me.

    It would be a different matter if he was selecting a running mate for the first time rather than replacing his Vice President.

  57. @anon

    Please don’t interrupt the circlejerk. We are analyzing real tweets, from the real Hillary, read by millions of real people on a Sunday.

    One would wonder why are the Clintons donating 10 millions every year to the Clinton Foundation, if that money couldn’t buy them the services of a PR agency to tweet for her, with a few tens of thousands of fake followers on top.

    I can only imagine Hillary, hunched, squinting, and complaining of fat fingers, while trying to get the word out about random shit in Sri Lanka.

    All, in a country where she didn’t bother campaigning for nearly a month, just two months before the elections. All, in a country where her physical inability to stand up, during that same campaign, in the middle of Manhattan, was hidden by absolutely anyone, from Maddow to Alex Jones. I am not saying it’s a conspiracy, it’s just that my observation that Americans become extremely lazy at median income, and Hillary is far beyond that.

    The woman must be sleeping 10 hours a day, and I am supposed to believe she tweets.

  58. KenH says:
    @Pericles

    Fine, but Elizabeth Warren called for summary arrests of white nationalists which is a euphemism for any white people who don’t sufficiently hate themselves or wish to become a minority in their own nations:

    Neither she nor anyone else would dare suggest that for black, mestizo or Islamic radicals.

  59. Mitleser says:
    @LondonBob

    As expected of Pete.

  60. Denis says:
    @KenH

    Trump was elected because he promised to lower legal immigration

    Did Trump ever actually promise to do this? I could be mistaken, but the only instance I can recall in which he made any sort of comment about legal immigration during his campaign was when he suggested that America should take immigrants from Europe rather than elsewhere. I don’t remember him ever saying that he would decrease legal immigration.

    • Replies: @KenH
  61. There was a third Democratic politician (and maybe more of them?) who tweeted the odd phrase “Easter worshippers.”

  62. Only hopeless irredeemable scum could have done that. I hope Sri Lanka has death penalty – that would be the only appropriate punishment for the culprits.

  63. @216

    I find Pete even scarier than Harris, which I previously did not think possible.

    Harris is just some mook from an admittedly rather evil political party. ButtGuy (or whatever his name is) is a true believer. He’s basically a collegiate blue-haired SJW. Your fear is well-founded, I’d say.

  64. KenH says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    Fortunately GOP voters and newer officeholders are radicalizing on the immigration issue, which was never the case before. GOP voters now list cutting immigration as their top priority, and ambitious young (for politics) Republican officeholders like Ted Cruz and Tom Cotton have capitalized on the issue.

    While the base is radicalizing on immigration which in my view started slowly after the 2001 WTC attacks and picked up steam during the 2005-6 nationwide demonstrations by illegal mestizo radicals where they stupidly burned American flags and mocked America for not granting them amnesty. They realized their mistake and tried to drape themselves in the Amercian flag after that but the damage was already done and the rubicon had been crossed as far as middle white America was concerned.

    But the GOP is still to the left of the voting base and Ted Cruz and Tom Cotton only look strong because almost everyone else is so dreadful. Both see America as a creedal nation where all racial groups are equal and interchangeable. Except Jews of course who occupy a higher plane than everyone else.

    Cotton’s “Raise Act” only lowers legal immigration to 750K, but it does restrict family reunification to immediate family only such as wife/husband and children which definitely is a step in the right direction but nowhere near what is needed to make whites a supermajority again.

  65. KenH says:
    @Denis

    He alluded to it several times and definitely said he wanted drastic reductions in H1B and H2B visas. He supported Tom Cotton’s Raise Act in 2017 which would lower legal immigration by a measly 25%.

    But in 2019 SOFU he now says he wants increases in legal immigration mainly with issuing more work visas which he once vowed to end since it’s depressing wages for the American middle class. He wants to give all H1B’s a path to citizenship which is NOT what anyone voted for but he’s convinced himself that the economy is so strong that we’re in need of labor which is crap when even Andrew Yang pointed out that the American labor participation rate is only in the low 60’s which is on par with Bolivia and Peru.

  66. J.Ross says: • Website
    @AltSerrice

    How many of those are human?

  67. Hail says: • Website
    @LondonBob

    Certainly those results could have presented it better, e.g., grouping the European components. And it doesn’t help that 23andMe has no specific Polynesian category, awkwardly presenting Polynesian as a mix of several things.

    At the macro-racial level, anyway, 23andMe is highly accurate. It found Gabbard to be 68.5% European, 30.7% non-European (of which, overwhelmingly Polynesian), 0.8% Unknown.

    Basically she is three quarters NW European and a quarter Samoan

    One would be forgiven for thinking this “three quarters NW European and a quarter Samoan” meant three full-White grandparents and one full-Polynesian grandparent. In Tulsi’s case, it does not mean that. While Gabbard’s mother is full-White, her father’s origins are pretty complicated. There are multiple instances of interracial unions in his personal ancestry back to the mid-late 19th century or so.

    What’s most notable about Tulsi’s father is that he seems characteristic of what I have sometimes thought of as “the U.S. Military Ethnicity,” which one tends to come into contact with at the margins of the informal empire. I would define these people as lacking strong ties to a rooted ethnocultural nation/people, who owe their existence to U.S. military deployments (often, to soldiers’ pairings with local women). The U.S. military and the empire offer such people a coherent identity, instead of having to say/think “I am mixed [such] and [such].”

    Tulsi Gabbard’s father is the grandson of a U.S. sailor who married a Samoan while on shore leave after WWI, which is just one among several of the interracial unions in Tulsi’s dad’s background. I do think this partial, deep ‘military ethnicity’ paternal origin cannot but inform Tulsi’s personal identity, not as a “quarter-Samoan” but as a product of several generations’ racial mixing — on her father’s side, anyway — origin: The U.S. military. This could well explain her decision to join the U.S. military herself in the early 2000s, despite her essentially non-belligerent personality. She was embracing her roots.

  68. @Anatoly Karlin

    Corbyn pleasantly surprised me, too. Remember he’s also pro-Brexit and was the only UK politician skeptical about the Skripal false flag operation – if only he had the courage of his convictions!

    His economic lunacy of course disqualifies him from high office.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - If you are new to my work, *start here*. If you liked this post, and want me to produce more such content, consider *donating*.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Anatoly Karlin Comments via RSS