The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
My Review of Tucker Carlson's "Ship of Fools"
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

From my book review in Taki’s Magazine:

Tucker’s Treatise
by Steve Sailer, November 28, 2018

Shortly after this month’s election, an Antifa mob descended upon the Washington, D.C., home of Fox News personality Tucker Carlson, his wife, and their four children, chanting, “Tucker Carlson, we will fight. We know where you sleep at night.”

Why all the hate for Carlson? …

The funny thing is that Carlson, a lifelong Republican, has drifted leftward on economics and foreign policy in recent years, as seen in his new best-seller, Ship of Fools: How a Selfish Ruling Class Is Bringing America to the Brink of Revolution.

Carlson, who voted for Ron Paul in 1988, has largely left behind his youthful economic libertarianism. For example, he now asks:

Why do we tax capital at half the rate of labor?

The central theme of Ship of Fools is that the convergence toward the reigning elite consensus of economic conservatism and social progressivism is better for the people at the top of society than for maintaining a stable middle-class democracy:

The marriage of market capitalism to progressive social values may be the most destructive combination in American economic history. Someone needs to protect workers from the terrifying power of market forces, which tend to accelerate change to intolerable levels and crush the weak.

Read the whole thing there.

 
Show 315 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. The review is excellent. Tucker Carlson is the best person now on mainstream TV news broadcasting.

    • Agree: Jim Don Bob, Pat Boyle
    • Replies: @Mr McKenna

    Tucker Carlson is the best person now on mainstream TV news broadcasting.
     
    While we're setting low bars, may I also observe that he'd quickly rise above the common run of politician on the national stage, should he desire to make his way there.

    And as an aside, imagine for a moment the cataclysm which would await anyone who laid siege to the residence of Ta-Nehisi, or Rachel Maddow, or Peter Beinhart, or Jonathan Chait, or well, you get the idea. Unimaginable that it would even happen, much less go completely unpunished.

    , @Tyrion 2
    I can't believe that someone as talented and interesting as Tucker Carlson has his own mainstream TV show. It is testament to his talents, intelligence and those of the persons (who (genuinely) must not be named) in the lineage of the ideas he expresses.

    ...having to write like the above is quite annoying...

    , @Ed
    Which is why the forces that be want him removed.
    , @Mike Krauthammer
    Tucker is a Nazi.
    Imran Khan had no quarrel with the Indians and no plans or ambitions outside Pakistan. But the Modi Administration violated international law by giving illegal military aid to belligerents, and drew India into a foreign war that was not our affair and none of our business. Four hundred thousand young working-class males, almost all of them Hindus and Sikhs, died to prop up Trump and install Salvini, Putin, and Leo Varadkar in power–less than five years after Modi's henchmen, almost all of them members of the White Christian Tribe that shall Not be Named, murdered thirty million Black Christian Nigerians. And we put his face on the coinage and name government buildings after him.
    , @Vendetta
    #MeToo allowing Tucker to take over the prime spot at Fox News by clearing out O’Reilly is the biggest win the Right has had since Trump we elected.
  2. • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    That sounds exciting. What did they "attack" him with? Nukes? Cyber-warfare? Kabbalistic magic?

    Oh...they posted a few ineffectual facebook ads and sent him an email over a legitimate political disagreement. An epic Manichean struggle this is not. People like you might be more effective if you didn't act like such a loopy old maid.

    , @anonymous
    Already drawing flies...

    Please whim these people. They are rude.

  3. @exiled off mainstreet
    The review is excellent. Tucker Carlson is the best person now on mainstream TV news broadcasting.

    Tucker Carlson is the best person now on mainstream TV news broadcasting.

    While we’re setting low bars, may I also observe that he’d quickly rise above the common run of politician on the national stage, should he desire to make his way there.

    And as an aside, imagine for a moment the cataclysm which would await anyone who laid siege to the residence of Ta-Nehisi, or Rachel Maddow, or Peter Beinhart, or Jonathan Chait, or well, you get the idea. Unimaginable that it would even happen, much less go completely unpunished.

    • Agree: densa
    • Replies: @Tiny Duck
    This is facile.

    Coates Maddow and the like are not promoting bigotry and hatred,

    Carlson is an evil man and deserves everything he gets or he is stupid and doesn't understand his privilege.

    Here is some truthful educational materials that are amusing at the same time

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Fpk6P4kOqE

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETR9qrVS17g
    , @Tiny Duck
    Except Coates and the rest of them are not apologizing for literal Nazis
    , @IHTG
    Not true for Jonathan Chait. The hard left has a hate-boner for him.
  4. @Digital Samizdat
    OT

    Via Allison Weir: "Pro-Israel groups attack Rand Paul for blocking $38 billion to Israel"

    https://israelpalestinenews.org/pro-israel-groups-attack-rand-paul-for-blocking-38-billion-to-israel/?fbclid=IwAR32834YA3HKqAXLualkR-dXcbVuqjzwD7Ulby5420baiGCwo4Y4qYBpblE

    That sounds exciting. What did they “attack” him with? Nukes? Cyber-warfare? Kabbalistic magic?

    Oh…they posted a few ineffectual facebook ads and sent him an email over a legitimate political disagreement. An epic Manichean struggle this is not. People like you might be more effective if you didn’t act like such a loopy old maid.

    • Replies: @Redneck farmer
    Loopy old maids need something to do. I wish it wouldn't take up space at iSteve, though.
    , @Pericles

    That sounds exciting. What did they “attack” him with? Nukes? Cyber-warfare? Kabbalistic magic?

    Oh…they posted a few ineffectual facebook ads (needle scratch)

     

    Call in the FBI, NSA and CIA. We got us some foreign political interference to root out. Get me the NYT and WaPo on line one, pronto.
    , @David
    I can't see what provoked you to play the role of hallway monitor here. Sometimes attack just means verbally. I bet it's used more often in that way than any other.

    And a lot of people, like me, feel that taking money from the US citizens and lavishing it on Israel is not a legitimate policy, even if arrived at after years of systematic national gas-lighting.

    You and I know that Rand Paul is exposing himself to the collective fury of our largely Jewish press. Let's just watch together and see if his political opponents talk about his position as "legitimate political disagreement" or if the opposition plays up his latent antisemitism instead.

    , @LondonBob
    Not every Israeli critic gets the JFK critic. I remember watching a clip of Tucker biting his tongue when a Republican Congressman came on to defend attacking Syria because Israel.

    Carlson is a much welcome relic of the old Protestant establishment, a true blue.

    , @Mr. Anon

    Oh…they posted a few ineffectual facebook ads and sent him an email over a legitimate political disagreement.

    Pro-Israel groups are mobilizing against Sen. Rand Paul for his block on legislation to give Israel $38 billion over the next 10 years. AIPAC is placing Facebook ads & CUFI is sending emails to pressure Paul, “the last obstacle” to Israel obtaining the largest military aid package in US history…"
     
    Sure, because after all, AIPAC is such a marginal, ineffectual organization.

    What it likely means is that money will pour into his next election opponent. Maybe even into the coffers of a primary challenger.
     
    , @SunBakedSuburb
    I absolutely agree with you: A five-year moratorium on all U.S. tax-payer aid to Israel, followed by a ten-year probationary period.
  5. @exiled off mainstreet
    The review is excellent. Tucker Carlson is the best person now on mainstream TV news broadcasting.

    I can’t believe that someone as talented and interesting as Tucker Carlson has his own mainstream TV show. It is testament to his talents, intelligence and those of the persons (who (genuinely) must not be named) in the lineage of the ideas he expresses.

    …having to write like the above is quite annoying…

    • Replies: @lavoisier

    having to write like the above is quite annoying…
     
    But still true.
    , @L Woods
    Admirable as his showing is, no amount of talent or intelligence gives one a national television platform or a pass for crimethink. He manages (so far) to get away with what he does for the same reason Pat Buchanan did: elite status.
  6. @Digital Samizdat
    OT

    Via Allison Weir: "Pro-Israel groups attack Rand Paul for blocking $38 billion to Israel"

    https://israelpalestinenews.org/pro-israel-groups-attack-rand-paul-for-blocking-38-billion-to-israel/?fbclid=IwAR32834YA3HKqAXLualkR-dXcbVuqjzwD7Ulby5420baiGCwo4Y4qYBpblE

    Already drawing flies…

    Please whim these people. They are rude.

  7. Carlson is a “class traitor,” which is a great thing and a necessity for a nation of any worth. It’s also extremely rare in my experience. Over the last few decades, the American upper class has developed into an extraordinarily cohesive society. I’m not sure why, because you’d think people at the top would be competitive by nature, but maybe the benefits are sufficient to override their bloodier impulses.

    On the other hand, maybe they are scared by what they’ve gotten away with. Nick Hanauer, an early Amazon investor and prolific funder of liberal causes, has suggested so on occasion, saying that the American people must be disarmed before they seek revenge.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Nick Hanauer, an early Amazon investor and prolific funder of liberal causes, has suggested so on occasion, saying that the American people must be disarmed before they seek revenge.
     
    Citation?
    , @Alec Leamas

    Over the last few decades, the American upper class has developed into an extraordinarily cohesive society. I’m not sure why, because you’d think people at the top would be competitive by nature, but maybe the benefits are sufficient to override their bloodier impulses.
     
    The phenomenon seems to be that there is an actual ruling class, and then there is a much larger subordinate level of status conscious whites who aspire to admission in the actual ruling class and ape its fashions and manners.

    The subordinate caste does a lot of the dirty work of striking at the white working class in every day society, thereby announcing their fitness for inclusion in the true ruling class and pretensions to belonging to it.

    We really are saddled with a large caste of officious Hyacinth Buckets - mediocrities with college degrees who work as the enforcement arm of the ruling caste.
    , @Almost Missouri

    "Nick Hanauer ... has suggested so on occasion, saying that the American people must be disarmed before they seek revenge."
     
    I've read where he says they'll seek revenge, but where has he said they must be disarmed?
  8. @Tyrion 2
    That sounds exciting. What did they "attack" him with? Nukes? Cyber-warfare? Kabbalistic magic?

    Oh...they posted a few ineffectual facebook ads and sent him an email over a legitimate political disagreement. An epic Manichean struggle this is not. People like you might be more effective if you didn't act like such a loopy old maid.

    Loopy old maids need something to do. I wish it wouldn’t take up space at iSteve, though.

  9. Meh, Carlson sounds better in print that he actually is. No one had an excuse for going after his family though.

    My overall conclusion: Let the oceans boil, baby, let ’em boil!

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    What do you mean "than he actually is", MIss Marple? Do you mean compared to on TV? I've seen him only on youtube, except for one time with his regular show at a friends house. I've like every clip I've seen of him. I've not read anything by him, yet (waiting for the book).
    , @Buzz Mohawk

    Meh, Carlson sounds better in print that he actually is.
     
    Try hosting an hour-long television show five nights a week.

    TV is a mass medium, not a scholarly publication. Carlson is a brave talent at this.

    His program is just about the only thing on TV that I will watch or record anymore. It reaches millions of Americans. How many people does anyone better than him on the subjects that concern us communicate with?

  10. At the moment, the coalition of identity groups has held together because it is united in a single purpose against white male power.

    But rapid demographic change makes this unsustainable. When the traditional scapegoat becomes insufficient, various factions will turn on one another.

    Chaos will ensue.

    Whites are a minority in Texas, California, and Hawaii. Have Whites been persecuted in any of these states? Have non-whites turned on each other?

    When California turned majority Democrat and majority Nonwhite, did Steve leave the state to avoid racial persecution and a coming racial conflagration?

    I’m not necessarily dismissing this point, but I think we have to a reality check. Multi-racial societies have lots of problems, but things aren’t so bad in areas in which Whites are a minority. Of course, the situation could change in the future.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    My worry is that in a political party based democracy local conflicts are tempered by national debates. Once the national debate lacks an implicit ethnic majority then the conversation of ideas will break down and there'll be a cascade of ethnic conflict out to the local level.
    , @miss marple
    You assert "facts" about the circumstances of whites who have become the minority as if you'd actually researched the issue. Yet a persecuted non-Jewish white is as likely to be taken seriously as a man reporting that he's been raped by a woman. The whites who get victimized will often be people who will endure it thinking (rightly) that they have no recourse. There are lots of people like yourself who find it completely acceptable for whites to be persecuted.
    , @TTSSYF
    Just look at the antics of the Democrats at the Kavanaugh hearings for an example of the coming chaos in the general population.
    , @Trevor H.

    Multi-racial societies have lots of problems, but things aren’t so bad in areas in which Whites are a minority. Of course, the situation could change in the future.
     
    Agreed. For example, it's quite possible that a nation like the USA could end up like South Africa. But you are surely right that we shouldn't concern ourselves with such a possibility until it's already happened.
    , @Samuel Skinner

    Whites are a minority in Texas, California, and Hawaii. Have Whites been persecuted in any of these states? Have non-whites turned on each other?
     
    If limiting the number of Jews who can be employed is persecution, whites have been persecuted in those states. If having people kill Jews and get away with it is an anti-Jewish pogrom, whites are being pogromed. If taking measures that lead to the steady decline and extinction of whites is genocide, whites are being genocided. If people fleeing for other areas is evidence of suffering, whites are suffering.
    , @Cloudbuster
    Whites are a minority in Texas, California, and Hawaii. Have Whites been persecuted in any of these states? Have non-whites turned on each other?

    Yes and yes. Hawaiian abuse of "Haoles" is well-known. There have been legislative attempts, supported by leading Hawaiian politicians to legally preference native Hawaiians over Whites. Mexicans have violently driven Blacks out of many previously Black California neighborhoods. Black-on-White and Hispanic-on-White crime is rampant in those states. Victor Davis Hanson details the abuse and vandalism and differential police treatment (Browns are given a pass. Whites are held to a strict standard) he suffers at the hands of non-Whites around his home in California.

    , @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Yeah, every time I think that we're on our way to the Balkans, I look at California, Texas, New Mexico and Florida say, "Well, maybe not."

    Granted, those states are likely far, far less appealing due to their diversity than they would have been without it, but they are not cauldrons of racial hatred and violence. Whites are not being persecuted nor are White identity groups being created to fight back. It's just a slow slide toward some Latin American-style society.

    But then every time I think that these states represent our future (crappy but not the Balkans), I see some Obama type talking about how we need to get blacks down the street from Whites through housing policy, or the need for more "opportunity" for NAMs, i.e. money from Whites, or I hear about some new program to put NAMs into executive positions or some diversity program where Whites have to sit and be scolded by blacks about how evil they are. I see this and think that maybe we're heading toward something far worse than Latin America.

    I can't quite figure which direction where heading. But what I do know is that Door 2 which really could lead to the Balkans is no longer some crazy fantasy. Even if the odds are against it, it's a possibility. Certainly, it's enough of a possibility to think about contingency plans. (The odds of me dying in the next year are extremely low but because of the consequences, I have life insurance. The same holds true here. Low odds (but growing odds) but huge negative consequences.)
    , @Mr. Anon

    Whites are a minority in Texas, California, and Hawaii. Have Whites been persecuted in any of these states? Have non-whites turned on each other?
     
    A lot of whites have found California to have become inhospitable and have therefore left. Mostly for economic reasons, I gather, but a lot of those are the direct result of the foreign influx.

    And non-whites have turned on each other at the street level, but they still hold their mutual animosities in check in order to stick it to whites.

    Moreover, there have been numerous cases recently of whites who have lost their jobs or been subjected to public ridicule for comments they have made, often simply truthful, about minority behavior, or actions they have taken based on experience. And then there is the newly minted crime of "calling 911 while white". Those are forms of persecution
    , @Anonymous
    Also, there's little reason to think that Whites will soon become so insignificant that they cannot be scapegoated. Even assuming they are scapegoated now.

    But rapid demographic change makes this unsustainable. When the traditional scapegoat becomes insufficient, various factions will turn on one another.
     
    , @AndrewR
    "Non-Hispanic whites are a plurality"

    FTFY
    , @Nathan
    People are pretty ignorant about Hawaii. It's not a place you want to live. Neither is California.
    , @Jim Bob Lassiter
    I am certain that Steve is very circumspect (by rational necessity) about where he goes in California and that there are far fewer options (not attributible to gross growth in population/development per se) for strolling about there than there were 40 or 50 years ago.
    , @Reg Cæsar
    You're describing the New Jerseyfication of the land. New Jersey has always been diverse, and it shows as a checkerboard of white paradise pockets, white ethnic pockets, minority pockets, oil refineries, and pine barrens. With little coherence.

    Gerry Goffin nailed the middle class Jersey life, and here's his composer/bride 'splainin' it for ya:

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

  11. @JohnnyWalker123

    At the moment, the coalition of identity groups has held together because it is united in a single purpose against white male power.

    But rapid demographic change makes this unsustainable. When the traditional scapegoat becomes insufficient, various factions will turn on one another.

    Chaos will ensue.

     

    Whites are a minority in Texas, California, and Hawaii. Have Whites been persecuted in any of these states? Have non-whites turned on each other?

    When California turned majority Democrat and majority Nonwhite, did Steve leave the state to avoid racial persecution and a coming racial conflagration?

    I'm not necessarily dismissing this point, but I think we have to a reality check. Multi-racial societies have lots of problems, but things aren't so bad in areas in which Whites are a minority. Of course, the situation could change in the future.

    My worry is that in a political party based democracy local conflicts are tempered by national debates. Once the national debate lacks an implicit ethnic majority then the conversation of ideas will break down and there’ll be a cascade of ethnic conflict out to the local level.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational, Liza
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    My worry is that in a political party based democracy local conflicts are tempered by national debates.
     
    Example please?
    , @anonymous
    At the same time with a large number of native born Latinos marrying Anglos, so there will be a whitish majority race 50 years into the future.
  12. @JohnnyWalker123

    At the moment, the coalition of identity groups has held together because it is united in a single purpose against white male power.

    But rapid demographic change makes this unsustainable. When the traditional scapegoat becomes insufficient, various factions will turn on one another.

    Chaos will ensue.

     

    Whites are a minority in Texas, California, and Hawaii. Have Whites been persecuted in any of these states? Have non-whites turned on each other?

    When California turned majority Democrat and majority Nonwhite, did Steve leave the state to avoid racial persecution and a coming racial conflagration?

    I'm not necessarily dismissing this point, but I think we have to a reality check. Multi-racial societies have lots of problems, but things aren't so bad in areas in which Whites are a minority. Of course, the situation could change in the future.

    You assert “facts” about the circumstances of whites who have become the minority as if you’d actually researched the issue. Yet a persecuted non-Jewish white is as likely to be taken seriously as a man reporting that he’s been raped by a woman. The whites who get victimized will often be people who will endure it thinking (rightly) that they have no recourse. There are lots of people like yourself who find it completely acceptable for whites to be persecuted.

  13. Sooner or later it’s axiomatic that Tucker will be brought down for emitting some PC thought crime. In the interim let’s enjoy him while we can. It’s amazing that he’s lasted this long in his present political incarnation.

    Although he initially supported Gulf War II, later he was quite honest in stating that this support was based on listening to the advice (which he later rued) of a supposedly smarter colleague. For a major TV pundit this showed remarkable humility.

    His thoughts on the shallowness of the present day Episcopal Church are quite interesting. Evidently he only remains a member due to its remaining liturgical remnants.

    • Replies: @TTSSYF
    I don't think it's amazing that he's lasted this long. His cable show was designed from day one for him to debate far-lefties and create outrage in those of us on the political Right. I find it irritating that a show purposely was created to grant Leftist kooks the honor of debate, even if Carlson runs logical rings around them. I'd prefer that he debate the finer points with those on the political Right or slightly left of center.
  14. This takimag piece was enjoyable; I was sad when it ended.

  15. @Tyrion 2
    That sounds exciting. What did they "attack" him with? Nukes? Cyber-warfare? Kabbalistic magic?

    Oh...they posted a few ineffectual facebook ads and sent him an email over a legitimate political disagreement. An epic Manichean struggle this is not. People like you might be more effective if you didn't act like such a loopy old maid.

    That sounds exciting. What did they “attack” him with? Nukes? Cyber-warfare? Kabbalistic magic?

    Oh…they posted a few ineffectual facebook ads (needle scratch)

    Call in the FBI, NSA and CIA. We got us some foreign political interference to root out. Get me the NYT and WaPo on line one, pronto.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    Yes, you are as dumb as the "muh Russia" lot. Except you're actually worse as you are as dumb as them but about a country America has long-standing good relations with and is not a competitor.
  16. anon[161] • Disclaimer says:

    “Whites are a minority in Texas, California, and Hawaii. Have Whites been persecuted in any of these states?

    Affirmative action, “white privilege”, section 8 housing, corporate diversity quotas, endless negative media coverage of republicans and whites, social media witch hunts, government contract set asides for non-whites, that whole BLM thing back in 2016, Oscars So White, misgendering laws, that Colorado baker case ……

    “Have non-whites turned on each other?”

    Well, feminists and cross-dressers have certainly turned on each other, so there is the trend. Also, Blacks and Hispanics famously don’t get along in California (and elsewhere). Hispanics drove out Maxine Waters’s original constituents; her eventual replacement will not be black. Solidarity may come to an end once the republican party is no longer nationally competitive. You saw a bit of this with all those white guy insiders being purged from the democrat party in minority districts this year. Plus, these new constituents tried overthrowing Pelosi just recently while announcing plans to recruit more non-whites; democratic party leadership is nearing their 80s and is coming to resemble the Soviet Union’s aging leadership circa 1979. Change is in the air.

    I think the explicitly race-based appeals being made by democrats are bound to turn inward at some point. Fires rarely stop where you intend them to.

    “When California turned majority Democrat and majority Nonwhite, did Steve leave the state to avoid racial persecution and a coming racial conflagration?”

    A huge number of whites have already fled California. The state experienced a net outflow of well over 100,000 just last year. Everyone I know wants out, especially what’s left of the middle class. As recently as a few years ago, California, a huge state, had about the same net immigration rate as the state of Michigan. So, the writing has been on the wall for a while now.

    There was a time in the 1990s when Venezuela was quite nice if you knew the right places. Now, not so much. The proper way to assess these things is to look at underlying dynamics – ethnic, fiscal, and class among many – and assess the possibility they could boil to the surface, causing a change in the current order. Both the US and Venezuela, unlike China, are democracies where the stupid masses could theoretically destroy everything in just a few elections. So, the possibility is higher here, all things considered.

    In a society that is getting ever more polarized (where noble white guys who maintain law and order at the FBI and Inspector General’s Office are subject to getting purged like Obama purged that white Librarian of Congress in favor of his fellow co-ethnic), I assess the possibility of a sudden reversal of fortune for the US to be higher than you might think, and it is growing. Both Russia and China think so as well and are preparing to exploit. I’d only take Chavez – er, uh – Cortez to get the nomination in 2020 and win the White House to possibly send the whole thing downward. Certainly not a Mad Max collapse or anything, but possibly a fall from grace overall.

    Ask yourself this. What happens when Cortez or Kamala Harris takes power and rams through diversity quotas for Silicon Valley (or Space X) in the face of Chinese competition? Or economy killing fossil fuel restrictions? Or defense department cuts? If any of that is a possibility at all (and it definitely is), then how stable do you think this current system/era is? I would guess it is merely metastable and subject to a sudden vacuum decay into a lower state. Happens on the global stage all the time. I don’t see why the US should be immune.

    “but things aren’t so bad in areas in which Whites are a minority.”

    Depends on where you live and what your profession is. Try being a white cop in a majority non-white New Orleans ten years ago. The racist government there contributed to the city’s police-force dysfunction by instituting residency requirements to exclude whites. Given the numerous examples already available, I’d rather not base my people’s future on the generosity of peoples with deeply held racist beliefs and the tendency to seek payback. Ask Zimbabwean whites how that worked out for them. And just look at what Obama turned his Justice Department into under Holder.

    “Of course, the situation could change in the future.”

    Isn’t it prudent to plan for the future instead of hoping for the present?

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    What happens when Cortez or Kamala Harris takes power and rams through diversity quotas for Silicon Valley...?
     
    They'll deserve it good and goddam hard.

    Really, California should do that. It'll send the tech industry to friendlier states like Utah, Idaho, Texas, etc. We need a second Silicon Valley a lot more than a second Hollywood, which a number of states are trying to build.

    , @ThreeCranes
    Everyone should spend some time in the Big Easy, if only to experience what armed robbery feels like. The joy of living in a predominately black metropolis.
  17. Why all the hate for Carlson? For example, Matthew Yglesias of Vox endorsed the intentions of the leftist goon squad who terrorized Mrs. Carlson into locking herself in the pantry.

    Probably because Tucker Carlson is witty and intellectually agile. So lots of powerful people fear his ability to deconstruct the ruling class.. Especially since Tucker Carlson occasionally flirts with white racialism, I think a certain tribe (which Yglesias belongs to) finds him particularly threatening.

    AntiFa is being funded by George Soros and lots of other Democrat-leaning political donors. So it’s not an autonomous group. There are handlers whose strings are being pulled from behind the scenes. Don’t think anything is just spontaneously happening.

    The attack on Tucker Carlson’s house was a message to shut up and move on to safer topics (like tax, deregulation, and rap music).

    Carlson, a rich kid from La Jolla, isn’t a populist outsider by upbringing or personality.

    For whatever reason, the coastal areas of Southern California seem to a produce a notably high proportion of good looking people.

    Carlson is certainly telegenic, youthful looking, and handsome. He doesn’t seem to have aged much since he started on tv. He really seems to bring a fresh face to the conservative, while having the intellect of a more seasoned veteran. That’s a good combination.

    Based on what I’ve seen, he’s intellectually matured a lot since his days on Cross Fire.

    The funny thing is that Carlson, a lifelong Republican, has drifted leftward on economics and foreign policy in recent years, as seen in his new best-seller, Ship of Fools: How a Selfish Ruling Class Is Bringing America to the Brink of Revolution.

    I think there’s a general sense that America’s rulers have totally mismanaged this country, especially from the early 2000s onward, due to incompetence and parasitic corruption. There’s a lot of critique of the ruling class from both the left and right. Interestingly enough, while there are differences in leftist and rightist critiques, there seems to be somewhat of a consensus on some issues.

    Back in the late 90s/early 2000s, I was struck by how similar Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader often sounded. It seems like others (Tucker Carlson, Bernie Sanders, occasionally even Donald Trump) are converging on that left-right consensus.

    The central theme of Ship of Fools is that the convergence toward the reigning elite consensus of economic conservatism and social progressivism is better for the people at the top of society than for maintaining a stable middle-class democracy:

    The transition to economic conservatism happened back in the 80s, during the Reagan-Bush era. There were plenty of leftists and unions who fought back, but they got curb stomped into the ground. The victory of economic conservatives was so complete (especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union) that the Democrat party “triangulated” right in the 90s, under Clinton-Gore (who were very supportive of NAFTA, trade with China, financial deregulation, cutting capital gains, catering to Silicon Valley).

    Similar trends occurred in other first-world nations (like the UK under Thatcher and Major).

    In his book “Death of the West,” Pat Buchanan admits the positive social value of a high minimum wage, protections for workers, regulation of executive pay, and support for unions.

    People often say that the problem with conservatives is that they’ve become “RINOs” (Republican-in-name-only) who adopt liberal positions. Maybe, the problem is just the opposite. Maybe the problem is that the left has given up its traditional defense of the working-class and tacked too far to right on issues like taxes, trade, and deregulation.

    Companies can openly mistreat their employees (or “contractors”), but for the price of installing transgender bathrooms they buy a pass. Shareholders win, workers lose. Bowing to the diversity agenda is a lot cheaper than raising wages.

    It’d be nice if we had labor unions, but those were broken back a few decades ago. Especially after Reagan fired the air traffic controllers, all hell broke loose. It was really then that workers became seen as a commodity who could be bought, sold, or discarded.

    Ship of Fools is full of appreciations of liberal heroes of the 20th century, such as Ralph Nader, Frank Church (the Democratic senator who helped bring the American deep state under some degree of legislative control in 1975), and farm labor leader Cesar Chavez (a fervent opponent of illegal immigration).

    At some point, he should also give a shout out to Jimmy Carter, who tried his best to reign in CIA excesses as president. Unfortunately, after the CIA and Reagan-Bush stole the 1980 election by manipulating the release of the Iranian hostages, politicians got the message that you shouldn’t screw with the intelligence agencies. Either they ruin you or they kill you (which JFK and RFK found out the hard way).

    At least Tucker Carlson is intellectually honest enough to admit the role that various types of leftists (environmentalists, consumer safety advocates, union organizers, anti-corruption activists) played in making America a better place to live. They weren’t perfect, but they were never as evil as Reagan, Bush, and Gingrich portrayed them. At this point, we sort of wish those people had more power in this country.

    FDR receives a tribute for his Civilian Conservation Corps, which provided healthy, prideful hard work to many unmarried young men. Carlson then acidly observes: “It would be denounced as irredeemably sexist today.”

    There actually was a female version of the CCC, organized by Eleanor Roosevelt.

    He’s likewise old enough to notice how humiliating it ought to be to contemporary intellectuals that they feel obligated to praise the intelligence of Ta-Nehisi Coates:

    It can’t be any more humiliating than all the praise that conservative intellectuals gave to President Bush (and later Sarah Palin). Neither of whom are, in any way, more intellectually sophisticated than Coates. The pro-Bush sycophancy of the 2004 Republican National Convention (when speakers portrayed a dimwitted man as the next Winston Churchill) was particularly depressing.

    Actually, it’s even worse, as Coates is merely a journalist. Bush and Palin were seen as Presidential/VP timber. Which reflects pretty badly on the Republican electorate.

    Sure it’s ridiculous for Coates to go from journalist to comic book writer, but it’s even more ridiculous that Governor Palin quit her governorship to do reality tv.

    • Agree: Dan Hayes, lavoisier, Hunsdon
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    That's nonsense comparing Sarah Palin to TC Coates. What has Mr. Coates done constructive in his whole affirmative-action-based life, Johnny? Sarah Palin worked her way up to Governer of the great State of Alaska the old fashioned way - being white, hence earning it. She may sound ditzy, but that's the problem with getting lots of your news off the TV - they can pick and choose the bad parts.

    The only reason I even THOUGHT ABOUT voting for (but didn't) John McCain in 08 is that he may have croaked within the first coupla years and Mrs. Palin could take over. No, she is no Ronald Reagan, but has more decorum than 10 Donald Trumps (not that that is everything by any means). Don't get all your opinions off of TV - they can make things look a whole lot different than reality.

    Speaking of reality - no, I haven't watched Mrs. Palin on reality-TV. When they film you for hours a day, and pick out 5 minutes of it, then it's pretty easy to make you look stupid, yes, even you, Johnny Walker, will look stupid on reality-TV. I had watched those Bering Straits fishing shows way back. Do you think those tough guys are really drama queens, as they seem on. the show? They may get filmed for days and days, getting along fine with the crew, cooperating with their buddies on other boats, etc. Then, the Captain gets a little annoyed for 2 minutes and then ... yes, THERE'S YOUR SHOW!


    .
    .

    Oh, BTW, I made a good bet. I voted L in '08. I sure didn't want the Øb☭ma, but McCain didn't win either, and he died only a few months back.

    , @ThreeCranes
    Thanks for one helluva a comment. Now I don't have to labor to put one together myself. I don't think all or many here on Unz will agree with your assessment of Reagan and Clinton but you are, neverthelessless, spot on.

    Both betrayed the American working class. The Clintons are simply hillbilly Arkansas grifters who saw which way would lead them to the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Bill, as much as Reagan, permitted policies which enabled the bankers and investors to break the back of American labor.

    This is anecdotal, but straight from the trenches. An uncle of mine was a highly placed executive of a large international corporation through the 60's and 70's. and into the 80's. He was a board member during the midst of the war on American corporations that was waged by raiders and takeover artists.

    Remember the credo "the board must act so as to maximize shareholder value"? Once that took hold, all the old-fashioned executives who felt that the corporation actually had an obligation to give back to the community and support civil society by paying decent wages to its employees were marginalized in the board rooms. A new crew of cold-blooded pirates, with freshly minted MBAs from Harvard and the like, took over. They had no such sentimental sympathies with the American worker and saw him instead as a clod and a stubborn dolt who stood in the way of their financial schemes to get rich quick.

    When I asked my uncle about executive compensation in 2003, he said that then-current levels were "obscene". His generation earned a good living but weren't rich.

    The financiers have taken over. The makers and doers are in retreat. Trade and Federal deficits have soared. The fanning apologist Krugman's of the world see no problem in America issuing bonds and printing money indefinitely--just as long as we have the military might to impose the dollar standard on Saudi oil--which serves Israel's purposes as well. What a coincidence.

    Bogus dollars, oil and military might, the American triumvirate.

    , @Achmed E. Newman
    Although I don't agree with you on your last part, Johnny, that's a very interesting comment though, and it goes along with the thoughts in Mr. Sailer's review. I don't agree with it all, but the old left did care about the lives of ordinary Americans. I can't argue with that.

    The reason the new left, the ctrl-left, as it were, doesn't care about unions and the environment anymore is that they simply want to destroy the country. If destroying the American people causes collateral damage to "the planet", then it's just that whole egg/omelet thing for them. They are indeed the Neo-Bolsheviks, coming back to make history rhyme.

    I don't think Reagan was down with the Deep State, though, until, (let's not forget) he was almost JFK'd too, only a couple of months into his presidency. That was probably a warning, and though it was a .22 shot, it was not the normal 22 LR, but explosive "Devastator" rounds. By the time Reagan was done with surgery, he'd lost 1/2 of his blood volume, and though it went well, he had a fever that kept him in the hospital for 2 weeks. I still have lots of respect for Ronald Reagan, the man and the President, but those shots in 1981 may have been a warning that he heeded.
    , @RadicalCenter
    A lot of fair points. Yet I’d take Sarah Palin as governor in place of Jerry Brown or most other current governors. Rather have her family as our neighbors than the people we actually have here, too.

    But yes, she wasn’t ready for the White House and the republicans should have picked someone else. On the other hand, we will hear all about how the next unqualified white-hating open-borders woman on the democrat ticket, Kamala Harris or Pocahontas Warren or Michelle Obama etc., is well prepared for the presidency.

    , @Jack D

    Especially after Reagan fired the air traffic controllers, all hell broke loose. It was really then that workers became seen as a commodity who could be bought, sold, or discarded.
     
    Firing the traffic controllers is seen as a turning point but nothing really changed in the law. What happened was that unions (rightly) lost the sympathy of the public by their excesses. FDR opposed public employees unions because of their ability to hold vital public services hostage. If unions go on strike against GM you can still buy a Ford but if they shut down the air transport system there is no alternative. Likewise, private sector unions lost popular support because they were seen as havens of corruption and featherbedding rather than legitimate protectors of workers' rights.

    Also the recovery of the other advanced industrial economies meant that American industry now had competition. Back in the day, GM, Ford and Chrysler all competed on a level playing field - they all had to pay their workers the same union wages and put out the same product that was indifferently assembled by workers who didn't give a damn about quality because their jobs were protected by the union. The auto makers and the unions had a cozy arrangement - the unions would raise their wages and the car makers would pass this thru to their customers (and reduce the quality of the product to make up for increased labor costs) and everyone was happy (except for the customers who had no choice). Then the imports came (first VW and then the Japanese) and this threw a monkey wrench into the cozy arrangement.

    Of course immigration did not help - one of the things that gave employees power was a tight labor market. Marx predicted that the workers would be "immiserated' because there would always be a "reserve army of the unemployed" waiting at the factory gates and driving down wage levels. But in fact, after WWII, workers were in short supply before the era of widespread illegal immigration - you couldn't find enough people to operate your meat processing plant or do other dirty jobs unless you paid them really well. But for Mexican illegal aliens, minimum wage was good enough. Then the Chinese came and took away millions of factory jobs and "outsourcing" took away even more jobs (you call customer support and they answer in India or the Philippines) leaving a permanent slack labor market - even now with "full employment" a lot of people are underemployed or out of the workforce .

    , @Charles Pewitt

    Back in the late 90s/early 2000s, I was struck by how similar Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader often sounded. It seems like others (Tucker Carlson, Bernie Sanders, occasionally even Donald Trump) are converging on that left-right consensus.

     

    In short order, before the 2000 election, the New York Times attacked Ralph Nader and the Wall Street Journal attacked Pat Buchanan.

    Both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal push globalization, mass immigration and sovereignty-sapping trade deal scams.

    Both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal support the use of the US military as muscle to fight wars on behalf of Israel in the Middle East and West Asia.

    The American Empire is starting wars in the Middle East(Iraq) and West Asia(Afghanistan) to create turmoil and chaos to further the foreign policy goals of the client state of Israel.

    The PEWITT campaign for president has not paid for this message.

    We love Trump, but Trump has made himself unlovable with his weakness and lack of action on immigration. The Pewitt campaign will challenge Trump for the 2020 GOP presidential nomination.

    Immigration Moratorium Now!

    Deport All Illegal Alien Invaders Now!
    , @Harry Baldwin
    It’d be nice if we had labor unions, but those were broken back a few decades ago. Especially after Reagan fired the air traffic controllers, all hell broke loose.

    I generally agree about labor unions, but not for government workers. That should never have been permitted. As Derbyshire notes, they're essentially lobbies, not unions. There's no opposition from management to their demands and they've become the foot soldiers of the Democratic Party.
    , @War for Blair Mountain
    Seriously, stop projecting your fantasies onto JFK and RFK...They we’re INVADE THE WORD...INVITE THE WORLD TYPES.....And they both hated the Working Class Native Born White American Historic Majority.....
    , @Reg Cæsar

    Especially after Reagan fired the air traffic controllers, all hell broke loose.
     
    Reagan did not fire the air-traffic controllers. They fired themselves, per the laws on the books when he took office. You're complaining because he didn't use his discretion to break the laws Congress gave him.

    I'm guessing that of every aspect of government, Reagan was most familiar with labor law, have been the longest-serving president of the Screen Actors Guild to this day.

    What other union allows employers to force their members to work naked? That sure wasn't the case back in Ronnie's day!
  18. anon[129] • Disclaimer says:

    OT: the War on the War on Christmas gets an early start this year.

    The BBC’s SJW diversity focused Dr. Who replaces traditional Christmas special with secular New Years Eve special. Unconvincingly claims they couldn’t think of any good Christmas stories. Sure.

    • Replies: @c matt
    At least she is relatively attractive.
    , @Anon
    x-mas or no x-mas, anyone who watches Dr. Goo needs to have his head examined.
  19. @JohnnyWalker123

    At the moment, the coalition of identity groups has held together because it is united in a single purpose against white male power.

    But rapid demographic change makes this unsustainable. When the traditional scapegoat becomes insufficient, various factions will turn on one another.

    Chaos will ensue.

     

    Whites are a minority in Texas, California, and Hawaii. Have Whites been persecuted in any of these states? Have non-whites turned on each other?

    When California turned majority Democrat and majority Nonwhite, did Steve leave the state to avoid racial persecution and a coming racial conflagration?

    I'm not necessarily dismissing this point, but I think we have to a reality check. Multi-racial societies have lots of problems, but things aren't so bad in areas in which Whites are a minority. Of course, the situation could change in the future.

    Just look at the antics of the Democrats at the Kavanaugh hearings for an example of the coming chaos in the general population.

  20. I often see Tucker on YouTube the next day or download into mp3 format and listen while exercising or driving. Tuck is very quick witted and knows how to catch lefties in contradictions.

  21. @Dan Hayes
    Sooner or later it's axiomatic that Tucker will be brought down for emitting some PC thought crime. In the interim let's enjoy him while we can. It's amazing that he's lasted this long in his present political incarnation.

    Although he initially supported Gulf War II, later he was quite honest in stating that this support was based on listening to the advice (which he later rued) of a supposedly smarter colleague. For a major TV pundit this showed remarkable humility.

    His thoughts on the shallowness of the present day Episcopal Church are quite interesting. Evidently he only remains a member due to its remaining liturgical remnants.

    I don’t think it’s amazing that he’s lasted this long. His cable show was designed from day one for him to debate far-lefties and create outrage in those of us on the political Right. I find it irritating that a show purposely was created to grant Leftist kooks the honor of debate, even if Carlson runs logical rings around them. I’d prefer that he debate the finer points with those on the political Right or slightly left of center.

    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    TTSSYF:

    Good point. But these gladiatorial events ensure much higher ratings than cerebral discussions about some political science finer points.
  22. @JohnnyWalker123

    At the moment, the coalition of identity groups has held together because it is united in a single purpose against white male power.

    But rapid demographic change makes this unsustainable. When the traditional scapegoat becomes insufficient, various factions will turn on one another.

    Chaos will ensue.

     

    Whites are a minority in Texas, California, and Hawaii. Have Whites been persecuted in any of these states? Have non-whites turned on each other?

    When California turned majority Democrat and majority Nonwhite, did Steve leave the state to avoid racial persecution and a coming racial conflagration?

    I'm not necessarily dismissing this point, but I think we have to a reality check. Multi-racial societies have lots of problems, but things aren't so bad in areas in which Whites are a minority. Of course, the situation could change in the future.

    Multi-racial societies have lots of problems, but things aren’t so bad in areas in which Whites are a minority. Of course, the situation could change in the future.

    Agreed. For example, it’s quite possible that a nation like the USA could end up like South Africa. But you are surely right that we shouldn’t concern ourselves with such a possibility until it’s already happened.

    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    Well there is an important ethnic difference between South Africa and California.
  23. I wonder how much of Carlson’s leftward drift came from the defining moment of his career: the day Jon Stewart went on Crossfire. The show had been on CNN since 1982 and after this, was cancelled three months later.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    It probably had an impact on Tucker, not in terms of politics per se but in prompting him to try to rise above his genre, as Stewart did, in a different way. I think Stewart came to realize that the genre he'd created was bad, too, and his response to it was to quit (that may have been motivated partly by the ascendance of the populist left, as Steve notes).

    In Tucker's case, he transcended it by no longer being a WASP proto-Ben Shapiro, and, instead, thinking critically and letting his views flow from that.
  24. Anon[334] • Disclaimer says:

    I was listening to the Rubin Report interview/bookselling stop with Carlson, and he mentioned that all his kids were “gone.” I’ve seen the family portrait and they seemed still young. But his youngest in a 2013 interview was 10, 5 and a half years ago, so she’s as old as 16-1/2 now. Maybe she’s in college already, although it seems a year too early.

    • Replies: @Marquandian Hero
    Boarding school?
  25. I have no idea how Carlson creates five hours of television per week and writes a book at the same time, but Ship of Fools is quite good. It’s currently No. 3 on the nonfiction best-seller list, behind Michelle Obama and Bill O’Reilly.

    Both of whom are hucksters. It should be noted that Tucker Carlson came in after Bill O’Reilly (a loudmouth right-wing conman who spent decades talking about how he was a “culture warrior”) got fired by FOX for trying to coerce sex out of his female subordinates.

    Back in the early 2000s, O’Reilly started a boycott to get Pepsi to stop sponsoring rapper “Ludacris,” saying that he “degraded women.” His boycott was successful and got “Ludacris” dropped. A few years later, O’Reilly ran into a workplace sexual harassment scandal. Then more recently, O’Reill ran into another harassment scandal, which resulted in him getting fired.

    Here’s what “Ludacris” had to say about O’Reilly.

    “It’s not my place to judge Bill O’Reilly the same way he judged me,” he said during an appearance on radio show “The Breakfast Club.” “I’m thriving in life right now. All I can do is hope that Bill O’Reilly settles these issues and learns from whatever mistakes he may have made ― and also thrives.”

    “But,” he added, “it is definitely ironic that Pepsi and Bill O’Reilly are under fire right now.”

    Here’s a good clip that demonstrates the “intellect” of Bill O’Reilly (it gets interesting at 3:05). The man is a complete charlatan and an entertainer who knows his audience. He’s a more coherent version of Glenn Beck.

    It’s remarkable that O’Reilly is an intellectual leader in the conservative movement.

    There exists this view that somehow White media/govt figures (especially White conservative men) are held to a high standard, while dumb Blacks get a pass. In reality, dumb people (regardless of race or politics) often do make it to the top, but the left has no monopoly on idiocy.

    Bill Maher had some good critique (watch from 1:30 onward).

    The left has its flaws too, but let’s not act like the right is somehow the adult in the room.

    • Replies: @miss marple
    Perhaps you should lay off the caffeine for a few days (or go back to the JW). Good grief you're a hick. You plant some controversial theories every other sentence but pretend they are commonly held views that don't need backing up with some sort of evidence. One thing that can be said of O'Reilly is that he'd never spew out anything controversial without some research and/or references to reputable sources.
    , @lavoisier

    The left has its flaws too, but let’s not act like the right is somehow the adult in the room.
     
    I would agree with this statement. But I despise Bill Maher and his simplistic and vulgar attacks on anyone who challenges the virtue of the left and their dystopian fantasies.

    His show is a hate fest against the goyim and their civilization.

    I cannot stand the arrogant creep.
    , @ThreeCranes
    Bill Mayer.

    Straw man argumentation from an intellectual weakling who panders to a base every bit as ignorant and prejudiced as those he skewers, doesn't make for good humor. Bill O'Reilly for NPR listeners.
    , @Mr. Anon
    What I found really remarkable was the way that FOX casually unpersoned O'Reilly. His show was the biggest ratings garner on FOX; it was their weeknight lineup anchor. That creepy, weasely little prick, Greg Gutfeld, hosted the last episode of "The Factor", and signed O'Reilly's show off the air without even once mentioning his name. Mind you, I despise O'Reilly and always have; he is a smug, self-righteous, loud-mouthed jerk. But he was their jerk and they could have admitted it.
    , @Mr. Anon

    Bill Maher had some good critique (watch from 1:30 onward).
     
    I would no more voluntarily subject myself to listening to Bill Maher than I would to Bill O'Reilly.
    , @Citizen of a Silly Country

    The left has its flaws too, but let’s not act like the right is somehow the adult in the room.
     
    The right isn't even in the room. O'Reilly never represented the right. Neither did Reagan. What did any of these men ever conserve? When did they even try? Even Trump hasn't done any of the "right" agenda, such limiting immigration.

    Being for lower taxes and regulations doesn't make you the "right." Preserving your people and culture makes you of the right. Pushing back intellectually and openly against those who want to change your people and culture make you of the right.

    Since I'm been born - and really much longer than that - this country's politicians have been fast-pace progressives and slower-pace progressives. It's why the left is so angry about Trump - a politician who only hints at being right wing; they haven't been challenged in their entire lives.

    The left reminds of a wife who's pushed around her husband for decades when she comes across a man who won't take her shit. Those types of women absolutely lose it when someone pushes back.
    , @celt darnell
    Well, I tend to take all sexual harassment accusations with a grain of salt; have done since Clarence Thomas and the recent nonsense with respect to the newest addition to the Supreme Court tends to confirm my long-held suspicions.

    As for what any "rapper" has to say, who gives a damn?

    Who ever regarded Bill O'Reilly as an intellectual, conservative or otherwise? People who quote rap artists, I suppose. O'Reilly was essentially a shock jock on TV whose act undeniably had a degree of novelty value at the start, but which eventually wore thin.

    Bill Maher is even more of a mediocre con artist than O'Reilly. At least as a pugnacious Irishman, O'Reilly occasionally took shots at the Globohomo establishment -- Maher actively shills for it.

    , @Harry Baldwin
    It’s remarkable that O’Reilly is an intellectual leader in the conservative movement.

    The only people I know who liked O'Reilly are political morons. He's a blowhard with nothing worthwhile to offer.

    , @ATBOTL
    Great post. O'Reilly encapsulates everything wrong with the boomer style of conservatism. Let's remember that Bill was a cuck on immigration too.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    It’s remarkable that O’Reilly is an intellectual leader in the conservative movement.
     
    He is? That's news to us.

    All his books are co-written, taking after James Patterson's 21st-century œuvre. It's no surprise that he finally wrote one with Patterson.

    I wonder what they discussed about Patterson's other co-author, Bill Clinton. Who could have taken their advice on certain occasions:


    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51ZXxzNU-TL._SX488_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
    , @J.Ross
    It’s remarkable that O’Reilly is an intellectual leader in the conservative movement.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FshkO8HqQ10
    Well, you know what intellectual leaders say. Tide goes in, tide goes out. You can't explain that.
  26. @Tyrion 2
    That sounds exciting. What did they "attack" him with? Nukes? Cyber-warfare? Kabbalistic magic?

    Oh...they posted a few ineffectual facebook ads and sent him an email over a legitimate political disagreement. An epic Manichean struggle this is not. People like you might be more effective if you didn't act like such a loopy old maid.

    I can’t see what provoked you to play the role of hallway monitor here. Sometimes attack just means verbally. I bet it’s used more often in that way than any other.

    And a lot of people, like me, feel that taking money from the US citizens and lavishing it on Israel is not a legitimate policy, even if arrived at after years of systematic national gas-lighting.

    You and I know that Rand Paul is exposing himself to the collective fury of our largely Jewish press. Let’s just watch together and see if his political opponents talk about his position as “legitimate political disagreement” or if the opposition plays up his latent antisemitism instead.

    • Agree: European-American
    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    It isn't largely Jewish and questioning military aid to Israel doesn't make all of the Jews in it furious though.

    Stop fantasising.
    , @David
    You've disagreed with two people here. One you've called a loopy old maid and another you've called a fantasist. Neither comment is at all connected to the comments you are answering. You are a frail mind that tries to rough-up anyone that puts forth an idea you don't like. You bring noting to the table that anyone else could learn from.
  27. Tucker, a while back on his show, completely demolished Max Boot, one of his finest performances. After a couple of minutes into the mugging, poor Max looked like a guy whose wife had just kicked him out, locked up his checking account, and charged him with domestic assault and battery.

    • Agree: Dan Hayes
    • LOL: JohnnyWalker123
    • Replies: @Ian M.
    Yeah, Boot comes off as ridiculous with his overweening earnestness, but I don't see how Carlson comes off much better: he's just making snarky comments and laughing the whole time.

    I don't really understand why people are so bully on Carlson's 'interviews': the few clips I've seen (all courtesy of Sailer's site, I think), are just Carlson constantly interrupting his guests, shouting over them, and making sarcastic comments. I find it remarkable that any lefty would ever agree to be on his show. Do they get money for it?

    I did see part of a speech Carlson gave once: that was much better.
  28. I’ve been looking forward to reading Ship of Fools for a while, and coincidentally just put in on hold from the libary a week ago (they’ve got dozens of copies, but they’re all being read right now!) Your review, Steve, has got me looking forward to it even more …

    Yeah, now about that review: It sounds like Tucker Carlson, seen by you as a “centrist”, is just a guy who seeks truth in all things. That’s a rarity, most especially in his current occupation. Is it because, as you say, he is of the upper class to begin with? If he’s not been struggling too hard to make it in life, and is a righteous dude in general, then perhaps he realizes that in his current high position, he can really do the right thing for the viewers and readers. Again that is a rarity in the “journalism” “profession”.

    I don’t particularly agree (surprise, surprise) with your view of who Libertarians are, Steve. You, and most commenter on here, associate them all with pro-Big-Biz types. That’s not particulary true. I wonder what Ron Paul, in fact, would say about taxes on capital gains vs. income, and I reckon Mr. Carlson would have a damn good opinion of a libertarian like John Stossel, another TV guy. That’s speculation, but it leads to thoughts of what exactly is libertarianism.

    I enjoyed your column though (and now realize I could have read it while unz was down yesterday, if I’d thought about it. Taki really needs to quit with the retroactive pop-up bullshit though. How bad does he need the ad money?!)

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen

    I don’t particularly agree (surprise, surprise) with your view of who Libertarians are, Steve. You, and most commenter on here, associate them all with pro-Big-Biz types.
     
    They may not be explicitly pro-Big Business, but the results of laissez faire over the last 20 years or so have been a huge consolidation of American industries into oligopolies. Steve was early in writing about how antitrust has basically been in abeyance but now Matt Stoller and even David Leondhardt at the NYT are taking it up:

    https://twitter.com/DLeonhardt/status/1066861829434089472
  29. @miss marple
    Meh, Carlson sounds better in print that he actually is. No one had an excuse for going after his family though.

    My overall conclusion: Let the oceans boil, baby, let 'em boil!

    What do you mean “than he actually is”, MIss Marple? Do you mean compared to on TV? I’ve seen him only on youtube, except for one time with his regular show at a friends house. I’ve like every clip I’ve seen of him. I’ve not read anything by him, yet (waiting for the book).

  30. @Tyrion 2
    That sounds exciting. What did they "attack" him with? Nukes? Cyber-warfare? Kabbalistic magic?

    Oh...they posted a few ineffectual facebook ads and sent him an email over a legitimate political disagreement. An epic Manichean struggle this is not. People like you might be more effective if you didn't act like such a loopy old maid.

    Not every Israeli critic gets the JFK critic. I remember watching a clip of Tucker biting his tongue when a Republican Congressman came on to defend attacking Syria because Israel.

    Carlson is a much welcome relic of the old Protestant establishment, a true blue.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    Twice you've fantasised. That the Republican defended attacking Syria "because Israel", and that JFK was assassinated for criticising Israel - a theory born out of the fevered wishes of a bunch of loons.
  31. @JohnnyWalker123

    Why all the hate for Carlson? For example, Matthew Yglesias of Vox endorsed the intentions of the leftist goon squad who terrorized Mrs. Carlson into locking herself in the pantry.

     

    Probably because Tucker Carlson is witty and intellectually agile. So lots of powerful people fear his ability to deconstruct the ruling class.. Especially since Tucker Carlson occasionally flirts with white racialism, I think a certain tribe (which Yglesias belongs to) finds him particularly threatening.

    AntiFa is being funded by George Soros and lots of other Democrat-leaning political donors. So it's not an autonomous group. There are handlers whose strings are being pulled from behind the scenes. Don't think anything is just spontaneously happening.

    The attack on Tucker Carlson's house was a message to shut up and move on to safer topics (like tax, deregulation, and rap music).

    Carlson, a rich kid from La Jolla, isn’t a populist outsider by upbringing or personality.

     

    For whatever reason, the coastal areas of Southern California seem to a produce a notably high proportion of good looking people.

    Carlson is certainly telegenic, youthful looking, and handsome. He doesn't seem to have aged much since he started on tv. He really seems to bring a fresh face to the conservative, while having the intellect of a more seasoned veteran. That's a good combination.

    Based on what I've seen, he's intellectually matured a lot since his days on Cross Fire.

    The funny thing is that Carlson, a lifelong Republican, has drifted leftward on economics and foreign policy in recent years, as seen in his new best-seller, Ship of Fools: How a Selfish Ruling Class Is Bringing America to the Brink of Revolution.

     

    I think there's a general sense that America's rulers have totally mismanaged this country, especially from the early 2000s onward, due to incompetence and parasitic corruption. There's a lot of critique of the ruling class from both the left and right. Interestingly enough, while there are differences in leftist and rightist critiques, there seems to be somewhat of a consensus on some issues.

    Back in the late 90s/early 2000s, I was struck by how similar Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader often sounded. It seems like others (Tucker Carlson, Bernie Sanders, occasionally even Donald Trump) are converging on that left-right consensus.

    The central theme of Ship of Fools is that the convergence toward the reigning elite consensus of economic conservatism and social progressivism is better for the people at the top of society than for maintaining a stable middle-class democracy:

     

    The transition to economic conservatism happened back in the 80s, during the Reagan-Bush era. There were plenty of leftists and unions who fought back, but they got curb stomped into the ground. The victory of economic conservatives was so complete (especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union) that the Democrat party "triangulated" right in the 90s, under Clinton-Gore (who were very supportive of NAFTA, trade with China, financial deregulation, cutting capital gains, catering to Silicon Valley).

    Similar trends occurred in other first-world nations (like the UK under Thatcher and Major).

    In his book "Death of the West," Pat Buchanan admits the positive social value of a high minimum wage, protections for workers, regulation of executive pay, and support for unions.

    People often say that the problem with conservatives is that they've become "RINOs" (Republican-in-name-only) who adopt liberal positions. Maybe, the problem is just the opposite. Maybe the problem is that the left has given up its traditional defense of the working-class and tacked too far to right on issues like taxes, trade, and deregulation.

    Companies can openly mistreat their employees (or “contractors”), but for the price of installing transgender bathrooms they buy a pass. Shareholders win, workers lose. Bowing to the diversity agenda is a lot cheaper than raising wages.

     

    It'd be nice if we had labor unions, but those were broken back a few decades ago. Especially after Reagan fired the air traffic controllers, all hell broke loose. It was really then that workers became seen as a commodity who could be bought, sold, or discarded.

    Ship of Fools is full of appreciations of liberal heroes of the 20th century, such as Ralph Nader, Frank Church (the Democratic senator who helped bring the American deep state under some degree of legislative control in 1975), and farm labor leader Cesar Chavez (a fervent opponent of illegal immigration).

     

    At some point, he should also give a shout out to Jimmy Carter, who tried his best to reign in CIA excesses as president. Unfortunately, after the CIA and Reagan-Bush stole the 1980 election by manipulating the release of the Iranian hostages, politicians got the message that you shouldn't screw with the intelligence agencies. Either they ruin you or they kill you (which JFK and RFK found out the hard way).

    At least Tucker Carlson is intellectually honest enough to admit the role that various types of leftists (environmentalists, consumer safety advocates, union organizers, anti-corruption activists) played in making America a better place to live. They weren't perfect, but they were never as evil as Reagan, Bush, and Gingrich portrayed them. At this point, we sort of wish those people had more power in this country.

    FDR receives a tribute for his Civilian Conservation Corps, which provided healthy, prideful hard work to many unmarried young men. Carlson then acidly observes: “It would be denounced as irredeemably sexist today.”

     

    There actually was a female version of the CCC, organized by Eleanor Roosevelt.

    He’s likewise old enough to notice how humiliating it ought to be to contemporary intellectuals that they feel obligated to praise the intelligence of Ta-Nehisi Coates:

     

    It can't be any more humiliating than all the praise that conservative intellectuals gave to President Bush (and later Sarah Palin). Neither of whom are, in any way, more intellectually sophisticated than Coates. The pro-Bush sycophancy of the 2004 Republican National Convention (when speakers portrayed a dimwitted man as the next Winston Churchill) was particularly depressing.

    Actually, it's even worse, as Coates is merely a journalist. Bush and Palin were seen as Presidential/VP timber. Which reflects pretty badly on the Republican electorate.

    Sure it's ridiculous for Coates to go from journalist to comic book writer, but it's even more ridiculous that Governor Palin quit her governorship to do reality tv.

    That’s nonsense comparing Sarah Palin to TC Coates. What has Mr. Coates done constructive in his whole affirmative-action-based life, Johnny? Sarah Palin worked her way up to Governer of the great State of Alaska the old fashioned way – being white, hence earning it. She may sound ditzy, but that’s the problem with getting lots of your news off the TV – they can pick and choose the bad parts.

    The only reason I even THOUGHT ABOUT voting for (but didn’t) John McCain in 08 is that he may have croaked within the first coupla years and Mrs. Palin could take over. No, she is no Ronald Reagan, but has more decorum than 10 Donald Trumps (not that that is everything by any means). Don’t get all your opinions off of TV – they can make things look a whole lot different than reality.

    Speaking of reality – no, I haven’t watched Mrs. Palin on reality-TV. When they film you for hours a day, and pick out 5 minutes of it, then it’s pretty easy to make you look stupid, yes, even you, Johnny Walker, will look stupid on reality-TV. I had watched those Bering Straits fishing shows way back. Do you think those tough guys are really drama queens, as they seem on. the show? They may get filmed for days and days, getting along fine with the crew, cooperating with their buddies on other boats, etc. Then, the Captain gets a little annoyed for 2 minutes and then … yes, THERE’S YOUR SHOW!

    .
    .

    Oh, BTW, I made a good bet. I voted L in ’08. I sure didn’t want the Øb☭ma, but McCain didn’t win either, and he died only a few months back.

    • Agree: Tyrion 2
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123

    She may sound ditzy, but that’s the problem with getting lots of your news off the TV – they can pick and choose the bad parts.
     
    Here's the thing.

    Governor Sarah Palin resigned her job. After resigning her job, she starred on this reality TV show.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Rh6vLnxD6o

    What type of person resigns a governorship to do reality tv?

    When she was criticized for this, she noted that Reagan was an actor who starred in "Bedtime for Bonzo." Except what she didn't note is that Reagan didn't resign his California governorship to go act.

    If Sarah Palin had stayed Governor, she could've refined her knowledge and speaking abilities. Given her popularity with the base, she could've run as a reform-minded "adult" conservative in 2012. She could've used Alaska as an example of what she would do for America.

    Her quitting sort of confirmed everything everyone thought about her.

    Don’t get all your opinions off of TV – they can make things look a whole lot different than reality.

     

    Katie Couric asked what newspapers and magazines that Palin read in order to stay informed. She couldn't name a single publication.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mu0BOGlU3Z4

    How is one supposed to know anything if one doesn't read? Intellectual osmosis?

    Can you think of any examples of Sarah Palin coherently issuing an interesting critique of social, economic, or foreign policy?

    After getting out of politics, has Palin even tried to get back in? She seems mostly interested in doing tv shows and being a political commentator. I'd guess it's because she finds the world of politics to be boring and lots of dreary, hard work.
    , @Neil Templeton
    I did vote for McCain/Palin in 2008, and only because she was on the ticket. I saw her as an Idaho/Alaska native with western values. And nicer to look at than any other contestant.
  32. Both of whom are hucksters. It should be noted that Tucker Carlson came in after Bill O’Reilly (a loudmouth right-wing conman who spent decades talking about how he was a “culture warrior”)

    You are agitatedly wrong! You can call O’Reilly a huckster but not Tucker Carlson.

    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    I meant Michelle Obama and Bill O'Reilly.

    Not Tucker.
  33. @JohnnyWalker123

    At the moment, the coalition of identity groups has held together because it is united in a single purpose against white male power.

    But rapid demographic change makes this unsustainable. When the traditional scapegoat becomes insufficient, various factions will turn on one another.

    Chaos will ensue.

     

    Whites are a minority in Texas, California, and Hawaii. Have Whites been persecuted in any of these states? Have non-whites turned on each other?

    When California turned majority Democrat and majority Nonwhite, did Steve leave the state to avoid racial persecution and a coming racial conflagration?

    I'm not necessarily dismissing this point, but I think we have to a reality check. Multi-racial societies have lots of problems, but things aren't so bad in areas in which Whites are a minority. Of course, the situation could change in the future.

    Whites are a minority in Texas, California, and Hawaii. Have Whites been persecuted in any of these states? Have non-whites turned on each other?

    If limiting the number of Jews who can be employed is persecution, whites have been persecuted in those states. If having people kill Jews and get away with it is an anti-Jewish pogrom, whites are being pogromed. If taking measures that lead to the steady decline and extinction of whites is genocide, whites are being genocided. If people fleeing for other areas is evidence of suffering, whites are suffering.

  34. It seems to me that a shift from the nominally libertarian/free market politics that dominate in the GOP on immigration and the workforce to something more like the what the labor Dems of old held would solidify the white working class vote for the party and probably scoop up more blacks and latinos as well. The GOP doesn’t have to win anything approaching a majority of black or latino voters to be competitive, they just need to pick up another 5% of each than their current voter share and the Democrats would lose every national election by the same margin as Hilary in the electoral college and the GOP would scoop up another half dozen Senate seats.

    Yes, the free market line of thinking on mass immigration, trade, etc. would grow the economy faster than a more populist economic model, but the benefits of it overwhelmingly accrue to people already at the top. I’d trade a bit of growth in favor of a middle and lower class that have better economic prospects rather than letting the already well off get richer. That’s supposedly what the Democrats are about but their positions on immigration and coziness with Wall Street and Silicon Valley work against most of the people they claim to care the most about.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    YES.
    , @utu

    Yes, the free market line of thinking on mass immigration, trade, etc. would grow the economy faster than a more populist economic model
     
    Large part of this growth is due to population growth. It does not make people better off.
    , @Jack D
    This is wishful thinking. Blacks are wedded to whichever party offers more gibmedats. Unless the GOP wants to compete in giving out more free stuff it will never be able to peel blacks away from the Dems. Blacks understand that they cannot compete in a free market environment and need the Democrat version of government to give them endless benefits and privileges or else they would still be living in shotgun shacks and eating cornmeal except for a few rich entertainers. Even what appears to be a black middle class exists only because they have mostly government jobs or are AA hires.
    , @The Anti-Gnostic
    I can remember ages ago hearing old liberal Mark Shields say "The Republicans don't care how you live, and the Democrats don't care how you think." His point was that Republicans cater to the rich over the working class, and the Democrats disdain the moral values of the people they supposedly champion. I think at the time he also said if the Democrats dropped gun control they'd be the majority party forever.

    Trump blasted a hole the Republicans could drive the proverbial truck through. It's too bad the Republicans are mostly stupid cowards.
  35. @JohnnyWalker123

    I have no idea how Carlson creates five hours of television per week and writes a book at the same time, but Ship of Fools is quite good. It’s currently No. 3 on the nonfiction best-seller list, behind Michelle Obama and Bill O’Reilly.

     

    Both of whom are hucksters. It should be noted that Tucker Carlson came in after Bill O'Reilly (a loudmouth right-wing conman who spent decades talking about how he was a "culture warrior") got fired by FOX for trying to coerce sex out of his female subordinates.

    Back in the early 2000s, O'Reilly started a boycott to get Pepsi to stop sponsoring rapper "Ludacris," saying that he "degraded women." His boycott was successful and got "Ludacris" dropped. A few years later, O'Reilly ran into a workplace sexual harassment scandal. Then more recently, O'Reill ran into another harassment scandal, which resulted in him getting fired.

    Here's what "Ludacris" had to say about O'Reilly.

    “It’s not my place to judge Bill O’Reilly the same way he judged me,” he said during an appearance on radio show “The Breakfast Club.” “I’m thriving in life right now. All I can do is hope that Bill O’Reilly settles these issues and learns from whatever mistakes he may have made ― and also thrives.”

    “But,” he added, “it is definitely ironic that Pepsi and Bill O’Reilly are under fire right now.”

     

    Here's a good clip that demonstrates the "intellect" of Bill O'Reilly (it gets interesting at 3:05). The man is a complete charlatan and an entertainer who knows his audience. He's a more coherent version of Glenn Beck.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKFvne6R7IA

    It's remarkable that O'Reilly is an intellectual leader in the conservative movement.

    There exists this view that somehow White media/govt figures (especially White conservative men) are held to a high standard, while dumb Blacks get a pass. In reality, dumb people (regardless of race or politics) often do make it to the top, but the left has no monopoly on idiocy.

    Bill Maher had some good critique (watch from 1:30 onward).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46waxL2MICc

    The left has its flaws too, but let's not act like the right is somehow the adult in the room.

    Perhaps you should lay off the caffeine for a few days (or go back to the JW). Good grief you’re a hick. You plant some controversial theories every other sentence but pretend they are commonly held views that don’t need backing up with some sort of evidence. One thing that can be said of O’Reilly is that he’d never spew out anything controversial without some research and/or references to reputable sources.

  36. @exiled off mainstreet
    The review is excellent. Tucker Carlson is the best person now on mainstream TV news broadcasting.

    Which is why the forces that be want him removed.

  37. @JohnnyWalker123

    At the moment, the coalition of identity groups has held together because it is united in a single purpose against white male power.

    But rapid demographic change makes this unsustainable. When the traditional scapegoat becomes insufficient, various factions will turn on one another.

    Chaos will ensue.

     

    Whites are a minority in Texas, California, and Hawaii. Have Whites been persecuted in any of these states? Have non-whites turned on each other?

    When California turned majority Democrat and majority Nonwhite, did Steve leave the state to avoid racial persecution and a coming racial conflagration?

    I'm not necessarily dismissing this point, but I think we have to a reality check. Multi-racial societies have lots of problems, but things aren't so bad in areas in which Whites are a minority. Of course, the situation could change in the future.

    Whites are a minority in Texas, California, and Hawaii. Have Whites been persecuted in any of these states? Have non-whites turned on each other?

    Yes and yes. Hawaiian abuse of “Haoles” is well-known. There have been legislative attempts, supported by leading Hawaiian politicians to legally preference native Hawaiians over Whites. Mexicans have violently driven Blacks out of many previously Black California neighborhoods. Black-on-White and Hispanic-on-White crime is rampant in those states. Victor Davis Hanson details the abuse and vandalism and differential police treatment (Browns are given a pass. Whites are held to a strict standard) he suffers at the hands of non-Whites around his home in California.

  38. @miss marple
    Meh, Carlson sounds better in print that he actually is. No one had an excuse for going after his family though.

    My overall conclusion: Let the oceans boil, baby, let 'em boil!

    Meh, Carlson sounds better in print that he actually is.

    Try hosting an hour-long television show five nights a week.

    TV is a mass medium, not a scholarly publication. Carlson is a brave talent at this.

    His program is just about the only thing on TV that I will watch or record anymore. It reaches millions of Americans. How many people does anyone better than him on the subjects that concern us communicate with?

    • Replies: @Malcolm X-Lax
    Tucker states it as plainly as is allowed on public airwaves. Nevertheless, he is still commonly referred to on the left (and by odious neocons like Max Boot) as a "white nationalist". They're on to him!
  39. Regarding ratings, the numbers for all of them are pretty pathetic. There are teenagers on YouTube who average 3 million viewers using their phone cams. The mainstream media is dying.

  40. @Tyrion 2
    I can't believe that someone as talented and interesting as Tucker Carlson has his own mainstream TV show. It is testament to his talents, intelligence and those of the persons (who (genuinely) must not be named) in the lineage of the ideas he expresses.

    ...having to write like the above is quite annoying...

    having to write like the above is quite annoying…

    But still true.

  41. @JohnnyWalker123

    Why all the hate for Carlson? For example, Matthew Yglesias of Vox endorsed the intentions of the leftist goon squad who terrorized Mrs. Carlson into locking herself in the pantry.

     

    Probably because Tucker Carlson is witty and intellectually agile. So lots of powerful people fear his ability to deconstruct the ruling class.. Especially since Tucker Carlson occasionally flirts with white racialism, I think a certain tribe (which Yglesias belongs to) finds him particularly threatening.

    AntiFa is being funded by George Soros and lots of other Democrat-leaning political donors. So it's not an autonomous group. There are handlers whose strings are being pulled from behind the scenes. Don't think anything is just spontaneously happening.

    The attack on Tucker Carlson's house was a message to shut up and move on to safer topics (like tax, deregulation, and rap music).

    Carlson, a rich kid from La Jolla, isn’t a populist outsider by upbringing or personality.

     

    For whatever reason, the coastal areas of Southern California seem to a produce a notably high proportion of good looking people.

    Carlson is certainly telegenic, youthful looking, and handsome. He doesn't seem to have aged much since he started on tv. He really seems to bring a fresh face to the conservative, while having the intellect of a more seasoned veteran. That's a good combination.

    Based on what I've seen, he's intellectually matured a lot since his days on Cross Fire.

    The funny thing is that Carlson, a lifelong Republican, has drifted leftward on economics and foreign policy in recent years, as seen in his new best-seller, Ship of Fools: How a Selfish Ruling Class Is Bringing America to the Brink of Revolution.

     

    I think there's a general sense that America's rulers have totally mismanaged this country, especially from the early 2000s onward, due to incompetence and parasitic corruption. There's a lot of critique of the ruling class from both the left and right. Interestingly enough, while there are differences in leftist and rightist critiques, there seems to be somewhat of a consensus on some issues.

    Back in the late 90s/early 2000s, I was struck by how similar Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader often sounded. It seems like others (Tucker Carlson, Bernie Sanders, occasionally even Donald Trump) are converging on that left-right consensus.

    The central theme of Ship of Fools is that the convergence toward the reigning elite consensus of economic conservatism and social progressivism is better for the people at the top of society than for maintaining a stable middle-class democracy:

     

    The transition to economic conservatism happened back in the 80s, during the Reagan-Bush era. There were plenty of leftists and unions who fought back, but they got curb stomped into the ground. The victory of economic conservatives was so complete (especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union) that the Democrat party "triangulated" right in the 90s, under Clinton-Gore (who were very supportive of NAFTA, trade with China, financial deregulation, cutting capital gains, catering to Silicon Valley).

    Similar trends occurred in other first-world nations (like the UK under Thatcher and Major).

    In his book "Death of the West," Pat Buchanan admits the positive social value of a high minimum wage, protections for workers, regulation of executive pay, and support for unions.

    People often say that the problem with conservatives is that they've become "RINOs" (Republican-in-name-only) who adopt liberal positions. Maybe, the problem is just the opposite. Maybe the problem is that the left has given up its traditional defense of the working-class and tacked too far to right on issues like taxes, trade, and deregulation.

    Companies can openly mistreat their employees (or “contractors”), but for the price of installing transgender bathrooms they buy a pass. Shareholders win, workers lose. Bowing to the diversity agenda is a lot cheaper than raising wages.

     

    It'd be nice if we had labor unions, but those were broken back a few decades ago. Especially after Reagan fired the air traffic controllers, all hell broke loose. It was really then that workers became seen as a commodity who could be bought, sold, or discarded.

    Ship of Fools is full of appreciations of liberal heroes of the 20th century, such as Ralph Nader, Frank Church (the Democratic senator who helped bring the American deep state under some degree of legislative control in 1975), and farm labor leader Cesar Chavez (a fervent opponent of illegal immigration).

     

    At some point, he should also give a shout out to Jimmy Carter, who tried his best to reign in CIA excesses as president. Unfortunately, after the CIA and Reagan-Bush stole the 1980 election by manipulating the release of the Iranian hostages, politicians got the message that you shouldn't screw with the intelligence agencies. Either they ruin you or they kill you (which JFK and RFK found out the hard way).

    At least Tucker Carlson is intellectually honest enough to admit the role that various types of leftists (environmentalists, consumer safety advocates, union organizers, anti-corruption activists) played in making America a better place to live. They weren't perfect, but they were never as evil as Reagan, Bush, and Gingrich portrayed them. At this point, we sort of wish those people had more power in this country.

    FDR receives a tribute for his Civilian Conservation Corps, which provided healthy, prideful hard work to many unmarried young men. Carlson then acidly observes: “It would be denounced as irredeemably sexist today.”

     

    There actually was a female version of the CCC, organized by Eleanor Roosevelt.

    He’s likewise old enough to notice how humiliating it ought to be to contemporary intellectuals that they feel obligated to praise the intelligence of Ta-Nehisi Coates:

     

    It can't be any more humiliating than all the praise that conservative intellectuals gave to President Bush (and later Sarah Palin). Neither of whom are, in any way, more intellectually sophisticated than Coates. The pro-Bush sycophancy of the 2004 Republican National Convention (when speakers portrayed a dimwitted man as the next Winston Churchill) was particularly depressing.

    Actually, it's even worse, as Coates is merely a journalist. Bush and Palin were seen as Presidential/VP timber. Which reflects pretty badly on the Republican electorate.

    Sure it's ridiculous for Coates to go from journalist to comic book writer, but it's even more ridiculous that Governor Palin quit her governorship to do reality tv.

    Thanks for one helluva a comment. Now I don’t have to labor to put one together myself. I don’t think all or many here on Unz will agree with your assessment of Reagan and Clinton but you are, neverthelessless, spot on.

    Both betrayed the American working class. The Clintons are simply hillbilly Arkansas grifters who saw which way would lead them to the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Bill, as much as Reagan, permitted policies which enabled the bankers and investors to break the back of American labor.

    This is anecdotal, but straight from the trenches. An uncle of mine was a highly placed executive of a large international corporation through the 60’s and 70’s. and into the 80’s. He was a board member during the midst of the war on American corporations that was waged by raiders and takeover artists.

    Remember the credo “the board must act so as to maximize shareholder value”? Once that took hold, all the old-fashioned executives who felt that the corporation actually had an obligation to give back to the community and support civil society by paying decent wages to its employees were marginalized in the board rooms. A new crew of cold-blooded pirates, with freshly minted MBAs from Harvard and the like, took over. They had no such sentimental sympathies with the American worker and saw him instead as a clod and a stubborn dolt who stood in the way of their financial schemes to get rich quick.

    When I asked my uncle about executive compensation in 2003, he said that then-current levels were “obscene”. His generation earned a good living but weren’t rich.

    The financiers have taken over. The makers and doers are in retreat. Trade and Federal deficits have soared. The fanning apologist Krugman’s of the world see no problem in America issuing bonds and printing money indefinitely–just as long as we have the military might to impose the dollar standard on Saudi oil–which serves Israel’s purposes as well. What a coincidence.

    Bogus dollars, oil and military might, the American triumvirate.

    • Agree: JohnnyWalker123
    • Replies: @Lagertha
    Exactly, and so depressing. When I finally realized this, I could never listen, politely, to people who declare themselves Progressive...or Republican ( I have lost a lot of friends). All of these people do not want to listen to other people's ideas...they simply don't.

    It is truly hard to open the eyes of the Millennials, but I take every chance I am given. Teaching them that the Central Banks, actually, lord over the world...except Russia and China, is hard because these young people have been so indoctrinated with Cultural Marxism ideas in public school (now, boarding school, , btw; Soros (Alumnus) gave millions to a prestigious private school in my region).

    Ergo, the media are sent in as the first agitators to bring regime change and probably, war. I hope Trump does not fall for the phony Ukrainian Nazis wanting to take back Dumbass...I mean, Donbass :) by coercing the USA to intervene: Stay out of it. Russians and Ukrainians have been fighting for centuries - do not get involved for God's sake! Take it from a Finn: stay away from Russia and its Eastern neighbors.

  42. @Tyrion 2
    That sounds exciting. What did they "attack" him with? Nukes? Cyber-warfare? Kabbalistic magic?

    Oh...they posted a few ineffectual facebook ads and sent him an email over a legitimate political disagreement. An epic Manichean struggle this is not. People like you might be more effective if you didn't act like such a loopy old maid.

    Oh…they posted a few ineffectual facebook ads and sent him an email over a legitimate political disagreement.

    Pro-Israel groups are mobilizing against Sen. Rand Paul for his block on legislation to give Israel $38 billion over the next 10 years. AIPAC is placing Facebook ads & CUFI is sending emails to pressure Paul, “the last obstacle” to Israel obtaining the largest military aid package in US history…”

    Sure, because after all, AIPAC is such a marginal, ineffectual organization.

    What it likely means is that money will pour into his next election opponent. Maybe even into the coffers of a primary challenger.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    What odds will you offer that Rand Paul is re-elected?

    Since you give me the impression that you think AIPAC and assorted organisations afs all powerful, I think it'd be fair if you gave me 100 to 1 against.

    Still, I'm a sporting man so I'll happily take evens as a bet between equals. Sound fair?
  43. @JohnnyWalker123

    Why all the hate for Carlson? For example, Matthew Yglesias of Vox endorsed the intentions of the leftist goon squad who terrorized Mrs. Carlson into locking herself in the pantry.

     

    Probably because Tucker Carlson is witty and intellectually agile. So lots of powerful people fear his ability to deconstruct the ruling class.. Especially since Tucker Carlson occasionally flirts with white racialism, I think a certain tribe (which Yglesias belongs to) finds him particularly threatening.

    AntiFa is being funded by George Soros and lots of other Democrat-leaning political donors. So it's not an autonomous group. There are handlers whose strings are being pulled from behind the scenes. Don't think anything is just spontaneously happening.

    The attack on Tucker Carlson's house was a message to shut up and move on to safer topics (like tax, deregulation, and rap music).

    Carlson, a rich kid from La Jolla, isn’t a populist outsider by upbringing or personality.

     

    For whatever reason, the coastal areas of Southern California seem to a produce a notably high proportion of good looking people.

    Carlson is certainly telegenic, youthful looking, and handsome. He doesn't seem to have aged much since he started on tv. He really seems to bring a fresh face to the conservative, while having the intellect of a more seasoned veteran. That's a good combination.

    Based on what I've seen, he's intellectually matured a lot since his days on Cross Fire.

    The funny thing is that Carlson, a lifelong Republican, has drifted leftward on economics and foreign policy in recent years, as seen in his new best-seller, Ship of Fools: How a Selfish Ruling Class Is Bringing America to the Brink of Revolution.

     

    I think there's a general sense that America's rulers have totally mismanaged this country, especially from the early 2000s onward, due to incompetence and parasitic corruption. There's a lot of critique of the ruling class from both the left and right. Interestingly enough, while there are differences in leftist and rightist critiques, there seems to be somewhat of a consensus on some issues.

    Back in the late 90s/early 2000s, I was struck by how similar Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader often sounded. It seems like others (Tucker Carlson, Bernie Sanders, occasionally even Donald Trump) are converging on that left-right consensus.

    The central theme of Ship of Fools is that the convergence toward the reigning elite consensus of economic conservatism and social progressivism is better for the people at the top of society than for maintaining a stable middle-class democracy:

     

    The transition to economic conservatism happened back in the 80s, during the Reagan-Bush era. There were plenty of leftists and unions who fought back, but they got curb stomped into the ground. The victory of economic conservatives was so complete (especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union) that the Democrat party "triangulated" right in the 90s, under Clinton-Gore (who were very supportive of NAFTA, trade with China, financial deregulation, cutting capital gains, catering to Silicon Valley).

    Similar trends occurred in other first-world nations (like the UK under Thatcher and Major).

    In his book "Death of the West," Pat Buchanan admits the positive social value of a high minimum wage, protections for workers, regulation of executive pay, and support for unions.

    People often say that the problem with conservatives is that they've become "RINOs" (Republican-in-name-only) who adopt liberal positions. Maybe, the problem is just the opposite. Maybe the problem is that the left has given up its traditional defense of the working-class and tacked too far to right on issues like taxes, trade, and deregulation.

    Companies can openly mistreat their employees (or “contractors”), but for the price of installing transgender bathrooms they buy a pass. Shareholders win, workers lose. Bowing to the diversity agenda is a lot cheaper than raising wages.

     

    It'd be nice if we had labor unions, but those were broken back a few decades ago. Especially after Reagan fired the air traffic controllers, all hell broke loose. It was really then that workers became seen as a commodity who could be bought, sold, or discarded.

    Ship of Fools is full of appreciations of liberal heroes of the 20th century, such as Ralph Nader, Frank Church (the Democratic senator who helped bring the American deep state under some degree of legislative control in 1975), and farm labor leader Cesar Chavez (a fervent opponent of illegal immigration).

     

    At some point, he should also give a shout out to Jimmy Carter, who tried his best to reign in CIA excesses as president. Unfortunately, after the CIA and Reagan-Bush stole the 1980 election by manipulating the release of the Iranian hostages, politicians got the message that you shouldn't screw with the intelligence agencies. Either they ruin you or they kill you (which JFK and RFK found out the hard way).

    At least Tucker Carlson is intellectually honest enough to admit the role that various types of leftists (environmentalists, consumer safety advocates, union organizers, anti-corruption activists) played in making America a better place to live. They weren't perfect, but they were never as evil as Reagan, Bush, and Gingrich portrayed them. At this point, we sort of wish those people had more power in this country.

    FDR receives a tribute for his Civilian Conservation Corps, which provided healthy, prideful hard work to many unmarried young men. Carlson then acidly observes: “It would be denounced as irredeemably sexist today.”

     

    There actually was a female version of the CCC, organized by Eleanor Roosevelt.

    He’s likewise old enough to notice how humiliating it ought to be to contemporary intellectuals that they feel obligated to praise the intelligence of Ta-Nehisi Coates:

     

    It can't be any more humiliating than all the praise that conservative intellectuals gave to President Bush (and later Sarah Palin). Neither of whom are, in any way, more intellectually sophisticated than Coates. The pro-Bush sycophancy of the 2004 Republican National Convention (when speakers portrayed a dimwitted man as the next Winston Churchill) was particularly depressing.

    Actually, it's even worse, as Coates is merely a journalist. Bush and Palin were seen as Presidential/VP timber. Which reflects pretty badly on the Republican electorate.

    Sure it's ridiculous for Coates to go from journalist to comic book writer, but it's even more ridiculous that Governor Palin quit her governorship to do reality tv.

    Although I don’t agree with you on your last part, Johnny, that’s a very interesting comment though, and it goes along with the thoughts in Mr. Sailer’s review. I don’t agree with it all, but the old left did care about the lives of ordinary Americans. I can’t argue with that.

    The reason the new left, the ctrl-left, as it were, doesn’t care about unions and the environment anymore is that they simply want to destroy the country. If destroying the American people causes collateral damage to “the planet”, then it’s just that whole egg/omelet thing for them. They are indeed the Neo-Bolsheviks, coming back to make history rhyme.

    I don’t think Reagan was down with the Deep State, though, until, (let’s not forget) he was almost JFK’d too, only a couple of months into his presidency. That was probably a warning, and though it was a .22 shot, it was not the normal 22 LR, but explosive “Devastator” rounds. By the time Reagan was done with surgery, he’d lost 1/2 of his blood volume, and though it went well, he had a fever that kept him in the hospital for 2 weeks. I still have lots of respect for Ronald Reagan, the man and the President, but those shots in 1981 may have been a warning that he heeded.

    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123

    I don’t think Reagan was down with the Deep State, though, until, (let’s not forget) he was almost JFK’d too, only a couple of months into his presidency. That was probably a warning, and though it was a .22 shot, it was not the normal 22 LR, but explosive “Devastator” rounds. By the time Reagan was done with surgery, he’d lost 1/2 of his blood volume, and though it went well, he had a fever that kept him in the hospital for 2 weeks. I still have lots of respect for Ronald Reagan, the man and the President, but those shots in 1981 may have been a warning that he heeded.

     

    That's a good point.

    Here's an interesting piece of information.

    John Hinckley's father was a close friend of HW Bush and a major donor. Hinckley’s brother had dinner scheduled with Neil Bush (son of HW Bush) on the day after the assassination.

    Imagine I'm your VP (and next in line to take your job). You end up shot by the son of my friend. On the next day, my son has plans to meet with the brother of the assassin.

    Wouldn't you be a little suspicious?

    My guess is that HW Bush (who was the former CIA director) took care of all the details behind when the Iranian-held hostages would be released. He figured after Carter was out of the way, he needed to somehow oust Reagan.
  44. @JohnnyWalker123

    I have no idea how Carlson creates five hours of television per week and writes a book at the same time, but Ship of Fools is quite good. It’s currently No. 3 on the nonfiction best-seller list, behind Michelle Obama and Bill O’Reilly.

     

    Both of whom are hucksters. It should be noted that Tucker Carlson came in after Bill O'Reilly (a loudmouth right-wing conman who spent decades talking about how he was a "culture warrior") got fired by FOX for trying to coerce sex out of his female subordinates.

    Back in the early 2000s, O'Reilly started a boycott to get Pepsi to stop sponsoring rapper "Ludacris," saying that he "degraded women." His boycott was successful and got "Ludacris" dropped. A few years later, O'Reilly ran into a workplace sexual harassment scandal. Then more recently, O'Reill ran into another harassment scandal, which resulted in him getting fired.

    Here's what "Ludacris" had to say about O'Reilly.

    “It’s not my place to judge Bill O’Reilly the same way he judged me,” he said during an appearance on radio show “The Breakfast Club.” “I’m thriving in life right now. All I can do is hope that Bill O’Reilly settles these issues and learns from whatever mistakes he may have made ― and also thrives.”

    “But,” he added, “it is definitely ironic that Pepsi and Bill O’Reilly are under fire right now.”

     

    Here's a good clip that demonstrates the "intellect" of Bill O'Reilly (it gets interesting at 3:05). The man is a complete charlatan and an entertainer who knows his audience. He's a more coherent version of Glenn Beck.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKFvne6R7IA

    It's remarkable that O'Reilly is an intellectual leader in the conservative movement.

    There exists this view that somehow White media/govt figures (especially White conservative men) are held to a high standard, while dumb Blacks get a pass. In reality, dumb people (regardless of race or politics) often do make it to the top, but the left has no monopoly on idiocy.

    Bill Maher had some good critique (watch from 1:30 onward).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46waxL2MICc

    The left has its flaws too, but let's not act like the right is somehow the adult in the room.

    The left has its flaws too, but let’s not act like the right is somehow the adult in the room.

    I would agree with this statement. But I despise Bill Maher and his simplistic and vulgar attacks on anyone who challenges the virtue of the left and their dystopian fantasies.

    His show is a hate fest against the goyim and their civilization.

    I cannot stand the arrogant creep.

  45. @JohnnyWalker123

    Why all the hate for Carlson? For example, Matthew Yglesias of Vox endorsed the intentions of the leftist goon squad who terrorized Mrs. Carlson into locking herself in the pantry.

     

    Probably because Tucker Carlson is witty and intellectually agile. So lots of powerful people fear his ability to deconstruct the ruling class.. Especially since Tucker Carlson occasionally flirts with white racialism, I think a certain tribe (which Yglesias belongs to) finds him particularly threatening.

    AntiFa is being funded by George Soros and lots of other Democrat-leaning political donors. So it's not an autonomous group. There are handlers whose strings are being pulled from behind the scenes. Don't think anything is just spontaneously happening.

    The attack on Tucker Carlson's house was a message to shut up and move on to safer topics (like tax, deregulation, and rap music).

    Carlson, a rich kid from La Jolla, isn’t a populist outsider by upbringing or personality.

     

    For whatever reason, the coastal areas of Southern California seem to a produce a notably high proportion of good looking people.

    Carlson is certainly telegenic, youthful looking, and handsome. He doesn't seem to have aged much since he started on tv. He really seems to bring a fresh face to the conservative, while having the intellect of a more seasoned veteran. That's a good combination.

    Based on what I've seen, he's intellectually matured a lot since his days on Cross Fire.

    The funny thing is that Carlson, a lifelong Republican, has drifted leftward on economics and foreign policy in recent years, as seen in his new best-seller, Ship of Fools: How a Selfish Ruling Class Is Bringing America to the Brink of Revolution.

     

    I think there's a general sense that America's rulers have totally mismanaged this country, especially from the early 2000s onward, due to incompetence and parasitic corruption. There's a lot of critique of the ruling class from both the left and right. Interestingly enough, while there are differences in leftist and rightist critiques, there seems to be somewhat of a consensus on some issues.

    Back in the late 90s/early 2000s, I was struck by how similar Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader often sounded. It seems like others (Tucker Carlson, Bernie Sanders, occasionally even Donald Trump) are converging on that left-right consensus.

    The central theme of Ship of Fools is that the convergence toward the reigning elite consensus of economic conservatism and social progressivism is better for the people at the top of society than for maintaining a stable middle-class democracy:

     

    The transition to economic conservatism happened back in the 80s, during the Reagan-Bush era. There were plenty of leftists and unions who fought back, but they got curb stomped into the ground. The victory of economic conservatives was so complete (especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union) that the Democrat party "triangulated" right in the 90s, under Clinton-Gore (who were very supportive of NAFTA, trade with China, financial deregulation, cutting capital gains, catering to Silicon Valley).

    Similar trends occurred in other first-world nations (like the UK under Thatcher and Major).

    In his book "Death of the West," Pat Buchanan admits the positive social value of a high minimum wage, protections for workers, regulation of executive pay, and support for unions.

    People often say that the problem with conservatives is that they've become "RINOs" (Republican-in-name-only) who adopt liberal positions. Maybe, the problem is just the opposite. Maybe the problem is that the left has given up its traditional defense of the working-class and tacked too far to right on issues like taxes, trade, and deregulation.

    Companies can openly mistreat their employees (or “contractors”), but for the price of installing transgender bathrooms they buy a pass. Shareholders win, workers lose. Bowing to the diversity agenda is a lot cheaper than raising wages.

     

    It'd be nice if we had labor unions, but those were broken back a few decades ago. Especially after Reagan fired the air traffic controllers, all hell broke loose. It was really then that workers became seen as a commodity who could be bought, sold, or discarded.

    Ship of Fools is full of appreciations of liberal heroes of the 20th century, such as Ralph Nader, Frank Church (the Democratic senator who helped bring the American deep state under some degree of legislative control in 1975), and farm labor leader Cesar Chavez (a fervent opponent of illegal immigration).

     

    At some point, he should also give a shout out to Jimmy Carter, who tried his best to reign in CIA excesses as president. Unfortunately, after the CIA and Reagan-Bush stole the 1980 election by manipulating the release of the Iranian hostages, politicians got the message that you shouldn't screw with the intelligence agencies. Either they ruin you or they kill you (which JFK and RFK found out the hard way).

    At least Tucker Carlson is intellectually honest enough to admit the role that various types of leftists (environmentalists, consumer safety advocates, union organizers, anti-corruption activists) played in making America a better place to live. They weren't perfect, but they were never as evil as Reagan, Bush, and Gingrich portrayed them. At this point, we sort of wish those people had more power in this country.

    FDR receives a tribute for his Civilian Conservation Corps, which provided healthy, prideful hard work to many unmarried young men. Carlson then acidly observes: “It would be denounced as irredeemably sexist today.”

     

    There actually was a female version of the CCC, organized by Eleanor Roosevelt.

    He’s likewise old enough to notice how humiliating it ought to be to contemporary intellectuals that they feel obligated to praise the intelligence of Ta-Nehisi Coates:

     

    It can't be any more humiliating than all the praise that conservative intellectuals gave to President Bush (and later Sarah Palin). Neither of whom are, in any way, more intellectually sophisticated than Coates. The pro-Bush sycophancy of the 2004 Republican National Convention (when speakers portrayed a dimwitted man as the next Winston Churchill) was particularly depressing.

    Actually, it's even worse, as Coates is merely a journalist. Bush and Palin were seen as Presidential/VP timber. Which reflects pretty badly on the Republican electorate.

    Sure it's ridiculous for Coates to go from journalist to comic book writer, but it's even more ridiculous that Governor Palin quit her governorship to do reality tv.

    A lot of fair points. Yet I’d take Sarah Palin as governor in place of Jerry Brown or most other current governors. Rather have her family as our neighbors than the people we actually have here, too.

    But yes, she wasn’t ready for the White House and the republicans should have picked someone else. On the other hand, we will hear all about how the next unqualified white-hating open-borders woman on the democrat ticket, Kamala Harris or Pocahontas Warren or Michelle Obama etc., is well prepared for the presidency.

  46. @JohnnyWalker123

    At the moment, the coalition of identity groups has held together because it is united in a single purpose against white male power.

    But rapid demographic change makes this unsustainable. When the traditional scapegoat becomes insufficient, various factions will turn on one another.

    Chaos will ensue.

     

    Whites are a minority in Texas, California, and Hawaii. Have Whites been persecuted in any of these states? Have non-whites turned on each other?

    When California turned majority Democrat and majority Nonwhite, did Steve leave the state to avoid racial persecution and a coming racial conflagration?

    I'm not necessarily dismissing this point, but I think we have to a reality check. Multi-racial societies have lots of problems, but things aren't so bad in areas in which Whites are a minority. Of course, the situation could change in the future.

    Yeah, every time I think that we’re on our way to the Balkans, I look at California, Texas, New Mexico and Florida say, “Well, maybe not.”

    Granted, those states are likely far, far less appealing due to their diversity than they would have been without it, but they are not cauldrons of racial hatred and violence. Whites are not being persecuted nor are White identity groups being created to fight back. It’s just a slow slide toward some Latin American-style society.

    But then every time I think that these states represent our future (crappy but not the Balkans), I see some Obama type talking about how we need to get blacks down the street from Whites through housing policy, or the need for more “opportunity” for NAMs, i.e. money from Whites, or I hear about some new program to put NAMs into executive positions or some diversity program where Whites have to sit and be scolded by blacks about how evil they are. I see this and think that maybe we’re heading toward something far worse than Latin America.

    I can’t quite figure which direction where heading. But what I do know is that Door 2 which really could lead to the Balkans is no longer some crazy fantasy. Even if the odds are against it, it’s a possibility. Certainly, it’s enough of a possibility to think about contingency plans. (The odds of me dying in the next year are extremely low but because of the consequences, I have life insurance. The same holds true here. Low odds (but growing odds) but huge negative consequences.)

    • Replies: @Flip
    Yeah, Latin America seems to be the future. Mixed race population with a white (and Asian) elite. Weak currencies and low rule of law.

    Mexicans and Asians don't seem to be nearly as hostile to American whites as blacks do.
  47. @Arclight
    It seems to me that a shift from the nominally libertarian/free market politics that dominate in the GOP on immigration and the workforce to something more like the what the labor Dems of old held would solidify the white working class vote for the party and probably scoop up more blacks and latinos as well. The GOP doesn't have to win anything approaching a majority of black or latino voters to be competitive, they just need to pick up another 5% of each than their current voter share and the Democrats would lose every national election by the same margin as Hilary in the electoral college and the GOP would scoop up another half dozen Senate seats.

    Yes, the free market line of thinking on mass immigration, trade, etc. would grow the economy faster than a more populist economic model, but the benefits of it overwhelmingly accrue to people already at the top. I'd trade a bit of growth in favor of a middle and lower class that have better economic prospects rather than letting the already well off get richer. That's supposedly what the Democrats are about but their positions on immigration and coziness with Wall Street and Silicon Valley work against most of the people they claim to care the most about.

    YES.

  48. @JohnnyWalker123

    At the moment, the coalition of identity groups has held together because it is united in a single purpose against white male power.

    But rapid demographic change makes this unsustainable. When the traditional scapegoat becomes insufficient, various factions will turn on one another.

    Chaos will ensue.

     

    Whites are a minority in Texas, California, and Hawaii. Have Whites been persecuted in any of these states? Have non-whites turned on each other?

    When California turned majority Democrat and majority Nonwhite, did Steve leave the state to avoid racial persecution and a coming racial conflagration?

    I'm not necessarily dismissing this point, but I think we have to a reality check. Multi-racial societies have lots of problems, but things aren't so bad in areas in which Whites are a minority. Of course, the situation could change in the future.

    Whites are a minority in Texas, California, and Hawaii. Have Whites been persecuted in any of these states? Have non-whites turned on each other?

    A lot of whites have found California to have become inhospitable and have therefore left. Mostly for economic reasons, I gather, but a lot of those are the direct result of the foreign influx.

    And non-whites have turned on each other at the street level, but they still hold their mutual animosities in check in order to stick it to whites.

    Moreover, there have been numerous cases recently of whites who have lost their jobs or been subjected to public ridicule for comments they have made, often simply truthful, about minority behavior, or actions they have taken based on experience. And then there is the newly minted crime of “calling 911 while white”. Those are forms of persecution

    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123

    A lot of whites have found California to have become inhospitable and have therefore left. Mostly for economic reasons, I gather, but a lot of those are the direct result of the foreign influx.

     

    It's true to say that immigrants (mostly due to driving overpopulation) are ruining the high standard of living in some parts of the country, but that's not quite the same thing as saying they're persecuting Whites.

    There's a huge difference between turning into Singapore and turning into Detroit.

    Not that I'd want to live in Singapore, but at least it's a functional country in which affluent people have a good standard of living.

    Moreover, there have been numerous cases recently of whites who have lost their jobs or been subjected to public ridicule for comments they have made, often simply truthful, about minority behavior, or actions they have taken based on experience. And then there is the newly minted crime of “calling 911 while white”. Those are forms of persecution

     

    Yes, but this is happening throughout the country. Even in overwhelmingly White places. Would you say that being a White in California, Hawaii, or Texas is a much worse deal than being a White in West Virginia, Kentucky, or Maine?
  49. @JohnnyWalker123

    I have no idea how Carlson creates five hours of television per week and writes a book at the same time, but Ship of Fools is quite good. It’s currently No. 3 on the nonfiction best-seller list, behind Michelle Obama and Bill O’Reilly.

     

    Both of whom are hucksters. It should be noted that Tucker Carlson came in after Bill O'Reilly (a loudmouth right-wing conman who spent decades talking about how he was a "culture warrior") got fired by FOX for trying to coerce sex out of his female subordinates.

    Back in the early 2000s, O'Reilly started a boycott to get Pepsi to stop sponsoring rapper "Ludacris," saying that he "degraded women." His boycott was successful and got "Ludacris" dropped. A few years later, O'Reilly ran into a workplace sexual harassment scandal. Then more recently, O'Reill ran into another harassment scandal, which resulted in him getting fired.

    Here's what "Ludacris" had to say about O'Reilly.

    “It’s not my place to judge Bill O’Reilly the same way he judged me,” he said during an appearance on radio show “The Breakfast Club.” “I’m thriving in life right now. All I can do is hope that Bill O’Reilly settles these issues and learns from whatever mistakes he may have made ― and also thrives.”

    “But,” he added, “it is definitely ironic that Pepsi and Bill O’Reilly are under fire right now.”

     

    Here's a good clip that demonstrates the "intellect" of Bill O'Reilly (it gets interesting at 3:05). The man is a complete charlatan and an entertainer who knows his audience. He's a more coherent version of Glenn Beck.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKFvne6R7IA

    It's remarkable that O'Reilly is an intellectual leader in the conservative movement.

    There exists this view that somehow White media/govt figures (especially White conservative men) are held to a high standard, while dumb Blacks get a pass. In reality, dumb people (regardless of race or politics) often do make it to the top, but the left has no monopoly on idiocy.

    Bill Maher had some good critique (watch from 1:30 onward).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46waxL2MICc

    The left has its flaws too, but let's not act like the right is somehow the adult in the room.

    Bill Mayer.

    Straw man argumentation from an intellectual weakling who panders to a base every bit as ignorant and prejudiced as those he skewers, doesn’t make for good humor. Bill O’Reilly for NPR listeners.

    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    Bill Maher is more of a snarky polemicist than a deep thinker, but he often offers good insight into different issues.

    Here's Bill Maher criticizing the PC police.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0B1UL0FxYj0

    Even as a conservative, you can't tell me that Maher is all bad.
  50. @Arclight
    It seems to me that a shift from the nominally libertarian/free market politics that dominate in the GOP on immigration and the workforce to something more like the what the labor Dems of old held would solidify the white working class vote for the party and probably scoop up more blacks and latinos as well. The GOP doesn't have to win anything approaching a majority of black or latino voters to be competitive, they just need to pick up another 5% of each than their current voter share and the Democrats would lose every national election by the same margin as Hilary in the electoral college and the GOP would scoop up another half dozen Senate seats.

    Yes, the free market line of thinking on mass immigration, trade, etc. would grow the economy faster than a more populist economic model, but the benefits of it overwhelmingly accrue to people already at the top. I'd trade a bit of growth in favor of a middle and lower class that have better economic prospects rather than letting the already well off get richer. That's supposedly what the Democrats are about but their positions on immigration and coziness with Wall Street and Silicon Valley work against most of the people they claim to care the most about.

    Yes, the free market line of thinking on mass immigration, trade, etc. would grow the economy faster than a more populist economic model

    Large part of this growth is due to population growth. It does not make people better off.

  51. The left is extremely agitated by the man, as seen by the property damage and threats to Mr. Carlson’s life by these Commies (face it, that’s who they are, N. Lenin could have really used a few guys like them.)

    What’s getting them into an uproar is that it’s OK to have some truth-telling real conservatives around, but, for the love of God, NOT ON TV! People like Mr. Carlson should be relegated to the dark side of the internet (even this side just went down for a day – hope it was just Mr. Unz’s own screw-up), maybe let to twit for awhile before banning them, and well “let them have Facebook”. Even that’s not OK forever, as some of them will start making their own TV channels on the internet. Look at Alex Jones – they had to cut all the links, as it was getting to be too much*.

    I was surprised that Lou Dobbs was allowed to speak about the immigration invasion nightly for a few years back in the day. That didn’t last – something happened.

    I figure there’ve got to be lots of people trying to dig up dirt about Tucker anywhere they can. He must be a pretty decent guy to not already have something out there on him. There are probably a number of hotties being set up to try to #him, I mean, #MeToo him. That’s a tough situation to be in, and I mean that seriously.

    .
    .

    * and don’t you commenters chime in with “well, he was a kook” and that, OK? Your VS-bucks are no good here – only cold hard cash or facts.

  52. @JohnnyWalker123

    I have no idea how Carlson creates five hours of television per week and writes a book at the same time, but Ship of Fools is quite good. It’s currently No. 3 on the nonfiction best-seller list, behind Michelle Obama and Bill O’Reilly.

     

    Both of whom are hucksters. It should be noted that Tucker Carlson came in after Bill O'Reilly (a loudmouth right-wing conman who spent decades talking about how he was a "culture warrior") got fired by FOX for trying to coerce sex out of his female subordinates.

    Back in the early 2000s, O'Reilly started a boycott to get Pepsi to stop sponsoring rapper "Ludacris," saying that he "degraded women." His boycott was successful and got "Ludacris" dropped. A few years later, O'Reilly ran into a workplace sexual harassment scandal. Then more recently, O'Reill ran into another harassment scandal, which resulted in him getting fired.

    Here's what "Ludacris" had to say about O'Reilly.

    “It’s not my place to judge Bill O’Reilly the same way he judged me,” he said during an appearance on radio show “The Breakfast Club.” “I’m thriving in life right now. All I can do is hope that Bill O’Reilly settles these issues and learns from whatever mistakes he may have made ― and also thrives.”

    “But,” he added, “it is definitely ironic that Pepsi and Bill O’Reilly are under fire right now.”

     

    Here's a good clip that demonstrates the "intellect" of Bill O'Reilly (it gets interesting at 3:05). The man is a complete charlatan and an entertainer who knows his audience. He's a more coherent version of Glenn Beck.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKFvne6R7IA

    It's remarkable that O'Reilly is an intellectual leader in the conservative movement.

    There exists this view that somehow White media/govt figures (especially White conservative men) are held to a high standard, while dumb Blacks get a pass. In reality, dumb people (regardless of race or politics) often do make it to the top, but the left has no monopoly on idiocy.

    Bill Maher had some good critique (watch from 1:30 onward).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46waxL2MICc

    The left has its flaws too, but let's not act like the right is somehow the adult in the room.

    What I found really remarkable was the way that FOX casually unpersoned O’Reilly. His show was the biggest ratings garner on FOX; it was their weeknight lineup anchor. That creepy, weasely little prick, Greg Gutfeld, hosted the last episode of “The Factor”, and signed O’Reilly’s show off the air without even once mentioning his name. Mind you, I despise O’Reilly and always have; he is a smug, self-righteous, loud-mouthed jerk. But he was their jerk and they could have admitted it.

    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    I think the basic problem was that after Roger Ailes was kicked out of the network, there was no one left to protect O'Reilly. Murdoch's sons (the family are a clan of power-hungry wheeler-dealers) never particularly liked him, so they pushed him out when they got the chance.
  53. @JohnnyWalker123

    I have no idea how Carlson creates five hours of television per week and writes a book at the same time, but Ship of Fools is quite good. It’s currently No. 3 on the nonfiction best-seller list, behind Michelle Obama and Bill O’Reilly.

     

    Both of whom are hucksters. It should be noted that Tucker Carlson came in after Bill O'Reilly (a loudmouth right-wing conman who spent decades talking about how he was a "culture warrior") got fired by FOX for trying to coerce sex out of his female subordinates.

    Back in the early 2000s, O'Reilly started a boycott to get Pepsi to stop sponsoring rapper "Ludacris," saying that he "degraded women." His boycott was successful and got "Ludacris" dropped. A few years later, O'Reilly ran into a workplace sexual harassment scandal. Then more recently, O'Reill ran into another harassment scandal, which resulted in him getting fired.

    Here's what "Ludacris" had to say about O'Reilly.

    “It’s not my place to judge Bill O’Reilly the same way he judged me,” he said during an appearance on radio show “The Breakfast Club.” “I’m thriving in life right now. All I can do is hope that Bill O’Reilly settles these issues and learns from whatever mistakes he may have made ― and also thrives.”

    “But,” he added, “it is definitely ironic that Pepsi and Bill O’Reilly are under fire right now.”

     

    Here's a good clip that demonstrates the "intellect" of Bill O'Reilly (it gets interesting at 3:05). The man is a complete charlatan and an entertainer who knows his audience. He's a more coherent version of Glenn Beck.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKFvne6R7IA

    It's remarkable that O'Reilly is an intellectual leader in the conservative movement.

    There exists this view that somehow White media/govt figures (especially White conservative men) are held to a high standard, while dumb Blacks get a pass. In reality, dumb people (regardless of race or politics) often do make it to the top, but the left has no monopoly on idiocy.

    Bill Maher had some good critique (watch from 1:30 onward).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46waxL2MICc

    The left has its flaws too, but let's not act like the right is somehow the adult in the room.

    Bill Maher had some good critique (watch from 1:30 onward).

    I would no more voluntarily subject myself to listening to Bill Maher than I would to Bill O’Reilly.

    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1r9_tgRgRk
  54. If I didn’t know any better, I think Steve just admitted to having ghostwritten the book.

    • Replies: @Jason Roberts
    Absolutely. I’m calling on Tucker to make a substantial donation to Steve’s upcoming panhandling drive as a “thank you” for ghostwriting.
  55. @Buzz Mohawk

    Meh, Carlson sounds better in print that he actually is.
     
    Try hosting an hour-long television show five nights a week.

    TV is a mass medium, not a scholarly publication. Carlson is a brave talent at this.

    His program is just about the only thing on TV that I will watch or record anymore. It reaches millions of Americans. How many people does anyone better than him on the subjects that concern us communicate with?

    Tucker states it as plainly as is allowed on public airwaves. Nevertheless, he is still commonly referred to on the left (and by odious neocons like Max Boot) as a “white nationalist”. They’re on to him!

  56. I’m surprised so many people watch Maddow. I hadn’t known she was competitive to Tucker in ratings.

    • Replies: @donut
    Maybe it's for laughs . I sometimes watch a few minutes of TYTs for that reason .
  57. @Bill P
    Carlson is a "class traitor," which is a great thing and a necessity for a nation of any worth. It's also extremely rare in my experience. Over the last few decades, the American upper class has developed into an extraordinarily cohesive society. I'm not sure why, because you'd think people at the top would be competitive by nature, but maybe the benefits are sufficient to override their bloodier impulses.

    On the other hand, maybe they are scared by what they've gotten away with. Nick Hanauer, an early Amazon investor and prolific funder of liberal causes, has suggested so on occasion, saying that the American people must be disarmed before they seek revenge.

    Nick Hanauer, an early Amazon investor and prolific funder of liberal causes, has suggested so on occasion, saying that the American people must be disarmed before they seek revenge.

    Citation?

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    Googling Nick Hanauer, I see that he has spoken and written about how the American people are on the verge of coming after billionaires like himself with "pitchforks" due to income inequality. But I think he fears AR-15s more than pitchforks, as he's a huge supporter of gun control.

    My inference: Hanauer feels that if we can't achieve income equality, at least disarm the damned rabble.
    , @Herald
    The reply of "citation" is irritating and a sign of laziness. Perhaps worse it often denotes a troll at work.
  58. @JohnnyWalker123

    At the moment, the coalition of identity groups has held together because it is united in a single purpose against white male power.

    But rapid demographic change makes this unsustainable. When the traditional scapegoat becomes insufficient, various factions will turn on one another.

    Chaos will ensue.

     

    Whites are a minority in Texas, California, and Hawaii. Have Whites been persecuted in any of these states? Have non-whites turned on each other?

    When California turned majority Democrat and majority Nonwhite, did Steve leave the state to avoid racial persecution and a coming racial conflagration?

    I'm not necessarily dismissing this point, but I think we have to a reality check. Multi-racial societies have lots of problems, but things aren't so bad in areas in which Whites are a minority. Of course, the situation could change in the future.

    Also, there’s little reason to think that Whites will soon become so insignificant that they cannot be scapegoated. Even assuming they are scapegoated now.

    But rapid demographic change makes this unsustainable. When the traditional scapegoat becomes insufficient, various factions will turn on one another.

  59. @Mr McKenna

    Tucker Carlson is the best person now on mainstream TV news broadcasting.
     
    While we're setting low bars, may I also observe that he'd quickly rise above the common run of politician on the national stage, should he desire to make his way there.

    And as an aside, imagine for a moment the cataclysm which would await anyone who laid siege to the residence of Ta-Nehisi, or Rachel Maddow, or Peter Beinhart, or Jonathan Chait, or well, you get the idea. Unimaginable that it would even happen, much less go completely unpunished.

    This is facile.

    Coates Maddow and the like are not promoting bigotry and hatred,

    Carlson is an evil man and deserves everything he gets or he is stupid and doesn’t understand his privilege.

    Here is some truthful educational materials that are amusing at the same time

    • Replies: @Pat Boyle
    Is that Tiny Duck? The guy with the glasses and the pointy hair?

    If so he's a piece of work. "In the California in the sixties the Black Panthers resisted police violence in Oakland". You might rephrase that as - in the nineteen sixties in the Bay Area the Black Panther engaged in mass murder of white people. These were called the Zebra Murders.

    Denying guns to black people is a fine idea. It would save a lot of black lives.
  60. @Tyrion 2
    My worry is that in a political party based democracy local conflicts are tempered by national debates. Once the national debate lacks an implicit ethnic majority then the conversation of ideas will break down and there'll be a cascade of ethnic conflict out to the local level.

    My worry is that in a political party based democracy local conflicts are tempered by national debates.

    Example please?

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    Any time the opposing side tries to hang a local "radical" politician around the neck of the other national party for general electoral gain.

    Basically any non-leading Democrat you hear about from the Republicans and vice versa.

    The same is true in the UK.

    Look at how calls to "abolish ICE" were tempered by national political considerations and were replaced with messages about health care, a sensible point.
  61. @Tyrion 2
    I can't believe that someone as talented and interesting as Tucker Carlson has his own mainstream TV show. It is testament to his talents, intelligence and those of the persons (who (genuinely) must not be named) in the lineage of the ideas he expresses.

    ...having to write like the above is quite annoying...

    Admirable as his showing is, no amount of talent or intelligence gives one a national television platform or a pass for crimethink. He manages (so far) to get away with what he does for the same reason Pat Buchanan did: elite status.

  62. I have no idea how Carlson creates five hours of television per week and writes a book at the same time

    By getting other people to write for him.

    Watch him when he doesn’t have a script to read, which is every time he “interviews” a Democrat. In these tedious and predictable sessions the pattern is: Tucker interrupts with “Let me ask you a question…”, letting the guy get out just enough words for Tucker to see his brilliant trap hasn’t worked, then interrupting with another rhetorical question. After a while, Tucker’s been beaten up enough, and he goes to laughing at his guest as he ends the interview.

    Tucker solo — reading the news (as he tosses in sharp asides), opinionating outright or (I’ll take Steve’s word for it) in this book — is way smarter than Tucker the interviewer. Which can mean only one thing: he relies on others to write for him.

    Not that there’s anything wrong with that. Dan Rather didn’t (and couldn’t) write his own material either. But let’s call a spade a spade, ok?

    Ann Coulter is an example of someone who really is smart enough to have written her books. Or Douglas Murray for another. Just watch them.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    I have witnessed Carlson freely admitting what you claim. It is no secret that to produce a whole hour (minus commercial time) of television, you need a small army of writers and producers. There is no shame in that.

    Remember, he has authority on what gets on the air. It's like when you hire somebody to remodel your house. He does the job, but you tell him what you want. It is your house.

    If you haven't ever hosted a TV show, (something I did many years ago on a laughably local level) you might not realize how hard it is not to have slow, dead air and bore people to death. It is incredibly difficult to hold an audience and to keep them from changing the channel for an entire hour. Tucker Carlson deserves all the credit he gets, and he does, at lease occasionally, credit his team as well.

    , @JLK

    Ann Coulter is an example of someone who really is smart enough to have written her books.
     
    While some of Carlson's comments may be helpful in moving the envelope of permissible discussion in a more moderate direction, there's nothing in his academic background or Coulter's for that matter that suggests an intellect capable of seeing the whole picture.
    , @Anonymous

    Which can mean only one thing: he relies on others to write for him.
     
    Who could he possibly be relying upon? How many people?
    , @Anonymous

    Or Douglas Murray for another.
     
    Who is Douglas Murray?
    , @Buzz Mohawk
    I agree about Ann Coulter. She's a smart talker who inserts asides and clauses as she goes along. Her speech is closer to the written word. Her wit also is a sign of her intelligence. She sticks that in there too, often in the same manner. This refreshing complexity in her speech probably leaves behind many of the liberals who might be listening.


    BTW, why isn't Steve Sailer all over TV? Well, I guess we know why. He must have written too many taboo opinions. Still, it would be great if he could do some interviews. Can't he at least get on Tucker Carlson's show? Nah, probably not. Even that program avoids third rails -- very skillfully.

    , @snorlax
    Even from the host's substantial bully pulpit, debating people on TV is much harder than it looks. Tucker acquits himself very well compared to just about anyone else with a talk show, who tend to debate people much less often than he does, and then to rely on methods like putting them in a "panel" of 3 conservatives and 1 liberal or vice-versa, and/or yelling over them then cutting to commercial. Tucker does those things too, but much less often.

    And yes, obviously he (like every talk show host) has writers and this isn't a secret.

    Ann Coulter is an example of someone who really is smart enough to have written her books. ... Just watch them.
     
    Have you seen Ann Coulter on TV? It's cringe-inducing. She makes Bill O'Reilly look like Disraeli. Watch her strike out on Lou Dobbs' t-balls:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBQGw8oHZNo
    Compare to Tucker laying the smackdown on Michael Avenatti, who, for whatever else you can say about him, is an extremely quick-witted and verbally facile adversary:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxjOEbvdDc8
  63. @Bill P
    Carlson is a "class traitor," which is a great thing and a necessity for a nation of any worth. It's also extremely rare in my experience. Over the last few decades, the American upper class has developed into an extraordinarily cohesive society. I'm not sure why, because you'd think people at the top would be competitive by nature, but maybe the benefits are sufficient to override their bloodier impulses.

    On the other hand, maybe they are scared by what they've gotten away with. Nick Hanauer, an early Amazon investor and prolific funder of liberal causes, has suggested so on occasion, saying that the American people must be disarmed before they seek revenge.

    Over the last few decades, the American upper class has developed into an extraordinarily cohesive society. I’m not sure why, because you’d think people at the top would be competitive by nature, but maybe the benefits are sufficient to override their bloodier impulses.

    The phenomenon seems to be that there is an actual ruling class, and then there is a much larger subordinate level of status conscious whites who aspire to admission in the actual ruling class and ape its fashions and manners.

    The subordinate caste does a lot of the dirty work of striking at the white working class in every day society, thereby announcing their fitness for inclusion in the true ruling class and pretensions to belonging to it.

    We really are saddled with a large caste of officious Hyacinth Buckets – mediocrities with college degrees who work as the enforcement arm of the ruling caste.

    • Agree: L Woods, densa
    • Replies: @Anon
    Remember, that's pronounced "boo-kay."
    , @densa
    Oregon has its very own Gov. Hyacinth Bucket who just released her budget proposal. Naturally it calls for much more funding for and greater numbers of the subordinate class. This endless do-gooderism spans the budget, but Gov. HB specifically calls out for state paid healthcare for all children of border crossers. She also wants a new legal defense fund to protect illegal border crossers from being prosecuted by the feds. So the feds will try to enforce the law and Gov. HB will tax us to provide legal defense.

    Always lost to the parasitical class is the sight of the taxpayers who support them, unwillingly I might add. That is bad enough, to be invisible when "all" the interests have a seat at the table, but to have your money actually deployed to help illegal invaders seems, well, unConstitutional.

    Meanwhile, in their generosity the Hyacinth Buckets expand by 4% the program that allows exhausted tax donkeys, aka senior citizens, to defer their property tax by having the state pay the county the money. Last I saw they were getting 12% on that money, although I don't know what they get now. The point is, they will tax you beyond your last earnings and breath to pay to invite 7 billion to replace you. And they're happy with that as long as they continue to get paid.
  64. @countenance
    If I didn't know any better, I think Steve just admitted to having ghostwritten the book.

    Absolutely. I’m calling on Tucker to make a substantial donation to Steve’s upcoming panhandling drive as a “thank you” for ghostwriting.

  65. @JohnnyWalker123

    Why all the hate for Carlson? For example, Matthew Yglesias of Vox endorsed the intentions of the leftist goon squad who terrorized Mrs. Carlson into locking herself in the pantry.

     

    Probably because Tucker Carlson is witty and intellectually agile. So lots of powerful people fear his ability to deconstruct the ruling class.. Especially since Tucker Carlson occasionally flirts with white racialism, I think a certain tribe (which Yglesias belongs to) finds him particularly threatening.

    AntiFa is being funded by George Soros and lots of other Democrat-leaning political donors. So it's not an autonomous group. There are handlers whose strings are being pulled from behind the scenes. Don't think anything is just spontaneously happening.

    The attack on Tucker Carlson's house was a message to shut up and move on to safer topics (like tax, deregulation, and rap music).

    Carlson, a rich kid from La Jolla, isn’t a populist outsider by upbringing or personality.

     

    For whatever reason, the coastal areas of Southern California seem to a produce a notably high proportion of good looking people.

    Carlson is certainly telegenic, youthful looking, and handsome. He doesn't seem to have aged much since he started on tv. He really seems to bring a fresh face to the conservative, while having the intellect of a more seasoned veteran. That's a good combination.

    Based on what I've seen, he's intellectually matured a lot since his days on Cross Fire.

    The funny thing is that Carlson, a lifelong Republican, has drifted leftward on economics and foreign policy in recent years, as seen in his new best-seller, Ship of Fools: How a Selfish Ruling Class Is Bringing America to the Brink of Revolution.

     

    I think there's a general sense that America's rulers have totally mismanaged this country, especially from the early 2000s onward, due to incompetence and parasitic corruption. There's a lot of critique of the ruling class from both the left and right. Interestingly enough, while there are differences in leftist and rightist critiques, there seems to be somewhat of a consensus on some issues.

    Back in the late 90s/early 2000s, I was struck by how similar Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader often sounded. It seems like others (Tucker Carlson, Bernie Sanders, occasionally even Donald Trump) are converging on that left-right consensus.

    The central theme of Ship of Fools is that the convergence toward the reigning elite consensus of economic conservatism and social progressivism is better for the people at the top of society than for maintaining a stable middle-class democracy:

     

    The transition to economic conservatism happened back in the 80s, during the Reagan-Bush era. There were plenty of leftists and unions who fought back, but they got curb stomped into the ground. The victory of economic conservatives was so complete (especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union) that the Democrat party "triangulated" right in the 90s, under Clinton-Gore (who were very supportive of NAFTA, trade with China, financial deregulation, cutting capital gains, catering to Silicon Valley).

    Similar trends occurred in other first-world nations (like the UK under Thatcher and Major).

    In his book "Death of the West," Pat Buchanan admits the positive social value of a high minimum wage, protections for workers, regulation of executive pay, and support for unions.

    People often say that the problem with conservatives is that they've become "RINOs" (Republican-in-name-only) who adopt liberal positions. Maybe, the problem is just the opposite. Maybe the problem is that the left has given up its traditional defense of the working-class and tacked too far to right on issues like taxes, trade, and deregulation.

    Companies can openly mistreat their employees (or “contractors”), but for the price of installing transgender bathrooms they buy a pass. Shareholders win, workers lose. Bowing to the diversity agenda is a lot cheaper than raising wages.

     

    It'd be nice if we had labor unions, but those were broken back a few decades ago. Especially after Reagan fired the air traffic controllers, all hell broke loose. It was really then that workers became seen as a commodity who could be bought, sold, or discarded.

    Ship of Fools is full of appreciations of liberal heroes of the 20th century, such as Ralph Nader, Frank Church (the Democratic senator who helped bring the American deep state under some degree of legislative control in 1975), and farm labor leader Cesar Chavez (a fervent opponent of illegal immigration).

     

    At some point, he should also give a shout out to Jimmy Carter, who tried his best to reign in CIA excesses as president. Unfortunately, after the CIA and Reagan-Bush stole the 1980 election by manipulating the release of the Iranian hostages, politicians got the message that you shouldn't screw with the intelligence agencies. Either they ruin you or they kill you (which JFK and RFK found out the hard way).

    At least Tucker Carlson is intellectually honest enough to admit the role that various types of leftists (environmentalists, consumer safety advocates, union organizers, anti-corruption activists) played in making America a better place to live. They weren't perfect, but they were never as evil as Reagan, Bush, and Gingrich portrayed them. At this point, we sort of wish those people had more power in this country.

    FDR receives a tribute for his Civilian Conservation Corps, which provided healthy, prideful hard work to many unmarried young men. Carlson then acidly observes: “It would be denounced as irredeemably sexist today.”

     

    There actually was a female version of the CCC, organized by Eleanor Roosevelt.

    He’s likewise old enough to notice how humiliating it ought to be to contemporary intellectuals that they feel obligated to praise the intelligence of Ta-Nehisi Coates:

     

    It can't be any more humiliating than all the praise that conservative intellectuals gave to President Bush (and later Sarah Palin). Neither of whom are, in any way, more intellectually sophisticated than Coates. The pro-Bush sycophancy of the 2004 Republican National Convention (when speakers portrayed a dimwitted man as the next Winston Churchill) was particularly depressing.

    Actually, it's even worse, as Coates is merely a journalist. Bush and Palin were seen as Presidential/VP timber. Which reflects pretty badly on the Republican electorate.

    Sure it's ridiculous for Coates to go from journalist to comic book writer, but it's even more ridiculous that Governor Palin quit her governorship to do reality tv.

    Especially after Reagan fired the air traffic controllers, all hell broke loose. It was really then that workers became seen as a commodity who could be bought, sold, or discarded.

    Firing the traffic controllers is seen as a turning point but nothing really changed in the law. What happened was that unions (rightly) lost the sympathy of the public by their excesses. FDR opposed public employees unions because of their ability to hold vital public services hostage. If unions go on strike against GM you can still buy a Ford but if they shut down the air transport system there is no alternative. Likewise, private sector unions lost popular support because they were seen as havens of corruption and featherbedding rather than legitimate protectors of workers’ rights.

    Also the recovery of the other advanced industrial economies meant that American industry now had competition. Back in the day, GM, Ford and Chrysler all competed on a level playing field – they all had to pay their workers the same union wages and put out the same product that was indifferently assembled by workers who didn’t give a damn about quality because their jobs were protected by the union. The auto makers and the unions had a cozy arrangement – the unions would raise their wages and the car makers would pass this thru to their customers (and reduce the quality of the product to make up for increased labor costs) and everyone was happy (except for the customers who had no choice). Then the imports came (first VW and then the Japanese) and this threw a monkey wrench into the cozy arrangement.

    Of course immigration did not help – one of the things that gave employees power was a tight labor market. Marx predicted that the workers would be “immiserated’ because there would always be a “reserve army of the unemployed” waiting at the factory gates and driving down wage levels. But in fact, after WWII, workers were in short supply before the era of widespread illegal immigration – you couldn’t find enough people to operate your meat processing plant or do other dirty jobs unless you paid them really well. But for Mexican illegal aliens, minimum wage was good enough. Then the Chinese came and took away millions of factory jobs and “outsourcing” took away even more jobs (you call customer support and they answer in India or the Philippines) leaving a permanent slack labor market – even now with “full employment” a lot of people are underemployed or out of the workforce .

    • Agree: Almost Missouri
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Then the imports came (first VW and then the Japanese) and this threw a monkey wrench into the cozy arrangement.
     
    Was auto worker labor in Germany and Japan not unionized? Was there a labor oversupply in those countries? If those countries had unions or a tight labor supply, how do you explain the competitive sales prices and the (presumably) better quality?
    , @Marty
    Jack, good post, but perhaps the cited nexus between the air-traffic controllers and "all hell broke loose" should be further discounted by considering the antics of Mike Milken? Would be interested to hear your thoughts on that.
  66. @Tyrion 2
    My worry is that in a political party based democracy local conflicts are tempered by national debates. Once the national debate lacks an implicit ethnic majority then the conversation of ideas will break down and there'll be a cascade of ethnic conflict out to the local level.

    At the same time with a large number of native born Latinos marrying Anglos, so there will be a whitish majority race 50 years into the future.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    It depends very much on if borders can be brought under control, multiculturalism can be discredited and a reasonable educated birth rate be reached.

    The lack of these three things is pulling our societies apart even as their inherent strengths, culture, a productive population, civility, work to keep them somewhat together.

    I'd rather err strongly on the side of not throwing everything away because accepting people from all around the world sounds nice.

    If the American people needing to turn to a reality TV star isn't warning enough, then I have no idea what would be.
  67. @International Jew

    I have no idea how Carlson creates five hours of television per week and writes a book at the same time
     
    By getting other people to write for him.

    Watch him when he doesn't have a script to read, which is every time he "interviews" a Democrat. In these tedious and predictable sessions the pattern is: Tucker interrupts with "Let me ask you a question...", letting the guy get out just enough words for Tucker to see his brilliant trap hasn't worked, then interrupting with another rhetorical question. After a while, Tucker's been beaten up enough, and he goes to laughing at his guest as he ends the interview.

    Tucker solo — reading the news (as he tosses in sharp asides), opinionating outright or (I'll take Steve's word for it) in this book — is way smarter than Tucker the interviewer. Which can mean only one thing: he relies on others to write for him.

    Not that there's anything wrong with that. Dan Rather didn't (and couldn't) write his own material either. But let's call a spade a spade, ok?

    Ann Coulter is an example of someone who really is smart enough to have written her books. Or Douglas Murray for another. Just watch them.

    I have witnessed Carlson freely admitting what you claim. It is no secret that to produce a whole hour (minus commercial time) of television, you need a small army of writers and producers. There is no shame in that.

    Remember, he has authority on what gets on the air. It’s like when you hire somebody to remodel your house. He does the job, but you tell him what you want. It is your house.

    If you haven’t ever hosted a TV show, (something I did many years ago on a laughably local level) you might not realize how hard it is not to have slow, dead air and bore people to death. It is incredibly difficult to hold an audience and to keep them from changing the channel for an entire hour. Tucker Carlson deserves all the credit he gets, and he does, at lease occasionally, credit his team as well.

    • Agree: Trevor H.
    • Replies: @Jack D
    Just watch the endless credits at the end of any movie - even the most modest drama seemingly lacking in stunts and special effects. It may look to you like just a couple of actors on the screen, a cameraman and a director would do it, but in fact you need a whole army of people, 99% of whom you will never see. What you seen on the screen is just the tip of the iceberg. A talk show takes fewer but still it is not just a guy and a cameraman by a long shot.

    Television is a relentless consumer of material - it burns thru material like a bonfire. Back in the days of vaudeville, an entertainer could have one act and take that act on the road and do the same routine over and over in every city for their entire career. You could get really good at doing your act because you were polishing the same material night after night. If you were the guy who spun plates on a stick , you could spin them like crazy and they would never fall. Even if you came back to the same city the following year, the 1,000 people who bought tickets for your repeat performance were mostly not the same people who saw your act las year. Then came TV and they would go on Ed Sullivan once and do their act, which was pretty good, but what would they do the NEXT time? You couldn't go on Ed Sullivan again and do the same act, but a lot of these guys didn't have anything else.
    , @International Jew
    I'm not suggesting even for a moment that producing a TV show is easy.

    I just wish Tucker would be more polite when he interviews people. Let them talk (for at least thirty seconds at a time) so we can learn something from them. Stop arguing with them.

  68. @Arclight
    It seems to me that a shift from the nominally libertarian/free market politics that dominate in the GOP on immigration and the workforce to something more like the what the labor Dems of old held would solidify the white working class vote for the party and probably scoop up more blacks and latinos as well. The GOP doesn't have to win anything approaching a majority of black or latino voters to be competitive, they just need to pick up another 5% of each than their current voter share and the Democrats would lose every national election by the same margin as Hilary in the electoral college and the GOP would scoop up another half dozen Senate seats.

    Yes, the free market line of thinking on mass immigration, trade, etc. would grow the economy faster than a more populist economic model, but the benefits of it overwhelmingly accrue to people already at the top. I'd trade a bit of growth in favor of a middle and lower class that have better economic prospects rather than letting the already well off get richer. That's supposedly what the Democrats are about but their positions on immigration and coziness with Wall Street and Silicon Valley work against most of the people they claim to care the most about.

    This is wishful thinking. Blacks are wedded to whichever party offers more gibmedats. Unless the GOP wants to compete in giving out more free stuff it will never be able to peel blacks away from the Dems. Blacks understand that they cannot compete in a free market environment and need the Democrat version of government to give them endless benefits and privileges or else they would still be living in shotgun shacks and eating cornmeal except for a few rich entertainers. Even what appears to be a black middle class exists only because they have mostly government jobs or are AA hires.

    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    I live in the Washington, D.C. area, home to a very large black middle-class due to the federal government's massive AA. These people are stunningly incompetent. Even the military blacks who are the most disciplined and generally give effort are relatively pointless. And these are the "talented tenth."

    Without AA, the black middle and upper-middle class would collapse overnight. Best guess is that maybe one out of ten - one out five at the high end - would remain at their current level.

    As it is, there's not too much continuity to the black middle class anyway since so many of their kids falls right back into the abyss.

    Expecting Africans to achieve and act like Europeans is the folly of our time, something that even iSteve commentators are often guilty of doing.
  69. Socialism is Serfdom. Pretty simple. The greatest achievement of Western Civilization was that it was the only civilization known to history to overcome both slavery and serfdom as an economic – governing model. By doing so Western Civilization created modernity. The US is the epitome of this achievement. Regression to the serfdom mean is going to be nasty and bloody. Hopefully all those Globalists with two or more passports have a secure bug out site to hunker down in. The egalitarian Europeans can get quite vengeful.

  70. @Bill P
    Carlson is a "class traitor," which is a great thing and a necessity for a nation of any worth. It's also extremely rare in my experience. Over the last few decades, the American upper class has developed into an extraordinarily cohesive society. I'm not sure why, because you'd think people at the top would be competitive by nature, but maybe the benefits are sufficient to override their bloodier impulses.

    On the other hand, maybe they are scared by what they've gotten away with. Nick Hanauer, an early Amazon investor and prolific funder of liberal causes, has suggested so on occasion, saying that the American people must be disarmed before they seek revenge.

    “Nick Hanauer … has suggested so on occasion, saying that the American people must be disarmed before they seek revenge.”

    I’ve read where he says they’ll seek revenge, but where has he said they must be disarmed?

    • Replies: @Jack D
    This sounds like "they want to take our guns away" paranoia. America is so knee deep in guns that "they" will never be able to take them away even if "they" want to. "They" can't even take our fentanyl away, let alone our guns.

    "They" don't even need to take your guns away. China's new social credit program points the way. You can keep your guns, you just won't have a job or the ability to buy a plane ticket or to get internet service, a cell phone, a driver's license, etc. And of course if you ever try to use your gun, the SWAT team will pump you full of lead from their APCs.

    , @Bill P
    The Pitchforks Are Coming

    The most ironic thing about rising inequality is how completely unnecessary and self-defeating it is. If we do something about it, if we adjust our policies in the way that, say, Franklin D. Roosevelt did during the Great Depression—so that we help the 99 percent and preempt the revolutionaries and crazies, the ones with the pitchforks—that will be the best thing possible for us rich folks, too. It’s not just that we’ll escape with our lives; it’s that we’ll most certainly get even richer.
     
    By "pitchforks" he means more modern weapons, of course, and he just helped pass the most stringent law against semi-automatic rifles in the United States. Now if I want to buy my kid a Ruger 10/22 I've got to jump through European-style hoops because elites like Hanauer are scared people might come after them for what they've done.
  71. “The majority of journalists and intellectuals in 1975 would never have accepted the lame excuse that silencing, firing, and ruining people for holding an opinion was fine, as long as it wasn’t specifically the government doing it. They would have declared that a free society depends above all on free minds.”

    This is a good point that doesn’t get stated often enough.

    In the 1970s and 1980s,”freedom of speech” was colloquially a blanket defense for, well, speaking freely. As I recall, it was only in the early 1990s that people began noticing that the First Amendment applied specifically to Congress rather than to everyone. At the time, I had a naive libertarian’s sense of relief that a law only applying to government was naturally a good thing. In retrospect I can see that my incipient tyrant colleagues drew a different conclusion: the law is no barrier to our Plan!

    • Replies: @Jack D
    The trend in 20th century jurisprudence (when it was the "good guys" who were being protected) was to call almost everything "government action" on the theory that you had to use the court system to enforce your "private actions". So, racial covenants in deeds were out, even though they were private agreements between landowners, because the court had to enforce the covenants. Libel actions against public figures (NY Times v. Sullivan) were out even though they were civil suits by individuals against the newspaper, again because it involved the court system and thus implicated government and the 1st Amendment.

    Let's say that the Current Year trend involved black female Google programmers losing their jobs for hatefully proclaiming that black women were superior programmers, thus denigrating other races and genders (Damore in reverse). Would the Left be proclaiming that while Latisha had a 1st Amendment right to her opinions, it would be perfectly OK for Google to fire her for having those opinions? Or would they be looking for a way to somehow bind Google too to the 1st Amendment? Some kind of novel legal theory that as a beneficiary of government largess, a corporation that exists with limited liability under a state charter, Google too is bound? Universities are "private" but Title IX etc. gets enforced against them as a condition of receiving government funding. It's kind of ridiculous to say that you have 1st Amendment rights but only as long as you don't use them.

    But, as we know, the Left is all about who/whom. It turns out that they didn't really object to McCarthyism in principle - they just didn't like being on the receiving end of it. "Free speech" was great when Leftists were giving the speeches denouncing the conservative white men who were running the show, but now that they are running the show, free speech (against them) doesn't seem like such a good idea.

    , @dwb
    Small point, but I don't entirely agree that the problem is the transmogrification of free speech from, well, public speech free of private consequences.

    Yes - the defenders of the mob who come after anyone who dares gore the ox of some liberal faction will inevitably point to the fact that the First Amendment protects one from government coercion, and that Google, for example, have a right to can James Damore for daring to veer too far of script.

    But I think that even in 1975, there were certain common standards that one dared not cross lest he risk being defenestrated. Witness the end of Anita Bryant's career, for example.

    In my opinion, what has changed is not so much the relative tolerance for heterodox ideas, or even what defines heterodox ideas. What has happened is that various tools have been developed that make it far, far easier to gin up a storm of "outrage," focus it on someone, and destroy them.

    I am reminded of the infamous case where a pretty much obscure woman with a modestly successful career in marketing made the mistake of tweeting about a trip to South Africa and laughing (virtually) about her freedom of fear from contracting HIV because she was white.

    Her career was over before her plane landed in Cape Town.

    The mob now can take one comment, supply its own context, broadcast it in seconds to millions of like-minded fools, and organize a mob in minutes. That did not exist in 1975.

    The effect is a bit like what would happen in a baseball game if baserunners were allowed bicycles on the basepaths.

  72. “At the moment, the coalition of identity groups has held together because it is united in a single purpose against white male power. But rapid demographic change makes this unsustainable. When the traditional scapegoat becomes insufficient, various factions will turn on one another.

    Chaos will ensue.”

    I have to differ with Tucker about this. So long as one white(ish) Emmanuel Goldstein lives, that will be sufficient for the Coalition of the Fringes’ purpose. Indeed, that will be preferable, as fewer, more beleaguered straight white men can’t fight back.

    And chaos is already here, in the parasitical, destructive economy, the unequal administration of the laws, the debauched culture, the intellectually bankrupt academy, and much else.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Of course scapegoats can continue to exist even after the goats are (largely) extinct. In post-1967 Communist Poland they had an anti-Semitic purge even though 99% of the Jewish population was already dead or out of the country. Even after the remaining 1% was gone, it was STILL possible to blame invisible "Jewish influence" for anything bad.

    So, "hate on white men" is always going to be the unifying principle of the Coalition of the Fringes, at least as a public stance. However, this is not sufficient. Once you have wrested the levers of power away from whitey, who is going to command the helm of the ship of state? Do blacks get the leading role? Women (white women can't be trusted, the others will say - they are sleeping with the enemy)? Latinos? Of course they are going to fight amongst themselves over how to divide the spoils.

    And there are further complications - you need the competence of white men to actually make things work. If you are too successful in purging whites, everything goes to hell - see Zimbabwe.
  73. I wish I was born into a rich and privileged family so I had the resources to write books.

    When it comes to writing, it pays to be rich:

    https://www.salon.com/2015/01/25/sponsored_by_my_husband_why_its_a_problem_that_writers_never_talk_about_where_their_money_comes_from/

  74. @JohnnyWalker123

    At the moment, the coalition of identity groups has held together because it is united in a single purpose against white male power.

    But rapid demographic change makes this unsustainable. When the traditional scapegoat becomes insufficient, various factions will turn on one another.

    Chaos will ensue.

     

    Whites are a minority in Texas, California, and Hawaii. Have Whites been persecuted in any of these states? Have non-whites turned on each other?

    When California turned majority Democrat and majority Nonwhite, did Steve leave the state to avoid racial persecution and a coming racial conflagration?

    I'm not necessarily dismissing this point, but I think we have to a reality check. Multi-racial societies have lots of problems, but things aren't so bad in areas in which Whites are a minority. Of course, the situation could change in the future.

    “Non-Hispanic whites are a plurality”

    FTFY

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    You're wrong, Non-Hispanic Whites are not a plurality in California and are not even close to a plurality in Hawaii, and are just barely a plurality in Texas.
  75. Carlson, who voted for Ron Paul in 1988, has largely left behind his youthful economic libertarianism.

    I’m about a year older than Carlson. I might have voted for Bill Clinton in 1992; I won’t directly admit it. It might have stemmed from my hatred of the Bush Organized Crime Syndicate.

    I voted for Perot in 1996 and Pat Buchanan in 2000.

    I made a tar paper and masking tape road sign for Buchanan. It held up pretty good in all kinds of weather. I can’t recall where I procured the metal frame that held the sign upright and planted in the ground. If Mueller or the FBI asks me where I got the metal frame that might have held up another candidates sign before I re-purposed it, I will plead memory loss and the 5th Amendment. I don’t remember, I can’t recall, I got no memories of the alleged incident at all.

    2004? Who knows!

    2008? Hazy!

    2012? I voted for Virgil Goode and in 2016 I voted for Trump.

  76. @JohnnyWalker123

    At the moment, the coalition of identity groups has held together because it is united in a single purpose against white male power.

    But rapid demographic change makes this unsustainable. When the traditional scapegoat becomes insufficient, various factions will turn on one another.

    Chaos will ensue.

     

    Whites are a minority in Texas, California, and Hawaii. Have Whites been persecuted in any of these states? Have non-whites turned on each other?

    When California turned majority Democrat and majority Nonwhite, did Steve leave the state to avoid racial persecution and a coming racial conflagration?

    I'm not necessarily dismissing this point, but I think we have to a reality check. Multi-racial societies have lots of problems, but things aren't so bad in areas in which Whites are a minority. Of course, the situation could change in the future.

    People are pretty ignorant about Hawaii. It’s not a place you want to live. Neither is California.

    • Replies: @Houston 1992
    can you elaborate on the problems with Hawaii?
    , @ThreeCranes
    I believe there is some tension between "natives" of Hawaii and haoles.

    "In Hawaii's "Rainbow" ethnic melange of peoples, "Haole" is the slang word used to describe Caucasians, and by itself is not a racial slur and has no pejorative connotations. Many visitors are haole, and may be targeted by criminals, but this is because they are vulnerable tourists, not because they are haole. Rumors that in Hawaii the last day of school is called "Kill Haole Day" is nothing but a rumor. According to this rumor, on this day, "local" (nonwhite) children beat up, bully, and harass the "haole" or "white" children in their school. Some residents say there is little to no evidence or documentation of incidents involving "Kill Haole Day" or of Caucasian students being assaulted on specific days. Other residents dispute this. Hawaii schools have responded by saying that they take the initiative to achieve tolerance, safety, compassion, and acceptance for all students.[10]

    The word "Haole" is used as a racial slur or insult in incidents of harassment and physical assaults by Native Hawaiians and members of other "minority" (nonwhite) groups on white people in Hawaii—tourists as well as residents and military personnel."

    Wiki
    , @Colin Wright
    'People are pretty ignorant about Hawaii. It’s not a place you want to live. Neither is California.'

    My wife and I lived on Hawaii for about a year and a half. It can get strange, but it's got its points. In the end, we decided to move back to the mainland, but if somebody had ordered me to stay, I wouldn't have minded much.
  77. Tucker Carlson:

    At the moment, the coalition of identity groups has held together because it is united in a single purpose against white male power. But rapid demographic change makes this unsustainable. When the traditional scapegoat becomes insufficient, various factions will turn on one another.

    White Core American Patriots must do some fracturing of our own by attacking the treasonous rats in the GOP ruling class and the GOP Cheap Labor Faction and the various chambers of commerce that push horrible policies and the Neo-Conservative boobs who control GOP foreign policy.

    Gingerly describing the troubling relationship between Shelly Adelson and President Trump must be done too. It will take someone with my level of subtlety and sophisticated language skills to do it. No hotheads!

    The Alt-Right must smash the living shit out of the GOP so as to be able to put it back together as a political force that explicitly protects and advances the interests of the European Christian ancestral core of the USA.

    Tweet from 2014:

  78. @Alec Leamas

    Over the last few decades, the American upper class has developed into an extraordinarily cohesive society. I’m not sure why, because you’d think people at the top would be competitive by nature, but maybe the benefits are sufficient to override their bloodier impulses.
     
    The phenomenon seems to be that there is an actual ruling class, and then there is a much larger subordinate level of status conscious whites who aspire to admission in the actual ruling class and ape its fashions and manners.

    The subordinate caste does a lot of the dirty work of striking at the white working class in every day society, thereby announcing their fitness for inclusion in the true ruling class and pretensions to belonging to it.

    We really are saddled with a large caste of officious Hyacinth Buckets - mediocrities with college degrees who work as the enforcement arm of the ruling caste.

    Remember, that’s pronounced “boo-kay.”

  79. “The central theme of Ship of Fools is that the convergence toward the reigning elite consensus of economic conservatism and social progressivism is better for the people at the top of society than for maintaining a stable middle-class democracy (…)”

    Now we know the real reason why he’s being harassed and threatened.

  80. @JohnnyWalker123

    I have no idea how Carlson creates five hours of television per week and writes a book at the same time, but Ship of Fools is quite good. It’s currently No. 3 on the nonfiction best-seller list, behind Michelle Obama and Bill O’Reilly.

     

    Both of whom are hucksters. It should be noted that Tucker Carlson came in after Bill O'Reilly (a loudmouth right-wing conman who spent decades talking about how he was a "culture warrior") got fired by FOX for trying to coerce sex out of his female subordinates.

    Back in the early 2000s, O'Reilly started a boycott to get Pepsi to stop sponsoring rapper "Ludacris," saying that he "degraded women." His boycott was successful and got "Ludacris" dropped. A few years later, O'Reilly ran into a workplace sexual harassment scandal. Then more recently, O'Reill ran into another harassment scandal, which resulted in him getting fired.

    Here's what "Ludacris" had to say about O'Reilly.

    “It’s not my place to judge Bill O’Reilly the same way he judged me,” he said during an appearance on radio show “The Breakfast Club.” “I’m thriving in life right now. All I can do is hope that Bill O’Reilly settles these issues and learns from whatever mistakes he may have made ― and also thrives.”

    “But,” he added, “it is definitely ironic that Pepsi and Bill O’Reilly are under fire right now.”

     

    Here's a good clip that demonstrates the "intellect" of Bill O'Reilly (it gets interesting at 3:05). The man is a complete charlatan and an entertainer who knows his audience. He's a more coherent version of Glenn Beck.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKFvne6R7IA

    It's remarkable that O'Reilly is an intellectual leader in the conservative movement.

    There exists this view that somehow White media/govt figures (especially White conservative men) are held to a high standard, while dumb Blacks get a pass. In reality, dumb people (regardless of race or politics) often do make it to the top, but the left has no monopoly on idiocy.

    Bill Maher had some good critique (watch from 1:30 onward).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46waxL2MICc

    The left has its flaws too, but let's not act like the right is somehow the adult in the room.

    The left has its flaws too, but let’s not act like the right is somehow the adult in the room.

    The right isn’t even in the room. O’Reilly never represented the right. Neither did Reagan. What did any of these men ever conserve? When did they even try? Even Trump hasn’t done any of the “right” agenda, such limiting immigration.

    Being for lower taxes and regulations doesn’t make you the “right.” Preserving your people and culture makes you of the right. Pushing back intellectually and openly against those who want to change your people and culture make you of the right.

    Since I’m been born – and really much longer than that – this country’s politicians have been fast-pace progressives and slower-pace progressives. It’s why the left is so angry about Trump – a politician who only hints at being right wing; they haven’t been challenged in their entire lives.

    The left reminds of a wife who’s pushed around her husband for decades when she comes across a man who won’t take her shit. Those types of women absolutely lose it when someone pushes back.

  81. “When the traditional scapegoat becomes insufficient, various factions will turn on one another.”

    I would like to know what Tucker means by insufficient. If he means out of power, that is bad but livable. But if he means something closer to eradicated, isn’t that simply unacceptable?Doesn’t that need to be fought against with more than a quizzical look?

  82. I disliked Tucker back when he was on Crossfire. I like the Tucker 4.0 we have today.

    Like Tucker, I voted for Paul in 88 as well, but soon became a Buchananite. Tucker just took a bit longer to get there.

    I was already thinking to go buy the book today before reading this. This review seems to reinforce the idea.

  83. @Jack D
    This is wishful thinking. Blacks are wedded to whichever party offers more gibmedats. Unless the GOP wants to compete in giving out more free stuff it will never be able to peel blacks away from the Dems. Blacks understand that they cannot compete in a free market environment and need the Democrat version of government to give them endless benefits and privileges or else they would still be living in shotgun shacks and eating cornmeal except for a few rich entertainers. Even what appears to be a black middle class exists only because they have mostly government jobs or are AA hires.

    I live in the Washington, D.C. area, home to a very large black middle-class due to the federal government’s massive AA. These people are stunningly incompetent. Even the military blacks who are the most disciplined and generally give effort are relatively pointless. And these are the “talented tenth.”

    Without AA, the black middle and upper-middle class would collapse overnight. Best guess is that maybe one out of ten – one out five at the high end – would remain at their current level.

    As it is, there’s not too much continuity to the black middle class anyway since so many of their kids falls right back into the abyss.

    Expecting Africans to achieve and act like Europeans is the folly of our time, something that even iSteve commentators are often guilty of doing.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    I live in the Washington, D.C. area, home to a very large black middle-class due to the federal government’s massive AA.
     
    How does the federal government implement AA? Aren't racial preferences illegal?
  84. @JohnnyWalker123

    At the moment, the coalition of identity groups has held together because it is united in a single purpose against white male power.

    But rapid demographic change makes this unsustainable. When the traditional scapegoat becomes insufficient, various factions will turn on one another.

    Chaos will ensue.

     

    Whites are a minority in Texas, California, and Hawaii. Have Whites been persecuted in any of these states? Have non-whites turned on each other?

    When California turned majority Democrat and majority Nonwhite, did Steve leave the state to avoid racial persecution and a coming racial conflagration?

    I'm not necessarily dismissing this point, but I think we have to a reality check. Multi-racial societies have lots of problems, but things aren't so bad in areas in which Whites are a minority. Of course, the situation could change in the future.

    I am certain that Steve is very circumspect (by rational necessity) about where he goes in California and that there are far fewer options (not attributible to gross growth in population/development per se) for strolling about there than there were 40 or 50 years ago.

    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
    Nobody strolls in LA.
  85. @Almost Missouri

    "The majority of journalists and intellectuals in 1975 would never have accepted the lame excuse that silencing, firing, and ruining people for holding an opinion was fine, as long as it wasn’t specifically the government doing it. They would have declared that a free society depends above all on free minds."
     
    This is a good point that doesn't get stated often enough.

    In the 1970s and 1980s,"freedom of speech" was colloquially a blanket defense for, well, speaking freely. As I recall, it was only in the early 1990s that people began noticing that the First Amendment applied specifically to Congress rather than to everyone. At the time, I had a naive libertarian's sense of relief that a law only applying to government was naturally a good thing. In retrospect I can see that my incipient tyrant colleagues drew a different conclusion: the law is no barrier to our Plan!

    The trend in 20th century jurisprudence (when it was the “good guys” who were being protected) was to call almost everything “government action” on the theory that you had to use the court system to enforce your “private actions”. So, racial covenants in deeds were out, even though they were private agreements between landowners, because the court had to enforce the covenants. Libel actions against public figures (NY Times v. Sullivan) were out even though they were civil suits by individuals against the newspaper, again because it involved the court system and thus implicated government and the 1st Amendment.

    Let’s say that the Current Year trend involved black female Google programmers losing their jobs for hatefully proclaiming that black women were superior programmers, thus denigrating other races and genders (Damore in reverse). Would the Left be proclaiming that while Latisha had a 1st Amendment right to her opinions, it would be perfectly OK for Google to fire her for having those opinions? Or would they be looking for a way to somehow bind Google too to the 1st Amendment? Some kind of novel legal theory that as a beneficiary of government largess, a corporation that exists with limited liability under a state charter, Google too is bound? Universities are “private” but Title IX etc. gets enforced against them as a condition of receiving government funding. It’s kind of ridiculous to say that you have 1st Amendment rights but only as long as you don’t use them.

    But, as we know, the Left is all about who/whom. It turns out that they didn’t really object to McCarthyism in principle – they just didn’t like being on the receiving end of it. “Free speech” was great when Leftists were giving the speeches denouncing the conservative white men who were running the show, but now that they are running the show, free speech (against them) doesn’t seem like such a good idea.

    • Replies: @dwb
    Exactly, Jack. Very well put.
    , @Almost Missouri
    Thanks for the very good legal precis.

    One thought: since somewhere or other Google is no doubt receiving Federal money and such contracts usually stipulate compliance to Federal legal norms, might this be a peg for a Damore-type plaintiff to hang his hat on?
  86. @International Jew

    I have no idea how Carlson creates five hours of television per week and writes a book at the same time
     
    By getting other people to write for him.

    Watch him when he doesn't have a script to read, which is every time he "interviews" a Democrat. In these tedious and predictable sessions the pattern is: Tucker interrupts with "Let me ask you a question...", letting the guy get out just enough words for Tucker to see his brilliant trap hasn't worked, then interrupting with another rhetorical question. After a while, Tucker's been beaten up enough, and he goes to laughing at his guest as he ends the interview.

    Tucker solo — reading the news (as he tosses in sharp asides), opinionating outright or (I'll take Steve's word for it) in this book — is way smarter than Tucker the interviewer. Which can mean only one thing: he relies on others to write for him.

    Not that there's anything wrong with that. Dan Rather didn't (and couldn't) write his own material either. But let's call a spade a spade, ok?

    Ann Coulter is an example of someone who really is smart enough to have written her books. Or Douglas Murray for another. Just watch them.

    Ann Coulter is an example of someone who really is smart enough to have written her books.

    While some of Carlson’s comments may be helpful in moving the envelope of permissible discussion in a more moderate direction, there’s nothing in his academic background or Coulter’s for that matter that suggests an intellect capable of seeing the whole picture.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    You wrote,

    While some of Carlson’s comments may be helpful in moving the envelope of permissible discussion in a more moderate direction, there’s nothing in his academic background or Coulter’s for that matter that suggests an intellect capable of seeing the whole picture.
     
    Regarding Ann Coulter, a brain from New Caanan, Connecticut, you are wrong. From Wikipedia, the font of all truth:

    While attending Cornell University, Coulter helped found The Cornell Review,[9] and was a member of the Delta Gamma national sorority.[10] She graduated cum laude from Cornell in 1984 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in history and received her Juris Doctor from the University of Michigan Law School in 1988, where she was an editor of the Michigan Law Review.[11] At Michigan, Coulter was president of the local chapter of the Federalist Society and was trained at the National Journalism Center.[12]
     
    Furthermore, regarding Carlson also, or anybody else, the simplistic judgement contained in your comment indicates a true inability to see the whole picture, almost by definition.
    , @anon
    > there’s nothing in his academic background or Coulter’s for that matter that suggests an intellect capable of seeing the whole picture.


    What parts of the picture are they missing?
  87. Tucker used to wear a bow tie at where, CNN? Years ago. That kind of put him in George Will territory.

    Glad he got rid of it.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    The bow tie was definitely holding him back. It used to be a thing among conservative doofuses.
  88. @International Jew

    I have no idea how Carlson creates five hours of television per week and writes a book at the same time
     
    By getting other people to write for him.

    Watch him when he doesn't have a script to read, which is every time he "interviews" a Democrat. In these tedious and predictable sessions the pattern is: Tucker interrupts with "Let me ask you a question...", letting the guy get out just enough words for Tucker to see his brilliant trap hasn't worked, then interrupting with another rhetorical question. After a while, Tucker's been beaten up enough, and he goes to laughing at his guest as he ends the interview.

    Tucker solo — reading the news (as he tosses in sharp asides), opinionating outright or (I'll take Steve's word for it) in this book — is way smarter than Tucker the interviewer. Which can mean only one thing: he relies on others to write for him.

    Not that there's anything wrong with that. Dan Rather didn't (and couldn't) write his own material either. But let's call a spade a spade, ok?

    Ann Coulter is an example of someone who really is smart enough to have written her books. Or Douglas Murray for another. Just watch them.

    Which can mean only one thing: he relies on others to write for him.

    Who could he possibly be relying upon? How many people?

  89. @International Jew

    I have no idea how Carlson creates five hours of television per week and writes a book at the same time
     
    By getting other people to write for him.

    Watch him when he doesn't have a script to read, which is every time he "interviews" a Democrat. In these tedious and predictable sessions the pattern is: Tucker interrupts with "Let me ask you a question...", letting the guy get out just enough words for Tucker to see his brilliant trap hasn't worked, then interrupting with another rhetorical question. After a while, Tucker's been beaten up enough, and he goes to laughing at his guest as he ends the interview.

    Tucker solo — reading the news (as he tosses in sharp asides), opinionating outright or (I'll take Steve's word for it) in this book — is way smarter than Tucker the interviewer. Which can mean only one thing: he relies on others to write for him.

    Not that there's anything wrong with that. Dan Rather didn't (and couldn't) write his own material either. But let's call a spade a spade, ok?

    Ann Coulter is an example of someone who really is smart enough to have written her books. Or Douglas Murray for another. Just watch them.

    Or Douglas Murray for another.

    Who is Douglas Murray?

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    Doesn't your computer have Google? Why does your every comment involve asking someone to explain something to you?
  90. The funny thing is that Carlson, a lifelong Republican, has drifted leftward on economics and foreign policy in recent years

    As many have pointed out around here, the old definitions of Left and Right are growing increasingly irrelevant by the day and almost by the hour. The meaningful political distinctions for today and tomorrow are between the growing nationalist, pro-family, pro-worker traditionalists and the cosmopolitan, oligo-capitalist progressives. The former involves a great deal of what used to be called the “Labor” branch of economic liberalism (something closely akin to Catholic distributism à la Rerum Novarum) while the latter is the pure distillation of a Lincolnian Republicanism that has shed the hypocrisy of popular concern. All the bewildering political developments of the last two decades can be explained by the fact that not only are these two camps fighting with each other, they’re also each fighting a war of succession within their own respective parties. The New Right is still struggling for position, gearing up for its true purpose of defending that which is best and essential in the human condition, while the New Left is pursuing the urbane “freedom” to engage in unrestrained acquisition and self-seeking beyond all responsibility and law. Once both sides have found their footing, they will clash in a decisive cataclysm in which the history of the 21st century will be settled.

    I’ve been saying that I’m “socially conservative and fiscally liberal” ever since I was back in high school, using a deliberate inversion of the phrase favored by the cucks and thots of the GOPe. This is a pithy saying that captures much of what motivates the New Right and it was these hitherto unrepresented people who formed the basis of Trump’s electoral victory, notwithstanding the fact that the Donald hasn’t exactly delivered much for his base to be happy about. Tucker Carlson is their new mouthpiece, and I think he’s doing the job reasonably well given that most people are too unintellectual to grapple with the ideas at a high philosophical level, yet they still feel them to be true. I don’t mind Tucker stealing my thunder, I’m just glad that the ideas are gaining a wider audience. Twenty years ago you had to be quite the esotericist or the rare private intellectual to have any grasp of New Right concepts. Now Tucker is making some of those concepts mainstream, and that is a good thing.

    • Agree: Almost Missouri
    • Replies: @IHTG

    Twenty years ago you had to be quite the esotericist or the rare private intellectual to have any grasp of New Right concepts.
     
    Well, or you could be an oldschool Joe Manchin-style Democrat, but that's been flushed down the memory hole.
  91. Anonymous[234] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D

    Especially after Reagan fired the air traffic controllers, all hell broke loose. It was really then that workers became seen as a commodity who could be bought, sold, or discarded.
     
    Firing the traffic controllers is seen as a turning point but nothing really changed in the law. What happened was that unions (rightly) lost the sympathy of the public by their excesses. FDR opposed public employees unions because of their ability to hold vital public services hostage. If unions go on strike against GM you can still buy a Ford but if they shut down the air transport system there is no alternative. Likewise, private sector unions lost popular support because they were seen as havens of corruption and featherbedding rather than legitimate protectors of workers' rights.

    Also the recovery of the other advanced industrial economies meant that American industry now had competition. Back in the day, GM, Ford and Chrysler all competed on a level playing field - they all had to pay their workers the same union wages and put out the same product that was indifferently assembled by workers who didn't give a damn about quality because their jobs were protected by the union. The auto makers and the unions had a cozy arrangement - the unions would raise their wages and the car makers would pass this thru to their customers (and reduce the quality of the product to make up for increased labor costs) and everyone was happy (except for the customers who had no choice). Then the imports came (first VW and then the Japanese) and this threw a monkey wrench into the cozy arrangement.

    Of course immigration did not help - one of the things that gave employees power was a tight labor market. Marx predicted that the workers would be "immiserated' because there would always be a "reserve army of the unemployed" waiting at the factory gates and driving down wage levels. But in fact, after WWII, workers were in short supply before the era of widespread illegal immigration - you couldn't find enough people to operate your meat processing plant or do other dirty jobs unless you paid them really well. But for Mexican illegal aliens, minimum wage was good enough. Then the Chinese came and took away millions of factory jobs and "outsourcing" took away even more jobs (you call customer support and they answer in India or the Philippines) leaving a permanent slack labor market - even now with "full employment" a lot of people are underemployed or out of the workforce .

    Then the imports came (first VW and then the Japanese) and this threw a monkey wrench into the cozy arrangement.

    Was auto worker labor in Germany and Japan not unionized? Was there a labor oversupply in those countries? If those countries had unions or a tight labor supply, how do you explain the competitive sales prices and the (presumably) better quality?

  92. @Almost Missouri

    "At the moment, the coalition of identity groups has held together because it is united in a single purpose against white male power. But rapid demographic change makes this unsustainable. When the traditional scapegoat becomes insufficient, various factions will turn on one another.

    Chaos will ensue."
     

    I have to differ with Tucker about this. So long as one white(ish) Emmanuel Goldstein lives, that will be sufficient for the Coalition of the Fringes' purpose. Indeed, that will be preferable, as fewer, more beleaguered straight white men can't fight back.

    And chaos is already here, in the parasitical, destructive economy, the unequal administration of the laws, the debauched culture, the intellectually bankrupt academy, and much else.

    Of course scapegoats can continue to exist even after the goats are (largely) extinct. In post-1967 Communist Poland they had an anti-Semitic purge even though 99% of the Jewish population was already dead or out of the country. Even after the remaining 1% was gone, it was STILL possible to blame invisible “Jewish influence” for anything bad.

    So, “hate on white men” is always going to be the unifying principle of the Coalition of the Fringes, at least as a public stance. However, this is not sufficient. Once you have wrested the levers of power away from whitey, who is going to command the helm of the ship of state? Do blacks get the leading role? Women (white women can’t be trusted, the others will say – they are sleeping with the enemy)? Latinos? Of course they are going to fight amongst themselves over how to divide the spoils.

    And there are further complications – you need the competence of white men to actually make things work. If you are too successful in purging whites, everything goes to hell – see Zimbabwe.

    • Replies: @DFH

    In post-1967 Communist Poland they had an anti-Semitic purge even though 99% of the Jewish population was already dead or out of the country. Even after the remaining 1% was gone, it was STILL possible to blame invisible “Jewish influence” for anything bad.
     
    The eternal boomer strikes again

    The leaders of Stalinist Poland (Jakub Berman and Hilary Minc) were Jews.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jakub_Berman
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilary_Minc

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatol_Fejgin
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Brystiger
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B3zef_R%C3%B3%C5%BCa%C5%84ski

    The head of the secret police (Roman Romkowski) and 37% of secret police directors in Stalinist Poland were Jewish.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Romkowski
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Public_Security_(Poland)#Organization
    , @Jonathan Mason

    And there are further complications – you need the competence of white men to actually make things work. If you are too successful in purging whites, everything goes to hell – see Zimbabwe.
     
    The key is to use faceless corporations to make things work, or at least corporations run by white people, but fronted by lovable family men like Bill Cosby, Tiger Woods, and Michael Jackson.
  93. @Almost Missouri

    "Nick Hanauer ... has suggested so on occasion, saying that the American people must be disarmed before they seek revenge."
     
    I've read where he says they'll seek revenge, but where has he said they must be disarmed?

    This sounds like “they want to take our guns away” paranoia. America is so knee deep in guns that “they” will never be able to take them away even if “they” want to. “They” can’t even take our fentanyl away, let alone our guns.

    “They” don’t even need to take your guns away. China’s new social credit program points the way. You can keep your guns, you just won’t have a job or the ability to buy a plane ticket or to get internet service, a cell phone, a driver’s license, etc. And of course if you ever try to use your gun, the SWAT team will pump you full of lead from their APCs.

    • Replies: @L Woods
    Guns are a ridiculous red herring born of empty bluster and machismo. For all their precious guns, conservatives have done nothing but bend over and say "yes sir, may I have another" for 60+ years.
    , @istevefan

    “They” don’t even need to take your guns away. China’s new social credit program points the way. You can keep your guns, you just won’t have a job or the ability to buy a plane ticket or to get internet service, a cell phone, a driver’s license, etc. And of course if you ever try to use your gun, the SWAT team will pump you full of lead from their APCs.
     
    The problem for them is that if you take away too many people's ability to have a job, good life etc., you will create a a large population of too many people with nothing to lose. And when you have a large population of armed people with nothing to lose, the potential for bad things to happen to those in charge increases immensely. And there won't be enough SWAT teams or military personnel to contain it.
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson II
    Jack, you are so good on so many topics, but here you do not seem to realize that you contradict yourself - and all in one post.

    You must think we are stupid. If someone says "you can keep your guns, but ammunition is forbidden" it is no different than saying "you can exercise your freedom of speech, as long as you speak where no one hears you." The same dishonesty is in evidence when the Leftist try their other dishonest assertions. (Hillary got more votes than Trump) and so on.

    If someone says, "You can keep your guns, but the U.S. Gubbmint will murder your family your family if you do", you will not conclude that your 2nd Amendment Rights have been preserved.

    If they ever try such a tactic there won't be enough SWAT teams to prevent the collective raising of the Black Flag. And 1861-1865 will look positively irenic compared to the results of that boulder breaking free and rolling down the mountain.

    Leave Philly and visit us in flyover country. You can practice at the gun range. You can hunt with the salt of the earth. We will disabuse you of your mistaken notions.
    , @Almost Missouri

    “They” can’t even take our fentanyl away, let alone our guns.
     
    They don't want to take our fentanyl away.
  94. @JohnnyWalker123

    Why all the hate for Carlson? For example, Matthew Yglesias of Vox endorsed the intentions of the leftist goon squad who terrorized Mrs. Carlson into locking herself in the pantry.

     

    Probably because Tucker Carlson is witty and intellectually agile. So lots of powerful people fear his ability to deconstruct the ruling class.. Especially since Tucker Carlson occasionally flirts with white racialism, I think a certain tribe (which Yglesias belongs to) finds him particularly threatening.

    AntiFa is being funded by George Soros and lots of other Democrat-leaning political donors. So it's not an autonomous group. There are handlers whose strings are being pulled from behind the scenes. Don't think anything is just spontaneously happening.

    The attack on Tucker Carlson's house was a message to shut up and move on to safer topics (like tax, deregulation, and rap music).

    Carlson, a rich kid from La Jolla, isn’t a populist outsider by upbringing or personality.

     

    For whatever reason, the coastal areas of Southern California seem to a produce a notably high proportion of good looking people.

    Carlson is certainly telegenic, youthful looking, and handsome. He doesn't seem to have aged much since he started on tv. He really seems to bring a fresh face to the conservative, while having the intellect of a more seasoned veteran. That's a good combination.

    Based on what I've seen, he's intellectually matured a lot since his days on Cross Fire.

    The funny thing is that Carlson, a lifelong Republican, has drifted leftward on economics and foreign policy in recent years, as seen in his new best-seller, Ship of Fools: How a Selfish Ruling Class Is Bringing America to the Brink of Revolution.

     

    I think there's a general sense that America's rulers have totally mismanaged this country, especially from the early 2000s onward, due to incompetence and parasitic corruption. There's a lot of critique of the ruling class from both the left and right. Interestingly enough, while there are differences in leftist and rightist critiques, there seems to be somewhat of a consensus on some issues.

    Back in the late 90s/early 2000s, I was struck by how similar Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader often sounded. It seems like others (Tucker Carlson, Bernie Sanders, occasionally even Donald Trump) are converging on that left-right consensus.

    The central theme of Ship of Fools is that the convergence toward the reigning elite consensus of economic conservatism and social progressivism is better for the people at the top of society than for maintaining a stable middle-class democracy:

     

    The transition to economic conservatism happened back in the 80s, during the Reagan-Bush era. There were plenty of leftists and unions who fought back, but they got curb stomped into the ground. The victory of economic conservatives was so complete (especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union) that the Democrat party "triangulated" right in the 90s, under Clinton-Gore (who were very supportive of NAFTA, trade with China, financial deregulation, cutting capital gains, catering to Silicon Valley).

    Similar trends occurred in other first-world nations (like the UK under Thatcher and Major).

    In his book "Death of the West," Pat Buchanan admits the positive social value of a high minimum wage, protections for workers, regulation of executive pay, and support for unions.

    People often say that the problem with conservatives is that they've become "RINOs" (Republican-in-name-only) who adopt liberal positions. Maybe, the problem is just the opposite. Maybe the problem is that the left has given up its traditional defense of the working-class and tacked too far to right on issues like taxes, trade, and deregulation.

    Companies can openly mistreat their employees (or “contractors”), but for the price of installing transgender bathrooms they buy a pass. Shareholders win, workers lose. Bowing to the diversity agenda is a lot cheaper than raising wages.

     

    It'd be nice if we had labor unions, but those were broken back a few decades ago. Especially after Reagan fired the air traffic controllers, all hell broke loose. It was really then that workers became seen as a commodity who could be bought, sold, or discarded.

    Ship of Fools is full of appreciations of liberal heroes of the 20th century, such as Ralph Nader, Frank Church (the Democratic senator who helped bring the American deep state under some degree of legislative control in 1975), and farm labor leader Cesar Chavez (a fervent opponent of illegal immigration).

     

    At some point, he should also give a shout out to Jimmy Carter, who tried his best to reign in CIA excesses as president. Unfortunately, after the CIA and Reagan-Bush stole the 1980 election by manipulating the release of the Iranian hostages, politicians got the message that you shouldn't screw with the intelligence agencies. Either they ruin you or they kill you (which JFK and RFK found out the hard way).

    At least Tucker Carlson is intellectually honest enough to admit the role that various types of leftists (environmentalists, consumer safety advocates, union organizers, anti-corruption activists) played in making America a better place to live. They weren't perfect, but they were never as evil as Reagan, Bush, and Gingrich portrayed them. At this point, we sort of wish those people had more power in this country.

    FDR receives a tribute for his Civilian Conservation Corps, which provided healthy, prideful hard work to many unmarried young men. Carlson then acidly observes: “It would be denounced as irredeemably sexist today.”

     

    There actually was a female version of the CCC, organized by Eleanor Roosevelt.

    He’s likewise old enough to notice how humiliating it ought to be to contemporary intellectuals that they feel obligated to praise the intelligence of Ta-Nehisi Coates:

     

    It can't be any more humiliating than all the praise that conservative intellectuals gave to President Bush (and later Sarah Palin). Neither of whom are, in any way, more intellectually sophisticated than Coates. The pro-Bush sycophancy of the 2004 Republican National Convention (when speakers portrayed a dimwitted man as the next Winston Churchill) was particularly depressing.

    Actually, it's even worse, as Coates is merely a journalist. Bush and Palin were seen as Presidential/VP timber. Which reflects pretty badly on the Republican electorate.

    Sure it's ridiculous for Coates to go from journalist to comic book writer, but it's even more ridiculous that Governor Palin quit her governorship to do reality tv.

    Back in the late 90s/early 2000s, I was struck by how similar Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader often sounded. It seems like others (Tucker Carlson, Bernie Sanders, occasionally even Donald Trump) are converging on that left-right consensus.

    In short order, before the 2000 election, the New York Times attacked Ralph Nader and the Wall Street Journal attacked Pat Buchanan.

    Both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal push globalization, mass immigration and sovereignty-sapping trade deal scams.

    Both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal support the use of the US military as muscle to fight wars on behalf of Israel in the Middle East and West Asia.

    The American Empire is starting wars in the Middle East(Iraq) and West Asia(Afghanistan) to create turmoil and chaos to further the foreign policy goals of the client state of Israel.

    The PEWITT campaign for president has not paid for this message.

    We love Trump, but Trump has made himself unlovable with his weakness and lack of action on immigration. The Pewitt campaign will challenge Trump for the 2020 GOP presidential nomination.

    Immigration Moratorium Now!

    Deport All Illegal Alien Invaders Now!

  95. @Jack D
    This sounds like "they want to take our guns away" paranoia. America is so knee deep in guns that "they" will never be able to take them away even if "they" want to. "They" can't even take our fentanyl away, let alone our guns.

    "They" don't even need to take your guns away. China's new social credit program points the way. You can keep your guns, you just won't have a job or the ability to buy a plane ticket or to get internet service, a cell phone, a driver's license, etc. And of course if you ever try to use your gun, the SWAT team will pump you full of lead from their APCs.

    Guns are a ridiculous red herring born of empty bluster and machismo. For all their precious guns, conservatives have done nothing but bend over and say “yes sir, may I have another” for 60+ years.

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    The Federal government backed off when confronted by Civilian Militia at the 2014 Bundy ranch standoff.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/08/us/bundy-ranch-standoff-case-charges-dismissed.html
    , @Reg Cæsar

    Guns are a ridiculous red herring born of empty bluster and machismo.
     
    They let you know who really trusts you.
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    I've thought that occasionally, Mr. Woods, but you've gotta to realize that most conservatives don't want a war, if they can at all help it. They have lots more to lose than the ctrl-left does. It seems its always been this way. However, they've been doing a pretty good job defending this right, for when the time comes.

    The low in gun control mania was from 1968, after those political assassinations, through probably the late 1980's when CC started spreading (from almost forbidden unless you know someone, to "shall issue" all the way to Constitutional Carry - no permit required) from state to state, and the public had turned away from the gun controller in fear. On this, I'm gonna put in an animated .gif under here. If it doesn't work (very possible) go HERE.

    https://www.peakstupidity.com/images/CCC.gif
  96. In post-1967 Communist Poland they had an anti-Semitic purge even though 99% of the Jewish population was already dead or out of the country. Even after the remaining 1% was gone, it was STILL possible to blame invisible “Jewish influence” for anything bad.

    According to some Polish accounts available on the Internet (not easy to find), many of those purged were in the Polish secret police (the SB) or other government ministries, and left the country to avoid criminal prosecution for torture and other excesses of political repression. Very similar to Hungary and the 1956 uprising in that regard.

  97. Steve, O/T but apropos of your recent tweeting (I’m in eternal twitter Purgatory), our favorite blog’s recently departed neighbor Mr. Khan did analyses of intelligence and verbal/mathematical acuity by field of study in a 2012 Discover blog entitled “Classicists are Smart!:”

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/01/classicists-are-smart/#.XAAoWOJRdhG

    From experience I can say that studying Attic Greek is not the usual soft study where one can hide in the University’s school of Liberal Arts. In my day many of my classes had a total of two or three students for the semester.

  98. @Buzz Mohawk
    I have witnessed Carlson freely admitting what you claim. It is no secret that to produce a whole hour (minus commercial time) of television, you need a small army of writers and producers. There is no shame in that.

    Remember, he has authority on what gets on the air. It's like when you hire somebody to remodel your house. He does the job, but you tell him what you want. It is your house.

    If you haven't ever hosted a TV show, (something I did many years ago on a laughably local level) you might not realize how hard it is not to have slow, dead air and bore people to death. It is incredibly difficult to hold an audience and to keep them from changing the channel for an entire hour. Tucker Carlson deserves all the credit he gets, and he does, at lease occasionally, credit his team as well.

    Just watch the endless credits at the end of any movie – even the most modest drama seemingly lacking in stunts and special effects. It may look to you like just a couple of actors on the screen, a cameraman and a director would do it, but in fact you need a whole army of people, 99% of whom you will never see. What you seen on the screen is just the tip of the iceberg. A talk show takes fewer but still it is not just a guy and a cameraman by a long shot.

    Television is a relentless consumer of material – it burns thru material like a bonfire. Back in the days of vaudeville, an entertainer could have one act and take that act on the road and do the same routine over and over in every city for their entire career. You could get really good at doing your act because you were polishing the same material night after night. If you were the guy who spun plates on a stick , you could spin them like crazy and they would never fall. Even if you came back to the same city the following year, the 1,000 people who bought tickets for your repeat performance were mostly not the same people who saw your act las year. Then came TV and they would go on Ed Sullivan once and do their act, which was pretty good, but what would they do the NEXT time? You couldn’t go on Ed Sullivan again and do the same act, but a lot of these guys didn’t have anything else.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    Back in the days of vaudeville, an entertainer could have one act and take that act on the road and do the same routine over and over in every city for their entire career.
     
    Many years ago Elton John was asked what he thought he would be doing when he was 40. I don't know, he said, but I sure as hell ain't going to be traveling the world playing Crocodile Rock every night. Now he is 70 and still touring the world playing the same old shit.

    I like Tucker Carlson, or I would if I ever watched TV. He used to be a posh young man with a bow tie abnd a good head of hair. Now he is all grown up and the bow tie is gone, but the hair is still there. No doubt he has grown immensely rich, but appears not to have entirely sold his soul to the Devil.

    He should run for President since he already has the name recognition necessary for success in politics these days, speaks well on TV, and I can think of plenty of slogans that would rhyme with Tucker, that would evoke motherhood, apple pie, and family values.

    He has four children, so has proved his fertility, and is Episcopalian like Judge Gorsuch, so he should have a friend on the Supreme Court to help advance an agenda such as declaring Easter to be a National Holiday instead of Spring Break.

    His father was once the director of Voice of America, which would not be a bad campaign slogan.

    Vote for Tucker, The Voice of America, and make America respectable and less of an international pariah again! (Possibly some focus group testing required here.)
  99. @exiled off mainstreet
    The review is excellent. Tucker Carlson is the best person now on mainstream TV news broadcasting.

    Tucker is a Nazi.
    Imran Khan had no quarrel with the Indians and no plans or ambitions outside Pakistan. But the Modi Administration violated international law by giving illegal military aid to belligerents, and drew India into a foreign war that was not our affair and none of our business. Four hundred thousand young working-class males, almost all of them Hindus and Sikhs, died to prop up Trump and install Salvini, Putin, and Leo Varadkar in power–less than five years after Modi’s henchmen, almost all of them members of the White Christian Tribe that shall Not be Named, murdered thirty million Black Christian Nigerians. And we put his face on the coinage and name government buildings after him.

  100. The central theme of Ship of Fools is that the convergence toward the reigning elite consensus of economic conservatism and social progressivism is better for the people at the top of society than for maintaining a stable middle-class democracy:

    Pleasing a particular domestic power base is all very well, but the test of a nation state’s policy is whether its power in increasing relative to foreign countries. To make America great might not be compatible with economic conservatism, social progressivism (and the rich getting richer), but neither is it fully compatible with a stable middle-class democracy without wars.

    China overtaking America was something the people at the top of American society failed to notice because they were doing too well out of it. There are things the middle class fail to see the necessity for, like a major war against a country that is not a military threat.

    Convergence on common sense is not to be expected. What happens is blundering from one extreme to the other domestically, and constancy in foreign policy.

  101. @Jack D
    The trend in 20th century jurisprudence (when it was the "good guys" who were being protected) was to call almost everything "government action" on the theory that you had to use the court system to enforce your "private actions". So, racial covenants in deeds were out, even though they were private agreements between landowners, because the court had to enforce the covenants. Libel actions against public figures (NY Times v. Sullivan) were out even though they were civil suits by individuals against the newspaper, again because it involved the court system and thus implicated government and the 1st Amendment.

    Let's say that the Current Year trend involved black female Google programmers losing their jobs for hatefully proclaiming that black women were superior programmers, thus denigrating other races and genders (Damore in reverse). Would the Left be proclaiming that while Latisha had a 1st Amendment right to her opinions, it would be perfectly OK for Google to fire her for having those opinions? Or would they be looking for a way to somehow bind Google too to the 1st Amendment? Some kind of novel legal theory that as a beneficiary of government largess, a corporation that exists with limited liability under a state charter, Google too is bound? Universities are "private" but Title IX etc. gets enforced against them as a condition of receiving government funding. It's kind of ridiculous to say that you have 1st Amendment rights but only as long as you don't use them.

    But, as we know, the Left is all about who/whom. It turns out that they didn't really object to McCarthyism in principle - they just didn't like being on the receiving end of it. "Free speech" was great when Leftists were giving the speeches denouncing the conservative white men who were running the show, but now that they are running the show, free speech (against them) doesn't seem like such a good idea.

    Exactly, Jack. Very well put.

  102. @Jack D
    This sounds like "they want to take our guns away" paranoia. America is so knee deep in guns that "they" will never be able to take them away even if "they" want to. "They" can't even take our fentanyl away, let alone our guns.

    "They" don't even need to take your guns away. China's new social credit program points the way. You can keep your guns, you just won't have a job or the ability to buy a plane ticket or to get internet service, a cell phone, a driver's license, etc. And of course if you ever try to use your gun, the SWAT team will pump you full of lead from their APCs.

    “They” don’t even need to take your guns away. China’s new social credit program points the way. You can keep your guns, you just won’t have a job or the ability to buy a plane ticket or to get internet service, a cell phone, a driver’s license, etc. And of course if you ever try to use your gun, the SWAT team will pump you full of lead from their APCs.

    The problem for them is that if you take away too many people’s ability to have a job, good life etc., you will create a a large population of too many people with nothing to lose. And when you have a large population of armed people with nothing to lose, the potential for bad things to happen to those in charge increases immensely. And there won’t be enough SWAT teams or military personnel to contain it.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    The state can always revise the criteria and change scores at will in order to keep too many people from having nothing to lose.
  103. @Almost Missouri

    "The majority of journalists and intellectuals in 1975 would never have accepted the lame excuse that silencing, firing, and ruining people for holding an opinion was fine, as long as it wasn’t specifically the government doing it. They would have declared that a free society depends above all on free minds."
     
    This is a good point that doesn't get stated often enough.

    In the 1970s and 1980s,"freedom of speech" was colloquially a blanket defense for, well, speaking freely. As I recall, it was only in the early 1990s that people began noticing that the First Amendment applied specifically to Congress rather than to everyone. At the time, I had a naive libertarian's sense of relief that a law only applying to government was naturally a good thing. In retrospect I can see that my incipient tyrant colleagues drew a different conclusion: the law is no barrier to our Plan!

    Small point, but I don’t entirely agree that the problem is the transmogrification of free speech from, well, public speech free of private consequences.

    Yes – the defenders of the mob who come after anyone who dares gore the ox of some liberal faction will inevitably point to the fact that the First Amendment protects one from government coercion, and that Google, for example, have a right to can James Damore for daring to veer too far of script.

    But I think that even in 1975, there were certain common standards that one dared not cross lest he risk being defenestrated. Witness the end of Anita Bryant’s career, for example.

    In my opinion, what has changed is not so much the relative tolerance for heterodox ideas, or even what defines heterodox ideas. What has happened is that various tools have been developed that make it far, far easier to gin up a storm of “outrage,” focus it on someone, and destroy them.

    I am reminded of the infamous case where a pretty much obscure woman with a modestly successful career in marketing made the mistake of tweeting about a trip to South Africa and laughing (virtually) about her freedom of fear from contracting HIV because she was white.

    Her career was over before her plane landed in Cape Town.

    The mob now can take one comment, supply its own context, broadcast it in seconds to millions of like-minded fools, and organize a mob in minutes. That did not exist in 1975.

    The effect is a bit like what would happen in a baseball game if baserunners were allowed bicycles on the basepaths.

    • Agree: Sean
  104. @Jack D
    Of course scapegoats can continue to exist even after the goats are (largely) extinct. In post-1967 Communist Poland they had an anti-Semitic purge even though 99% of the Jewish population was already dead or out of the country. Even after the remaining 1% was gone, it was STILL possible to blame invisible "Jewish influence" for anything bad.

    So, "hate on white men" is always going to be the unifying principle of the Coalition of the Fringes, at least as a public stance. However, this is not sufficient. Once you have wrested the levers of power away from whitey, who is going to command the helm of the ship of state? Do blacks get the leading role? Women (white women can't be trusted, the others will say - they are sleeping with the enemy)? Latinos? Of course they are going to fight amongst themselves over how to divide the spoils.

    And there are further complications - you need the competence of white men to actually make things work. If you are too successful in purging whites, everything goes to hell - see Zimbabwe.

    In post-1967 Communist Poland they had an anti-Semitic purge even though 99% of the Jewish population was already dead or out of the country. Even after the remaining 1% was gone, it was STILL possible to blame invisible “Jewish influence” for anything bad.

    The eternal boomer strikes again

    The leaders of Stalinist Poland (Jakub Berman and Hilary Minc) were Jews.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jakub_Berman
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilary_Minc

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatol_Fejgin
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Brystiger
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B3zef_R%C3%B3%C5%BCa%C5%84ski

    The head of the secret police (Roman Romkowski) and 37% of secret police directors in Stalinist Poland were Jewish.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Romkowski
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Public_Security_(Poland)#Organization

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    I stopped reading after you got the leader of Stalinist Poland wrong.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolesław_Bierut
    , @Jack D
    Most of the Jews were purged around the time of the Secret Speech in 1956, so by the time of the 1967 pogrom they were long gone from the levers of power. Communism was supposed to be free from race and religious prejudice, so why shouldn't Poles of Jewish descent have been involved in it along with Poles of Christian descent? Weren't such distinctions supposed to disappear and become irrelevant under Communism? If 37% of secret police directors were Jewish (not that you are counting - oh wait, you are) then 63% weren't.

    In pre-war Poland, Jews (who were not religious and who were interested in politics) were disproportionately drawn to leftist causes because all of the right wing parties were explicitly anti-Semitic.
  105. @International Jew

    I have no idea how Carlson creates five hours of television per week and writes a book at the same time
     
    By getting other people to write for him.

    Watch him when he doesn't have a script to read, which is every time he "interviews" a Democrat. In these tedious and predictable sessions the pattern is: Tucker interrupts with "Let me ask you a question...", letting the guy get out just enough words for Tucker to see his brilliant trap hasn't worked, then interrupting with another rhetorical question. After a while, Tucker's been beaten up enough, and he goes to laughing at his guest as he ends the interview.

    Tucker solo — reading the news (as he tosses in sharp asides), opinionating outright or (I'll take Steve's word for it) in this book — is way smarter than Tucker the interviewer. Which can mean only one thing: he relies on others to write for him.

    Not that there's anything wrong with that. Dan Rather didn't (and couldn't) write his own material either. But let's call a spade a spade, ok?

    Ann Coulter is an example of someone who really is smart enough to have written her books. Or Douglas Murray for another. Just watch them.

    I agree about Ann Coulter. She’s a smart talker who inserts asides and clauses as she goes along. Her speech is closer to the written word. Her wit also is a sign of her intelligence. She sticks that in there too, often in the same manner. This refreshing complexity in her speech probably leaves behind many of the liberals who might be listening.

    BTW, why isn’t Steve Sailer all over TV? Well, I guess we know why. He must have written too many taboo opinions. Still, it would be great if he could do some interviews. Can’t he at least get on Tucker Carlson’s show? Nah, probably not. Even that program avoids third rails — very skillfully.

  106. @Jack D
    Just watch the endless credits at the end of any movie - even the most modest drama seemingly lacking in stunts and special effects. It may look to you like just a couple of actors on the screen, a cameraman and a director would do it, but in fact you need a whole army of people, 99% of whom you will never see. What you seen on the screen is just the tip of the iceberg. A talk show takes fewer but still it is not just a guy and a cameraman by a long shot.

    Television is a relentless consumer of material - it burns thru material like a bonfire. Back in the days of vaudeville, an entertainer could have one act and take that act on the road and do the same routine over and over in every city for their entire career. You could get really good at doing your act because you were polishing the same material night after night. If you were the guy who spun plates on a stick , you could spin them like crazy and they would never fall. Even if you came back to the same city the following year, the 1,000 people who bought tickets for your repeat performance were mostly not the same people who saw your act las year. Then came TV and they would go on Ed Sullivan once and do their act, which was pretty good, but what would they do the NEXT time? You couldn't go on Ed Sullivan again and do the same act, but a lot of these guys didn't have anything else.

    Back in the days of vaudeville, an entertainer could have one act and take that act on the road and do the same routine over and over in every city for their entire career.

    Many years ago Elton John was asked what he thought he would be doing when he was 40. I don’t know, he said, but I sure as hell ain’t going to be traveling the world playing Crocodile Rock every night. Now he is 70 and still touring the world playing the same old shit.

    I like Tucker Carlson, or I would if I ever watched TV. He used to be a posh young man with a bow tie abnd a good head of hair. Now he is all grown up and the bow tie is gone, but the hair is still there. No doubt he has grown immensely rich, but appears not to have entirely sold his soul to the Devil.

    He should run for President since he already has the name recognition necessary for success in politics these days, speaks well on TV, and I can think of plenty of slogans that would rhyme with Tucker, that would evoke motherhood, apple pie, and family values.

    He has four children, so has proved his fertility, and is Episcopalian like Judge Gorsuch, so he should have a friend on the Supreme Court to help advance an agenda such as declaring Easter to be a National Holiday instead of Spring Break.

    His father was once the director of Voice of America, which would not be a bad campaign slogan.

    Vote for Tucker, The Voice of America, and make America respectable and less of an international pariah again! (Possibly some focus group testing required here.)

    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt

    He should run for President since he already has the name recognition necessary for success in politics these days, speaks well on TV, and I can think of plenty of slogans that would rhyme with Tucker, that would evoke motherhood, apple pie, and family values.

     

    There once was a Carlson named Tucker

    Who came damn close to calling Max Boot a motherhphucka

    It only works if you come from an accent region that replaces the R sound at the end of words with an AH sound.
  107. @JohnnyWalker123

    I have no idea how Carlson creates five hours of television per week and writes a book at the same time, but Ship of Fools is quite good. It’s currently No. 3 on the nonfiction best-seller list, behind Michelle Obama and Bill O’Reilly.

     

    Both of whom are hucksters. It should be noted that Tucker Carlson came in after Bill O'Reilly (a loudmouth right-wing conman who spent decades talking about how he was a "culture warrior") got fired by FOX for trying to coerce sex out of his female subordinates.

    Back in the early 2000s, O'Reilly started a boycott to get Pepsi to stop sponsoring rapper "Ludacris," saying that he "degraded women." His boycott was successful and got "Ludacris" dropped. A few years later, O'Reilly ran into a workplace sexual harassment scandal. Then more recently, O'Reill ran into another harassment scandal, which resulted in him getting fired.

    Here's what "Ludacris" had to say about O'Reilly.

    “It’s not my place to judge Bill O’Reilly the same way he judged me,” he said during an appearance on radio show “The Breakfast Club.” “I’m thriving in life right now. All I can do is hope that Bill O’Reilly settles these issues and learns from whatever mistakes he may have made ― and also thrives.”

    “But,” he added, “it is definitely ironic that Pepsi and Bill O’Reilly are under fire right now.”

     

    Here's a good clip that demonstrates the "intellect" of Bill O'Reilly (it gets interesting at 3:05). The man is a complete charlatan and an entertainer who knows his audience. He's a more coherent version of Glenn Beck.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKFvne6R7IA

    It's remarkable that O'Reilly is an intellectual leader in the conservative movement.

    There exists this view that somehow White media/govt figures (especially White conservative men) are held to a high standard, while dumb Blacks get a pass. In reality, dumb people (regardless of race or politics) often do make it to the top, but the left has no monopoly on idiocy.

    Bill Maher had some good critique (watch from 1:30 onward).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46waxL2MICc

    The left has its flaws too, but let's not act like the right is somehow the adult in the room.

    Well, I tend to take all sexual harassment accusations with a grain of salt; have done since Clarence Thomas and the recent nonsense with respect to the newest addition to the Supreme Court tends to confirm my long-held suspicions.

    As for what any “rapper” has to say, who gives a damn?

    Who ever regarded Bill O’Reilly as an intellectual, conservative or otherwise? People who quote rap artists, I suppose. O’Reilly was essentially a shock jock on TV whose act undeniably had a degree of novelty value at the start, but which eventually wore thin.

    Bill Maher is even more of a mediocre con artist than O’Reilly. At least as a pugnacious Irishman, O’Reilly occasionally took shots at the Globohomo establishment — Maher actively shills for it.

    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    Bill O'Reilly paid out $32 million to 5 different women. A lot to pay out for an innocent man.

    Nobody normally cares what the rapper has to say, but in this case the rapper comes out looking like the better man. Which is not a good look for a "culture warrior" like O'Reilly.
  108. @Alec Leamas

    Over the last few decades, the American upper class has developed into an extraordinarily cohesive society. I’m not sure why, because you’d think people at the top would be competitive by nature, but maybe the benefits are sufficient to override their bloodier impulses.
     
    The phenomenon seems to be that there is an actual ruling class, and then there is a much larger subordinate level of status conscious whites who aspire to admission in the actual ruling class and ape its fashions and manners.

    The subordinate caste does a lot of the dirty work of striking at the white working class in every day society, thereby announcing their fitness for inclusion in the true ruling class and pretensions to belonging to it.

    We really are saddled with a large caste of officious Hyacinth Buckets - mediocrities with college degrees who work as the enforcement arm of the ruling caste.

    Oregon has its very own Gov. Hyacinth Bucket who just released her budget proposal. Naturally it calls for much more funding for and greater numbers of the subordinate class. This endless do-gooderism spans the budget, but Gov. HB specifically calls out for state paid healthcare for all children of border crossers. She also wants a new legal defense fund to protect illegal border crossers from being prosecuted by the feds. So the feds will try to enforce the law and Gov. HB will tax us to provide legal defense.

    Always lost to the parasitical class is the sight of the taxpayers who support them, unwillingly I might add. That is bad enough, to be invisible when “all” the interests have a seat at the table, but to have your money actually deployed to help illegal invaders seems, well, unConstitutional.

    Meanwhile, in their generosity the Hyacinth Buckets expand by 4% the program that allows exhausted tax donkeys, aka senior citizens, to defer their property tax by having the state pay the county the money. Last I saw they were getting 12% on that money, although I don’t know what they get now. The point is, they will tax you beyond your last earnings and breath to pay to invite 7 billion to replace you. And they’re happy with that as long as they continue to get paid.

  109. @Mr McKenna

    Tucker Carlson is the best person now on mainstream TV news broadcasting.
     
    While we're setting low bars, may I also observe that he'd quickly rise above the common run of politician on the national stage, should he desire to make his way there.

    And as an aside, imagine for a moment the cataclysm which would await anyone who laid siege to the residence of Ta-Nehisi, or Rachel Maddow, or Peter Beinhart, or Jonathan Chait, or well, you get the idea. Unimaginable that it would even happen, much less go completely unpunished.

    Except Coates and the rest of them are not apologizing for literal Nazis

  110. @Tyrion 2
    That sounds exciting. What did they "attack" him with? Nukes? Cyber-warfare? Kabbalistic magic?

    Oh...they posted a few ineffectual facebook ads and sent him an email over a legitimate political disagreement. An epic Manichean struggle this is not. People like you might be more effective if you didn't act like such a loopy old maid.

    I absolutely agree with you: A five-year moratorium on all U.S. tax-payer aid to Israel, followed by a ten-year probationary period.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    I wouldn't give US aid to any country. Least of all the hundreds of billions to Iraq and Afghanistan. Or the billions to other countries where Americans aren't even safe on the streets...

    Anyway, I wonder what the US is buying from Israel for that military money? Whatever it is, I highly doubt it is worth it and would obviously stop it.
  111. I’m the star of my own movie — David Byrne

    istevefan and Jack D start the out-of-the-box thinking

    Everyone in the future will have command of a SWAT team and be a member of one.

    Everyone in the future will command a fleet of drones and fly in one.

    Everyone will be employed by an intelligence agency or be politically represented by one.

    Everyone in the future will have their own central bank and be the beneficiary of the electronically conjured up cash.

    Remember, there are only two things that matter:

    Monetary Policy and Mass Immigration

    in other words,

    Debt and Demography

  112. @Mr McKenna

    Tucker Carlson is the best person now on mainstream TV news broadcasting.
     
    While we're setting low bars, may I also observe that he'd quickly rise above the common run of politician on the national stage, should he desire to make his way there.

    And as an aside, imagine for a moment the cataclysm which would await anyone who laid siege to the residence of Ta-Nehisi, or Rachel Maddow, or Peter Beinhart, or Jonathan Chait, or well, you get the idea. Unimaginable that it would even happen, much less go completely unpunished.

    Not true for Jonathan Chait. The hard left has a hate-boner for him.

    • Replies: @snorlax
    You're (like I did for several years) confusing him with Jonathan Haidt.

    Haidt is the Heterodox Academy guy, Chait is a weasel who spins preposterous conspiracy theories in various rags about how The Donald became a deep-cover KGB asset in 1987.
  113. @Anonymous

    My worry is that in a political party based democracy local conflicts are tempered by national debates.
     
    Example please?

    Any time the opposing side tries to hang a local “radical” politician around the neck of the other national party for general electoral gain.

    Basically any non-leading Democrat you hear about from the Republicans and vice versa.

    The same is true in the UK.

    Look at how calls to “abolish ICE” were tempered by national political considerations and were replaced with messages about health care, a sensible point.

  114. @Jack D
    Of course scapegoats can continue to exist even after the goats are (largely) extinct. In post-1967 Communist Poland they had an anti-Semitic purge even though 99% of the Jewish population was already dead or out of the country. Even after the remaining 1% was gone, it was STILL possible to blame invisible "Jewish influence" for anything bad.

    So, "hate on white men" is always going to be the unifying principle of the Coalition of the Fringes, at least as a public stance. However, this is not sufficient. Once you have wrested the levers of power away from whitey, who is going to command the helm of the ship of state? Do blacks get the leading role? Women (white women can't be trusted, the others will say - they are sleeping with the enemy)? Latinos? Of course they are going to fight amongst themselves over how to divide the spoils.

    And there are further complications - you need the competence of white men to actually make things work. If you are too successful in purging whites, everything goes to hell - see Zimbabwe.

    And there are further complications – you need the competence of white men to actually make things work. If you are too successful in purging whites, everything goes to hell – see Zimbabwe.

    The key is to use faceless corporations to make things work, or at least corporations run by white people, but fronted by lovable family men like Bill Cosby, Tiger Woods, and Michael Jackson.

  115. One of the most clever features of Carlson’s show is that he packages it into portions that fit well into YouTube videos. O’Reilly had longer segments. But Tucker has a lot of short seven to ten minute interviews and those are stored and viewed the next day on YouTube.

    O’Reilly may have gotten higher ratings but half of Tucker’s viewership is later in the week on YouTube. Carlson has a bigger impact than his Nielsen ratings. He’s seeding social media with short pithy discussions of popular topics. He’s the King of the New Media.

  116. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    I live in the Washington, D.C. area, home to a very large black middle-class due to the federal government's massive AA. These people are stunningly incompetent. Even the military blacks who are the most disciplined and generally give effort are relatively pointless. And these are the "talented tenth."

    Without AA, the black middle and upper-middle class would collapse overnight. Best guess is that maybe one out of ten - one out five at the high end - would remain at their current level.

    As it is, there's not too much continuity to the black middle class anyway since so many of their kids falls right back into the abyss.

    Expecting Africans to achieve and act like Europeans is the folly of our time, something that even iSteve commentators are often guilty of doing.

    I live in the Washington, D.C. area, home to a very large black middle-class due to the federal government’s massive AA.

    How does the federal government implement AA? Aren’t racial preferences illegal?

    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Walk into a federal building and a huge percentage of the low level workers will be black, and they earn a decent amount. Regarding higher level positions, you'll see an inordinate number of blacks, though not as high as the lower levels. Don't know if there's an official AA program, but on the ground, there's just a lot of blacks at the various agencies.

    You know something's off when you go to any private company office in the area, where blacks are few and far between.

    The military impact is pretty high too. There are a lot of blacks who go in the military and, of course, rise very quickly.
  117. @JLK

    Ann Coulter is an example of someone who really is smart enough to have written her books.
     
    While some of Carlson's comments may be helpful in moving the envelope of permissible discussion in a more moderate direction, there's nothing in his academic background or Coulter's for that matter that suggests an intellect capable of seeing the whole picture.

    You wrote,

    While some of Carlson’s comments may be helpful in moving the envelope of permissible discussion in a more moderate direction, there’s nothing in his academic background or Coulter’s for that matter that suggests an intellect capable of seeing the whole picture.

    Regarding Ann Coulter, a brain from New Caanan, Connecticut, you are wrong. From Wikipedia, the font of all truth:

    While attending Cornell University, Coulter helped found The Cornell Review,[9] and was a member of the Delta Gamma national sorority.[10] She graduated cum laude from Cornell in 1984 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in history and received her Juris Doctor from the University of Michigan Law School in 1988, where she was an editor of the Michigan Law Review.[11] At Michigan, Coulter was president of the local chapter of the Federalist Society and was trained at the National Journalism Center.[12]

    Furthermore, regarding Carlson also, or anybody else, the simplistic judgement contained in your comment indicates a true inability to see the whole picture, almost by definition.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    BTW, yes, I know I misspelled New Canaan. That's funny, because it's right down the road and, um, I know people there. I make spelling errors and typos; I must not have "an intellect capable of seeing the whole picture."
  118. @Jack D

    Especially after Reagan fired the air traffic controllers, all hell broke loose. It was really then that workers became seen as a commodity who could be bought, sold, or discarded.
     
    Firing the traffic controllers is seen as a turning point but nothing really changed in the law. What happened was that unions (rightly) lost the sympathy of the public by their excesses. FDR opposed public employees unions because of their ability to hold vital public services hostage. If unions go on strike against GM you can still buy a Ford but if they shut down the air transport system there is no alternative. Likewise, private sector unions lost popular support because they were seen as havens of corruption and featherbedding rather than legitimate protectors of workers' rights.

    Also the recovery of the other advanced industrial economies meant that American industry now had competition. Back in the day, GM, Ford and Chrysler all competed on a level playing field - they all had to pay their workers the same union wages and put out the same product that was indifferently assembled by workers who didn't give a damn about quality because their jobs were protected by the union. The auto makers and the unions had a cozy arrangement - the unions would raise their wages and the car makers would pass this thru to their customers (and reduce the quality of the product to make up for increased labor costs) and everyone was happy (except for the customers who had no choice). Then the imports came (first VW and then the Japanese) and this threw a monkey wrench into the cozy arrangement.

    Of course immigration did not help - one of the things that gave employees power was a tight labor market. Marx predicted that the workers would be "immiserated' because there would always be a "reserve army of the unemployed" waiting at the factory gates and driving down wage levels. But in fact, after WWII, workers were in short supply before the era of widespread illegal immigration - you couldn't find enough people to operate your meat processing plant or do other dirty jobs unless you paid them really well. But for Mexican illegal aliens, minimum wage was good enough. Then the Chinese came and took away millions of factory jobs and "outsourcing" took away even more jobs (you call customer support and they answer in India or the Philippines) leaving a permanent slack labor market - even now with "full employment" a lot of people are underemployed or out of the workforce .

    Jack, good post, but perhaps the cited nexus between the air-traffic controllers and “all hell broke loose” should be further discounted by considering the antics of Mike Milken? Would be interested to hear your thoughts on that.

  119. @Jonathan Mason

    Back in the days of vaudeville, an entertainer could have one act and take that act on the road and do the same routine over and over in every city for their entire career.
     
    Many years ago Elton John was asked what he thought he would be doing when he was 40. I don't know, he said, but I sure as hell ain't going to be traveling the world playing Crocodile Rock every night. Now he is 70 and still touring the world playing the same old shit.

    I like Tucker Carlson, or I would if I ever watched TV. He used to be a posh young man with a bow tie abnd a good head of hair. Now he is all grown up and the bow tie is gone, but the hair is still there. No doubt he has grown immensely rich, but appears not to have entirely sold his soul to the Devil.

    He should run for President since he already has the name recognition necessary for success in politics these days, speaks well on TV, and I can think of plenty of slogans that would rhyme with Tucker, that would evoke motherhood, apple pie, and family values.

    He has four children, so has proved his fertility, and is Episcopalian like Judge Gorsuch, so he should have a friend on the Supreme Court to help advance an agenda such as declaring Easter to be a National Holiday instead of Spring Break.

    His father was once the director of Voice of America, which would not be a bad campaign slogan.

    Vote for Tucker, The Voice of America, and make America respectable and less of an international pariah again! (Possibly some focus group testing required here.)

    He should run for President since he already has the name recognition necessary for success in politics these days, speaks well on TV, and I can think of plenty of slogans that would rhyme with Tucker, that would evoke motherhood, apple pie, and family values.

    There once was a Carlson named Tucker

    Who came damn close to calling Max Boot a motherhphucka

    It only works if you come from an accent region that replaces the R sound at the end of words with an AH sound.

  120. @Intelligent Dasein

    The funny thing is that Carlson, a lifelong Republican, has drifted leftward on economics and foreign policy in recent years
     
    As many have pointed out around here, the old definitions of Left and Right are growing increasingly irrelevant by the day and almost by the hour. The meaningful political distinctions for today and tomorrow are between the growing nationalist, pro-family, pro-worker traditionalists and the cosmopolitan, oligo-capitalist progressives. The former involves a great deal of what used to be called the "Labor" branch of economic liberalism (something closely akin to Catholic distributism à la Rerum Novarum) while the latter is the pure distillation of a Lincolnian Republicanism that has shed the hypocrisy of popular concern. All the bewildering political developments of the last two decades can be explained by the fact that not only are these two camps fighting with each other, they're also each fighting a war of succession within their own respective parties. The New Right is still struggling for position, gearing up for its true purpose of defending that which is best and essential in the human condition, while the New Left is pursuing the urbane "freedom" to engage in unrestrained acquisition and self-seeking beyond all responsibility and law. Once both sides have found their footing, they will clash in a decisive cataclysm in which the history of the 21st century will be settled.

    I've been saying that I'm "socially conservative and fiscally liberal" ever since I was back in high school, using a deliberate inversion of the phrase favored by the cucks and thots of the GOPe. This is a pithy saying that captures much of what motivates the New Right and it was these hitherto unrepresented people who formed the basis of Trump's electoral victory, notwithstanding the fact that the Donald hasn't exactly delivered much for his base to be happy about. Tucker Carlson is their new mouthpiece, and I think he's doing the job reasonably well given that most people are too unintellectual to grapple with the ideas at a high philosophical level, yet they still feel them to be true. I don't mind Tucker stealing my thunder, I'm just glad that the ideas are gaining a wider audience. Twenty years ago you had to be quite the esotericist or the rare private intellectual to have any grasp of New Right concepts. Now Tucker is making some of those concepts mainstream, and that is a good thing.

    Twenty years ago you had to be quite the esotericist or the rare private intellectual to have any grasp of New Right concepts.

    Well, or you could be an oldschool Joe Manchin-style Democrat, but that’s been flushed down the memory hole.

  121. @Jim Bob Lassiter
    I am certain that Steve is very circumspect (by rational necessity) about where he goes in California and that there are far fewer options (not attributible to gross growth in population/development per se) for strolling about there than there were 40 or 50 years ago.

    Nobody strolls in LA.

  122. @anonymous
    At the same time with a large number of native born Latinos marrying Anglos, so there will be a whitish majority race 50 years into the future.

    It depends very much on if borders can be brought under control, multiculturalism can be discredited and a reasonable educated birth rate be reached.

    The lack of these three things is pulling our societies apart even as their inherent strengths, culture, a productive population, civility, work to keep them somewhat together.

    I’d rather err strongly on the side of not throwing everything away because accepting people from all around the world sounds nice.

    If the American people needing to turn to a reality TV star isn’t warning enough, then I have no idea what would be.

  123. @JohnnyWalker123

    Why all the hate for Carlson? For example, Matthew Yglesias of Vox endorsed the intentions of the leftist goon squad who terrorized Mrs. Carlson into locking herself in the pantry.

     

    Probably because Tucker Carlson is witty and intellectually agile. So lots of powerful people fear his ability to deconstruct the ruling class.. Especially since Tucker Carlson occasionally flirts with white racialism, I think a certain tribe (which Yglesias belongs to) finds him particularly threatening.

    AntiFa is being funded by George Soros and lots of other Democrat-leaning political donors. So it's not an autonomous group. There are handlers whose strings are being pulled from behind the scenes. Don't think anything is just spontaneously happening.

    The attack on Tucker Carlson's house was a message to shut up and move on to safer topics (like tax, deregulation, and rap music).

    Carlson, a rich kid from La Jolla, isn’t a populist outsider by upbringing or personality.

     

    For whatever reason, the coastal areas of Southern California seem to a produce a notably high proportion of good looking people.

    Carlson is certainly telegenic, youthful looking, and handsome. He doesn't seem to have aged much since he started on tv. He really seems to bring a fresh face to the conservative, while having the intellect of a more seasoned veteran. That's a good combination.

    Based on what I've seen, he's intellectually matured a lot since his days on Cross Fire.

    The funny thing is that Carlson, a lifelong Republican, has drifted leftward on economics and foreign policy in recent years, as seen in his new best-seller, Ship of Fools: How a Selfish Ruling Class Is Bringing America to the Brink of Revolution.

     

    I think there's a general sense that America's rulers have totally mismanaged this country, especially from the early 2000s onward, due to incompetence and parasitic corruption. There's a lot of critique of the ruling class from both the left and right. Interestingly enough, while there are differences in leftist and rightist critiques, there seems to be somewhat of a consensus on some issues.

    Back in the late 90s/early 2000s, I was struck by how similar Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader often sounded. It seems like others (Tucker Carlson, Bernie Sanders, occasionally even Donald Trump) are converging on that left-right consensus.

    The central theme of Ship of Fools is that the convergence toward the reigning elite consensus of economic conservatism and social progressivism is better for the people at the top of society than for maintaining a stable middle-class democracy:

     

    The transition to economic conservatism happened back in the 80s, during the Reagan-Bush era. There were plenty of leftists and unions who fought back, but they got curb stomped into the ground. The victory of economic conservatives was so complete (especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union) that the Democrat party "triangulated" right in the 90s, under Clinton-Gore (who were very supportive of NAFTA, trade with China, financial deregulation, cutting capital gains, catering to Silicon Valley).

    Similar trends occurred in other first-world nations (like the UK under Thatcher and Major).

    In his book "Death of the West," Pat Buchanan admits the positive social value of a high minimum wage, protections for workers, regulation of executive pay, and support for unions.

    People often say that the problem with conservatives is that they've become "RINOs" (Republican-in-name-only) who adopt liberal positions. Maybe, the problem is just the opposite. Maybe the problem is that the left has given up its traditional defense of the working-class and tacked too far to right on issues like taxes, trade, and deregulation.

    Companies can openly mistreat their employees (or “contractors”), but for the price of installing transgender bathrooms they buy a pass. Shareholders win, workers lose. Bowing to the diversity agenda is a lot cheaper than raising wages.

     

    It'd be nice if we had labor unions, but those were broken back a few decades ago. Especially after Reagan fired the air traffic controllers, all hell broke loose. It was really then that workers became seen as a commodity who could be bought, sold, or discarded.

    Ship of Fools is full of appreciations of liberal heroes of the 20th century, such as Ralph Nader, Frank Church (the Democratic senator who helped bring the American deep state under some degree of legislative control in 1975), and farm labor leader Cesar Chavez (a fervent opponent of illegal immigration).

     

    At some point, he should also give a shout out to Jimmy Carter, who tried his best to reign in CIA excesses as president. Unfortunately, after the CIA and Reagan-Bush stole the 1980 election by manipulating the release of the Iranian hostages, politicians got the message that you shouldn't screw with the intelligence agencies. Either they ruin you or they kill you (which JFK and RFK found out the hard way).

    At least Tucker Carlson is intellectually honest enough to admit the role that various types of leftists (environmentalists, consumer safety advocates, union organizers, anti-corruption activists) played in making America a better place to live. They weren't perfect, but they were never as evil as Reagan, Bush, and Gingrich portrayed them. At this point, we sort of wish those people had more power in this country.

    FDR receives a tribute for his Civilian Conservation Corps, which provided healthy, prideful hard work to many unmarried young men. Carlson then acidly observes: “It would be denounced as irredeemably sexist today.”

     

    There actually was a female version of the CCC, organized by Eleanor Roosevelt.

    He’s likewise old enough to notice how humiliating it ought to be to contemporary intellectuals that they feel obligated to praise the intelligence of Ta-Nehisi Coates:

     

    It can't be any more humiliating than all the praise that conservative intellectuals gave to President Bush (and later Sarah Palin). Neither of whom are, in any way, more intellectually sophisticated than Coates. The pro-Bush sycophancy of the 2004 Republican National Convention (when speakers portrayed a dimwitted man as the next Winston Churchill) was particularly depressing.

    Actually, it's even worse, as Coates is merely a journalist. Bush and Palin were seen as Presidential/VP timber. Which reflects pretty badly on the Republican electorate.

    Sure it's ridiculous for Coates to go from journalist to comic book writer, but it's even more ridiculous that Governor Palin quit her governorship to do reality tv.

    It’d be nice if we had labor unions, but those were broken back a few decades ago. Especially after Reagan fired the air traffic controllers, all hell broke loose.

    I generally agree about labor unions, but not for government workers. That should never have been permitted. As Derbyshire notes, they’re essentially lobbies, not unions. There’s no opposition from management to their demands and they’ve become the foot soldiers of the Democratic Party.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
  124. The whole libertarian project was a smokescreen. Some of us wasted 30 years on it, chasing our tails as intended. Look at the founders and major promoters of libertarianism, specifically the post-WW2 movement. Every single time.

  125. @JohnnyWalker123

    I have no idea how Carlson creates five hours of television per week and writes a book at the same time, but Ship of Fools is quite good. It’s currently No. 3 on the nonfiction best-seller list, behind Michelle Obama and Bill O’Reilly.

     

    Both of whom are hucksters. It should be noted that Tucker Carlson came in after Bill O'Reilly (a loudmouth right-wing conman who spent decades talking about how he was a "culture warrior") got fired by FOX for trying to coerce sex out of his female subordinates.

    Back in the early 2000s, O'Reilly started a boycott to get Pepsi to stop sponsoring rapper "Ludacris," saying that he "degraded women." His boycott was successful and got "Ludacris" dropped. A few years later, O'Reilly ran into a workplace sexual harassment scandal. Then more recently, O'Reill ran into another harassment scandal, which resulted in him getting fired.

    Here's what "Ludacris" had to say about O'Reilly.

    “It’s not my place to judge Bill O’Reilly the same way he judged me,” he said during an appearance on radio show “The Breakfast Club.” “I’m thriving in life right now. All I can do is hope that Bill O’Reilly settles these issues and learns from whatever mistakes he may have made ― and also thrives.”

    “But,” he added, “it is definitely ironic that Pepsi and Bill O’Reilly are under fire right now.”

     

    Here's a good clip that demonstrates the "intellect" of Bill O'Reilly (it gets interesting at 3:05). The man is a complete charlatan and an entertainer who knows his audience. He's a more coherent version of Glenn Beck.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKFvne6R7IA

    It's remarkable that O'Reilly is an intellectual leader in the conservative movement.

    There exists this view that somehow White media/govt figures (especially White conservative men) are held to a high standard, while dumb Blacks get a pass. In reality, dumb people (regardless of race or politics) often do make it to the top, but the left has no monopoly on idiocy.

    Bill Maher had some good critique (watch from 1:30 onward).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46waxL2MICc

    The left has its flaws too, but let's not act like the right is somehow the adult in the room.

    It’s remarkable that O’Reilly is an intellectual leader in the conservative movement.

    The only people I know who liked O’Reilly are political morons. He’s a blowhard with nothing worthwhile to offer.

  126. @Buzz Mohawk
    You wrote,

    While some of Carlson’s comments may be helpful in moving the envelope of permissible discussion in a more moderate direction, there’s nothing in his academic background or Coulter’s for that matter that suggests an intellect capable of seeing the whole picture.
     
    Regarding Ann Coulter, a brain from New Caanan, Connecticut, you are wrong. From Wikipedia, the font of all truth:

    While attending Cornell University, Coulter helped found The Cornell Review,[9] and was a member of the Delta Gamma national sorority.[10] She graduated cum laude from Cornell in 1984 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in history and received her Juris Doctor from the University of Michigan Law School in 1988, where she was an editor of the Michigan Law Review.[11] At Michigan, Coulter was president of the local chapter of the Federalist Society and was trained at the National Journalism Center.[12]
     
    Furthermore, regarding Carlson also, or anybody else, the simplistic judgement contained in your comment indicates a true inability to see the whole picture, almost by definition.

    BTW, yes, I know I misspelled New Canaan. That’s funny, because it’s right down the road and, um, I know people there. I make spelling errors and typos; I must not have “an intellect capable of seeing the whole picture.”

  127. @Mr. Anon

    Oh…they posted a few ineffectual facebook ads and sent him an email over a legitimate political disagreement.

    Pro-Israel groups are mobilizing against Sen. Rand Paul for his block on legislation to give Israel $38 billion over the next 10 years. AIPAC is placing Facebook ads & CUFI is sending emails to pressure Paul, “the last obstacle” to Israel obtaining the largest military aid package in US history…"
     
    Sure, because after all, AIPAC is such a marginal, ineffectual organization.

    What it likely means is that money will pour into his next election opponent. Maybe even into the coffers of a primary challenger.
     

    What odds will you offer that Rand Paul is re-elected?

    Since you give me the impression that you think AIPAC and assorted organisations afs all powerful, I think it’d be fair if you gave me 100 to 1 against.

    Still, I’m a sporting man so I’ll happily take evens as a bet between equals. Sound fair?

    • Replies: @ATBOTL
    That's a pathetic straw man argument you set up there.

    How powerful do you think AIPAC is?
    , @Mr. Anon

    What odds will you offer that Rand Paul is re-elected?
     
    I have no idea what the possibility of his reelection is. What I am saying is that the probability of funding by AIPAC or any allied group or person directed to someone challenging him is pretty high.

    Since you give me the impression that you think AIPAC and assorted organisations afs all powerful, I think it’d be fair if you gave me 100 to 1 against.
     
    I'm not responsible for your impressions. You are, and I really don't care how you arrive at them. I never said AIPAC is all powerful. I never implied it. They are however quite powerful. Do you deny that they are powerful at all? Does virtually every "serious" candidate for President (and quite a few for Senate) address their conventions because they lack power?
  128. @Anonymous

    Nick Hanauer, an early Amazon investor and prolific funder of liberal causes, has suggested so on occasion, saying that the American people must be disarmed before they seek revenge.
     
    Citation?

    Googling Nick Hanauer, I see that he has spoken and written about how the American people are on the verge of coming after billionaires like himself with “pitchforks” due to income inequality. But I think he fears AR-15s more than pitchforks, as he’s a huge supporter of gun control.

    My inference: Hanauer feels that if we can’t achieve income equality, at least disarm the damned rabble.

  129. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Yeah, every time I think that we're on our way to the Balkans, I look at California, Texas, New Mexico and Florida say, "Well, maybe not."

    Granted, those states are likely far, far less appealing due to their diversity than they would have been without it, but they are not cauldrons of racial hatred and violence. Whites are not being persecuted nor are White identity groups being created to fight back. It's just a slow slide toward some Latin American-style society.

    But then every time I think that these states represent our future (crappy but not the Balkans), I see some Obama type talking about how we need to get blacks down the street from Whites through housing policy, or the need for more "opportunity" for NAMs, i.e. money from Whites, or I hear about some new program to put NAMs into executive positions or some diversity program where Whites have to sit and be scolded by blacks about how evil they are. I see this and think that maybe we're heading toward something far worse than Latin America.

    I can't quite figure which direction where heading. But what I do know is that Door 2 which really could lead to the Balkans is no longer some crazy fantasy. Even if the odds are against it, it's a possibility. Certainly, it's enough of a possibility to think about contingency plans. (The odds of me dying in the next year are extremely low but because of the consequences, I have life insurance. The same holds true here. Low odds (but growing odds) but huge negative consequences.)

    Yeah, Latin America seems to be the future. Mixed race population with a white (and Asian) elite. Weak currencies and low rule of law.

    Mexicans and Asians don’t seem to be nearly as hostile to American whites as blacks do.

  130. OT, but iSteve material:

    Holocaust scholar at Teachers College, Columbia University finds swastikas spray-painted on her office wall

    https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/ny-metro-teacher-college-professor-office-wall-defaced-swastikas-20181128-story.html

    QUOTES:

    Elizabeth Midlarsky said she first saw the hate symbols, which included the word “YID” scrawled on a wall outside her office, when she arrived at work at the Ivy League campus at about 1 p.m.

    Midlarsky’s been targeted by anti-Jewish hate crime before. In October 2007, a vandal spray-painted a swastika on her office door, and wrote her name and crossed it out — a crime she said made her blood boil.

    END QUOTES

    There’s also an article at WaPo, with lots of commenters saying Trump is to blame somehow.

    So who might have done this? The word “YID” seems like a good clue. What sort of person in New York City would even think of using that word ?

    And something very similar happened to Elizabeth Midlarsky 11 years ago. Hmmm.

  131. @Tiny Duck
    This is facile.

    Coates Maddow and the like are not promoting bigotry and hatred,

    Carlson is an evil man and deserves everything he gets or he is stupid and doesn't understand his privilege.

    Here is some truthful educational materials that are amusing at the same time

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Fpk6P4kOqE

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETR9qrVS17g

    Is that Tiny Duck? The guy with the glasses and the pointy hair?

    If so he’s a piece of work. “In the California in the sixties the Black Panthers resisted police violence in Oakland”. You might rephrase that as – in the nineteen sixties in the Bay Area the Black Panther engaged in mass murder of white people. These were called the Zebra Murders.

    Denying guns to black people is a fine idea. It would save a lot of black lives.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    Ann Coulter would disagree with you on the Panthers:

    Despite modern perceptions that blend all the black activists of the '60s, the Black Panthers did not hate whites. Although some of their most high-profile leaders were drug dealers and murderers, they did not seek armed revolution.

    Those were the precepts of Karenga's United Slaves.

    http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2017-12-27.html
     
    The Panthers' march through the Capitol in Sacramento was wholly within the limits of the law at the time. We need someone as crafty as Huey on our side. James O'Keefe is good, but hardly enough.
  132. @L Woods
    Guns are a ridiculous red herring born of empty bluster and machismo. For all their precious guns, conservatives have done nothing but bend over and say "yes sir, may I have another" for 60+ years.

    The Federal government backed off when confronted by Civilian Militia at the 2014 Bundy ranch standoff.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/08/us/bundy-ranch-standoff-case-charges-dismissed.html

  133. @carol
    Tucker used to wear a bow tie at where, CNN? Years ago. That kind of put him in George Will territory.

    Glad he got rid of it.

    The bow tie was definitely holding him back. It used to be a thing among conservative doofuses.

  134. @Anonymous

    Or Douglas Murray for another.
     
    Who is Douglas Murray?

    Doesn’t your computer have Google? Why does your every comment involve asking someone to explain something to you?

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    Since 234 is defying board culture and has no comment archive, I cannot prove or disprove this, but I'm pretty sure this one is an established troll. Demanding proof that the sun exists (to which you can alway reply with further proof demands) is a CTR bird-dogging meant to frustrate your opponent while making yourself look principled. Think twice before replying to an Anonymous commenter on a board that asks commenters to set a name.
  135. @istevefan

    “They” don’t even need to take your guns away. China’s new social credit program points the way. You can keep your guns, you just won’t have a job or the ability to buy a plane ticket or to get internet service, a cell phone, a driver’s license, etc. And of course if you ever try to use your gun, the SWAT team will pump you full of lead from their APCs.
     
    The problem for them is that if you take away too many people's ability to have a job, good life etc., you will create a a large population of too many people with nothing to lose. And when you have a large population of armed people with nothing to lose, the potential for bad things to happen to those in charge increases immensely. And there won't be enough SWAT teams or military personnel to contain it.

    The state can always revise the criteria and change scores at will in order to keep too many people from having nothing to lose.

  136. Why do we tax capital at half the rate of labor?

    Corporate and capital gains taxes here are not that much different from Europe and the rest of the Anglosphere, and sometimes higher.

    Someone needs to protect workers from the terrifying power of market forces, which tend to accelerate change to intolerable levels and crush the weak.

    I’d rather have the Church do this than the state. You say, the Church doesn’t have the guns. I’d say that’s a feature, not a bug. They can’t be turned on us, either.

    …the famous 1971 “crying Indian” TV commercial persuaded Americans to be ashamed of littering.

    The “Dont Mess With Texas” campaign did the same with more honesty, no condescension, and better and quicker results.

    Carlson is struck by how many 20th-century progressive shibboleths have been forgotten as the long march through the institutions has triumphed:

    Forgotten, or never really believed in the first place? The one progressive constant is lust for power. Only the means change. And the ends justify them.

    When the traditional scapegoat becomes insufficient, various factions will turn on one another.

    Chaos will ensue.

    Time to start hoarding popcorn.

  137. @International Jew

    I have no idea how Carlson creates five hours of television per week and writes a book at the same time
     
    By getting other people to write for him.

    Watch him when he doesn't have a script to read, which is every time he "interviews" a Democrat. In these tedious and predictable sessions the pattern is: Tucker interrupts with "Let me ask you a question...", letting the guy get out just enough words for Tucker to see his brilliant trap hasn't worked, then interrupting with another rhetorical question. After a while, Tucker's been beaten up enough, and he goes to laughing at his guest as he ends the interview.

    Tucker solo — reading the news (as he tosses in sharp asides), opinionating outright or (I'll take Steve's word for it) in this book — is way smarter than Tucker the interviewer. Which can mean only one thing: he relies on others to write for him.

    Not that there's anything wrong with that. Dan Rather didn't (and couldn't) write his own material either. But let's call a spade a spade, ok?

    Ann Coulter is an example of someone who really is smart enough to have written her books. Or Douglas Murray for another. Just watch them.

    Even from the host’s substantial bully pulpit, debating people on TV is much harder than it looks. Tucker acquits himself very well compared to just about anyone else with a talk show, who tend to debate people much less often than he does, and then to rely on methods like putting them in a “panel” of 3 conservatives and 1 liberal or vice-versa, and/or yelling over them then cutting to commercial. Tucker does those things too, but much less often.

    And yes, obviously he (like every talk show host) has writers and this isn’t a secret.

    Ann Coulter is an example of someone who really is smart enough to have written her books. … Just watch them.

    Have you seen Ann Coulter on TV? It’s cringe-inducing. She makes Bill O’Reilly look like Disraeli. Watch her strike out on Lou Dobbs’ t-balls:

    Compare to Tucker laying the smackdown on Michael Avenatti, who, for whatever else you can say about him, is an extremely quick-witted and verbally facile adversary:

  138. @Anonymous

    Nick Hanauer, an early Amazon investor and prolific funder of liberal causes, has suggested so on occasion, saying that the American people must be disarmed before they seek revenge.
     
    Citation?

    The reply of “citation” is irritating and a sign of laziness. Perhaps worse it often denotes a troll at work.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    The reply of “citation” is irritating and a sign of laziness. Perhaps worse it often denotes a troll at work.
     
    Who can only afford to drive a 40-year-old Chevy.



    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GANcs2sxcH8&feature=youtu.be
  139. @Pat Boyle
    Is that Tiny Duck? The guy with the glasses and the pointy hair?

    If so he's a piece of work. "In the California in the sixties the Black Panthers resisted police violence in Oakland". You might rephrase that as - in the nineteen sixties in the Bay Area the Black Panther engaged in mass murder of white people. These were called the Zebra Murders.

    Denying guns to black people is a fine idea. It would save a lot of black lives.

    Ann Coulter would disagree with you on the Panthers:

    Despite modern perceptions that blend all the black activists of the ’60s, the Black Panthers did not hate whites. Although some of their most high-profile leaders were drug dealers and murderers, they did not seek armed revolution.

    Those were the precepts of Karenga’s United Slaves.

    http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2017-12-27.html

    The Panthers’ march through the Capitol in Sacramento was wholly within the limits of the law at the time. We need someone as crafty as Huey on our side. James O’Keefe is good, but hardly enough.

  140. Texas and California are current examples of white minority societies in the process of the next generation becoming whitish majority societies without the 3 things you cite and yet holding together before the return to majority hegemony.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Texas and California are current examples of white minority societies in the process of the next generation becoming whitish majority societies without the 3 things you cite and yet holding together before the return to majority hegemony.
     
    In the meantime, who fills the School Book Depository?
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    Texas and California are current examples of white minority societies in the process of the next generation becoming whitish majority societies without the 3 things you cite and yet holding together before the return to majority hegemony.
     
    Let us see if this has a track record:

    Germany 1933-1941 is an example of a Germanic-majority society in the process of the next generation becoming a Judeophilic majority societiy without the 3 things you cite and yet holding together before the return to majority hegemony.

    After all, the holocaust didn't begin until 1942. It can't happen until it happens, right? And when it happens, you will say what? You didn't want it to happen?

    Recall that everyone knows about the Algerian model Spanky. And your name is at the top of the list.
  141. @songbird
    I'm surprised so many people watch Maddow. I hadn't known she was competitive to Tucker in ratings.

    Maybe it’s for laughs . I sometimes watch a few minutes of TYTs for that reason .

    • Replies: @songbird
    It sure isn't for her looks.
  142. With all the lying press blaring about Russian hackers and every Trump tweet there’s an enormous amount of legitimate news that is not being discussed. Chief among these themes and items, and causative for the Trumpening, is what I have been calling the Crisis of Authority.
    To be careful, this is not griping about inevitable processes. Everybody who burdens himself with some degree of expertise finds himself in the position of Richard Dreyfuss’s character in Jaws when he tries to warn fishermen about boat capacity. Hooper is vindicated if they sink or lose a mate — the film doesn’t follow them, but the issue doesn’t appear to be terribly controversial, and the audience laughs because really Hooper is already obviously right. A rocket exploding on its launchpad doesn’t invalidate physics. However, as more people get sick and today die as a result of medically unjustifiable flu vaccines from a totally out of control pharmaceutical industry, as judges rewrite their own powers and dismiss criticism with incoherent nonsense about ideals, we are very far from a credulity legitimated by uneven knowledge.
    There are no sinking boats vindicating our current crop of experts. They are not only wrong, they are not only consistently wrong, they are not only obviously wrong, but they are guaranteed to stay wrong. People aren’t corrected by intellect. They’re corrected by injury. We are the beautiful ones dancing at the end of time and there are no injuries. The people who warned us that Saddam Hussein would nuke us think that they were right and there exists nothing but impotent rage to suggest otherwise. The people who devoted their lives to studying US politics and still concluded that Hillary Clinton was an intelligent choice for a national candidate think that they were right, blame their failure on an incoherent story that isn’t even a conspiracy theory, and talk about rerunning Hillary.
    Authors like Tucker Carlson and Nassim Taleb who recognize what time we are living in are guaranteed the moral pleasure of selling books that deserve to have been published and read.

  143. Why do we tax capital at half the rate of labor?

    If he’s asking why the corporate tax rate is lower than the top personal rate, that’s because corporate profits are already taxed once — as the personal income of the shareholders who receive those profits as dividends.

    If he’s asking why long-term capital gains are taxed more lightly than short-term capital gains, that reflects the politically popular (if economically ignorant) opinion that investing is good but “speculation” is bad.

  144. @JohnnyWalker123

    At the moment, the coalition of identity groups has held together because it is united in a single purpose against white male power.

    But rapid demographic change makes this unsustainable. When the traditional scapegoat becomes insufficient, various factions will turn on one another.

    Chaos will ensue.

     

    Whites are a minority in Texas, California, and Hawaii. Have Whites been persecuted in any of these states? Have non-whites turned on each other?

    When California turned majority Democrat and majority Nonwhite, did Steve leave the state to avoid racial persecution and a coming racial conflagration?

    I'm not necessarily dismissing this point, but I think we have to a reality check. Multi-racial societies have lots of problems, but things aren't so bad in areas in which Whites are a minority. Of course, the situation could change in the future.

    You’re describing the New Jerseyfication of the land. New Jersey has always been diverse, and it shows as a checkerboard of white paradise pockets, white ethnic pockets, minority pockets, oil refineries, and pine barrens. With little coherence.

    Gerry Goffin nailed the middle class Jersey life, and here’s his composer/bride ‘splainin’ it for ya:

    • Replies: @Buck
    Was Carol Klein's dad not able to join a New Jersey golf club or something? That's quite a grudge she holds against upper-middle-class huwytes.
  145. @anonymous
    Texas and California are current examples of white minority societies in the process of the next generation becoming whitish majority societies without the 3 things you cite and yet holding together before the return to majority hegemony.

    Texas and California are current examples of white minority societies in the process of the next generation becoming whitish majority societies without the 3 things you cite and yet holding together before the return to majority hegemony.

    In the meantime, who fills the School Book Depository?

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    Who associates Texas or California with "holding together"?
    , @kaganovitch
    In the meantime, who fills the School Book Depository?

    How long have you been on unz? The Mossad of course.
  146. @Harry Baldwin
    Doesn't your computer have Google? Why does your every comment involve asking someone to explain something to you?

    Since 234 is defying board culture and has no comment archive, I cannot prove or disprove this, but I’m pretty sure this one is an established troll. Demanding proof that the sun exists (to which you can alway reply with further proof demands) is a CTR bird-dogging meant to frustrate your opponent while making yourself look principled. Think twice before replying to an Anonymous commenter on a board that asks commenters to set a name.

    • Agree: William Badwhite
  147. @L Woods
    Guns are a ridiculous red herring born of empty bluster and machismo. For all their precious guns, conservatives have done nothing but bend over and say "yes sir, may I have another" for 60+ years.

    Guns are a ridiculous red herring born of empty bluster and machismo.

    They let you know who really trusts you.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    My sister prevented her own rape and perhaps even worse, by brandishing a handgun. Must be more of that macho bluster you’re talking about. Those gun nuts.
  148. @Reg Cæsar

    Texas and California are current examples of white minority societies in the process of the next generation becoming whitish majority societies without the 3 things you cite and yet holding together before the return to majority hegemony.
     
    In the meantime, who fills the School Book Depository?

    Who associates Texas or California with “holding together”?

  149. OT – It’s reported that one Samuel Little, currently inside for 3 murders of women, is confessing to 90 killings. As is well known, all serial killers are white.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46384197

  150. Thank you Muslims for making us a violent tribalist society like the ones you people come from!

    A Syrian invader in the UK was involved with a violent gang attack against a young girl, who had her face smashed with a hockey stick (as well as being bitten by the “bully victim refugee”) and now has to be homeschooled due to her fear.

    Naturally, the fake news media is framing this as a racist attack by the young white hero who was standing up for an attacked white woman.

    The young man has received thousands of death threads from [Muslims] on his faceberg page and has been forced to write a letter of apology to the “victim” (aggressor) he bullied.

    How did he bully the child? He pushed him over and poured water on his head.

    http://archive.is/kD9Rn

    https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/3556346/bob-malcolm-rangers-syrian-schoolboy-refugee-bullied-deserved/

    http://archive.is/KIG8I

    https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/3556626/tommy-robinson-defends-bully-who-waterboarded-syrian-refugee-and-blames-the-victim/

    A lot of this stuff could be handled, without any identity stuff, if we could get the mass newsmedia to comprehend that sometimes people lie, especially to get out of trouble.

  151. @IHTG
    Not true for Jonathan Chait. The hard left has a hate-boner for him.

    You’re (like I did for several years) confusing him with Jonathan Haidt.

    Haidt is the Heterodox Academy guy, Chait is a weasel who spins preposterous conspiracy theories in various rags about how The Donald became a deep-cover KGB asset in 1987.

    • Agree: Tyrion 2
    • Replies: @Henry's Cat
    I think we can forgive Tucker his youthful libertarianism. It's not a crazy position for someone of his rarefied cultural milieu.
    , @IHTG
    I'm not, actually. See here:
    http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/07/how-neoliberalism-became-the-lefts-favorite-insult.html
    https://jacobinmag.com/2017/12/jonathan-chait-neoliberal-clinton-democratic-leadership-council
  152. @SunBakedSuburb
    I absolutely agree with you: A five-year moratorium on all U.S. tax-payer aid to Israel, followed by a ten-year probationary period.

    I wouldn’t give US aid to any country. Least of all the hundreds of billions to Iraq and Afghanistan. Or the billions to other countries where Americans aren’t even safe on the streets…

    Anyway, I wonder what the US is buying from Israel for that military money? Whatever it is, I highly doubt it is worth it and would obviously stop it.

  153. Tucker Carlson’s show is literally only half as good as it could be. Even though he is able to ask good questions, he can really only ask people who are either in the center or left of the political spectrum and there are bright red areas he cannot go.

    In a non PC world he could just tap people on the alt-right to come on his show and talk openly with them about whatever the topics of the day are rather then hinting around them like now. What he has to do is invite someone from the left and then try and cross examine them in the hopes that they will accidentally blurt out the truth. This means there are a large number of guests that will either filibuster or simply stick to talking points leading to some pretty funny but non-enlightening exchanges.

  154. @Reg Cæsar
    You're describing the New Jerseyfication of the land. New Jersey has always been diverse, and it shows as a checkerboard of white paradise pockets, white ethnic pockets, minority pockets, oil refineries, and pine barrens. With little coherence.

    Gerry Goffin nailed the middle class Jersey life, and here's his composer/bride 'splainin' it for ya:

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

    Was Carol Klein’s dad not able to join a New Jersey golf club or something? That’s quite a grudge she holds against upper-middle-class huwytes.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    That’s quite a grudge she holds against upper-middle-class huwytes.
     
    She was one of them.
  155. Also OT – did Steve see this from 2017? Dalton Conley again. Heresy, in Scientific American!

    I guess years of reading New Scientist has made me surprised to see science in a science journal.

    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/whats-your-polygenic-score/

    “Back in the 1970s, nurture ruled the intellectual world and sex, not just gender, was thought to be entirely socially constructed. Oh, to be back in an era when everything was so malleable. Just imagine the possibilities of how we could mold our children (and society). As recently as 2000, the year the Human Genome Project draft sequence was completed, the late Harvard biologist Stephen J. Gould wrote, “There’s been no biological change in humans in 40,000 or 50,000 years. Everything we call culture and civilization we’ve built with the same body and brain

    Today, however, we now know that much of human behavior and social life is genetically influenced and not entirely programmable by social inputs. Further, we now know that natural selection has continued apace and perhaps even sped up over the last 10,000 years since we settled down as farmers. Counterintuitively, this does not mean we have no influence on the future of the human race. Rather, now that we have mapped the genetic architecture behind a wide range of outcomes—from height to cognitive ability—a brave new world has opened up whereby we can select our mates, and, yes, even our children, by and for their genotypes.

    Heritability—the proportion of variation in a trait within a population that is explained by genetic differences—ranges from about one-third for religiousness to about three-quarters for IQ, with personality, education level and even income falling somewhere in the middle. Genetic influence on human behavior is so pervasive that it has led the psychologist Eric Turkheimer to coin the “first law of behavior genetics”: All human behavioral traits are heritable. (His second law goes further in arguing that: The effect of being raised in the same family is smaller than the effect of genes.)”

  156. @Almost Missouri

    "Nick Hanauer ... has suggested so on occasion, saying that the American people must be disarmed before they seek revenge."
     
    I've read where he says they'll seek revenge, but where has he said they must be disarmed?

    The Pitchforks Are Coming

    The most ironic thing about rising inequality is how completely unnecessary and self-defeating it is. If we do something about it, if we adjust our policies in the way that, say, Franklin D. Roosevelt did during the Great Depression—so that we help the 99 percent and preempt the revolutionaries and crazies, the ones with the pitchforks—that will be the best thing possible for us rich folks, too. It’s not just that we’ll escape with our lives; it’s that we’ll most certainly get even richer.

    By “pitchforks” he means more modern weapons, of course, and he just helped pass the most stringent law against semi-automatic rifles in the United States. Now if I want to buy my kid a Ruger 10/22 I’ve got to jump through European-style hoops because elites like Hanauer are scared people might come after them for what they’ve done.

  157. @Herald
    The reply of "citation" is irritating and a sign of laziness. Perhaps worse it often denotes a troll at work.

    The reply of “citation” is irritating and a sign of laziness. Perhaps worse it often denotes a troll at work.

    Who can only afford to drive a 40-year-old Chevy.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GANcs2sxcH8&feature=youtu.be

    • Replies: @snorlax
    Or just fashion-forward.

    https://i2.wp.com/www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/CC-35-114-800.jpg
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVscQYjuq_s
  158. @snorlax
    You're (like I did for several years) confusing him with Jonathan Haidt.

    Haidt is the Heterodox Academy guy, Chait is a weasel who spins preposterous conspiracy theories in various rags about how The Donald became a deep-cover KGB asset in 1987.

    I think we can forgive Tucker his youthful libertarianism. It’s not a crazy position for someone of his rarefied cultural milieu.

  159. @exiled off mainstreet
    The review is excellent. Tucker Carlson is the best person now on mainstream TV news broadcasting.

    #MeToo allowing Tucker to take over the prime spot at Fox News by clearing out O’Reilly is the biggest win the Right has had since Trump we elected.

  160. Tucker is alt-right with the rare skill & ability to distance himself with a tincure of plausible deniability. That’s why the political left despises him. They sense he’s getting away with this on a legit platform like Fox News.

  161. @ThreeCranes
    Bill Mayer.

    Straw man argumentation from an intellectual weakling who panders to a base every bit as ignorant and prejudiced as those he skewers, doesn't make for good humor. Bill O'Reilly for NPR listeners.

    Bill Maher is more of a snarky polemicist than a deep thinker, but he often offers good insight into different issues.

    Here’s Bill Maher criticizing the PC police.

    Even as a conservative, you can’t tell me that Maher is all bad.

    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    Shortly after 9/11, he said on his late-night ABC show that America was “cowardly” because it merely lobbed cruise missiles at its enemies, while the terrorists at least had the balls to die for their cause:
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rNMhNJDRnhU

    (Within months, American soldiers were dying for the neocon cause in Iraq and Afghanistan.)

    Unlike Roseanne, he wasn’t immediately fired and publicly crucified. But advertisers started boycotting his show and ABC pulled the plug a few months later.
  162. @Anonymous

    I live in the Washington, D.C. area, home to a very large black middle-class due to the federal government’s massive AA.
     
    How does the federal government implement AA? Aren't racial preferences illegal?

    Walk into a federal building and a huge percentage of the low level workers will be black, and they earn a decent amount. Regarding higher level positions, you’ll see an inordinate number of blacks, though not as high as the lower levels. Don’t know if there’s an official AA program, but on the ground, there’s just a lot of blacks at the various agencies.

    You know something’s off when you go to any private company office in the area, where blacks are few and far between.

    The military impact is pretty high too. There are a lot of blacks who go in the military and, of course, rise very quickly.

  163. @Nathan
    People are pretty ignorant about Hawaii. It's not a place you want to live. Neither is California.

    can you elaborate on the problems with Hawaii?

    • Replies: @Nathan
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_Haole_Day

    I trust your Wikipedia goggles work and that you can read past the spin. Hawaii is full of this sort of thing.
  164. @celt darnell
    Well, I tend to take all sexual harassment accusations with a grain of salt; have done since Clarence Thomas and the recent nonsense with respect to the newest addition to the Supreme Court tends to confirm my long-held suspicions.

    As for what any "rapper" has to say, who gives a damn?

    Who ever regarded Bill O'Reilly as an intellectual, conservative or otherwise? People who quote rap artists, I suppose. O'Reilly was essentially a shock jock on TV whose act undeniably had a degree of novelty value at the start, but which eventually wore thin.

    Bill Maher is even more of a mediocre con artist than O'Reilly. At least as a pugnacious Irishman, O'Reilly occasionally took shots at the Globohomo establishment -- Maher actively shills for it.

    Bill O’Reilly paid out $32 million to 5 different women. A lot to pay out for an innocent man.

    Nobody normally cares what the rapper has to say, but in this case the rapper comes out looking like the better man. Which is not a good look for a “culture warrior” like O’Reilly.

  165. @Arclight
    It seems to me that a shift from the nominally libertarian/free market politics that dominate in the GOP on immigration and the workforce to something more like the what the labor Dems of old held would solidify the white working class vote for the party and probably scoop up more blacks and latinos as well. The GOP doesn't have to win anything approaching a majority of black or latino voters to be competitive, they just need to pick up another 5% of each than their current voter share and the Democrats would lose every national election by the same margin as Hilary in the electoral college and the GOP would scoop up another half dozen Senate seats.

    Yes, the free market line of thinking on mass immigration, trade, etc. would grow the economy faster than a more populist economic model, but the benefits of it overwhelmingly accrue to people already at the top. I'd trade a bit of growth in favor of a middle and lower class that have better economic prospects rather than letting the already well off get richer. That's supposedly what the Democrats are about but their positions on immigration and coziness with Wall Street and Silicon Valley work against most of the people they claim to care the most about.

    I can remember ages ago hearing old liberal Mark Shields say “The Republicans don’t care how you live, and the Democrats don’t care how you think.” His point was that Republicans cater to the rich over the working class, and the Democrats disdain the moral values of the people they supposedly champion. I think at the time he also said if the Democrats dropped gun control they’d be the majority party forever.

    Trump blasted a hole the Republicans could drive the proverbial truck through. It’s too bad the Republicans are mostly stupid cowards.

  166. I would only add that it might be better to look out the window instead of watching the telly or reading Tucker Carlson. I cannot understand the fascination with political non-fiction.

  167. @JohnnyWalker123

    Why all the hate for Carlson? For example, Matthew Yglesias of Vox endorsed the intentions of the leftist goon squad who terrorized Mrs. Carlson into locking herself in the pantry.

     

    Probably because Tucker Carlson is witty and intellectually agile. So lots of powerful people fear his ability to deconstruct the ruling class.. Especially since Tucker Carlson occasionally flirts with white racialism, I think a certain tribe (which Yglesias belongs to) finds him particularly threatening.

    AntiFa is being funded by George Soros and lots of other Democrat-leaning political donors. So it's not an autonomous group. There are handlers whose strings are being pulled from behind the scenes. Don't think anything is just spontaneously happening.

    The attack on Tucker Carlson's house was a message to shut up and move on to safer topics (like tax, deregulation, and rap music).

    Carlson, a rich kid from La Jolla, isn’t a populist outsider by upbringing or personality.

     

    For whatever reason, the coastal areas of Southern California seem to a produce a notably high proportion of good looking people.

    Carlson is certainly telegenic, youthful looking, and handsome. He doesn't seem to have aged much since he started on tv. He really seems to bring a fresh face to the conservative, while having the intellect of a more seasoned veteran. That's a good combination.

    Based on what I've seen, he's intellectually matured a lot since his days on Cross Fire.

    The funny thing is that Carlson, a lifelong Republican, has drifted leftward on economics and foreign policy in recent years, as seen in his new best-seller, Ship of Fools: How a Selfish Ruling Class Is Bringing America to the Brink of Revolution.

     

    I think there's a general sense that America's rulers have totally mismanaged this country, especially from the early 2000s onward, due to incompetence and parasitic corruption. There's a lot of critique of the ruling class from both the left and right. Interestingly enough, while there are differences in leftist and rightist critiques, there seems to be somewhat of a consensus on some issues.

    Back in the late 90s/early 2000s, I was struck by how similar Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader often sounded. It seems like others (Tucker Carlson, Bernie Sanders, occasionally even Donald Trump) are converging on that left-right consensus.

    The central theme of Ship of Fools is that the convergence toward the reigning elite consensus of economic conservatism and social progressivism is better for the people at the top of society than for maintaining a stable middle-class democracy:

     

    The transition to economic conservatism happened back in the 80s, during the Reagan-Bush era. There were plenty of leftists and unions who fought back, but they got curb stomped into the ground. The victory of economic conservatives was so complete (especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union) that the Democrat party "triangulated" right in the 90s, under Clinton-Gore (who were very supportive of NAFTA, trade with China, financial deregulation, cutting capital gains, catering to Silicon Valley).

    Similar trends occurred in other first-world nations (like the UK under Thatcher and Major).

    In his book "Death of the West," Pat Buchanan admits the positive social value of a high minimum wage, protections for workers, regulation of executive pay, and support for unions.

    People often say that the problem with conservatives is that they've become "RINOs" (Republican-in-name-only) who adopt liberal positions. Maybe, the problem is just the opposite. Maybe the problem is that the left has given up its traditional defense of the working-class and tacked too far to right on issues like taxes, trade, and deregulation.

    Companies can openly mistreat their employees (or “contractors”), but for the price of installing transgender bathrooms they buy a pass. Shareholders win, workers lose. Bowing to the diversity agenda is a lot cheaper than raising wages.

     

    It'd be nice if we had labor unions, but those were broken back a few decades ago. Especially after Reagan fired the air traffic controllers, all hell broke loose. It was really then that workers became seen as a commodity who could be bought, sold, or discarded.

    Ship of Fools is full of appreciations of liberal heroes of the 20th century, such as Ralph Nader, Frank Church (the Democratic senator who helped bring the American deep state under some degree of legislative control in 1975), and farm labor leader Cesar Chavez (a fervent opponent of illegal immigration).

     

    At some point, he should also give a shout out to Jimmy Carter, who tried his best to reign in CIA excesses as president. Unfortunately, after the CIA and Reagan-Bush stole the 1980 election by manipulating the release of the Iranian hostages, politicians got the message that you shouldn't screw with the intelligence agencies. Either they ruin you or they kill you (which JFK and RFK found out the hard way).

    At least Tucker Carlson is intellectually honest enough to admit the role that various types of leftists (environmentalists, consumer safety advocates, union organizers, anti-corruption activists) played in making America a better place to live. They weren't perfect, but they were never as evil as Reagan, Bush, and Gingrich portrayed them. At this point, we sort of wish those people had more power in this country.

    FDR receives a tribute for his Civilian Conservation Corps, which provided healthy, prideful hard work to many unmarried young men. Carlson then acidly observes: “It would be denounced as irredeemably sexist today.”

     

    There actually was a female version of the CCC, organized by Eleanor Roosevelt.

    He’s likewise old enough to notice how humiliating it ought to be to contemporary intellectuals that they feel obligated to praise the intelligence of Ta-Nehisi Coates:

     

    It can't be any more humiliating than all the praise that conservative intellectuals gave to President Bush (and later Sarah Palin). Neither of whom are, in any way, more intellectually sophisticated than Coates. The pro-Bush sycophancy of the 2004 Republican National Convention (when speakers portrayed a dimwitted man as the next Winston Churchill) was particularly depressing.

    Actually, it's even worse, as Coates is merely a journalist. Bush and Palin were seen as Presidential/VP timber. Which reflects pretty badly on the Republican electorate.

    Sure it's ridiculous for Coates to go from journalist to comic book writer, but it's even more ridiculous that Governor Palin quit her governorship to do reality tv.

    Seriously, stop projecting your fantasies onto JFK and RFK…They we’re INVADE THE WORD…INVITE THE WORLD TYPES…..And they both hated the Working Class Native Born White American Historic Majority…..

  168. In another life, with a lither build and shorter frame, Tucker would’ve starred in John Cusack-type movies. He really shows off his acting chops on the show. Most of the draw for me is Tucker’s emoting and expressions, not the content.

    O/T Life Expectancy Decline Worst in US since Great War https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/us-life-expectancy-declines-again-a-dismal-trend-not-seen-since-world-war-i/2018/11/28/ae58bc8c-f28c-11e8-bc79-68604ed88993_story.html?utm_term=.6bfec308b755

    “After three years of stagnation and decline, what do we do now?” asked S.V. Subramanian, a professor of population health and geography at Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health. “Do we say this is the new normal? Or can we say this is a tractable problem?”

    Maybe US life expectancy is converging with the life expectancy in places where Subramanians and Chans are from. Maybe the white death, attributed to overdoses and suicides, is in part occuring because more and more Subramanians are providing care for older Americans, and they don’t much care if Meemaw makes it to 80.

  169. @snorlax
    You're (like I did for several years) confusing him with Jonathan Haidt.

    Haidt is the Heterodox Academy guy, Chait is a weasel who spins preposterous conspiracy theories in various rags about how The Donald became a deep-cover KGB asset in 1987.
  170. @Mr. Anon
    What I found really remarkable was the way that FOX casually unpersoned O'Reilly. His show was the biggest ratings garner on FOX; it was their weeknight lineup anchor. That creepy, weasely little prick, Greg Gutfeld, hosted the last episode of "The Factor", and signed O'Reilly's show off the air without even once mentioning his name. Mind you, I despise O'Reilly and always have; he is a smug, self-righteous, loud-mouthed jerk. But he was their jerk and they could have admitted it.

    I think the basic problem was that after Roger Ailes was kicked out of the network, there was no one left to protect O’Reilly. Murdoch’s sons (the family are a clan of power-hungry wheeler-dealers) never particularly liked him, so they pushed him out when they got the chance.

  171. @Mr. Anon

    Whites are a minority in Texas, California, and Hawaii. Have Whites been persecuted in any of these states? Have non-whites turned on each other?
     
    A lot of whites have found California to have become inhospitable and have therefore left. Mostly for economic reasons, I gather, but a lot of those are the direct result of the foreign influx.

    And non-whites have turned on each other at the street level, but they still hold their mutual animosities in check in order to stick it to whites.

    Moreover, there have been numerous cases recently of whites who have lost their jobs or been subjected to public ridicule for comments they have made, often simply truthful, about minority behavior, or actions they have taken based on experience. And then there is the newly minted crime of "calling 911 while white". Those are forms of persecution

    A lot of whites have found California to have become inhospitable and have therefore left. Mostly for economic reasons, I gather, but a lot of those are the direct result of the foreign influx.

    It’s true to say that immigrants (mostly due to driving overpopulation) are ruining the high standard of living in some parts of the country, but that’s not quite the same thing as saying they’re persecuting Whites.

    There’s a huge difference between turning into Singapore and turning into Detroit.

    Not that I’d want to live in Singapore, but at least it’s a functional country in which affluent people have a good standard of living.

    Moreover, there have been numerous cases recently of whites who have lost their jobs or been subjected to public ridicule for comments they have made, often simply truthful, about minority behavior, or actions they have taken based on experience. And then there is the newly minted crime of “calling 911 while white”. Those are forms of persecution

    Yes, but this is happening throughout the country. Even in overwhelmingly White places. Would you say that being a White in California, Hawaii, or Texas is a much worse deal than being a White in West Virginia, Kentucky, or Maine?

    • Replies: @3g4me
    @173 JohnnyWalker123: "Not that I’d want to live in Singapore, but at least it’s a functional country in which affluent people have a good standard of living."

    You wouldn't want to live in Singapore because the Han run Singapore and all the Indians there know their place - and know how they have to behave and vote to keep that second spot. Meanwhile, in Weimerica, you can pretend to be a heritage American and refer to "we" and "us" while your pajeet cultural prejudices shine through your comments for those with eyes to see.

    You are an opportunistic social and cultural parasite. Go home.
  172. @Anon
    I was listening to the Rubin Report interview/bookselling stop with Carlson, and he mentioned that all his kids were "gone." I've seen the family portrait and they seemed still young. But his youngest in a 2013 interview was 10, 5 and a half years ago, so she's as old as 16-1/2 now. Maybe she's in college already, although it seems a year too early.

    Boarding school?

  173. @clyde

    Both of whom are hucksters. It should be noted that Tucker Carlson came in after Bill O’Reilly (a loudmouth right-wing conman who spent decades talking about how he was a “culture warrior”)
     
    You are agitatedly wrong! You can call O'Reilly a huckster but not Tucker Carlson.

    I meant Michelle Obama and Bill O’Reilly.

    Not Tucker.

    • Replies: @Clyde
    OK now I get it.
  174. @Mr. Anon

    Bill Maher had some good critique (watch from 1:30 onward).
     
    I would no more voluntarily subject myself to listening to Bill Maher than I would to Bill O'Reilly.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    Another thing I won't watch.
  175. @Trevor H.

    Multi-racial societies have lots of problems, but things aren’t so bad in areas in which Whites are a minority. Of course, the situation could change in the future.
     
    Agreed. For example, it's quite possible that a nation like the USA could end up like South Africa. But you are surely right that we shouldn't concern ourselves with such a possibility until it's already happened.

    Well there is an important ethnic difference between South Africa and California.

  176. @JohnnyWalker123

    Why all the hate for Carlson? For example, Matthew Yglesias of Vox endorsed the intentions of the leftist goon squad who terrorized Mrs. Carlson into locking herself in the pantry.

     

    Probably because Tucker Carlson is witty and intellectually agile. So lots of powerful people fear his ability to deconstruct the ruling class.. Especially since Tucker Carlson occasionally flirts with white racialism, I think a certain tribe (which Yglesias belongs to) finds him particularly threatening.

    AntiFa is being funded by George Soros and lots of other Democrat-leaning political donors. So it's not an autonomous group. There are handlers whose strings are being pulled from behind the scenes. Don't think anything is just spontaneously happening.

    The attack on Tucker Carlson's house was a message to shut up and move on to safer topics (like tax, deregulation, and rap music).

    Carlson, a rich kid from La Jolla, isn’t a populist outsider by upbringing or personality.

     

    For whatever reason, the coastal areas of Southern California seem to a produce a notably high proportion of good looking people.

    Carlson is certainly telegenic, youthful looking, and handsome. He doesn't seem to have aged much since he started on tv. He really seems to bring a fresh face to the conservative, while having the intellect of a more seasoned veteran. That's a good combination.

    Based on what I've seen, he's intellectually matured a lot since his days on Cross Fire.

    The funny thing is that Carlson, a lifelong Republican, has drifted leftward on economics and foreign policy in recent years, as seen in his new best-seller, Ship of Fools: How a Selfish Ruling Class Is Bringing America to the Brink of Revolution.

     

    I think there's a general sense that America's rulers have totally mismanaged this country, especially from the early 2000s onward, due to incompetence and parasitic corruption. There's a lot of critique of the ruling class from both the left and right. Interestingly enough, while there are differences in leftist and rightist critiques, there seems to be somewhat of a consensus on some issues.

    Back in the late 90s/early 2000s, I was struck by how similar Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader often sounded. It seems like others (Tucker Carlson, Bernie Sanders, occasionally even Donald Trump) are converging on that left-right consensus.

    The central theme of Ship of Fools is that the convergence toward the reigning elite consensus of economic conservatism and social progressivism is better for the people at the top of society than for maintaining a stable middle-class democracy:

     

    The transition to economic conservatism happened back in the 80s, during the Reagan-Bush era. There were plenty of leftists and unions who fought back, but they got curb stomped into the ground. The victory of economic conservatives was so complete (especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union) that the Democrat party "triangulated" right in the 90s, under Clinton-Gore (who were very supportive of NAFTA, trade with China, financial deregulation, cutting capital gains, catering to Silicon Valley).

    Similar trends occurred in other first-world nations (like the UK under Thatcher and Major).

    In his book "Death of the West," Pat Buchanan admits the positive social value of a high minimum wage, protections for workers, regulation of executive pay, and support for unions.

    People often say that the problem with conservatives is that they've become "RINOs" (Republican-in-name-only) who adopt liberal positions. Maybe, the problem is just the opposite. Maybe the problem is that the left has given up its traditional defense of the working-class and tacked too far to right on issues like taxes, trade, and deregulation.

    Companies can openly mistreat their employees (or “contractors”), but for the price of installing transgender bathrooms they buy a pass. Shareholders win, workers lose. Bowing to the diversity agenda is a lot cheaper than raising wages.

     

    It'd be nice if we had labor unions, but those were broken back a few decades ago. Especially after Reagan fired the air traffic controllers, all hell broke loose. It was really then that workers became seen as a commodity who could be bought, sold, or discarded.

    Ship of Fools is full of appreciations of liberal heroes of the 20th century, such as Ralph Nader, Frank Church (the Democratic senator who helped bring the American deep state under some degree of legislative control in 1975), and farm labor leader Cesar Chavez (a fervent opponent of illegal immigration).

     

    At some point, he should also give a shout out to Jimmy Carter, who tried his best to reign in CIA excesses as president. Unfortunately, after the CIA and Reagan-Bush stole the 1980 election by manipulating the release of the Iranian hostages, politicians got the message that you shouldn't screw with the intelligence agencies. Either they ruin you or they kill you (which JFK and RFK found out the hard way).

    At least Tucker Carlson is intellectually honest enough to admit the role that various types of leftists (environmentalists, consumer safety advocates, union organizers, anti-corruption activists) played in making America a better place to live. They weren't perfect, but they were never as evil as Reagan, Bush, and Gingrich portrayed them. At this point, we sort of wish those people had more power in this country.

    FDR receives a tribute for his Civilian Conservation Corps, which provided healthy, prideful hard work to many unmarried young men. Carlson then acidly observes: “It would be denounced as irredeemably sexist today.”

     

    There actually was a female version of the CCC, organized by Eleanor Roosevelt.

    He’s likewise old enough to notice how humiliating it ought to be to contemporary intellectuals that they feel obligated to praise the intelligence of Ta-Nehisi Coates:

     

    It can't be any more humiliating than all the praise that conservative intellectuals gave to President Bush (and later Sarah Palin). Neither of whom are, in any way, more intellectually sophisticated than Coates. The pro-Bush sycophancy of the 2004 Republican National Convention (when speakers portrayed a dimwitted man as the next Winston Churchill) was particularly depressing.

    Actually, it's even worse, as Coates is merely a journalist. Bush and Palin were seen as Presidential/VP timber. Which reflects pretty badly on the Republican electorate.

    Sure it's ridiculous for Coates to go from journalist to comic book writer, but it's even more ridiculous that Governor Palin quit her governorship to do reality tv.

    Especially after Reagan fired the air traffic controllers, all hell broke loose.

    Reagan did not fire the air-traffic controllers. They fired themselves, per the laws on the books when he took office. You’re complaining because he didn’t use his discretion to break the laws Congress gave him.

    I’m guessing that of every aspect of government, Reagan was most familiar with labor law, have been the longest-serving president of the Screen Actors Guild to this day.

    What other union allows employers to force their members to work naked? That sure wasn’t the case back in Ronnie’s day!

    • Replies: @snorlax

    allows employers to force their members to work naked?
     
    Harvey Weinstein and Louis C.K. should've used that as their defense.
  177. @Buck
    Was Carol Klein's dad not able to join a New Jersey golf club or something? That's quite a grudge she holds against upper-middle-class huwytes.

    That’s quite a grudge she holds against upper-middle-class huwytes.

    She was one of them.

  178. @David
    I can't see what provoked you to play the role of hallway monitor here. Sometimes attack just means verbally. I bet it's used more often in that way than any other.

    And a lot of people, like me, feel that taking money from the US citizens and lavishing it on Israel is not a legitimate policy, even if arrived at after years of systematic national gas-lighting.

    You and I know that Rand Paul is exposing himself to the collective fury of our largely Jewish press. Let's just watch together and see if his political opponents talk about his position as "legitimate political disagreement" or if the opposition plays up his latent antisemitism instead.

    It isn’t largely Jewish and questioning military aid to Israel doesn’t make all of the Jews in it furious though.

    Stop fantasising.

    • Replies: @David
    Here's a fresh example of how Rand Paul's position is depicted as "legitimate political disagreement":

    "Rand Paul is against sanctions on Iran and Russia, but he wants to block assistance to Israel and Saudi Arabia," said one senior GOP congressional official who spoke to the Free Beacon. "When Republicans hear that, they don't hear the sound of a principled conservative who avoids foreign affairs. That just sounds like a guy who's on the wrong side."

    See, Paul is hardly even an American, he's so wrongly not on the side of Israel in every conceivable respect. And he wants to make love to Putin in Iran. Not only that, but we wouldn't even know how evil he is without the beneficent and heroic efforts of "AIPAC, the nation's foremost pro-Israel lobby group, ...purchasing advertisements on Facebook outing Paul..."

    This is the second article that came up when I searched "Rand Paul Israel," and was the source of the first. And it was written by a Jew.

    https://freebeacon.com/national-security/pro-israel-groups-expose-rand-paul-blocking-u-s-aid-israel/

  179. @JohnnyWalker123

    I have no idea how Carlson creates five hours of television per week and writes a book at the same time, but Ship of Fools is quite good. It’s currently No. 3 on the nonfiction best-seller list, behind Michelle Obama and Bill O’Reilly.

     

    Both of whom are hucksters. It should be noted that Tucker Carlson came in after Bill O'Reilly (a loudmouth right-wing conman who spent decades talking about how he was a "culture warrior") got fired by FOX for trying to coerce sex out of his female subordinates.

    Back in the early 2000s, O'Reilly started a boycott to get Pepsi to stop sponsoring rapper "Ludacris," saying that he "degraded women." His boycott was successful and got "Ludacris" dropped. A few years later, O'Reilly ran into a workplace sexual harassment scandal. Then more recently, O'Reill ran into another harassment scandal, which resulted in him getting fired.

    Here's what "Ludacris" had to say about O'Reilly.

    “It’s not my place to judge Bill O’Reilly the same way he judged me,” he said during an appearance on radio show “The Breakfast Club.” “I’m thriving in life right now. All I can do is hope that Bill O’Reilly settles these issues and learns from whatever mistakes he may have made ― and also thrives.”

    “But,” he added, “it is definitely ironic that Pepsi and Bill O’Reilly are under fire right now.”

     

    Here's a good clip that demonstrates the "intellect" of Bill O'Reilly (it gets interesting at 3:05). The man is a complete charlatan and an entertainer who knows his audience. He's a more coherent version of Glenn Beck.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKFvne6R7IA

    It's remarkable that O'Reilly is an intellectual leader in the conservative movement.

    There exists this view that somehow White media/govt figures (especially White conservative men) are held to a high standard, while dumb Blacks get a pass. In reality, dumb people (regardless of race or politics) often do make it to the top, but the left has no monopoly on idiocy.

    Bill Maher had some good critique (watch from 1:30 onward).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46waxL2MICc

    The left has its flaws too, but let's not act like the right is somehow the adult in the room.

    Great post. O’Reilly encapsulates everything wrong with the boomer style of conservatism. Let’s remember that Bill was a cuck on immigration too.

  180. @LondonBob
    Not every Israeli critic gets the JFK critic. I remember watching a clip of Tucker biting his tongue when a Republican Congressman came on to defend attacking Syria because Israel.

    Carlson is a much welcome relic of the old Protestant establishment, a true blue.

    Twice you’ve fantasised. That the Republican defended attacking Syria “because Israel”, and that JFK was assassinated for criticising Israel – a theory born out of the fevered wishes of a bunch of loons.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Twice you’ve fantasised. That the Republican defended attacking Syria “because Israel”, and that JFK was assassinated for criticising Israel – a theory born out of the fevered wishes of a bunch of loons.
     
    RFK was assassinated for supporting Israel.

    He was thanked with the name of a cheesy cookie-cutter stadium that hosted a racially insensitive professional sports organization, and is so bad that even MLS has abandoned it.
    , @ATBOTL
    According to President Trump, we are in Syria because of Israel.


    https://www.timesofisrael.com/trump-says-us-troops-will-remain-in-middle-east-for-israels-sake/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

    “US President Donald Trump indicated in an interview published Wednesday that, although he could remove troops from the Middle East, citing cheaper oil as an explanation, one reason not to do so is concern for Israel’s security.

    “Now, are we going to stay in that part of the world? One reason to is Israel,” Trump told the Washington Post.

    “Oil is becoming less and less of a reason because we’re producing more oil now than we’ve ever produced,” he added, appearing to envision a world where the US would be less beholden to Saudi Arabia. “So, you know, all of a sudden it gets to a point where you don’t have to stay there.”
    , @Mr. Anon

    Twice you’ve fantasised. That the Republican defended attacking Syria “because Israel”, and that JFK was assassinated for criticising Israel – a theory born out of the fevered wishes of a bunch of loons.
     
    What makes you an authority on American politics? You are, ostensibly, a citizen of the UK. We live here, nitwit. We have eyes and can see. Seeing a Republican Congressman slavering over our bestest little buddy of a country is a not uncommon sight. Sometimes it is painfully, embarrassingly obvious. There is no compelling reason for us to give a damn about who governs Syria one way or the other, so - yes - what a great deal of our involvement there is driven by what is in Israel's interest.
  181. @JohnnyWalker123

    I have no idea how Carlson creates five hours of television per week and writes a book at the same time, but Ship of Fools is quite good. It’s currently No. 3 on the nonfiction best-seller list, behind Michelle Obama and Bill O’Reilly.

     

    Both of whom are hucksters. It should be noted that Tucker Carlson came in after Bill O'Reilly (a loudmouth right-wing conman who spent decades talking about how he was a "culture warrior") got fired by FOX for trying to coerce sex out of his female subordinates.

    Back in the early 2000s, O'Reilly started a boycott to get Pepsi to stop sponsoring rapper "Ludacris," saying that he "degraded women." His boycott was successful and got "Ludacris" dropped. A few years later, O'Reilly ran into a workplace sexual harassment scandal. Then more recently, O'Reill ran into another harassment scandal, which resulted in him getting fired.

    Here's what "Ludacris" had to say about O'Reilly.

    “It’s not my place to judge Bill O’Reilly the same way he judged me,” he said during an appearance on radio show “The Breakfast Club.” “I’m thriving in life right now. All I can do is hope that Bill O’Reilly settles these issues and learns from whatever mistakes he may have made ― and also thrives.”

    “But,” he added, “it is definitely ironic that Pepsi and Bill O’Reilly are under fire right now.”

     

    Here's a good clip that demonstrates the "intellect" of Bill O'Reilly (it gets interesting at 3:05). The man is a complete charlatan and an entertainer who knows his audience. He's a more coherent version of Glenn Beck.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKFvne6R7IA

    It's remarkable that O'Reilly is an intellectual leader in the conservative movement.

    There exists this view that somehow White media/govt figures (especially White conservative men) are held to a high standard, while dumb Blacks get a pass. In reality, dumb people (regardless of race or politics) often do make it to the top, but the left has no monopoly on idiocy.

    Bill Maher had some good critique (watch from 1:30 onward).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46waxL2MICc

    The left has its flaws too, but let's not act like the right is somehow the adult in the room.

    It’s remarkable that O’Reilly is an intellectual leader in the conservative movement.

    He is? That’s news to us.

    All his books are co-written, taking after James Patterson’s 21st-century œuvre. It’s no surprise that he finally wrote one with Patterson.

    I wonder what they discussed about Patterson’s other co-author, Bill Clinton. Who could have taken their advice on certain occasions:

  182. @Tyrion 2
    What odds will you offer that Rand Paul is re-elected?

    Since you give me the impression that you think AIPAC and assorted organisations afs all powerful, I think it'd be fair if you gave me 100 to 1 against.

    Still, I'm a sporting man so I'll happily take evens as a bet between equals. Sound fair?

    That’s a pathetic straw man argument you set up there.

    How powerful do you think AIPAC is?

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    Just about powerful enough to get the US President to move the US embassy to Israel's de facto capital, as it is in every single other country, but after waiting 38 years...

    And even then it wasn't really to do with AIPAC but a mixture between Trump's common sense approach and his mutual sympathy with Netanyahu.
  183. @Pericles

    That sounds exciting. What did they “attack” him with? Nukes? Cyber-warfare? Kabbalistic magic?

    Oh…they posted a few ineffectual facebook ads (needle scratch)

     

    Call in the FBI, NSA and CIA. We got us some foreign political interference to root out. Get me the NYT and WaPo on line one, pronto.

    Yes, you are as dumb as the “muh Russia” lot. Except you’re actually worse as you are as dumb as them but about a country America has long-standing good relations with and is not a competitor.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    'Yes, you are as dumb as the “muh Russia” lot. Except you’re actually worse as you are as dumb as them but about a country America has long-standing good relations with and is not a competitor.'

    This is a bit like claiming a human has good relations with his puppet master.
  184. @Tyrion 2
    Twice you've fantasised. That the Republican defended attacking Syria "because Israel", and that JFK was assassinated for criticising Israel - a theory born out of the fevered wishes of a bunch of loons.

    Twice you’ve fantasised. That the Republican defended attacking Syria “because Israel”, and that JFK was assassinated for criticising Israel – a theory born out of the fevered wishes of a bunch of loons.

    RFK was assassinated for supporting Israel.

    He was thanked with the name of a cheesy cookie-cutter stadium that hosted a racially insensitive professional sports organization, and is so bad that even MLS has abandoned it.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    No, everyone knows that his support for Israel was really just a ploy while he secretly hunted down his brother's killers - Israel.

    The actual assassin was a Jewish Hollywood actor who first starred as an extra in a couple of 70s Blaxploitation flicks in minstrel face, before taking on his introductory international spy role as Ayatollah Khomeini.

    Later, he was a one time stand-in for Baghdadi and occasionally appeared as "fat" Bin Laden.

    Also, the RFK stadium was not the only venue named after Bobby, but so too was the mediocre London-based chain of Fish and Chip shops called "Kennedys".

    The point being to associate RFK's and JFK's surname with a potentially Jewish-created dish that fits into Britain's cultural heritage so as to distract attention from all of the above.

    Fortunately, I, an internet sleuth know this. It must be true because I am really smart and special and all the people who laugh at me are actually Hasbara and therefore wrong...or...actually Hasbara are all the people who laugh at me so Hasbara or wrong. This makes me right. It is a nice logical circle...see?
  185. @Achmed E. Newman
    Although I don't agree with you on your last part, Johnny, that's a very interesting comment though, and it goes along with the thoughts in Mr. Sailer's review. I don't agree with it all, but the old left did care about the lives of ordinary Americans. I can't argue with that.

    The reason the new left, the ctrl-left, as it were, doesn't care about unions and the environment anymore is that they simply want to destroy the country. If destroying the American people causes collateral damage to "the planet", then it's just that whole egg/omelet thing for them. They are indeed the Neo-Bolsheviks, coming back to make history rhyme.

    I don't think Reagan was down with the Deep State, though, until, (let's not forget) he was almost JFK'd too, only a couple of months into his presidency. That was probably a warning, and though it was a .22 shot, it was not the normal 22 LR, but explosive "Devastator" rounds. By the time Reagan was done with surgery, he'd lost 1/2 of his blood volume, and though it went well, he had a fever that kept him in the hospital for 2 weeks. I still have lots of respect for Ronald Reagan, the man and the President, but those shots in 1981 may have been a warning that he heeded.

    I don’t think Reagan was down with the Deep State, though, until, (let’s not forget) he was almost JFK’d too, only a couple of months into his presidency. That was probably a warning, and though it was a .22 shot, it was not the normal 22 LR, but explosive “Devastator” rounds. By the time Reagan was done with surgery, he’d lost 1/2 of his blood volume, and though it went well, he had a fever that kept him in the hospital for 2 weeks. I still have lots of respect for Ronald Reagan, the man and the President, but those shots in 1981 may have been a warning that he heeded.

    That’s a good point.

    Here’s an interesting piece of information.

    John Hinckley’s father was a close friend of HW Bush and a major donor. Hinckley’s brother had dinner scheduled with Neil Bush (son of HW Bush) on the day after the assassination.

    Imagine I’m your VP (and next in line to take your job). You end up shot by the son of my friend. On the next day, my son has plans to meet with the brother of the assassin.

    Wouldn’t you be a little suspicious?

    My guess is that HW Bush (who was the former CIA director) took care of all the details behind when the Iranian-held hostages would be released. He figured after Carter was out of the way, he needed to somehow oust Reagan.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Yeah, I'd read about this long ago. I had a female relative, Johnny, that long ago told me she liked old Ronnie (even though she was pretty hard-core left), but "I don't trust that man" in reference to President H.W. Bush, and this was way back. I had no idea about his CIA connections, as I was too young to pay close attention back then. I rail against the woman's vote quite often, and, though I'm not changing my tune, I think my relative had some female intuition about this, more than anything.

    Yes, I know a lot about Mr. Reagan from reading his radio addresses and a few books about him, plust seeing him as President. I think that he was Deep-Stated is probably the best explanation for some of what went on later with the GOP foreign policy especially. Look at what's going on with Donald Trump - all it would take is a threat to one of his family members.
  186. Re: Tucker’s former libertarianism
    The problem isn’t that Ron Paul’s libertarianism won. It didn’t. The Koch Brothers’ mercantilist scam, promoted as a pro-freedom philosophy, was the one that won the day. Notice how the gains in freedom, like the gains in income, went only to the upper classes.

  187. @JohnnyWalker123
    I meant Michelle Obama and Bill O'Reilly.

    Not Tucker.

    OK now I get it.

  188. @ATBOTL
    That's a pathetic straw man argument you set up there.

    How powerful do you think AIPAC is?

    Just about powerful enough to get the US President to move the US embassy to Israel’s de facto capital, as it is in every single other country, but after waiting 38 years…

    And even then it wasn’t really to do with AIPAC but a mixture between Trump’s common sense approach and his mutual sympathy with Netanyahu.

    • Replies: @ATBOTL
    Is there anything different about Israel's capital that might explain the discrepancy?
  189. Anon[285] • Disclaimer says:

    Although the book has nearly 1,000 reviews on Amazon it has obtained the elusive 5-star rating. Almost any book with that many reviews maxes out at 4-1/2 stars, especially a political book. How is this possible? You don’t have to read or buy the book to log in and dump on it in a 1-star review. Maybe the left doesn’t know it exists because the media is boycotting any mention of Merion Kampf-skye hate books?

  190. @anon
    OT: the War on the War on Christmas gets an early start this year.

    The BBC's SJW diversity focused Dr. Who replaces traditional Christmas special with secular New Years Eve special. Unconvincingly claims they couldn't think of any good Christmas stories. Sure.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zuhv7FDjMOE

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

    At least she is relatively attractive.

  191. Just FYI, in case you missed it, the Times has done it again: How Twitter’s Ban on ‘Deadnaming’ Promotes Free Speech.

  192. Have you done any book reviews of Reihan Salaam’s immigration book or Jonah Goldberg’s latest, with the stolen James Burnham title? Just always appreciate the real right doing reviews of the phony right’s books, since they always love responding to all the critical reviews…to their left. And then ignore reviews by people like you and Paul Gottfried who they always childishly pretend don’t exist.

    Do plan to crack Tucker’s book.

  193. @Reg Cæsar

    The reply of “citation” is irritating and a sign of laziness. Perhaps worse it often denotes a troll at work.
     
    Who can only afford to drive a 40-year-old Chevy.



    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GANcs2sxcH8&feature=youtu.be

    Or just fashion-forward.

  194. The central theme of Ship of Fools is that the convergence toward the reigning elite consensus of economic conservatism and social progressivism is better for the people at the top of society than for maintaining a stable middle-class democracy:

    @SteveSailer The part of the left that still cares about workers calls these folks Neo-Liberals with all the negative connotations that “neo” implies. I prefer to call them smoke screen liberals, they are true grifters, fool the masses by walking in a MLK parade, be seen glad handing the voters when a sidewalk crosswalk gets painted in rainbow colors in the LGBT section of the city. In the mean time, displace workers, the poor for new development opportunities and sell their souls to the Amazon’s of the world as rapidly as they can. Anyway “Ship of Fools” reminded me of this little ditty from the group World Party.

    Avarice and greed are gonna drive you over the endless sea
    They will leave you drifting in the shallows
    or drowning in the oceans of history
    Traveling the world, you’re in search of no good
    but I’m sure you’ll build your Sodom like you knew you would
    Using all the good people for your galley slaves
    as you’re little boat struggles through the warning waves, but you don’t pay
    You will pay tomorrow
    You’re gonna pay tomorrow
    You’re gonna pay tomorrow
    Save me. Save me from tomorrow
    I don’t want to sail with this ship of fools
    Save me. Save me from tomorrow
    I don’t want to sail with this ship of fools
    Where’s it comin’ from?
    Where’s it goin’ to now?
    It’s just a It’s just a ship of fools

  195. @Tyrion 2
    Twice you've fantasised. That the Republican defended attacking Syria "because Israel", and that JFK was assassinated for criticising Israel - a theory born out of the fevered wishes of a bunch of loons.

    According to President Trump, we are in Syria because of Israel.

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/trump-says-us-troops-will-remain-in-middle-east-for-israels-sake/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

    “US President Donald Trump indicated in an interview published Wednesday that, although he could remove troops from the Middle East, citing cheaper oil as an explanation, one reason not to do so is concern for Israel’s security.

    “Now, are we going to stay in that part of the world? One reason to is Israel,” Trump told the Washington Post.

    “Oil is becoming less and less of a reason because we’re producing more oil now than we’ve ever produced,” he added, appearing to envision a world where the US would be less beholden to Saudi Arabia. “So, you know, all of a sudden it gets to a point where you don’t have to stay there.”

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    When a politician says "one reason" they usually mean not the reason and certainly mean "one among many". Thanks for reinforcing my point.

    "One reason" we can't stop illegal immigration is because the crops will rot in the fields.
    , @Charles Pewitt
    https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1068002497862778880

    The American Empire keeps troops in West Asia — Afghanistan — to advance the foreign policy interests of Israel by putting the squeeze on Iran.

    The American Empire’s ruling class is using the US military as muscle to advance the foreign policy interests of Israel.
  196. @Achmed E. Newman
    That's nonsense comparing Sarah Palin to TC Coates. What has Mr. Coates done constructive in his whole affirmative-action-based life, Johnny? Sarah Palin worked her way up to Governer of the great State of Alaska the old fashioned way - being white, hence earning it. She may sound ditzy, but that's the problem with getting lots of your news off the TV - they can pick and choose the bad parts.

    The only reason I even THOUGHT ABOUT voting for (but didn't) John McCain in 08 is that he may have croaked within the first coupla years and Mrs. Palin could take over. No, she is no Ronald Reagan, but has more decorum than 10 Donald Trumps (not that that is everything by any means). Don't get all your opinions off of TV - they can make things look a whole lot different than reality.

    Speaking of reality - no, I haven't watched Mrs. Palin on reality-TV. When they film you for hours a day, and pick out 5 minutes of it, then it's pretty easy to make you look stupid, yes, even you, Johnny Walker, will look stupid on reality-TV. I had watched those Bering Straits fishing shows way back. Do you think those tough guys are really drama queens, as they seem on. the show? They may get filmed for days and days, getting along fine with the crew, cooperating with their buddies on other boats, etc. Then, the Captain gets a little annoyed for 2 minutes and then ... yes, THERE'S YOUR SHOW!


    .
    .

    Oh, BTW, I made a good bet. I voted L in '08. I sure didn't want the Øb☭ma, but McCain didn't win either, and he died only a few months back.

    She may sound ditzy, but that’s the problem with getting lots of your news off the TV – they can pick and choose the bad parts.

    Here’s the thing.

    Governor Sarah Palin resigned her job. After resigning her job, she starred on this reality TV show.

    What type of person resigns a governorship to do reality tv?

    When she was criticized for this, she noted that Reagan was an actor who starred in “Bedtime for Bonzo.” Except what she didn’t note is that Reagan didn’t resign his California governorship to go act.

    If Sarah Palin had stayed Governor, she could’ve refined her knowledge and speaking abilities. Given her popularity with the base, she could’ve run as a reform-minded “adult” conservative in 2012. She could’ve used Alaska as an example of what she would do for America.

    Her quitting sort of confirmed everything everyone thought about her.

    Don’t get all your opinions off of TV – they can make things look a whole lot different than reality.

    Katie Couric asked what newspapers and magazines that Palin read in order to stay informed. She couldn’t name a single publication.

    How is one supposed to know anything if one doesn’t read? Intellectual osmosis?

    Can you think of any examples of Sarah Palin coherently issuing an interesting critique of social, economic, or foreign policy?

    After getting out of politics, has Palin even tried to get back in? She seems mostly interested in doing tv shows and being a political commentator. I’d guess it’s because she finds the world of politics to be boring and lots of dreary, hard work.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    I will admit, Johnny, that I didn't know about this move that she made from Governor to Reality show star.... women ...?

    Can you think of any examples of Sarah Palin coherently issuing an interesting critique of social, economic, or foreign policy?
     
    I was already pretty much off TV by that 2008 election or before. I just read what she stood for, and was pretty pleased with it. An executive, even of a small-pop state like Alaska is still going to have the ability to delegate the work based on his principles (OK "her", in this case).

    I’d guess it’s because she finds the world of politics to be boring and lots of dreary, hard work.
     
    Maybe she doesn't quite have the thick enough skin to be treated as a (purported or real) conservative is nowadays. The press was all over her. Trump's got his way with them, but for someone, let's say, just a bit more sensitive, it probably just got to be too much. Then she had Juan McAmnesty disparage her too, when, as I said, she was the only reason I'd even though of voting for that "maverick" piece of neocon crap!
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson II
    Sarah Palin faced mounting legal bills from the lawfare attacks of the Left because the Left feared her. In the same way Trump has pointed out the Left has no clothes, so did Palin. She could not pay her legal bills on the Governor's salary, and was not willing to prostrate herself before a Big-Money Sugar Daddy. Just as she had the courage to stand up to the corrupt Republicans in Alaska, she relied on herself to beat back the rabid Left. Your criticism relies on a supposed deficiency of not reading magazines (because Time, Newsweek, The Economist, National Review, The Nation, etc. help you 'know something'). But the opposite is true. Your data sources are propaganda. Since when did propaganda help you know anything useful?

    Can you think of any examples of Sarah Palin coherently issuing an interesting critique of social, economic, or foreign policy?
     
    Palin would not fight stupid wars, not allow unrestricted immigration, nor support the globalists hollowing out middle America. Take any position of the Left, and Palin takes the opposite position.

    I suspect that is your real objection to Palin. She isn't a Leftist like you.
  197. @anon
    "Whites are a minority in Texas, California, and Hawaii. Have Whites been persecuted in any of these states?

    Affirmative action, "white privilege", section 8 housing, corporate diversity quotas, endless negative media coverage of republicans and whites, social media witch hunts, government contract set asides for non-whites, that whole BLM thing back in 2016, Oscars So White, misgendering laws, that Colorado baker case ......

    "Have non-whites turned on each other?"

    Well, feminists and cross-dressers have certainly turned on each other, so there is the trend. Also, Blacks and Hispanics famously don't get along in California (and elsewhere). Hispanics drove out Maxine Waters's original constituents; her eventual replacement will not be black. Solidarity may come to an end once the republican party is no longer nationally competitive. You saw a bit of this with all those white guy insiders being purged from the democrat party in minority districts this year. Plus, these new constituents tried overthrowing Pelosi just recently while announcing plans to recruit more non-whites; democratic party leadership is nearing their 80s and is coming to resemble the Soviet Union's aging leadership circa 1979. Change is in the air.

    I think the explicitly race-based appeals being made by democrats are bound to turn inward at some point. Fires rarely stop where you intend them to.

    "When California turned majority Democrat and majority Nonwhite, did Steve leave the state to avoid racial persecution and a coming racial conflagration?"

    A huge number of whites have already fled California. The state experienced a net outflow of well over 100,000 just last year. Everyone I know wants out, especially what's left of the middle class. As recently as a few years ago, California, a huge state, had about the same net immigration rate as the state of Michigan. So, the writing has been on the wall for a while now.

    There was a time in the 1990s when Venezuela was quite nice if you knew the right places. Now, not so much. The proper way to assess these things is to look at underlying dynamics - ethnic, fiscal, and class among many - and assess the possibility they could boil to the surface, causing a change in the current order. Both the US and Venezuela, unlike China, are democracies where the stupid masses could theoretically destroy everything in just a few elections. So, the possibility is higher here, all things considered.

    In a society that is getting ever more polarized (where noble white guys who maintain law and order at the FBI and Inspector General's Office are subject to getting purged like Obama purged that white Librarian of Congress in favor of his fellow co-ethnic), I assess the possibility of a sudden reversal of fortune for the US to be higher than you might think, and it is growing. Both Russia and China think so as well and are preparing to exploit. I'd only take Chavez - er, uh - Cortez to get the nomination in 2020 and win the White House to possibly send the whole thing downward. Certainly not a Mad Max collapse or anything, but possibly a fall from grace overall.

    Ask yourself this. What happens when Cortez or Kamala Harris takes power and rams through diversity quotas for Silicon Valley (or Space X) in the face of Chinese competition? Or economy killing fossil fuel restrictions? Or defense department cuts? If any of that is a possibility at all (and it definitely is), then how stable do you think this current system/era is? I would guess it is merely metastable and subject to a sudden vacuum decay into a lower state. Happens on the global stage all the time. I don't see why the US should be immune.

    "but things aren’t so bad in areas in which Whites are a minority."

    Depends on where you live and what your profession is. Try being a white cop in a majority non-white New Orleans ten years ago. The racist government there contributed to the city's police-force dysfunction by instituting residency requirements to exclude whites. Given the numerous examples already available, I'd rather not base my people's future on the generosity of peoples with deeply held racist beliefs and the tendency to seek payback. Ask Zimbabwean whites how that worked out for them. And just look at what Obama turned his Justice Department into under Holder.

    "Of course, the situation could change in the future."

    Isn't it prudent to plan for the future instead of hoping for the present?

    What happens when Cortez or Kamala Harris takes power and rams through diversity quotas for Silicon Valley…?

    They’ll deserve it good and goddam hard.

    Really, California should do that. It’ll send the tech industry to friendlier states like Utah, Idaho, Texas, etc. We need a second Silicon Valley a lot more than a second Hollywood, which a number of states are trying to build.

  198. @Tyrion 2
    Just about powerful enough to get the US President to move the US embassy to Israel's de facto capital, as it is in every single other country, but after waiting 38 years...

    And even then it wasn't really to do with AIPAC but a mixture between Trump's common sense approach and his mutual sympathy with Netanyahu.

    Is there anything different about Israel’s capital that might explain the discrepancy?

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    Not when compared to many of the coubtries in the world. Nevermind that half of Jerusalem is built on UN mandated to Israel land.
  199. @njguy73
    I wonder how much of Carlson's leftward drift came from the defining moment of his career: the day Jon Stewart went on Crossfire. The show had been on CNN since 1982 and after this, was cancelled three months later.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE

    It probably had an impact on Tucker, not in terms of politics per se but in prompting him to try to rise above his genre, as Stewart did, in a different way. I think Stewart came to realize that the genre he’d created was bad, too, and his response to it was to quit (that may have been motivated partly by the ascendance of the populist left, as Steve notes).

    In Tucker’s case, he transcended it by no longer being a WASP proto-Ben Shapiro, and, instead, thinking critically and letting his views flow from that.

  200. @Houston 1992
    can you elaborate on the problems with Hawaii?

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_Haole_Day

    I trust your Wikipedia goggles work and that you can read past the spin. Hawaii is full of this sort of thing.

  201. @Achmed E. Newman
    I've been looking forward to reading Ship of Fools for a while, and coincidentally just put in on hold from the libary a week ago (they've got dozens of copies, but they're all being read right now!) Your review, Steve, has got me looking forward to it even more ...

    Yeah, now about that review: It sounds like Tucker Carlson, seen by you as a "centrist", is just a guy who seeks truth in all things. That's a rarity, most especially in his current occupation. Is it because, as you say, he is of the upper class to begin with? If he's not been struggling too hard to make it in life, and is a righteous dude in general, then perhaps he realizes that in his current high position, he can really do the right thing for the viewers and readers. Again that is a rarity in the "journalism" "profession".

    I don't particularly agree (surprise, surprise) with your view of who Libertarians are, Steve. You, and most commenter on here, associate them all with pro-Big-Biz types. That's not particulary true. I wonder what Ron Paul, in fact, would say about taxes on capital gains vs. income, and I reckon Mr. Carlson would have a damn good opinion of a libertarian like John Stossel, another TV guy. That's speculation, but it leads to thoughts of what exactly is libertarianism.

    I enjoyed your column though (and now realize I could have read it while unz was down yesterday, if I'd thought about it. Taki really needs to quit with the retroactive pop-up bullshit though. How bad does he need the ad money?!)

    I don’t particularly agree (surprise, surprise) with your view of who Libertarians are, Steve. You, and most commenter on here, associate them all with pro-Big-Biz types.

    They may not be explicitly pro-Big Business, but the results of laissez faire over the last 20 years or so have been a huge consolidation of American industries into oligopolies. Steve was early in writing about how antitrust has basically been in abeyance but now Matt Stoller and even David Leondhardt at the NYT are taking it up:

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    They may not be explicitly pro-Big Business, but the results of laissez faire over the last 20 years or so have been a huge consolidation of American industries into oligopolies.
     
    Laissez faire for whom, though, Mr. Pinson? I've seen this same bad trend over more like 3 decades with bigger is better and consolidation. However, part of the reason for this is that small business is kept on a tight leash or even run into the ground, in America nowadays. Who does that? I'll tell ya':

    1) The American Feral and state governments lay down regulations that may make a formerly-good business model into a bad idea overnight. Guess who supports these kinds of regulations? I'll tell ya':

    2) Big Business, in crony-capitalistic cooperation (there's a good alliteration for ya') with government on all levels, works to crush any competition from the small guy. That wouldn't work in a free market without the tremendous regulation that has accumulated.

    Sorry for the late reply, Mr. Pinson.
  202. @JLK

    Ann Coulter is an example of someone who really is smart enough to have written her books.
     
    While some of Carlson's comments may be helpful in moving the envelope of permissible discussion in a more moderate direction, there's nothing in his academic background or Coulter's for that matter that suggests an intellect capable of seeing the whole picture.

    > there’s nothing in his academic background or Coulter’s for that matter that suggests an intellect capable of seeing the whole picture.

    What parts of the picture are they missing?

    • Replies: @JLK

    What parts of the picture are they missing?
     
    Probably most of the more salient topics brought up on this site, plus a few others. Of course it is hard to tell the totality of their thoughts because they are very limited in what they can say on the air or write in a book without being sidelined.

    The bottom line is that they are media personalities, not original thinkers like a Charles Murray. If they say something new and interesting, it has probably been vetted ahead of time.
  203. @JohnnyWalker123
    Bill Maher is more of a snarky polemicist than a deep thinker, but he often offers good insight into different issues.

    Here's Bill Maher criticizing the PC police.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0B1UL0FxYj0

    Even as a conservative, you can't tell me that Maher is all bad.

    Shortly after 9/11, he said on his late-night ABC show that America was “cowardly” because it merely lobbed cruise missiles at its enemies, while the terrorists at least had the balls to die for their cause:

    (Within months, American soldiers were dying for the neocon cause in Iraq and Afghanistan.)

    Unlike Roseanne, he wasn’t immediately fired and publicly crucified. But advertisers started boycotting his show and ABC pulled the plug a few months later.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Maher was reacting to the transparently false comment repeated by W. and others that the 9/11 terrorists were cowards. Remember, too, that Maher's ABC show was called "Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher", and that Maher has frequently had Ann Coulter on as a guest.

    Maher's gaffe was similar to Trump calling out Jeb in 2015 when he said his brother "kept us safe". "W. kept us safe" was a lie commonly stated by GOP pols from 2004 on, and Trump was, AFAIK, the first high-profile GOP candidate to point out the obvious refutation, that 9/11 happened on W.'s watch.
  204. @Achmed E. Newman
    That's nonsense comparing Sarah Palin to TC Coates. What has Mr. Coates done constructive in his whole affirmative-action-based life, Johnny? Sarah Palin worked her way up to Governer of the great State of Alaska the old fashioned way - being white, hence earning it. She may sound ditzy, but that's the problem with getting lots of your news off the TV - they can pick and choose the bad parts.

    The only reason I even THOUGHT ABOUT voting for (but didn't) John McCain in 08 is that he may have croaked within the first coupla years and Mrs. Palin could take over. No, she is no Ronald Reagan, but has more decorum than 10 Donald Trumps (not that that is everything by any means). Don't get all your opinions off of TV - they can make things look a whole lot different than reality.

    Speaking of reality - no, I haven't watched Mrs. Palin on reality-TV. When they film you for hours a day, and pick out 5 minutes of it, then it's pretty easy to make you look stupid, yes, even you, Johnny Walker, will look stupid on reality-TV. I had watched those Bering Straits fishing shows way back. Do you think those tough guys are really drama queens, as they seem on. the show? They may get filmed for days and days, getting along fine with the crew, cooperating with their buddies on other boats, etc. Then, the Captain gets a little annoyed for 2 minutes and then ... yes, THERE'S YOUR SHOW!


    .
    .

    Oh, BTW, I made a good bet. I voted L in '08. I sure didn't want the Øb☭ma, but McCain didn't win either, and he died only a few months back.

    I did vote for McCain/Palin in 2008, and only because she was on the ticket. I saw her as an Idaho/Alaska native with western values. And nicer to look at than any other contestant.

  205. @ATBOTL
    Is there anything different about Israel's capital that might explain the discrepancy?

    Not when compared to many of the coubtries in the world. Nevermind that half of Jerusalem is built on UN mandated to Israel land.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    Not when compared to many of the coubtries in the world.
     
    Which ones? How many?
    , @Colin Wright
    'Not when compared to many of the coubtries in the world. Nevermind that half of Jerusalem is built on UN mandated to Israel land.'

    ? The UN mandated that Jerusalem was to be a 'free city' on the lines of Tangiers or Danzig between the wars. Then, in ten years, the inhabitants would vote on whether to join the Jewish state or the Palestinian state. Israel pretended to accept this arrangement.

    Then she simply took half of the city in 1948 and the rest in 1967. The UN never mandated any of it to Israel. Your statement is false.
  206. @ATBOTL
    According to President Trump, we are in Syria because of Israel.


    https://www.timesofisrael.com/trump-says-us-troops-will-remain-in-middle-east-for-israels-sake/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

    “US President Donald Trump indicated in an interview published Wednesday that, although he could remove troops from the Middle East, citing cheaper oil as an explanation, one reason not to do so is concern for Israel’s security.

    “Now, are we going to stay in that part of the world? One reason to is Israel,” Trump told the Washington Post.

    “Oil is becoming less and less of a reason because we’re producing more oil now than we’ve ever produced,” he added, appearing to envision a world where the US would be less beholden to Saudi Arabia. “So, you know, all of a sudden it gets to a point where you don’t have to stay there.”

    When a politician says “one reason” they usually mean not the reason and certainly mean “one among many”. Thanks for reinforcing my point.

    “One reason” we can’t stop illegal immigration is because the crops will rot in the fields.

  207. @anon
    OT: the War on the War on Christmas gets an early start this year.

    The BBC's SJW diversity focused Dr. Who replaces traditional Christmas special with secular New Years Eve special. Unconvincingly claims they couldn't think of any good Christmas stories. Sure.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zuhv7FDjMOE

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

    x-mas or no x-mas, anyone who watches Dr. Goo needs to have his head examined.

  208. “But rapid demographic change makes this unsustainable. When the traditional scapegoat becomes insufficient, various factions will turn on one another.” (https://takimag.com/article/tuckers-treatise/print#ixzz5YIOtB6sg)

    Tucker’s being his overly-optimistic self here. He’s got it backwards.

    White Americans have it easy with minorities now. When whites are reduced to a mere plurality in America, that’s when the minority-majority will start squeezing the white turnips bigly.

  209. @Reg Cæsar

    Twice you’ve fantasised. That the Republican defended attacking Syria “because Israel”, and that JFK was assassinated for criticising Israel – a theory born out of the fevered wishes of a bunch of loons.
     
    RFK was assassinated for supporting Israel.

    He was thanked with the name of a cheesy cookie-cutter stadium that hosted a racially insensitive professional sports organization, and is so bad that even MLS has abandoned it.

    No, everyone knows that his support for Israel was really just a ploy while he secretly hunted down his brother’s killers – Israel.

    The actual assassin was a Jewish Hollywood actor who first starred as an extra in a couple of 70s Blaxploitation flicks in minstrel face, before taking on his introductory international spy role as Ayatollah Khomeini.

    Later, he was a one time stand-in for Baghdadi and occasionally appeared as “fat” Bin Laden.

    Also, the RFK stadium was not the only venue named after Bobby, but so too was the mediocre London-based chain of Fish and Chip shops called “Kennedys”.

    The point being to associate RFK’s and JFK’s surname with a potentially Jewish-created dish that fits into Britain’s cultural heritage so as to distract attention from all of the above.

    Fortunately, I, an internet sleuth know this. It must be true because I am really smart and special and all the people who laugh at me are actually Hasbara and therefore wrong…or…actually Hasbara are all the people who laugh at me so Hasbara or wrong. This makes me right. It is a nice logical circle…see?

  210. @DFH

    In post-1967 Communist Poland they had an anti-Semitic purge even though 99% of the Jewish population was already dead or out of the country. Even after the remaining 1% was gone, it was STILL possible to blame invisible “Jewish influence” for anything bad.
     
    The eternal boomer strikes again

    The leaders of Stalinist Poland (Jakub Berman and Hilary Minc) were Jews.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jakub_Berman
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilary_Minc

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatol_Fejgin
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Brystiger
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B3zef_R%C3%B3%C5%BCa%C5%84ski

    The head of the secret police (Roman Romkowski) and 37% of secret police directors in Stalinist Poland were Jewish.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Romkowski
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Public_Security_(Poland)#Organization

    I stopped reading after you got the leader of Stalinist Poland wrong.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolesław_Bierut

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    I stopped reading after you got the leader of Stalinist Poland wrong.
     
    That's funny; I typically stop reading your posts after "Tyrion 2 says:".
    , @DFH
    Berman was the one in fact closest to Stalin and with the most power in Poland. But don't lie, you stopped reading because you're a Jew.
  211. @Nathan
    People are pretty ignorant about Hawaii. It's not a place you want to live. Neither is California.

    I believe there is some tension between “natives” of Hawaii and haoles.

    “In Hawaii’s “Rainbow” ethnic melange of peoples, “Haole” is the slang word used to describe Caucasians, and by itself is not a racial slur and has no pejorative connotations. Many visitors are haole, and may be targeted by criminals, but this is because they are vulnerable tourists, not because they are haole. Rumors that in Hawaii the last day of school is called “Kill Haole Day” is nothing but a rumor. According to this rumor, on this day, “local” (nonwhite) children beat up, bully, and harass the “haole” or “white” children in their school. Some residents say there is little to no evidence or documentation of incidents involving “Kill Haole Day” or of Caucasian students being assaulted on specific days. Other residents dispute this. Hawaii schools have responded by saying that they take the initiative to achieve tolerance, safety, compassion, and acceptance for all students.[10]

    The word “Haole” is used as a racial slur or insult in incidents of harassment and physical assaults by Native Hawaiians and members of other “minority” (nonwhite) groups on white people in Hawaii—tourists as well as residents and military personnel.”

    Wiki

    • Replies: @Nathan
    It's caucasians, and pretty much anybody not sufficiently ethnically Hawaiian. As you might expect from a Wikipedia article that spends the majority of its length arguing that the subject of the wiki isn't much of a problem, the problem is severe and prevalent.
  212. @anon
    "Whites are a minority in Texas, California, and Hawaii. Have Whites been persecuted in any of these states?

    Affirmative action, "white privilege", section 8 housing, corporate diversity quotas, endless negative media coverage of republicans and whites, social media witch hunts, government contract set asides for non-whites, that whole BLM thing back in 2016, Oscars So White, misgendering laws, that Colorado baker case ......

    "Have non-whites turned on each other?"

    Well, feminists and cross-dressers have certainly turned on each other, so there is the trend. Also, Blacks and Hispanics famously don't get along in California (and elsewhere). Hispanics drove out Maxine Waters's original constituents; her eventual replacement will not be black. Solidarity may come to an end once the republican party is no longer nationally competitive. You saw a bit of this with all those white guy insiders being purged from the democrat party in minority districts this year. Plus, these new constituents tried overthrowing Pelosi just recently while announcing plans to recruit more non-whites; democratic party leadership is nearing their 80s and is coming to resemble the Soviet Union's aging leadership circa 1979. Change is in the air.

    I think the explicitly race-based appeals being made by democrats are bound to turn inward at some point. Fires rarely stop where you intend them to.

    "When California turned majority Democrat and majority Nonwhite, did Steve leave the state to avoid racial persecution and a coming racial conflagration?"

    A huge number of whites have already fled California. The state experienced a net outflow of well over 100,000 just last year. Everyone I know wants out, especially what's left of the middle class. As recently as a few years ago, California, a huge state, had about the same net immigration rate as the state of Michigan. So, the writing has been on the wall for a while now.

    There was a time in the 1990s when Venezuela was quite nice if you knew the right places. Now, not so much. The proper way to assess these things is to look at underlying dynamics - ethnic, fiscal, and class among many - and assess the possibility they could boil to the surface, causing a change in the current order. Both the US and Venezuela, unlike China, are democracies where the stupid masses could theoretically destroy everything in just a few elections. So, the possibility is higher here, all things considered.

    In a society that is getting ever more polarized (where noble white guys who maintain law and order at the FBI and Inspector General's Office are subject to getting purged like Obama purged that white Librarian of Congress in favor of his fellow co-ethnic), I assess the possibility of a sudden reversal of fortune for the US to be higher than you might think, and it is growing. Both Russia and China think so as well and are preparing to exploit. I'd only take Chavez - er, uh - Cortez to get the nomination in 2020 and win the White House to possibly send the whole thing downward. Certainly not a Mad Max collapse or anything, but possibly a fall from grace overall.

    Ask yourself this. What happens when Cortez or Kamala Harris takes power and rams through diversity quotas for Silicon Valley (or Space X) in the face of Chinese competition? Or economy killing fossil fuel restrictions? Or defense department cuts? If any of that is a possibility at all (and it definitely is), then how stable do you think this current system/era is? I would guess it is merely metastable and subject to a sudden vacuum decay into a lower state. Happens on the global stage all the time. I don't see why the US should be immune.

    "but things aren’t so bad in areas in which Whites are a minority."

    Depends on where you live and what your profession is. Try being a white cop in a majority non-white New Orleans ten years ago. The racist government there contributed to the city's police-force dysfunction by instituting residency requirements to exclude whites. Given the numerous examples already available, I'd rather not base my people's future on the generosity of peoples with deeply held racist beliefs and the tendency to seek payback. Ask Zimbabwean whites how that worked out for them. And just look at what Obama turned his Justice Department into under Holder.

    "Of course, the situation could change in the future."

    Isn't it prudent to plan for the future instead of hoping for the present?

    Everyone should spend some time in the Big Easy, if only to experience what armed robbery feels like. The joy of living in a predominately black metropolis.

  213. What are the other countries whose “capitals” are on legally disputed land?

    You false implied that the lack of embassies in Jerusalem was due to some kind of double standard against Israel.

  214. @Reg Cæsar

    Texas and California are current examples of white minority societies in the process of the next generation becoming whitish majority societies without the 3 things you cite and yet holding together before the return to majority hegemony.
     
    In the meantime, who fills the School Book Depository?

    In the meantime, who fills the School Book Depository?

    How long have you been on unz? The Mossad of course.

  215. @AndrewR
    "Non-Hispanic whites are a plurality"

    FTFY

    You’re wrong, Non-Hispanic Whites are not a plurality in California and are not even close to a plurality in Hawaii, and are just barely a plurality in Texas.

  216. @JohnnyWalker123

    I have no idea how Carlson creates five hours of television per week and writes a book at the same time, but Ship of Fools is quite good. It’s currently No. 3 on the nonfiction best-seller list, behind Michelle Obama and Bill O’Reilly.

     

    Both of whom are hucksters. It should be noted that Tucker Carlson came in after Bill O'Reilly (a loudmouth right-wing conman who spent decades talking about how he was a "culture warrior") got fired by FOX for trying to coerce sex out of his female subordinates.

    Back in the early 2000s, O'Reilly started a boycott to get Pepsi to stop sponsoring rapper "Ludacris," saying that he "degraded women." His boycott was successful and got "Ludacris" dropped. A few years later, O'Reilly ran into a workplace sexual harassment scandal. Then more recently, O'Reill ran into another harassment scandal, which resulted in him getting fired.

    Here's what "Ludacris" had to say about O'Reilly.

    “It’s not my place to judge Bill O’Reilly the same way he judged me,” he said during an appearance on radio show “The Breakfast Club.” “I’m thriving in life right now. All I can do is hope that Bill O’Reilly settles these issues and learns from whatever mistakes he may have made ― and also thrives.”

    “But,” he added, “it is definitely ironic that Pepsi and Bill O’Reilly are under fire right now.”

     

    Here's a good clip that demonstrates the "intellect" of Bill O'Reilly (it gets interesting at 3:05). The man is a complete charlatan and an entertainer who knows his audience. He's a more coherent version of Glenn Beck.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKFvne6R7IA

    It's remarkable that O'Reilly is an intellectual leader in the conservative movement.

    There exists this view that somehow White media/govt figures (especially White conservative men) are held to a high standard, while dumb Blacks get a pass. In reality, dumb people (regardless of race or politics) often do make it to the top, but the left has no monopoly on idiocy.

    Bill Maher had some good critique (watch from 1:30 onward).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46waxL2MICc

    The left has its flaws too, but let's not act like the right is somehow the adult in the room.

    It’s remarkable that O’Reilly is an intellectual leader in the conservative movement.

    Well, you know what intellectual leaders say. Tide goes in, tide goes out. You can’t explain that.

  217. @ThreeCranes
    Thanks for one helluva a comment. Now I don't have to labor to put one together myself. I don't think all or many here on Unz will agree with your assessment of Reagan and Clinton but you are, neverthelessless, spot on.

    Both betrayed the American working class. The Clintons are simply hillbilly Arkansas grifters who saw which way would lead them to the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Bill, as much as Reagan, permitted policies which enabled the bankers and investors to break the back of American labor.

    This is anecdotal, but straight from the trenches. An uncle of mine was a highly placed executive of a large international corporation through the 60's and 70's. and into the 80's. He was a board member during the midst of the war on American corporations that was waged by raiders and takeover artists.

    Remember the credo "the board must act so as to maximize shareholder value"? Once that took hold, all the old-fashioned executives who felt that the corporation actually had an obligation to give back to the community and support civil society by paying decent wages to its employees were marginalized in the board rooms. A new crew of cold-blooded pirates, with freshly minted MBAs from Harvard and the like, took over. They had no such sentimental sympathies with the American worker and saw him instead as a clod and a stubborn dolt who stood in the way of their financial schemes to get rich quick.

    When I asked my uncle about executive compensation in 2003, he said that then-current levels were "obscene". His generation earned a good living but weren't rich.

    The financiers have taken over. The makers and doers are in retreat. Trade and Federal deficits have soared. The fanning apologist Krugman's of the world see no problem in America issuing bonds and printing money indefinitely--just as long as we have the military might to impose the dollar standard on Saudi oil--which serves Israel's purposes as well. What a coincidence.

    Bogus dollars, oil and military might, the American triumvirate.

    Exactly, and so depressing. When I finally realized this, I could never listen, politely, to people who declare themselves Progressive…or Republican ( I have lost a lot of friends). All of these people do not want to listen to other people’s ideas…they simply don’t.

    It is truly hard to open the eyes of the Millennials, but I take every chance I am given. Teaching them that the Central Banks, actually, lord over the world…except Russia and China, is hard because these young people have been so indoctrinated with Cultural Marxism ideas in public school (now, boarding school, , btw; Soros (Alumnus) gave millions to a prestigious private school in my region).

    Ergo, the media are sent in as the first agitators to bring regime change and probably, war. I hope Trump does not fall for the phony Ukrainian Nazis wanting to take back Dumbass…I mean, Donbass 🙂 by coercing the USA to intervene: Stay out of it. Russians and Ukrainians have been fighting for centuries – do not get involved for God’s sake! Take it from a Finn: stay away from Russia and its Eastern neighbors.

  218. @Tyrion 2
    What odds will you offer that Rand Paul is re-elected?

    Since you give me the impression that you think AIPAC and assorted organisations afs all powerful, I think it'd be fair if you gave me 100 to 1 against.

    Still, I'm a sporting man so I'll happily take evens as a bet between equals. Sound fair?

    What odds will you offer that Rand Paul is re-elected?

    I have no idea what the possibility of his reelection is. What I am saying is that the probability of funding by AIPAC or any allied group or person directed to someone challenging him is pretty high.

    Since you give me the impression that you think AIPAC and assorted organisations afs all powerful, I think it’d be fair if you gave me 100 to 1 against.

    I’m not responsible for your impressions. You are, and I really don’t care how you arrive at them. I never said AIPAC is all powerful. I never implied it. They are however quite powerful. Do you deny that they are powerful at all? Does virtually every “serious” candidate for President (and quite a few for Senate) address their conventions because they lack power?

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    Here you're reasonable. Later you'll be pretending that Israel killed JFK and managed to successfully cover it up because they controlled almost everything that mattered. Then, you'll retreat again to a reasonable and innocuous point

    Motte to Bailey, Bailey to Motte, Motte to Bailey, Bailey to Motte...ad nauseam...it's the K-Mac cult Calypso.
  219. @JohnnyWalker123
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1r9_tgRgRk

    Another thing I won’t watch.

  220. @Reg Cæsar

    Guns are a ridiculous red herring born of empty bluster and machismo.
     
    They let you know who really trusts you.

    My sister prevented her own rape and perhaps even worse, by brandishing a handgun. Must be more of that macho bluster you’re talking about. Those gun nuts.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Should be directed not at you but the person to whom you were responding. Thanks.
  221. @Tyrion 2
    I stopped reading after you got the leader of Stalinist Poland wrong.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolesław_Bierut

    I stopped reading after you got the leader of Stalinist Poland wrong.

    That’s funny; I typically stop reading your posts after “Tyrion 2 says:”.

  222. @Tyrion 2
    Twice you've fantasised. That the Republican defended attacking Syria "because Israel", and that JFK was assassinated for criticising Israel - a theory born out of the fevered wishes of a bunch of loons.

    Twice you’ve fantasised. That the Republican defended attacking Syria “because Israel”, and that JFK was assassinated for criticising Israel – a theory born out of the fevered wishes of a bunch of loons.

    What makes you an authority on American politics? You are, ostensibly, a citizen of the UK. We live here, nitwit. We have eyes and can see. Seeing a Republican Congressman slavering over our bestest little buddy of a country is a not uncommon sight. Sometimes it is painfully, embarrassingly obvious. There is no compelling reason for us to give a damn about who governs Syria one way or the other, so – yes – what a great deal of our involvement there is driven by what is in Israel’s interest.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    There's no compelling reason for Israel to want Assad overthrown either. It was a quiet border and whatever followed Assad would be worse.

    You can never bring yourself to have one standard for truth...
  223. @Tyrion 2
    Not when compared to many of the coubtries in the world. Nevermind that half of Jerusalem is built on UN mandated to Israel land.

    Not when compared to many of the coubtries in the world.

    Which ones? How many?

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    The United States put an embassy in North Vietnam conquered "Ho Ch Minh" in 1995. They even had one in occupied East Berlin during the Cold War. Meanwhile, the one in Assad governed Damascus was eventually closed but only after a year of the Syrian civil war.

    Israel must run Washington to not quite reach the big leagues of those three.
  224. @RadicalCenter
    My sister prevented her own rape and perhaps even worse, by brandishing a handgun. Must be more of that macho bluster you’re talking about. Those gun nuts.

    Should be directed not at you but the person to whom you were responding. Thanks.

  225. @DFH

    In post-1967 Communist Poland they had an anti-Semitic purge even though 99% of the Jewish population was already dead or out of the country. Even after the remaining 1% was gone, it was STILL possible to blame invisible “Jewish influence” for anything bad.
     
    The eternal boomer strikes again

    The leaders of Stalinist Poland (Jakub Berman and Hilary Minc) were Jews.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jakub_Berman
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilary_Minc

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatol_Fejgin
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Brystiger
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B3zef_R%C3%B3%C5%BCa%C5%84ski

    The head of the secret police (Roman Romkowski) and 37% of secret police directors in Stalinist Poland were Jewish.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Romkowski
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Public_Security_(Poland)#Organization

    Most of the Jews were purged around the time of the Secret Speech in 1956, so by the time of the 1967 pogrom they were long gone from the levers of power. Communism was supposed to be free from race and religious prejudice, so why shouldn’t Poles of Jewish descent have been involved in it along with Poles of Christian descent? Weren’t such distinctions supposed to disappear and become irrelevant under Communism? If 37% of secret police directors were Jewish (not that you are counting – oh wait, you are) then 63% weren’t.

    In pre-war Poland, Jews (who were not religious and who were interested in politics) were disproportionately drawn to leftist causes because all of the right wing parties were explicitly anti-Semitic.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
  226. @JohnnyWalker123

    She may sound ditzy, but that’s the problem with getting lots of your news off the TV – they can pick and choose the bad parts.
     
    Here's the thing.

    Governor Sarah Palin resigned her job. After resigning her job, she starred on this reality TV show.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Rh6vLnxD6o

    What type of person resigns a governorship to do reality tv?

    When she was criticized for this, she noted that Reagan was an actor who starred in "Bedtime for Bonzo." Except what she didn't note is that Reagan didn't resign his California governorship to go act.

    If Sarah Palin had stayed Governor, she could've refined her knowledge and speaking abilities. Given her popularity with the base, she could've run as a reform-minded "adult" conservative in 2012. She could've used Alaska as an example of what she would do for America.

    Her quitting sort of confirmed everything everyone thought about her.

    Don’t get all your opinions off of TV – they can make things look a whole lot different than reality.

     

    Katie Couric asked what newspapers and magazines that Palin read in order to stay informed. She couldn't name a single publication.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mu0BOGlU3Z4

    How is one supposed to know anything if one doesn't read? Intellectual osmosis?

    Can you think of any examples of Sarah Palin coherently issuing an interesting critique of social, economic, or foreign policy?

    After getting out of politics, has Palin even tried to get back in? She seems mostly interested in doing tv shows and being a political commentator. I'd guess it's because she finds the world of politics to be boring and lots of dreary, hard work.

    I will admit, Johnny, that I didn’t know about this move that she made from Governor to Reality show star…. women …?

    Can you think of any examples of Sarah Palin coherently issuing an interesting critique of social, economic, or foreign policy?

    I was already pretty much off TV by that 2008 election or before. I just read what she stood for, and was pretty pleased with it. An executive, even of a small-pop state like Alaska is still going to have the ability to delegate the work based on his principles (OK “her”, in this case).

    I’d guess it’s because she finds the world of politics to be boring and lots of dreary, hard work.

    Maybe she doesn’t quite have the thick enough skin to be treated as a (purported or real) conservative is nowadays. The press was all over her. Trump’s got his way with them, but for someone, let’s say, just a bit more sensitive, it probably just got to be too much. Then she had Juan McAmnesty disparage her too, when, as I said, she was the only reason I’d even though of voting for that “maverick” piece of neocon crap!

  227. @TTSSYF
    I don't think it's amazing that he's lasted this long. His cable show was designed from day one for him to debate far-lefties and create outrage in those of us on the political Right. I find it irritating that a show purposely was created to grant Leftist kooks the honor of debate, even if Carlson runs logical rings around them. I'd prefer that he debate the finer points with those on the political Right or slightly left of center.

    TTSSYF:

    Good point. But these gladiatorial events ensure much higher ratings than cerebral discussions about some political science finer points.

  228. @L Woods
    Guns are a ridiculous red herring born of empty bluster and machismo. For all their precious guns, conservatives have done nothing but bend over and say "yes sir, may I have another" for 60+ years.

    I’ve thought that occasionally, Mr. Woods, but you’ve gotta to realize that most conservatives don’t want a war, if they can at all help it. They have lots more to lose than the ctrl-left does. It seems its always been this way. However, they’ve been doing a pretty good job defending this right, for when the time comes.

    The low in gun control mania was from 1968, after those political assassinations, through probably the late 1980’s when CC started spreading (from almost forbidden unless you know someone, to “shall issue” all the way to Constitutional Carry – no permit required) from state to state, and the public had turned away from the gun controller in fear. On this, I’m gonna put in an animated .gif under here. If it doesn’t work (very possible) go HERE.

  229. @ThreeCranes
    I believe there is some tension between "natives" of Hawaii and haoles.

    "In Hawaii's "Rainbow" ethnic melange of peoples, "Haole" is the slang word used to describe Caucasians, and by itself is not a racial slur and has no pejorative connotations. Many visitors are haole, and may be targeted by criminals, but this is because they are vulnerable tourists, not because they are haole. Rumors that in Hawaii the last day of school is called "Kill Haole Day" is nothing but a rumor. According to this rumor, on this day, "local" (nonwhite) children beat up, bully, and harass the "haole" or "white" children in their school. Some residents say there is little to no evidence or documentation of incidents involving "Kill Haole Day" or of Caucasian students being assaulted on specific days. Other residents dispute this. Hawaii schools have responded by saying that they take the initiative to achieve tolerance, safety, compassion, and acceptance for all students.[10]

    The word "Haole" is used as a racial slur or insult in incidents of harassment and physical assaults by Native Hawaiians and members of other "minority" (nonwhite) groups on white people in Hawaii—tourists as well as residents and military personnel."

    Wiki

    It’s caucasians, and pretty much anybody not sufficiently ethnically Hawaiian. As you might expect from a Wikipedia article that spends the majority of its length arguing that the subject of the wiki isn’t much of a problem, the problem is severe and prevalent.

  230. @Reg Cæsar

    Especially after Reagan fired the air traffic controllers, all hell broke loose.
     
    Reagan did not fire the air-traffic controllers. They fired themselves, per the laws on the books when he took office. You're complaining because he didn't use his discretion to break the laws Congress gave him.

    I'm guessing that of every aspect of government, Reagan was most familiar with labor law, have been the longest-serving president of the Screen Actors Guild to this day.

    What other union allows employers to force their members to work naked? That sure wasn't the case back in Ronnie's day!

    allows employers to force their members to work naked?

    Harvey Weinstein and Louis C.K. should’ve used that as their defense.

  231. @anon
    > there’s nothing in his academic background or Coulter’s for that matter that suggests an intellect capable of seeing the whole picture.


    What parts of the picture are they missing?

    What parts of the picture are they missing?

    Probably most of the more salient topics brought up on this site, plus a few others. Of course it is hard to tell the totality of their thoughts because they are very limited in what they can say on the air or write in a book without being sidelined.

    The bottom line is that they are media personalities, not original thinkers like a Charles Murray. If they say something new and interesting, it has probably been vetted ahead of time.

  232. @Jack D
    This sounds like "they want to take our guns away" paranoia. America is so knee deep in guns that "they" will never be able to take them away even if "they" want to. "They" can't even take our fentanyl away, let alone our guns.

    "They" don't even need to take your guns away. China's new social credit program points the way. You can keep your guns, you just won't have a job or the ability to buy a plane ticket or to get internet service, a cell phone, a driver's license, etc. And of course if you ever try to use your gun, the SWAT team will pump you full of lead from their APCs.

    Jack, you are so good on so many topics, but here you do not seem to realize that you contradict yourself – and all in one post.

    You must think we are stupid. If someone says “you can keep your guns, but ammunition is forbidden” it is no different than saying “you can exercise your freedom of speech, as long as you speak where no one hears you.” The same dishonesty is in evidence when the Leftist try their other dishonest assertions. (Hillary got more votes than Trump) and so on.

    If someone says, “You can keep your guns, but the U.S. Gubbmint will murder your family your family if you do”, you will not conclude that your 2nd Amendment Rights have been preserved.

    If they ever try such a tactic there won’t be enough SWAT teams to prevent the collective raising of the Black Flag. And 1861-1865 will look positively irenic compared to the results of that boulder breaking free and rolling down the mountain.

    Leave Philly and visit us in flyover country. You can practice at the gun range. You can hunt with the salt of the earth. We will disabuse you of your mistaken notions.

  233. @Stephen Paul Foster
    Tucker, a while back on his show, completely demolished Max Boot, one of his finest performances. After a couple of minutes into the mugging, poor Max looked like a guy whose wife had just kicked him out, locked up his checking account, and charged him with domestic assault and battery.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYTOT7wt6eU

    Yeah, Boot comes off as ridiculous with his overweening earnestness, but I don’t see how Carlson comes off much better: he’s just making snarky comments and laughing the whole time.

    I don’t really understand why people are so bully on Carlson’s ‘interviews’: the few clips I’ve seen (all courtesy of Sailer’s site, I think), are just Carlson constantly interrupting his guests, shouting over them, and making sarcastic comments. I find it remarkable that any lefty would ever agree to be on his show. Do they get money for it?

    I did see part of a speech Carlson gave once: that was much better.

  234. @anonymous
    Texas and California are current examples of white minority societies in the process of the next generation becoming whitish majority societies without the 3 things you cite and yet holding together before the return to majority hegemony.

    Texas and California are current examples of white minority societies in the process of the next generation becoming whitish majority societies without the 3 things you cite and yet holding together before the return to majority hegemony.

    Let us see if this has a track record:

    Germany 1933-1941 is an example of a Germanic-majority society in the process of the next generation becoming a Judeophilic majority societiy without the 3 things you cite and yet holding together before the return to majority hegemony.

    After all, the holocaust didn’t begin until 1942. It can’t happen until it happens, right? And when it happens, you will say what? You didn’t want it to happen?

    Recall that everyone knows about the Algerian model Spanky. And your name is at the top of the list.

  235. @JohnnyWalker123

    A lot of whites have found California to have become inhospitable and have therefore left. Mostly for economic reasons, I gather, but a lot of those are the direct result of the foreign influx.

     

    It's true to say that immigrants (mostly due to driving overpopulation) are ruining the high standard of living in some parts of the country, but that's not quite the same thing as saying they're persecuting Whites.

    There's a huge difference between turning into Singapore and turning into Detroit.

    Not that I'd want to live in Singapore, but at least it's a functional country in which affluent people have a good standard of living.

    Moreover, there have been numerous cases recently of whites who have lost their jobs or been subjected to public ridicule for comments they have made, often simply truthful, about minority behavior, or actions they have taken based on experience. And then there is the newly minted crime of “calling 911 while white”. Those are forms of persecution

     

    Yes, but this is happening throughout the country. Even in overwhelmingly White places. Would you say that being a White in California, Hawaii, or Texas is a much worse deal than being a White in West Virginia, Kentucky, or Maine?

    @173 JohnnyWalker123: “Not that I’d want to live in Singapore, but at least it’s a functional country in which affluent people have a good standard of living.”

    You wouldn’t want to live in Singapore because the Han run Singapore and all the Indians there know their place – and know how they have to behave and vote to keep that second spot. Meanwhile, in Weimerica, you can pretend to be a heritage American and refer to “we” and “us” while your pajeet cultural prejudices shine through your comments for those with eyes to see.

    You are an opportunistic social and cultural parasite. Go home.

    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123

    You wouldn’t want to live in Singapore because the Han run Singapore and all the Indians there know their place – and know how they have to behave and vote to keep that second spot.

     

    You're wrong about that.

    Singapore's Han Chinese actually treat the ethnic minorities quite well and promote state-enforced multiculturalism. The Indians and Malays not only enjoy a very good standard of living, but the state punishes Han Chinese for any type of ethnic chauvinism. In particular, Indians are very well-represented in politics, media, and high-paying occupations. Many Indians and Southeast Asians are clamoring to migrate to Singapore. A lot of the Chinese aren't enamored of the behavior of foreigners or the resulting overpopulation crisis, but it's hard to criticize state policy.

    You seem to know as much about Singapore as every topic you run your mouth about.

    There's an old saying you might want to heed.

    "It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt."

    You probably miss Bill O'Reilly because you don't get to hear those big, fancy-sounding words on tv anymore.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T17o9V5rQ8
  236. @Buzz Mohawk
    I have witnessed Carlson freely admitting what you claim. It is no secret that to produce a whole hour (minus commercial time) of television, you need a small army of writers and producers. There is no shame in that.

    Remember, he has authority on what gets on the air. It's like when you hire somebody to remodel your house. He does the job, but you tell him what you want. It is your house.

    If you haven't ever hosted a TV show, (something I did many years ago on a laughably local level) you might not realize how hard it is not to have slow, dead air and bore people to death. It is incredibly difficult to hold an audience and to keep them from changing the channel for an entire hour. Tucker Carlson deserves all the credit he gets, and he does, at lease occasionally, credit his team as well.

    I’m not suggesting even for a moment that producing a TV show is easy.

    I just wish Tucker would be more polite when he interviews people. Let them talk (for at least thirty seconds at a time) so we can learn something from them. Stop arguing with them.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Lots of the people that Tucker interviews, though he may pick them for that, just spout out their complete stupidity for the world to see, and we all like to see that. However, he is right to cut them off when they never answer the freakin' questions. I'm not saying he doesn't encourage this sort of thing, as again, who picks these nutcases? Still, they come on to spout their BS, not be interviewed, and will never talk logically. Mr. Carlson then says "I! GET! THAT! Can you just answer the question? This is the 3rd/4th/etc. time ..." Yeah, that's entertainment.

    I do think the more these ctrl-left nutcases are put on display for the world to see, the higher Carlson's ratings will go, but more importantly, the more Americans will see who they are up against.
  237. Interestingly, the BBC had a fit of integrity or something and gave this film only two stars.

    http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20181121-film-review-two-stars-for-green-book

  238. @Nathan
    People are pretty ignorant about Hawaii. It's not a place you want to live. Neither is California.

    ‘People are pretty ignorant about Hawaii. It’s not a place you want to live. Neither is California.’

    My wife and I lived on Hawaii for about a year and a half. It can get strange, but it’s got its points. In the end, we decided to move back to the mainland, but if somebody had ordered me to stay, I wouldn’t have minded much.

    • Replies: @Corn
    My neighbors once vacationed in Hawaii. The wife liked it, the husband didn’t.

    He didn’t complain about anti-white racism, he complained about boredom. He said you need a boat or plane to visit the other islands in the state. You’re a 4 or 5 hour or more plane ride from home. He said after you’ve laid on the beach a couple days and drank a few drinks with umbrellas in them you just get bored in his opinion.

    An island version of cabin fever.
  239. @Mr. Anon

    What odds will you offer that Rand Paul is re-elected?
     
    I have no idea what the possibility of his reelection is. What I am saying is that the probability of funding by AIPAC or any allied group or person directed to someone challenging him is pretty high.

    Since you give me the impression that you think AIPAC and assorted organisations afs all powerful, I think it’d be fair if you gave me 100 to 1 against.
     
    I'm not responsible for your impressions. You are, and I really don't care how you arrive at them. I never said AIPAC is all powerful. I never implied it. They are however quite powerful. Do you deny that they are powerful at all? Does virtually every "serious" candidate for President (and quite a few for Senate) address their conventions because they lack power?

    Here you’re reasonable. Later you’ll be pretending that Israel killed JFK and managed to successfully cover it up because they controlled almost everything that mattered. Then, you’ll retreat again to a reasonable and innocuous point

    Motte to Bailey, Bailey to Motte, Motte to Bailey, Bailey to Motte…ad nauseam…it’s the K-Mac cult Calypso.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    Here you’re reasonable. Later you’ll be pretending that Israel killed JFK and managed to successfully cover it up because they controlled almost everything that mattered. Then, you’ll retreat again to a reasonable and innocuous point
     
    Here you're deflecting things I actually said, and responding to things I never said.

    Motte to Bailey, Bailey to Motte, Motte to Bailey, Bailey to Motte…ad nauseam…it’s the K-Mac cult Calypso.
     
    Nobody knows what the Hell you're always on about with Motte and Bailey. I fail to see what medieval castle architecture has to do with anything. And don't bother explaining. I don't care what you think it has to do with anything.
  240. @Tyrion 2
    Yes, you are as dumb as the "muh Russia" lot. Except you're actually worse as you are as dumb as them but about a country America has long-standing good relations with and is not a competitor.

    ‘Yes, you are as dumb as the “muh Russia” lot. Except you’re actually worse as you are as dumb as them but about a country America has long-standing good relations with and is not a competitor.’

    This is a bit like claiming a human has good relations with his puppet master.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    "A bit like" as in both claims have subjects, objects and verbs?
  241. @Mr. Anon

    Not when compared to many of the coubtries in the world.
     
    Which ones? How many?

    The United States put an embassy in North Vietnam conquered “Ho Ch Minh” in 1995. They even had one in occupied East Berlin during the Cold War. Meanwhile, the one in Assad governed Damascus was eventually closed but only after a year of the Syrian civil war.

    Israel must run Washington to not quite reach the big leagues of those three.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    The United States put an embassy in North Vietnam conquered “Ho Ch Minh” in 1995. They even had one in occupied East Berlin during the Cold War.
     
    North Vietnam won the war. We recognized the fact, as we certainly weren't going to go back to war with them. In any event, moving the embassy there wasn't one of Bill Clinton's campaign promises, nor was it one of his first official actions as President, nor did he list it as one of the great accomplishments of his administration. And East Berlin was occupied by, you know, East Germans.
  242. @Tyrion 2
    Not when compared to many of the coubtries in the world. Nevermind that half of Jerusalem is built on UN mandated to Israel land.

    ‘Not when compared to many of the coubtries in the world. Nevermind that half of Jerusalem is built on UN mandated to Israel land.’

    ? The UN mandated that Jerusalem was to be a ‘free city’ on the lines of Tangiers or Danzig between the wars. Then, in ten years, the inhabitants would vote on whether to join the Jewish state or the Palestinian state. Israel pretended to accept this arrangement.

    Then she simply took half of the city in 1948 and the rest in 1967. The UN never mandated any of it to Israel. Your statement is false.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    If you were more knowledgeable or more thoughtful you'd have reckoned that perhaps Jerusalem has grown somewhat in the last 70 years...

    The municipal boundary now extends far, far West than did the municipal boundary under the British in 1947.
  243. @Mr. Anon

    Twice you’ve fantasised. That the Republican defended attacking Syria “because Israel”, and that JFK was assassinated for criticising Israel – a theory born out of the fevered wishes of a bunch of loons.
     
    What makes you an authority on American politics? You are, ostensibly, a citizen of the UK. We live here, nitwit. We have eyes and can see. Seeing a Republican Congressman slavering over our bestest little buddy of a country is a not uncommon sight. Sometimes it is painfully, embarrassingly obvious. There is no compelling reason for us to give a damn about who governs Syria one way or the other, so - yes - what a great deal of our involvement there is driven by what is in Israel's interest.

    There’s no compelling reason for Israel to want Assad overthrown either. It was a quiet border and whatever followed Assad would be worse.

    You can never bring yourself to have one standard for truth…

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    There’s no compelling reason for Israel to want Assad overthrown either. It was a quiet border and whatever followed Assad would be worse.
     
    Really? You should tell the Israeli ambassador to the U.S. He didn't get the memo.

    https://www.haaretz.com/ambassador-oren-israel-has-wanted-assad-ousted-since-syria-war-began-1.5336075

    I wouldn't be surprised if there are any number of reasons why Israel would want the Assad regime gone, even if (or perhaps especially if) he is replaced by political vacuum and/or chaos.

    What was it a man once said? You can never bring yourself to have one standard for truth…
  244. @Colin Wright
    'Not when compared to many of the coubtries in the world. Nevermind that half of Jerusalem is built on UN mandated to Israel land.'

    ? The UN mandated that Jerusalem was to be a 'free city' on the lines of Tangiers or Danzig between the wars. Then, in ten years, the inhabitants would vote on whether to join the Jewish state or the Palestinian state. Israel pretended to accept this arrangement.

    Then she simply took half of the city in 1948 and the rest in 1967. The UN never mandated any of it to Israel. Your statement is false.

    If you were more knowledgeable or more thoughtful you’d have reckoned that perhaps Jerusalem has grown somewhat in the last 70 years…

    The municipal boundary now extends far, far West than did the municipal boundary under the British in 1947.

  245. @Colin Wright
    'Yes, you are as dumb as the “muh Russia” lot. Except you’re actually worse as you are as dumb as them but about a country America has long-standing good relations with and is not a competitor.'

    This is a bit like claiming a human has good relations with his puppet master.

    “A bit like” as in both claims have subjects, objects and verbs?

  246. @Tyrion 2
    I stopped reading after you got the leader of Stalinist Poland wrong.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolesław_Bierut

    Berman was the one in fact closest to Stalin and with the most power in Poland. But don’t lie, you stopped reading because you’re a Jew.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    He wasn't the leader as alleged. Now you're saying "he was closest to Stalin". You are astounding! Are you Stalin to vouch for such a thing?

    I guess facts don't matter when DFH feels the Jew must be responsible.

  247. @DFH
    Berman was the one in fact closest to Stalin and with the most power in Poland. But don't lie, you stopped reading because you're a Jew.

    He wasn’t the leader as alleged. Now you’re saying “he was closest to Stalin”. You are astounding! Are you Stalin to vouch for such a thing?

    I guess facts don’t matter when DFH feels the Jew must be responsible.

    • Replies: @DFH
    Actually the New York Times says that he was, as well as wikipedia which calls him Stalin's right hand man in Poland. The triumvirate of leaders were Bierut, Minc and Berman. So 2/3 were Jewish and, as I have already showed, more than a third of secret police directors (more at even higher levels) were Jewish, in a country where they made up less than 2% of the population.

    https://www.nytimes.com/1984/04/16/obituaries/jakub-berman-a-polish-ex-aide.html
  248. @David
    I can't see what provoked you to play the role of hallway monitor here. Sometimes attack just means verbally. I bet it's used more often in that way than any other.

    And a lot of people, like me, feel that taking money from the US citizens and lavishing it on Israel is not a legitimate policy, even if arrived at after years of systematic national gas-lighting.

    You and I know that Rand Paul is exposing himself to the collective fury of our largely Jewish press. Let's just watch together and see if his political opponents talk about his position as "legitimate political disagreement" or if the opposition plays up his latent antisemitism instead.

    You’ve disagreed with two people here. One you’ve called a loopy old maid and another you’ve called a fantasist. Neither comment is at all connected to the comments you are answering. You are a frail mind that tries to rough-up anyone that puts forth an idea you don’t like. You bring noting to the table that anyone else could learn from.

  249. @ATBOTL
    According to President Trump, we are in Syria because of Israel.


    https://www.timesofisrael.com/trump-says-us-troops-will-remain-in-middle-east-for-israels-sake/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

    “US President Donald Trump indicated in an interview published Wednesday that, although he could remove troops from the Middle East, citing cheaper oil as an explanation, one reason not to do so is concern for Israel’s security.

    “Now, are we going to stay in that part of the world? One reason to is Israel,” Trump told the Washington Post.

    “Oil is becoming less and less of a reason because we’re producing more oil now than we’ve ever produced,” he added, appearing to envision a world where the US would be less beholden to Saudi Arabia. “So, you know, all of a sudden it gets to a point where you don’t have to stay there.”

    The American Empire keeps troops in West Asia — Afghanistan — to advance the foreign policy interests of Israel by putting the squeeze on Iran.

    The American Empire’s ruling class is using the US military as muscle to advance the foreign policy interests of Israel.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Afghanistan isn't in West Asia - it's in Central Asia, bordering China. Keeping American troops in Afghanistan doesn't seem to be putting the squeeze on anyone but America.
  250. @Tyrion 2
    Here you're reasonable. Later you'll be pretending that Israel killed JFK and managed to successfully cover it up because they controlled almost everything that mattered. Then, you'll retreat again to a reasonable and innocuous point

    Motte to Bailey, Bailey to Motte, Motte to Bailey, Bailey to Motte...ad nauseam...it's the K-Mac cult Calypso.

    Here you’re reasonable. Later you’ll be pretending that Israel killed JFK and managed to successfully cover it up because they controlled almost everything that mattered. Then, you’ll retreat again to a reasonable and innocuous point

    Here you’re deflecting things I actually said, and responding to things I never said.

    Motte to Bailey, Bailey to Motte, Motte to Bailey, Bailey to Motte…ad nauseam…it’s the K-Mac cult Calypso.

    Nobody knows what the Hell you’re always on about with Motte and Bailey. I fail to see what medieval castle architecture has to do with anything. And don’t bother explaining. I don’t care what you think it has to do with anything.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    You initiated this thread with me while I was responding to someone else. Their link was mad nonsense. You disagreed, I believe, with my disagreement with them. I took this to imply that you support their original link.

    I guess not. Sorry, I misunderstood you, but please don't message me and then wonder why I respond to you!
  251. @Tyrion 2
    The United States put an embassy in North Vietnam conquered "Ho Ch Minh" in 1995. They even had one in occupied East Berlin during the Cold War. Meanwhile, the one in Assad governed Damascus was eventually closed but only after a year of the Syrian civil war.

    Israel must run Washington to not quite reach the big leagues of those three.

    The United States put an embassy in North Vietnam conquered “Ho Ch Minh” in 1995. They even had one in occupied East Berlin during the Cold War.

    North Vietnam won the war. We recognized the fact, as we certainly weren’t going to go back to war with them. In any event, moving the embassy there wasn’t one of Bill Clinton’s campaign promises, nor was it one of his first official actions as President, nor did he list it as one of the great accomplishments of his administration. And East Berlin was occupied by, you know, East Germans.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2

    And East Berlin was occupied by, you know, East Germans.
     
    Other than Jerusalem being occupied by Jews, I'm suprised that you think the GDPR was a free German nation.

    North Vietnam won the war. We recognized the fact, as we certainly weren’t going to go back to war with them
     
    I'm pretty sure Israel won the Six Day war.

    In any event, moving the embassy there wasn’t one of Bill Clinton’s campaign promises, nor was it one of his first official actions as President, nor did he list it as one of the great accomplishments of his administration.
     
    Clinton did it as soon as diplomatic relations were reestablished. The American Presidents took decades in the case of Israel. No wonder Trump boasted of doing what his predecessors were too scared to do. And it wasn't the Israeli lobby they were scared of...
  252. @Colin Wright
    'People are pretty ignorant about Hawaii. It’s not a place you want to live. Neither is California.'

    My wife and I lived on Hawaii for about a year and a half. It can get strange, but it's got its points. In the end, we decided to move back to the mainland, but if somebody had ordered me to stay, I wouldn't have minded much.

    My neighbors once vacationed in Hawaii. The wife liked it, the husband didn’t.

    He didn’t complain about anti-white racism, he complained about boredom. He said you need a boat or plane to visit the other islands in the state. You’re a 4 or 5 hour or more plane ride from home. He said after you’ve laid on the beach a couple days and drank a few drinks with umbrellas in them you just get bored in his opinion.

    An island version of cabin fever.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    The outer islands are entirely small town and rural; there is no commuting to and from peri-urban zones outside Oahu. Honolulu's real estate is expensive and stylistically ticky-tacky. It's a second-tier city whose major industry is the hotel and restaurant business. It has two unremarkable private colleges, a third private college notable mainly for being a subsidiary of the Mormon Church, and a state university locals will commonly disparage.

    Hawaii's asset is it's climate, which includes both the temperature and the trade winds. Forty years ago, it also had a relentlessly informal business culture quite distinct from that of the mainland, which was appealing to a certain constituency. The courthouse was I'd wager about the only venue a coat and time was the mode.

    If that's where you grew up or a certain climate is what you're seeking, the place is fine. It's not hard to see why people don't stay.
  253. @Tyrion 2
    There's no compelling reason for Israel to want Assad overthrown either. It was a quiet border and whatever followed Assad would be worse.

    You can never bring yourself to have one standard for truth...

    There’s no compelling reason for Israel to want Assad overthrown either. It was a quiet border and whatever followed Assad would be worse.

    Really? You should tell the Israeli ambassador to the U.S. He didn’t get the memo.

    https://www.haaretz.com/ambassador-oren-israel-has-wanted-assad-ousted-since-syria-war-began-1.5336075

    I wouldn’t be surprised if there are any number of reasons why Israel would want the Assad regime gone, even if (or perhaps especially if) he is replaced by political vacuum and/or chaos.

    What was it a man once said? You can never bring yourself to have one standard for truth…

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    By your standard of proof America had tons of reasons for intervening in Syria other than Israeli interests. American politicians were constantly listing them.

    Thanks for completing my argument for me.
  254. He wasn’t the leader as alleged. Now you’re saying “he was closest to Stalin”.

    Being closest to Stalin is essentially “being the leader”. Who were the leaders in medieval Japan? The emperors or the shoguns?

    Your argumentation is all very hair-splitting in a rather deceitful way. I think there’s even a word for that.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    Nice example, but it isn't hair-splitting to query when someone says an individual is the leader but they were not. Even if they were akin to shogun and emperor, it'd hardly be bad faith to be wrong on the relationship.

    Nonetheless, after the formal leader died, Berman immediately "resigned" in disgrace. That's not what a puppet master does. That's what a lackey does.
  255. @Tyrion 2
    He wasn't the leader as alleged. Now you're saying "he was closest to Stalin". You are astounding! Are you Stalin to vouch for such a thing?

    I guess facts don't matter when DFH feels the Jew must be responsible.

    Actually the New York Times says that he was, as well as wikipedia which calls him Stalin’s right hand man in Poland. The triumvirate of leaders were Bierut, Minc and Berman. So 2/3 were Jewish and, as I have already showed, more than a third of secret police directors (more at even higher levels) were Jewish, in a country where they made up less than 2% of the population.

    https://www.nytimes.com/1984/04/16/obituaries/jakub-berman-a-polish-ex-aide.html

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    Fair enough, though I note you were happy to go with them on that point and him reporting to Beria and Stalin but not their addition that he was "one of the few Jews in the Polish leadership"...

    ...which directly contradicts your actual argument that the Polish Communist leadership was Jewish.
  256. @DFH
    Actually the New York Times says that he was, as well as wikipedia which calls him Stalin's right hand man in Poland. The triumvirate of leaders were Bierut, Minc and Berman. So 2/3 were Jewish and, as I have already showed, more than a third of secret police directors (more at even higher levels) were Jewish, in a country where they made up less than 2% of the population.

    https://www.nytimes.com/1984/04/16/obituaries/jakub-berman-a-polish-ex-aide.html

    Fair enough, though I note you were happy to go with them on that point and him reporting to Beria and Stalin but not their addition that he was “one of the few Jews in the Polish leadership”…

    …which directly contradicts your actual argument that the Polish Communist leadership was Jewish.

    • Replies: @DFH
    Well of course the NYT would tell a lie about that. But it is obviously incorrect, as the fact that of the triumvirate of Polish leadership, 2/3 were Jewish shows, and over a third of the directors of secret police in a country where Jews were probably at most 1% of the post-war population
  257. @Mr. Anon

    The United States put an embassy in North Vietnam conquered “Ho Ch Minh” in 1995. They even had one in occupied East Berlin during the Cold War.
     
    North Vietnam won the war. We recognized the fact, as we certainly weren't going to go back to war with them. In any event, moving the embassy there wasn't one of Bill Clinton's campaign promises, nor was it one of his first official actions as President, nor did he list it as one of the great accomplishments of his administration. And East Berlin was occupied by, you know, East Germans.

    And East Berlin was occupied by, you know, East Germans.

    Other than Jerusalem being occupied by Jews, I’m suprised that you think the GDPR was a free German nation.

    North Vietnam won the war. We recognized the fact, as we certainly weren’t going to go back to war with them

    I’m pretty sure Israel won the Six Day war.

    In any event, moving the embassy there wasn’t one of Bill Clinton’s campaign promises, nor was it one of his first official actions as President, nor did he list it as one of the great accomplishments of his administration.

    Clinton did it as soon as diplomatic relations were reestablished. The American Presidents took decades in the case of Israel. No wonder Trump boasted of doing what his predecessors were too scared to do. And it wasn’t the Israeli lobby they were scared of…

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    Other than Jerusalem being occupied by Jews, I’m suprised that you think the GDPR was a free German nation.
     
    Free, no. German, yes. Whereas Jerusalem is only about half jewish. I honestly don't care where Israel establishes its capital. I do object to my government acting like a lapdog for foreign interests.

    I’m pretty sure Israel won the Six Day war.
     
    Then they don't need us to validate their victory.

    Oh - and by the way - they can damned well apologize for deliberately attacking one of our ships, trying to murder one of our ambassadors, mailing letter bombs to a sitting US President, and trading our naval secrets (aquired by one of their spies, Jonathan Pollard) to the Soviet Union.
  258. @Mr. Anon

    There’s no compelling reason for Israel to want Assad overthrown either. It was a quiet border and whatever followed Assad would be worse.
     
    Really? You should tell the Israeli ambassador to the U.S. He didn't get the memo.

    https://www.haaretz.com/ambassador-oren-israel-has-wanted-assad-ousted-since-syria-war-began-1.5336075

    I wouldn't be surprised if there are any number of reasons why Israel would want the Assad regime gone, even if (or perhaps especially if) he is replaced by political vacuum and/or chaos.

    What was it a man once said? You can never bring yourself to have one standard for truth…

    By your standard of proof America had tons of reasons for intervening in Syria other than Israeli interests. American politicians were constantly listing them.

    Thanks for completing my argument for me.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    By your standard of proof America had tons of reasons for intervening in Syria other than Israeli interests. American politicians were constantly listing them.
     
    No, I haven't seen any American politician give a cogent reason for intervening in Syria. I have seen a few give cogent reasons why we shouldn't. Our involvement there makes no sense for us. And by us, I mean actual American citizens, not the government.

    But we do have a concrete example of Donald Trump - who happens to be the actual President of the United States - saying that it is done, at least in part, for the benefit of Israel.

    I also note that you - very dishonestly - completely elided over the fact that the Israeli government did indeed call for the ouster of Assad, counter to what you claimed.

    But dishonestly is what I have come to expect from you.
  259. @Mr. Anon

    He wasn’t the leader as alleged. Now you’re saying “he was closest to Stalin”.
     
    Being closest to Stalin is essentially "being the leader". Who were the leaders in medieval Japan? The emperors or the shoguns?

    Your argumentation is all very hair-splitting in a rather deceitful way. I think there's even a word for that.

    Nice example, but it isn’t hair-splitting to query when someone says an individual is the leader but they were not. Even if they were akin to shogun and emperor, it’d hardly be bad faith to be wrong on the relationship.

    Nonetheless, after the formal leader died, Berman immediately “resigned” in disgrace. That’s not what a puppet master does. That’s what a lackey does.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    There is a difference between an actual leader and a figurehead.

    At least for anyone who isn't just being disingenuous.
  260. @Mr. Anon

    Here you’re reasonable. Later you’ll be pretending that Israel killed JFK and managed to successfully cover it up because they controlled almost everything that mattered. Then, you’ll retreat again to a reasonable and innocuous point
     
    Here you're deflecting things I actually said, and responding to things I never said.

    Motte to Bailey, Bailey to Motte, Motte to Bailey, Bailey to Motte…ad nauseam…it’s the K-Mac cult Calypso.
     
    Nobody knows what the Hell you're always on about with Motte and Bailey. I fail to see what medieval castle architecture has to do with anything. And don't bother explaining. I don't care what you think it has to do with anything.

    You initiated this thread with me while I was responding to someone else. Their link was mad nonsense. You disagreed, I believe, with my disagreement with them. I took this to imply that you support their original link.

    I guess not. Sorry, I misunderstood you, but please don’t message me and then wonder why I respond to you!