The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 iSteve BlogTeasers
DNC Chair Candidate: "My Job Is to Shut Other White People Down"

From Grabien News:

‘My job is to shut other white people down’
Jan 23, 2017

Candidates aspiring to take over as chairman of the Democratic National Committee met Monday night to discuss what went wrong in 2016 and how to get the party back on track. …

Democrats must provide “training” that focuses in part on teaching Americans “how to be sensitive and how to shut their mouths if they are white,” urged the executive director of Idaho’s Democratic Party, Sally Boynton Brown, who is white.

The event’s moderator, MSNBC’s Joy Ann Reid, asked the candidates how the party should handle the Black Lives Now movement.

The candidates uniformly emphasized that the party must embrace the activists unreservedly.

“It makes me sad that we’re even having that conversation and that tells me that white leaders in our party have failed,” Brown said. “I’m a white woman, I don’t get it. … My job is to listen and be a voice and shut other white people down when they want to interrupt.”

It would be instructive to write up how Democrats have over time come to use the word “conversation.” For example, here’s a constructive conversation:

“This is life and death” she emphasized. “I am a human being trying to do good work and I can’t do it without y’all. So please, please, please, get ahold of me. Sally at we-the-dnc.org. I need schooling so I can go school the other white people.”

The Democrats are going start realizing how much they depended upon Obama’s slippery verbal facility for making the ideas of the Democrats sound smart and boring so that you tune out to the words and just hum along with the melody. In reality, as we can see from more artless orators like Hillary and Sally Boynton Brown, the Democratic orthodoxy is dumb and hilarious.

Another candidate said black Americans are now living with “justified fear” of being killed after Donald Trump was elected president.

Raymond Buckley, the chairman for the New Hampshire Democratic Party, told a story about how, in the midst of “grieving” on Election Day, he received a call from his black niece, who feared for her life after Trump’s victory.

“It’s not just certain parts of the country,” he said. “That fear is all across the country. It’s even in rural new Hampshire. So when people say black lives matter, you are damn right they matter.”

Back in 2009 I suggested that Republicans could help rebrand the Democrats as The Black Party, but white Democrats seem intent on doing that to themselves all by themselves.

 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
[Filtered by Reply Thread]
  1. Black Lives Now?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    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.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/isteve/dnc-chair-candidate-my-job-is-to-shut-other-white-people-down/#comment-1738296
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. My only words for Democrats:

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    I didn't realize Anthony Weiner was in Bridge Over the River Kwai.
  3. @CCZ
    My only words for Democrats:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KU7_G2grxJE

    I didn’t realize Anthony Weiner was in Bridge Over the River Kwai.

    • LOL: NickG
    • Replies: @Kyle McKenna
    Ha! And I had skipped that clip, naturally assuming it was a music vid of "One Step Beyond"..
  4. The Future of the Left is Female:

    http://nymag.com/thecut/2017/01/the-future-of-the-left-is-female.html

    I’m sure that’ll work out just great for them.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    The Future of the Left is Female:
     
    The Sisterhood of the Travelling Rants
    , @SFG
    Yup. Flipped me.
    , @el topo
    Most of the people gloating in my Twitter feed about Richard Spencer getting punched are women.
  5. Democrats must provide “training” that focuses in part on teaching Americans “how to be sensitive and how to shut their mouths if they are white”

    Candidates aspiring to take over as chairman of the Democratic National Committee met Monday night to discuss what went wrong in 2016

    Oh wait

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    Sally Boynton Brown is the the radical leftist version of Richard B. Spencer. Both speak for their own constituents for the Fringe Groups. Today's moderates who are Democrats and Republicans are under being held hostage by these lunatics. Brown's and Spencer's positions do not represent the average white American.

    The loudest voice in the room is now in charge, unfortunately, of the narrative. Will moderates on the left and right each individually stand up and slay these respective dragons, rather than be being labeled "defenders of white privilege" and "cucks"?
  6. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    So's this:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YyBtMxZgQs
    , @Anonymous
    Gerry: so where do we go now, Tonto?
    , @BenKenobi
    All this apple pie is gonna result in the Trumpabteilung.

    And I'm okay with that.
    , @Jenner Ickham Errican
    There are plenty of interesting “American as apple pie” WWII cartoons depicting the “Japanazis” (Popeyes’s term). Of course, this dork Gerry Duggan wouldn’t dare tweet them in protest of present day racist, xenophobic Japan. Much safer to virtue signal only against white self-preservation.
    , @celt darnell
    Uh yeah, about that guy who sucker punched Richard Spencer, see below -- this is definitely NOT safe for work:

    https://saboteur365.wordpress.com/2017/01/21/antifa-scum-who-punched-richard-spencer-is-literally-a-sht-eating-sub/

    I'm not a Spencer fan, but I don't recall Indiana Jones or Captain America eating.....
  7. More “basket of deplorables” strategy. Hope it works out for ya Sal. (It was so successful last time around).

  8. A very Saileresque story from Vienna:

    Culture-Enrichers Break Violinist’s Finger — For Asking Them Not to Smoke

    A symphony musician (48) must now tremble for his future as a professional musician.

    The symphony musician stood on the platform of the U4 station Karlsplatz in the direction of Hütteldorf when he smelled the typical cigarette smoke. “I saw three teenagers and pointed out that smoking in the subway area is not allowed.”

    Muslims aren’t into smoking bans. They smoke openly in their shops and culinary establishments despite the legal restrictions that were passed in recent years.

    Restricting smoking is a huge cause among Austrian progressives. And it is yet another opportunity for them to bash our country and its inhabitants as retrograde rubes because we are lagging behind other countries in this regard. (FPÖ is libertarian on this issue.)
    They also believe that, to the extent Muslim immigration causes some problems at all, it can be all solved through education, awareness and public service announcements. Don’t judge Muslims. They just don’t know any better.

    I don’t know about his political beliefs, but Michael Buchmann certainly fits the profile of a progressive who stepped outside his bubble and encountered reality. Any Viennese who possesses a smidgen of street smarts would have known that this intervention could get violent real quick. We should actually be thankful that Buchmann accidentally exposed the unwritten rule that Muslims enjoy smoking privilege to those who are not aware of it.

    The attackers will get a slap on the wrist in court. I guess that will be Buchmann’s next surprise.

    An alternate title for the story could be: “Van der Bellen supporters clash. One injured.”

    • Replies: @bomag

    [The vibrant launched a karate kick against the symphony musician's hand.]
     
    This is an exemplar of what we are getting with this new demographic plan: symphony music kicked into oblivion.

    The comments in the linked article are good:

    "You underestimate the tolerance of the tolerant left. It is built on a foundation of denial and ignorance that has reached the core of the planet."
    , @Lot
    Europe is just getting the first tastes of the coming Muslim crime wave. You ain't seen nothing yet. Merkel's sons are still getting used to Europe and testing boundaries.

    Here in the USA, we have more money and more land than our white cousins in the EU. So we inprison a very large share of the men from impulsively criminal groups, and built new cities and suburbs away from the larger concentrations. You don't have the space or money to do so. Leave the EU while you still can.

    Germany is almost too far gone, but you Austrians can show them the way by electing a liberal nationalist government.
    , @El Dato
    Actually I have to agree with this comment:


    Tancred, why do you think that “he couldn’t anticipate that the situation would get physical”? Looks like a big guy, and didn’t even know he’d been hurt until a couple of stops later. Face looks fine; either he DID anticipate violence and figured correctly that his honor was worth the risk or he was too rightly angry to enter into these calculations, which is to his credit. Confronted three guys on his own. Impressive. Seems like a good role-model for German men; nothing “shameful” about him at all.
     
    Problem is that you can't beat anyone up, especially of "color", even if they attack first. Your obligation is to be the victim of state-funded riffraff.
    , @Harold

    They also believe that, to the extent Muslim immigration causes some problems at all, it can be all solved through education, awareness and public service announcements.
     
    Why not? It works on Germans. I don’t care if I grow tiresome saying it, but there is ultimately no winning against the left without HBD.

    Those people fighting the left by pointing out how awful SJWs are, deserve few, if any, cheers.
  9. black Americans are now living with “justified fear” of being killed after Donald Trump was elected president.

    Totally justified, when you consider how many black people President Trump has killed, just this week alone.

    I salute the Dems for learning from their mistakes and having the courage to read between the lines of our Fake News Media and see the underlying truth. I know I’ve been crying ever since election night.

    So many dead black bodies everywhere. How can you people avert your eyes? What’s wrong with you?

    He’s going to Kill Again. I just know it.

    • LOL: Frau Katze
    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    Kyle, It must be the way they are piling the bodies up, because apparently nobody, but nobody, noticed the thousands of blacks killed during Obama's presidency.
  10. Do these idiots not know that they are chasing the few remaining white people out of the so-called Democrats? I yearn for the day that the ethnic balance is adjusted back to pre-1965 levels and self-hating PC churchladies like this are left out in the political wilderness.

    • Replies: @Kylie
    "I yearn for the day that the ethnic balance is adjusted back to pre-1965 levels and self-hating PC churchladies like this are left out in the political wilderness."

    Or better still, dropped into international waters.

    Hey, it's not as mean as it seems. I'm sure their vagina uniforms would keep them afloat.

    NSFW
    https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1232914313413216&id=100000839762174&set=a.357908817580441.73581.100000839762174&source=48
    , @Jay igaboo
    "churchladies "? I doubt if they are e church- goers and I'm absolutely positive they're not ladies. The Left, to quote the appalling Tony Blair's even more appalling Machiavellian and policy-setting press secretary Alisdair Campbell "We ( The Left) don't do God."
  11. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Anonymous
    https://twitter.com/GerryDuggan/status/822603492321796097

    So’s this:

    • Agree: Lot
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Spencer and other American Nazis are apologists for Arab and Iranian terror. Spencer appointed an Iranian as an editor on his new website.
  12. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV)
    Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA)
    Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
    Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-IN)
    Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI)
    Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT)
    Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)
    Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO)
    Sen. Angus King (ID-ME)

    If the DNC is dumb enough to double down on anti-white racism, every Senator that I listed will almost certainly be thrown out of office.

    Should the GOP get those seats, we will have Budapest in Washington.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    Peters and King might survive.
    , @Henry Bowman
    "Should the GOP get those seats, we will have Budapest in Washington."

    Explain?
    , @Reg Cæsar

    Should the GOP get those seats, we will have Budapest in Washington.
     
    And should the Dems keep them, we will have Bucharest.
  13. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Anonymous
    So's this:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YyBtMxZgQs

    Spencer and other American Nazis are apologists for Arab and Iranian terror. Spencer appointed an Iranian as an editor on his new website.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Really? That's horrible. I also heard Spencer was a Nazi and an anti-Semite.

    I'm literally shaking.
    , @RadicalCenter
    You sound like a racist. A common problem among those on the left.

    Is being Iranian a disqualification? For which other jobs would you neve hire an Iranian?

    Also, do you hate only Persians or also Azeris and Kurds, who make up a substantial minority of the population of Iran?
    , @Frau Katze
    Hitler admired Islam. Hatred for Jews is baked into the Koran. An uppity tribe of Jews wouldn't convert and they met an unhappy end.

    Muslims outnumber Jews 100 to 1. So Spencer's just making alliances of convenience.

    What he doesn't know is that the Muslims will cooperate with him as long as they're relatively few in number and powerless. Should that change, Spencer will be required to convert himself, or meet the same fate as those long-ago Jews.
    , @Eric Novak
    Richard or Robert?
    , @snorlax
    Others who are better students of Spencerology feel free to correct, but I believe the Iranian in question (whom he is presently sharing an apartment with) is a Zoroastrian LARPer and not a Muslim.
    , @rob
    Spencer and other American Nazis are apologists for Arab and Iranian terror. Spencer appointed an Iranian as an editor on his new website.

    Ah, and of course this Iranian must agree with every other Iranian in the world. Why, an Iranian is just a Jew who hasn't showered recently, right? They all march in lockstep with their ethny, Jah?
  14. You’d think that the Democrats just like getting trounced… I increasingly believe that, as it took several electoral disasters before Labour accepted that it needed to abandon socialism in the 1990′s (although they seem to be victim of a relapse lately), it will take at least Trump’s reelection before the Democrats understand how much identity politics hurts them.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    That had more to do with the fact that Thatcher had destroyed British industry and British trade unions, and thus Labour's constituency had been destroyed and scattered.
    , @Forbes
    I don't think Trump's reelection will disabuse the left of (their) identity politics. The cult of multiculturalism and diversity (and political correctness) has been around for two generations. It positively oozes in the culture at-large for anyone age 50 (at least) and under.

    Media, the academy, Hollywood, and government impose and enforce identity politics. By all appearances since the election, the left is doubling-down, and not easing up on identity politics.

    And why should they ease up? The popular vote for Hillary confirms their view. They just need to do a more thorough job executing, i.e. their over-confidence regarding the outcome got the better of them.

    The potential mistake will be found in the right believing they have trounced the left. In Kerry's '04 defeat, the Dems looked devastated, yet they took back Congress two years later.
  15. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    So, basically, the Democrats have degenerated into becoming nothing more than a cult, a big, nasty, vicious, cult (and that’s ‘cult’ spelled with an ‘l’ ).
    George Orwell described it 70 years ago.

  16. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    There’s still a two year window for a fresh face to emerge to challenge Trump in 2020 but I don’t see it and nobody else does either. No way the senator from NJ and ditto the gov from MA. CA politicians are no longer mainstream and Cuomo jr is a brick.

    Openly anti-white frothing invective is not going to make the grade. It will only reelect Trump. But it is classic politics that the singular quality of Obama — his ability to remain calm and control his rage — should be jettisoned by the young turks.

    It’s going to be Biden or Bernie or, gulp, Hillary in 2019.

    There are no high quality nextgen Hispanics. There are no new Obamas. Maybe Colin Powell as a dem.

    Look for Mark Cuban or even Zuckerberg to swoop in and take ownership of the DNC with mega $$$.

    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    Kamala Harris: think female Obama but with at least some executive experience as AG for California. She could be a formidable challenger to Trump if the Democratic Party doesn't self destruct before then.
    , @Boomstick
    I think it takes at least couple failed election cycles before a party will rethink its message. Obama chose to remake the party along Harold Washington, lefty-minority coalition lines, and they're not going to change that until it's clear it won't work. Right now they think the loss is just a matter of "fake news" and Boris Badenov hacking and not sneering at the white working class hard enough.
    , @Hanoi Paris Hilton
    What about Van Jones, the upcoming Magical Negro (not raciss since the term was coined by Spike Lee) who's been speechifying in the Pussy Hat marches. And of whom I'd suggest Googling his contribution to the Epic Fail "Cash for Clunkers" debacle, which was rammed down the Orwell Memory Hole when Mr. Jones outed himself as a Marxist-Leninist —and for icing on the cake, as a 9/11 denialist too— so the Obamazoids needed to throw him under the bus straightaway.
  17. @candid_observer
    The Future of the Left is Female:

    http://nymag.com/thecut/2017/01/the-future-of-the-left-is-female.html

    I'm sure that'll work out just great for them.

    The Future of the Left is Female:

    The Sisterhood of the Travelling Rants

    • LOL: Kylie
    • Replies: @dr kill
    Can't Understand Normal Thinking.
    , @Bill Jones
    The Sisterhood of the Unravelling Cants
  18. Yes — shame on that nasty Mr Trump for trying to ‘divide us by nationality’ — who does he think he is, anyway? — addressing Americans and their interests during a presidential campaign:

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Did the same person write this?


    It would make everybody in America poorer —you're doing away with the concept of a nation state, and I don't think there's any country in the world that believes in that. If you believe in a nation state or in a country called the United States or UK or Denmark or any other country, you have an obligation in my view to do everything we can to help poor people. What right-wing people in this country would love is an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don't believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country, I think we have to do everything we can to create millions of jobs.

    You know what youth unemployment is in the United States of America today? If you're a white high school graduate, it's 33 percent, Hispanic 36 percent, African American 51 percent. You think we should open the borders and bring in a lot of low-wage workers, or do you think maybe we should try to get jobs for those kids?
     
    Yes. Yes, he did.
    , @Maj. Kong
    Divide and Diversity have the same root.

    The alleged "divisiveness" of the right, is entirely the cause of the diversity-mongering of the left.
    , @Ed
    The pic looks like it was taken in his home state of very white Vermont. I see two black faces in the front but can't find any elsewhere. The Dem party is 30% black.
    , @guest
    Dividing us by nationality? Who's "us?" Not the electorate, obviously. There's definitely some nation-based discrimination there.

    The world? Yeah, how dare Trump, president of one particular nation, divide the world up into members of his own nation and the rest of the world? That's bonkers! It's almost as if he thinks nations exist, or something.

    , @The Anti-Gnostic
    So THAT'S where all the white women at!
  19. It’s interesting to consider how Dems got to this point. In hindsight, the Bakke decision may have been key, in that it enshrined diversity as public good.

    That gave a new justification for mass, 3rd world immigration. And the pendulum kept swinging left.

    So Dems went from integration and affirmative action as efforts to right historical wrongs on African Americans to embrace of diversity for its own sake, to today’s logical conclusion: if diversity is good, and white is the opposite of diversity, white is bad.

    The Dems’ mindless embrace of diversity has become as big an albatross for them as GOPs’ mindless defense of W. was pre-Trump.

    As I mentioned to a liberal acquaintance recently, they should rethink it: http://disq.us/p/1ffnhc6

    • Agree: BenKenobi
    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    The Dems nearly stole this election with a despised and openly corrupt candidate. With Biden or Bernie, they might have gotten a landslide.

    Trump is promising an economic miracle of 4% GDP growth, I just don't see that as possible in the post-industrial economy.

    We are going to need a 10 point victory in 2020, and 60 Senators to get the Israeli style demographic policies this nation needs.
    , @Guy de Champlagne
    The Dems’ mindless embrace of diversity has become as big an albatross for them as GOPs’ mindless defense of W. was pre-Trump.

    Trump renounced Bush 43 and barely squeaked by with a victory. It seems pretty obvious to me that the real thing holding back republicans is their economic platform which, given the way he formed his administration, Trump is largely going to embrace.
    , @War for Blair Mountain
    A White Male with a mechanical ngineering degree from the University of California Berkeley...Bakke...was kept out of Med School...while Doctors from India were being imported into America-so their arrogant Indian sons can taunt Native Born White America on SNL this past Saturday Night...


    Steve


    Of course you will let this post go through....be nice now....
    , @Jack D
    I think it's ironic that the guy who responds to you touts "diversity" as a benefit because "diverse" people think in different ways and we all benefit from diverse ways of thinking, which leads to innovation, having our assumptions challenged, etc. The LAST thing the Left wants is for people to have diversity of ideology - they want everyone to worship in the Cathedral of leftist thought and despise heretics. They HATE having their assumptions challenged. They are importing "diverse" people precisely because they think that they will be faithful new members of their Church, not because they will challenge its assumptions. If any "diverse" person leaves the ideological plantation (Clarence Thomas) he is not even considered "diverse" anymore. Their vision of Heaven (which they have already built in academia) consists of a gorgeous rainbow of leftists - brown leftists, black leftists, genderqueer leftists, etc.
  20. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Anonymous
    https://twitter.com/GerryDuggan/status/822603492321796097

    Gerry: so where do we go now, Tonto?

  21. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    This is being pushed specifically by blacks, who seem to care more about dominating the Democratic Party than actually winning elections and governing, which is understandable, since winning elections and governing require work.

    The problem of course is that there are Dem affiliated elites who actually want to win elections and govern, but the blacks are a demographic dead end for winning elections, and the blacks don’t seem very interested in throwing the elites or other growing electoral groups like Hispanics a bone – the blacks are just interested in dominating the Democratic Party. So the Dem elites have to find a way to throw the blacks under the bus and hitch their electoral hopes on other groups, especially since the blacks don’t have anywhere else to go and won’t defect to the GOP in great numbers (unlike the South) and thus the cost of dumping them is low.

    • Replies: @bomag

    ...since Blacks don’t have anywhere else to go and won’t defect to the GOP in great numbers
     
    The threat here is to stay home and not vote; thus the Dems must be sufficiently Left to get their vote.
    , @Jefferson
    " So the Dem elites have to find a way to throw the blacks under the bus"

    Dream on. The Dems will be labeled as racists by the entire mainstream media if they throw Blacks under the bus.
    , @TangoMan
    So the Dem elites have to find a way to throw the blacks under the bus and hitch their electoral hopes on other groups.

    That's not going to happen. In 1960, there were close to 9 Whites for 1 Black. Today there are 5.5 Whites per 1 Black. There's too much electoral muscle in the Black vote and they are the most loyal voting bloc.

    Secondly, the entire racial spoils system that the Democrats have erected is justified on the basis of historic injustices to Blacks. All of the other groups are free-riding on that rationale.

    What we're seeing here is the long end-game of a process started decades ago - when you play the game of racial identity politics, you won't forever be able to count on Whites not having a racial identity as you erect programs to strip Whites of wealth and opportunity so that you can pay off your 3rd world voter army. Maybe the Democrats never gamed this out to see how it would play out long term but they're stuck with these dynamics. Their entire coalition splits apart if they abandon the racial spoils system that they've championed and implemented and without Blacks it becomes difficult to justify that racial spoils system.

    Trump doesn't want to touch Affirmative Action but some other ambitious politician who sees clearly the direction society is taking will start a push back. That'll get the Dems on the defense and they'll recommit and their recommitment will drive more Whites out of the party, always on the margin with the margin steadily moving inwards.

    Ambitious Whites with an eye on politics will see roadblocks for advancement in the Democratic Party and so adopt more conservative politics in order to build a career in the Republican Party. White liberals make a big point of how their party has so many politicians of color but what goes unmentioned is that those politicians of color are almost always elected by voters of color, not the White liberals who like to take credit for their appreciation of diversity. The last time I did this analysis there were only 2 Black Congressional Democrats who were elected by a majority of White voters. If White politicians with talent begin seeing greener pastures in the Republican Party this presents a quandary for the remaining White liberal voters, they either vote for idiots, like we see in the video, or they vote for minority politicians to represent them and they don't really seem too comfortable with that strategy if we look at present-day behavior. This means disillusionment slowly sets in with such voters.

    The really crazy variable here, and it's on display in this video, is that some people in Democratic leadership circles actually believe the Black victimization, White oppression, nonsense. True believers are always a lost cause, there will always be a small rump contingent of White Liberals who will remain in the Democratic Party, but as the Who, Whom battle gets evermore serious, rank and file will see that the Democrats offer little of value to Whites and so they'll migrate to Independents and then, after some years in the wilderness in order to save face and to self-justify their transformation, they find their way to the Republicans.

    Look, Trump won the majority of White women. So did Romney. Romney also won the majority of White youth. I haven't checked how Trump did with them. The trends are fairly clear and the Whites in the electorate are responding to the stimuli coming from the two Party's cultures and policies.

    The talk of dumping Blacks is very similar to the talk of Republicans dumping the Evangelicals. Why would either party dump their most loyal faction? These Big Tent coalitions try to cobble together a coalition which gets them a minimum of 50.1% of the votes. Blacks are 13% or so of the population - they're not going to be cut loose. The Democrats have bought a ticket on a train with no brakes - they're committed to going wherever the tracks are going to take them and these tracks are the Racial Identity Line.
    , @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Yep. Did a version of a focus group test this morning at the comments section of the WaPo. Telling white women that their future in the Dem Party will be one of Check Your Privilege tested extremely well. Definitely hits a nerve.

    Just linked to the NY Times story about the women's march and race and this one after telling them that blacks, Hispanics, LBGT and especially Muslims don't want straight white women running their party any more than they want straight white men.

    The ladies were not happy in a Scott Adams kind of way.
    , @Bastion
    Elsewhere I read some other outtakes from this meeting where there was a general call for fewer white consultants and more diverse ones. That is more or less a demand for redistribution of the campaign money that sloshes around every 2-4 years. Every time these black politicos start getting philosophical, my general rule of thumb is that they're ramping up the next iteration of the shakedown game.
  22. @Dave Pinsen
    It's interesting to consider how Dems got to this point. In hindsight, the Bakke decision may have been key, in that it enshrined diversity as public good.

    That gave a new justification for mass, 3rd world immigration. And the pendulum kept swinging left.

    So Dems went from integration and affirmative action as efforts to right historical wrongs on African Americans to embrace of diversity for its own sake, to today's logical conclusion: if diversity is good, and white is the opposite of diversity, white is bad.

    The Dems' mindless embrace of diversity has become as big an albatross for them as GOPs' mindless defense of W. was pre-Trump.

    As I mentioned to a liberal acquaintance recently, they should rethink it: http://disq.us/p/1ffnhc6

    The Dems nearly stole this election with a despised and openly corrupt candidate. With Biden or Bernie, they might have gotten a landslide.

    Trump is promising an economic miracle of 4% GDP growth, I just don’t see that as possible in the post-industrial economy.

    We are going to need a 10 point victory in 2020, and 60 Senators to get the Israeli style demographic policies this nation needs.

    • Agree: Kyle McKenna
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Can Peter Thiel talk Shervin Pishevar back into leading a California secession -- and talk Trump into going along with it? Without California's electoral votes, the Dems would have no shot at the White House in 2020. http://www.businessinsider.com/will-california-secede-from-us-calexit-2016-11
    , @Ed
    I agree with Dave here. The Dems as a brand are shot with whites. People focus on Trump but the underperformed GOP senators. The Dems ran candidates in IN, WI & MO that many thought would win. Instead all three got blown out. The Senate races in FL/NC which received a lot of attention were also low outs. It's only with narrow victories in NH & NV that Dems were able to save face. It's interesting that the two GOP candidates here actually distanced themselves from Trump.

    The Dems have effectively lost white men. They now get 25-33% of their vote. Married white women are increasingly going for Republican's. This leaves young single white women as the only reliable block for Dems.

    I wouldn't be surprised if the GOP gets to 60 senate seats in '18.
  23. @Anonymous
    https://twitter.com/GerryDuggan/status/822603492321796097

    All this apple pie is gonna result in the Trumpabteilung.

    And I’m okay with that.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    You're a Canadian dweeb though. You don't get what's as American as apple pie.
  24. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Philippe Lemoine
    You'd think that the Democrats just like getting trounced... I increasingly believe that, as it took several electoral disasters before Labour accepted that it needed to abandon socialism in the 1990's (although they seem to be victim of a relapse lately), it will take at least Trump's reelection before the Democrats understand how much identity politics hurts them.

    That had more to do with the fact that Thatcher had destroyed British industry and British trade unions, and thus Labour’s constituency had been destroyed and scattered.

    • Replies: @Philippe Lemoine
    Even if this were true, and I don't think it's completely true (the British industry, at least in terms of absolute output if not share of GDP, actually increased under Thatcher), it would still be the case that Labour's socialist ideology was political suicide.
  25. @Dave Pinsen
    It's interesting to consider how Dems got to this point. In hindsight, the Bakke decision may have been key, in that it enshrined diversity as public good.

    That gave a new justification for mass, 3rd world immigration. And the pendulum kept swinging left.

    So Dems went from integration and affirmative action as efforts to right historical wrongs on African Americans to embrace of diversity for its own sake, to today's logical conclusion: if diversity is good, and white is the opposite of diversity, white is bad.

    The Dems' mindless embrace of diversity has become as big an albatross for them as GOPs' mindless defense of W. was pre-Trump.

    As I mentioned to a liberal acquaintance recently, they should rethink it: http://disq.us/p/1ffnhc6

    The Dems’ mindless embrace of diversity has become as big an albatross for them as GOPs’ mindless defense of W. was pre-Trump.

    Trump renounced Bush 43 and barely squeaked by with a victory. It seems pretty obvious to me that the real thing holding back republicans is their economic platform which, given the way he formed his administration, Trump is largely going to embrace.

    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    The GOP got every winnable Midwestern state except Minnesota, and arguably won that state when you consider that the margin of victory was provided by Somali invaders.

    This country, like nearly every Western aligned country, loves its degenerate liberalism. But a major difference is that we don't like paying for it. The Right cannot govern until we find a way to level the dominant intellectual system of Cultural Marxism. I don't know what form it could take, but this is the existential issue of our time.
    , @Opinionator
    How is the Reps econ platform holding them back?
    , @Dave Pinsen
    I'm guessing nobody clicked on the Disqus link in my initial comment, so here's the key point:

    Diversity worship is the parallel postulate of progressive thought. Maybe it's time to consider a non-Euclidean version.
     
    The idea of the geometry metaphor is you start with axioms that everyone agrees are true. In the case of the GOP, the pre-Trump axioms included:

    1) Tax cuts: the more the better.
    2) George W. Bush kept us safe.
    3) George W. Bush won the Iraq War with the surge, to our benefit, but Obama squandered it.
    4) Immigration: the more the better.
    5) Free trade is great, who cares if we haven't had a trade surplus since 1975.
    6) Let's spend more on defense.
    7) Abortion is bad.

    Trump rejected axioms 2 through 5 inclusive. He wouldn't have won otherwise (let's limit the hindsight bias on how terrible Hillary was as a candidate: she would have beaten any other GOP candidate but Trump).

    On the Dem side, the axioms include:

    1) Diversity: the more the better.
    2) Only government should have guns.
    3) Abortion is awesome.
    4) Immigration: the more the better.
    5) Free trade is great, who cares if we haven't had a trade surplus since 1975.
    6) Affirmative action is good.

    My interlocutor on that Disqus thread has degrees from Harvard and MIT, but he can't jettison axiom 1). If Dems could, they'd be better off electorally. They could still pander to African Americans with affirmative action; they could still advocate for more immigration, albeit with some sort of Canadian-style points system. But they would alienate white voters less, and suffer less blowback from Somali, Afghan, and Pakistani immigrants massacring Americans.
    , @SFG
    Yeah, the country is economically liberal and socially conservative (except in things like abortion you can frame as rights). Trump basically ran that way, and won. Of course now he's paying back all his rich buddies, because politicians are crooked and people are bad.

    Still, he's better than Hillary would have been. Just make sure he doesn't backslide on immigration.
  26. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @BenKenobi
    All this apple pie is gonna result in the Trumpabteilung.

    And I'm okay with that.

    You’re a Canadian dweeb though. You don’t get what’s as American as apple pie.

    • Replies: @BenKenobi
    I appreciate that you have been paying attention, Anonymous. May humbly I suggest you adopt a simple pseudonymic handle? No need to be so shy.

    Canadian, American, European. After 60 years of enforced diversity these terms are essentially meaningless. I advocate Pan-White identity, the expression of which is a White Israel, with a right of return for all Whites worldwide.
    , @Buffalo Joe
    Anonymous, I believe Ben was originally from Southern Ontario, which was basically an extension of Western New York. In the old days you crossed the Can-Am border like you were travelling between states, not countries. Canadian apple pie is quite good as is their maple syrup and Canadian Ballet ( That's an "in" joke for guys around here.)
  27. @Maj. Kong
    The Dems nearly stole this election with a despised and openly corrupt candidate. With Biden or Bernie, they might have gotten a landslide.

    Trump is promising an economic miracle of 4% GDP growth, I just don't see that as possible in the post-industrial economy.

    We are going to need a 10 point victory in 2020, and 60 Senators to get the Israeli style demographic policies this nation needs.

    Can Peter Thiel talk Shervin Pishevar back into leading a California secession — and talk Trump into going along with it? Without California’s electoral votes, the Dems would have no shot at the White House in 2020. http://www.businessinsider.com/will-california-secede-from-us-calexit-2016-11

  28. @Austrian
    A very Saileresque story from Vienna:

    Culture-Enrichers Break Violinist’s Finger — For Asking Them Not to Smoke

    A symphony musician (48) must now tremble for his future as a professional musician.

    The symphony musician stood on the platform of the U4 station Karlsplatz in the direction of Hütteldorf when he smelled the typical cigarette smoke. “I saw three teenagers and pointed out that smoking in the subway area is not allowed.”
     
    Muslims aren’t into smoking bans. They smoke openly in their shops and culinary establishments despite the legal restrictions that were passed in recent years.

    Restricting smoking is a huge cause among Austrian progressives. And it is yet another opportunity for them to bash our country and its inhabitants as retrograde rubes because we are lagging behind other countries in this regard. (FPÖ is libertarian on this issue.)
    They also believe that, to the extent Muslim immigration causes some problems at all, it can be all solved through education, awareness and public service announcements. Don’t judge Muslims. They just don’t know any better.

    I don’t know about his political beliefs, but Michael Buchmann certainly fits the profile of a progressive who stepped outside his bubble and encountered reality. Any Viennese who possesses a smidgen of street smarts would have known that this intervention could get violent real quick. We should actually be thankful that Buchmann accidentally exposed the unwritten rule that Muslims enjoy smoking privilege to those who are not aware of it.

    The attackers will get a slap on the wrist in court. I guess that will be Buchmann’s next surprise.

    An alternate title for the story could be: "Van der Bellen supporters clash. One injured."

    [The vibrant launched a karate kick against the symphony musician's hand.]

    This is an exemplar of what we are getting with this new demographic plan: symphony music kicked into oblivion.

    The comments in the linked article are good:

    “You underestimate the tolerance of the tolerant left. It is built on a foundation of denial and ignorance that has reached the core of the planet.”

  29. There seems to be a tacit assumption among most of the Right that because the Left are going stark raving bonkers that they are in the process of collapse. Wrong. They were crazy as a box of frogs in 1642 and crazy as a box of frogs in 1688 and crazy as a box of frogs in 1776 and crazy as a box of frogs in 1832 and crazy as a box of frogs in 1861 and crazy as box of frogs in 1932 and crazy as box of frogs in the 60s and the most obviously salient feature of the past three centuries is relentless Leftist victory. Craziness works for them; it’s adaptive.

    The last time the Right really got its act together was in the ’20s and then Hitler ruined everything and FDR brought the smackdown. Before that you have to go back to 1815. I’ve yet to see any sign that Trump understands what Restoration would actually entail. He seems to genuinely believe being a good President – assuming that is even going to be possible – will be enough. Reagan ring any bells?

    • Agree: Amasius, snorlax
    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    The right won the 1871 elections in France, but the two monarchist camps failed to close the deal that would have seen the return of the Bourbons.

    In Israel, the right went from a permanent minority to a nearly uninterrupted two decade rule presently, with the Labor party undergoing schism after schism.

    OldMarx could not resolve its inconsistencies, and fell. I beleive that CultMarx will eventually do the same, and Islam would lose its virility without the space for expansion.
    , @The Last Real Calvinist

    There seems to be a tacit assumption among most of the Right that because the Left are going stark raving bonkers that they are in the process of collapse. Wrong. . . . Craziness works for them; it’s adaptive.
     
    The satanic impulse that tempts leftists into trying to hijack the Christian narrative is a constant of fallen human nature.
    , @Jack Hanson
    I'd take Trump two days into the Presidency over the last eight years plan of many on the AR that posting essays about dead German philosophers and pithy blog quotes was going to affect the change you seek.
    , @HA

    They were crazy as a box of frogs in 1642...the most obviously salient feature of the past three centuries is relentless Leftist victory.
     
    To view the past three centuries as "relentless Leftist victory" is bizarrely myopic. The Soviets fell, after all. And while the spirit of Freemasonry is alive and well among the EU bureaucrats, freemasonry itself is more or less a joke, with temples emptier than churches. And where does throwing the Ottomans out of Europe belong along this one dimensional world-view, or more recently, the fall of Baathism and Kemalism to Islamic fundamentalism? Was that somehow a victory for the Left? Or else, if it's the Right that won out in those cases, are conservatives in the West supposed to be cheering them on? No, thanks.

    As I've noted before, as far as Christianity is concerned, that ongoing struggle (not to mention the current grim predicament) has been to seize the sensible middle while being continuously besieged on at least two sides. On the one side are the elites and Apergery eggheads offering globalism, masonry, Marxism, Huxleyism and other approaches in which mankind is nothing but excrescences of labor or consumption or cannon fodder -- or atoms and genes. On the other side are the smelly kuckledraggers who once upon a time were Huns and Vikings, but nowadays are more likely to strap on suicide vests. Yes, both sets of besiegers often team up against the middle, but that pathological enemy-of-my-enemy game has also been going on for centuries.

    In any case, pretending that any one side has been relentlessly advancing over three centuries is simply a recipe for confusion.

  30. @Anonymous
    This is being pushed specifically by blacks, who seem to care more about dominating the Democratic Party than actually winning elections and governing, which is understandable, since winning elections and governing require work.

    The problem of course is that there are Dem affiliated elites who actually want to win elections and govern, but the blacks are a demographic dead end for winning elections, and the blacks don't seem very interested in throwing the elites or other growing electoral groups like Hispanics a bone - the blacks are just interested in dominating the Democratic Party. So the Dem elites have to find a way to throw the blacks under the bus and hitch their electoral hopes on other groups, especially since the blacks don't have anywhere else to go and won't defect to the GOP in great numbers (unlike the South) and thus the cost of dumping them is low.

    …since Blacks don’t have anywhere else to go and won’t defect to the GOP in great numbers

    The threat here is to stay home and not vote; thus the Dems must be sufficiently Left to get their vote.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri

    "The threat here is to stay home and not vote; thus the Dems must be sufficiently Left to get their [black] vote."
     
    They don't need to be Left, only to be black ... or black-ish. Sounding black is good. Looking black is better. Few blacks vote ideologically. Many blacks vote on racial appearance.

    As Lee Kuan Yew noticed, “In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.” American blacks have been living multiracially longer than American whites have. They vote accordingly.
  31. @Anonymous
    Spencer and other American Nazis are apologists for Arab and Iranian terror. Spencer appointed an Iranian as an editor on his new website.

    Really? That’s horrible. I also heard Spencer was a Nazi and an anti-Semite.

    I’m literally shaking.

    • LOL: ogunsiron
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    You're Hungarian, an irrelevant, nothing of a country.
  32. the crazier they get the better they get …….winning, ain’t no ways tired

  33. @Guy de Champlagne
    The Dems’ mindless embrace of diversity has become as big an albatross for them as GOPs’ mindless defense of W. was pre-Trump.

    Trump renounced Bush 43 and barely squeaked by with a victory. It seems pretty obvious to me that the real thing holding back republicans is their economic platform which, given the way he formed his administration, Trump is largely going to embrace.

    The GOP got every winnable Midwestern state except Minnesota, and arguably won that state when you consider that the margin of victory was provided by Somali invaders.

    This country, like nearly every Western aligned country, loves its degenerate liberalism. But a major difference is that we don’t like paying for it. The Right cannot govern until we find a way to level the dominant intellectual system of Cultural Marxism. I don’t know what form it could take, but this is the existential issue of our time.

    • Replies: @Guy de Champlagne
    Here is what someone who was serious about saving the government money would do, in descending order of impact:

    1) Enact utility style regulation of health care with price controls (like every other developed country)
    2) Stop letting poor people immigrate and prevent poor Americans from having children.
    3) Drastically cut military spending (to get it on par with every other developed country)

    Republicans don't want to do any of these things (with the exception of the first half of #2 which the republican voters support but the party elite doesn't).

    What is the Republican strategy to cut government spending?

    1) Cut taxes and cross your fingers that it all works out.
    2) See 1)
    , @bomag

    The Right cannot govern until we find a way to level the dominant intellectual system of Cultural Marxism. I don’t know what form it could take, but this is the existential issue of our time.
     
    This is a biggie. As Guy de Champlagne hints at in his response here, the Right has largely accepted the Left's march, they just think it has been too fast. Everybody who runs for public office largely subscribes to the view that government is here to regulate your life and introduce new and improved things. Conservative traditionalists are largely minding themselves and their immediate world; and when enticed into public life, conservative traditionalists often succumb to the cacophonous cries of MOAR.
  34. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @eah
    Yes -- shame on that nasty Mr Trump for trying to 'divide us by nationality' -- who does he think he is, anyway? -- addressing Americans and their interests during a presidential campaign:

    https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/822930622926745602

    Did the same person write this?

    It would make everybody in America poorer —you’re doing away with the concept of a nation state, and I don’t think there’s any country in the world that believes in that. If you believe in a nation state or in a country called the United States or UK or Denmark or any other country, you have an obligation in my view to do everything we can to help poor people. What right-wing people in this country would love is an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don’t believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country, I think we have to do everything we can to create millions of jobs.

    You know what youth unemployment is in the United States of America today? If you’re a white high school graduate, it’s 33 percent, Hispanic 36 percent, African American 51 percent. You think we should open the borders and bring in a lot of low-wage workers, or do you think maybe we should try to get jobs for those kids?

    Yes. Yes, he did.

    • Replies: @SFG
    He's a politician.

    Besides, the two statements don't actually contradict each other if you postulate a type of pan-racial leftist movement that focuses on economic issues (which is what Bernie actually wants). He doesn't mention immigration in the tweet.

    That said it's become the Zeroth Postulate, and you can't count on Bernie anymore--he realizes he has to say the right things on immigration to stay on the left. But you might be able to turn a few of his voters. He's not going to be around that much longer anyway--I'm sure he eats kale and bicycles, but flesh is mortal.

    , @Harry Baldwin
    I bring this up to people who consider Bernie to be the apotheosis of integrity. He accurately described how harmful immigration is to American workers, then apparently was schooled by party hacks and instantly fell into line with the open borders agenda.
  35. @Anonymous
    This is being pushed specifically by blacks, who seem to care more about dominating the Democratic Party than actually winning elections and governing, which is understandable, since winning elections and governing require work.

    The problem of course is that there are Dem affiliated elites who actually want to win elections and govern, but the blacks are a demographic dead end for winning elections, and the blacks don't seem very interested in throwing the elites or other growing electoral groups like Hispanics a bone - the blacks are just interested in dominating the Democratic Party. So the Dem elites have to find a way to throw the blacks under the bus and hitch their electoral hopes on other groups, especially since the blacks don't have anywhere else to go and won't defect to the GOP in great numbers (unlike the South) and thus the cost of dumping them is low.

    ” So the Dem elites have to find a way to throw the blacks under the bus”

    Dream on. The Dems will be labeled as racists by the entire mainstream media if they throw Blacks under the bus.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    So the Dem elites have to find a way to throw the blacks under the bus

    Dream on. The Dems will be labeled as racists by the entire mainstream media if they throw Blacks under the bus.
     
    The Republicans and the conservatives can run a psy-ops subversion. Start running with a narrative and fake news about how whites along with Hispanics have made secretive moves to undermine blacks in the Democratic Party. That there is a plot run by the Democrat whites-- and especially Jews--and their sellout stepin fetchit prominent blacks to undermine black people's power in the DNC. Black people love conspiracies and hate whites and especially hate Jews.
    , @Front toward enemy
    ...not under the bus, the back of the bus.
  36. @Anonym
    Do these idiots not know that they are chasing the few remaining white people out of the so-called Democrats? I yearn for the day that the ethnic balance is adjusted back to pre-1965 levels and self-hating PC churchladies like this are left out in the political wilderness.

    “I yearn for the day that the ethnic balance is adjusted back to pre-1965 levels and self-hating PC churchladies like this are left out in the political wilderness.”

    Or better still, dropped into international waters.

    Hey, it’s not as mean as it seems. I’m sure their vagina uniforms would keep them afloat.

    NSFW

    https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1232914313413216&id=100000839762174&set=a.357908817580441.73581.100000839762174&source=48

  37. I’m beginning to feel kind of bad for the Dems. The inmates are running the asylum and they’re powerless to stop them.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Don't get too comfortable. They still hold most of the power.
    , @Kylie
    "I’m beginning to feel kind of bad for the Dems. The inmates are running the asylum and they’re powerless to stop them."

    I'm not. In fact, the more I see of their infantile, vile malevolence, the more I realize there is no setback or suffering that could make me regard them as anything other than a menace to be destroyed.

    Ceterum censeo.
    , @Je Suis Charlie Martel
    This constant, well-organized agitation from the professional class white women and their beta-men are worrisome though... they are the 10% who carry the water for the 1%
    It is sentimental, irrational, and cannot be countered with argumentation or reason. They are organized, funded, and still in control of institutions...
    My social media feed is still chock full of outrage and formulaic action items -swing districts for the next mid-term election, call lists... the Conservative Inc. and RINO Rs will cuck eventually on this... so I don't feel sorry for the Dems at all, they are inciting a reaction that will be forceful and ugly, just what Soros wants I expect...
  38. @Gabriel M
    There seems to be a tacit assumption among most of the Right that because the Left are going stark raving bonkers that they are in the process of collapse. Wrong. They were crazy as a box of frogs in 1642 and crazy as a box of frogs in 1688 and crazy as a box of frogs in 1776 and crazy as a box of frogs in 1832 and crazy as a box of frogs in 1861 and crazy as box of frogs in 1932 and crazy as box of frogs in the 60s and the most obviously salient feature of the past three centuries is relentless Leftist victory. Craziness works for them; it's adaptive.

    The last time the Right really got its act together was in the '20s and then Hitler ruined everything and FDR brought the smackdown. Before that you have to go back to 1815. I've yet to see any sign that Trump understands what Restoration would actually entail. He seems to genuinely believe being a good President - assuming that is even going to be possible - will be enough. Reagan ring any bells?

    The right won the 1871 elections in France, but the two monarchist camps failed to close the deal that would have seen the return of the Bourbons.

    In Israel, the right went from a permanent minority to a nearly uninterrupted two decade rule presently, with the Labor party undergoing schism after schism.

    OldMarx could not resolve its inconsistencies, and fell. I beleive that CultMarx will eventually do the same, and Islam would lose its virility without the space for expansion.

    • Replies: @Gabriel M

    In Israel, the right went from a permanent minority to a nearly uninterrupted two decade rule presently, with the Labor party undergoing schism after schism.
     
    If Israel was 100% Ashkenazi, Labour would have won the past 6 elections in a series of crushing landslides. On the other hand, if Israel was 100% Sephardi it would be a economically stagnant backwater. There's providence in there somewhere, but I'm dubious about how many general lessons can be learned. The main one is that Leftism can only become deeply embedded among people with a Christian/Western cultural background.

    OldMarx could not resolve its inconsistencies, and fell. I believe that CultMarx will eventually do the same
     
    Communism fell because the 2nd world had the option of simply emulating the 1st world, that is to say trading in one version of Leftism for another. There is no 0th world.

    If it so happens that anti-Whiteness proves to be a dead end, the Left will just pivot, as they did, for example, with Prohibition and eugenics. The Left has a remarkable capacity for self-organisation, in which craziness acts as a sort of propellant.

  39. Nice to see the Dems focusing on identity politics issues rather than the widening chasm between their wealthy neoliberal backers and their low-income voters.

    I’m sure a solution is just around the corner.

  40. @Maj. Kong
    The Dems nearly stole this election with a despised and openly corrupt candidate. With Biden or Bernie, they might have gotten a landslide.

    Trump is promising an economic miracle of 4% GDP growth, I just don't see that as possible in the post-industrial economy.

    We are going to need a 10 point victory in 2020, and 60 Senators to get the Israeli style demographic policies this nation needs.

    I agree with Dave here. The Dems as a brand are shot with whites. People focus on Trump but the underperformed GOP senators. The Dems ran candidates in IN, WI & MO that many thought would win. Instead all three got blown out. The Senate races in FL/NC which received a lot of attention were also low outs. It’s only with narrow victories in NH & NV that Dems were able to save face. It’s interesting that the two GOP candidates here actually distanced themselves from Trump.

    The Dems have effectively lost white men. They now get 25-33% of their vote. Married white women are increasingly going for Republican’s. This leaves young single white women as the only reliable block for Dems.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if the GOP gets to 60 senate seats in ’18.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    It is not just YOUNG single white women keeping the Dems going.

    It is also many millions of bitter, immature, lonely women in their 40s and 50s and 60s who NEVER had children -- often they were never married or were divorced, as well. I personally know many of these angry and confused barren women, family and acquaintances and colleagues. My current boss. One of my own sisters. Etc.

    They know that they wasted their opportunity at contentment, that they are contributing to the demise of their own families and nation, and that normal well-rounded women have achieved, loved, been loved, created new life, and enjoyed life in a way that they never will.

    All the false screaming about losing their rights, the religious-level worship of abortion and now lesbians, the bizarre vulgar slogans and signs, won't change any of that. They are a social and evolutionary dead end and they know it.

    But there are a LOT of them, by design, and they will continue to be a powerful force for the dispossession of the historic American nation and the overtaxation, control, and mockery of heathy families with a husband, wife, and children.

    , @David Davenport
    " The Dems as a brand are shot with whites."

    But the Left's plan is for non-whites to outnumber whites in every Western country.

    In the long range view, the Left is winning.
  41. @eah
    Yes -- shame on that nasty Mr Trump for trying to 'divide us by nationality' -- who does he think he is, anyway? -- addressing Americans and their interests during a presidential campaign:

    https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/822930622926745602

    Divide and Diversity have the same root.

    The alleged “divisiveness” of the right, is entirely the cause of the diversity-mongering of the left.

  42. @Guy de Champlagne
    The Dems’ mindless embrace of diversity has become as big an albatross for them as GOPs’ mindless defense of W. was pre-Trump.

    Trump renounced Bush 43 and barely squeaked by with a victory. It seems pretty obvious to me that the real thing holding back republicans is their economic platform which, given the way he formed his administration, Trump is largely going to embrace.

    How is the Reps econ platform holding them back?

    • Replies: @Guy de Champlagne
    Because it screws over the vast majority of people (even of whites) in favor of the very wealthy and large corporations. Men, whites, and Christians are stuck between two parties that openly despise and conspire against them, the democrats because of their identity, and the republicans because of their income.
    , @27 year old
    how have you not managed to grasp this concept in all the time you've been posting here...
  43. @Ed
    I'm beginning to feel kind of bad for the Dems. The inmates are running the asylum and they're powerless to stop them.

    Don’t get too comfortable. They still hold most of the power.

  44. @eah
    Yes -- shame on that nasty Mr Trump for trying to 'divide us by nationality' -- who does he think he is, anyway? -- addressing Americans and their interests during a presidential campaign:

    https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/822930622926745602

    The pic looks like it was taken in his home state of very white Vermont. I see two black faces in the front but can’t find any elsewhere. The Dem party is 30% black.

    • Agree: G Pinfold
    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "The pic looks like it was taken in his home state of very white Vermont. I see two black faces in the front but can’t find any elsewhere. The Dem party is 30% black."

    If you have lived in Washington DC all of your life that's the Whitest crowd you have ever seen.
  45. @Austrian
    A very Saileresque story from Vienna:

    Culture-Enrichers Break Violinist’s Finger — For Asking Them Not to Smoke

    A symphony musician (48) must now tremble for his future as a professional musician.

    The symphony musician stood on the platform of the U4 station Karlsplatz in the direction of Hütteldorf when he smelled the typical cigarette smoke. “I saw three teenagers and pointed out that smoking in the subway area is not allowed.”
     
    Muslims aren’t into smoking bans. They smoke openly in their shops and culinary establishments despite the legal restrictions that were passed in recent years.

    Restricting smoking is a huge cause among Austrian progressives. And it is yet another opportunity for them to bash our country and its inhabitants as retrograde rubes because we are lagging behind other countries in this regard. (FPÖ is libertarian on this issue.)
    They also believe that, to the extent Muslim immigration causes some problems at all, it can be all solved through education, awareness and public service announcements. Don’t judge Muslims. They just don’t know any better.

    I don’t know about his political beliefs, but Michael Buchmann certainly fits the profile of a progressive who stepped outside his bubble and encountered reality. Any Viennese who possesses a smidgen of street smarts would have known that this intervention could get violent real quick. We should actually be thankful that Buchmann accidentally exposed the unwritten rule that Muslims enjoy smoking privilege to those who are not aware of it.

    The attackers will get a slap on the wrist in court. I guess that will be Buchmann’s next surprise.

    An alternate title for the story could be: "Van der Bellen supporters clash. One injured."

    Europe is just getting the first tastes of the coming Muslim crime wave. You ain’t seen nothing yet. Merkel’s sons are still getting used to Europe and testing boundaries.

    Here in the USA, we have more money and more land than our white cousins in the EU. So we inprison a very large share of the men from impulsively criminal groups, and built new cities and suburbs away from the larger concentrations. You don’t have the space or money to do so. Leave the EU while you still can.

    Germany is almost too far gone, but you Austrians can show them the way by electing a liberal nationalist government.

    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Leave the EU while you still can.
     
    Weird advice. It’s a bit too soon for Europeans to abandon their ancestral homelands. All kinds of interesting developments may arise, not all of them having to do with elections and voting. Europe as a whole may appear to be permanently asleep, but I wouldn’t bet on a fatal nodding off.

    Europe is just getting the first tastes of the coming Muslim crime wave. You ain’t seen nothing yet.
     
    Your above stark prediction might become the impetus for a Continental “Red Bull gives you wings” rude awakening.
  46. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    • Replies: @Anonym
    Translation: "My job is to make Democrats unelectable until I am purged from the party."
    , @Father O'Hara
    She reminds me of Sarah Palin.
  47. @Gabriel M
    There seems to be a tacit assumption among most of the Right that because the Left are going stark raving bonkers that they are in the process of collapse. Wrong. They were crazy as a box of frogs in 1642 and crazy as a box of frogs in 1688 and crazy as a box of frogs in 1776 and crazy as a box of frogs in 1832 and crazy as a box of frogs in 1861 and crazy as box of frogs in 1932 and crazy as box of frogs in the 60s and the most obviously salient feature of the past three centuries is relentless Leftist victory. Craziness works for them; it's adaptive.

    The last time the Right really got its act together was in the '20s and then Hitler ruined everything and FDR brought the smackdown. Before that you have to go back to 1815. I've yet to see any sign that Trump understands what Restoration would actually entail. He seems to genuinely believe being a good President - assuming that is even going to be possible - will be enough. Reagan ring any bells?

    There seems to be a tacit assumption among most of the Right that because the Left are going stark raving bonkers that they are in the process of collapse. Wrong. . . . Craziness works for them; it’s adaptive.

    The satanic impulse that tempts leftists into trying to hijack the Christian narrative is a constant of fallen human nature.

  48. @Austrian
    A very Saileresque story from Vienna:

    Culture-Enrichers Break Violinist’s Finger — For Asking Them Not to Smoke

    A symphony musician (48) must now tremble for his future as a professional musician.

    The symphony musician stood on the platform of the U4 station Karlsplatz in the direction of Hütteldorf when he smelled the typical cigarette smoke. “I saw three teenagers and pointed out that smoking in the subway area is not allowed.”
     
    Muslims aren’t into smoking bans. They smoke openly in their shops and culinary establishments despite the legal restrictions that were passed in recent years.

    Restricting smoking is a huge cause among Austrian progressives. And it is yet another opportunity for them to bash our country and its inhabitants as retrograde rubes because we are lagging behind other countries in this regard. (FPÖ is libertarian on this issue.)
    They also believe that, to the extent Muslim immigration causes some problems at all, it can be all solved through education, awareness and public service announcements. Don’t judge Muslims. They just don’t know any better.

    I don’t know about his political beliefs, but Michael Buchmann certainly fits the profile of a progressive who stepped outside his bubble and encountered reality. Any Viennese who possesses a smidgen of street smarts would have known that this intervention could get violent real quick. We should actually be thankful that Buchmann accidentally exposed the unwritten rule that Muslims enjoy smoking privilege to those who are not aware of it.

    The attackers will get a slap on the wrist in court. I guess that will be Buchmann’s next surprise.

    An alternate title for the story could be: "Van der Bellen supporters clash. One injured."

    Actually I have to agree with this comment:

    Tancred, why do you think that “he couldn’t anticipate that the situation would get physical”? Looks like a big guy, and didn’t even know he’d been hurt until a couple of stops later. Face looks fine; either he DID anticipate violence and figured correctly that his honor was worth the risk or he was too rightly angry to enter into these calculations, which is to his credit. Confronted three guys on his own. Impressive. Seems like a good role-model for German men; nothing “shameful” about him at all.

    Problem is that you can’t beat anyone up, especially of “color”, even if they attack first. Your obligation is to be the victim of state-funded riffraff.

    • Replies: @Austrian
    This was a response to a commenter who accused the musician of being "shamefully asleep". In other words, he should have known better. But that's a chicken and egg problem of course.

    A tough looking guy is actually less likely to be physically attacked for shouting at or scolding somebody, or any other reason. I suspect that strong nice guys who don't start fights themselves have the least actual fighting experience. Any martial artist knows that you have no chance if you are outnumbered and the other guys really want to hurt you.

    Big guy liberals often have a false sense of security and superiority. Liberal Hollywood promotes the individual hero who fights for progressive causes in all of its movies. Liberals also promote self-defense and shame those who are afraid of crime and belittle gun owners. The liberal solution to crime is ironically rugged individualism of the highest order. LOL

    Our problems can't be solved by isolated acts of bravery and Muslims smoking in public facilities is a low priority issue.
  49. @Maj. Kong
    The right won the 1871 elections in France, but the two monarchist camps failed to close the deal that would have seen the return of the Bourbons.

    In Israel, the right went from a permanent minority to a nearly uninterrupted two decade rule presently, with the Labor party undergoing schism after schism.

    OldMarx could not resolve its inconsistencies, and fell. I beleive that CultMarx will eventually do the same, and Islam would lose its virility without the space for expansion.

    In Israel, the right went from a permanent minority to a nearly uninterrupted two decade rule presently, with the Labor party undergoing schism after schism.

    If Israel was 100% Ashkenazi, Labour would have won the past 6 elections in a series of crushing landslides. On the other hand, if Israel was 100% Sephardi it would be a economically stagnant backwater. There’s providence in there somewhere, but I’m dubious about how many general lessons can be learned. The main one is that Leftism can only become deeply embedded among people with a Christian/Western cultural background.

    OldMarx could not resolve its inconsistencies, and fell. I believe that CultMarx will eventually do the same

    Communism fell because the 2nd world had the option of simply emulating the 1st world, that is to say trading in one version of Leftism for another. There is no 0th world.

    If it so happens that anti-Whiteness proves to be a dead end, the Left will just pivot, as they did, for example, with Prohibition and eugenics. The Left has a remarkable capacity for self-organisation, in which craziness acts as a sort of propellant.

    • Replies: @snorlax

    On the other hand, if Israel was 100% Sephardi it would be a economically stagnant backwater.
     
    Surely they aren't that bad — they do fairly well in Europe and America. Living in a 30% Ashkenazi country maybe makes them more blue-collar than they otherwise would be. I was under the impression it was the Mizrahi, Haredis, [particularly the Muslim] Arabs and the Ethiopians who are really holding Israel back economically.

    If it so happens that anti-Whiteness proves to be a dead end, the Left will just pivot, as they did, for example, with Prohibition and eugenics.
     
    That's the goal, personally. A final victory over leftism as a concept is probably too ambitious, and getting there probably would involve a holiness spiral that leads to me or at least people I like being purged. But a left that's no longer about hating me and my culture is a left I can live with. Assuming it doesn't go full Marxist, of course.
  50. @Anonymous
    https://twitter.com/GerryDuggan/status/822603492321796097

    There are plenty of interesting “American as apple pie” WWII cartoons depicting the “Japanazis” (Popeyes’s term). Of course, this dork Gerry Duggan wouldn’t dare tweet them in protest of present day racist, xenophobic Japan. Much safer to virtue signal only against white self-preservation.

  51. Shia LaBeouf confronts a White supremacist. The conspiracy theorist in me believes the supposed White supremacist is a paid bad actor, because if you watch the video he has a hard time keeping a straight face. He cracks a smile several times.

    • Replies: @Perspective
    "The conspiracy theorist in me believes the supposed White supremacist is a paid bad actor, because if you watch the video he has a hard time keeping a straight face. He cracks a smile several times."

    Another strange feature of the video is when the Ukrainian flag is unfurled by the group in the background. Was this a slap at Putin?
  52. From Idaho of all places.

    • Replies: @oddsbodkins
    Idaho makes sense. Where better to create bizzare rules governing the discourse between whites and people of color, than a place where you never need to implement such rules?
  53. I just watched the video of Sally Boynton Brown; a couple of observations:

    ***Ms Brown is not a bad public speaker. My guess is that she was raised in a church; her talk has the cadences and audience appeal characteristic of a sermon.

    ***The stale pale male in the lavender necktie sitting behind Ms Boynton did not look all that amused.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    member
    Boise 1st United Church of Christ
    1986 – 2008 (22 years)
     
    , @Anonymous
    I thought it started off as a TED talk but half way through I'd forgotten whether she ordered vanilla or caramel.
    , @The preferred nomenclature is...
    I just told my wife this morning that she reminds me of the one female "minister" on our large church's staff. It is the voice, movement and hand motions. That and the three names. The "minister" in our church is even married to a black man.

    She is the biggest reason why I don't contribute money to our church anymore.
  54. There’s not entirely unserious discussions going round amongst the Clintonites of Debbie Schultz 2020.

    They have forgotten nothing and learned nothing.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    The Democrats don't have much political talent at present, but they have a lot of non-political talent that seems no less implausible than Trump as President: Bill Gates, Tom Hanks, Steven Spielberg, etc.
  55. @Opinionator
    How is the Reps econ platform holding them back?

    Because it screws over the vast majority of people (even of whites) in favor of the very wealthy and large corporations. Men, whites, and Christians are stuck between two parties that openly despise and conspire against them, the democrats because of their identity, and the republicans because of their income.

  56. @Anonymous
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDOdcsh435Q

    Translation: “My job is to make Democrats unelectable until I am purged from the party.”

  57. @Maj. Kong
    The GOP got every winnable Midwestern state except Minnesota, and arguably won that state when you consider that the margin of victory was provided by Somali invaders.

    This country, like nearly every Western aligned country, loves its degenerate liberalism. But a major difference is that we don't like paying for it. The Right cannot govern until we find a way to level the dominant intellectual system of Cultural Marxism. I don't know what form it could take, but this is the existential issue of our time.

    Here is what someone who was serious about saving the government money would do, in descending order of impact:

    1) Enact utility style regulation of health care with price controls (like every other developed country)
    2) Stop letting poor people immigrate and prevent poor Americans from having children.
    3) Drastically cut military spending (to get it on par with every other developed country)

    Republicans don’t want to do any of these things (with the exception of the first half of #2 which the republican voters support but the party elite doesn’t).

    What is the Republican strategy to cut government spending?

    1) Cut taxes and cross your fingers that it all works out.
    2) See 1)

    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @eD
    The three things listed to get spending under control @58 is a good list.

    It should be noted that Trump promised half of #2 and seems to have been for something like #1 as well, which puts him well ahead of every other presidential candidate in recent memory.

    The exceptions are Sanders and similar candidates on the left who promised #1 and #3. The Pauls and libertarians at least favor #3. But with everyone else, forget it. Trump was the first person good on even one of these issues to get a major party nomination.

    Its been said before here, but how successful the Trump administration will be will derive directly from it being willing and able to reign in the Republicans' own oligarchical tendencies. The Democrats are pretty obviously a lost cause.
    , @AnotherGuessModel
    3) Drastically cut military spending (to get it on par with every other developed country)

    Is that in the best interest for Americans in terms of being a dominant world power in other non-military realms?
  58. @Anatoly Karlin
    There's not entirely unserious discussions going round amongst the Clintonites of Debbie Schultz 2020.

    They have forgotten nothing and learned nothing.

    The Democrats don’t have much political talent at present, but they have a lot of non-political talent that seems no less implausible than Trump as President: Bill Gates, Tom Hanks, Steven Spielberg, etc.

    • Replies: @Mr. Blank
    Depending on how the Trump administration turns out, I could definitely see a Gates or Hanks candidacy as a possibility. Trump would have to bomb pretty hard though.

    Spielberg, I don't see. Yeah, he's a big Dem donor, but he seems to value his privacy too much to run for office.
    , @Jefferson
    "The Democrats don’t have much political talent at present, but they have a lot of non-political talent that seems no less implausible than Trump as President: Bill Gates, Tom Hanks, Steven Spielberg, etc."

    When it comes to running for POTUS it has to be a Hollywood celebrity who does not have a history of throwing cocaine parties. Can Tom Hanks say he has never done that? And if not, can he at least say nobody has ever gone to the hospital over a cocaine overdose at his house parties?

    , @Almost Missouri
    Most rich guys don't like to be in the public spotlight. Trump is an outlier.

    As Mr. Blank says, Spielberg being a big donor doesn't translate into Spielberg having the stomach for years of public excoriation. His instincts as a film director reflect his personality. He makes crowd-pleasing feel-good films: he likes to be liked. A presidential campaign would end that, or at least expose that compared to director-Spielberg's broad appeal, politician-Spielberg would represent no more than a belligerent faction.

    Bill Gates may harbor actual political power ambitions, but in his meager experience in the public spotlight, he has hardly covered himself in glory. And he's too old a dog to learn new tricks.

    Zuckerberg may have the ambition, the money, believe he has the taste for the spotlight, and be a young enough dog he can still learn new tricks. We'll see if his taste for publicity will weather the free-for-all of political scrutiny. So far, he is accustomed to the deferential suck-ups in the business press. And of course his ace card is that he controls the world's most voluminous fake news feed.

    Tom Hanks might be viable. Thanks to Speilberg's promotion, Hanks enjoys apparently effortless public goodwill. A Spielberg-backed Hanks-fronted candidacy might be a very effective master-blaster combination. Just like at the box office. Of course the Left would have to set aside their Reagan-era he's-just-an-actor critiques, but hypocrisy has never held them back before.
    , @Anonymous

    The Democrats don’t have much political talent at present, but they have a lot of non-political talent that seems no less implausible than Trump as President: Bill Gates, Tom Hanks, Steven Spielberg, etc.
     
    I think these Hollywood types and most celebrities will wilt and fold pretty quickly after the arrows start flying and pressure increases. And they have small personalities. I've been around most of these people and quite a few other high-profile people. And I've been with Trump one-on-one (back in 2009). Trump was THE most overpoweringly impressive guy one-on-one than anyone I've ever met (and I've been with Bill Clinton one-on-one with his detail agents). And Trump was also one of the nicest. Trump's personality and character and background makes him a unique. He wasn't just well known as a celebrity, but an American icon and the incarnation of American deal-making capitalism and wealth and success.
    , @Forbes
    As a Hollywood theatrical production, Hanks can appear in the role of the president, while Spielberg directs, and Gates executive produces (finances) the movie. Beyond that...
  59. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Don’t forget the Republicans have a death wish. Trump’s main competition — Lying Ted — made a career out of pushing idiotic policies. Austerity is fundamentally unpopular. And I mean you, Paul Ryan.

    Shutting down the government isn’t popular. Losing wars isn’t popular. Ginning up pseudo military threats isn’t popular.

    Trump wants to win. He instinctively sees that ISIS doesn’t really control much in the way of territory and are unpopular. So lets give them a beat down instead.

    Lets close the gate. Lets punch down.

    And build stuff.

    And cut taxes. Everyone likes a tax cut.

    But don’t take away a lower middle class entitlement like Obamacare. I see that they are going after Medicaid, which is directionally correct. Section 8 needs a diet. The only entitlement in the history of the US that ever got cut was the Clinton welfare ‘reform’.

    And whatever you do … never, never, never try to reform Social Security or Medicare. Don’t do it. The future is now. Time to live large.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri

    "But don’t take away a lower middle class entitlement like Obamacare."
     
    I have to push back against this again. I know people making $20k - $35k, i.e., the definition of lower middle class, who cannot afford Obamacare. They don't think they have an entitlement. They think they have a PitA. They weren't delighted with the prior healthcare situation, but they had found ways to make it kinda sorta work. Now they're just on a wing and a prayer.

    So who can afford the Obamacare entitlement? Illegal aliens, professional welfare spongers, people who urgently need gender reassignment surgery, you know, fine upstanding Americans like these. Oh, and the 1% wealthy enough not to care.
  60. @Anonymous
    This is being pushed specifically by blacks, who seem to care more about dominating the Democratic Party than actually winning elections and governing, which is understandable, since winning elections and governing require work.

    The problem of course is that there are Dem affiliated elites who actually want to win elections and govern, but the blacks are a demographic dead end for winning elections, and the blacks don't seem very interested in throwing the elites or other growing electoral groups like Hispanics a bone - the blacks are just interested in dominating the Democratic Party. So the Dem elites have to find a way to throw the blacks under the bus and hitch their electoral hopes on other groups, especially since the blacks don't have anywhere else to go and won't defect to the GOP in great numbers (unlike the South) and thus the cost of dumping them is low.

    So the Dem elites have to find a way to throw the blacks under the bus and hitch their electoral hopes on other groups.

    That’s not going to happen. In 1960, there were close to 9 Whites for 1 Black. Today there are 5.5 Whites per 1 Black. There’s too much electoral muscle in the Black vote and they are the most loyal voting bloc.

    Secondly, the entire racial spoils system that the Democrats have erected is justified on the basis of historic injustices to Blacks. All of the other groups are free-riding on that rationale.

    What we’re seeing here is the long end-game of a process started decades ago – when you play the game of racial identity politics, you won’t forever be able to count on Whites not having a racial identity as you erect programs to strip Whites of wealth and opportunity so that you can pay off your 3rd world voter army. Maybe the Democrats never gamed this out to see how it would play out long term but they’re stuck with these dynamics. Their entire coalition splits apart if they abandon the racial spoils system that they’ve championed and implemented and without Blacks it becomes difficult to justify that racial spoils system.

    Trump doesn’t want to touch Affirmative Action but some other ambitious politician who sees clearly the direction society is taking will start a push back. That’ll get the Dems on the defense and they’ll recommit and their recommitment will drive more Whites out of the party, always on the margin with the margin steadily moving inwards.

    Ambitious Whites with an eye on politics will see roadblocks for advancement in the Democratic Party and so adopt more conservative politics in order to build a career in the Republican Party. White liberals make a big point of how their party has so many politicians of color but what goes unmentioned is that those politicians of color are almost always elected by voters of color, not the White liberals who like to take credit for their appreciation of diversity. The last time I did this analysis there were only 2 Black Congressional Democrats who were elected by a majority of White voters. If White politicians with talent begin seeing greener pastures in the Republican Party this presents a quandary for the remaining White liberal voters, they either vote for idiots, like we see in the video, or they vote for minority politicians to represent them and they don’t really seem too comfortable with that strategy if we look at present-day behavior. This means disillusionment slowly sets in with such voters.

    The really crazy variable here, and it’s on display in this video, is that some people in Democratic leadership circles actually believe the Black victimization, White oppression, nonsense. True believers are always a lost cause, there will always be a small rump contingent of White Liberals who will remain in the Democratic Party, but as the Who, Whom battle gets evermore serious, rank and file will see that the Democrats offer little of value to Whites and so they’ll migrate to Independents and then, after some years in the wilderness in order to save face and to self-justify their transformation, they find their way to the Republicans.

    Look, Trump won the majority of White women. So did Romney. Romney also won the majority of White youth. I haven’t checked how Trump did with them. The trends are fairly clear and the Whites in the electorate are responding to the stimuli coming from the two Party’s cultures and policies.

    The talk of dumping Blacks is very similar to the talk of Republicans dumping the Evangelicals. Why would either party dump their most loyal faction? These Big Tent coalitions try to cobble together a coalition which gets them a minimum of 50.1% of the votes. Blacks are 13% or so of the population – they’re not going to be cut loose. The Democrats have bought a ticket on a train with no brakes – they’re committed to going wherever the tracks are going to take them and these tracks are the Racial Identity Line.

    • Replies: @Mr. Blank

    Ambitious Whites with an eye on politics will see roadblocks for advancement in the Democratic Party and so adopt more conservative politics in order to build a career in the Republican Party.
     
    Precisely. Ask yourself: If you're a highly ambitious, politically oriented young white man -- like, say, a young Bill Clinton -- in 2017, where do you see your future? With the Democrats or the Republicans?

    One wonders if Democrats have a clue that they are eating all their seed corn...
    , @Almost Missouri

    "The talk of dumping Blacks is very similar to the talk of Republicans dumping the Evangelicals. Why would either party dump their most loyal faction?"
     
    I don't think @Anonymous was meaning that Dems would kick black voters out of the party. I think he meant it more as accepting black votes but shortchanging them on actual policy. And, yes, it is exactly what the Repubs have been doing to evangelicals for exactly the same reason: where else will they go?
    , @Beckow
    Good analysis.

    I would add that most pro-Trump and anti-identity politics group are the white High School kids. Their revulsion and rejection of what is happening to them, as a suppressed white generation, their ridicule of the slightly older Millennials, and their unwillingness to accept a second-class life, is about to explode on the political scene.

    If Trump succeeds, there is a large generation of teens that will enthusiastically support him. They want better economy, they want an end to the racial spoils system, they cannot stand identity obsessions. That is what will decide 2020 and beyond. Liberals sense it, so they are trying to preach and suppress any resistance among the young - but as with all school principals' led campaigns, it backfires.

  61. @Anonymous
    You're a Canadian dweeb though. You don't get what's as American as apple pie.

    I appreciate that you have been paying attention, Anonymous. May humbly I suggest you adopt a simple pseudonymic handle? No need to be so shy.

    Canadian, American, European. After 60 years of enforced diversity these terms are essentially meaningless. I advocate Pan-White identity, the expression of which is a White Israel, with a right of return for all Whites worldwide.

    • Replies: @attilathehen
    Israel and most American Jews are not white. Here's a video that explains. Ignore the title.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sY0FOPa-j-E
    , @Frau Katze
    I don't understand all these "Anonymous" commenters.

    It's OK if you're here just once.

    But if you become a regular, a handle really helps. It's really confusing to other readers.

    You could create another email just for this site alone.

    (I use the same pseudonym across multiple platforms. I became more relaxed after I retired.)
  62. @Anonymous
    There's still a two year window for a fresh face to emerge to challenge Trump in 2020 but I don't see it and nobody else does either. No way the senator from NJ and ditto the gov from MA. CA politicians are no longer mainstream and Cuomo jr is a brick.

    Openly anti-white frothing invective is not going to make the grade. It will only reelect Trump. But it is classic politics that the singular quality of Obama -- his ability to remain calm and control his rage -- should be jettisoned by the young turks.

    It's going to be Biden or Bernie or, gulp, Hillary in 2019.

    There are no high quality nextgen Hispanics. There are no new Obamas. Maybe Colin Powell as a dem.

    Look for Mark Cuban or even Zuckerberg to swoop in and take ownership of the DNC with mega $$$.

    Kamala Harris: think female Obama but with at least some executive experience as AG for California. She could be a formidable challenger to Trump if the Democratic Party doesn’t self destruct before then.

    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "Kamala Harris: think female Obama but with at least some executive experience as AG for California. She could be a formidable challenger to Trump if the Democratic Party doesn’t self destruct before then."

    Kamala Harris is married to a White man. That would cause a lot of Black voters to stay home on election because they would see her as a sellout for not marrying a Black man.
    , @Jack Hanson
    No, because she has BLM tied around her neck like a stone and zero things to point out (regarding her "experience") that appeal to anyone outside of bi-coastals.
    , @Boomstick
    Harris would get beat up on the 2nd Amendment outside California and New York. It's a loser issue for Democrats in swing states.

    California politics involves trying to one-up other candidates on how left-wing one can be, and that limits the national appeal of the state's politicians.
  63. You know, I originally thought the Democrats’ growing anti-white animus was a function of out-of-touch coastal elites. I figured these folks were just overestimating the rate of demographic change based on their local experience. They were looking around at their own areas and thinking, “welp! White folks are done! Time to start sucking up to the multicultural majority!” They failed to realize that large swaths of the country are still majority white — and some parts are EXTREMELY white.

    But this woman is from Idaho, so she doesn’t have that excuse.

    That’s — honestly, that’s kind of worrisome, that this whole “hate whitey” ethos has become so widespread and so fundamental to the Democratic Party that it’s considered de rigueur for politicians even from places like Idaho.

    This does not bode well for the future, no matter how you look at it.

    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "You know, I originally thought the Democrats’ growing anti-white animus was a function of out-of-touch coastal elites. I figured these folks were just overestimating the rate of demographic change based on their local experience. They were looking around at their own areas and thinking, “welp! White folks are done! Time to start sucking up to the multicultural majority!” They failed to realize that large swaths of the country are still majority white — and some parts are EXTREMELY white."

    D.L Hughley once said that he thought America was a Black nation during his childhood and teenage years living in 1970s & early 1980s South Central Los Angeles. It wasn't until he started traveling more as an adult that he found out that's not the case.

    If you live racially segregated from Whites, you probably think Whites are already a minority in The U.S.

    , @Opinionator
    It's bad out there, Mr. Blank. It's getting really, really bad.
    , @Almost Missouri

    "'hate whitey' ethos has become so widespread and so fundamental to the Democratic Party that it’s considered de rigueur for politicians even from places like Idaho"
     
    Favorable feelings about multiculturalism are inversely proportional to how much contact voters have with other cultures. See: Vermont.
    , @anon
    people like her are like that because they a) have a religious streak b) grew up in all-white areas and c) believe what they were told by school and media

    if you were stupid/trusting enough to believe the media narrative that cops were routinely gunning down black people simply for being black then you might be like that too

    i have female relatives like her who live outside the cities and have no experience of the reality and simply believe every word the lying media says

  64. black Americans are now living with “justified fear” of being killed [by black Americans] after Donald Trump was elected president.

    • Replies: @Alec Leamas

    black Americans are now living with “justified fear” of being killed [by black Americans] after Donald Trump was elected president.
     
    You misunderstand American blacks. You need to view them as a domestic Nation within a Nation - a tribe if you will - with its own mythos akin to the trail of tears in the Great Migration. Blacks see black-0n-black violence as an intrafamilial matter that's none of your business. The more you point to blacks killing blacks for accidentally stepping on one's new white sneakers as the real problem (statistically and proportionately it is), the more obstinate they'll get and the more they'll reject reality in favor of narratives of racial conflict with the dominant population. As with families they can beat one another up night and day but they'll all lose it if someone outside of the family engages in a justified dispute with one of its members.

    The BLM narrative is in many ways a sublimation of the anxieties and tragedy of the real problem to express it in a way that is not disloyal to the tribe. This is a psychological and emotionally-based response, not one founded in reason and as a result no amount of reasoning and argument and cold facts will change it (of course, since the BLM narrative is politically useful to the Left and a true look at black violence is not, the media feeds the former while eliding the contrary facts).

    This WaPo piece from September is actually pretty good at getting to the heart of the matter of black political involvement - blacks vote Democrat out of a sense of tribal solidarity even when they have significant disagreements with the positions and platforms of the Democratic party and the individual candidates on offer:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/09/28/can-trump-win-black-votes-what-we-know-from-5-decades-of-black-voting-data/?utm_term=.6f56f97a6e57

    This is why Republicans pranging on about gay marriage, the Left's hostility to Christianity and family, school choice, pointing to poorly-run urban governments, outright corruption, etc. and even fielding black GOP candidates doesn't move the needle of black voting at all. The best that Republicans can do is to hope that blacks are less than enthusiastic in any cycle and just don't bother to vote.
  65. @Guy de Champlagne
    The Dems’ mindless embrace of diversity has become as big an albatross for them as GOPs’ mindless defense of W. was pre-Trump.

    Trump renounced Bush 43 and barely squeaked by with a victory. It seems pretty obvious to me that the real thing holding back republicans is their economic platform which, given the way he formed his administration, Trump is largely going to embrace.

    I’m guessing nobody clicked on the Disqus link in my initial comment, so here’s the key point:

    Diversity worship is the parallel postulate of progressive thought. Maybe it’s time to consider a non-Euclidean version.

    The idea of the geometry metaphor is you start with axioms that everyone agrees are true. In the case of the GOP, the pre-Trump axioms included:

    1) Tax cuts: the more the better.
    2) George W. Bush kept us safe.
    3) George W. Bush won the Iraq War with the surge, to our benefit, but Obama squandered it.
    4) Immigration: the more the better.
    5) Free trade is great, who cares if we haven’t had a trade surplus since 1975.
    6) Let’s spend more on defense.
    7) Abortion is bad.

    Trump rejected axioms 2 through 5 inclusive. He wouldn’t have won otherwise (let’s limit the hindsight bias on how terrible Hillary was as a candidate: she would have beaten any other GOP candidate but Trump).

    On the Dem side, the axioms include:

    1) Diversity: the more the better.
    2) Only government should have guns.
    3) Abortion is awesome.
    4) Immigration: the more the better.
    5) Free trade is great, who cares if we haven’t had a trade surplus since 1975.
    6) Affirmative action is good.

    My interlocutor on that Disqus thread has degrees from Harvard and MIT, but he can’t jettison axiom 1). If Dems could, they’d be better off electorally. They could still pander to African Americans with affirmative action; they could still advocate for more immigration, albeit with some sort of Canadian-style points system. But they would alienate white voters less, and suffer less blowback from Somali, Afghan, and Pakistani immigrants massacring Americans.

    • Replies: @snorlax
    Trump only half-rejected points 3 (only the "to our benefit" part) and 4 (only illegal immigration).
  66. @Diversity Heretic
    Kamala Harris: think female Obama but with at least some executive experience as AG for California. She could be a formidable challenger to Trump if the Democratic Party doesn't self destruct before then.

    “Kamala Harris: think female Obama but with at least some executive experience as AG for California. She could be a formidable challenger to Trump if the Democratic Party doesn’t self destruct before then.”

    Kamala Harris is married to a White man. That would cause a lot of Black voters to stay home on election because they would see her as a sellout for not marrying a Black man.

    • Replies: @International Jew
    She could counter that by playing up the fact that she was once the mistress of a black man (Willie Brown).
    , @Karl
    67 Jefferson > Black voters to stay home on election because they would see her as a sellout for not marrying a Black man.


    I think it would be VERY do-able to paint her as Not Even a Real Negro

    NOW is the time to start opposition research which collates the facts about her Lily White Lifestyle Preferences.

    All is fair in love and politics, gentlemen....
    , @MQ
    Disagree with this re Kamala Harris. I mean, she went to Howard University, a historically black college. She could be the female Obama -- biracial "person of color" in a way that makes her difficult to pigeonhole and lets her claim oppression points from any number of different identities. She can appeal to Asian-Americans as well. No one is going to nitpick racial authenticity details on a brown woman who is running against Donald Trump. Plus her background in California politics will make her very good at outreach to suburban whites, she will have some of Obama's ability to code-switch.
  67. @Steve Sailer
    The Democrats don't have much political talent at present, but they have a lot of non-political talent that seems no less implausible than Trump as President: Bill Gates, Tom Hanks, Steven Spielberg, etc.

    Depending on how the Trump administration turns out, I could definitely see a Gates or Hanks candidacy as a possibility. Trump would have to bomb pretty hard though.

    Spielberg, I don’t see. Yeah, he’s a big Dem donor, but he seems to value his privacy too much to run for office.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    He'd have a hard time against Hanks.
    , @Jimi
    I suspect lot of these old white liberals like Spielberg don't realize how even their views and actions are now considered racist or rightwing.
    , @Light Roast
    Gates doesn't have the charisma. He comes across as geeky and socially awkward, despite his phenomenal success in life.

    Hanks has likeability in spades, but it's still very unlikely. As far as I know, Trump is the only President who did not hold high-level government or military office before being elected.

    In any case, by 2020 America will be Great Again, so anyone who runs against Trump will lose.
    , @johnnyGeo
    I'd say it's the opposite: the more effective Trump is, the more likely he would be to spawn imitators from the left.
  68. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @The Last Real Calvinist
    I just watched the video of Sally Boynton Brown; a couple of observations:

    ***Ms Brown is not a bad public speaker. My guess is that she was raised in a church; her talk has the cadences and audience appeal characteristic of a sermon.

    ***The stale pale male in the lavender necktie sitting behind Ms Boynton did not look all that amused.

    member
    Boise 1st United Church of Christ
    1986 – 2008 (22 years)

    • Replies: @Kylie
    The United Church of Christ was far left back in the 1970s and proud to be so.
    , @The Last Real Calvinist
    Right. That fits.

    But there's something about the way she speaks that makes me think she grew up in church where most of the members are fervent in their faith. Although the content of what she says is grossly wrong, she delivers it with a lack of equivocation and qualifiers. That's the speech of someone who really believes.

    Anyway, thanks much for digging this up!

  69. @TangoMan
    So the Dem elites have to find a way to throw the blacks under the bus and hitch their electoral hopes on other groups.

    That's not going to happen. In 1960, there were close to 9 Whites for 1 Black. Today there are 5.5 Whites per 1 Black. There's too much electoral muscle in the Black vote and they are the most loyal voting bloc.

    Secondly, the entire racial spoils system that the Democrats have erected is justified on the basis of historic injustices to Blacks. All of the other groups are free-riding on that rationale.

    What we're seeing here is the long end-game of a process started decades ago - when you play the game of racial identity politics, you won't forever be able to count on Whites not having a racial identity as you erect programs to strip Whites of wealth and opportunity so that you can pay off your 3rd world voter army. Maybe the Democrats never gamed this out to see how it would play out long term but they're stuck with these dynamics. Their entire coalition splits apart if they abandon the racial spoils system that they've championed and implemented and without Blacks it becomes difficult to justify that racial spoils system.

    Trump doesn't want to touch Affirmative Action but some other ambitious politician who sees clearly the direction society is taking will start a push back. That'll get the Dems on the defense and they'll recommit and their recommitment will drive more Whites out of the party, always on the margin with the margin steadily moving inwards.

    Ambitious Whites with an eye on politics will see roadblocks for advancement in the Democratic Party and so adopt more conservative politics in order to build a career in the Republican Party. White liberals make a big point of how their party has so many politicians of color but what goes unmentioned is that those politicians of color are almost always elected by voters of color, not the White liberals who like to take credit for their appreciation of diversity. The last time I did this analysis there were only 2 Black Congressional Democrats who were elected by a majority of White voters. If White politicians with talent begin seeing greener pastures in the Republican Party this presents a quandary for the remaining White liberal voters, they either vote for idiots, like we see in the video, or they vote for minority politicians to represent them and they don't really seem too comfortable with that strategy if we look at present-day behavior. This means disillusionment slowly sets in with such voters.

    The really crazy variable here, and it's on display in this video, is that some people in Democratic leadership circles actually believe the Black victimization, White oppression, nonsense. True believers are always a lost cause, there will always be a small rump contingent of White Liberals who will remain in the Democratic Party, but as the Who, Whom battle gets evermore serious, rank and file will see that the Democrats offer little of value to Whites and so they'll migrate to Independents and then, after some years in the wilderness in order to save face and to self-justify their transformation, they find their way to the Republicans.

    Look, Trump won the majority of White women. So did Romney. Romney also won the majority of White youth. I haven't checked how Trump did with them. The trends are fairly clear and the Whites in the electorate are responding to the stimuli coming from the two Party's cultures and policies.

    The talk of dumping Blacks is very similar to the talk of Republicans dumping the Evangelicals. Why would either party dump their most loyal faction? These Big Tent coalitions try to cobble together a coalition which gets them a minimum of 50.1% of the votes. Blacks are 13% or so of the population - they're not going to be cut loose. The Democrats have bought a ticket on a train with no brakes - they're committed to going wherever the tracks are going to take them and these tracks are the Racial Identity Line.

    Ambitious Whites with an eye on politics will see roadblocks for advancement in the Democratic Party and so adopt more conservative politics in order to build a career in the Republican Party.

    Precisely. Ask yourself: If you’re a highly ambitious, politically oriented young white man — like, say, a young Bill Clinton — in 2017, where do you see your future? With the Democrats or the Republicans?

    One wonders if Democrats have a clue that they are eating all their seed corn…

    • Replies: @Anonym
    Precisely. Ask yourself: If you’re a highly ambitious, politically oriented young white man — like, say, a young Bill Clinton — in 2017, where do you see your future? With the Democrats or the Republicans?

    That's insightful. Bill Clinton was a very sharp man. If you are as sharp as him, you see which way the wind is blowing and go all in on anti-immigration.
    , @Almost Missouri

    "If you’re a highly ambitious, politically oriented young white man — like, say, a young Bill Clinton — in 2017, where do you see your future? With the Democrats or the Republicans?"
     
    That's a good point, but would the next generation's Bill Clinton really be good for the Republican Party? After all, the Clinton Ascendancy among the Democrats resulted in the utter destruction of the rest of the Democrat Party, followed by the implosion of the Clintons themselves.
    , @whorefinder
    Except Bubba didn't just join the D party and adopt it's policies, he actively sought to change it's policies to be more palatable, and largely succeeded.

    Bubba became a D when it was clear that that R's were ascendant and D's were declining in Arkansas politics, but that just made it easier for a guy like him to stand out; the D's had less of a bench, so it was easier for Bubba to get in. Then he joined the DLC and got the D's policies more globalist on trade and on intervention, leading the neo-liberal fight, and kissed up to globalists at Bildenberg/Davos before his presidential run. He also got welfare reform and his Sistah Soldja moment.

    A smart white pol could triangulate the D's right back into power, unfortunately.
    , @Muse
    To answer your question, I know a highly gifted young man. Last year he was a senior during the presidential campaign. For fun he and his friends went to Milo rallies and went to the University of Illinois circle campus to heckle the paid SJW types at the Trump rally in Chicago despite my warnings to him that there might be violence instigated by the left.

    He is taking a gap year and is involved in politics and exploring Buddhism prior to attending the University of Chicago next fall.

    Meanwhile the 13 and 14 year old middle school boys that are friends with my son are making jokes about their female SJW teacher's attempts at indoctrination constantly among themselves.
  70. @Mr. Blank
    You know, I originally thought the Democrats' growing anti-white animus was a function of out-of-touch coastal elites. I figured these folks were just overestimating the rate of demographic change based on their local experience. They were looking around at their own areas and thinking, "welp! White folks are done! Time to start sucking up to the multicultural majority!" They failed to realize that large swaths of the country are still majority white -- and some parts are EXTREMELY white.

    But this woman is from Idaho, so she doesn't have that excuse.

    That's -- honestly, that's kind of worrisome, that this whole "hate whitey" ethos has become so widespread and so fundamental to the Democratic Party that it's considered de rigueur for politicians even from places like Idaho.

    This does not bode well for the future, no matter how you look at it.

    “You know, I originally thought the Democrats’ growing anti-white animus was a function of out-of-touch coastal elites. I figured these folks were just overestimating the rate of demographic change based on their local experience. They were looking around at their own areas and thinking, “welp! White folks are done! Time to start sucking up to the multicultural majority!” They failed to realize that large swaths of the country are still majority white — and some parts are EXTREMELY white.”

    D.L Hughley once said that he thought America was a Black nation during his childhood and teenage years living in 1970s & early 1980s South Central Los Angeles. It wasn’t until he started traveling more as an adult that he found out that’s not the case.

    If you live racially segregated from Whites, you probably think Whites are already a minority in The U.S.

    • Replies: @ganderson
    Especially if all you watch on TV is ESPN
    , @David In TN
    "If you live racially segregated from Whites, you probably think Whites are already a minority in The U.S."

    Corporations, the MSM, etc, already operate on that assumption. Some years ago, I was listening to a radio talk show in which a poll was discussed. It seems a majority of the respondents thought blacks were 35 % of the U.S. population.
  71. @El Dato
    Actually I have to agree with this comment:


    Tancred, why do you think that “he couldn’t anticipate that the situation would get physical”? Looks like a big guy, and didn’t even know he’d been hurt until a couple of stops later. Face looks fine; either he DID anticipate violence and figured correctly that his honor was worth the risk or he was too rightly angry to enter into these calculations, which is to his credit. Confronted three guys on his own. Impressive. Seems like a good role-model for German men; nothing “shameful” about him at all.
     
    Problem is that you can't beat anyone up, especially of "color", even if they attack first. Your obligation is to be the victim of state-funded riffraff.

    This was a response to a commenter who accused the musician of being “shamefully asleep“. In other words, he should have known better. But that’s a chicken and egg problem of course.

    A tough looking guy is actually less likely to be physically attacked for shouting at or scolding somebody, or any other reason. I suspect that strong nice guys who don’t start fights themselves have the least actual fighting experience. Any martial artist knows that you have no chance if you are outnumbered and the other guys really want to hurt you.

    Big guy liberals often have a false sense of security and superiority. Liberal Hollywood promotes the individual hero who fights for progressive causes in all of its movies. Liberals also promote self-defense and shame those who are afraid of crime and belittle gun owners. The liberal solution to crime is ironically rugged individualism of the highest order. LOL

    Our problems can’t be solved by isolated acts of bravery and Muslims smoking in public facilities is a low priority issue.

    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    I think it's people with the liberal view of race who get themselves into situations like this. As a race realist, I would never confront a group of NAMs over smoking in a no-smoking area, or littering, or using bad language. I know how volatile and indifferent to the consequences of employing violence they are. A lot of white liberals actually believe that NAMs are not that different from themselves. They think they're capable of calmly accepting criticism from a white person.

    I've read numerous stories about whites being killed after remonstrating with NAMs about their bad behavior and assume these people had liberal views about race. You have to be realistic. I have my CCW permit, but would never want to have to employ deadly force in any situation I could have ignored or walked away from. Not in today's America.
    , @res

    A tough looking guy is actually less likely to be physically attacked for shouting at or scolding somebody, or any other reason. I suspect that strong nice guys who don’t start fights themselves have the least actual fighting experience.
     
    There is some truth in this, but it's not the whole story. In college I knew a roughly 6'2" black strength athlete, maybe 220-240 (hard to judge the weight of muscular athletes IMHO). Nicest guy you'd ever meet, smart, modest (despite being one of the most impressive people all around I have met) with a great sense of humor. He was an immigrant and did not come off in the least as belligerent. He would talk about how he had problems with people picking fights with him in bars because he looked intimidating. My understanding is the "theory" was that beating up a tough looking guy makes you look tough. My sense was he didn't actually fight much if at all, but I wish now I had followed up more on how he dealt with those situations.
  72. @candid_observer
    The Future of the Left is Female:

    http://nymag.com/thecut/2017/01/the-future-of-the-left-is-female.html

    I'm sure that'll work out just great for them.

    Yup. Flipped me.

  73. @Guy de Champlagne
    The Dems’ mindless embrace of diversity has become as big an albatross for them as GOPs’ mindless defense of W. was pre-Trump.

    Trump renounced Bush 43 and barely squeaked by with a victory. It seems pretty obvious to me that the real thing holding back republicans is their economic platform which, given the way he formed his administration, Trump is largely going to embrace.

    Yeah, the country is economically liberal and socially conservative (except in things like abortion you can frame as rights). Trump basically ran that way, and won. Of course now he’s paying back all his rich buddies, because politicians are crooked and people are bad.

    Still, he’s better than Hillary would have been. Just make sure he doesn’t backslide on immigration.

    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "Yeah, the country is economically liberal and socially conservative"

    Polls have shown that the majority of Americans support the legalization of same sex marriage and marijuana, so America is no longer socially conservative.

    "Trump basically ran that way,"

    No he didn't. The Donald did not run as a social conservative at all. He rarely talked about abortion and Homosexuality.

  74. @Mr. Blank
    You know, I originally thought the Democrats' growing anti-white animus was a function of out-of-touch coastal elites. I figured these folks were just overestimating the rate of demographic change based on their local experience. They were looking around at their own areas and thinking, "welp! White folks are done! Time to start sucking up to the multicultural majority!" They failed to realize that large swaths of the country are still majority white -- and some parts are EXTREMELY white.

    But this woman is from Idaho, so she doesn't have that excuse.

    That's -- honestly, that's kind of worrisome, that this whole "hate whitey" ethos has become so widespread and so fundamental to the Democratic Party that it's considered de rigueur for politicians even from places like Idaho.

    This does not bode well for the future, no matter how you look at it.

    It’s bad out there, Mr. Blank. It’s getting really, really bad.

  75. @Mr. Blank
    Depending on how the Trump administration turns out, I could definitely see a Gates or Hanks candidacy as a possibility. Trump would have to bomb pretty hard though.

    Spielberg, I don't see. Yeah, he's a big Dem donor, but he seems to value his privacy too much to run for office.

    He’d have a hard time against Hanks.

  76. @Anonymous
    Did the same person write this?


    It would make everybody in America poorer —you're doing away with the concept of a nation state, and I don't think there's any country in the world that believes in that. If you believe in a nation state or in a country called the United States or UK or Denmark or any other country, you have an obligation in my view to do everything we can to help poor people. What right-wing people in this country would love is an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don't believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country, I think we have to do everything we can to create millions of jobs.

    You know what youth unemployment is in the United States of America today? If you're a white high school graduate, it's 33 percent, Hispanic 36 percent, African American 51 percent. You think we should open the borders and bring in a lot of low-wage workers, or do you think maybe we should try to get jobs for those kids?
     
    Yes. Yes, he did.

    He’s a politician.

    Besides, the two statements don’t actually contradict each other if you postulate a type of pan-racial leftist movement that focuses on economic issues (which is what Bernie actually wants). He doesn’t mention immigration in the tweet.

    That said it’s become the Zeroth Postulate, and you can’t count on Bernie anymore–he realizes he has to say the right things on immigration to stay on the left. But you might be able to turn a few of his voters. He’s not going to be around that much longer anyway–I’m sure he eats kale and bicycles, but flesh is mortal.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri

    "He’s a politician."
     
    A pretty terrible one. After spending a lifetime developing his pro-little guy stance and persona, Bernie tossed it all away in five minutes to become a 4th-rate Clinton crony, and he didn't even get to share in any of the Foundation take. Not to mention the terrible optics of kissing Queen Hillary's robes while her dagger was still protruding from his back.
  77. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @The Last Real Calvinist
    I just watched the video of Sally Boynton Brown; a couple of observations:

    ***Ms Brown is not a bad public speaker. My guess is that she was raised in a church; her talk has the cadences and audience appeal characteristic of a sermon.

    ***The stale pale male in the lavender necktie sitting behind Ms Boynton did not look all that amused.

    I thought it started off as a TED talk but half way through I’d forgotten whether she ordered vanilla or caramel.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    Yeah, there's a lot of similarity between Sally Boynton Brown and the Vanilla Or Caramel SJW.

    I've said before that Obama's one true talent was to make insane Dem policies sound reasonable and uncontroversial. Now that the ObamaFilter® is gone, everyone is getting to see the raw feed of Leftist insanity.

    Some will swallow hard and claim to like it. Some will genuinely like it and lap it up. Some will be repelled and retreat to the political wilderness. A few will embrace the Trumpening.
  78. Tom Hanks will be 64 in 2020.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    There must some other famous actor, like Brad Pitt. He's not smart enough for that, so they might need to transplant Bill Clinton's brain into Brad Pitt's body. It would be a win-win situation: Bill Clinton would get the sex appeal needed to win the hearts of ladies, he'd also get a younger body, and Brad Pitt would become smart. Brad Pitt's brains would, however, be discarded, but that's not a big loss for humanity. He's already had his big roles anyway.
  79. @Mr. Blank
    You know, I originally thought the Democrats' growing anti-white animus was a function of out-of-touch coastal elites. I figured these folks were just overestimating the rate of demographic change based on their local experience. They were looking around at their own areas and thinking, "welp! White folks are done! Time to start sucking up to the multicultural majority!" They failed to realize that large swaths of the country are still majority white -- and some parts are EXTREMELY white.

    But this woman is from Idaho, so she doesn't have that excuse.

    That's -- honestly, that's kind of worrisome, that this whole "hate whitey" ethos has become so widespread and so fundamental to the Democratic Party that it's considered de rigueur for politicians even from places like Idaho.

    This does not bode well for the future, no matter how you look at it.

    “‘hate whitey’ ethos has become so widespread and so fundamental to the Democratic Party that it’s considered de rigueur for politicians even from places like Idaho”

    Favorable feelings about multiculturalism are inversely proportional to how much contact voters have with other cultures. See: Vermont.

  80. @Steve Sailer
    Tom Hanks will be 64 in 2020.

    There must some other famous actor, like Brad Pitt. He’s not smart enough for that, so they might need to transplant Bill Clinton’s brain into Brad Pitt’s body. It would be a win-win situation: Bill Clinton would get the sex appeal needed to win the hearts of ladies, he’d also get a younger body, and Brad Pitt would become smart. Brad Pitt’s brains would, however, be discarded, but that’s not a big loss for humanity. He’s already had his big roles anyway.

  81. A minor point but is the use of y’all increasing ? I thought that it was a Southern/Texan thing but the speaker buy Boynton-Brown does not sound like that. Is it now a progressive expression ?

    • Replies: @Tex

    A minor point but is the use of y’all increasing ? I thought that it was a Southern/Texan thing but the speaker buy Boynton-Brown does not sound like that. Is it now a progressive expression ?
     
    I believe y'all is typical of African-American Vernacular English wherever it's spoken, North or South. I suspect Brown's use is "tactical dialect", like the way Obama would mimic a "preacher" style. Brown would of course not be trying to sound like a white Southerner (ie JUST LIKE THE KKK!!!!11!). She's trying to sound, well, brown.
  82. “My Job Is to Shut Other White People Down”

    Dear Sally,

    Thank you for summarizing the Democrat platform in one sentence.

    Love,

    America

  83. @Mr. Anon

    The Future of the Left is Female:
     
    The Sisterhood of the Travelling Rants

    Can’t Understand Normal Thinking.

  84. @SFG
    Yeah, the country is economically liberal and socially conservative (except in things like abortion you can frame as rights). Trump basically ran that way, and won. Of course now he's paying back all his rich buddies, because politicians are crooked and people are bad.

    Still, he's better than Hillary would have been. Just make sure he doesn't backslide on immigration.

    “Yeah, the country is economically liberal and socially conservative”

    Polls have shown that the majority of Americans support the legalization of same sex marriage and marijuana, so America is no longer socially conservative.

    “Trump basically ran that way,”

    No he didn’t. The Donald did not run as a social conservative at all. He rarely talked about abortion and Homosexuality.

    • Replies: @CK
    Pres. Trump has 5 children and, so far, 8 grandchildren. No need to talk about abortion.
    He made money in real estate in NYC, he has had to deal with hordes of non-heterosexual designers, decorators, dealers in antiques, no need to talk about homosexuality.
    , @RadicalCenter
    True, but he did make a big show of promising to pick Supreme Court nominees from a list of twenty one prolife judges. Specifically, judges who were vetted and recommended by the heritage foundation and federalist society and are on the whole considered very prolife, which in the federal judicial context means first and foremost overruling roe and Casey and letting the states decide their own abortion laws again.

    Homosexual "marriage", you're right, he didn't make an issue of opposing it, and the reason probably is because he is liberal on the issue and doesn't care much one way or the other.

    I'd be glad if my President simply nominated judges who would hold that both of those issues are reserved to the people of each State per the tenth amendment. As a practical matter, that might be the most politically realistic and palatable compromise available to most of us on both sides anyway. And something that Trump could live with.
  85. @Anonymous
    I thought it started off as a TED talk but half way through I'd forgotten whether she ordered vanilla or caramel.

    Yeah, there’s a lot of similarity between Sally Boynton Brown and the Vanilla Or Caramel SJW.

    I’ve said before that Obama’s one true talent was to make insane Dem policies sound reasonable and uncontroversial. Now that the ObamaFilter® is gone, everyone is getting to see the raw feed of Leftist insanity.

    Some will swallow hard and claim to like it. Some will genuinely like it and lap it up. Some will be repelled and retreat to the political wilderness. A few will embrace the Trumpening.

    • Replies: @whorefinder
    Obama spoke like the black guy politician your after-school specials promised.

    Ellison speaks like actual black guy politicians.

  86. @Maj. Kong
    Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV)
    Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA)
    Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
    Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-IN)
    Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI)
    Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT)
    Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)
    Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO)
    Sen. Angus King (ID-ME)

    If the DNC is dumb enough to double down on anti-white racism, every Senator that I listed will almost certainly be thrown out of office.

    Should the GOP get those seats, we will have Budapest in Washington.

    Peters and King might survive.

  87. “Back in 2009 I suggested that Republicans could help rebrand the Democrats as The Black Party, but white Democrats seem intent on doing that to themselves all by themselves.”

    It looks like the lesson of the last 17 years of sound Sailerist advice to the political classes is that the Republican establishment was so dumb they ignored it all and lost their party to an opportunist showman, while the Democrat establishment is so dumb they decided to implement Steve’s advice for the Republicans. Results pending on whom they will lose their party to.

    The other thing I keep saying is that the “elites” are remarkably stupid.

  88. @Jefferson
    "Kamala Harris: think female Obama but with at least some executive experience as AG for California. She could be a formidable challenger to Trump if the Democratic Party doesn’t self destruct before then."

    Kamala Harris is married to a White man. That would cause a lot of Black voters to stay home on election because they would see her as a sellout for not marrying a Black man.

    She could counter that by playing up the fact that she was once the mistress of a black man (Willie Brown).

    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "She could counter that by playing up the fact that she was once the mistress of a black man (Willie Brown)."

    How will she counter if asked why didn't she marry that Black man and instead chose to marry a White man?
  89. @SFG
    He's a politician.

    Besides, the two statements don't actually contradict each other if you postulate a type of pan-racial leftist movement that focuses on economic issues (which is what Bernie actually wants). He doesn't mention immigration in the tweet.

    That said it's become the Zeroth Postulate, and you can't count on Bernie anymore--he realizes he has to say the right things on immigration to stay on the left. But you might be able to turn a few of his voters. He's not going to be around that much longer anyway--I'm sure he eats kale and bicycles, but flesh is mortal.

    “He’s a politician.”

    A pretty terrible one. After spending a lifetime developing his pro-little guy stance and persona, Bernie tossed it all away in five minutes to become a 4th-rate Clinton crony, and he didn’t even get to share in any of the Foundation take. Not to mention the terrible optics of kissing Queen Hillary’s robes while her dagger was still protruding from his back.

    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "A pretty terrible one. After spending a lifetime developing his pro-little guy stance and persona, Bernie tossed it all away in five minutes to become a 4th-rate Clinton crony, and he didn’t even get to share in any of the Foundation take. Not to mention the terrible optics of kissing Queen Hillary’s robes while her dagger was still protruding from his back."

    When Bernie Sanders said to Crooked Cankles that America doesn't care about her damn emails, that was his version of Mitt Romney's 47 percent comment.
    , @whorefinder
    Bernie was a classic case of a guy who did nothing his entire career but get elected by saying the right things, and then living on the public teat. The fact that he zoomed to such prominence against Hillary must've shocked him, as he viewed his run as a way to get some good campaign slush fund money and draw the support of any serious Hillary opponent. Instead he almost tripped himself in the nomination.

    The fact that he let Crooked Hillary steal the election from him and did nothing, as well as absolving her of the email crimes, are the tells. The man never held a real job in his life, and was terrified of having to actually do something if he got elected to the Presidency.

    I'll bet that when Hillary's Parkinson's flared up in September, and the DNC was openly meeting to replace her and Bernie was on the table, no one besides Hillary, Huma, and Bill was against it more than Bernie.

  90. @Jefferson
    "Kamala Harris: think female Obama but with at least some executive experience as AG for California. She could be a formidable challenger to Trump if the Democratic Party doesn’t self destruct before then."

    Kamala Harris is married to a White man. That would cause a lot of Black voters to stay home on election because they would see her as a sellout for not marrying a Black man.

    67 Jefferson > Black voters to stay home on election because they would see her as a sellout for not marrying a Black man.

    I think it would be VERY do-able to paint her as Not Even a Real Negro

    NOW is the time to start opposition research which collates the facts about her Lily White Lifestyle Preferences.

    All is fair in love and politics, gentlemen….

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Kamala Harris was raised by her Indian mother.

    On the other hand, her black father, a Stanford prof, seems like a pretty good guy.

    , @Almost Missouri

    "it would be VERY do-able to paint her as Not Even a Real Negro. NOW is the time to start opposition research which collates the facts about her Lily White Lifestyle Preferences."
     
    Obama was Not Even A Real Negro who had plenty of Lily White Lifestyle Preferences, but he got the Dems two terms as the Official Magic Negro. There's no reason Kamala Harris can't do the same while also accruing the knee-jerk estrogen vote.

    Don't forget that the Left still controls 99%+ of the media that Democratic voters see. What allowed the Trump era was that the alt-right got hold of a few percent of the media that non-Dem voters see. The Dems can still decree what the Narrative is to their own voters. They've only (partially) lost ability to decree it to us.
  91. @International Jew
    She could counter that by playing up the fact that she was once the mistress of a black man (Willie Brown).

    “She could counter that by playing up the fact that she was once the mistress of a black man (Willie Brown).”

    How will she counter if asked why didn’t she marry that Black man and instead chose to marry a White man?

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Willie already had a wife.
    , @bomag

    How will she counter...
     
    "I should have, but I was a victim of old thinking about acceptable mates. It has made me even more aware of the need to drop all boundaries, embrace even more of the Other, to accept even more new stuff. Vote for me, and I'll create so many new pronouns that it will be a cosmic experience!"
  92. @Almost Missouri

    "He’s a politician."
     
    A pretty terrible one. After spending a lifetime developing his pro-little guy stance and persona, Bernie tossed it all away in five minutes to become a 4th-rate Clinton crony, and he didn't even get to share in any of the Foundation take. Not to mention the terrible optics of kissing Queen Hillary's robes while her dagger was still protruding from his back.

    “A pretty terrible one. After spending a lifetime developing his pro-little guy stance and persona, Bernie tossed it all away in five minutes to become a 4th-rate Clinton crony, and he didn’t even get to share in any of the Foundation take. Not to mention the terrible optics of kissing Queen Hillary’s robes while her dagger was still protruding from his back.”

    When Bernie Sanders said to Crooked Cankles that America doesn’t care about her damn emails, that was his version of Mitt Romney’s 47 percent comment.

  93. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    The wonderful lesson the Democrats learned from Hillary’s loss, from a Republican standpoint, is that they will have to nominate a minority in order to excite the Obama coalition.

    Yet we are unlikely to ever see a Minority politician of Obama’s talent in our lifetime — talk about a shallow bench!

    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    They have themselves in the twofer bind.

    They now know that the coalition of oddities they've assembled means they can't win without large black turnout but the Gyno-Americans will demand a Wimmin, after all, it's their turn.

    A black woman candidate will, I suspect, crash and burn in real America.

    , @swimologist
    You mean his talent of being "a clean articulate black guy"?
  94. @Steve Sailer
    The Democrats don't have much political talent at present, but they have a lot of non-political talent that seems no less implausible than Trump as President: Bill Gates, Tom Hanks, Steven Spielberg, etc.

    “The Democrats don’t have much political talent at present, but they have a lot of non-political talent that seems no less implausible than Trump as President: Bill Gates, Tom Hanks, Steven Spielberg, etc.”

    When it comes to running for POTUS it has to be a Hollywood celebrity who does not have a history of throwing cocaine parties. Can Tom Hanks say he has never done that? And if not, can he at least say nobody has ever gone to the hospital over a cocaine overdose at his house parties?

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    By 2020 Hanks will (presumably) have a good 30 years or more of being a solid citizen, whereas George W. Bush had only been sober for about 14 years when he was elected. Prodigal sons are pretty popular.

    His wife was real nice to my wife when they got to talking at an auto show many years ago. She had just made a fortune off producing My Big Fat Greek Wedding.

    Her dad was born a Muslim in Bulgaria, but then converted to Greek Orthodox to marry her mom.

    If I was a Democratic speechwriter, I think I could work with that.

    A friend told me that Clint Eastwood came close to running for governor of California a few decades ago on the GOP ticket He just about had everybody who was anybody in line to support him, but then he decided he didn't need the hassle.

    On the other hand, Hanks is mostly an actor, while Eastwood is also a director. They both have a lot of producer credits, but those are a little vague.

    On the other hand, Hanks has chosen to produce, often with Spielberg, all sorts of patriotic American history miniseries, such as Band of Brothers, The Pacific, From the Earth to the Moon, John Adams, and coming in 2018 Lewis and Clark. The man is proud of American history. That's a pretty good set of credits for a Democrat.

  95. @Maj. Kong
    The GOP got every winnable Midwestern state except Minnesota, and arguably won that state when you consider that the margin of victory was provided by Somali invaders.

    This country, like nearly every Western aligned country, loves its degenerate liberalism. But a major difference is that we don't like paying for it. The Right cannot govern until we find a way to level the dominant intellectual system of Cultural Marxism. I don't know what form it could take, but this is the existential issue of our time.

    The Right cannot govern until we find a way to level the dominant intellectual system of Cultural Marxism. I don’t know what form it could take, but this is the existential issue of our time.

    This is a biggie. As Guy de Champlagne hints at in his response here, the Right has largely accepted the Left’s march, they just think it has been too fast. Everybody who runs for public office largely subscribes to the view that government is here to regulate your life and introduce new and improved things. Conservative traditionalists are largely minding themselves and their immediate world; and when enticed into public life, conservative traditionalists often succumb to the cacophonous cries of MOAR.

  96. @Jefferson
    "She could counter that by playing up the fact that she was once the mistress of a black man (Willie Brown)."

    How will she counter if asked why didn't she marry that Black man and instead chose to marry a White man?

    Willie already had a wife.

    • Replies: @International Jew
    So one point for Kamala, for having been Willie Brown's mistress.

    But was Willie's wife black? If so, that would be minus two points for Kamala, for purposes of the black female vote.

    Kamala plays very well with whites though; she could very well become the female Barack Obama.
  97. @Karl
    67 Jefferson > Black voters to stay home on election because they would see her as a sellout for not marrying a Black man.


    I think it would be VERY do-able to paint her as Not Even a Real Negro

    NOW is the time to start opposition research which collates the facts about her Lily White Lifestyle Preferences.

    All is fair in love and politics, gentlemen....

    Kamala Harris was raised by her Indian mother.

    On the other hand, her black father, a Stanford prof, seems like a pretty good guy.

    • Replies: @Ed
    Kamala went to Howard that alone will give here considerable cred with the black middle class. Her marrying a white guy isn't as big a deal to black women since many of them believe they are forced to date outside of their race due to shortage of suitable black men. She's also quite attractive for a 50+ woman.

    While on paper she seems formidable and is certainly a better black option than Booker, I don't think she'll animate black voters sufficiently enough. I don't see how she flips the Midwest back. The only person left that can do that is Michelle Obama.
  98. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Jefferson
    " So the Dem elites have to find a way to throw the blacks under the bus"

    Dream on. The Dems will be labeled as racists by the entire mainstream media if they throw Blacks under the bus.

    So the Dem elites have to find a way to throw the blacks under the bus

    Dream on. The Dems will be labeled as racists by the entire mainstream media if they throw Blacks under the bus.

    The Republicans and the conservatives can run a psy-ops subversion. Start running with a narrative and fake news about how whites along with Hispanics have made secretive moves to undermine blacks in the Democratic Party. That there is a plot run by the Democrat whites– and especially Jews–and their sellout stepin fetchit prominent blacks to undermine black people’s power in the DNC. Black people love conspiracies and hate whites and especially hate Jews.

    • Replies: @whorefinder
    But do we really want them to break apart?

    Should they break apart, the whites, Jews, and likely the Asians and Hispanics will form a more coherent Lefty party relatively quickly. As it stands now, however, Trump has every reason to make sure his opposition remain fused together at the hip but punching each other in the face.
    , @Jack Hanson
    If anything, I think some of the Republicans have taken your advice and already begun the subversive tactics.

    The woman's march thing didn't play well with anyone who wasn't already fully indoctrinated into the cult of the Left. My social media was a lot of women who mainly post things about horses and cat memes sharing statuses about how that march didn't represent them. Another own goal for the Dems.

    Meanwhile the Republicans are "don't throw me into that briar patch!"
  99. @Jefferson
    "She could counter that by playing up the fact that she was once the mistress of a black man (Willie Brown)."

    How will she counter if asked why didn't she marry that Black man and instead chose to marry a White man?

    How will she counter…

    “I should have, but I was a victim of old thinking about acceptable mates. It has made me even more aware of the need to drop all boundaries, embrace even more of the Other, to accept even more new stuff. Vote for me, and I’ll create so many new pronouns that it will be a cosmic experience!”

  100. It would be interesting to know how much of this is real and how much of this is actually for show.

    The D’s have been trying to rally up the base since the 2010 losses, using Hate Whitey tactics, with diminishing returns. This and their little hissy-fit march on Saturday were part of that. SJWs always double down, especially when in need of emotional validation.

    But the older white and Jewish D’s are from a previous generation where vilification of whites was lunacy and political suicide. I doubt Chuck Schumer thinks Ellison is the future of the party, but he can’t come out and oppose him, or risk being called a racist and starting a civil war that finally destroys the party—Jewish v. Blacks. So he’s pretending to support him while waiting to stab him in the back if/when everyone calms back down.

    We’ll know soon enough if the D’s are doomed or not. Here’s how: watch for the quiet whisper campaign in the next few months about a “new” national party. The smart D’s will seed this talk if they think the Hate Whitey contingent is really gaining the power in the D party; the smart D’s will see how the reaction comes out, and to see if they can get enough cucks/neocons to join them.

    That campaign will be the signal that the smart D’s think the party is about to be taken over by the Hate Whiteys and they want no part of it, for both personal reasons and for electoral reasons.

    The Democratic party has lasted for 190 years or so, a good run for a national political party. But all parties break apart when their coalition fractures or their brand becomes so ruinous that they have to start over. Given this video and the news coming out of D’s in general, I think the odds are very good the D’s are going to end up like the Whigs or the Federalists.

    P.S. It’s also worthy to note how merely the presence of a confident white male who punches back verbally against the Left in their own language has sent them all into conniption fits thinking death camps are around the corner. Confidence in white gentiles is extremely triggering in the Left—especially triggering of delusions.

    I love President Trump.

    • Agree: CK
    • Replies: @TangoMan
    I think the odds are very good the D’s are going to end up like the Whigs or the Federalists.

    I don't. Our vast 3rd world population needs all of the racial spoils uplift and equalization programs which come at the expense of Whites. They're not going to be voiceless. The Democratic Party will finish its transformation into the Anti-White Party. They may not win as many elections, but they'll certainly win more elections sticking together than they disaffected would alone after abandoning the 3rd world factions.

    The parties are comprised of various factions, and like puzzle pieces they come together as a whole. If the Republicans manage to keep their factions under the tent, a Democratic break-up leads to what, two smaller parties comprised of formerly constituent parts of the Democrats? There are no free agent puzzle piece factions out there for the taking.
  101. @Steve Sailer
    The Democrats don't have much political talent at present, but they have a lot of non-political talent that seems no less implausible than Trump as President: Bill Gates, Tom Hanks, Steven Spielberg, etc.

    Most rich guys don’t like to be in the public spotlight. Trump is an outlier.

    As Mr. Blank says, Spielberg being a big donor doesn’t translate into Spielberg having the stomach for years of public excoriation. His instincts as a film director reflect his personality. He makes crowd-pleasing feel-good films: he likes to be liked. A presidential campaign would end that, or at least expose that compared to director-Spielberg’s broad appeal, politician-Spielberg would represent no more than a belligerent faction.

    Bill Gates may harbor actual political power ambitions, but in his meager experience in the public spotlight, he has hardly covered himself in glory. And he’s too old a dog to learn new tricks.

    Zuckerberg may have the ambition, the money, believe he has the taste for the spotlight, and be a young enough dog he can still learn new tricks. We’ll see if his taste for publicity will weather the free-for-all of political scrutiny. So far, he is accustomed to the deferential suck-ups in the business press. And of course his ace card is that he controls the world’s most voluminous fake news feed.

    Tom Hanks might be viable. Thanks to Speilberg’s promotion, Hanks enjoys apparently effortless public goodwill. A Spielberg-backed Hanks-fronted candidacy might be a very effective master-blaster combination. Just like at the box office. Of course the Left would have to set aside their Reagan-era he’s-just-an-actor critiques, but hypocrisy has never held them back before.

    • LOL: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @EdwardM
    Don't forget George Clooney. He's forayed into the public sphere in softer ways than the angry screaming leftists and seems like a nice guy (people who've met him on his "humanitarian" work have told me he's not a diva like Ashley Judd and works in a low-profile manner that gives him some credibility).

    He got himself an exotic liberal pin-up wife with a job that SWPL consider heavyweight intellectually (sort of a thinking person's Huma Abedin, or rather for people who think they're thinking people) and can now look forward to glowing profiles of his carmel-colored twin babies.

    He might consider a Senate run in 2018 to bolster his resume although perhaps the crowded D field in CA might make the risk of a loss too high.
    , @CA exile
    I think Zuckerberg has too much to lose by running. Conservatives on FB tolerate his liberalism as a citizen, but if he turned politician they would quit facebook in droves. He might lose half his subscribers, and with them half of his influence/ability to manipulate public narrative and opinion. I think he's going to stick to a behind the camera role politically.
    , @Frau Katze
    Trump is an example of a Black Swan. A super-outlier. You couldn't have predicted this election a few years back. (Or even a few months back!)

    I haven't followed his career in detail (not relevant to me) but I remember one thing from some time ago.

    I read that he'd inherited a comfortable amount of money. He didn't blow it all as many might have done. He didn't even use it as a fund he could live on while pursuing other interests.

    Rather, he went into business himself and became even more wealthy. Much more wealthy.

    He's not unique in this but it's still not that common. He must have a tremendous drive to succeed.
  102. @Mr. Blank

    Ambitious Whites with an eye on politics will see roadblocks for advancement in the Democratic Party and so adopt more conservative politics in order to build a career in the Republican Party.
     
    Precisely. Ask yourself: If you're a highly ambitious, politically oriented young white man -- like, say, a young Bill Clinton -- in 2017, where do you see your future? With the Democrats or the Republicans?

    One wonders if Democrats have a clue that they are eating all their seed corn...

    Precisely. Ask yourself: If you’re a highly ambitious, politically oriented young white man — like, say, a young Bill Clinton — in 2017, where do you see your future? With the Democrats or the Republicans?

    That’s insightful. Bill Clinton was a very sharp man. If you are as sharp as him, you see which way the wind is blowing and go all in on anti-immigration.

  103. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Regarding this ‘coalition of the fringes’ I’ve sort of wondered how blacks feel about being assigned to the same category as sexual deviants, immigrants who care nothing for them and goofy white liberal women. It’s an unnatural alliance. I suppose they go where the ‘gibs’ are but still, don’t they feel insulted?

    • Replies: @whorefinder
    When they start to think about it, they don't like it, which is why the D's try to keep them focused on Hating Whitey. As Steve has pointed out, it's the KKK-Krazy Glue that holds the D's together.
    , @ogunsiron
    In my experience a lot of older black people are offended at being put in the same bag as the sexual minorities. I think this is much, much less the case with younger blacks.
  104. @Almost Missouri

    "He’s a politician."
     
    A pretty terrible one. After spending a lifetime developing his pro-little guy stance and persona, Bernie tossed it all away in five minutes to become a 4th-rate Clinton crony, and he didn't even get to share in any of the Foundation take. Not to mention the terrible optics of kissing Queen Hillary's robes while her dagger was still protruding from his back.

    Bernie was a classic case of a guy who did nothing his entire career but get elected by saying the right things, and then living on the public teat. The fact that he zoomed to such prominence against Hillary must’ve shocked him, as he viewed his run as a way to get some good campaign slush fund money and draw the support of any serious Hillary opponent. Instead he almost tripped himself in the nomination.

    The fact that he let Crooked Hillary steal the election from him and did nothing, as well as absolving her of the email crimes, are the tells. The man never held a real job in his life, and was terrified of having to actually do something if he got elected to the Presidency.

    I’ll bet that when Hillary’s Parkinson’s flared up in September, and the DNC was openly meeting to replace her and Bernie was on the table, no one besides Hillary, Huma, and Bill was against it more than Bernie.

    • Agree: Almost Missouri
    • Replies: @The preferred nomenclature is...
    That is why the moniker "public servant" in this day and age cracks me up. The only public the likes of Bernie serves is themselves. Could you imagine him running a taco stand?

    Now George Washington during the Revolutionary War is the definition of public servant.

    From Washington to Obummer. Is that sick or what to go from that high to that low of a bar. That's like see Willie in '54 down to the Mets uniform.
    , @Jefferson
    "The man never held a real job in his life"

    Neither did Barack Hussein Obama before he became POTUS and Illinois senator. If your job history only consists of being a community organizer it is not going to look impressive on a resume. Barack Hussein Obama literally fit the stereotype of the lazy Black man who does not have a strong work ethic, before he got into politics.
  105. @Almost Missouri
    Yeah, there's a lot of similarity between Sally Boynton Brown and the Vanilla Or Caramel SJW.

    I've said before that Obama's one true talent was to make insane Dem policies sound reasonable and uncontroversial. Now that the ObamaFilter® is gone, everyone is getting to see the raw feed of Leftist insanity.

    Some will swallow hard and claim to like it. Some will genuinely like it and lap it up. Some will be repelled and retreat to the political wilderness. A few will embrace the Trumpening.

    Obama spoke like the black guy politician your after-school specials promised.

    Ellison speaks like actual black guy politicians.

  106. @Jefferson
    "The Democrats don’t have much political talent at present, but they have a lot of non-political talent that seems no less implausible than Trump as President: Bill Gates, Tom Hanks, Steven Spielberg, etc."

    When it comes to running for POTUS it has to be a Hollywood celebrity who does not have a history of throwing cocaine parties. Can Tom Hanks say he has never done that? And if not, can he at least say nobody has ever gone to the hospital over a cocaine overdose at his house parties?

    By 2020 Hanks will (presumably) have a good 30 years or more of being a solid citizen, whereas George W. Bush had only been sober for about 14 years when he was elected. Prodigal sons are pretty popular.

    His wife was real nice to my wife when they got to talking at an auto show many years ago. She had just made a fortune off producing My Big Fat Greek Wedding.

    Her dad was born a Muslim in Bulgaria, but then converted to Greek Orthodox to marry her mom.

    If I was a Democratic speechwriter, I think I could work with that.

    A friend told me that Clint Eastwood came close to running for governor of California a few decades ago on the GOP ticket He just about had everybody who was anybody in line to support him, but then he decided he didn’t need the hassle.

    On the other hand, Hanks is mostly an actor, while Eastwood is also a director. They both have a lot of producer credits, but those are a little vague.

    On the other hand, Hanks has chosen to produce, often with Spielberg, all sorts of patriotic American history miniseries, such as Band of Brothers, The Pacific, From the Earth to the Moon, John Adams, and coming in 2018 Lewis and Clark. The man is proud of American history. That’s a pretty good set of credits for a Democrat.

    • Replies: @With the thoughts you'd be thinkin
    He also has a mixed race granddaughter from his wannabe rapper son, so I think he's got the diversity credentials downpat.
    , @whorefinder
    A big thing that would be off-putting would be Hanks getting dirty. Hanks always plays nice-guys-Jimmy-Stewart everymen, even in his serious roles. Hearing him get nasty in a campaign might put off a lot of people. A skillful opponent (such as Trump) would play up him as being a "Hollywood Phoney" by juxstaposing his movie roles with any nastiness he throws out there.

    Reagan, IIRC, didn't have that baggage from his roles. And Eastwood, if he'd have run, would have had his Dirty Harry persona to cover any of his negativity ("What, did you expect Dirty Harry to play nice?")

    And the Forrest Gump jokes just write themselves if he has a few gaffes.

    And Hank's pride in American history is actually a negative in a D race. Any white who does not denigrate the evils of America and it's past is guilty of Crimethink.

    , @Alec Leamas
    I think the Democrats would be foolish to recruit a celebrity as the answer to Trump. Trump is sui generis having straddled the world of celebrity and business. Justified or not, the American people were exposed to his personality as himself and believed that he made Billions of dollars because he was smart, cunning, and competent. I don't think Hanks or anyone from Hollywood or the Billionaires on offer have these qualities.

    In any event, the American electorate keeps engaging in this dialectical cycle where they elect the polar opposite of the previous President to cure his deficiencies while giving way to a new set of deficiencies.

    WWII generation patrician George H.W. Bush is replaced by philandering, smooth-talking Baby Boomer from the Ozarks, who is in turn succeeded by reformed alcoholic Evangelical prone to malapropisms and verbal gaffes GWB, who is succeeded by a biracial, smooth talking professorial Obama, who was succeeded by a brash, bombastic and candid TV Billionaire.

    I'm reminded of this exchange between Phillip Seymour Hoffman (playing CIA Officer Gust Avrakatos) and Hanks (as Wilson) in Charlie Wilson's War:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLVFpSKVTew

    The next President will be some antithesis to Trump's excesses and perceived deficiencies. The worst thing the Democrats could do is put all of their eggs in the basket of their own Left wing version of Trump early and fail to surf the zeitgeist of 2020 or 2024.

    "We'll see."
    , @TangoMan
    On the other hand, Hanks has chosen to produce, often with Spielberg, all sorts of patriotic American history miniseries, such as Band of Brothers, The Pacific, From the Earth to the Moon, John Adams, and coming in 2018 Lewis and Clark. The man is proud of American history. That’s a pretty good set of credits for a Democrat.

    These are all signs of appreciation for an America that was. The question before the electorate today is how the Democratic Party works to preserve, to further, to celebrate what America was. They don't. They've hitched their wagon to a different vision of America.

    Essentially, Hanks is a candidate who is a rejection of the present & future Democratic Party who would be running so as to give power to those who want to destroy what he represented on film. In an era of identity politics, his life's work was to celebrate the identity of White America, an identity which has little space in the modern Democratic Party.
    , @AnotherGuessModel
    Her dad was born a Muslim in Bulgaria, but then converted to Greek Orthodox to marry her mom.

    You are likely confusing "born a Muslim in Bulgaria" with being a "Bulgarian Muslim" aka Pomak. Her dad was born in the Greece. Pomaks are a Muslim minority in Bulgaria, Turkey, Greece, and Albania with mysterious and highly contested origins; each country claims them as their ethnic own. Genetically, they are Slavs, and their language most resembles Bulgarian, but it's not known when they first arrived to the region and adopted the language, and the reason they converted to Islam. They are not to be confused with the Turkish Muslim minority of Greece, who live in the same region. The Greek government treats them terribly (like American Indians without the benefits), and the Turkish government is on a propaganda crusade for Pomaks in Greece to identify as ethnic Turks. Historically, they are very peaceful and laidback Muslims, but the seeds for them to radicalize either religiously or via Turkish nationalism are definitely planted. The volatile trainwreck that is the Balkans never ends.

    Anyway, never thought my little neck of the woods would come up here. I'm not a Pomak, but a large part of my family is Thracian.

  107. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Steve Sailer
    The Democrats don't have much political talent at present, but they have a lot of non-political talent that seems no less implausible than Trump as President: Bill Gates, Tom Hanks, Steven Spielberg, etc.

    The Democrats don’t have much political talent at present, but they have a lot of non-political talent that seems no less implausible than Trump as President: Bill Gates, Tom Hanks, Steven Spielberg, etc.

    I think these Hollywood types and most celebrities will wilt and fold pretty quickly after the arrows start flying and pressure increases. And they have small personalities. I’ve been around most of these people and quite a few other high-profile people. And I’ve been with Trump one-on-one (back in 2009). Trump was THE most overpoweringly impressive guy one-on-one than anyone I’ve ever met (and I’ve been with Bill Clinton one-on-one with his detail agents). And Trump was also one of the nicest. Trump’s personality and character and background makes him a unique. He wasn’t just well known as a celebrity, but an American icon and the incarnation of American deal-making capitalism and wealth and success.

    • Replies: @CK
    In 1999, the Clinton administration threw a major anti trust suit at Microsoft and Bill Gates.
    Gates's deposition and testimony are available; David Boies http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2000/03/microsoft-200003
    showed all the weaknesses in Gates.
    Gates is not a consideration. He has done nothing for the USA with his money or his foundati0n since he left MSFT.
    , @Almost Missouri
    Thanks for the input. Rare first-hand info that is hard to get outside of iSteve.
    , @candid_observer
    Because Trump is allowed only to be excoriated, even the most basic observations about Trump are rarely made.

    Few things about Trump seem more remarkable to me than that he was perfectly able to sustain the most vile accusations and vitriol, at an intensity and pervasiveness without any precedent in modern times, and with virtually no support from any quarter of our culture with a voice, and come out fighting -- and winning.

    In some ways, it's hard to reconcile Trump's seeming hyper-reactivity to criticism with his ultimate ability to shrug it off and push on -- but there it is.

    Trump really is a remarkable man and an outsize personality. I can't think of another individual who even remotely approaches him in these ways.

    It's worthwhile to contrast him with other billionaires, who seem to be eager above all to be approved as good, virtuous citizens by the cultural powers that be. One might think that, having earned more than enough "f**k you money" for a thousand lifetimes, they would be happy to speak their mind and not care about the consequences. But that seems to be no more true of them than it is of academics who have achieved tenure.

    The general abjectness of today's billionaire class -- and Bill Gates is a splendid example -- is a deeply discouraging sight. Bill Gates, who once upon a time, was notorious for deriding certain of his workers for lacking sufficient IQ, now affects to the world that everybody is the same. What a pathetic figure he has become.

    And I don't see Steve's suggestions of Hanks and Spielberg as getting much traction either, because they are white males. I don't see how Democrats will accept a white male savior no matter how desperate their straits may be. There is nothing but identity politics operating in the Democratic Party and their supporters at the national level. It's all the media cares about, all the intellectuals care about, all the activists care about, all the donors care about. I don't know if anybody really grasped beforehand the power of identity politics to seize all minds of a progressive bent, but that is where we are. I don't see how any pragmatic consideration will break this hold. They will go down with this ship.

  108. @Karl
    67 Jefferson > Black voters to stay home on election because they would see her as a sellout for not marrying a Black man.


    I think it would be VERY do-able to paint her as Not Even a Real Negro

    NOW is the time to start opposition research which collates the facts about her Lily White Lifestyle Preferences.

    All is fair in love and politics, gentlemen....

    “it would be VERY do-able to paint her as Not Even a Real Negro. NOW is the time to start opposition research which collates the facts about her Lily White Lifestyle Preferences.”

    Obama was Not Even A Real Negro who had plenty of Lily White Lifestyle Preferences, but he got the Dems two terms as the Official Magic Negro. There’s no reason Kamala Harris can’t do the same while also accruing the knee-jerk estrogen vote.

    Don’t forget that the Left still controls 99%+ of the media that Democratic voters see. What allowed the Trump era was that the alt-right got hold of a few percent of the media that non-Dem voters see. The Dems can still decree what the Narrative is to their own voters. They’ve only (partially) lost ability to decree it to us.

  109. “Democrats must provide “training” that focuses in part on teaching Americans “how to be sensitive and how to shut their mouths if they are white,” urged the executive director of Idaho’s Democratic Party, Sally Boynton Brown, who is white.”

    I’ve never understood how White people can become militant ethnomasochists, do they not feel any shame? I know many of them have been indoctrinated to become that way, women and emasculated men in particular, but I can’t wrap my head around that mind set.

  110. @Opinionator
    How is the Reps econ platform holding them back?

    how have you not managed to grasp this concept in all the time you’ve been posting here…

  111. @Mr. Blank

    Ambitious Whites with an eye on politics will see roadblocks for advancement in the Democratic Party and so adopt more conservative politics in order to build a career in the Republican Party.
     
    Precisely. Ask yourself: If you're a highly ambitious, politically oriented young white man -- like, say, a young Bill Clinton -- in 2017, where do you see your future? With the Democrats or the Republicans?

    One wonders if Democrats have a clue that they are eating all their seed corn...

    “If you’re a highly ambitious, politically oriented young white man — like, say, a young Bill Clinton — in 2017, where do you see your future? With the Democrats or the Republicans?”

    That’s a good point, but would the next generation’s Bill Clinton really be good for the Republican Party? After all, the Clinton Ascendancy among the Democrats resulted in the utter destruction of the rest of the Democrat Party, followed by the implosion of the Clintons themselves.

  112. @Anonymous

    So the Dem elites have to find a way to throw the blacks under the bus

    Dream on. The Dems will be labeled as racists by the entire mainstream media if they throw Blacks under the bus.
     
    The Republicans and the conservatives can run a psy-ops subversion. Start running with a narrative and fake news about how whites along with Hispanics have made secretive moves to undermine blacks in the Democratic Party. That there is a plot run by the Democrat whites-- and especially Jews--and their sellout stepin fetchit prominent blacks to undermine black people's power in the DNC. Black people love conspiracies and hate whites and especially hate Jews.

    But do we really want them to break apart?

    Should they break apart, the whites, Jews, and likely the Asians and Hispanics will form a more coherent Lefty party relatively quickly. As it stands now, however, Trump has every reason to make sure his opposition remain fused together at the hip but punching each other in the face.

  113. @Mr. Blank
    Depending on how the Trump administration turns out, I could definitely see a Gates or Hanks candidacy as a possibility. Trump would have to bomb pretty hard though.

    Spielberg, I don't see. Yeah, he's a big Dem donor, but he seems to value his privacy too much to run for office.

    I suspect lot of these old white liberals like Spielberg don’t realize how even their views and actions are now considered racist or rightwing.

  114. @Mr. Blank

    Ambitious Whites with an eye on politics will see roadblocks for advancement in the Democratic Party and so adopt more conservative politics in order to build a career in the Republican Party.
     
    Precisely. Ask yourself: If you're a highly ambitious, politically oriented young white man -- like, say, a young Bill Clinton -- in 2017, where do you see your future? With the Democrats or the Republicans?

    One wonders if Democrats have a clue that they are eating all their seed corn...

    Except Bubba didn’t just join the D party and adopt it’s policies, he actively sought to change it’s policies to be more palatable, and largely succeeded.

    Bubba became a D when it was clear that that R’s were ascendant and D’s were declining in Arkansas politics, but that just made it easier for a guy like him to stand out; the D’s had less of a bench, so it was easier for Bubba to get in. Then he joined the DLC and got the D’s policies more globalist on trade and on intervention, leading the neo-liberal fight, and kissed up to globalists at Bildenberg/Davos before his presidential run. He also got welfare reform and his Sistah Soldja moment.

    A smart white pol could triangulate the D’s right back into power, unfortunately.

  115. @anonymous
    Regarding this 'coalition of the fringes' I've sort of wondered how blacks feel about being assigned to the same category as sexual deviants, immigrants who care nothing for them and goofy white liberal women. It's an unnatural alliance. I suppose they go where the 'gibs' are but still, don't they feel insulted?

    When they start to think about it, they don’t like it, which is why the D’s try to keep them focused on Hating Whitey. As Steve has pointed out, it’s the KKK-Krazy Glue that holds the D’s together.

  116. @Steve Sailer
    By 2020 Hanks will (presumably) have a good 30 years or more of being a solid citizen, whereas George W. Bush had only been sober for about 14 years when he was elected. Prodigal sons are pretty popular.

    His wife was real nice to my wife when they got to talking at an auto show many years ago. She had just made a fortune off producing My Big Fat Greek Wedding.

    Her dad was born a Muslim in Bulgaria, but then converted to Greek Orthodox to marry her mom.

    If I was a Democratic speechwriter, I think I could work with that.

    A friend told me that Clint Eastwood came close to running for governor of California a few decades ago on the GOP ticket He just about had everybody who was anybody in line to support him, but then he decided he didn't need the hassle.

    On the other hand, Hanks is mostly an actor, while Eastwood is also a director. They both have a lot of producer credits, but those are a little vague.

    On the other hand, Hanks has chosen to produce, often with Spielberg, all sorts of patriotic American history miniseries, such as Band of Brothers, The Pacific, From the Earth to the Moon, John Adams, and coming in 2018 Lewis and Clark. The man is proud of American history. That's a pretty good set of credits for a Democrat.

    He also has a mixed race granddaughter from his wannabe rapper son, so I think he’s got the diversity credentials downpat.

  117. @Steve Sailer
    By 2020 Hanks will (presumably) have a good 30 years or more of being a solid citizen, whereas George W. Bush had only been sober for about 14 years when he was elected. Prodigal sons are pretty popular.

    His wife was real nice to my wife when they got to talking at an auto show many years ago. She had just made a fortune off producing My Big Fat Greek Wedding.

    Her dad was born a Muslim in Bulgaria, but then converted to Greek Orthodox to marry her mom.

    If I was a Democratic speechwriter, I think I could work with that.

    A friend told me that Clint Eastwood came close to running for governor of California a few decades ago on the GOP ticket He just about had everybody who was anybody in line to support him, but then he decided he didn't need the hassle.

    On the other hand, Hanks is mostly an actor, while Eastwood is also a director. They both have a lot of producer credits, but those are a little vague.

    On the other hand, Hanks has chosen to produce, often with Spielberg, all sorts of patriotic American history miniseries, such as Band of Brothers, The Pacific, From the Earth to the Moon, John Adams, and coming in 2018 Lewis and Clark. The man is proud of American history. That's a pretty good set of credits for a Democrat.

    A big thing that would be off-putting would be Hanks getting dirty. Hanks always plays nice-guys-Jimmy-Stewart everymen, even in his serious roles. Hearing him get nasty in a campaign might put off a lot of people. A skillful opponent (such as Trump) would play up him as being a “Hollywood Phoney” by juxstaposing his movie roles with any nastiness he throws out there.

    Reagan, IIRC, didn’t have that baggage from his roles. And Eastwood, if he’d have run, would have had his Dirty Harry persona to cover any of his negativity (“What, did you expect Dirty Harry to play nice?”)

    And the Forrest Gump jokes just write themselves if he has a few gaffes.

    And Hank’s pride in American history is actually a negative in a D race. Any white who does not denigrate the evils of America and it’s past is guilty of Crimethink.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Glorifying the completely unnecessary intervention of the USA in ww2 on the side of soviet communism isn't a point in hanks's favor.
  118. This will all be very interesting – on the one hand, the anti-white progressives have been very noisy and apparently think the route to victory is denouncing the racial group that provides the bulk of Democratic and swing voters.

    So the question is whether the party leaders decide that is indeed a viable strategy because enough white Democrats will just take the abuse, or whether they see this as driving whites to the GOP faster than they are replaced with ‘diverse’ voters.

    My own thoughts are that it seems some small but geographically important segment of slightly Democratic whites decided to get off the crazy train this election and continued ritual denunciations of whites will only make it easier for Trump to win Great Lakes battleground states.

  119. @E. Rekshun
    black Americans are now living with “justified fear” of being killed [by black Americans] after Donald Trump was elected president.

    black Americans are now living with “justified fear” of being killed [by black Americans] after Donald Trump was elected president.

    You misunderstand American blacks. You need to view them as a domestic Nation within a Nation – a tribe if you will – with its own mythos akin to the trail of tears in the Great Migration. Blacks see black-0n-black violence as an intrafamilial matter that’s none of your business. The more you point to blacks killing blacks for accidentally stepping on one’s new white sneakers as the real problem (statistically and proportionately it is), the more obstinate they’ll get and the more they’ll reject reality in favor of narratives of racial conflict with the dominant population. As with families they can beat one another up night and day but they’ll all lose it if someone outside of the family engages in a justified dispute with one of its members.

    The BLM narrative is in many ways a sublimation of the anxieties and tragedy of the real problem to express it in a way that is not disloyal to the tribe. This is a psychological and emotionally-based response, not one founded in reason and as a result no amount of reasoning and argument and cold facts will change it (of course, since the BLM narrative is politically useful to the Left and a true look at black violence is not, the media feeds the former while eliding the contrary facts).

    This WaPo piece from September is actually pretty good at getting to the heart of the matter of black political involvement – blacks vote Democrat out of a sense of tribal solidarity even when they have significant disagreements with the positions and platforms of the Democratic party and the individual candidates on offer:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/09/28/can-trump-win-black-votes-what-we-know-from-5-decades-of-black-voting-data/?utm_term=.6f56f97a6e57

    This is why Republicans pranging on about gay marriage, the Left’s hostility to Christianity and family, school choice, pointing to poorly-run urban governments, outright corruption, etc. and even fielding black GOP candidates doesn’t move the needle of black voting at all. The best that Republicans can do is to hope that blacks are less than enthusiastic in any cycle and just don’t bother to vote.

    • Agree: Frau Katze
    • Replies: @eD
    Re @121, bloc voting is a normal feature for "nations within a nation" or tribes with obvious markers as a minority. You also get it in the US with Jews, Mormons, and Deep South whites (even before the Civil War, though not with Upper South whites). Its also a pretty constant feature in any other non-homogenous country that has elections.
    , @anon
    i agree with your underlying analysis but you can flip opinion by replacing one (white) villain with another

    i.e.

    the media's narrative aims to point the blame at the police and create low level racial conflict that way

    if you switch the villain to (white) big business wanting mass immigration for cheap labor and the resulting mass black unemployment leading to black gang violence - so in effect the banking mafia are doing the shooting by proxy - then it points the blame higher up the food chain
  120. @Jefferson
    "You know, I originally thought the Democrats’ growing anti-white animus was a function of out-of-touch coastal elites. I figured these folks were just overestimating the rate of demographic change based on their local experience. They were looking around at their own areas and thinking, “welp! White folks are done! Time to start sucking up to the multicultural majority!” They failed to realize that large swaths of the country are still majority white — and some parts are EXTREMELY white."

    D.L Hughley once said that he thought America was a Black nation during his childhood and teenage years living in 1970s & early 1980s South Central Los Angeles. It wasn't until he started traveling more as an adult that he found out that's not the case.

    If you live racially segregated from Whites, you probably think Whites are already a minority in The U.S.

    Especially if all you watch on TV is ESPN

  121. @Jefferson
    "Yeah, the country is economically liberal and socially conservative"

    Polls have shown that the majority of Americans support the legalization of same sex marriage and marijuana, so America is no longer socially conservative.

    "Trump basically ran that way,"

    No he didn't. The Donald did not run as a social conservative at all. He rarely talked about abortion and Homosexuality.

    Pres. Trump has 5 children and, so far, 8 grandchildren. No need to talk about abortion.
    He made money in real estate in NYC, he has had to deal with hordes of non-heterosexual designers, decorators, dealers in antiques, no need to talk about homosexuality.

  122. @Guy de Champlagne
    Here is what someone who was serious about saving the government money would do, in descending order of impact:

    1) Enact utility style regulation of health care with price controls (like every other developed country)
    2) Stop letting poor people immigrate and prevent poor Americans from having children.
    3) Drastically cut military spending (to get it on par with every other developed country)

    Republicans don't want to do any of these things (with the exception of the first half of #2 which the republican voters support but the party elite doesn't).

    What is the Republican strategy to cut government spending?

    1) Cut taxes and cross your fingers that it all works out.
    2) See 1)

    The three things listed to get spending under control @58 is a good list.

    It should be noted that Trump promised half of #2 and seems to have been for something like #1 as well, which puts him well ahead of every other presidential candidate in recent memory.

    The exceptions are Sanders and similar candidates on the left who promised #1 and #3. The Pauls and libertarians at least favor #3. But with everyone else, forget it. Trump was the first person good on even one of these issues to get a major party nomination.

    Its been said before here, but how successful the Trump administration will be will derive directly from it being willing and able to reign in the Republicans’ own oligarchical tendencies. The Democrats are pretty obviously a lost cause.

  123. Mark Cuban was a vocal Clinton supporter during the election, and he has pretty good name recognition as an NBA owner and “Shark Tank” investor. I could see him throwing his hat into the ring for 2020.

    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    poolside, Cuban could easily be portrayed as a jock sniffing juvenile by showing his courtside antics.
  124. @Alec Leamas

    black Americans are now living with “justified fear” of being killed [by black Americans] after Donald Trump was elected president.
     
    You misunderstand American blacks. You need to view them as a domestic Nation within a Nation - a tribe if you will - with its own mythos akin to the trail of tears in the Great Migration. Blacks see black-0n-black violence as an intrafamilial matter that's none of your business. The more you point to blacks killing blacks for accidentally stepping on one's new white sneakers as the real problem (statistically and proportionately it is), the more obstinate they'll get and the more they'll reject reality in favor of narratives of racial conflict with the dominant population. As with families they can beat one another up night and day but they'll all lose it if someone outside of the family engages in a justified dispute with one of its members.

    The BLM narrative is in many ways a sublimation of the anxieties and tragedy of the real problem to express it in a way that is not disloyal to the tribe. This is a psychological and emotionally-based response, not one founded in reason and as a result no amount of reasoning and argument and cold facts will change it (of course, since the BLM narrative is politically useful to the Left and a true look at black violence is not, the media feeds the former while eliding the contrary facts).

    This WaPo piece from September is actually pretty good at getting to the heart of the matter of black political involvement - blacks vote Democrat out of a sense of tribal solidarity even when they have significant disagreements with the positions and platforms of the Democratic party and the individual candidates on offer:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/09/28/can-trump-win-black-votes-what-we-know-from-5-decades-of-black-voting-data/?utm_term=.6f56f97a6e57

    This is why Republicans pranging on about gay marriage, the Left's hostility to Christianity and family, school choice, pointing to poorly-run urban governments, outright corruption, etc. and even fielding black GOP candidates doesn't move the needle of black voting at all. The best that Republicans can do is to hope that blacks are less than enthusiastic in any cycle and just don't bother to vote.

    Re @121, bloc voting is a normal feature for “nations within a nation” or tribes with obvious markers as a minority. You also get it in the US with Jews, Mormons, and Deep South whites (even before the Civil War, though not with Upper South whites). Its also a pretty constant feature in any other non-homogenous country that has elections.

    • Replies: @Alec Leamas

    Re @121, bloc voting is a normal feature for “nations within a nation” or tribes with obvious markers as a minority. You also get it in the US with Jews, Mormons, and Deep South whites (even before the Civil War, though not with Upper South whites). Its also a pretty constant feature in any other non-homogenous country that has elections.
     
    Maybe so, but black civic life and voting is unique even when compared to other voting blocs in the U.S. and abroad.

    First, blacks vote consistently at the rate of 90-95% for one party. No other bloc approaches that level of univocality. It is, in fact, counterproductive for political involvement because it renders competition for their votes moot while placing little burden on the party receiving support to serve its voters well.

    Second, blacks vote in high proportion for candidates who espouse policies in direct contradiction to their stated policy preferences. Maybe this is just an expression of blacks' dependence on the welfare state and that they're more astute in ferreting out their short-term economic interests, but I think there's much more to it than this.
  125. Is that an example of racial cuckholding?
    She forgot to apologise for all whites and their actions, for all centuries past.
    How very rude of her.

  126. @Anonymous

    The Democrats don’t have much political talent at present, but they have a lot of non-political talent that seems no less implausible than Trump as President: Bill Gates, Tom Hanks, Steven Spielberg, etc.
     
    I think these Hollywood types and most celebrities will wilt and fold pretty quickly after the arrows start flying and pressure increases. And they have small personalities. I've been around most of these people and quite a few other high-profile people. And I've been with Trump one-on-one (back in 2009). Trump was THE most overpoweringly impressive guy one-on-one than anyone I've ever met (and I've been with Bill Clinton one-on-one with his detail agents). And Trump was also one of the nicest. Trump's personality and character and background makes him a unique. He wasn't just well known as a celebrity, but an American icon and the incarnation of American deal-making capitalism and wealth and success.

    In 1999, the Clinton administration threw a major anti trust suit at Microsoft and Bill Gates.
    Gates’s deposition and testimony are available; David Boies http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2000/03/microsoft-200003
    showed all the weaknesses in Gates.
    Gates is not a consideration. He has done nothing for the USA with his money or his foundati0n since he left MSFT.

  127. @Steve Sailer
    By 2020 Hanks will (presumably) have a good 30 years or more of being a solid citizen, whereas George W. Bush had only been sober for about 14 years when he was elected. Prodigal sons are pretty popular.

    His wife was real nice to my wife when they got to talking at an auto show many years ago. She had just made a fortune off producing My Big Fat Greek Wedding.

    Her dad was born a Muslim in Bulgaria, but then converted to Greek Orthodox to marry her mom.

    If I was a Democratic speechwriter, I think I could work with that.

    A friend told me that Clint Eastwood came close to running for governor of California a few decades ago on the GOP ticket He just about had everybody who was anybody in line to support him, but then he decided he didn't need the hassle.

    On the other hand, Hanks is mostly an actor, while Eastwood is also a director. They both have a lot of producer credits, but those are a little vague.

    On the other hand, Hanks has chosen to produce, often with Spielberg, all sorts of patriotic American history miniseries, such as Band of Brothers, The Pacific, From the Earth to the Moon, John Adams, and coming in 2018 Lewis and Clark. The man is proud of American history. That's a pretty good set of credits for a Democrat.

    I think the Democrats would be foolish to recruit a celebrity as the answer to Trump. Trump is sui generis having straddled the world of celebrity and business. Justified or not, the American people were exposed to his personality as himself and believed that he made Billions of dollars because he was smart, cunning, and competent. I don’t think Hanks or anyone from Hollywood or the Billionaires on offer have these qualities.

    In any event, the American electorate keeps engaging in this dialectical cycle where they elect the polar opposite of the previous President to cure his deficiencies while giving way to a new set of deficiencies.

    WWII generation patrician George H.W. Bush is replaced by philandering, smooth-talking Baby Boomer from the Ozarks, who is in turn succeeded by reformed alcoholic Evangelical prone to malapropisms and verbal gaffes GWB, who is succeeded by a biracial, smooth talking professorial Obama, who was succeeded by a brash, bombastic and candid TV Billionaire.

    I’m reminded of this exchange between Phillip Seymour Hoffman (playing CIA Officer Gust Avrakatos) and Hanks (as Wilson) in Charlie Wilson’s War:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLVFpSKVTew

    The next President will be some antithesis to Trump’s excesses and perceived deficiencies. The worst thing the Democrats could do is put all of their eggs in the basket of their own Left wing version of Trump early and fail to surf the zeitgeist of 2020 or 2024.

    “We’ll see.”

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "WWII generation patrician George H.W. Bush is replaced by philandering, smooth-talking Baby Boomer from the Ozarks, who is in turn succeeded by reformed alcoholic Evangelical prone to malapropisms and verbal gaffes GWB, who is succeeded by a biracial, smooth talking professorial Obama, who was succeeded by a brash, bombastic and candid TV Billionaire."

    Exactly why the EJ Dionne's/Ezra Klein's and the Jonah Goldberg's/Steve Sailer's of the world ought to run for political office rather than just engage in journalism. They each would provide sanity in an insane world. After all, their views are based on what is "true" and "real" in the world that most people fail to "see". Duty calls, gentlemen, just like Washington and Jefferson!

  128. @bomag

    ...since Blacks don’t have anywhere else to go and won’t defect to the GOP in great numbers
     
    The threat here is to stay home and not vote; thus the Dems must be sufficiently Left to get their vote.

    “The threat here is to stay home and not vote; thus the Dems must be sufficiently Left to get their [black] vote.”

    They don’t need to be Left, only to be black … or black-ish. Sounding black is good. Looking black is better. Few blacks vote ideologically. Many blacks vote on racial appearance.

    As Lee Kuan Yew noticed, “In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.” American blacks have been living multiracially longer than American whites have. They vote accordingly.

  129. @Dave Pinsen
    I'm guessing nobody clicked on the Disqus link in my initial comment, so here's the key point:

    Diversity worship is the parallel postulate of progressive thought. Maybe it's time to consider a non-Euclidean version.
     
    The idea of the geometry metaphor is you start with axioms that everyone agrees are true. In the case of the GOP, the pre-Trump axioms included:

    1) Tax cuts: the more the better.
    2) George W. Bush kept us safe.
    3) George W. Bush won the Iraq War with the surge, to our benefit, but Obama squandered it.
    4) Immigration: the more the better.
    5) Free trade is great, who cares if we haven't had a trade surplus since 1975.
    6) Let's spend more on defense.
    7) Abortion is bad.

    Trump rejected axioms 2 through 5 inclusive. He wouldn't have won otherwise (let's limit the hindsight bias on how terrible Hillary was as a candidate: she would have beaten any other GOP candidate but Trump).

    On the Dem side, the axioms include:

    1) Diversity: the more the better.
    2) Only government should have guns.
    3) Abortion is awesome.
    4) Immigration: the more the better.
    5) Free trade is great, who cares if we haven't had a trade surplus since 1975.
    6) Affirmative action is good.

    My interlocutor on that Disqus thread has degrees from Harvard and MIT, but he can't jettison axiom 1). If Dems could, they'd be better off electorally. They could still pander to African Americans with affirmative action; they could still advocate for more immigration, albeit with some sort of Canadian-style points system. But they would alienate white voters less, and suffer less blowback from Somali, Afghan, and Pakistani immigrants massacring Americans.

    Trump only half-rejected points 3 (only the “to our benefit” part) and 4 (only illegal immigration).

  130. @eD
    Re @121, bloc voting is a normal feature for "nations within a nation" or tribes with obvious markers as a minority. You also get it in the US with Jews, Mormons, and Deep South whites (even before the Civil War, though not with Upper South whites). Its also a pretty constant feature in any other non-homogenous country that has elections.

    Re @121, bloc voting is a normal feature for “nations within a nation” or tribes with obvious markers as a minority. You also get it in the US with Jews, Mormons, and Deep South whites (even before the Civil War, though not with Upper South whites). Its also a pretty constant feature in any other non-homogenous country that has elections.

    Maybe so, but black civic life and voting is unique even when compared to other voting blocs in the U.S. and abroad.

    First, blacks vote consistently at the rate of 90-95% for one party. No other bloc approaches that level of univocality. It is, in fact, counterproductive for political involvement because it renders competition for their votes moot while placing little burden on the party receiving support to serve its voters well.

    Second, blacks vote in high proportion for candidates who espouse policies in direct contradiction to their stated policy preferences. Maybe this is just an expression of blacks’ dependence on the welfare state and that they’re more astute in ferreting out their short-term economic interests, but I think there’s much more to it than this.

    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "First, blacks vote consistently at the rate of 90-95% for one party."

    Black Christians vote in a monolithic bloc for The Democratic Party even though it's an anti-Christian party.

    , @Jack D
    What is the "much more"? The Democrat lock on the black vote is relatively recent - remember that the Democrats were the party of Jim Crow. Basically LBJ made the calculus that the votes of urban blacks in the North were more valuable than those of whites in the South and he flipped the party 180 degrees. The Democrats became the party of "civil rights" (affirmative action/ Federally enforced non-discrimination/government employment) for blacks plus the party of the "Great Society" (the welfare state for blacks) and this was/is an unshakeable combination. These two issues are FAR more important to blacks than things like gay rights that they don't really support but don't care that much about either. If bending over for gay rights means that the food stamps/Section 8/AFDC check keeps coming every month, that's a very small price to pay. It's really no skin off your back. Although nominally many blacks are Christians, black Christianity is very non-judgmental - sinners are welcomed because they have a lot of them.
  131. @Gabriel M

    In Israel, the right went from a permanent minority to a nearly uninterrupted two decade rule presently, with the Labor party undergoing schism after schism.
     
    If Israel was 100% Ashkenazi, Labour would have won the past 6 elections in a series of crushing landslides. On the other hand, if Israel was 100% Sephardi it would be a economically stagnant backwater. There's providence in there somewhere, but I'm dubious about how many general lessons can be learned. The main one is that Leftism can only become deeply embedded among people with a Christian/Western cultural background.

    OldMarx could not resolve its inconsistencies, and fell. I believe that CultMarx will eventually do the same
     
    Communism fell because the 2nd world had the option of simply emulating the 1st world, that is to say trading in one version of Leftism for another. There is no 0th world.

    If it so happens that anti-Whiteness proves to be a dead end, the Left will just pivot, as they did, for example, with Prohibition and eugenics. The Left has a remarkable capacity for self-organisation, in which craziness acts as a sort of propellant.

    On the other hand, if Israel was 100% Sephardi it would be a economically stagnant backwater.

    Surely they aren’t that bad — they do fairly well in Europe and America. Living in a 30% Ashkenazi country maybe makes them more blue-collar than they otherwise would be. I was under the impression it was the Mizrahi, Haredis, [particularly the Muslim] Arabs and the Ethiopians who are really holding Israel back economically.

    If it so happens that anti-Whiteness proves to be a dead end, the Left will just pivot, as they did, for example, with Prohibition and eugenics.

    That’s the goal, personally. A final victory over leftism as a concept is probably too ambitious, and getting there probably would involve a holiness spiral that leads to me or at least people I like being purged. But a left that’s no longer about hating me and my culture is a left I can live with. Assuming it doesn’t go full Marxist, of course.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Gabriel is probably unfamiliar with the Mizrahi/Sephardi distinction.

    There have been a number of prominent Sephardi in Europe and America, but this may be partly due to selective emigration.
    , @Gabriel M
    I use Sephardi where most people would use the PC term Mizrahi. "Mizrahi" in my vocabulary refers to National Religious Jews, which is a legacy of my Haredi years.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mizrachi_(religious_Zionism)

    But, yes, in modern vernacular I meant "Mizrahim". "True" Sephardim are very rare in Israel, they got pretty nuked in the Holocaust. My great uncle married in his old age; she was white as a sheet and if you used the "Sephardi" in the old-fashioned/Haredi sense she'd blow a lid.

    To be clear, though, I don't think they are "holding Israel back". Israel needs plumbers, but you also need scientists.
  132. @The Last Real Calvinist
    I just watched the video of Sally Boynton Brown; a couple of observations:

    ***Ms Brown is not a bad public speaker. My guess is that she was raised in a church; her talk has the cadences and audience appeal characteristic of a sermon.

    ***The stale pale male in the lavender necktie sitting behind Ms Boynton did not look all that amused.

    I just told my wife this morning that she reminds me of the one female “minister” on our large church’s staff. It is the voice, movement and hand motions. That and the three names. The “minister” in our church is even married to a black man.

    She is the biggest reason why I don’t contribute money to our church anymore.

    • Replies: @Formerly CARealist
    When a church starts putting women in charge, as in preaching and being elders, it's time to move on. Liberalism, new age, money-wasting, and bad decisions are right behind. I wish it weren't this way, and some women make incredibly good leaders, but my experience and observation is that the old, Biblical mandate of male leadership is there for a good reason. Entire denominations have ruined themselves with female leadership.
  133. @Anonymous
    That had more to do with the fact that Thatcher had destroyed British industry and British trade unions, and thus Labour's constituency had been destroyed and scattered.

    Even if this were true, and I don’t think it’s completely true (the British industry, at least in terms of absolute output if not share of GDP, actually increased under Thatcher), it would still be the case that Labour’s socialist ideology was political suicide.

  134. @TangoMan
    So the Dem elites have to find a way to throw the blacks under the bus and hitch their electoral hopes on other groups.

    That's not going to happen. In 1960, there were close to 9 Whites for 1 Black. Today there are 5.5 Whites per 1 Black. There's too much electoral muscle in the Black vote and they are the most loyal voting bloc.

    Secondly, the entire racial spoils system that the Democrats have erected is justified on the basis of historic injustices to Blacks. All of the other groups are free-riding on that rationale.

    What we're seeing here is the long end-game of a process started decades ago - when you play the game of racial identity politics, you won't forever be able to count on Whites not having a racial identity as you erect programs to strip Whites of wealth and opportunity so that you can pay off your 3rd world voter army. Maybe the Democrats never gamed this out to see how it would play out long term but they're stuck with these dynamics. Their entire coalition splits apart if they abandon the racial spoils system that they've championed and implemented and without Blacks it becomes difficult to justify that racial spoils system.

    Trump doesn't want to touch Affirmative Action but some other ambitious politician who sees clearly the direction society is taking will start a push back. That'll get the Dems on the defense and they'll recommit and their recommitment will drive more Whites out of the party, always on the margin with the margin steadily moving inwards.

    Ambitious Whites with an eye on politics will see roadblocks for advancement in the Democratic Party and so adopt more conservative politics in order to build a career in the Republican Party. White liberals make a big point of how their party has so many politicians of color but what goes unmentioned is that those politicians of color are almost always elected by voters of color, not the White liberals who like to take credit for their appreciation of diversity. The last time I did this analysis there were only 2 Black Congressional Democrats who were elected by a majority of White voters. If White politicians with talent begin seeing greener pastures in the Republican Party this presents a quandary for the remaining White liberal voters, they either vote for idiots, like we see in the video, or they vote for minority politicians to represent them and they don't really seem too comfortable with that strategy if we look at present-day behavior. This means disillusionment slowly sets in with such voters.

    The really crazy variable here, and it's on display in this video, is that some people in Democratic leadership circles actually believe the Black victimization, White oppression, nonsense. True believers are always a lost cause, there will always be a small rump contingent of White Liberals who will remain in the Democratic Party, but as the Who, Whom battle gets evermore serious, rank and file will see that the Democrats offer little of value to Whites and so they'll migrate to Independents and then, after some years in the wilderness in order to save face and to self-justify their transformation, they find their way to the Republicans.

    Look, Trump won the majority of White women. So did Romney. Romney also won the majority of White youth. I haven't checked how Trump did with them. The trends are fairly clear and the Whites in the electorate are responding to the stimuli coming from the two Party's cultures and policies.

    The talk of dumping Blacks is very similar to the talk of Republicans dumping the Evangelicals. Why would either party dump their most loyal faction? These Big Tent coalitions try to cobble together a coalition which gets them a minimum of 50.1% of the votes. Blacks are 13% or so of the population - they're not going to be cut loose. The Democrats have bought a ticket on a train with no brakes - they're committed to going wherever the tracks are going to take them and these tracks are the Racial Identity Line.

    “The talk of dumping Blacks is very similar to the talk of Republicans dumping the Evangelicals. Why would either party dump their most loyal faction?”

    I don’t think @Anonymous was meaning that Dems would kick black voters out of the party. I think he meant it more as accepting black votes but shortchanging them on actual policy. And, yes, it is exactly what the Repubs have been doing to evangelicals for exactly the same reason: where else will they go?

    • Replies: @snorlax
    The Dems do shortchange blacks on actual policy. The common thread with Dems-blacks and GOP-evangelicals is that the key demographics cause the parties to adopt rhetoric that turns off swing voters.
  135. @Almost Missouri

    "The talk of dumping Blacks is very similar to the talk of Republicans dumping the Evangelicals. Why would either party dump their most loyal faction?"
     
    I don't think @Anonymous was meaning that Dems would kick black voters out of the party. I think he meant it more as accepting black votes but shortchanging them on actual policy. And, yes, it is exactly what the Repubs have been doing to evangelicals for exactly the same reason: where else will they go?

    The Dems do shortchange blacks on actual policy. The common thread with Dems-blacks and GOP-evangelicals is that the key demographics cause the parties to adopt rhetoric that turns off swing voters.

  136. @Anonymous
    This is being pushed specifically by blacks, who seem to care more about dominating the Democratic Party than actually winning elections and governing, which is understandable, since winning elections and governing require work.

    The problem of course is that there are Dem affiliated elites who actually want to win elections and govern, but the blacks are a demographic dead end for winning elections, and the blacks don't seem very interested in throwing the elites or other growing electoral groups like Hispanics a bone - the blacks are just interested in dominating the Democratic Party. So the Dem elites have to find a way to throw the blacks under the bus and hitch their electoral hopes on other groups, especially since the blacks don't have anywhere else to go and won't defect to the GOP in great numbers (unlike the South) and thus the cost of dumping them is low.

    Yep. Did a version of a focus group test this morning at the comments section of the WaPo. Telling white women that their future in the Dem Party will be one of Check Your Privilege tested extremely well. Definitely hits a nerve.

    Just linked to the NY Times story about the women’s march and race and this one after telling them that blacks, Hispanics, LBGT and especially Muslims don’t want straight white women running their party any more than they want straight white men.

    The ladies were not happy in a Scott Adams kind of way.

    • Replies: @Frau Katze
    Could you include links when describing an article? Thanks!
  137. @whorefinder
    Bernie was a classic case of a guy who did nothing his entire career but get elected by saying the right things, and then living on the public teat. The fact that he zoomed to such prominence against Hillary must've shocked him, as he viewed his run as a way to get some good campaign slush fund money and draw the support of any serious Hillary opponent. Instead he almost tripped himself in the nomination.

    The fact that he let Crooked Hillary steal the election from him and did nothing, as well as absolving her of the email crimes, are the tells. The man never held a real job in his life, and was terrified of having to actually do something if he got elected to the Presidency.

    I'll bet that when Hillary's Parkinson's flared up in September, and the DNC was openly meeting to replace her and Bernie was on the table, no one besides Hillary, Huma, and Bill was against it more than Bernie.

    That is why the moniker “public servant” in this day and age cracks me up. The only public the likes of Bernie serves is themselves. Could you imagine him running a taco stand?

    Now George Washington during the Revolutionary War is the definition of public servant.

    From Washington to Obummer. Is that sick or what to go from that high to that low of a bar. That’s like see Willie in ’54 down to the Mets uniform.

    • Replies: @Ivy
    When Willie went to the Mets, an apt description was that he went from the twilight of his career to the midnight. Memories and comparisons of Willie and Mickey delighting the fans kept many going during the lean years.
  138. @Anonymous
    This is being pushed specifically by blacks, who seem to care more about dominating the Democratic Party than actually winning elections and governing, which is understandable, since winning elections and governing require work.

    The problem of course is that there are Dem affiliated elites who actually want to win elections and govern, but the blacks are a demographic dead end for winning elections, and the blacks don't seem very interested in throwing the elites or other growing electoral groups like Hispanics a bone - the blacks are just interested in dominating the Democratic Party. So the Dem elites have to find a way to throw the blacks under the bus and hitch their electoral hopes on other groups, especially since the blacks don't have anywhere else to go and won't defect to the GOP in great numbers (unlike the South) and thus the cost of dumping them is low.

    Elsewhere I read some other outtakes from this meeting where there was a general call for fewer white consultants and more diverse ones. That is more or less a demand for redistribution of the campaign money that sloshes around every 2-4 years. Every time these black politicos start getting philosophical, my general rule of thumb is that they’re ramping up the next iteration of the shakedown game.

    • Replies: @Ed
    In this regard I actually agree with this demand. The Dem party is 30% black or more. It's also heavily Hispanic yet Dem consultants are overwhelmingly white. Judging by the performance & flawed assumptions of the Clinton campaign. The poor performance of Dem House & Senate candidates it appears some new consulting blood is needed.
  139. @Jefferson
    "You know, I originally thought the Democrats’ growing anti-white animus was a function of out-of-touch coastal elites. I figured these folks were just overestimating the rate of demographic change based on their local experience. They were looking around at their own areas and thinking, “welp! White folks are done! Time to start sucking up to the multicultural majority!” They failed to realize that large swaths of the country are still majority white — and some parts are EXTREMELY white."

    D.L Hughley once said that he thought America was a Black nation during his childhood and teenage years living in 1970s & early 1980s South Central Los Angeles. It wasn't until he started traveling more as an adult that he found out that's not the case.

    If you live racially segregated from Whites, you probably think Whites are already a minority in The U.S.

    “If you live racially segregated from Whites, you probably think Whites are already a minority in The U.S.”

    Corporations, the MSM, etc, already operate on that assumption. Some years ago, I was listening to a radio talk show in which a poll was discussed. It seems a majority of the respondents thought blacks were 35 % of the U.S. population.

    • Replies: @ogunsiron
    The marketing trade definitely seems to think that whites are a minority.
    I'm increasingly annoyed at every ad portraying the average member of society as a black male.
    I don't care that the guy in the ad looks like me. I don't want to live in a black society. No thanks.
    , @Lurker

    It seems a majority of the respondents thought blacks were 35 % of the U.S. population.
     
    That's what comes of watching too much TV. Or TV at all. I'm pretty sure people would massively overestimate the number of gays as well. Not to mention being highly confused about the demographics of crime, educational and business success.
  140. @Jefferson
    " So the Dem elites have to find a way to throw the blacks under the bus"

    Dream on. The Dems will be labeled as racists by the entire mainstream media if they throw Blacks under the bus.

    …not under the bus, the back of the bus.

  141. @Anonymous
    Did the same person write this?


    It would make everybody in America poorer —you're doing away with the concept of a nation state, and I don't think there's any country in the world that believes in that. If you believe in a nation state or in a country called the United States or UK or Denmark or any other country, you have an obligation in my view to do everything we can to help poor people. What right-wing people in this country would love is an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don't believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country, I think we have to do everything we can to create millions of jobs.

    You know what youth unemployment is in the United States of America today? If you're a white high school graduate, it's 33 percent, Hispanic 36 percent, African American 51 percent. You think we should open the borders and bring in a lot of low-wage workers, or do you think maybe we should try to get jobs for those kids?
     
    Yes. Yes, he did.

    I bring this up to people who consider Bernie to be the apotheosis of integrity. He accurately described how harmful immigration is to American workers, then apparently was schooled by party hacks and instantly fell into line with the open borders agenda.

  142. @Steve Sailer
    Kamala Harris was raised by her Indian mother.

    On the other hand, her black father, a Stanford prof, seems like a pretty good guy.

    Kamala went to Howard that alone will give here considerable cred with the black middle class. Her marrying a white guy isn’t as big a deal to black women since many of them believe they are forced to date outside of their race due to shortage of suitable black men. She’s also quite attractive for a 50+ woman.

    While on paper she seems formidable and is certainly a better black option than Booker, I don’t think she’ll animate black voters sufficiently enough. I don’t see how she flips the Midwest back. The only person left that can do that is Michelle Obama.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    I agree with this ... up till the last two words.

    Michelle Obama is every stereotype of a spoiled, entitled, resentful, aggressive, rude black woman. The Dem establishment and Media Industrial Complex managed to keep it (mostly) buried during the last nine years, but in a general election it couldn't be hidden any longer.

    Michelle is just a dumber, more strident Keith Ellison with PMS.

  143. @Bastion
    Elsewhere I read some other outtakes from this meeting where there was a general call for fewer white consultants and more diverse ones. That is more or less a demand for redistribution of the campaign money that sloshes around every 2-4 years. Every time these black politicos start getting philosophical, my general rule of thumb is that they're ramping up the next iteration of the shakedown game.

    In this regard I actually agree with this demand. The Dem party is 30% black or more. It’s also heavily Hispanic yet Dem consultants are overwhelmingly white. Judging by the performance & flawed assumptions of the Clinton campaign. The poor performance of Dem House & Senate candidates it appears some new consulting blood is needed.

  144. @IHTG
    From Idaho of all places.

    Idaho makes sense. Where better to create bizzare rules governing the discourse between whites and people of color, than a place where you never need to implement such rules?

  145. @Jefferson
    "Kamala Harris: think female Obama but with at least some executive experience as AG for California. She could be a formidable challenger to Trump if the Democratic Party doesn’t self destruct before then."

    Kamala Harris is married to a White man. That would cause a lot of Black voters to stay home on election because they would see her as a sellout for not marrying a Black man.

    Disagree with this re Kamala Harris. I mean, she went to Howard University, a historically black college. She could be the female Obama — biracial “person of color” in a way that makes her difficult to pigeonhole and lets her claim oppression points from any number of different identities. She can appeal to Asian-Americans as well. No one is going to nitpick racial authenticity details on a brown woman who is running against Donald Trump. Plus her background in California politics will make her very good at outreach to suburban whites, she will have some of Obama’s ability to code-switch.

    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    If you really think California whites are the same as whites in say, Gilbert, AZ, you need to put down the bong.
  146. @eah
    Yes -- shame on that nasty Mr Trump for trying to 'divide us by nationality' -- who does he think he is, anyway? -- addressing Americans and their interests during a presidential campaign:

    https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/822930622926745602

    Dividing us by nationality? Who’s “us?” Not the electorate, obviously. There’s definitely some nation-based discrimination there.

    The world? Yeah, how dare Trump, president of one particular nation, divide the world up into members of his own nation and the rest of the world? That’s bonkers! It’s almost as if he thinks nations exist, or something.

  147. @Dave Pinsen
    It's interesting to consider how Dems got to this point. In hindsight, the Bakke decision may have been key, in that it enshrined diversity as public good.

    That gave a new justification for mass, 3rd world immigration. And the pendulum kept swinging left.

    So Dems went from integration and affirmative action as efforts to right historical wrongs on African Americans to embrace of diversity for its own sake, to today's logical conclusion: if diversity is good, and white is the opposite of diversity, white is bad.

    The Dems' mindless embrace of diversity has become as big an albatross for them as GOPs' mindless defense of W. was pre-Trump.

    As I mentioned to a liberal acquaintance recently, they should rethink it: http://disq.us/p/1ffnhc6

    A White Male with a mechanical ngineering degree from the University of California Berkeley…Bakke…was kept out of Med School…while Doctors from India were being imported into America-so their arrogant Indian sons can taunt Native Born White America on SNL this past Saturday Night…

    Steve

    Of course you will let this post go through….be nice now….

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    And the black man UC Davis Medical School initially accepted instead of Bakke, Patrick Chavis, ended up killing a woman in a botched liposuction: http://townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/2002/08/07/the_life_and_death_of_patrick_chavis
  148. @Ed
    Kamala went to Howard that alone will give here considerable cred with the black middle class. Her marrying a white guy isn't as big a deal to black women since many of them believe they are forced to date outside of their race due to shortage of suitable black men. She's also quite attractive for a 50+ woman.

    While on paper she seems formidable and is certainly a better black option than Booker, I don't think she'll animate black voters sufficiently enough. I don't see how she flips the Midwest back. The only person left that can do that is Michelle Obama.

    I agree with this … up till the last two words.

    Michelle Obama is every stereotype of a spoiled, entitled, resentful, aggressive, rude black woman. The Dem establishment and Media Industrial Complex managed to keep it (mostly) buried during the last nine years, but in a general election it couldn’t be hidden any longer.

    Michelle is just a dumber, more strident Keith Ellison with PMS.

  149. @Austrian
    This was a response to a commenter who accused the musician of being "shamefully asleep". In other words, he should have known better. But that's a chicken and egg problem of course.

    A tough looking guy is actually less likely to be physically attacked for shouting at or scolding somebody, or any other reason. I suspect that strong nice guys who don't start fights themselves have the least actual fighting experience. Any martial artist knows that you have no chance if you are outnumbered and the other guys really want to hurt you.

    Big guy liberals often have a false sense of security and superiority. Liberal Hollywood promotes the individual hero who fights for progressive causes in all of its movies. Liberals also promote self-defense and shame those who are afraid of crime and belittle gun owners. The liberal solution to crime is ironically rugged individualism of the highest order. LOL

    Our problems can't be solved by isolated acts of bravery and Muslims smoking in public facilities is a low priority issue.

    I think it’s people with the liberal view of race who get themselves into situations like this. As a race realist, I would never confront a group of NAMs over smoking in a no-smoking area, or littering, or using bad language. I know how volatile and indifferent to the consequences of employing violence they are. A lot of white liberals actually believe that NAMs are not that different from themselves. They think they’re capable of calmly accepting criticism from a white person.

    I’ve read numerous stories about whites being killed after remonstrating with NAMs about their bad behavior and assume these people had liberal views about race. You have to be realistic. I have my CCW permit, but would never want to have to employ deadly force in any situation I could have ignored or walked away from. Not in today’s America.

    • Agree: Jasper Been
    • Replies: @The preferred nomenclature is...
    The dudes I train with call it, 'don't go to Walmart at 3 a.m. to get milk'.

    AKA situational awareness.

    AKA the best way to not lose a gunfight is not to get into a gunfight.

    AKA mind your own damn bizness when it comes to NAMs.

    AKA why you can't have nice things (hat tip Derb).
    , @Frau Katze
    They're tribal and they operate by shame/honour. The violinist attacked their honour. Results were predictable. He's lucky they didn't beat him senseless or kill him.

    Of course, lefty progressives don't know this. I've tried to explain this to various lefties and all I get is called a racist, bigot and so on.

    To the violinist I say, too bad, so sad. Get used to it, or join the resistance. Or submit before your new masters.
  150. @Kyle McKenna

    Democrats must provide “training” that focuses in part on teaching Americans “how to be sensitive and how to shut their mouths if they are white”
     

    Candidates aspiring to take over as chairman of the Democratic National Committee met Monday night to discuss what went wrong in 2016
     
    Oh wait

    Sally Boynton Brown is the the radical leftist version of Richard B. Spencer. Both speak for their own constituents for the Fringe Groups. Today’s moderates who are Democrats and Republicans are under being held hostage by these lunatics. Brown’s and Spencer’s positions do not represent the average white American.

    The loudest voice in the room is now in charge, unfortunately, of the narrative. Will moderates on the left and right each individually stand up and slay these respective dragons, rather than be being labeled “defenders of white privilege” and “cucks”?

    • Replies: @War for Blair Mountain
    And your the "moderate" who wants to flood America with the highly racialized Democratic Party Voting Bloc. If Richard Spencer was insignificant and a total nonentity you would not bother attacking him. The Vox Daily fags such as yourself are jealous.
    , @dc.sunsets
    Disagree. The fringes do not lead. The Narrative is shifting and right now one person after another is trying to jump in front of the bandwagon and act like they're steering.

    Leftism as a force peaked under Obama in total absurdity land. (C'mon, a man with a penis and testicles can be a woman by saying so? Women are the same as men and vice versa?) It had at least a 300 year run. The pendulum is beginning to swing the other way, that's all. It's a natural process.

    The funny part is watching the leading lights of the Left attempt to pull the flock back into their Theocracy's pews by upping their volume. The louder they shriek, the more congregants they drive out of the cathedral.
    , @ATX Hipster
    So the President, a candidate to be DNC chair, and George Soros are all "fringe" in your book. What level of power and influence does somebody have to reach before you'll consider that maybe their ideas are mainstream? Global Hegemon?

    Parties realign.
    , @Frau Katze
    These two radical poles could, possibly, be equivalents.

    I have some experience trying to argue with Jew haters, with no success. I do not think either of these positions will respond to reasonable argument. They are deeply entrenched in the psyches of those holding said views.

    But you're neglecting one thing: the kooky woman is making a run at DNC chairman.

    So she has attained a much greater level of respectability in her party than Spencer has with his party.

    Major news sites like NYT sound like calm versions of the kook. I don't see any parallel with Spencer. He's a fringe of a fringe.

  151. @Anonymous

    The Democrats don’t have much political talent at present, but they have a lot of non-political talent that seems no less implausible than Trump as President: Bill Gates, Tom Hanks, Steven Spielberg, etc.
     
    I think these Hollywood types and most celebrities will wilt and fold pretty quickly after the arrows start flying and pressure increases. And they have small personalities. I've been around most of these people and quite a few other high-profile people. And I've been with Trump one-on-one (back in 2009). Trump was THE most overpoweringly impressive guy one-on-one than anyone I've ever met (and I've been with Bill Clinton one-on-one with his detail agents). And Trump was also one of the nicest. Trump's personality and character and background makes him a unique. He wasn't just well known as a celebrity, but an American icon and the incarnation of American deal-making capitalism and wealth and success.

    Thanks for the input. Rare first-hand info that is hard to get outside of iSteve.

  152. The war on white men is over. The Hillary campaign was a bridge too far. I pity these self hating whites. They are possessed by George Soros. They need an exorcist.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    You wish. They have not yet begun to fight. If the war was over, what was that rally in Washington the other day? They are firmly convinced that "history is on their side" and just have to wait for a few more old white guys to die and then everything will proceed according to the original plans.
    , @anon

    The war on white men is over.
     
    It's barely started.

    As the demographics shift it will get worse every year.

    The media covered up the rise in white suicide rate for 20 years and no one calls them out for it - how anti-white will the media be in 20 years ?
  153. The job of the Right at times like this is to STFU and let them get on with it.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Honestly, I think that People of Color on the Right now should take the opportunity to infiltrate the left and drive them even further down on this with adequate use of psyops. It'll be so glorious. Around the time that they have completely alienated anyone sane and fractured their own coalition with frantic heretic hunting, they won't have any means of recovery at all.
  154. @Alec Leamas
    I think the Democrats would be foolish to recruit a celebrity as the answer to Trump. Trump is sui generis having straddled the world of celebrity and business. Justified or not, the American people were exposed to his personality as himself and believed that he made Billions of dollars because he was smart, cunning, and competent. I don't think Hanks or anyone from Hollywood or the Billionaires on offer have these qualities.

    In any event, the American electorate keeps engaging in this dialectical cycle where they elect the polar opposite of the previous President to cure his deficiencies while giving way to a new set of deficiencies.

    WWII generation patrician George H.W. Bush is replaced by philandering, smooth-talking Baby Boomer from the Ozarks, who is in turn succeeded by reformed alcoholic Evangelical prone to malapropisms and verbal gaffes GWB, who is succeeded by a biracial, smooth talking professorial Obama, who was succeeded by a brash, bombastic and candid TV Billionaire.

    I'm reminded of this exchange between Phillip Seymour Hoffman (playing CIA Officer Gust Avrakatos) and Hanks (as Wilson) in Charlie Wilson's War:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLVFpSKVTew

    The next President will be some antithesis to Trump's excesses and perceived deficiencies. The worst thing the Democrats could do is put all of their eggs in the basket of their own Left wing version of Trump early and fail to surf the zeitgeist of 2020 or 2024.

    "We'll see."

    “WWII generation patrician George H.W. Bush is replaced by philandering, smooth-talking Baby Boomer from the Ozarks, who is in turn succeeded by reformed alcoholic Evangelical prone to malapropisms and verbal gaffes GWB, who is succeeded by a biracial, smooth talking professorial Obama, who was succeeded by a brash, bombastic and candid TV Billionaire.”

    Exactly why the EJ Dionne’s/Ezra Klein’s and the Jonah Goldberg’s/Steve Sailer’s of the world ought to run for political office rather than just engage in journalism. They each would provide sanity in an insane world. After all, their views are based on what is “true” and “real” in the world that most people fail to “see”. Duty calls, gentlemen, just like Washington and Jefferson!

    • Replies: @Frau Katze
    There don't seem to be many examples of journalists going for high political office.

    Maybe it's because all their writing has made their outlook on even small things so easy to find out.

    There's not a chance that someone like iSteve could run. He's written too much about super taboo topics like race realism.

    IMO, race realism is extremely toxic, because there's no solution to it. It's a horribly bad-news dead end.

    For this reason it will remain taboo.
  155. @Mr. Anon

    The Future of the Left is Female:
     
    The Sisterhood of the Travelling Rants

    The Sisterhood of the Unravelling Cants

  156. Obama didn’t need to pander to black audiences because he was already black (or “black enough”, just like Obama’s putdown of Hillary as “likeable enough”). Whiteys like Brown and Hillary have a hard time threading the needle – they need to abase themselves to appeal to the Democrat’s black constituency without at the same time not alienating whites who might otherwise vote Democrat ( but not DEPLORABLES who will never vote Democrat anyway).

    But Brown isn’t running for President, she is running for the head of the DNC – a much different thing. Brown’s speech makes perfect sense if you understand the context it was given in (a white candidate from an ultra-white state trying to get a job with an organization that has a large black constituency). Even though what she said sounds ridiculous viewed in the cold (white) light of day (viewed by the 5 people who watch CPAN3), Brown was confident that she has more to gain than to lose by speaking in this way. The only whites left in the party organization (the organization, not the voters) are true believers for whom such talk is NOT embarrassing.

    Given the results yielded by the Hillary/Kaine ticket (I’ve forgotten his name already) I predict that the Democrats will never front an all white ticket again. Certainly never TWO white men again. In retrospect, Kerry/Edwards in 2004 will be the last all white male Democrat ticket in American history. I’m sure Democrat strategists are kicking themselves right now for not having placed a black on the ticket (at least for the VP slot) this year. If blacks had been just a LITTLE bit more excited about the ticket, turnout in Phila, Cleveland, Detroit, Milwaukee, etc. might have been just a little bit better (maybe even the 105% that turned out for Obama in certain precincts in Phila.) and that might have been enough to swing those states. A few ten thousands of strategically placed votes and it would have gone the other way.

    • Replies: @Thomas

    But Brown isn’t running for President, she is running for the head of the DNC – a much different thing. Brown’s speech makes perfect sense if you understand the context it was given in (a white candidate from an ultra-white state trying to get a job with an organization that has a large black constituency).
     
    That's probably part of it. I get the sense though that white liberals from heavily-white red states seem to feel some need to drink a double-dose of the Kool Aid, perhaps to signal their bona fides as "good ones," or out of some resentment towards the other "non-woke" whites they come from, or something. I've always noticed living in Southern California that white liberals who had moved there from somewhere else (usually the Midwest or South), versus the native variety, were the more fanatical, resentful, even hateful. When I scratched the surface a couple of times on this with a few I knew, there was often some formative experience in high school or thereabouts, that usually had to do with jock and cheerleader types they were bullied by and still resented. It's sort of like "Glee" was based on their high school years or something.
    , @guest
    It makes some sense, but not enough sense, because of the Obama example. With Obama they didn't have to choose, and could have the best of both worlds, black and white. But they won't always have that convenience, obviously.

    They need the black vote, but they need the white vote more. So it doesn't work to their benefit to bank on the coalition of minorities plus white True Believers. If they do, they'll be a minority party, at least for the time being.
  157. @anon
    Don't forget the Republicans have a death wish. Trump's main competition -- Lying Ted -- made a career out of pushing idiotic policies. Austerity is fundamentally unpopular. And I mean you, Paul Ryan.

    Shutting down the government isn't popular. Losing wars isn't popular. Ginning up pseudo military threats isn't popular.

    Trump wants to win. He instinctively sees that ISIS doesn't really control much in the way of territory and are unpopular. So lets give them a beat down instead.

    Lets close the gate. Lets punch down.

    And build stuff.

    And cut taxes. Everyone likes a tax cut.

    But don't take away a lower middle class entitlement like Obamacare. I see that they are going after Medicaid, which is directionally correct. Section 8 needs a diet. The only entitlement in the history of the US that ever got cut was the Clinton welfare 'reform'.

    And whatever you do ... never, never, never try to reform Social Security or Medicare. Don't do it. The future is now. Time to live large.

    “But don’t take away a lower middle class entitlement like Obamacare.”

    I have to push back against this again. I know people making $20k – $35k, i.e., the definition of lower middle class, who cannot afford Obamacare. They don’t think they have an entitlement. They think they have a PitA. They weren’t delighted with the prior healthcare situation, but they had found ways to make it kinda sorta work. Now they’re just on a wing and a prayer.

    So who can afford the Obamacare entitlement? Illegal aliens, professional welfare spongers, people who urgently need gender reassignment surgery, you know, fine upstanding Americans like these. Oh, and the 1% wealthy enough not to care.

    • Replies: @IndieRafael
    Yes. I have subsidized insurance through Obamacare, but with a very high deductible that makes it more like catastrophic insurance. (I suppose that's useful as motivation to take care of my health.) If it were an option, and even if I had to pay more, I would go back to a pre-Obamacare regime that prohibited rescissions (i.e., insurance company cancels customer when he gets sick) and offered some reasonable deal on pre-existing conditions. Also, hassling with the dysfunctional health insurance websites takes too much time.
  158. @Anonymous
    Spencer and other American Nazis are apologists for Arab and Iranian terror. Spencer appointed an Iranian as an editor on his new website.

    You sound like a racist. A common problem among those on the left.

    Is being Iranian a disqualification? For which other jobs would you neve hire an Iranian?

    Also, do you hate only Persians or also Azeris and Kurds, who make up a substantial minority of the population of Iran?

  159. @Almost Missouri
    Most rich guys don't like to be in the public spotlight. Trump is an outlier.

    As Mr. Blank says, Spielberg being a big donor doesn't translate into Spielberg having the stomach for years of public excoriation. His instincts as a film director reflect his personality. He makes crowd-pleasing feel-good films: he likes to be liked. A presidential campaign would end that, or at least expose that compared to director-Spielberg's broad appeal, politician-Spielberg would represent no more than a belligerent faction.

    Bill Gates may harbor actual political power ambitions, but in his meager experience in the public spotlight, he has hardly covered himself in glory. And he's too old a dog to learn new tricks.

    Zuckerberg may have the ambition, the money, believe he has the taste for the spotlight, and be a young enough dog he can still learn new tricks. We'll see if his taste for publicity will weather the free-for-all of political scrutiny. So far, he is accustomed to the deferential suck-ups in the business press. And of course his ace card is that he controls the world's most voluminous fake news feed.

    Tom Hanks might be viable. Thanks to Speilberg's promotion, Hanks enjoys apparently effortless public goodwill. A Spielberg-backed Hanks-fronted candidacy might be a very effective master-blaster combination. Just like at the box office. Of course the Left would have to set aside their Reagan-era he's-just-an-actor critiques, but hypocrisy has never held them back before.

    Don’t forget George Clooney. He’s forayed into the public sphere in softer ways than the angry screaming leftists and seems like a nice guy (people who’ve met him on his “humanitarian” work have told me he’s not a diva like Ashley Judd and works in a low-profile manner that gives him some credibility).

    He got himself an exotic liberal pin-up wife with a job that SWPL consider heavyweight intellectually (sort of a thinking person’s Huma Abedin, or rather for people who think they’re thinking people) and can now look forward to glowing profiles of his carmel-colored twin babies.

    He might consider a Senate run in 2018 to bolster his resume although perhaps the crowded D field in CA might make the risk of a loss too high.

    • Replies: @guest
    Liberal pin-up wife? Yeah, indeterminate ethnicity, mannish, emaciated. I guess that fits the bill. But I remember the MSM, even, being surprised at how ugly she was. Because they assumed Clooney was a red-blooded heterosexual.

    Appearances trump sexual desire in elite mate selection. I had assumed Tom Brady was at least half a homo for marrying that tranny. However, he may have just been doing what's expected. If that's what our society calls a supermodel, that's what he'll couple with.

    Same with Clooney, perhaps. If plain at best, masculinized "social x-rays" are what's expected in high society, that's what he'll marry. Or maybe he is gay. All the more appropriate to use the term "liberal pin-up," then.
    , @Dave Pinsen
    Clooney's father considered a run for Senate a few years back.
    , @The Man From K Street
    Clooney also has direct exposure to retail elective politics: his father was a news anchor and sometimes candidate for Congress from the Cincinnati area.
  160. @Alec Leamas

    Re @121, bloc voting is a normal feature for “nations within a nation” or tribes with obvious markers as a minority. You also get it in the US with Jews, Mormons, and Deep South whites (even before the Civil War, though not with Upper South whites). Its also a pretty constant feature in any other non-homogenous country that has elections.
     
    Maybe so, but black civic life and voting is unique even when compared to other voting blocs in the U.S. and abroad.

    First, blacks vote consistently at the rate of 90-95% for one party. No other bloc approaches that level of univocality. It is, in fact, counterproductive for political involvement because it renders competition for their votes moot while placing little burden on the party receiving support to serve its voters well.

    Second, blacks vote in high proportion for candidates who espouse policies in direct contradiction to their stated policy preferences. Maybe this is just an expression of blacks' dependence on the welfare state and that they're more astute in ferreting out their short-term economic interests, but I think there's much more to it than this.

    “First, blacks vote consistently at the rate of 90-95% for one party.”

    Black Christians vote in a monolithic bloc for The Democratic Party even though it’s an anti-Christian party.

  161. @Mr. Blank

    Ambitious Whites with an eye on politics will see roadblocks for advancement in the Democratic Party and so adopt more conservative politics in order to build a career in the Republican Party.
     
    Precisely. Ask yourself: If you're a highly ambitious, politically oriented young white man -- like, say, a young Bill Clinton -- in 2017, where do you see your future? With the Democrats or the Republicans?

    One wonders if Democrats have a clue that they are eating all their seed corn...

    To answer your question, I know a highly gifted young man. Last year he was a senior during the presidential campaign. For fun he and his friends went to Milo rallies and went to the University of Illinois circle campus to heckle the paid SJW types at the Trump rally in Chicago despite my warnings to him that there might be violence instigated by the left.

    He is taking a gap year and is involved in politics and exploring Buddhism prior to attending the University of Chicago next fall.

    Meanwhile the 13 and 14 year old middle school boys that are friends with my son are making jokes about their female SJW teacher’s attempts at indoctrination constantly among themselves.

    • Replies: @Atate
    Funny, my oldest son (16) is on the same crusade with his friends too. He saved his money to buy himself a MAGA hat and a DT for Pres sign. He also had an assignment on police brutality, but went with the Ferguson Effect and all the lies told by media during the Michael Brown shitstorm.

    He turns it in this week, we'll see how it goes.
    , @Anonymous

    To answer your question, I know a highly gifted young man. Last year he was a senior during the presidential campaign. For fun he and his friends went to Milo rallies and went to the University of Illinois circle campus to heckle the paid SJW types at the Trump rally in Chicago despite my warnings to him that there might be violence instigated by the left.

    He is taking a gap year and is involved in politics and exploring Buddhism prior to attending the University of Chicago next fall.

    Meanwhile the 13 and 14 year old middle school boys that are friends with my son are making jokes about their female SJW teacher’s attempts at indoctrination constantly among themselves.
     
    Exploring Buddhism? So hip. Who wouldn't want to explore the greatest heresy of Hinduism (less hip)??
  162. @TangoMan
    So the Dem elites have to find a way to throw the blacks under the bus and hitch their electoral hopes on other groups.

    That's not going to happen. In 1960, there were close to 9 Whites for 1 Black. Today there are 5.5 Whites per 1 Black. There's too much electoral muscle in the Black vote and they are the most loyal voting bloc.

    Secondly, the entire racial spoils system that the Democrats have erected is justified on the basis of historic injustices to Blacks. All of the other groups are free-riding on that rationale.

    What we're seeing here is the long end-game of a process started decades ago - when you play the game of racial identity politics, you won't forever be able to count on Whites not having a racial identity as you erect programs to strip Whites of wealth and opportunity so that you can pay off your 3rd world voter army. Maybe the Democrats never gamed this out to see how it would play out long term but they're stuck with these dynamics. Their entire coalition splits apart if they abandon the racial spoils system that they've championed and implemented and without Blacks it becomes difficult to justify that racial spoils system.

    Trump doesn't want to touch Affirmative Action but some other ambitious politician who sees clearly the direction society is taking will start a push back. That'll get the Dems on the defense and they'll recommit and their recommitment will drive more Whites out of the party, always on the margin with the margin steadily moving inwards.

    Ambitious Whites with an eye on politics will see roadblocks for advancement in the Democratic Party and so adopt more conservative politics in order to build a career in the Republican Party. White liberals make a big point of how their party has so many politicians of color but what goes unmentioned is that those politicians of color are almost always elected by voters of color, not the White liberals who like to take credit for their appreciation of diversity. The last time I did this analysis there were only 2 Black Congressional Democrats who were elected by a majority of White voters. If White politicians with talent begin seeing greener pastures in the Republican Party this presents a quandary for the remaining White liberal voters, they either vote for idiots, like we see in the video, or they vote for minority politicians to represent them and they don't really seem too comfortable with that strategy if we look at present-day behavior. This means disillusionment slowly sets in with such voters.

    The really crazy variable here, and it's on display in this video, is that some people in Democratic leadership circles actually believe the Black victimization, White oppression, nonsense. True believers are always a lost cause, there will always be a small rump contingent of White Liberals who will remain in the Democratic Party, but as the Who, Whom battle gets evermore serious, rank and file will see that the Democrats offer little of value to Whites and so they'll migrate to Independents and then, after some years in the wilderness in order to save face and to self-justify their transformation, they find their way to the Republicans.

    Look, Trump won the majority of White women. So did Romney. Romney also won the majority of White youth. I haven't checked how Trump did with them. The trends are fairly clear and the Whites in the electorate are responding to the stimuli coming from the two Party's cultures and policies.

    The talk of dumping Blacks is very similar to the talk of Republicans dumping the Evangelicals. Why would either party dump their most loyal faction? These Big Tent coalitions try to cobble together a coalition which gets them a minimum of 50.1% of the votes. Blacks are 13% or so of the population - they're not going to be cut loose. The Democrats have bought a ticket on a train with no brakes - they're committed to going wherever the tracks are going to take them and these tracks are the Racial Identity Line.

    Good analysis.

    I would add that most pro-Trump and anti-identity politics group are the white High School kids. Their revulsion and rejection of what is happening to them, as a suppressed white generation, their ridicule of the slightly older Millennials, and their unwillingness to accept a second-class life, is about to explode on the political scene.

    If Trump succeeds, there is a large generation of teens that will enthusiastically support him. They want better economy, they want an end to the racial spoils system, they cannot stand identity obsessions. That is what will decide 2020 and beyond. Liberals sense it, so they are trying to preach and suppress any resistance among the young – but as with all school principals’ led campaigns, it backfires.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    Good point about the white high school kids, especially those who attend heavily integrated schools.

    You're right - many of them are race-realists, simply because they see with their own eyes in their own school hallways and classrooms where we're headed.

    Many of today's teens and early 20-somethings have a much more realistic (and jaundiced) view of interracial relations, particularly black/white relations.

    Of course, this is shocking to their parents, none of whom actually went to a truly "diverse" school.
  163. @Alec Leamas

    Re @121, bloc voting is a normal feature for “nations within a nation” or tribes with obvious markers as a minority. You also get it in the US with Jews, Mormons, and Deep South whites (even before the Civil War, though not with Upper South whites). Its also a pretty constant feature in any other non-homogenous country that has elections.
     
    Maybe so, but black civic life and voting is unique even when compared to other voting blocs in the U.S. and abroad.

    First, blacks vote consistently at the rate of 90-95% for one party. No other bloc approaches that level of univocality. It is, in fact, counterproductive for political involvement because it renders competition for their votes moot while placing little burden on the party receiving support to serve its voters well.

    Second, blacks vote in high proportion for candidates who espouse policies in direct contradiction to their stated policy preferences. Maybe this is just an expression of blacks' dependence on the welfare state and that they're more astute in ferreting out their short-term economic interests, but I think there's much more to it than this.

    What is the “much more”? The Democrat lock on the black vote is relatively recent – remember that the Democrats were the party of Jim Crow. Basically LBJ made the calculus that the votes of urban blacks in the North were more valuable than those of whites in the South and he flipped the party 180 degrees. The Democrats became the party of “civil rights” (affirmative action/ Federally enforced non-discrimination/government employment) for blacks plus the party of the “Great Society” (the welfare state for blacks) and this was/is an unshakeable combination. These two issues are FAR more important to blacks than things like gay rights that they don’t really support but don’t care that much about either. If bending over for gay rights means that the food stamps/Section 8/AFDC check keeps coming every month, that’s a very small price to pay. It’s really no skin off your back. Although nominally many blacks are Christians, black Christianity is very non-judgmental – sinners are welcomed because they have a lot of them.

  164. @eah
    Yes -- shame on that nasty Mr Trump for trying to 'divide us by nationality' -- who does he think he is, anyway? -- addressing Americans and their interests during a presidential campaign:

    https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/822930622926745602

    So THAT’S where all the white women at!

  165. @Ed
    I agree with Dave here. The Dems as a brand are shot with whites. People focus on Trump but the underperformed GOP senators. The Dems ran candidates in IN, WI & MO that many thought would win. Instead all three got blown out. The Senate races in FL/NC which received a lot of attention were also low outs. It's only with narrow victories in NH & NV that Dems were able to save face. It's interesting that the two GOP candidates here actually distanced themselves from Trump.

    The Dems have effectively lost white men. They now get 25-33% of their vote. Married white women are increasingly going for Republican's. This leaves young single white women as the only reliable block for Dems.

    I wouldn't be surprised if the GOP gets to 60 senate seats in '18.

    It is not just YOUNG single white women keeping the Dems going.

    It is also many millions of bitter, immature, lonely women in their 40s and 50s and 60s who NEVER had children — often they were never married or were divorced, as well. I personally know many of these angry and confused barren women, family and acquaintances and colleagues. My current boss. One of my own sisters. Etc.

    They know that they wasted their opportunity at contentment, that they are contributing to the demise of their own families and nation, and that normal well-rounded women have achieved, loved, been loved, created new life, and enjoyed life in a way that they never will.

    All the false screaming about losing their rights, the religious-level worship of abortion and now lesbians, the bizarre vulgar slogans and signs, won’t change any of that. They are a social and evolutionary dead end and they know it.

    But there are a LOT of them, by design, and they will continue to be a powerful force for the dispossession of the historic American nation and the overtaxation, control, and mockery of heathy families with a husband, wife, and children.

    • Agree: CK
    • Replies: @Kylie
    "They know that they wasted their opportunity at contentment, that they are contributing to the demise of their own families and nation, and that normal well-rounded women have achieved, loved, been loved, created new life, and enjoyed life in a way that they never will.

    All the false screaming about losing their rights, the religious-level worship of abortion and now lesbians, the bizarre vulgar slogans and signs, won’t change any of that. They are a social and evolutionary dead end and they know it."

    Wrong. I'm going to take a wild guess here that you're a man.

    All these empty, bitter women know is that they are at best perpetually discontented and at worst, deeply unhappy.

    And it can't be their fault for a myriad of reasons. (Partial list follows)

    They're better educated than the conservative women they despise. They don't watch Fox News. They despise Melania Trump. They adore Oprah. They hate guns, Christianity, rural inhabitants, fulltime homemakers and masculine white men. They love open borders, NAMS, Whole Foods, gentrification and globalization.

    In short, they do and think everything that's right and nothing that's wrong. So if they're unhappy, it can't possibly be their fault. It's the fault of everyone and everything they hate. And this means YOU.
  166. @Corvinus
    Sally Boynton Brown is the the radical leftist version of Richard B. Spencer. Both speak for their own constituents for the Fringe Groups. Today's moderates who are Democrats and Republicans are under being held hostage by these lunatics. Brown's and Spencer's positions do not represent the average white American.

    The loudest voice in the room is now in charge, unfortunately, of the narrative. Will moderates on the left and right each individually stand up and slay these respective dragons, rather than be being labeled "defenders of white privilege" and "cucks"?

    And your the “moderate” who wants to flood America with the highly racialized Democratic Party Voting Bloc. If Richard Spencer was insignificant and a total nonentity you would not bother attacking him. The Vox Daily fags such as yourself are jealous.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "And your the “moderate” who wants to flood America with the highly racialized Democratic Party Voting Bloc."

    America has always been a torrent for immigrants. Normal whites like myself want to restrict it, but not remove by force legal immigrants regardless of their origin.

    "If Richard Spencer was insignificant and a total nonentity you would not bother attacking him."

    If George Soros was insignificant and a total nonentity you would not bother attacking him. Savages such as yourself are jealous.
  167. @Austrian
    This was a response to a commenter who accused the musician of being "shamefully asleep". In other words, he should have known better. But that's a chicken and egg problem of course.

    A tough looking guy is actually less likely to be physically attacked for shouting at or scolding somebody, or any other reason. I suspect that strong nice guys who don't start fights themselves have the least actual fighting experience. Any martial artist knows that you have no chance if you are outnumbered and the other guys really want to hurt you.

    Big guy liberals often have a false sense of security and superiority. Liberal Hollywood promotes the individual hero who fights for progressive causes in all of its movies. Liberals also promote self-defense and shame those who are afraid of crime and belittle gun owners. The liberal solution to crime is ironically rugged individualism of the highest order. LOL

    Our problems can't be solved by isolated acts of bravery and Muslims smoking in public facilities is a low priority issue.

    A tough looking guy is actually less likely to be physically attacked for shouting at or scolding somebody, or any other reason. I suspect that strong nice guys who don’t start fights themselves have the least actual fighting experience.

    There is some truth in this, but it’s not the whole story. In college I knew a roughly 6’2″ black strength athlete, maybe 220-240 (hard to judge the weight of muscular athletes IMHO). Nicest guy you’d ever meet, smart, modest (despite being one of the most impressive people all around I have met) with a great sense of humor. He was an immigrant and did not come off in the least as belligerent. He would talk about how he had problems with people picking fights with him in bars because he looked intimidating. My understanding is the “theory” was that beating up a tough looking guy makes you look tough. My sense was he didn’t actually fight much if at all, but I wish now I had followed up more on how he dealt with those situations.

    • Replies: @Marat
    The Schwarzenegger/Shriver crew had a house in this hood for ~15 yrs and often dined in the local eateries. People often commented on how surprisingly short (and deferential) Mr was, and how they'd not be surprised if certain types might be tempted to have some sort of incident - simply for the novelty of tangling w/ Mr Muscle. The SUV pack was always within sight, maybe it was the magic shield. (To their credit, the whole family was surprisingly well mannered, a novel occurrence in these parts.) Deferential bearing alone won't cut it in Germany or back home.
    , @BB753
    Believe me, when you can easily manhandle 200 pounds tough guys, you don't need to learn to fight. You just push them aside and mind your own business.
    , @David In TN
    The film director Budd Boetticher once wrote that Audie Murphy had a hard time living in Los Angeles in the 50's and 60's. "Every bully, frustrated athlete, and drunk in LA would pick a fight with Audie Murphy the war hero-movie star. Audie would whip them as he was good with his hands as well as with a gun."
  168. @Jack D
    Obama didn't need to pander to black audiences because he was already black (or "black enough", just like Obama's putdown of Hillary as "likeable enough"). Whiteys like Brown and Hillary have a hard time threading the needle - they need to abase themselves to appeal to the Democrat's black constituency without at the same time not alienating whites who might otherwise vote Democrat ( but not DEPLORABLES who will never vote Democrat anyway).

    But Brown isn't running for President, she is running for the head of the DNC - a much different thing. Brown's speech makes perfect sense if you understand the context it was given in (a white candidate from an ultra-white state trying to get a job with an organization that has a large black constituency). Even though what she said sounds ridiculous viewed in the cold (white) light of day (viewed by the 5 people who watch CPAN3), Brown was confident that she has more to gain than to lose by speaking in this way. The only whites left in the party organization (the organization, not the voters) are true believers for whom such talk is NOT embarrassing.

    Given the results yielded by the Hillary/Kaine ticket (I've forgotten his name already) I predict that the Democrats will never front an all white ticket again. Certainly never TWO white men again. In retrospect, Kerry/Edwards in 2004 will be the last all white male Democrat ticket in American history. I'm sure Democrat strategists are kicking themselves right now for not having placed a black on the ticket (at least for the VP slot) this year. If blacks had been just a LITTLE bit more excited about the ticket, turnout in Phila, Cleveland, Detroit, Milwaukee, etc. might have been just a little bit better (maybe even the 105% that turned out for Obama in certain precincts in Phila.) and that might have been enough to swing those states. A few ten thousands of strategically placed votes and it would have gone the other way.

    But Brown isn’t running for President, she is running for the head of the DNC – a much different thing. Brown’s speech makes perfect sense if you understand the context it was given in (a white candidate from an ultra-white state trying to get a job with an organization that has a large black constituency).

    That’s probably part of it. I get the sense though that white liberals from heavily-white red states seem to feel some need to drink a double-dose of the Kool Aid, perhaps to signal their bona fides as “good ones,” or out of some resentment towards the other “non-woke” whites they come from, or something. I’ve always noticed living in Southern California that white liberals who had moved there from somewhere else (usually the Midwest or South), versus the native variety, were the more fanatical, resentful, even hateful. When I scratched the surface a couple of times on this with a few I knew, there was often some formative experience in high school or thereabouts, that usually had to do with jock and cheerleader types they were bullied by and still resented. It’s sort of like “Glee” was based on their high school years or something.

    • Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist

    I get the sense though that white liberals from heavily-white red states seem to feel some need to drink a double-dose of the Kool Aid, perhaps to signal their bona fides as “good ones,” or out of some resentment towards the other “non-woke” whites they come from, or something.

     

    I've got quite a few high school and college friends who fit this description. Given their dubious origins and upbringing (in the eyes of the left, that is), they feel compelled to signal their virtue stridently. The zeal of the convert burns bright.
  169. @Dave Pinsen
    It's interesting to consider how Dems got to this point. In hindsight, the Bakke decision may have been key, in that it enshrined diversity as public good.

    That gave a new justification for mass, 3rd world immigration. And the pendulum kept swinging left.

    So Dems went from integration and affirmative action as efforts to right historical wrongs on African Americans to embrace of diversity for its own sake, to today's logical conclusion: if diversity is good, and white is the opposite of diversity, white is bad.

    The Dems' mindless embrace of diversity has become as big an albatross for them as GOPs' mindless defense of W. was pre-Trump.

    As I mentioned to a liberal acquaintance recently, they should rethink it: http://disq.us/p/1ffnhc6

    I think it’s ironic that the guy who responds to you touts “diversity” as a benefit because “diverse” people think in different ways and we all benefit from diverse ways of thinking, which leads to innovation, having our assumptions challenged, etc. The LAST thing the Left wants is for people to have diversity of ideology – they want everyone to worship in the Cathedral of leftist thought and despise heretics. They HATE having their assumptions challenged. They are importing “diverse” people precisely because they think that they will be faithful new members of their Church, not because they will challenge its assumptions. If any “diverse” person leaves the ideological plantation (Clarence Thomas) he is not even considered “diverse” anymore. Their vision of Heaven (which they have already built in academia) consists of a gorgeous rainbow of leftists – brown leftists, black leftists, genderqueer leftists, etc.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    I think diversity can be a benefit but only to a limited extent. Treating it as an unalloyed good is ridiculous; to bring to a metaphor of the body, some salt is good for us, but too much of it causes obesity, cardiac issues and eventually death.

    What further annoys me is that even if diversity is positive in that way, there's zero reason to say that diversity needs to reflect demographics. Why? That's conflating two logically distinct positions - that democracy represents demographics because of representation, and that diversity is a positive.

    The entire liberal position is muddled as hell and works only because it appeals to the lowest common denominator. Appealing to the worst of us, however, shouldn't be the way forward.
    , @res
    Great statement of what I find the most infuriating aspect of the diversity drive/cult. The whole post was good, but I'd like to emphasize the lying cover story used.

    “diversity” as a benefit because “diverse” people think in different ways and we all benefit from diverse ways of thinking, which leads to innovation, having our assumptions challenged, etc.
     
    These people don't care if an entire team is all people from the same neighborhood in NYC whose parents were all coworkers. Said people then all went to Harvard undergrad, took all the same classes and were in all the same clubs, then went to HLS (or HBS) with the same focus. As long as they look different (it's particularly important that they have different colored skin with a bonus if it is not white, where is MLK when you need him?) it's all good.

    rant off. Sorry. This infuriates me because just try thinking differently or questioning their assumptions sometime and watch what happens.

    , @Charles Erwin Wilson
    I did not meet my posting quota to agree without a post. So please forgive the extra text just to say 'I agree'
  170. @BenKenobi
    I appreciate that you have been paying attention, Anonymous. May humbly I suggest you adopt a simple pseudonymic handle? No need to be so shy.

    Canadian, American, European. After 60 years of enforced diversity these terms are essentially meaningless. I advocate Pan-White identity, the expression of which is a White Israel, with a right of return for all Whites worldwide.

    Israel and most American Jews are not white. Here’s a video that explains. Ignore the title.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sY0FOPa-j-E

  171. @anonymous
    Regarding this 'coalition of the fringes' I've sort of wondered how blacks feel about being assigned to the same category as sexual deviants, immigrants who care nothing for them and goofy white liberal women. It's an unnatural alliance. I suppose they go where the 'gibs' are but still, don't they feel insulted?

    In my experience a lot of older black people are offended at being put in the same bag as the sexual minorities. I think this is much, much less the case with younger blacks.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Should you start referring to the Democrats as the party of Blacks, transgender people, and childless White women?
  172. @AKAHorace
    A minor point but is the use of y'all increasing ? I thought that it was a Southern/Texan thing but the speaker buy Boynton-Brown does not sound like that. Is it now a progressive expression ?

    A minor point but is the use of y’all increasing ? I thought that it was a Southern/Texan thing but the speaker buy Boynton-Brown does not sound like that. Is it now a progressive expression ?

    I believe y’all is typical of African-American Vernacular English wherever it’s spoken, North or South. I suspect Brown’s use is “tactical dialect”, like the way Obama would mimic a “preacher” style. Brown would of course not be trying to sound like a white Southerner (ie JUST LIKE THE KKK!!!!11!). She’s trying to sound, well, brown.

  173. What a wigger. Boynton Brown has 2 white daughters. Offering them up to Zulus is the best way to start the atonement process.

  174. @WorkingClass
    The war on white men is over. The Hillary campaign was a bridge too far. I pity these self hating whites. They are possessed by George Soros. They need an exorcist.

    You wish. They have not yet begun to fight. If the war was over, what was that rally in Washington the other day? They are firmly convinced that “history is on their side” and just have to wait for a few more old white guys to die and then everything will proceed according to the original plans.

  175. The last time the Right really got its act together was in the ’20s and then Hitler ruined everything and FDR brought the smackdown.

    Your tribe ruined everything. They had the megaphone. They could have given Stalin the same treatment, thus ruining everything associated with him (anti-racism, equalitarianism, Marxism, communism, etc.).

    • Replies: @snorlax
    If ol' Adolf hadn't gone and killed all the Jews in Central and Eastern Europe, they would have given Stalin the same treatment.
  176. Oh, and social engineering. The tribe could have knocked social engineering over with a feather.

  177. @David In TN
    "If you live racially segregated from Whites, you probably think Whites are already a minority in The U.S."

    Corporations, the MSM, etc, already operate on that assumption. Some years ago, I was listening to a radio talk show in which a poll was discussed. It seems a majority of the respondents thought blacks were 35 % of the U.S. population.

    The marketing trade definitely seems to think that whites are a minority.
    I’m increasingly annoyed at every ad portraying the average member of society as a black male.
    I don’t care that the guy in the ad looks like me. I don’t want to live in a black society. No thanks.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    I'm annoyed by black guys in ads giving me financial advice. Sorry, that just doesn't inspire confidence.
    , @Jefferson
    "The marketing trade definitely seems to think that whites are a minority.
    I’m increasingly annoyed at every ad portraying the average member of society as a black male.
    I don’t care that the guy in the ad looks like me. I don’t want to live in a black society. No thanks."

    I own a Blu-ray that shows 1970s commercials. Blacks back than were overwhelmingly relegated to McDonald's, Burger King, KFC, malt liquor, and Negro hair product commercials.

    Now in the present Blacks are found in almost every product commercial.

  178. @Bill Jones
    The job of the Right at times like this is to STFU and let them get on with it.

    Honestly, I think that People of Color on the Right now should take the opportunity to infiltrate the left and drive them even further down on this with adequate use of psyops. It’ll be so glorious. Around the time that they have completely alienated anyone sane and fractured their own coalition with frantic heretic hunting, they won’t have any means of recovery at all.

  179. @Ed
    I'm beginning to feel kind of bad for the Dems. The inmates are running the asylum and they're powerless to stop them.

    “I’m beginning to feel kind of bad for the Dems. The inmates are running the asylum and they’re powerless to stop them.”

    I’m not. In fact, the more I see of their infantile, vile malevolence, the more I realize there is no setback or suffering that could make me regard them as anything other than a menace to be destroyed.

    Ceterum censeo.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Its rare to see one of the distaff side realize this as clearly as you do. The left has surrendered to its most vile elements and I do believe it has reached a point where compromise with them is increasingly impossible. I only hope that they self-destruct sooner rather than later.
  180. First, this is more evidence that Leftism is really just Nice White Ladies. The “shut other White people up” is pretty much what Nice White Ladies live for, 24/7. The anti-White (male) behavior is just one more legacy of their bitterness of not getting George Clooney like they were promised. That’s White professional women in a nutshell. They won’t ever change and the drift ever leftward is just a feature, not a bug, of women’s greater role in society.

    Trump won 53% of White women, but did even worse among White professional/College women than President Romney. He made up for it by doing fabulous among White working class women.

    And Trump is already making an obvious play for the White Blue Collar vote in the Upper Midwest. He met with labor leaders and got Trumka’s endorsement, also Hoffa Jr. He’s promised a LOT of work quickly:

    A. Military spending on defense to get people hired quickly, like electricians, welders, machinists etc. building naval ships and air force planes.

    B. Cutting red tape for infrastructure spending quickly, fighting McCain and Ryan to do so.

    C. Badgering companies to build here and not move labor overseas, while promising favorable tax breaks to move cash back to the US.

    D. Stronger Dollar hurting exports but increasing consumer purchasing power.

    Trump basically wants to concede exports in favor of a tight US market in both labor and production, with big taxes for imports. Protectionism front and center to get his union voters more money. And many businesses outside Hollywood and Silicon Valley are OK with it; China has been very protectionist and most companies found it just an endless sunk cost of money. Frackers are happy as are the oil companies, and as noted there are lots of opportunities for defense spending.

    Still TBD are immigration (I’m not optimistic, Trump seems intimidated or listening to his daughter — women that are upper class are the eternal enemy of the common man since Marie Antoinette). Border wall (unlikely to ever be built). Or even Muslim vetting (unlikely given the Zeroth Amendment).

    However the fault lines are clear. Nice White Ladies are filled with rage and siding with anyone anti-White male: Muslims in Europe and here (in Germany nice White ladies screamed Allahu Akbar during Trump protest marches), Blacks, “They” etc. And on the other side the White working and middle class, most White men, and a few Blacks/Hispanics who want more money working.

    Democrats are anti-White male because they are Nice White Ladies. That won’t change. They might run George Clooney though — and his appeal to women overall is not to be underestimated. Best bet though is Harris or some other Black going full anti-White male, with approval of Nice White Ladies. Don’t fool yourself; that’s at least 44% of the general population given Nice White Lady influence over White Middle Class women.

    • Replies: @grapesoda
    > Border wall (unlikely to ever be built). Or even Muslim vetting (unlikely given the Zeroth Amendment).

    Nope. Trump is already on it.

    Breaking News President Trump is ordering construction of a Mexican wall, and may unveil plans to curtail immigration from "terror prone" nations

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/24/us/politics/wall-border-trump.html
    , @anon

    First, this is more evidence that Leftism is really just Nice White Ladies.
     
    No it's evidence of nice white ladies who have been deliberately fed false information by media and academia.

    1) tell the truth about genetics
    and
    2) tell the truth about black crime

    ad those same nice white ladies - with exactly the same motivation - would want eugenics
  181. @Jack D
    I think it's ironic that the guy who responds to you touts "diversity" as a benefit because "diverse" people think in different ways and we all benefit from diverse ways of thinking, which leads to innovation, having our assumptions challenged, etc. The LAST thing the Left wants is for people to have diversity of ideology - they want everyone to worship in the Cathedral of leftist thought and despise heretics. They HATE having their assumptions challenged. They are importing "diverse" people precisely because they think that they will be faithful new members of their Church, not because they will challenge its assumptions. If any "diverse" person leaves the ideological plantation (Clarence Thomas) he is not even considered "diverse" anymore. Their vision of Heaven (which they have already built in academia) consists of a gorgeous rainbow of leftists - brown leftists, black leftists, genderqueer leftists, etc.

    I think diversity can be a benefit but only to a limited extent. Treating it as an unalloyed good is ridiculous; to bring to a metaphor of the body, some salt is good for us, but too much of it causes obesity, cardiac issues and eventually death.

    What further annoys me is that even if diversity is positive in that way, there’s zero reason to say that diversity needs to reflect demographics. Why? That’s conflating two logically distinct positions – that democracy represents demographics because of representation, and that diversity is a positive.

    The entire liberal position is muddled as hell and works only because it appeals to the lowest common denominator. Appealing to the worst of us, however, shouldn’t be the way forward.

  182. @Kylie
    "I’m beginning to feel kind of bad for the Dems. The inmates are running the asylum and they’re powerless to stop them."

    I'm not. In fact, the more I see of their infantile, vile malevolence, the more I realize there is no setback or suffering that could make me regard them as anything other than a menace to be destroyed.

    Ceterum censeo.

    Its rare to see one of the distaff side realize this as clearly as you do. The left has surrendered to its most vile elements and I do believe it has reached a point where compromise with them is increasingly impossible. I only hope that they self-destruct sooner rather than later.

    • Replies: @Kylie
    I will take that as a compliment, thank you.

    But in all honesty, I must add that part of my astuteness comes simply from listening to left-wing white women express themselves openly and honestly. They really are a spoiled, spiteful bunch.
  183. @Anonymous

    member
    Boise 1st United Church of Christ
    1986 – 2008 (22 years)
     

    The United Church of Christ was far left back in the 1970s and proud to be so.

  184. @Gabriel M
    There seems to be a tacit assumption among most of the Right that because the Left are going stark raving bonkers that they are in the process of collapse. Wrong. They were crazy as a box of frogs in 1642 and crazy as a box of frogs in 1688 and crazy as a box of frogs in 1776 and crazy as a box of frogs in 1832 and crazy as a box of frogs in 1861 and crazy as box of frogs in 1932 and crazy as box of frogs in the 60s and the most obviously salient feature of the past three centuries is relentless Leftist victory. Craziness works for them; it's adaptive.

    The last time the Right really got its act together was in the '20s and then Hitler ruined everything and FDR brought the smackdown. Before that you have to go back to 1815. I've yet to see any sign that Trump understands what Restoration would actually entail. He seems to genuinely believe being a good President - assuming that is even going to be possible - will be enough. Reagan ring any bells?

    I’d take Trump two days into the Presidency over the last eight years plan of many on the AR that posting essays about dead German philosophers and pithy blog quotes was going to affect the change you seek.

  185. Sally Boynton Brown

    Here is what she says in her LinkedIn profile:

    I strive to involve everyone in the political process…

  186. @Anonymous

    The Democrats don’t have much political talent at present, but they have a lot of non-political talent that seems no less implausible than Trump as President: Bill Gates, Tom Hanks, Steven Spielberg, etc.
     
    I think these Hollywood types and most celebrities will wilt and fold pretty quickly after the arrows start flying and pressure increases. And they have small personalities. I've been around most of these people and quite a few other high-profile people. And I've been with Trump one-on-one (back in 2009). Trump was THE most overpoweringly impressive guy one-on-one than anyone I've ever met (and I've been with Bill Clinton one-on-one with his detail agents). And Trump was also one of the nicest. Trump's personality and character and background makes him a unique. He wasn't just well known as a celebrity, but an American icon and the incarnation of American deal-making capitalism and wealth and success.

    Because Trump is allowed only to be excoriated, even the most basic observations about Trump are rarely made.

    Few things about Trump seem more remarkable to me than that he was perfectly able to sustain the most vile accusations and vitriol, at an intensity and pervasiveness without any precedent in modern times, and with virtually no support from any quarter of our culture with a voice, and come out fighting — and winning.

    In some ways, it’s hard to reconcile Trump’s seeming hyper-reactivity to criticism with his ultimate ability to shrug it off and push on — but there it is.

    Trump really is a remarkable man and an outsize personality. I can’t think of another individual who even remotely approaches him in these ways.

    It’s worthwhile to contrast him with other billionaires, who seem to be eager above all to be approved as good, virtuous citizens by the cultural powers that be. One might think that, having earned more than enough “f**k you money” for a thousand lifetimes, they would be happy to speak their mind and not care about the consequences. But that seems to be no more true of them than it is of academics who have achieved tenure.

    The general abjectness of today’s billionaire class — and Bill Gates is a splendid example — is a deeply discouraging sight. Bill Gates, who once upon a time, was notorious for deriding certain of his workers for lacking sufficient IQ, now affects to the world that everybody is the same. What a pathetic figure he has become.

    And I don’t see Steve’s suggestions of Hanks and Spielberg as getting much traction either, because they are white males. I don’t see how Democrats will accept a white male savior no matter how desperate their straits may be. There is nothing but identity politics operating in the Democratic Party and their supporters at the national level. It’s all the media cares about, all the intellectuals care about, all the activists care about, all the donors care about. I don’t know if anybody really grasped beforehand the power of identity politics to seize all minds of a progressive bent, but that is where we are. I don’t see how any pragmatic consideration will break this hold. They will go down with this ship.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    In some ways, it’s hard to reconcile Trump’s seeming hyper-reactivity to criticism with his ultimate ability to shrug it off and push on — but there it is.
     
    I've given a lot of thought to this and tried to reconcile it with this interaction I had with Trump, one-on-one for almost a half-hour. I explained and chatted with him about something that was a little technical. Judging from his reply it was apparent that he could absorb things instantly and with maximum efficiency, i.e., all he needs to know, no more no less.

    Steve has written how Trump plays 5-D chess. I think this is true and Trump hides his sophisticated thinking either naturally or intentionally. When he reacts to some stupid trivial stuff on Twitter or in speeches, it is a form of business prestidigitation like decoy flares from a jet fighter. The trivial tweets involve issues that have zero effect on him, but it is able to redirect almost all of his enemies to believe his Achilles heel is superficial personal stuff. So the media and his political opponents think they can go after him with small hands and fat-shaming Alicia Machado while he's spending his effort on ways to restructure the VA and healthcare the day he takes over as President.

    IMO, the trip to the CIA was a scouting trip. While he was making his praiseworthy and playful comments he was assessing the reactions of the top-level folks there. He's a billionaire Manhattan business titan who can size of people quickly. He left there knowing whom he can trust and who harbors hostility toward him.

    I think after Trump is in office for 6 months we'll all know why guys like Carl Icahn had unwavering trust in Trump's ability to turn this country around.

    , @anon

    In some ways, it’s hard to reconcile Trump’s seeming hyper-reactivity to criticism with his ultimate ability to shrug it off and push on — but there it is.
     
    I'm pretty sure he has a list and if the opportunity for revenge comes - like with Romney - he'll take that opportunity with a grin but practical considerations come first.

    So imo it's less shrugging off and more tucking it away for later :)
    , @Clyde

    The general abjectness of today’s billionaire class — and Bill Gates is a splendid example — is a deeply discouraging sight. Bill Gates, who once upon a time, was notorious for deriding certain of his workers for lacking sufficient IQ, now affects to the world that everybody is the same. What a pathetic figure he has become.
     
    A bald head stooge Hindu now runs Microsoft and Melinda Gates runs the Gates Foundation. The cuckifinated Bill Gates is there for window dressing. The former buccaneer of industry.
    btw Satya Nadella is doing a good job at MS
  187. @Daniel Chieh
    Its rare to see one of the distaff side realize this as clearly as you do. The left has surrendered to its most vile elements and I do believe it has reached a point where compromise with them is increasingly impossible. I only hope that they self-destruct sooner rather than later.

    I will take that as a compliment, thank you.

    But in all honesty, I must add that part of my astuteness comes simply from listening to left-wing white women express themselves openly and honestly. They really are a spoiled, spiteful bunch.

  188. Rebranding Democrats as Black party would be single greatest thing for alt-right
    electoral prospects going forward.
    This can be done in non- racist way: these people all herd vote Democrat, they have their interests,, we have ours , we can herd vote accordingly.
    The white party numerically would never lose an election again, as Steve has pointed out.
    Truthfully, Blacks DO have a different agenda than the working class whites, whites just have not seen it.
    Only need to convince some whites to see this.
    There will always be SJW segment.
    They need to be marginalized.

    This will be easier than convincing Blacks to vote Republican, although over time they might see it is their interest to split their vote as well.
    The Dems are leading the way, let them!
    Trump has shown how to do this , not racist at all despite wailing to the contrary.
    If Trump succeeds, there will be imitators.
    As I said on another site, Blacks can be white, too.
    Assimilation!
    Blacks are basically unassimilated immigrants(albeit against their will originally).
    Need to totally abandon white guilt, both personally and as a society.

  189. @Almost Missouri

    "But don’t take away a lower middle class entitlement like Obamacare."
     
    I have to push back against this again. I know people making $20k - $35k, i.e., the definition of lower middle class, who cannot afford Obamacare. They don't think they have an entitlement. They think they have a PitA. They weren't delighted with the prior healthcare situation, but they had found ways to make it kinda sorta work. Now they're just on a wing and a prayer.

    So who can afford the Obamacare entitlement? Illegal aliens, professional welfare spongers, people who urgently need gender reassignment surgery, you know, fine upstanding Americans like these. Oh, and the 1% wealthy enough not to care.

    Yes. I have subsidized insurance through Obamacare, but with a very high deductible that makes it more like catastrophic insurance. (I suppose that’s useful as motivation to take care of my health.) If it were an option, and even if I had to pay more, I would go back to a pre-Obamacare regime that prohibited rescissions (i.e., insurance company cancels customer when he gets sick) and offered some reasonable deal on pre-existing conditions. Also, hassling with the dysfunctional health insurance websites takes too much time.

  190. @Jack D
    Obama didn't need to pander to black audiences because he was already black (or "black enough", just like Obama's putdown of Hillary as "likeable enough"). Whiteys like Brown and Hillary have a hard time threading the needle - they need to abase themselves to appeal to the Democrat's black constituency without at the same time not alienating whites who might otherwise vote Democrat ( but not DEPLORABLES who will never vote Democrat anyway).

    But Brown isn't running for President, she is running for the head of the DNC - a much different thing. Brown's speech makes perfect sense if you understand the context it was given in (a white candidate from an ultra-white state trying to get a job with an organization that has a large black constituency). Even though what she said sounds ridiculous viewed in the cold (white) light of day (viewed by the 5 people who watch CPAN3), Brown was confident that she has more to gain than to lose by speaking in this way. The only whites left in the party organization (the organization, not the voters) are true believers for whom such talk is NOT embarrassing.

    Given the results yielded by the Hillary/Kaine ticket (I've forgotten his name already) I predict that the Democrats will never front an all white ticket again. Certainly never TWO white men again. In retrospect, Kerry/Edwards in 2004 will be the last all white male Democrat ticket in American history. I'm sure Democrat strategists are kicking themselves right now for not having placed a black on the ticket (at least for the VP slot) this year. If blacks had been just a LITTLE bit more excited about the ticket, turnout in Phila, Cleveland, Detroit, Milwaukee, etc. might have been just a little bit better (maybe even the 105% that turned out for Obama in certain precincts in Phila.) and that might have been enough to swing those states. A few ten thousands of strategically placed votes and it would have gone the other way.

    It makes some sense, but not enough sense, because of the Obama example. With Obama they didn’t have to choose, and could have the best of both worlds, black and white. But they won’t always have that convenience, obviously.

    They need the black vote, but they need the white vote more. So it doesn’t work to their benefit to bank on the coalition of minorities plus white True Believers. If they do, they’ll be a minority party, at least for the time being.

  191. @Muse
    To answer your question, I know a highly gifted young man. Last year he was a senior during the presidential campaign. For fun he and his friends went to Milo rallies and went to the University of Illinois circle campus to heckle the paid SJW types at the Trump rally in Chicago despite my warnings to him that there might be violence instigated by the left.

    He is taking a gap year and is involved in politics and exploring Buddhism prior to attending the University of Chicago next fall.

    Meanwhile the 13 and 14 year old middle school boys that are friends with my son are making jokes about their female SJW teacher's attempts at indoctrination constantly among themselves.

    Funny, my oldest son (16) is on the same crusade with his friends too. He saved his money to buy himself a MAGA hat and a DT for Pres sign. He also had an assignment on police brutality, but went with the Ferguson Effect and all the lies told by media during the Michael Brown shitstorm.

    He turns it in this week, we’ll see how it goes.

  192. @The preferred nomenclature is...
    That is why the moniker "public servant" in this day and age cracks me up. The only public the likes of Bernie serves is themselves. Could you imagine him running a taco stand?

    Now George Washington during the Revolutionary War is the definition of public servant.

    From Washington to Obummer. Is that sick or what to go from that high to that low of a bar. That's like see Willie in '54 down to the Mets uniform.

    When Willie went to the Mets, an apt description was that he went from the twilight of his career to the midnight. Memories and comparisons of Willie and Mickey delighting the fans kept many going during the lean years.

    • Replies: @pepperinmono
    Remember when Willie lost ball in sun in playoff game for Mets.
    Was brutal to see.
    Was so great to end up so sad and pathetic.
  193. @Corvinus
    Sally Boynton Brown is the the radical leftist version of Richard B. Spencer. Both speak for their own constituents for the Fringe Groups. Today's moderates who are Democrats and Republicans are under being held hostage by these lunatics. Brown's and Spencer's positions do not represent the average white American.

    The loudest voice in the room is now in charge, unfortunately, of the narrative. Will moderates on the left and right each individually stand up and slay these respective dragons, rather than be being labeled "defenders of white privilege" and "cucks"?

    Disagree. The fringes do not lead. The Narrative is shifting and right now one person after another is trying to jump in front of the bandwagon and act like they’re steering.

    Leftism as a force peaked under Obama in total absurdity land. (C’mon, a man with a penis and testicles can be a woman by saying so? Women are the same as men and vice versa?) It had at least a 300 year run. The pendulum is beginning to swing the other way, that’s all. It’s a natural process.

    The funny part is watching the leading lights of the Left attempt to pull the flock back into their Theocracy’s pews by upping their volume. The louder they shriek, the more congregants they drive out of the cathedral.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "The fringes do not lead."

    False News Story. The Radical Right attacks their Leftist Fringe counterpart.

    "The Narrative is shifting and right now one person after another is trying to jump in front of the bandwagon and act like they’re steering."

    Exactly. Like Spencer and Milo on the Fringe Right, and Soros and company on the Fringe Left.

    "The pendulum is beginning to swing the other way, that’s all."

    Maybe. Too early to tell.

    "The funny part is watching the leading lights of the Left attempt to pull the flock back into their Theocracy’s pews by upping their volume. The louder they shriek, the more congregants they drive out of the cathedral."

    Leading lights of the Left and Right. Fixed it for you.
  194. http://www.theroot.com/woman-in-viral-photo-from-women-s-march-to-white-female-1791524613

    Angela Peoples did not come to the Women’s March on Washington to play. The 30-year-old co-director of the LGBTQ equality organization GetEqual came to Saturday’s massive protest against Donald Trump to tell the truth. Marching in a sea of white women, Peoples wore a hat that read, “Stop Killing Black People,” and carried a sign that read in part, “White Women Voted for Trump.”

    As a group of white women in pink pussy-hats took selfies behind Peoples and her sign, her boyfriend, photographer and digital strategist Kevin Banatte, asked her to pause so he could take her picture. The photo of the oblivious women and Peoples, sucking on a lollipop, holding her sign with an unapologetic look on her face, quickly went viral.

    Peoples shares with The Root the story behind the photo and what it’s going to take for joint movements to work.

    AP: Most were saying, “Not this white woman,” or “No one I know!” I’d say, “[Fifty-three percent] of white women voted for Trump. That means someone you know, someone who is in close community with you, voted for Trump. You need to organize your people.” And some people said, “Oh, I’m so ashamed.” Don’t be ashamed; organize your people.

    That’s why the photo was such a great moment to capture, because it tells the story of white women in this moment wanting to just show up in a very superficial way and not wanting to do the hard work of making change, of challenging their own privilege. You’re here protesting, but don’t forget: The folks that you live with every single day—and probably some of the women that decided to come to the march—voted for Trump, made the decision to vote against self-interests to maintain their white supremacist way of life.

  195. @EdwardM
    Don't forget George Clooney. He's forayed into the public sphere in softer ways than the angry screaming leftists and seems like a nice guy (people who've met him on his "humanitarian" work have told me he's not a diva like Ashley Judd and works in a low-profile manner that gives him some credibility).

    He got himself an exotic liberal pin-up wife with a job that SWPL consider heavyweight intellectually (sort of a thinking person's Huma Abedin, or rather for people who think they're thinking people) and can now look forward to glowing profiles of his carmel-colored twin babies.

    He might consider a Senate run in 2018 to bolster his resume although perhaps the crowded D field in CA might make the risk of a loss too high.

    Liberal pin-up wife? Yeah, indeterminate ethnicity, mannish, emaciated. I guess that fits the bill. But I remember the MSM, even, being surprised at how ugly she was. Because they assumed Clooney was a red-blooded heterosexual.

    Appearances trump sexual desire in elite mate selection. I had assumed Tom Brady was at least half a homo for marrying that tranny. However, he may have just been doing what’s expected. If that’s what our society calls a supermodel, that’s what he’ll couple with.

    Same with Clooney, perhaps. If plain at best, masculinized “social x-rays” are what’s expected in high society, that’s what he’ll marry. Or maybe he is gay. All the more appropriate to use the term “liberal pin-up,” then.

  196. @Diversity Heretic
    Kamala Harris: think female Obama but with at least some executive experience as AG for California. She could be a formidable challenger to Trump if the Democratic Party doesn't self destruct before then.

    No, because she has BLM tied around her neck like a stone and zero things to point out (regarding her “experience”) that appeal to anyone outside of bi-coastals.

  197. @Anonymous
    There's still a two year window for a fresh face to emerge to challenge Trump in 2020 but I don't see it and nobody else does either. No way the senator from NJ and ditto the gov from MA. CA politicians are no longer mainstream and Cuomo jr is a brick.

    Openly anti-white frothing invective is not going to make the grade. It will only reelect Trump. But it is classic politics that the singular quality of Obama -- his ability to remain calm and control his rage -- should be jettisoned by the young turks.

    It's going to be Biden or Bernie or, gulp, Hillary in 2019.

    There are no high quality nextgen Hispanics. There are no new Obamas. Maybe Colin Powell as a dem.

    Look for Mark Cuban or even Zuckerberg to swoop in and take ownership of the DNC with mega $$$.

    I think it takes at least couple failed election cycles before a party will rethink its message. Obama chose to remake the party along Harold Washington, lefty-minority coalition lines, and they’re not going to change that until it’s clear it won’t work. Right now they think the loss is just a matter of “fake news” and Boris Badenov hacking and not sneering at the white working class hard enough.

    • Replies: @anon

    they’re not going to change that until it’s clear it won’t work
     
    it is working - they import more voters (with the collusion of big business) and eventually they win

    unless that's reversed these recent elections are simply a speed bump
  198. @The preferred nomenclature is...
    I just told my wife this morning that she reminds me of the one female "minister" on our large church's staff. It is the voice, movement and hand motions. That and the three names. The "minister" in our church is even married to a black man.

    She is the biggest reason why I don't contribute money to our church anymore.

    When a church starts putting women in charge, as in preaching and being elders, it’s time to move on. Liberalism, new age, money-wasting, and bad decisions are right behind. I wish it weren’t this way, and some women make incredibly good leaders, but my experience and observation is that the old, Biblical mandate of male leadership is there for a good reason. Entire denominations have ruined themselves with female leadership.

    • Replies: @The preferred nomenclature is...
    Agreed. This gal is really left-wing and I would be surprised if she truly believes any of the creed.

    At least she is only one of the many pastors and the only female under the lead pastor who is pale and male.
  199. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Muse
    To answer your question, I know a highly gifted young man. Last year he was a senior during the presidential campaign. For fun he and his friends went to Milo rallies and went to the University of Illinois circle campus to heckle the paid SJW types at the Trump rally in Chicago despite my warnings to him that there might be violence instigated by the left.

    He is taking a gap year and is involved in politics and exploring Buddhism prior to attending the University of Chicago next fall.

    Meanwhile the 13 and 14 year old middle school boys that are friends with my son are making jokes about their female SJW teacher's attempts at indoctrination constantly among themselves.

    To answer your question, I know a highly gifted young man. Last year he was a senior during the presidential campaign. For fun he and his friends went to Milo rallies and went to the University of Illinois circle campus to heckle the paid SJW types at the Trump rally in Chicago despite my warnings to him that there might be violence instigated by the left.

    He is taking a gap year and is involved in politics and exploring Buddhism prior to attending the University of Chicago next fall.

    Meanwhile the 13 and 14 year old middle school boys that are friends with my son are making jokes about their female SJW teacher’s attempts at indoctrination constantly among themselves.

    Exploring Buddhism? So hip. Who wouldn’t want to explore the greatest heresy of Hinduism (less hip)??

  200. @Anonymous

    So the Dem elites have to find a way to throw the blacks under the bus

    Dream on. The Dems will be labeled as racists by the entire mainstream media if they throw Blacks under the bus.
     
    The Republicans and the conservatives can run a psy-ops subversion. Start running with a narrative and fake news about how whites along with Hispanics have made secretive moves to undermine blacks in the Democratic Party. That there is a plot run by the Democrat whites-- and especially Jews--and their sellout stepin fetchit prominent blacks to undermine black people's power in the DNC. Black people love conspiracies and hate whites and especially hate Jews.

    If anything, I think some of the Republicans have taken your advice and already begun the subversive tactics.

    The woman’s march thing didn’t play well with anyone who wasn’t already fully indoctrinated into the cult of the Left. My social media was a lot of women who mainly post things about horses and cat memes sharing statuses about how that march didn’t represent them. Another own goal for the Dems.

    Meanwhile the Republicans are “don’t throw me into that briar patch!”

  201. @Diversity Heretic
    Kamala Harris: think female Obama but with at least some executive experience as AG for California. She could be a formidable challenger to Trump if the Democratic Party doesn't self destruct before then.

    Harris would get beat up on the 2nd Amendment outside California and New York. It’s a loser issue for Democrats in swing states.

    California politics involves trying to one-up other candidates on how left-wing one can be, and that limits the national appeal of the state’s politicians.

    • Replies: @candid_observer
    I'm thinking that California probably now takes the cake as the most left wing state in the nation, with the most cracked politics.

    There was a time when Massachusetts probably won that honor. But the demographics of Massachusetts still mostly inclines white non-Hispanic (75%), and various white ethnicities still hold considerable sway.

    But California seems far gone, both demographically and otherwise. Its long standing reputation as the national sink for loose screws seems to have a basis.

    Am I wrong to conclude that it's the worst state, politically?

  202. @MQ
    Disagree with this re Kamala Harris. I mean, she went to Howard University, a historically black college. She could be the female Obama -- biracial "person of color" in a way that makes her difficult to pigeonhole and lets her claim oppression points from any number of different identities. She can appeal to Asian-Americans as well. No one is going to nitpick racial authenticity details on a brown woman who is running against Donald Trump. Plus her background in California politics will make her very good at outreach to suburban whites, she will have some of Obama's ability to code-switch.

    If you really think California whites are the same as whites in say, Gilbert, AZ, you need to put down the bong.

  203. @Boomstick
    Harris would get beat up on the 2nd Amendment outside California and New York. It's a loser issue for Democrats in swing states.

    California politics involves trying to one-up other candidates on how left-wing one can be, and that limits the national appeal of the state's politicians.

    I’m thinking that California probably now takes the cake as the most left wing state in the nation, with the most cracked politics.

    There was a time when Massachusetts probably won that honor. But the demographics of Massachusetts still mostly inclines white non-Hispanic (75%), and various white ethnicities still hold considerable sway.

    But California seems far gone, both demographically and otherwise. Its long standing reputation as the national sink for loose screws seems to have a basis.

    Am I wrong to conclude that it’s the worst state, politically?

    • Replies: @Boomstick
    Who was the last nationally prominent California politician? Probably Jerry Brown in 1992. Brown was running to the national party's left in that campaign, and he's what passes for a conservative in the context of California Democratic politics. Feinstein was cemented into place in a prior era. Leon Panetta was a congressmen before going on to various appointed offices at the national level.

    California seems to be punching under its weight on the national political stage. It's hard to see someone using the California governor's office as a springboard to the Presidency, or a California senator doing the same. Maybe a congressman could.
    , @Autochthon
    You're absolutely right. I recently made the decision to evacuate, and I'm an ornery bastard. Once the skiing season ends, so does my tenure here.

    California is lost and irrecoverable. The enemy have succeeded with the plan to abolish the people and elect a new one here.

    Sadly, the cancer may already be terminal: all the leftist jackasses I know are upset that California is overpopulated, expensive, gridlocked, violent, etc. and they are all plotting to move east to destroy new lands. All with not one of iota of self-awareness as to how California came to be a hellhole. (For example, not one will use the term "overpopulated" and they all seem confused when I do; they are quite convinced the gods and fairies who arbitrarily dictate such matters have bestowed upon them "too much traffic" and "expensive housing"; they lack the abilility to reason causality exhibited by reasonably bright dogs and cats).

  204. My Job Is to Shut Other White People Down

    Maybe this what all these white lefties think? They will be spared by the new overlords it’s just the other white people who have to stfu. The problem is the over supply of white sell-outs.

  205. @David In TN
    "If you live racially segregated from Whites, you probably think Whites are already a minority in The U.S."

    Corporations, the MSM, etc, already operate on that assumption. Some years ago, I was listening to a radio talk show in which a poll was discussed. It seems a majority of the respondents thought blacks were 35 % of the U.S. population.

    It seems a majority of the respondents thought blacks were 35 % of the U.S. population.

    That’s what comes of watching too much TV. Or TV at all. I’m pretty sure people would massively overestimate the number of gays as well. Not to mention being highly confused about the demographics of crime, educational and business success.

    • Replies: @David In TN
    The poll had whites at 50 % of the U.S. And this was around 1998 as I recall.
  206. @candid_observer
    I'm thinking that California probably now takes the cake as the most left wing state in the nation, with the most cracked politics.

    There was a time when Massachusetts probably won that honor. But the demographics of Massachusetts still mostly inclines white non-Hispanic (75%), and various white ethnicities still hold considerable sway.

    But California seems far gone, both demographically and otherwise. Its long standing reputation as the national sink for loose screws seems to have a basis.

    Am I wrong to conclude that it's the worst state, politically?

    Who was the last nationally prominent California politician? Probably Jerry Brown in 1992. Brown was running to the national party’s left in that campaign, and he’s what passes for a conservative in the context of California Democratic politics. Feinstein was cemented into place in a prior era. Leon Panetta was a congressmen before going on to various appointed offices at the national level.

    California seems to be punching under its weight on the national political stage. It’s hard to see someone using the California governor’s office as a springboard to the Presidency, or a California senator doing the same. Maybe a congressman could.

    • Replies: @snorlax

    Who was the last nationally prominent California politician?
     
    Schwarzenegger, though his prominence was due to his preexisting celebrity. Still, there were a lot of pieces for a couple years about Arnie getting the Constitution amended so he could run for prez.

    I'd also watch Kamala Harris in the future. Gavin Newsom looked like an up-and-comer for a while but nowadays he's probably too pale and male for his party.

  207. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @candid_observer
    Because Trump is allowed only to be excoriated, even the most basic observations about Trump are rarely made.

    Few things about Trump seem more remarkable to me than that he was perfectly able to sustain the most vile accusations and vitriol, at an intensity and pervasiveness without any precedent in modern times, and with virtually no support from any quarter of our culture with a voice, and come out fighting -- and winning.

    In some ways, it's hard to reconcile Trump's seeming hyper-reactivity to criticism with his ultimate ability to shrug it off and push on -- but there it is.

    Trump really is a remarkable man and an outsize personality. I can't think of another individual who even remotely approaches him in these ways.

    It's worthwhile to contrast him with other billionaires, who seem to be eager above all to be approved as good, virtuous citizens by the cultural powers that be. One might think that, having earned more than enough "f**k you money" for a thousand lifetimes, they would be happy to speak their mind and not care about the consequences. But that seems to be no more true of them than it is of academics who have achieved tenure.

    The general abjectness of today's billionaire class -- and Bill Gates is a splendid example -- is a deeply discouraging sight. Bill Gates, who once upon a time, was notorious for deriding certain of his workers for lacking sufficient IQ, now affects to the world that everybody is the same. What a pathetic figure he has become.

    And I don't see Steve's suggestions of Hanks and Spielberg as getting much traction either, because they are white males. I don't see how Democrats will accept a white male savior no matter how desperate their straits may be. There is nothing but identity politics operating in the Democratic Party and their supporters at the national level. It's all the media cares about, all the intellectuals care about, all the activists care about, all the donors care about. I don't know if anybody really grasped beforehand the power of identity politics to seize all minds of a progressive bent, but that is where we are. I don't see how any pragmatic consideration will break this hold. They will go down with this ship.

    In some ways, it’s hard to reconcile Trump’s seeming hyper-reactivity to criticism with his ultimate ability to shrug it off and push on — but there it is.

    I’ve given a lot of thought to this and tried to reconcile it with this interaction I had with Trump, one-on-one for almost a half-hour. I explained and chatted with him about something that was a little technical. Judging from his reply it was apparent that he could absorb things instantly and with maximum efficiency, i.e., all he needs to know, no more no less.

    Steve has written how Trump plays 5-D chess. I think this is true and Trump hides his sophisticated thinking either naturally or intentionally. When he reacts to some stupid trivial stuff on Twitter or in speeches, it is a form of business prestidigitation like decoy flares from a jet fighter. The trivial tweets involve issues that have zero effect on him, but it is able to redirect almost all of his enemies to believe his Achilles heel is superficial personal stuff. So the media and his political opponents think they can go after him with small hands and fat-shaming Alicia Machado while he’s spending his effort on ways to restructure the VA and healthcare the day he takes over as President.

    IMO, the trip to the CIA was a scouting trip. While he was making his praiseworthy and playful comments he was assessing the reactions of the top-level folks there. He’s a billionaire Manhattan business titan who can size of people quickly. He left there knowing whom he can trust and who harbors hostility toward him.

    I think after Trump is in office for 6 months we’ll all know why guys like Carl Icahn had unwavering trust in Trump’s ability to turn this country around.

    • Replies: @ScarletNumber

    Steve has written how Trump plays 5-D chess.
     
    You have confused Steve with Scott Adams.
  208. @Jack D
    I think it's ironic that the guy who responds to you touts "diversity" as a benefit because "diverse" people think in different ways and we all benefit from diverse ways of thinking, which leads to innovation, having our assumptions challenged, etc. The LAST thing the Left wants is for people to have diversity of ideology - they want everyone to worship in the Cathedral of leftist thought and despise heretics. They HATE having their assumptions challenged. They are importing "diverse" people precisely because they think that they will be faithful new members of their Church, not because they will challenge its assumptions. If any "diverse" person leaves the ideological plantation (Clarence Thomas) he is not even considered "diverse" anymore. Their vision of Heaven (which they have already built in academia) consists of a gorgeous rainbow of leftists - brown leftists, black leftists, genderqueer leftists, etc.

    Great statement of what I find the most infuriating aspect of the diversity drive/cult. The whole post was good, but I’d like to emphasize the lying cover story used.

    “diversity” as a benefit because “diverse” people think in different ways and we all benefit from diverse ways of thinking, which leads to innovation, having our assumptions challenged, etc.

    These people don’t care if an entire team is all people from the same neighborhood in NYC whose parents were all coworkers. Said people then all went to Harvard undergrad, took all the same classes and were in all the same clubs, then went to HLS (or HBS) with the same focus. As long as they look different (it’s particularly important that they have different colored skin with a bonus if it is not white, where is MLK when you need him?) it’s all good.

    rant off. Sorry. This infuriates me because just try thinking differently or questioning their assumptions sometime and watch what happens.

  209. Re: “…urged the executive director of Idaho’s Democratic Party, Sally Boynton Brown, who is white.”

    Well, I suppose I should Google her image, but in the picture provided, Ms. Brown looks pretty, well, brown.

    Update: just did. I think she has a touch of the tar brush, frankly.

    • Replies: @anonymous

    I think she has a touch of the tar brush, frankly.
     
    That was my first impression also. However, in some photos she does look like what she says she is, white. Using some indoor tanning agent like another Rachel Dolezal?
  210. @Anonymous
    https://twitter.com/GerryDuggan/status/822603492321796097

    Uh yeah, about that guy who sucker punched Richard Spencer, see below — this is definitely NOT safe for work:

    https://saboteur365.wordpress.com/2017/01/21/antifa-scum-who-punched-richard-spencer-is-literally-a-sht-eating-sub/

    I’m not a Spencer fan, but I don’t recall Indiana Jones or Captain America eating…..

    • Replies: @Jack Highlands
    That old caricature (fat accountant sub in BDSM porn) seems not to have been the attacker. One chan even exchanged a few tweets with his daughter, and it seems he died several months ago. I had my doubts from the time that video of the bandanna'd assailant appeared, because his gait, especially as he turned away at the end, was that of a stronger, much younger man. I knows me gaits.
    , @Patrick Harris
    Pretty sure that turned out not to be the case- the pervert in question looks similar, but he's apparently deceased.
  211. @Boomstick
    Who was the last nationally prominent California politician? Probably Jerry Brown in 1992. Brown was running to the national party's left in that campaign, and he's what passes for a conservative in the context of California Democratic politics. Feinstein was cemented into place in a prior era. Leon Panetta was a congressmen before going on to various appointed offices at the national level.

    California seems to be punching under its weight on the national political stage. It's hard to see someone using the California governor's office as a springboard to the Presidency, or a California senator doing the same. Maybe a congressman could.

    Who was the last nationally prominent California politician?

    Schwarzenegger, though his prominence was due to his preexisting celebrity. Still, there were a lot of pieces for a couple years about Arnie getting the Constitution amended so he could run for prez.

    I’d also watch Kamala Harris in the future. Gavin Newsom looked like an up-and-comer for a while but nowadays he’s probably too pale and male for his party.

    • Replies: @DWB
    Newsom has the looks and the money, but if his next stop is in Sacramento as governor, and the basic reality here in California is that it's a one-party state, and to differentiate yourself against the other Democrats, you've almost go to try "hold my beer" liberalism. Newsom just ran a fund-raising phishing scheme around gun control.

    Kamala Harris is even worse - if you think that the Dems have baggage on immigration, wait until her record as the DA in San Francisco comes out.

    California is an extremely expensive state in which to be a politician, and thus, you need to pull in the big money from the state employee unions (not a popular group nationally), Hollywood, and Silicon Valley. ALL of thse groups are tin foil hat crazy liberal.
    , @EriK
    I haven't watched much of Harris speaking but she comes across as a mousy coastal Dem, much like Sen. Kristen Gillibrand (NY). Not exactly presidential.
  212. @RadicalCenter
    It is not just YOUNG single white women keeping the Dems going.

    It is also many millions of bitter, immature, lonely women in their 40s and 50s and 60s who NEVER had children -- often they were never married or were divorced, as well. I personally know many of these angry and confused barren women, family and acquaintances and colleagues. My current boss. One of my own sisters. Etc.

    They know that they wasted their opportunity at contentment, that they are contributing to the demise of their own families and nation, and that normal well-rounded women have achieved, loved, been loved, created new life, and enjoyed life in a way that they never will.

    All the false screaming about losing their rights, the religious-level worship of abortion and now lesbians, the bizarre vulgar slogans and signs, won't change any of that. They are a social and evolutionary dead end and they know it.

    But there are a LOT of them, by design, and they will continue to be a powerful force for the dispossession of the historic American nation and the overtaxation, control, and mockery of heathy families with a husband, wife, and children.

    “They know that they wasted their opportunity at contentment, that they are contributing to the demise of their own families and nation, and that normal well-rounded women have achieved, loved, been loved, created new life, and enjoyed life in a way that they never will.

    All the false screaming about losing their rights, the religious-level worship of abortion and now lesbians, the bizarre vulgar slogans and signs, won’t change any of that. They are a social and evolutionary dead end and they know it.”

    Wrong. I’m going to take a wild guess here that you’re a man.

    All these empty, bitter women know is that they are at best perpetually discontented and at worst, deeply unhappy.

    And it can’t be their fault for a myriad of reasons. (Partial list follows)

    They’re better educated than the conservative women they despise. They don’t watch Fox News. They despise Melania Trump. They adore Oprah. They hate guns, Christianity, rural inhabitants, fulltime homemakers and masculine white men. They love open borders, NAMS, Whole Foods, gentrification and globalization.

    In short, they do and think everything that’s right and nothing that’s wrong. So if they’re unhappy, it can’t possibly be their fault. It’s the fault of everyone and everything they hate. And this means YOU.

    • Replies: @Ivy
    How long can their hate continue before being undone by so much cognitive dissonance, and how will it unwind? Is there an over-the-counter treatment for toxoplasmosis? Wouldn't they be truer to their beliefs by protesting soap operas so white, or similar topics? Where are the NAM and other cast members, for example?
    , @Daniel Chieh

    In short, they do and think everything that’s right and nothing that’s wrong. So if they’re unhappy, it can’t possibly be their fault. It’s the fault of everyone and everything they hate. And this means YOU.
     
    Exactly. Its never their fault, and even in the faint few that seem to even recognize that it is, they can't be bothered to take responsibility for it. All they can really focus on is that they present superficial happiness, project "power" by forcing people to agree with them, gain status through others praising them, and try to deal with the gnawing internal sense of unhappiness.

    They're both the people who claim to be empowered and happy, while at the same time, seriously research into suicide.

    I've known quite a few.

    Ivy, they don't really care about cognitive dissonance in my experience. We do. They really seem to avoid having any sense of a personal past that doesn't involve their victimization. Cognitive dissonance would require consistency. Consistency would require responsibility. Responsibility is abusive and disempowering!

    From a sympathetic perspective, though, its very much people who have given up on any real hope for life, so literally they are only guided by hedonism and fear of responsibility now.

    , @snorlax
    My mom and my teenage sisters (I'm in my mid-20's) went to the one in Boston, with quite a few of their friends of both generations. Quality mother-daughter bonding time was had by all. They're all upper-middle-class women, mostly homemakers, living charmed lives, with kids, accompanied by said kids who will grow up to be just like their mothers.

    So AFAICT the idea that it's all unhappy childless women is wishful thinking. Trump just really gets under the skin of upper-middle-class women, who are only used to men treating them like princesses. A man like Trump who acts coarsely in public (and doesn't see anything wrong with doing so) is shocking, and genuinely frightening, to them. The "pussy" tape in particular caused much literal wailing and gnashing of teeth.

    My mom had, in the very recent past, very sensible and un-PC opinions. But, to my regret, I showed her how to create a Facebook account, which she's subsequently spent several hours on a day, and within weeks she was in full-SJW cult mode, Black Lives Matter and everything, with her and her friends sharing all the fresh outrages-of-the-hour with each other.

    We live in ultra-liberal MA, so what started out as innocently liking friends' posts got turned by FB's algorithm (showing posts similar to what you've previously liked) into a news feed of nothing but cult brainwashing.

    It's mostly full-time homemakers (or millennials) who spend all day on FB and get drawn into the cult like that. The reverse never happens except in the reddest areas; conservatives are afraid to post to social media under their real names for fear of social or workplace consequences.
  213. Republicans really need to apply political Judo on this sort of thing. Don’t respond to what this woman is saying (don’t give them a chance to self-correct). Record as many young democrats giving talks like this one, save it up as ammunition, and then destroy their careers with it just as they are about to move into a position of consequence like senator or into a high ranking congressional position (the DNC chair doesn’t count. In fact I really hope this lady or even a belligerent black becomes the DNC chair so that they steer the party even further in this direction.

    It feels almost as if Trump has located the party’s Achilles hill. Normally Democrats are highly rational but embracing blackness and otherness is more religion now than strategy. They’ve made it their raison d’etre. And worse, their black constituents have come to view all of this attention they’re getting as a natural right.

    Go Democrats!

  214. @Philippe Lemoine
    You'd think that the Democrats just like getting trounced... I increasingly believe that, as it took several electoral disasters before Labour accepted that it needed to abandon socialism in the 1990's (although they seem to be victim of a relapse lately), it will take at least Trump's reelection before the Democrats understand how much identity politics hurts them.

    I don’t think Trump’s reelection will disabuse the left of (their) identity politics. The cult of multiculturalism and diversity (and political correctness) has been around for two generations. It positively oozes in the culture at-large for anyone age 50 (at least) and under.

    Media, the academy, Hollywood, and government impose and enforce identity politics. By all appearances since the election, the left is doubling-down, and not easing up on identity politics.

    And why should they ease up? The popular vote for Hillary confirms their view. They just need to do a more thorough job executing, i.e. their over-confidence regarding the outcome got the better of them.

    The potential mistake will be found in the right believing they have trounced the left. In Kerry’s ’04 defeat, the Dems looked devastated, yet they took back Congress two years later.

    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    Only due to the Democrats running blue dogs and the total, idiotic blundering of Rove, the GOPe, and the neocons regarding Iraq and Afghanistan.

    The Democrats could not run blue dogs today in the current environment. Sen. Joe Manchin, for example, has a series of very tight needles to thread if he doesn't want a challenger from the Left in the primaries or to be voted out in the general by a Trumpist.
    , @Philippe Lemoine
    I actually agree with you for the most part and plan to write a detailed analysis of the election and the prospects for 2020 for my blog where I will discuss this at length.
  215. off topic for this thread, but right up iSteve’s street:

    Read a story today of the top 10 most expensive real estate in the world, and the money line just below the lede reads

    “They may be in opposite corners of the globe, but Hong Kong, Sydney and Vancouver have one thing in common.”

    http://www.wsmv.com/story/34319286/the-most-expensive-place-to-live-in-2017-is-revealed

    Well, they have something else in common, but the authors do not go into it.

    Read the following list and see if you can connect the dots:

    1. Hong Kong, China
    2. Sydney, NSW, Australia
    2. Vancouver, BC, Canada
    4. Auckland, New Zealand
    5. San Jose, CA, US
    6. Melbourne, VIC, Australia
    7. Honolulu, HI, US
    8. Los Angeles, CA, US
    9. San Francisco, CA, US
    10. Bournemouth & Dorset, UK

    Any patterns emerging? I know very little about Bournemouth and Dorset, so I googled. This appeared in the description:

    “Historically Bournemouth has suffered from negative rates of natural increase and has relied on immigration to maintain population growth.”

    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    They're all at least partially bounded by water. Do I get a prize?
    , @Frau Katze
    I'm in Victoria, BC, a ferry ride from Vancouver (where I was born). All cities except the ones in the UK are centered around the Pacific Ocean.

    Starting with return of Hong Kong to China (the UK had a lease on Hong Kong that was expiring in 1997) there was a huge outflow of money and people from Hong Kong.

    There was fear in HK about how the Communists would treat the city.

    There was a preference for cities around the Pacific just for geographical reasons.

    Since then, the outflow of wealthy Chinese continues. They are no longer just from HK, but now include mainlanders. It is not clear how these mainlanders made their money and some are not leaving China but looking for safe places to park their $$$.

    Net result: astronomical house prices in target cities. To those who lived in the target cities before all this started it's both bad and good.

    Many natives have made tidy profits selling their houses.

    Even Victoria prices have gone up, although few Chinese have moved there. But there is a spillover effect, as retiring boomers sell their houses in Vancouver and move elsewhere in BC. Full disclosure: I have benefited from this.

    But it's bad for young people. My sister and I have six kids between us. They've all shunned Vancouver except for one of my nephews. He will never be able to buy a house there, but is determined to stay.
  216. @Kylie
    "They know that they wasted their opportunity at contentment, that they are contributing to the demise of their own families and nation, and that normal well-rounded women have achieved, loved, been loved, created new life, and enjoyed life in a way that they never will.

    All the false screaming about losing their rights, the religious-level worship of abortion and now lesbians, the bizarre vulgar slogans and signs, won’t change any of that. They are a social and evolutionary dead end and they know it."

    Wrong. I'm going to take a wild guess here that you're a man.

    All these empty, bitter women know is that they are at best perpetually discontented and at worst, deeply unhappy.

    And it can't be their fault for a myriad of reasons. (Partial list follows)

    They're better educated than the conservative women they despise. They don't watch Fox News. They despise Melania Trump. They adore Oprah. They hate guns, Christianity, rural inhabitants, fulltime homemakers and masculine white men. They love open borders, NAMS, Whole Foods, gentrification and globalization.

    In short, they do and think everything that's right and nothing that's wrong. So if they're unhappy, it can't possibly be their fault. It's the fault of everyone and everything they hate. And this means YOU.

    How long can their hate continue before being undone by so much cognitive dissonance, and how will it unwind? Is there an over-the-counter treatment for toxoplasmosis? Wouldn’t they be truer to their beliefs by protesting soap operas so white, or similar topics? Where are the NAM and other cast members, for example?

    • Replies: @Kylie
    The few times I called out a former friend (a left-wing, affluent, educated, never-married white career woman) on her cognitive dissonance, she dismissed it with "That's different".

    End of conversation.

    They're all out of the "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind's made up" mold.
  217. @Almost Missouri
    Most rich guys don't like to be in the public spotlight. Trump is an outlier.

    As Mr. Blank says, Spielberg being a big donor doesn't translate into Spielberg having the stomach for years of public excoriation. His instincts as a film director reflect his personality. He makes crowd-pleasing feel-good films: he likes to be liked. A presidential campaign would end that, or at least expose that compared to director-Spielberg's broad appeal, politician-Spielberg would represent no more than a belligerent faction.

    Bill Gates may harbor actual political power ambitions, but in his meager experience in the public spotlight, he has hardly covered himself in glory. And he's too old a dog to learn new tricks.

    Zuckerberg may have the ambition, the money, believe he has the taste for the spotlight, and be a young enough dog he can still learn new tricks. We'll see if his taste for publicity will weather the free-for-all of political scrutiny. So far, he is accustomed to the deferential suck-ups in the business press. And of course his ace card is that he controls the world's most voluminous fake news feed.

    Tom Hanks might be viable. Thanks to Speilberg's promotion, Hanks enjoys apparently effortless public goodwill. A Spielberg-backed Hanks-fronted candidacy might be a very effective master-blaster combination. Just like at the box office. Of course the Left would have to set aside their Reagan-era he's-just-an-actor critiques, but hypocrisy has never held them back before.

    I think Zuckerberg has too much to lose by running. Conservatives on FB tolerate his liberalism as a citizen, but if he turned politician they would quit facebook in droves. He might lose half his subscribers, and with them half of his influence/ability to manipulate public narrative and opinion. I think he’s going to stick to a behind the camera role politically.

  218. I’m thrilled to see nationalist conservatives not getting irate at the leftist hissy-fits, instead acting like what we are: the adults in the room. Striking a triumphalist brings more people into the fold.

  219. @res

    A tough looking guy is actually less likely to be physically attacked for shouting at or scolding somebody, or any other reason. I suspect that strong nice guys who don’t start fights themselves have the least actual fighting experience.
     
    There is some truth in this, but it's not the whole story. In college I knew a roughly 6'2" black strength athlete, maybe 220-240 (hard to judge the weight of muscular athletes IMHO). Nicest guy you'd ever meet, smart, modest (despite being one of the most impressive people all around I have met) with a great sense of humor. He was an immigrant and did not come off in the least as belligerent. He would talk about how he had problems with people picking fights with him in bars because he looked intimidating. My understanding is the "theory" was that beating up a tough looking guy makes you look tough. My sense was he didn't actually fight much if at all, but I wish now I had followed up more on how he dealt with those situations.

    The Schwarzenegger/Shriver crew had a house in this hood for ~15 yrs and often dined in the local eateries. People often commented on how surprisingly short (and deferential) Mr was, and how they’d not be surprised if certain types might be tempted to have some sort of incident – simply for the novelty of tangling w/ Mr Muscle. The SUV pack was always within sight, maybe it was the magic shield. (To their credit, the whole family was surprisingly well mannered, a novel occurrence in these parts.) Deferential bearing alone won’t cut it in Germany or back home.

  220. What exactly does she not get? that she is a white woman, who hates white people? I am not sure this even qualifies as reverse racism, as she is still the wrong color! Hmmm…

    So let me get this straight, Liberal Democrats (who also come in “white”) who do not have the common sense to refrain themselves, and instead use the spotlight to engage in a grown up debate, would rather use their voice to further disparage all who do not think like they do, and are now calling out to “shut white people down”?? God, these people are dangerous, and clearly a threat to society! I always assumed that one would have to at least be proven sane to become an elected official, but this just proves that any miscreant can qualify to do the same job they do, and probably for a lot less money!

    This type of behavior will only encourage more democrats (and not just the white ones), to take a huge leap back and join forces with republicans in 2020, just as they did during the 2015 campaigns! Pushing for a modern era “Klanbake” will not turn out well for the Democrats, I guarantee you that much!

    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    O O, I wonder how many of these "Oh, I hate the fact that I am a privileged white woman" would take a pill that would render them irreversibly black?
  221. @Kylie
    "They know that they wasted their opportunity at contentment, that they are contributing to the demise of their own families and nation, and that normal well-rounded women have achieved, loved, been loved, created new life, and enjoyed life in a way that they never will.

    All the false screaming about losing their rights, the religious-level worship of abortion and now lesbians, the bizarre vulgar slogans and signs, won’t change any of that. They are a social and evolutionary dead end and they know it."

    Wrong. I'm going to take a wild guess here that you're a man.

    All these empty, bitter women know is that they are at best perpetually discontented and at worst, deeply unhappy.

    And it can't be their fault for a myriad of reasons. (Partial list follows)

    They're better educated than the conservative women they despise. They don't watch Fox News. They despise Melania Trump. They adore Oprah. They hate guns, Christianity, rural inhabitants, fulltime homemakers and masculine white men. They love open borders, NAMS, Whole Foods, gentrification and globalization.

    In short, they do and think everything that's right and nothing that's wrong. So if they're unhappy, it can't possibly be their fault. It's the fault of everyone and everything they hate. And this means YOU.

    In short, they do and think everything that’s right and nothing that’s wrong. So if they’re unhappy, it can’t possibly be their fault. It’s the fault of everyone and everything they hate. And this means YOU.

    Exactly. Its never their fault, and even in the faint few that seem to even recognize that it is, they can’t be bothered to take responsibility for it. All they can really focus on is that they present superficial happiness, project “power” by forcing people to agree with them, gain status through others praising them, and try to deal with the gnawing internal sense of unhappiness.

    They’re both the people who claim to be empowered and happy, while at the same time, seriously research into suicide.

    I’ve known quite a few.

    Ivy, they don’t really care about cognitive dissonance in my experience. We do. They really seem to avoid having any sense of a personal past that doesn’t involve their victimization. Cognitive dissonance would require consistency. Consistency would require responsibility. Responsibility is abusive and disempowering!

    From a sympathetic perspective, though, its very much people who have given up on any real hope for life, so literally they are only guided by hedonism and fear of responsibility now.

  222. @Harry Baldwin
    I think it's people with the liberal view of race who get themselves into situations like this. As a race realist, I would never confront a group of NAMs over smoking in a no-smoking area, or littering, or using bad language. I know how volatile and indifferent to the consequences of employing violence they are. A lot of white liberals actually believe that NAMs are not that different from themselves. They think they're capable of calmly accepting criticism from a white person.

    I've read numerous stories about whites being killed after remonstrating with NAMs about their bad behavior and assume these people had liberal views about race. You have to be realistic. I have my CCW permit, but would never want to have to employ deadly force in any situation I could have ignored or walked away from. Not in today's America.

    The dudes I train with call it, ‘don’t go to Walmart at 3 a.m. to get milk’.

    AKA situational awareness.

    AKA the best way to not lose a gunfight is not to get into a gunfight.

    AKA mind your own damn bizness when it comes to NAMs.

    AKA why you can’t have nice things (hat tip Derb).

  223. @snorlax

    Who was the last nationally prominent California politician?
     
    Schwarzenegger, though his prominence was due to his preexisting celebrity. Still, there were a lot of pieces for a couple years about Arnie getting the Constitution amended so he could run for prez.

    I'd also watch Kamala Harris in the future. Gavin Newsom looked like an up-and-comer for a while but nowadays he's probably too pale and male for his