The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Tucker's Monologue
🔊 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

Pundits are starting to notice what I pointed out in my Taki’s Magazine review of Tucker Carlson’s Ship of Fools: Tucker has moved quite a bit to the left on economic issues, away from the standard “socially liberal, economically conservative” stance. His new monologue replying to Mitt Romney has in turn generated responses from:

David French

Bret Stephens

Ben Shapiro

 
Hide 332 CommentsLeave a Comment
332 Comments to "Tucker's Monologue"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Anonymous[107] • Disclaimer says:

  2. Impolitic says:

    I had to rewatch that monologue three times. I’ve never seen anything like it on TV. He should run for president.

  3. nebulafox says:

    Well, he’s making the right enemies, I’ll give the man that much.

    • Agree: Bubba
    • Replies: @Bubba
    , @Kyle
  4. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:

  5. Dave Pinsen says: • Website

    I literally just watched this and was going to tweet about it. It’s all excellent, but the mention of Romney and the private equity M.O. was particularly clarifying.

    I know there are cases where private equity funds do something socially useful: fix a poorly-run company, and, in the process save it and many jobs. But, in most cases, private equity does just what Tucker says. And that’s been common enough knowledge for so long that it’s been portrayed in popular culture going back to the movies Wall Street (1987), where Gordon Gecko plans to break up BlueStar Airlines, and Pretty Woman (1990), where Richard Gere’s character plans to do the same to another company before he meets a hooker with a heart of gold.

    It’s telling, too, that when Mitt Romney ran for president in 2012, he and his supporters focused on the relatively small amount of venture capital investments Bain made, as they realized private equity’s standard M.O. of extracting value while dooming companies they take over with excessive debt is, put simply, wrong.

    • Replies: @Digital Samizdat
    , @Svigor
  6. Bubba says:
    @nebulafox

    I’m surprised Bolshevik Neocon Bill Kristol has not denounced Tucker yet.

  7. @Impolitic

    This is what Trumpism should have been. I will always respect Trump for standing athwart history yelling stop, but really the only thing he has right are his populist inclinations. He’s unprincipled, undisciplined, unconvincing and ineffective. Imagine what Tucker could do, especially if a trump had not sullied the populist brand so badly. Tucker would not be easily charicatured as a racist (although I’m sure he would be called that constantly anyways). And he would make both mainstream republicans and Democrats squirm terribly. He basically stands alone as a principled articulate follower who might actually deliver a viable populism in the near future.

  8. Dave Pinsen says: • Website

    Here, from Twitter, is a response to David French’s response:

    • LOL: bomag
    • Replies: @anon
    , @gregor
  9. @Impolitic

    https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/tucker-carlson-for-president/

    Dreher is posting around 75% red meat stuff recently. His comment section is filled with pearl clutching self-proclaimed leftists, but he posts a ton of stuff that gets missed by those on the full-on red pill side.

    • Agree: midtown
    • Replies: @Desiderius
  10. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @415 reasons

    Tucker would run into the same problem Trump has in the White House: personnel is policy, and he has no personnel. He’s a cable TV pundit, albeit one with admirable honesty and courage; he doesn’t have a Rolodex of qualified people who share his views to staff an administration with.

  11. Tucker will be attacked by the establishment and probably de-platformed sooner or later. The late-night attack from Antifa was just a forewarning. The campaign to strip his show of ad revenue is another facet of this.

    The best part of his monologue is that he reminds us that he is one of the few, if not only, mainstream voice who is in open dissent to the neoliberal/neocon status quo.

  12. istevefan says:
    @Dave Pinsen

    Trump just needs to stand firm now. Given his preference for Fox News, let’s hope Trump saw this Tucker monologue too. Let’s hope Tucker, Ann Coulter, Rush and the few others that are trying to keep him true to his 2016 campaign are getting through to him.

    It must be tough for Trump given he is surrounded by people who detest his agenda. The pressure must be intense for him to cut a deal. He needs to see these messages from Tucker and others to know that his gut is right. And that he needs to stick with it, even if it means a prolonged shutdown.

    Caving will only cost Trump his base. It will not gain any support from democrats or NeverTrump. Otherwise his taxcuts and embassay move, etc. would have bought him goodwill. It bought him nothing. He has nothing to lose by standing firm. His base will solidify and the opposition, who is more dependent upon government than anyone, will feel the pain and have to cave.

  13. @415 reasons

    You and everyone else posting this bullshit needs to explain how you flank a district judge giving himself “Whatever I Want” powers without setting off a Constitutional Crisis.

    Tucker would run into the same problem Trump has.

  14. gman says:

    ‘Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook wrote an entire book about this. Sandberg explained that our first duty is to shareholders, above our own children.’

    That’s certainly the message of Lean In even is she doesn’t explicitly state it

    • Replies: @ben tillman
  15. BenKenobi says:

    Corporate noblesse oblige, strong labour unions, anti-interventionism, socialized medicine, social safety nets, environmental stewardship, treating livestock and wildlife humanely, public education, etc etc… There are quite a few concepts traditionally considered “left-wing” that we evil Deplorables can easily (and do) support.

    When I was a kid it was a playground insult to say someone’s family was on welfare. To the wretched of the Earth, coming to the West and getting on the dole is the dream. This is why we can’t have nice things now.

    To dust off an old chestnut:

    Freedom
    Prosperity
    Diversity

    Pick any two.

    • Replies: @istevefan
    , @Reg Cæsar
    , @Corn
  16. Bubba says:
    @Dave Pinsen

    Maybe you’re right Dave, but if Tucker had a son-in-law like Jared Kushner (who is the son of a really corrupt swamp creature that went to jail), I doubt Tucker would hire the dolt to sabotage his presidency as President Trump is doing now.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    , @Not Raul
  17. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:

    Tucker’s monologue is actually about a cultural problem, not an economic one, which is why the reaction to it has been so strong. It’s not a problem with economic solutions, left wing or otherwise, and he doesn’t get into advocating leftist economic policies which might paper over things at best but not directly address the issue. It’s a cultural problem that is taboo and can’t really be addressed. The problem as he described is that women now can and often do earn more than men do, and this has major ramifications. The problem is that we have shifted over the past couple generations from what might be called for lack of a better word “patriarchy” to a more sexually egalitarian one. This is not something that can be dealt with simply with economics. Leftist economic policy may ameliorate the problem in some respects, but may also worsen it as well. If he had not brought up this angle and just stuck with economics, he might have been just ignored. But by bringing up the sex and marriage issue, he is exposing a major vulnerability at the foundation of society.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    , @Kyle
    , @dvorak
  18. Impolitic says:
    @Dave Pinsen

    Tucker seems like an upstanding and personally likeable guy; I wouldn’t expect he would have a hard time recruiting people concerned their careers would be ruined by the taint, as Trump has.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    , @Svigor
  19. God, that was beautiful. Is there any other conservative pundit at the national level rounding on corporate America like this? Is Tucker the only one who recognizes they’re white people’s enemy?

  20. istevefan says:
    @BenKenobi

    Freedom
    Prosperity
    Diversity

    Pick any two.

    I’m not convinced you can actually pick two from your list if one of your choices is ‘diversity’.

  21. Bubba says:
    @Jack Hanson

    There is no constitutional crisis concerning this matter. Congress has always had the Constitutional authority to impeach and remove judges that are corrupt (e.g. Alcee Hastings) or overstep their authority (the balance of power of the 3 branches). However, Congress has become very weak over the past 30 to 40 years and has voluntarily given up their power on controlling the judiciary branch the same way they have given up on enforcing immigration laws. Congress has turned into eunuchs except when it comes to delivering mountains of Federal Reserve printed U.S. dollars (“Monopoly money”) and tax breaks to their favorite donors and favored constituencies to get themselves re-elected.

    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
  22. @415 reasons

    I admire Tucker for his monologue, it was beautiful. It is not comparable to Mr. Trump’s position, who is facing the locomotive momentum of American optimism, ingenuity, and manufacture; which has been derailed from heavy steel and automobile, to makin’ it real and run Whitey ‘long the keel. You sound like yet another self anointed moral authority who feels the need to don his cardboard moral armor from third grade whenever the President fires off a tweet. If not, I apologize for my mis-recognition. If so, then stop already and keep your powder dry.

  23. snorlax says:
    @Dave Pinsen

    But a hypothetical President Tucker wouldn’t be a gaffe machine and indeed would be adept at persuasively framing his stances. (Trump can, rarely, be an idiot savant at the latter, such as “Make America Great Again” is one of the best political slogans ever, but Tucker would have a far better batting average).

    Rolodex-wise Tucker would have a better handle on who the fellow Trumpists (Tuckerists?) are, although probably not nearly enough to fill his entire administration. But even if forced to resort to appointing mostly conventional Republicans, he’d probably also do much better at avoiding the most egregious Deep Staters and stealth liberals.

    The problem is that he wasn’t a particularly well-known figure in 2016 so there’s not much reason to think he could’ve won the nomination, but if he did my guess is he’d have won the general by somewhere between an Obama ’08 and a Bush ’88 margin.

  24. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @istevefan

    Agreed. To be fair, Trump does seem to be realizing who’s been conspiring against him (hence, the sped-up exit of Mattis). He needs one complete victory over the deep state to expose them: for example, fully withdrawing from Syria against their wishes. Once that’s done and the world doesn’t end, he can do the same with Afghanistan, and Gabon, etc.

    A key man here is going to be Pence. Kaus isn’t confident in him (see below), but Pence strikes me as savvy. Even if he’s not a natural Trumpist, I’m hopeful he can see that’s where the GOP electorate is and act accordingly.

    • Replies: @snorlax
    , @IHTG
    , @Jack Hanson
  25. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Bubba

    I hope Trump is able to change the personnel situation – I realize it’s not going to happen overnight. And I’m no fan of Jared either, but that goes back to the personnel issue. When you don’t have a bench (not Trump’s fault, mind you – Trumpism is new, and without many deep-pocketed supporters), you take the son-in-law.

  26. @BenKenobi

    Corporate noblesse oblige, strong labour unions, anti-interventionism, socialized medicine, social safety nets, environmental stewardship, treating livestock and wildlife humanely, public education, etc etc… There are quite a few concepts traditionally considered “left-wing” that we evil Deplorables can easily (and do) support.

    The people who run those systems have every incentive to add more to their client list by importing them. If you vote for social welfare, you vote, however indirectly, for your displacement.

    Welfare should be removed as far from the state as the church is. Indeed, the church should run it all.

    • Agree: Bubba
    • Replies: @BenKenobi
  27. snorlax says:
    @snorlax

    Tucker also wouldn’t have nearly the same baggage (“pussy” tape, divorces, bankruptcies, Trump U, quasi-plausible sexual harassment allegations, etc. etc. etc.) weighing his popularity and credibility down.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
  28. BenKenobi says:
    @istevefan

    Call it a “Modified Hobson’s Choice”

  29. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Anonymous

    The problem is both economic and cultural. Watch Tucker’s show from Friday where Heather Mac Donald addresses the cultural part.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Chase
  30. Anonymous[107] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dave Pinsen

    Trumpism is new, and without many deep-pocketed supporters), you take the son-in-law

    And Globalist Gary, etc.

    On the contrary, the Trump presidency has been two years of people coming up with fantasy football picks that he repeatedly shoots down:

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    , @snorlax
    , @Prusmc
  31. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Impolitic

    If Tucker becomes President, by the time he’s in White House, he’d have a taint too.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Bugg
    , @MarkinLA
  32. BenKenobi says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Well Reg, I guess you could say I like my beer cold, my TV loud, and my socialism national.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    , @JMcG
  33. Kyle says:
    @nebulafox

    It sounded a lot like a Jordan Peterson lecture. Very good.

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
  34. @istevefan

    I’m not convinced you can actually pick two from your list if one of your choices is ‘diversity’.

    Singapore has prosperous diversity. But it comes at the cost of freedom.

    I can’t think of any free and diverse places offhand, though India might qualify if you stretch it.

    Maybe the Caymans come closest to all three?

    And what is “diversity”? Brazil is racially diverse, but culturally more uniform than monoracial, quadrilingual Switzerland. Sri Lanka is somewhere in between the two, but is split among four religions. Few countries are as monolithic as Korea, but look at the gulf between their two ways of life.

    Diversities themselves are diverse!

  35. snorlax says:
    @Dave Pinsen

    If you look at his speeches and interviews, Pence is, rhetorically, a far more consistent Trumpist than the man himself. I imagine it’s mostly because unlike Trump he’s a seasoned politician and gets the importance of keeping on message.

    • Agree: AndrewR
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    , @S. Anonyia
  36. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @snorlax

    Let’s not forget Trump’s retail political skill. He fills auditoriums, and his supporters literally love him. Trump has always had an ability to connect with blue collar people, and they connect with him. He’s who they’d be if they had a few billion dollars. They’d never be Tucker.

    Tucker would do great in debates and on TV appearances, but I don’t see him having the same mass appeal of Trump.

    • Replies: @snorlax
    , @william munny
  37. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @snorlax

    Can you seriously believe that after the Kavanaugh business? Remember what the media did to him? They find Tucker baggage, and if they don’t, they’ll buy some for him.

    • Replies: @snorlax
  38. Anonymous[107] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dave Pinsen

    Can’t wait to see Tucker’s relationship with pimp Dennis Hof get fresh publicity.

  39. BenKenobi says:
    @Dave Pinsen

    The only way:

    TRUMP/TUCKER 2020

    It wouldn’t be the first time something has bubbled up to the Trump people from Steve’s humble blog

    • Replies: @Kyle
  40. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Anonymous

    Consider the possibility that Trump asked Webb and Webb turned him down. I don’t know that that’s the case, but that’s the kind of tweet Trump would send if it were.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Corn
  41. Bubba says:
    @Dave Pinsen

    You are right about changing the personnel situation. And unfortunately that is true for President Trump hiring his son-in-law, but what was really disconcerting to me was when there was a post-election Trump website looking for like-minded people (“Build the Wall!”, “Lock Her Up!”, “Drain the swamp!”) to fill positions within the Trump cabinet. However, not a single person who applied on that website was interviewed by President Trump’s transition team. Unfortunately I do not have the links for this article, but if I remember correctly Paul Joseph Watson and Ann Coulter tweeted about it.

    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
  42. Anonymous[107] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dave Pinsen

    But then we’ve come full circle. Personnel is limited not just because it doesn’t exist, but because they’re probably turning down a place in the Trump administration for reasons that would not apply to a Tucker administration: because it sounds like a madhouse, because they’ll get the stench of Trump on them, and the rest.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
  43. @BenKenobi

    Well Reg, I guess you could say I like my beer cold, my TV loud, and my socialism national.

    Then try the Marxist kind. They had very little immigration. Or anything else.

    • Replies: @Anonym
  44. Mr. Anon says:
    @Dave Pinsen

    The best thing that could happen to the Trump administration would be for Jared to be discovered to be cheating on Ivanka – son-in-law out. Of course we would still have the “Daddy, buy me a pony. Daddy, please bomb Syria” problem.

    • LOL: Bubba
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    , @SFG
  45. snorlax says:
    @Dave Pinsen

    Tucker is a top-3 most-watched cable newscaster, so I don’t think he has much problem with mass appeal. Whatever Tucker would lose vis-a-vis Trump with 50-or-older blue collar males, he’d make back tenfold with everyone else.

    Filling auditoriums does not necessarily correspond to general popular sentiment. Sarah Palin (a very similar figure in the sense of whom she appealed to and whom she repulsed) also filled auditoriums.

    In 1968, George Wallace held what remains the most-attended political rally in American history in Madison Square Garden, but won only 5.3% of the vote in New York state. The previous record was set in 1896 by William Jennings Bryan, also in Madison Square Garden, on his way to losing all five boroughs (!!!!!—a near-impossibly bad performance for a Democrat, even then) of NYC.

  46. Mr. Anon says:

    David French advertises himself as a “veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom”. He was a JAG officer (which, so I have heard, many in the military refer to as JAG-OFFS). For all we know he spent his time int he Green Zone prosecuting actual Iraq combat veterans. And like most non-technical people, he has no appreciation for the loss of manufacturing in this country. There are whole classes of technological products that are no longer made in this country. It is not a matter of indifference.

    A lot of Ben Shapiro’s schtick is to best teenagers in political debates.

    And Brett Stephenes is inveterately hostile to white people – white gentiles, anyway.

    Why would I remotely care what any of these people think about almost anything?

    • Replies: @SFG
  47. snorlax says:
    @Dave Pinsen

    The Kavanaugh brouhaha split roughly 50-50 in terms of popular opinion (and, as with Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill, I think it would’ve split strongly in his favor if he’d been nominated by a more popular POTUS) whereas the accusation du jour against Trump tends to split somewhere between 45-55 and 35-65 against him.

    Beyond the numbers, I and every other starboard-of-center person I know were far more outraged to see the politics of personal destruction visited against a man of impeccable character like Kavanaugh than, well, Trump, and conversely liberals were far more sheepish about it.

    • Replies: @SFG
    , @Desiderius
  48. Moses says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Singapore has prosperous diversity.

    Singapore actively imports ethnic Chinese to keep ethnic Chinese as the ~75% supermajority in Singapore.

    No way, no how ethnic Chinese Singaporeans would allow themselves to slip into minority status in their own country. Nothing wrong with that.

    Majority (for now) White countries can learn from the Singapoeans.

    • Agree: jim jones
    • Replies: @Funny guy
    , @AndrewR
  49. Kyle says:
    @Anonymous

    that’s not exactly what he said. He said the factories are gone but the hospitals and schools are still there. Blue collar women have jobs, many blue collar men don’t. I’m not sure how accurate that is. There’s always work available if you’re not opposed to getting your hands dirty. But physical labor sucks. There are also huge drug problems. Massive. Many Americans are high all the time. Not just 19 year old boys, but that’s probably the biggest problem. Weed, Coffee, cigarettes, booze, beer, Xanax, Prozac, pain pills, heroine, crack and meth. On this cocktail of drugs I’m surprised there aren’t thousands of deaths from car crashes every year.

  50. @snorlax

    For all the complaints about the conventional GOPers working for Trump, it was one of the few people that Trump shared his worldview with that let him down the most: Sessions. He seemed to think the Dems would play by Marquess of Queensbery rules if he tossed them a special prosecutor office because since Trump didn’t collaborate with Putin, they won’t find anything.

    Not realizing this would be an open ended fishing expedition that the Dems would use to constantly threaten and harass him as well as feed numerous spurious allegations to their lapdogs in the MSM. It still amazes me that Sessions with all his years in politics could be that naive.

    • Agree: snorlax, Dan Hayes
  51. snorlax says:
    @Jack Hanson

    Tucker would presumably have won the popular vote, which is very important for perceived legitimacy, which in turn helps to deter particularly blatant judicial activism.

  52. snorlax says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    The most problematic minority Singapore has to deal with are Malays, AKA Swedes compared to the vibrant enrichment we get.

  53. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dave Pinsen

    I saw both parts. By “cultural”, I don’t mean the stuff MacDonald talks about regarding “male toxicity” and valorizing men and all that. It’s more fundamental than that. And economics can merely ameliorate the problem at best.

  54. Kyle says:
    @BenKenobi

    Oh what’s the first time?

  55. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:

    “Our estimates imply that aversion to having the wife earn more than the husband explains 29 percent of the decline in marriage rates over the last thirty years.”

    It’s simply not possible to have a society based on stable, lifelong monogamous marriages and families without men earning more than women. When you have lots of women earning more than men, society is going to be based on different arrangements. At least in the short run, as there’s not much indication that advanced societies can persist with these different arrangements.

  56. snorlax says:
    @snorlax

    Or in fairness I should say he’d have won the popular vote outside the margin of fraud.

  57. Anon[422] • Disclaimer says:

    I liked that his Keep America Beautiful anti-litter plank gets a cameo.

  58. Anon[422] • Disclaimer says:

    After spewing on Carlson in one piece, David French admits that his hypergamy point was well taken in a subsequent piece:

    https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/tucker-carlson-populist-monologue-wages-women-men/

    This is far, far easier said than done, and no one has a neat five-point plan for accomplishing the necessary cultural and economic transformation, but it does no good to deny reality. There are lots of reasons why a woman might want to marry a higher-earning man (to take just one — a high-earning man grants greater security if the woman wants to stay home longer — or indefinitely — with children, something that lots and lots of women want to do.) At the same time, a married couple is stronger together even if a man’s lesser earnings may render the family more economically-vulnerable than they may want.

    I love the way people try to think stuff like this through with logic. But when you get to large numbers of people, it’s simply a matter of genetics and evolution. Nothing more to explain here. You’re never going to talk women into behaving any differently.

    • Replies: @South Texas Guy
  59. snorlax says:
    @Unladen Swallow

    As well as Sessions there have been a number of Trumpist yet disastrous appointees, such as Flynn and Bannon.

    Beyond the difficulty of finding ideologically-aligned people, an additional problem is that when you recruit from outside the political mainstream, you often get people who lack political common sense. While Sessions was a politician, he never had to learn political common sense because he only ever faced one even somewhat competitive race, over two decades ago.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
  60. Funny guy says:
    @Moses

    Sadly the west probably can’t emmulate that strategy of importing kinsman. There increasingly aren’t population sizeable and willing to emigrate enough to top up many Western Countries, remember Singapore is only 4 million people with a potential pool of billions and 10s-100s of millions of overseas Chinese. I think maybe the smaller Western Nations could do it, New Zealand for instance but for a country the size of America you’d need a far larger amount of people to do it. In addition the big exodus has happened in the candidates of Eastern Europe.

    • Replies: @SFG
  61. snorlax says:
    @Unladen Swallow

    Sessions had another massively damaging blunder with the whole “family separation” thing, which (like his Russia recusal) he sprung without having first consulted anyone else in the administration. Anyone with an ounce of common sense could see that (fairly or not) it was going to have abysmal optics, which it did.

    Beforehand, the Congressional generic ballot polls had closed to a tie, and Trump’s approvals were also on the rise, but in the span of a few days all those gains and more were lost.

    It was a yuge free advertising campaign south of the border for the Flores loophole (arrive as a “family unit,” get catch-and-released) and so ironically has resulted in a massive surge in illegal immigration.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Stan d Mute
    , @Mr. Anon
  62. Not Raul says:
    @Bubba

    I totally agree.

    In terms of personnel, I doubt that Tucker would do any worse than Trump. Just about everyone Trump has hired for senior positions has either been an incompetent family member, a profiteer plutocrat, or a swamp creature.

    There are plenty of smart, talented, hard-working people who would love to work for Tucker if he were President.

  63. AndrewR says:
    @snorlax

    In US presidential elections, no one runs for “the popular vote,” so I fail to see how Trump’s perceived legitimacy is hampered by Hillary having “won the popular vote.” There’s an argument to be made for abolishing the electoral college, and of course some Democrats are making it, but both major candidates sought to maximize the number of electoral votes they got, without any regard to the national “popular vote.” Anyone who claims Trump lacks legitimacy due to his loss of the “popular vote” is either
    too disingenuous or too stupid to be allowed any say in how the US is governed.

    • Replies: @jim jones
    , @MEH 0910
    , @snorlax
  64. Anon[422] • Disclaimer says:

    As well as Sessions there have been a number of Trumpist yet disastrous appointees, such as Flynn and Bannon.

    I gotta say, I really liked Bannon in there. I really miss him. You don’t necessarily want a guy like him in charge of anything though.

    Beyond the difficulty of finding ideologically-aligned people, an additional problem is that when you recruit from outside the political mainstream, you often get people who lack political common sense.

    Exactly! You need a bit of that if you’re really going to change anything.

  65. snorlax says:
    @Anonymous

    Jim Webb talks a good game but his Senate voting record was completely indistinguishable from Dianne Feinstein’s. It’s no surprise the Times tried to push him for the job.

    • Replies: @Barnard
  66. AndrewR says:
    @snorlax

    I think by now it’s safe to call Trump a seasoned politician. What it really comes down to is that Pence is much brighter and much less impulsive than Trump. Admittedly they’re both equally lacking in personal integrity.

    • Replies: @snorlax
  67. Anon[422] • Disclaimer says:
    @snorlax

    Sessions had another massively damaging blunder with the whole “family separation” thing

    I think that long term that will be seen as a bit of genius. You have to start innoculating the citizenry into not being so irrational about children if you are ever going to cut down on immigration.

    We went through this with women in the military. I don’t necessarily like women in the military, but as an example, to get there we had to little by little see them in the military in various roles, hear of them being injured, hear of deaths, and then finally seeing video of female military deaths. And then it was all hunky dory.

    You ain’t going to shut down mass fake family migration unless you do stuff that is going to be less enjoyable than a trip to Disneyland for the kids, for a short perioid, until the fake refugees realize the jig is up and stop bringing kids along.

    Tyler Cowen at Marginal Revolution talks a lot about cognitive bias. Here’s Wikipedia on it:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

    • Replies: @snorlax
    , @SFG
    , @Anonymous
  68. Wilkey says:

    Payday loan outlets in poor neighborhoods collect 400 percent annual interest. We’re OK with that? We shouldn’t be. Libertarians tell us that’s how markets work — consenting adults making voluntary decisions about how to live their lives. OK. But it’s also disgusting.

    Indeed.

    Three things:

    1) Libertarians are the right-wing version of communism: an extremist philosophy centered 100% on economics. Communism: government basically controls 100% of the economy. Libertarianism: government basically controls 0% of the economy. There is a reason why not a single prosperous nation has anything remotely close to libertariansim (or communism). Successful countries (and economies) require government regulation and provision of public goods.

    2) Objection to criticism of certain business practices is a relic from when communism was the biggest threat to the world. The conservative response was to defend all business practices, regardless of how unethical they were. It was like when Dwight Eisenhower proclaimed that all religions were good without seeing the Islamic threat peeking over the horizon.

    3) Even before we started seeing white life expectancy actually drop, I remember thinking that the only reason things appeared to be getting better and better in this country was that economic growth and technological improvements were masking the rapid familial and cultural decay. Now technology and economic growth aren’t able to move fast enough to keep up.

    There is a lot to be said for certain kinds of tolerance, but quite often a man (or woman) who says he doesn’t care what someone else does “in the privacy of their own homes, so long as they aren’t harming anyone else” is really he (or she) doesn’t give a shit about that person – up to and including whether or not they live or die. That’s the kind of politicians we are now *proud* of electing.

    I have long thought that Tucker is probably the smartest and most genuinely decent talking head on TV. This editorial only reinforces that belief.

  69. AndrewR says:
    @snorlax

    At the risk of appearing to like or defend the odious Jeff Sessions, my inner devil’s advocate feels the need to point out that “political common sense” is not just a function of winning a competitive Republican vs Democrat race.

    First of all, how was he able to win the election for Alabama attorney general? Then how did he become the Republican nominee in the election to the US Senate in the first place? He had competition.

    After that, twenty years in the Senate surely would have taught him a lot about how politics works.

    I’m not saying he’s a gifted politician, but it is silly to claim that the fact that he’s never had to try hard to win an election against a Democrat means that he can’t have learned anything about politics.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    , @snorlax
    , @Anon87
  70. AndrewR says:
    @istevefan

    You’ve never heard of Singapore?

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
  71. AndrewR says:
    @Mr. Anon

    It seems to me that she is far more likely to cheat than he. He strikes me as far too soft and soyed out to step out.

  72. AndrewR says:
    @Moses

    Nothing wrong with that.

    Non-Chinese people in Singapore might beg to differ.

    “It’s understandable” ≠ “there’s nothing wrong with that”

    • Replies: @Moses
  73. S'more says:
    @Dave Pinsen

    There is a single industry in a single place where such a movement can be built and sustained. Tech in Silicon Valley. Anywhere else, a combination of boomers, traditional business/finance, and government kill any progress. Romney is the epitome of this. At this point, despite attempts from Facebook, ABC, et. al to censor, it is the only hope. Don’t see that changing for a decade or so, despite attempts from Thiel and Bezos to regionally diversify.

    When Jordan Peterson said software engineers increasingly have the power of gods, it was accurate.

    • Replies: @SFG
  74. IHTG says:
    @Dave Pinsen

    Kaus is paranoid. According to news reports, Mulvaney has in fact been one of the Trump aides most in favor of a shutdown.

    • Replies: @IHTG
  75. “Our estimates imply that aversion to having the wife earn more than the husband explains 29 percent of the decline in marriage rates over the last thirty years.”

    Women want equal pay, and women want a husband who earns more than they do. The destruction of manufacturing or “the shift to services”, call it what you will, makes squaring that circle pretty difficult.

    I posted a year or so back a link to a study showing that there were no longer enough “suitable” partners for high-earning women graduates.

    They look at the educational and income characteristics of the husbands of married women with degrees and high incomes. They posit that these are the kind of husbands that unmarried women with degrees and high incomes would like, and find that there aren’t enough of those men to go round!

    https://paa.confex.com/paa/2016/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/6937

    “Our results reveal shortages of men with college degrees and incomes above $40,000 and a surplus of men with only high school degrees or incomes less than $20,000. We document how shortages of marriageable partners affect both the probability of marriage and income levels.”

    • Replies: @L Woods
    , @Hail
  76. I’d rather read than watch (much quicker), so after that very powerful read of Mr. Carlson’s monologue , I’d like to comment.

    This is definitely amazing stuff that you won’t find bandied about on infortainment TV. Tucker’s criticism of Libertarians is justified if Mitt Romney and his political and corporate followers could be considered Libertarians. Big-Business markets are not the only markets and they are not free anyway, so crony capitalism is not really about free markets and libertarianism.

    Tucker’s talk about first the big cities is fine, though he did, for reasons of avoiding the name-calling, leave out the Nature side and only include the US Feral Gov’t Nurture as a cause of the disasters that modern American inner cities are. He states that Big Gov is NOT a cause of the ills in modern rural America, though. Here’s where I disagree with my favorite TV youtube pundit. The influence of Big Gov may not be as direct in this case, but they still are the cause.

    Did you note that, when talking about the importance of families, Mr. Carlson left out anything about family businesses (I know, I know, this was not a 50-page manifesto, so I’m not complaining)? Those are very important, as without family and small businesses, everyone is just a “wage slave” to some big corporate or gov. entity. When the Big-Gov/Big-Biz crony capitalism that people call “Capitalism” exists, family and small businesses are actively marginalized and destroyed. Regulations are made FOR, but also BY, Big-Biz in hand with Big-Gov to strangle any competition.

    The latter is one thing that I give President Trump praise for not just talking about, but actively working for, the trashing of the huge burden of unnecessary, small-business-strangling regulation.

    (continued in a bit here – getting long-winded …)

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  77. @Achmed E. Newman

    (… continued)

    I could see lots of confusion by people reading my comment, and others by Libertarians, arguing “hey, we need MORE regulation of business, not less. We have to stop entities like Romney’s Bain Capital and (the movie versions) Blue Star airlines being broken up, and let guys build big ships again (end of A Pretty Woman).” You’ve still got to understand that with the Feral Gov’t so large and powerful, any regulation will be made to be accommodated for by Big Biz. It doesn’t matter how you write it – they have the departments of lawyers and accountants that Joe’s Finance or Joe’s Flying Service DOES NOT.

    Why rural America is suffering is that manufacturing might has been shipped to China and elsewhere around the world. Tucker understands this part. Big-corporate manufacturing, as Tucker states nicely, does not give a damn about the Americans that could be working for them to maintain themselves and families as middle class. With help from Big-Gov, they’ve shipped most of it out. The extremely heavy regulation on small business has made them uncompetitive. They may have liked to keep the plants here, it doesn’t pay. Are you going to force them to lose money? Mr. Carlson left off his talk with a warning about Socialism, and I appreciated that greatly.

    Back to rural American, toadd insult to injury, Wal-Mart and Amazon (Wal-Mart II) have eviscerated family retail business (along with the 3 dollar-store chains for the really low-end). These are Big-Biz giants, and they will work hard to prevent any upstarts from getting competitive.

    What are people left with? They can fix-up their, or flip other, houses as one remaining investment vehicle and place to put their labor. We see what happens when government lays down the moral hazard in that industry (see Housing Bubble 1.0, and recently, it’s current instance).

    Almost all of the financial pain has Big-Government plans, whether evil or just stupid, as the basic root cause. Ron Paul doesn’t have the charisma (any more, that is) as a Tucker Carlson, but he got to the root of the problems. Even so, I wish Mr. Carlson very well and agree with commenters that would like to see him become a candidate for President.

  78. Realist says:
    @istevefan

    It must be tough for Trump given he is surrounded by people who detest his agenda.

    Bullshit Trump has chosen to surround himself with Deep Staters…of which he is a member.

  79. @Impolitic

    Dreher also mentions JD Vance as a possibility. I don’t agree with that. Having read his book, I get the sense that he has sold out to the political elite. Yale Law school grad, an affluent and connected (South) Asian wife he gives remarkably little details on, and hobnobbery with elites such as Amy Chua and David Frum(!). And while he accurately describes the problems facing rural America, he offers no solutions, and in fact a lot of what he has to say about it falls into the “personal responsibility” category Tradcons like to pigeonhole the poor into. Overall, he strikes me as someone that is being groomed for an eventual presidential run – as a mainstream conservative Republican.

    • Replies: @Impolitic
  80. @snorlax

    Very good points but the simple fact is that there are relatively few people available who have the chops, the experience, and the principles to be of any assistance. We’ve been out in the cold all our lives. Never in the “institutions”.

  81. @Anonymous

    Make it a wealth tax! Ooh, that’s going to hit the you-know-whos right where it hurts the most. Needless to say, their MSM won’t report a word of what Miss Coulter has to say…..

  82. @Impolitic

    Between this, the shutdown, and Ann Coulter, it’s almost morning time in America just now.

    Trump has opened the door for non-politicians running for president. Tucker has got to be thinking. The telegenic Macron and Trudeau must have occurred to him. And “antifa” have demonstrated that Tucker needs secret service protection for his family.

  83. @Dave Pinsen

    I listened to Tucker’s speech at the Nixon Library from a few months ago. He said he was struck the first time that he heard Trump stop in the middle of a rally and tell his audience that he loved them, since it was the first time he ever heard a politician say something like that. He believes Trump really does love his people too.

    In the same talk, he said he was stunned when he was talking to Trump before an interview and Trump asked what the purpose of NATO was, since the purpose had been to protect Europe from the Soviet Union and the Soviet Union was gone. Tucker describes Trump as the only person in Washington who asks such obvious questions, which explains the establishment’s disdain for him.

  84. @Anon

    The men/women income imbalance thing can be summed us more or less like this (not my original thought, a comedian got to it first):

    A rich guy can hit on the cashier at McDonald’s, and she’s flattered, and maybe the magic happens. The fry cook at McDonald’s hits on rich woman ordering something is icily told to keep his attention on the fries.

    I know a couple whose marriage went to hell when she started making it up the corporate ladder, and he was stuck in his middling blue collar job. They don’t live together, but they’ve been married for 27 years or so, but only because their kids are screwups and are trying to keep up a front.

  85. @Dave Pinsen

    I almost applied via that Website, but I wound up telling myself “Don’t waste your time; even with someone like him, all the jobs will only go to vetted flunkies and scenesters who went to Bowdoin or had parent rich enough to emabke them to spend their twenties at unpaid congressional internships and the like. Even if anyone like you or I had miraculously slipped in, we’d be heeded as much as Bannon and Miller have been, which is to say, not at all.

    I’m releived to know I was right about not wasting time applying via the site.

  86. @Jack Hanson

    “You and everyone else posting this bullshit needs to explain how you flank a district judge giving himself “Whatever I Want” powers without setting off a Constitutional Crisis.”

    They could simply ignore the ruling. I believe it’s been done before.

    And we’ve been in a “constitutional crisis” for over 100 years. If you keep trying to play by a set of rules the other side is ignoring, you’re going to lose.

    • Replies: @Sarah Toga
  87. @Dave Pinsen

    King of Bain: “When Mitt Romney Came To Town” [Official Trailer]:

    And that’s been common enough knowledge for so long that it’s been portrayed in popular culture going back to the movies Wall Street (1987), where Gordon Gecko plans to break up BlueStar Airlines, and Pretty Woman (1990) …

    And let’s not forget Other People’s Money (1991):


  88. MEH 0910 says:
    @AndrewR

    In US presidential elections, no one runs for “the popular vote,”

    • Replies: @AndrewR
  89. @Kyle

    True but Peterson advises people to clean their room and leave political activism for another day or something.

    Another difference between Peterson and Carlson is Peterson has come to terms with Big Jew while Carlson’s problems with them may just be starting. Of course, Carlson’s biggest threat are the many Gentiles that make up Conservatism Inc.

  90. Despite the lousy camera work and the less than ideal audio, this is essential viewing. Carlson rips into Judas Goat “conservatism” like a man who knows how it works.

    Tucker Carlson wows the crowd full of ebullient and energized students at the 2018 Student Action Summit hosted by Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point USA. Tucker takes on our Big Tech overlords, corporate totalitarians, myopic conservatives, marijuana-addled libertarians, and left-wing red diaper babies.

  91. @Jack Hanson

    It’s these obscure district court judges who think they have “Whatever-I-Want” powers that are creating the Constitutional Crisis IMO.

  92. LondonBob says:
    @AndrewR

    Sessions had to have been a plant or bribed/blackmailed, he actively protected Mueller, Rosenstein etc. Not plausible he was somehow too honourable. Just happened to not be a swamp creature in regard to immigration.

  93. Rosie says:
    @Kyle

    Blue collar women have jobs, many blue collar men don’t. I’m not sure how accurate that is.

    The commenter you are replying to here has an axe to grind against women, and that is why he refuses to acknowledge the fact that immigration/outsourcing have disproportionately affected men.

    BTW, assuming aversion to the wife earning more is responsible for 29% of the decline in marriage, what portion of that is due to men not wanting a wife who earns more, and what portion is due to women not wanting a husband who earns less?

  94. Rosie says:

    I have one small quibble with Tucker’s monologue. He seems to think the chain of causation looks like this:

    Lack of career prospects->no wife->despair->degeneracy

    I suspect in fact it looks more like this:

    Lack of career prospects->despair-> degeneracy->no wife

    Tucker’s monologue almost seemed to imply that men’s lack of career prospects would be no problem if only women would marry them regardless. That is silly of course. We need to uplift WWCM whether it affects marriage or not.

  95. Corn says:
    @BenKenobi

    This Deplorable is certainly in favor of socialized medicine.

    Putting aside the objections from his own party for a moment, I think Trump should offer the Democrats a deal, a sort of Grand Compromise.

    He pushes through single payer healthcare ala Canada, and in exchange he gets his wishlist on immigration (wall and stepped up enforcement, DACA dead for good, mandatory E-Verify etc).

    I don’t think the Democrats in Congress would take the deal, but I bet many rank and file Dem voters across the country would be interested.

    It’d create some fireworks.

  96. @Wilkey

    Libertarians are the right-wing version of communism: an extremist philosophy centered 100% on economics.

    Libertarianism and communism share something else in common: both are extremely spergy. Whenever you try and point out that their ideas don’t really work out as advertised in the real world, they complain that ‘pure’ libertarianism/communism has never been tried. And when you then try and explain to them that that’s because ‘pure’ anything is impossible with an impure human race, they tend to roll their eyes and give you that oh-ye-of-little-faith look.

    Bottom line: ideologies are just theologies for atheists.

  97. @AndrewR

    I think it all depends on what kind of diversity. Britain was pretty diverse (in the true sense) 100 years ago, with majority English and smaller percentages of Scots, Welsh and Irish.

    Singapore will be just fine with 80% Chinese, 10% Malay, 10% ‘others’. But it wouldn’t be so fine with 80% Chinese, 10% Somalis or Sudanese and 10% Albanians or Mirpuris.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
  98. Corn says:
    @Dave Pinsen

    Webb would probably be a better Secretary of Defense then he was a Senator.

  99. @Impolitic

    After reading French’s, Stephens’s, and Shapiro’s insanely stupid critiques of Tucker Carlson’s right-on observations, I’ve come to realize just how thoroughly disconnected from reality are both the left-wing and right-wing establishments of this country and the rest of the western world. These three guys have demonstrated a complete disconnect from reality. Their bios in Wikipedia confirmed my suspicions. They are not living in the same world, they are not part of the same world, as I and most Americans and other inhabitants of the so-called developed world. The planet would be a better place if we could exile these folks and all like them to another planet where they could self-destruct, attempting to live out their insane cultural, social, political, and economic fantasies.

    • Replies: @Anonym
  100. I agree with David French and other Jewish writers that whites are literally the worst.

    • Replies: @Hail
    , @MEH 0910
  101. varsicule says:

    Has anyone read that study to find out whose “aversion” in this case is driving the decline in marriage rates? Men’s or women’s? Or is this passive construction implicit agnosticism? I think I know who this comment crowd will suspect.

    • Replies: @Hail
  102. Arclight says:

    I find this believable – the left sort of touches on this when they attribute the precipitous decline in black marriage to black women not having enough black men they consider marriage material, which makes some sense when one considers the fact that black women are less likely to have been incarcerated, more likely to have held a steady job, more likely to have a high school diploma or better, etc. Obviously changes in our welfare policy that rewarded unwed mothers over married ones contributed to this as well, and we still have the problem that huge numbers of black women might feel most of the available men are not suitable for long term relationships but they are suitable as sperm donors.

  103. @snorlax

    It’s very true. Judges aren’t immune to political considerations, though they pretend they are.

    • Agree: snorlax
  104. snorlax says:
    @AndrewR

    His primaries were never competitive.

  105. snorlax says:
    @Anon

    You have to start innoculating the citizenry into not being so irrational about children

    It achieved exactly the opposite, the public is now much more irrational about children WRT immigration.

    • Replies: @Anon
  106. snorlax says:
    @AndrewR

    Pence has been a politician for 30 years, Trump has been a politician for 3, and is very resistant to taking others’ advice on messaging.

  107. snorlax says:
    @AndrewR

    In the Roman Empire, there was no such thing as the Roman Emperor. The Roman Empire was run by the Senate and the Consuls, just like always.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
    , @nsa
  108. anon[393] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dave Pinsen

    whats failed about muh enlightenment besides turning power over to negroes women jews children hispanics and degenerates who are not liberal capable, is that its mistaken its slogans for its mission. Its mission was the interests of white adult men of means and character, the benefits the accrued to the camp followers above were incidental.
    So we have had the gentlemen’s agreements gamed by climbers, first our religion then our legal system leading to our politics and the rest of our institutions. These gentlemen’s agreements unprecedented trust among unrelated men were gamed by upstarts using the very system to destroy the system and its intention. so freedom of speech is used to deconstruct freedom of speech. the jewish religion is the thin edge to pry out the founders religion, their law makes their law meaningless turning it into some post modern jabberwocky, the freedoms they entrusted to white adult men of property and character are used to enslave them, and of course capitalism is defended not because of what it did, make the men who designed it better off but as a system to drain them off their wealth.
    the reality is like social systems of power capitalism tends toward corporatism like the social systems the old regime defends the old ideal because hope springs eternal and war is hell. eventually old sytems become ludicrous. oh capitalism could work if it was agin understood not as some beautiful machine to defended for its beauty and historic sentimentalism but because it serves white men and it was again made to serve white men, that is after all why white men worshipped capitalism/
    all our systems have been turned on us but te cucks still defend them or rather the latest iteration of them because they cant bring themselves to say what the founders who developed these systems didnt think needed spelling out- all adult white men of property and character might just be created equally enough they can trust each other with unprecedented freedom on an honor system- and no others are not capable of using a system like this, and certainly should not be allowed power in our nations

  109. SFG says:
    @Impolitic

    Agree (I’ve always been a little too paranoid to click ‘remember my information’).

    If you look at all the surveys ‘economically liberal, socially conservative’ is where most of the country is. They actually think the wall is a dumb idea but want less immigration, are sick of SJWs cramming 58 genders and single-sex bathrooms down their throat, and think business is ripping them off and rich people are buying the government. (This is my position as well, more or less.)

    Thing is, economically conservative, socially liberal is what rich people think. They want to keep their gold and either buy into the liberal-SJW stuff because it’s fashionable or their wives do and they are willing to put up with it because it’s a relatively minor threat to the bottom line compared to unions and taxation, or they think it’s a nice way to set the black, white, and brown proles against each other. It’s why Republicans never did anything about abortion and Democrats never managed to revive the unions.

    I have my doubts as to what Tucker’s real intentions are, but I agree with what he said 100%. And he’s unlikely to shoot himself in the foot the way Trump has. Tucker for President!

    • Replies: @Wilkey
  110. SFG says:
    @Mr. Anon

    I think the point was that what’s left of the previously-establishment right is closing ranks against him.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
  111. Nathan says:

    It strikes me that Ben Shapiro isn’t much of a writer. His prose is awkward. David French is an idiot for not realizing that his father-in-law is probably three generations out from people of reproductive age. Young people can’t live his sort of life anymore.

    Bret Stephens article was unreadable.

  112. SFG says:
    @Bubba

    It’s a little funny you call Kristol a ‘Bolshevik’ for being too *capitalist*.

    Honestly ‘partisan of Jewish interests’ (at least as he sees them-presumably including open borders and low taxes) is probably a better description.

    This whole ‘Bolshevik’ thing stuck me as a little silly. I mean, you could use that word on some of these Ocasio-Cortez DSA types, but a lot of the elite left is pretty cool with capitalism, they just want it rainbow-colored, in both the old (racial) and new (gay) senses of the word.

  113. SFG says:
    @S'more

    Tech’s a lousy place for a populist uprising. I mean, I know that’s where the alt-right Pepe legions came from, but a lot of them are just angry about SJWs cramming ‘diversity’ and pronouns down their throats. And there aren’t that many of them. A lot of them are smart, but they’re more spatial and mathematical–not the sort of verbally skilled intellectual class a real populist movement needs–you need people who can work within organizations and fill all the ‘Deputy Undersecretary of Border Enforcement’ jobs that actually execute the work (and could replace the deep state). Thing is, those type of people tend to gravitate to the current power structure.

    I don’t have a good solution.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
  114. SFG says:
    @snorlax

    Kavanaugh pretty much showed me they’ll dig up anything from 35 years ago and throw enough money at them to say anything. No man is safe. It’s probably the main reason I’m unlikely to vote Democrat again. I mean, I guess some of the people here *might* go after me because of my ancestry if they gained power and if their faction was in charge in the coalition and if they were able to order 23andme tests on every American…but the left makes me a target because of my external genitalia, *now*.

    • Agree: Desiderius, L Woods
    • Replies: @Hunsdon
    , @L Woods
  115. SFG says:
    @Anon

    Ironically I never had a problem with women in the military. Let’s see, you take the same jobs as me, and if you earn less money after working fewer hours it’s my fault. I’m supposed to open doors for you and give you my seat on the bus and always put your needs first, and let you take my seat on a lifeboat if a ship sinks. If we go on a date you expect me to make the first move or I’m weak, and if you decide later you didn’t feel like it I’m a rapist. If you’re at work and I look at you funny I’m committing sexual harassment, and if I avoid you I’m denying women opportunities for mentoring. If you make less money than me I’m a sexist and if you make more money than me I’m a deadbeat.

    You get all the advantages of the old role and none of the disadvantages, whereas the reverse is true for me.

    Let them go. Let them be blown to pieces on the battlefield and pour out their lifeblood in the service of rich men’s interests the way we have for centuries. Let them return missing limbs and with brain damage that renders them useless the way our men do on behalf of Israel, oil, or the cause du jour. Chivalry is dead. You want equality, ladies? You got it.

    • Agree: Bubba
  116. Barnard says:
    @snorlax

    Agreed. I listened to him during the few Presidential debates he participated in before dropping out and didn’t get what all the fuss was about from the dissident right. He would be slightly better on bringing home troops and not starting missionary wars, on everything else he would be as bad as the status quo or worse.

  117. SFG says:
    @Mr. Anon

    Yeah,I doubt Ivanka alone would be an improvement over Javanka. Based on my limited experience with rich people in New York the wife is usually much more liberal–Jared will be happy as long as you toss him money, it’s Ivanka who’s got the causes in her head.

    • Replies: @IC8
  118. @SFG

    Trotskyite is more correct. Has it occurred to you that the neocons weaponized a corrupt form of *capitalism in order to destroy it?

    Rudyard Kipling called the free trade policies of the British during the 19th century socialist because by pitting every Briton against an asiatic coolie earning far less than him the result would be that the Briton would lose his job and end up outside parliament demanding more socialism.

    • Replies: @Bubba
    , @Reg Cæsar
  119. snorlax says:
    @SFG

    The problem is that due to their unsuitability for combat (and favored tactic of getting pregnant in order to avoid the same) female soldiers expose their male comrades to much greater risk.

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
  120. SFG says:
    @Funny guy

    Europeans don’t *want* to come here. Why, to pay through the nose for healthcare and slave away 60 hours at a job or work two jobs?

    This is why the ‘economically liberal’ end of Tucker Carlson (stop sniggering) populism is so important. Venezuela sucks. I know that. Sweden ain’t Venezuela. Heck, even Italy ain’t Venezuela, and a lot of Southern Europe’s problems have to do with being run for German benefit. Our welfare state is too small. Yes, a bigger welfare state means nonwhites will get healthcare paid for by taxes, but poor whites (of whom there are more and more) will get it too.

    I’m not arguing for nationalizing Facebook (though it would be fun to wipe that smirk off Zuckerberg’s face) or Apple (though I’d love to see the iPhone turn into an ugly block).

    • Replies: @Mark G.
    , @Anonymous
  121. Svigor says:

    Tucker sez capitalism is a tool, not a religion. Now where have I heard that before?

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
  122. @Dave Pinsen

    Dave, No one has a “…Rolodex of qualified people who share his views to staff an administration with.” because those people do not exist. One way or another, virtually every “qualified” administrator of government policy or program or department is a captive of what we call The Deep State. They own the grade school coaches, the high school sandlot leagues, the college teams and minor leagues, the major leagues (and all the stadiums, concessions, parking, broadcast, and rule making bodies) and no one can move up without an enforceable contract. When was the last time you heard someone bitch about the designated hitter scam or the way the intentional grounding rule is enforced in football?

    The only way it works is with MUCH smaller government doing MUCH less. Thieving, corrupt government is a part of the human condition. It is only tolerable when that thieving and corruption is small enough to laugh at rather than fear. Until and unless government shrinks a lot (50-75% overall), we are right to fear it. And no one in any Rolodex of potential government program managers is at all disposed to actually shrinking government anywhere or any time.

  123. Svigor says:
    @Dave Pinsen

    You’d think borrowing money with the intent to defraud the lender would be something you could be prosecuted for.

    • Replies: @Anonym
    , @MarkinLA
  124. Svigor says:
    @415 reasons

    Imagine what Tucker could do, especially if a trump had not sullied the populist brand so badly.

    This sort of thing is a dead giveaway that you’re dealing with a liar (in this case, a concern troll).

    Leftists murdered over a hundred million people in the 20th century and their brand is “unsullied” because power and money, control over mass media.

    “Sullied” has nothing to do with it.

    • Replies: @415 reasons
    , @Forbes
  125. Svigor says:
    @Impolitic

    Prolly woulda had a hard time getting elected, though.

  126. @SporadicMyrmidon

    The Dame Edna act finally got old. Maybe he got as disgusted by his comment section as the rest of us have.

  127. @SFG

    That’s why actually taking power takes surprisingly few people. The great mass goes along with whoever is in charge.

    • Agree: AndrewR
    • Replies: @Corn
  128. Bugg says:
    @Dave Pinsen

    Never seems to dawn on the likes of GOPe grandees like the Bushes, McCain and Romney and their ilk is that no matter what you do or say the MFM is going to savage you when you get anywhere near power; mere useful idiots, for a time. They are as hated as Trump is, simply easy to pretend they’re reasonable when they’re out of power. There’s no reasoning with a mob.

  129. @Bubba

    I applied through that website. I had nine years of experience on Capitol Hill (Republican staffer) and seven years in a regulatory commission (for a Republican political appointee). I never heard a peep. I’m inclined to believe the Watson/Coulter tweets. For me the defining moment of the Trump presidency was when Calista Gingrich was named ambassador to the Vatican. It showed me that Trump was determined (constrained?) to hire his people from the DC establishment. The rest follows naturally.

    • Replies: @Bubba
  130. Anon87 says:
    @AndrewR

    Jeff Sessions is “odious”? How so?

    • Replies: @AndrewR
  131. Thea says:
    @415 reasons

    I love Tucker but we need him in the media.

    • Replies: @Marty T
  132. Prusmc says:
    @Anonymous

    Jim Webb by all telling an unpleasant, outspoken, iconoclast. Apparently deadly serious and very competent. Doesn’t speak well enough to impress public. Is this anecdote true or fantasy: after the first full scale Democrat debate(HRC, Bernie,the Arnold trying to convey brains, Marvin McNally, Lincoln Chaffie as well as Jim Webb. Senator Webb asked how he felt and allegedly replied”I haven’t been surrouned by as many Communists since I was in Viet Nam” .

  133. Corn says:
    @Desiderius

    One man with courage makes a majority.

  134. neprof says:
    @Kyle

    One thing that dramatically shrinks the job pool for young adults, esp. males, is the requisite drug test for employment. Many young males in this country will not forfeit weed for a potential job.

    Probably the main reason for the huge trucker shortage.

    • Replies: @Corn
  135. @istevefan

    Agree.

    Make the Federal Shutdown permanent.

    To adapt the logic of AnotherDad and others about how the First World doesn’t need the Third World, but the Third World depends on the First World: America doesn’t need the Federal Government, but the parasitical Federal Government desperately needs America.

    Shut it down.

    Permanently.

    • Agree: ben tillman
    • Replies: @S. Anonyia
  136. Wilkey says:
    @SFG

    I have my doubts as to what Tucker’s real intentions are…

    No offense, but care to elaborate on those doubts?

    Tucker comes across as the smartest, most genuinely decent person on television (and I don’t mean that compliment in a backhanded way). He doesn’t seem to have an “angle.” He seems to genuinely want what’s best for the country.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
  137. Chase says:
    @Dave Pinsen

    They’re not really separable like that; an economy is part of a culture, a very important part, sure, but one that should be subordinate. This confusion has driven a lot of the bad choices we’ve made since the early 60s.

  138. Anon[132] • Disclaimer says:
    @snorlax

    I disagree on the child separation. The public did not become more irrational about children because there was no starting point to set a previous standard. This was the public’s and the media’s initial exposure to the phenomenon. Many people were outraged, but many of those are people who are outraged by anything Trump does. What was accomplished was that a lot of people who knew nothing of the accompanying-child scam learned about it. Subsequently much of the media ran hysterical “THEY’RE STILL BLAH BLAH BLAH!!!” stories, with the level of outrage decreasing with each “revelation.”

    So you now have awareness of a previously unknown immigration scam, involving parents who involve their kids in a scheme to exploit a loophole. And you have growing THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!! fatigue among the population. The fact that the only dead kids were killed by reckless parents, with the Washington Post, no less, leading the reporting on that, and you have Trump genius in action. In the end people will support closing the loophole as long as kids are not waterboarded.

    • Replies: @snorlax
  139. Chase says:
    @Kyle

    Substances have always been available. Why was America going through massive growth and optimism while China was mired in opium addiction?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  140. Rosie says:
    @SFG

    If we go on a date you expect me to make the first move or I’m weak, and if you decide later you didn’t feel like it I’m a rapist.

    Perhaps Aristotle’s ethics might help with some of your various dilemmas:

    https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/ethics/

    You do manage to make a very important point in this tirade:

    Let’s see, you take the same jobs as me, and if you earn less money after working fewer hours it’s my fault.

    In the ordinary course of things, men will always make more money than women, because we are different and have different values.

  141. @SFG

    The original Bolshies got the bulk of their funding from Wall Street.

  142. @snorlax

    Trump’s character is underrated.

    Kavanaugh is a decent enough dude, but entirely peccable.

    • Replies: @snorlax
    , @snorlax
    , @gregor
  143. @Unladen Swallow

    He wouldn’t have been in politics that many years without being naive. Non-naive non-globalists find their political careers cut mysteriously short.

  144. @Impolitic

    There are echoes of “The Speech” (Ronald Reagan-10/27/1964).

  145. @snorlax

    How is Pence a Trumpist? He isn’t very vocal these days, but when he speaks it’s just a slightly more Christianized version of mainstream Republicanism. The 3 defining parts of Trumpism are economic protectionism, a change in the direction/goals of foreign policy and nationalism/border security. Pence only fulfills 1 out of 3.

    • Replies: @snorlax
  146. Hibernian says:
    @Wilkey

    “There is a reason why not a single prosperous nation has anything remotely close to libertariansim …”

    Try the USA, 1776-1913.

    • Replies: @Wilkey
    , @Svigor
  147. Wilkey says:

    I’ve felt that businesses didn’t care about American families for years, but where I think I truly came to that realization is watching the “conservative” supported deconstruction of the Boy Scouts of America over the last several years, as it has been brought low by the inclusion zombies.

    Businesses pulled their funding. “Conservative” businesses failed to step up to replace them. Conservative politicians failed to step up to support them when school districts and government bureaucrats kept scouts from using government facilities for meetings and campouts. Former “conservative” leaders like Robert Gates then lead the way dismantling what the Scouts have long stood for.

    Last but not least, faiths like the Mormon (aka LDS) Church, who sponsored 20% of Scout troops and provided a lot of support and funding for the organization, have now abandoned the BSA. Many people may think (or hope) that this is a response to BSA leftism, but review their publicly-stated reasoning: they claim the Church is a “global church” and the BSA doesn’t help serve their members in other countries (which all have their own scouting organizations the church could back). They also claim the BSA doesn’t serve girls (who of course have the GSA or other options the the Church could draw from).

    The Church used to present itself as American as apple pie. It has now elevated the cancerous growth of its own organization above the real interests of its members. In the last two decades or so they have abandoned the Scouts, removed patriotic songs from even their American hymnals (or are about to), and have embraced mass immigration of every kind, including the illegal kind.
    “Helping refugees” has now become the most common service project Mormon congregations engage in.

    The Mormon Church used to ardently American because the vast majority of its members lived in the United States. In fact the vast majority of its funding probably still does come from within the United States, since that’s where most of its substantial financial reserves are invested and since most of its non-US membership lives in poor, Third World countries and remit very little in tithing. But it is now, in the name of metastasized growth, actively opposed to the patriotic interests of the members who provide by far the overwhelming majority of its organizational energy and financial support.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    , @Chrisnonymous
  148. Wilkey says:
    @Hibernian

    That wasn’t libertarianism. That was government before technological improvements caused us to need greater investments in infrastructure. But if you’d like to go back to a time when 90% of the country was comprised of small farmers be my guest. Perhaps there’s one still out there. If so it’s probably in Latin America or Sub-Saharan Africa.

    Point to a prosperous country today that follows the model you cite.

  149. snorlax says:
    @Desiderius

    In the first (and, in a sane world, far more damaging) part of the Billy Bush tape, Trump is bragging about his repeated attempts to seduce his close friend’s wife.

    He has a lot of redeeming qualities, and he is our scumbag, but he’s still a scumbag.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
  150. @415 reasons

    Trump’s inarticulate speech and limited vocabulary are self-inflicted wounds.

    • Replies: @Hunsdon
    , @South Texas Guy
  151. Hibernian says:
    @SFG

    ” I’m supposed to open doors for you and give you my seat on the bus and always put your needs first, and let you take my seat on a lifeboat if a ship sinks. If we go on a date you expect me to make the first move or I’m weak, and if you decide later you didn’t feel like it I’m a rapist. If you’re at work and I look at you funny I’m committing sexual harassment, and if I avoid you I’m denying women opportunities for mentoring. If you make less money than me I’m a sexist and if you make more money than me I’m a deadbeat.”

    In 21 years as a Natl. Guard weekend warrior, including a 1 year overseas deployment, I can attest that all of these things are also operative among those who wear the uniform. And I cannot take any satisfaction from the fact that now women, like men, are killed or wounded on or near the battlefield. It is a mark of the twilight of our civilization.

  152. @Anonymous

    If the Dems were serious, it would be a wealth tax plus a consumption tax. Income taxes are the best tool for reigning in social mobility and keeping the middle-class down.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  153. @Kyle

    A lot of blue collar men are lazier than blue collar women, that’s part of the issue. Half my family is lower middle class blue collar, I would know. The men work odd jobs while the women are LPNs/teachers/bank tellers/secretaries etc. These women also do the majority of the housework/childcare even though the man probably has more free time. More reliable blue collar men could probably work some of these “pink collar” jobs but for whatever reason they don’t want to. Why aren’t they working: 2 reasons. 1: demoralization from the culture, economics, all that, 2: blue collar people spoil their sons more than their daughters, kind of like various 2nd/3rd world cultures. It’s a weird combination of factors. Some upper middle class guys who aren’t in STEM or professionals are starting to go into pink collar work though. Better than working at Starbucks or Whole Foods at least.

    It’s interesting because among the professional class we mostly see the opposite: women lazier and more coddled than men. Women more spoiled growing up.

    Also I think people get high out of boredom/idleness. The unemployment/sporadic employment/ennui comes first, then the drugs. Rare to find someone with a full-time job who is a true addict and not just a dabbler. The media and pop culture loves to play up the stories of someone whose perfect life falls apart due to addiction but that doesn’t happen all that often.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Rosie
    , @Rod1963
  154. rufus says:
    @istevefan

    He seems to fire those who obstruct him after giving them a chance to get results. You cant be completely mercurial and slap dash as US President with so much at stake and so many people gunning for you, required to advance the bureaucratic football.

  155. Svigor says:
    @Hibernian

    “There is a reason why not a single prosperous nation has anything remotely close to libertariansim …”

    Try the USA, 1776-19131865.

    FIFY.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
  156. Mark G. says:
    @SFG

    Even a better way of helping poor whites is ending affirmative action. I work in management in a government agency. I know lots of poor whites personally with a decent work ethic and at least average intelligence and would love having them work under me but instead have to put up with incompetent minorities who were hired to fill a diversity quota. I have one employee from Bangladesh who can barely speak English who forwards me the emails she receives and asks for help because she can’t read them. She gets phone calls from someone else like a Mexican or Vietnamese also hired by the government who can also barely speak English and they are totally unable to communicate. I have to get on the phone for her. Why can’t they just hire some poor white guy who lost his factory job or something but was born here and can speak the language?

    • Agree: ben tillman
  157. @Almost Missouri

    1960 America probably didn’t need the federal government all that much. 1980 America may not have even needed it all that much.

    But 2019 America? Are you crazy? There are tons of dependents, SNAP recipients, grifters who’d love to take advantage of lack of oversight in various industries, social security recipients etc. Be prepared for a spike in crime rates/civil unrest if the federal government shutdown goes on longer than a few months. Sorry but contributing people are just overwhelmed by the non-contributors today.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
  158. snorlax says:
    @Desiderius

    During the Kavabrouhaha, it was established that 1) he drank too much in college and 2) as a senior in high school, he once made a cruel joke about a female classmate.

    As far as peccs go, that’s pretty small potatoes.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
  159. @Dave Pinsen

    Yeah, he would have to hire a head hunter to search those people out. That’s something Trump should have done rather than firing the people who were remotely sympathetic to working class whites.

    • Replies: @Anonym
  160. Hail says: • Website

    Worth an full-form excerpt:

    How did this [the pathologies of modern rural America] happen? You’d think our ruling class would be interested in knowing the answer. But mostly they’re not. They don’t have to be interested. It’s easier to import foreign labor to take the place of native-born Americans who are slipping behind.

    But Republicans now represent rural voters. They ought to be interested. Here’s a big part of the answer: male wages declined. Manufacturing, a male-dominated industry, all but disappeared over the course of a generation. All that remained in many places were the schools and the hospitals, both traditional employers of women. In many places, women suddenly made more than men.

    Now, before you applaud this as a victory for feminism, consider the effects. Study after study has shown that when men make less than women, women generally don’t want to marry them. Maybe they should want to marry them, but they don’t. Over big populations, this causes a drop in marriage, a spike in out-of-wedlock births, and all the familiar disasters that inevitably follow — more drug and alcohol abuse, higher incarceration rates, fewer families formed in the next generation.

    This isn’t speculation. This is not propaganda from the evangelicals. It’s social science. We know it’s true. Rich people know it best of all. That’s why they get married before they have kids. That model works. But increasingly, marriage is a luxury only the affluent in America can afford.

    And yet, and here’s the bewildering and infuriating part, those very same affluent married people, the ones making virtually all the decisions in our society, are doing pretty much nothing to help the people below them get and stay married. Rich people are happy to fight malaria in Congo. But working to raise men’s wages in Dayton or Detroit? That’s crazy.

    A subtext here — and a line that Tucker characteristically walks up to but does not cross — is that the phenomenon described probably [1] puts downward pressure on (especially) White fertility, and [2] puts dysgenic pressure on what fertility remains.

    In other words, while White-White (both parents White) TFR in the USA has been steady within the 1.60 to 1.75 range since the early 1990s, it [1] never recovered to anything like replacement level after the lows of the 1970s and 1980s, and [2] the quality of the now-being-born White cohort is likely on the decline, as so many of the best (intelligent, conscientious, true-believer) women forego or delay children due to lack of available “marrying up” material.

    (This touches on a post in the recent Audacious Epigone thread related to the male-female education gap and the not-so-good marriage prospects for women stuck at the top, to which I would refer anyone reading this on the numbers.)

    • Replies: @Hail
  161. Hail says: • Website
    @Hail

    You’d think our ruling class would be interested in knowing the answer. But mostly they’re not. They don’t have to be interested. It’s easier to import foreign labor to take the place of native-born Americans who are slipping behind.

    I’d also like to highlight this, an occasional iSteve topic that deserves more consistent attention in the search for answers on why high-status U.S. White-Christians support immigration.

    i.e., it’s not just about fatcats; it’s a class attitude by all high-SES White-Christians. (And there is a racial angle that Tucker wouldn’t dream touch.)

  162. @snorlax

    As with young Kavanaugh, it was likely all about trying to fit in with the cool kids and not reflective of his true character.

    Men of bad character don’t have families like Trump’s.

    • Replies: @snorlax
  163. @snorlax

    Not what I’m talking about.

    His binders full of women speaks to a profound obliviousness to the pressing moral issues of the day. He was a pussy until the exact moment it became clear to him the bankruptcy of his entire approach, which is to his credit.

    I don’t have an overabundance of confidence in his capacity to maintain his newfound manliness. He’s no Clarence Thomas.

  164. @Hail

    They still believe they rule the world.

    Their meekness proves they deserve to.

  165. AndrewR says:
    @Wilkey

    Agreed. I don’t understand how anyone could think Tucker’s whole belief system is an act. If anything he probably censors himself in order to not step on too many toes. I imagine his true thoughts on Israel and global Jewry are quite red pilled.

  166. “If women didn’t exist, all the money in the world would have no meaning”.

    -Aristotle Onassis-

    There is so much deep and interesting material to mine from the alt-right and manosphere that Carlson could be split up into 10 different shows which would be commercially successful, if only itwere allowed. He only scratches the surface on the topics he covers which keeps him from drilling into the obvious highly sensitive areas to answer the questions he posits which he already knows the answers to. One of the things I find boring about his show is that he is compelled to bring on liberals / leftists to cross examine precisely because he cannot interview people on the alt-right where he is getting the material for his shows. If you think his show is interesting now, imagine what it would be like if he could bring on Sailer, Kersey, or Heartiste? There would not be this funny beating around the bushes that he engages in nightly to flog the truth out of some hapless Democrat.

    He barely touches on Men’s issues but the fact that commenting on such a simple premise can set off such a shit storm is testament to the fact that suppression of information has reached explosive proportions. This is true to the point where the left’s only solution now is to get people un-personed and de-platformed. Talking about sex (noun and verb) would seem to be less volatile than talking about race but the universe as it is currently constructed is critical to the left’s hold on power. Anything that would upset the apple cart there would impact the racial and ethnic coalitions that have to be fed and managed on a day to day basis and therefore must be stopped at all costs. Ironically, I think Sex is really the backdoor key to unlock the Democratic coalition. It is less taboo than race and probably primed for a change particularly with men having less and less to lose.

  167. Carleson’s position is _not_ the position of the Left. The Left rejected the working class within 20 years after the end of WW II [1]. The left is now in pursuit of victory and the loot of Empire, having been transformed by its shift of allegiance to the international lumpen proletariat. Demographics turned out to be destiny for the Left.

    Most societies constrain economics to permit social functions. The USA used to mandate business closures on Sunday, for example. Weekdays for work, Saturday for shopping, Sunday for rest. It tended to prevent burnout and to permit church attendance, which supported non-work communication and informal settlement of social problems, quite often before they became apparent. The Left vehemently opposed that, since the Left was God and the Left hated those atheists that didn’t believe in them.

    So, yes, an economics that kills of the base population is a bad idea. Example: A taboo on pork eating (in several middle eastern religions) means that hogs being fed for market are no longer in competition with very poor humans (human and hog diets being very similar), hence more troops when it’s time to fight or out-settle the neighbors. _Even if GDP can be raised_ by eating pork (and, in effect, eating the poor) it’s a bad idea.
    Story: While at a very large midwestern manufacturing company c.a. AD 1980, during the last serious project to highly automate manufacturing, I was accosted by an executive who said, very aggressively, that the whole thing was a waste of time, and the real project was reducing American wages to world levels. I was a sinner for trying to prevent that. I was, it seems, also opposing management. It never occurred to him that management (even hereditary management) is an epiphenomenon of the base population. If the base population is driven to Third World conditions (which he was advocating) then neither would his company, or management as he knew it [2]. And, in practice, that’s what happened, that plus partial ethnic replacement of 1980s management class. The manager was foolish, but not atypical.

    So, no, Carlson wasn’t moving to the Left. The health of the working class and the family is the long term strength of the nation, because, long term, it _is_ the nation. Don’t believe me? Think of the Hapsburgs, inspiration for Zork’s “Lord Flathead Dimwit the Third”. Hapsburgs tried to rule Europe by insulating themselves genetically from their base poulation, see where it got them. Carlson’s observations are flat out correct.

    Counterinsurgency

    1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BGbHG63x8w , but it’s a long video. Or, see Bloom’s _Closing of the American Mind_ for a similar explanation.
    2] Ritti & Levi, _The ropes to skip and the ropes to know_; 2009.

    • Replies: @Anonym
  168. @snorlax

    Not quite. Under the Republic, there was nobody who could tell a Senator “I want you to commit suicide by day after tomorrow, lest I confiscate your estate and crucify you and all your family. On the bright side, I won’t prosecute you for committing the crime of suicide”.
    Makes a difference in the independence of the Senate.

    Counterinsurgency

    • Replies: @snorlax
  169. Anonymous[851] • Disclaimer says:

    Tried to read the 3 linked replies. The NYT Bret one was just so painfully unfunny I gave up before clicking “Show More”–it was sub-Jonah-Goldberg bad, I don’t need this in my life. The Nat Review one opened a bunch of malware and autoplay pop-ups on my phone so I didn’t read that one either.

    I read all of the Shapiro response, and I think it had some good points, albeit obtusely expressed. He tends to step on his own most vigorous words (surprising for a supposed cool-medium maestro and college firebrand). As far as the immoral, totalitarian “War On Drugs” is concerned I would say I’m on the same page w/ him.

    It seemed however that Shapiro missed Carlson’s admittedly subtler argument that ideological fidelity is not an ethical objective. A welter of policies either serves the commonweal more or less, or it doesn’t. Obviously conservative dogma is not so important that you can’t impugn it by pointing out when it flops. In this respect Shapiro’s piece didn’t really connect with Tucker’s thesis.

  170. @Hail

    Corporate ruling class is pretty much Yankees (using Woodward’s terminology [1]), and they are trying to re-make the US for the third time in US history. Like the second time (Reconstruction), they are in alliance with the New York City banking/investment culture and are bringing in foreign replacements for the existing base population.
    The ruling class (I’d say “ruling coalition”) is quite well aware of what’s happening to the base population, and, just as during Reconstruction, regards it as a sign of progress towards a more moral future (Rawl’s [2] definition thereof), hence a sign of ruling class virtue. Yankees as Aztecs – the economy, democracy, in fact the world (sun, for the Aztecs) is kept shining by human sacrifices.

    Counterinsurgency

    1] Colin Woodward.
    _American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America_.
    Penguin Books, 2011/09/29.
    2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls

  171. Ralphie K says:

    Does this mean the conservative position no longer supports free enterprise? That we now want socialism and a vast welfare state but only for deserving white folks, and not for lazy colored folks?

  172. @snorlax

    Anyone with an ounce of common sense could see that (fairly or not) it was going to have abysmal optics, which it did.

    I like to think I have an ounce of common sense, but maybe I only have 7/8 of an ounce because I see a complete failure in communication here. Do we let burglars, rapists, car thieves, or embezzlers stay with their kiddies in jail? How do we know they’re even their kiddies? Instead of coming to the feelz crowd of silly women, Trump should have doubled down and asked whether he should send American kids to jail/prison with their criminal parents. He should have ordered his minions to find a few examples of adults with kiddies not their own and shouted about human trafficking until everybody’s ears bled. He cucked. That’s the source of the bad optics. All those feelz ninnies could have had this spun completely against the lowlifes who drag children along on a thousand mile hike with no food or water, no schooling, no healthcare, ultimately just to invade our nation criminally, but Trump cucked instead and he lost badly as a result.

    • Replies: @snorlax
  173. Mr. Anon says:
    @SFG

    I think the point was that what’s left of the previously-establishment right is closing ranks against him.

    Yes, that was the point. Although “what’s left of the previously-establishment right” is pretty much the whole establishment right, and it is still the establishment. Trump’s election has made hardly a dent in the Republican party. Flake and Corker left are out. But then so is Sessions. And Romney is back. It takes more than one man to implement a political program. It takes a party, and Trump doesn’t have one.

  174. Mr. Anon says:
    @Wilkey

    In that the Mormons are behaving like the Catholic Church in America – undermining the material interests of their own parishioners and ultimately of the Church itself.

  175. Anon[120] • Disclaimer says:

    German National Socialism turned evil with imperialism and war, but its family policy was sound. Feminists shriek that the NS policy put women in the home and placed men at work, but it made good sense(and New Deal Era in America wasn’t all that different; in both US and Germany, women entered the workplace in huge numbers only during the wartime due to manpower shortage). Both NS and ND understood the relation between biology and sociology. Men’s role is to ‘hunt’ and bring home the bacon. Women’s role is take care of home and hearth. So, jobs are many times more important to men than to women.

    Also, functionally speaking, women have TWO places in society. Most women can function as homemakers or as workers. In contrast, men have only ONE place in society: at work. Sure, men return home, but they must bring home the bacon from work. It’s like primitive men must bring home the meat from the hunt. Now, among many animals, males play no role in ‘family life’. Family consists of just mother and offspring. So, the animal-mother has to do everything. But human society developed so that both man and woman play role in raising of kids(though less among blacks). So, what is the man’s place and woman’s place in this? Women have two places. She can work or she can take care of home. Man has only one place. He has to work. So, even if workplace is taken from the woman, she still has a meaningful place in society. Place in the home. But if workplace is taken from the man, he has no place in society, esp because most women will not marry ‘losers'(men without jobs or lower-paying jobs). When women take jobs(esp well-paying ones), they are taking jobs from men who need them far far more than women do. If women were to lose their positions in the workplace, they still have the home-place. But if men lose positions in the workplace, they cannot go home(because they can’t even start a home life).

    Consider the One-and-Two-Dic*-Hypothesis. Imagine there are two guys. One guy has one dic* while the other guy has two dic*s. Suppose there is a need for a dic* donation. Who should lose the dic*? Obviously, the guy with two dic*s. Even if he loses one dic*, he has one left, whereas the other guy will have no dic* if he loses his.
    The fact is women have ‘two dic*s’ whereas men have only one, metaphorically speaking of course. (If dic* talk is too vulgar, replace dic*s with hearts. Surely, a person with two hearts is in a better position to give up one of his/her hearts than a person with only one heart is.) The problem of the Modern World is that men have been browbeaten into letting women dic* around too much. Women are told that it’s great to have well-paying jobs AND be mothers too. So, women should be super-women and have it all, and society must do everything possible to ensure that women can be both the most successful workers and most fulfilled mothers. Such a society not only leaves men dic*less but ball-less. It pegs them in the arse.

    In order to have meaningful bio-socialism, we must have a law that says a family can only have one earner with income higher than $90,000. If a family is allowed to have two high-earners, it leads to concentration of wealth in elite communities. Two incomes that could have supported two families just go into ONE family, esp one that is likely to have only one or two kids. Bio-libertarianism sucks. We need bio-socialism that takes into account the biological underpinnings of social reality.

    [MORE]

    Also, too much of the discussion focuses on the premise that people are essentially individuals and economic units. But this is a shallow view of reality. Individuals didn’t just pop into existence out of the blue. No life was ever created by ideas or ideology(just like no life was ever created by homo activity). No life ever leaped out of the pages of a book or the screen of a TV or mobile device. All humans are biological products of their parents who are biological products of their parents and so on. Before they are anything, they are life-form and organisms. Life is created through union of men and women, and males and females are most fertile, moral, and mutually fulfilled under certain conditions. While every man or every woman is an individual, a male individual has his male needs/abilities and a female individual has her female needs/abilities. Men and women may be interchangeable in most professions(that are asexual in function), but they are NOT interchangeable in life. Men produce sperm, women produce eggs. Men are stronger and better able to protect the home. Women are warmer and kinder to the kids. Fathers and mothers impart different influences on the kids, and both are essential in a yin/yang manner. But because so much of the discourse is about individual rights and economic competition, we overlook that men and women are not mere interchangeable individuals in the actual saga of life. Sure, the tranny cult would have us believe a man is a ‘woman’ with a wig and hormone injections and a woman is a ‘man’ with a dildo-strap-on, but that’s just decadent and delusional(not to mention batshit crazy).
    Feminism makes no sense because it emphasizes womanhood as identity but then ignores and neglects what makes women distinct from men. Feminism is really asexualism. It says women should take part in professions where their female-ness doesn’t matter. After all, a female accountant is just like a male accountant. An asexual number-cruncher. Emphasis on professionalism makes one’s sex irrelevant. There is no such thing as a good FEMALE law clerk or good FEMALE baker. The skills necessary in those jobs can be done by men or women. Professions, with few exceptions, are asexual in their design and operation. Now, some professions are better with men because they require lots of muscle strength and manly attitude. And some are better with women(or homos) because they involve lots of ‘dainty’ or whoopity stuff with fingertip than hand-grip work. Because most professions are asexual in purpose, it makes little sense to emphasize female-ness in relation to them. There is little to distinguish a female short-order cook from a male short-order cook, a female insurance agent from a male insurance agent. They are given a job to do, and they do it.
    Where women are trulyl different from men is in the way of life, sex and reproduction, and parental role. So, if feminism is really about the special role of womenfolk, it should focus on what is unique and special about them: What women can do that men can’t do and why women must do them to fulfill their womanly roles in the river of life. The question must be asked, Why did nature design women that way? With that understanding, a better society can be conceived in which women do their womanly things in partnership with men who do their manly things. (Feminism also fails as an egalitarian ideology. While it calls for equal opportunity for women in the workplace, it is only because women with extra-smarts want to rise as high as possible to marry and have kids with high IQ men who are just as rich or richer. So, it’s about elitist-minded women wanting to be equal with elite men. It’s not about the equality of all sisterhood or equality of women with the under-privileged of society.)

    While it makes good sense to regard ourselves as individuals with rights and economic units with utilitarian roles in society, we mustn’t put individualism or economism at the core of our consciousness. At the center must be the sense of ourselves as organisms. Laws, culture, society, and freedom arose from organisms, not vice versa. While it’s not enough for us to be mere organisms — like brutish animals — because we are creatures of culture, ideas, and civilization, the fact is we are organisms before we are anything else. And even the abstract ideas and values in our heads exist only because we have organic matter like brains with neurons and hearts that pump blood. If all of culture were to vanish, humans could create new ones through more imagination and inspiration. After all, so much was destroyed by barbarian invasions and wars, but surviving humans revived or reinvented culture and civilization(even surpassing the earlier cultures that were destroyed and turned into dust). But if all human organisms were to perish even as all the culture — museums, art works, architecture, libraries, etc — were to remain, it would be the end of everything. After all, culture is useless without people to appreciate them. And people are organisms, and they appreciate culture through organic senses such as eyes and ears.
    As people age, they grow a bit tired of culture because they’d seen it already: Been there, done that. That is precisely why they need to have kids because children experience culture(and nature) with fresh eyes, and then, the adults/parents can share in the wonderment. This is why Christmas continues to be special for families with kids and grandkids. Even as the adults don’t feel much excitement themselves, they share in the magic through their kids’ eyes.

    If our core sense of self is organismic than individualistic or economic, we need to ask WHAT KIND OF SOCIAL ARRANGEMENT optimizes the existence of humans as creatures of continuity in the endless cycles of life and death. How are men different from women and vice versa, and how can that truth be acknowledged to arrange for social and professional roles that produce the greatest good for most people. This is where the (bio)socialist element comes in. Purely from a libertarian view, every woman is primarily an individual. And if all women, as individuals, want to take well-paying jobs from men, they should have the freedom to do so. The ONLY thing that would matter is the demand of the individual. But what would be the long-term and wider consequences of such socio-economic practices? It would spell doom, ultimately for women as well as for men because neither sex can survive/thrive without the other. It’d be like a society where everyone on the football team decides to do his own ‘individualist’ thing instead of knowing his place in the game. Imagine if an offensive lineman demanded that he be the quarterback and if the kicker said it’s his turn to play running back. It’d be chaos.

    Also, humanity must understand that home, not work, is the center of life. In other words, work exists so that people can bring something home. It’s like a primitive savage goes hunting not just for the hell of it but to bring the kill back to the community to share with his family and kinfolk. Home should be the constant in life. People may go from job to job, from place to place, but the one constant must be family and home. It’s no great deal to leave a job to take another, but it’s a serious matter to leave one’s family, though, to be sure, in our decadent-degenerate age, much of the stigma has been removed from people abandoning or rejecting their spouses or children. It’s no longer shameful for men to renege on their obligations as husbands/fathers. It’s no problem for women to get pregnant and raise kids on their own(with government assistance) while they shut the door on the fathers of the children. Or worthless skanks shunt off the kids(often mulatto) to be raised by the grandparents while they whore around some more. (Obama’s mother was just an higher variation of whore-life.) The current culture doesn’t put home/family at the center. Rather, the ego-driven individual occupies the center. Even when a man or woman decides to have a family, it is not to serve the family but to have it serve one’s own ‘needs’ on the conceit that ‘one can have it all’. It’s just another trophy in the game of leggo-my-ego.

    In an ideal society, people work so that they can bring home the bacon. It is in the home that genuine attachments and deep devotion exist. There is love for spouse and kids. And when people grow old, the only people who are going to care are the members of the family. After all, how many co-workers over the years in the various companies are going to be at one’s deathbed and funeral? Because the Home is central and because Workplace really exists to serve the Home-place, a sane society must prioritize the MAN’s position in the Workplace because that is his ONLY WAY HOME. Without a place at work, men cannot go home because they can’t get married and build a home. In contrast, women have a place at home even without a place at work. They can marry someone and take care of the home while the man labors at work to bring home the bacon.

    Anyway, the basic fact of life-and-culture is that women have two dic*s and can afford to surrender one. In contrast, if men lose their one-and-only dick*s, it’s all over now, baby blue.

    • Replies: @Hail
  176. gregor says:
    @Wilkey

    Free market fundamentalism and libertarianism have been so effective in neutering the modern right that I would seriously entertain arguments of it being intentional sabotage. I myself was a victim of this mental virus for some time.

    I think the right became somewhat demoralized in the face of the across-the-board liberal institutional dominance that they lost the will and moral courage to stake out strong cultural positions and endure the ensuing left-wing attack. Thus they retreat to safe positions like low taxes, limited spending, and free trade and adopt a cowardly feigned indifference to our degenerating culture. Hey, what a man, and another man, and a woman, and a well-trained dog do in the privacy of their own home is none of my business!

    On the economic front, the right has put the cart before the horse. The Economy exists as a direct end in itself, not a means to serve the social welfare. Even when there are obvious problems staring us in the face, we are told that we cannot question the ways of the Free Market and must keep the faith.

    In functional societies, there is an understanding of the common interest, straightforward identification of problems, and the evolution of practical solutions to those problems. We have no sense of common interest. Real and obvious problems are ignored while bogus, manufactured “crises” receive endless media attention. And the only solutions being offered by the harebrained useful-idiot conservatives are more tax cuts, more globalization, more corporatism, more war.

    • Replies: @Wilkey
    , @densa
  177. Mr. Anon says:
    @snorlax

    There was no way the government could really avoid separating out the children of detainees. A lot of those kids weren’t even the children of the adults they were with. There were (are) a lot of illegals who bring a kid along to increase their chances of getting in. How would the Border Patrol know who belongs to who? The government can’t leave children in the custody of people who aren’t even thier parents – they’d open themselves up to charges of facilitating child abuse.

    • Replies: @snorlax
  178. Populism can be good politics but it’s harder to convert into a (good) economic program.

    Just like Leftist social engineering, the Law of Unintended Consequences tends to wreck the results.

    But Tucker and Trump at least are starting from the correct premise — what puts the interests of Americans first.

  179. Mr. Anon says:
    @Dave Pinsen

    Both Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner were registered Democrats until Trump’s campaign. If Trump had not run, they undoubtedly would have voted for Hillary Clinton. Why should they be given important advisory r9les in a Republican government and allowed to have influence over policy decisions?

  180. Oh, nonsense. A tempest in a teapot. The problem is not women making more money than men. It is nobody making any money you boneheads.

    And this talking head guy is a paid mouthpiece. Follow the money and you will find out why he’s huckstering this particular talking point at this particular time. Politics and Media 101.

  181. @Bubba

    So basically what I said: that anyone else unwilling to cross the Rubicon and face whatever come what may is going to have the same problem with a district judge in a Hawaii courtroom deciding he’s kingmaker.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
  182. @snorlax

    Hey man you pop your shoulder out with this disingenuous reaching? Lmao.

  183. Anonym says:
    @SFG

    I am not sure why you are posting again SFG but I always found your perspective to be one of the most interesting and insightful of the comments section.

  184. Mr. Anon says:
    @Kyle

    A lot of this country was hopped up on coffee and cigarettes for the better part of the 20th century.

    We did okay.

  185. @Dave Pinsen

    Kaus makes his living selling “the sky is falling!” every week to Boomer eeyores like those that populate this blog.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
  186. gregor says:
    @Desiderius

    Trump is credible. He’s among the most credible politicians I’ve ever seen. And I believe he is sincere. He does what he does because he thinks the country is being sold out and he wants to set things right.

    The key reason Trump jumped out ahead in the primaries is because he had vastly better credibility than all of the other candidates. When Trump said he wanted to close the border, people actually believed that he wanted to do it. Sure, others might say it, but was anyone taking it seriously? When Trump said he was against the war in Syria, again, he was credible. Even now that we’ve seen the practical difficulties of implementation, most take his expressed ambitions seriously. Even the left implicitly regards him as highly credible which is precisely why he’s provoked such hysteria. Same for the establishment.

  187. gregor says:
    @Dave Pinsen

  188. snorlax says:
    @Desiderius

    If your defense of his bragging about attempting to seduce his close friend’s wife is that he was lying while bragging about attempting to seduce his close friend’s wife, that does not speak well to his character.

    It also doesn’t seem very likely he was lying, given his proven record of repeatedly cheating on all three of his wives. Assuming he were lying, what on Earth would possess a 59-year-old man to say such a thing? Wouldn’t he have claimed she did sleep with him?

    Are you saying a multi-billionaire, as of ’05 probably the most famous man in the world other than GWB and Clinton, so famous as to be known simply as The Donald, the host and producer of at the time the biggest hit show on television, and an extreme narcissist, was starstruck by Billy Bush?

    I guess he sussed out that BB was a fellow scumbag, but why would any normal person think that anyone else would find such an anecdote impressive or endearing?

    And we also know that while his stunningly gorgeous new wife, 25 years his junior, was caring for their newborn son, he was off behind her back having unprotected sex with multiple of the skankiest whores imaginable.

    As for his family, he’s a good father to his kids, which is one of his better qualities and a cut above most celebrities, but to have children by three different women, all of whom are still living, is not the sort of family that demonstrates good moral character.

    Again, there’s a lot to admire about Trump, but among other things his scarcely-believable degree of sexual incontinence utterly disqualifies him as a man of good character.

  189. nsa says:
    @snorlax

    “In the Roman Empire, there was no such thing as the Roman Emperor. The Roman Empire was run by the Senate and the Consuls, just like always.”
    You are definitely a product of the public school system. Try reading the finest history ever written: The Twelve Caesars by Suetonius, detailing the conversion of a republic into dictatorship and empire. Starting with Augustus, the only thing the Roman Senate ran were their mouths, and even that proved fatal to many of them. Caligula regularly seated his favorite horse, Incitatus, in the Senate just for laughs and often threatened to make his steed a Consul……. Thinking about it, Caligula had a point. Would you rather have Incitatus munching on oats or the likes of Dame Lindsey Graham munching on your wallet in the US Senate?

    • Replies: @snorlax
  190. gregor says:

    Male wages have been basically stagnant for decades. Increases in household income are partly just from two-income families. That is a sign of stagnation. Corporate apologists suggest that other benefits have increased, just not actual cash wages. This allows them to count exploding health care costs as a “benefit” rather than another problem.

  191. snorlax says:
    @S. Anonyia

    Again, look at his speeches and interviews. He wasn’t a Trumpist before he was named as Trump’s running mate, but at least rhetorically he is now.

    For example, this speech on China, which is nearly on par with the Tucker monologue above.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
  192. dvorak says:
    @Anonymous

    The problem is that we have shifted over the past couple generations from what might be called for lack of a better word “patriarchy” to a more sexually egalitarian one. This is not something that can be dealt with simply with economics.

    Everything can be dealt with or dealt out simply with economics. Demographic collapse is being dealt out simply with real estate economics. The Great Replacement is being dealt out simply with corporate economics.

  193. Wilkey says:

    If you haven’t read all of the rebuttals to Carlson that Sailer linked to, you should, particularly David French’s.

    David French is of course, well, you know…

    We should do all these things and more. But we must not create a victim class of angry citizens. We must not tell them falsehoods about the power of governments or banks or elites over their personal destinies.

    Telling Americans that they are often victims of greedy corporations is not a falsehood. It is often a fact. And the actions of unethical industries often do have quite serious consequences for “personal destinies.”

    …but some of his objections to Carlson’s points have merit:

    He says, “increasingly, marriage is a luxury only the affluent in America can afford.” Yet a healthy, faithful marriage is often the gateway to affluence. Affluence is not a prerequisite for marriage.

    Indeed. Carlson does come off sounding sometimes like most single people are single because the elites have pulled the rug out from under them. Big business and government have certainly done what they can to denigrate and undermine marriage, especially among young women who without this brainwashing would otherwise make for good marriage partners.

    But in most cities and towns there is little shortage of good young women who would make great wives. Marriage isn’t something being “kept away” from young men (or young women, for that matter). It’s something they are choosing not to commit to. What do you need to do to find someone to marry? 1) Show your would-be partner you’re willing to put in the energy to take care of yourself. 2) Then show your them you are willing to commit to being part of a team. What you don’t have to be is rich.

    The danger with adhering a little too much to Tucker’s thesis is that he may lead you into seeing yourself as a victim (which I don’t think is his goal), and that he can cause you to doubt in the very family and civic life I believe he is genuinely attempting to renew.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    , @L Woods
  194. snorlax says:
    @Stan d Mute

    Trump should have doubled down and asked whether he should send American kids to jail/prison with their criminal parents. He should have ordered his minions to find a few examples of adults with kiddies not their own and shouted about human trafficking until everybody’s ears bled.

    He actually did do both those things, which didn’t mitigate the bad press (e.g. the normally pro-Trump New York Post attacked him on the front page every day for two weeks straight) one bit. He had no choice but to “cuck,” his own and Republican poll numbers were dropping like Nixon’s after the White House tapes, and the ACLU had filed a lawsuit in the 9th Circuit.

    • Replies: @Stan d Mute
  195. Anonymous[119] • Disclaimer says:
    @SFG

    The problem with welfare is one of dysgenics and incentive.

    Welfare creates a parallel and usually, growing society of lazy, dishonest, incompetent, often criminal and usually obnoxious people. These same people will use their ability to exploit loopholes to exploit any other pro-worker laws, such as OSHA type laws in order to avoid work and get paid for doing nothing.

    The white working class see how this pans out and there is a temptation to follow this path. Marxism has made a lot of them more lazy and resentful, with a chip on their shoulder towards assisting capital that is friendly towards them.

    As a people, we are breeding a caste who no one would want to share a foxhole with, because it would frankly be better just to shoot them and use their ammunition as they are incapable of doing useful work, being part of a team, and acting honestly for the greater good of anything.

  196. Mr. Anon says:
    @snorlax

    Pence is such a non-entity. I really don’t care what he says or thinks. If he became President, he would likely be just another neocon frontman.

    • Replies: @snorlax
  197. snorlax says:
    @Counterinsurgency

    I’m being sarcastic. Just because the Roman constitution said the Senate and Consuls had all the power doesn’t mean they actually did, and just because the American constitution says the President is elected by the Electoral College does not mean that’s the criterion by which most partisans of the losing party would consider his election legitimate.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
  198. snorlax says:
    @Mr. Anon

    Well whatever the case he was forced to reverse the policy, so whatever negative effects of the status quo remained, plus now all of Latin America was alerted to the fact that “family units” get catch-and-released.

    A non-incompetent Sessions would’ve petitioned the Supreme Court to throw out the Flores consent decree instead of embarking on the utterly tone-deaf “family separation” policy.

  199. Hail says: • Website
    @varsicule

    Has anyone read that study to find out whose “aversion” in this case is driving the decline in marriage rates? Men’s or women’s?

    It is a cultural problem at root at ought not be ‘blamed’ on either men or women.

  200. Anonym says:
    @Counterinsurgency

    That’s an interesting theory about the reason for the pork taboo. I had not heard of that one before.

  201. Dutch Boy says:
    @Wilkey

    Indeed, there is nothing conservative about the bastardized libertarianism (the late Sam Francis’s term) pushed by the Republican Party. The idea that this stuff is right wing is one of the derangements of American political discourse.

  202. Wilkey says:
    @gregor

    In functional societies, there is an understanding of the common interest, straightforward identification of problems, and the evolution of practical solutions to those problems. We have no sense of common interest. Real and obvious problems are ignored while bogus, manufactured “crises” receive endless media attention. And the only solutions being offered by the harebrained useful-idiot conservatives are more tax cuts, more globalization, more corporatism, more war.

    Wow. Now that is a tour de force. Well said, sir.

  203. snorlax says:
    @Anon

    You and I weren’t bothered by the policy at all, but outside the Republican and particularly the iSteve echo chamber it backfired very hard. “Think of the children” is evergreen and indeed rooted in biology, so it’s never going away.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    , @415 reasons
  204. J.Ross says: • Website

    This is amazing. If Republicans read this, take it to heart, and fight in elections, they’ll not only win, they’ll save the country. This monologue must become the “Flight 93 Election” essay of upcoming contests. The neocon-bankster lobby lost in Syria and now they could lose at home.

    • Agree: SporadicMyrmidon
  205. J.Ross says: • Website
    @snorlax

    You know what else is rooted on biology is survival.

    • Replies: @snorlax
  206. Hunsdon says:
    @SFG

    We’re still pretty much civnats here, I guess.

  207. AndrewR says:
    @Anon87

    How is he not?

    • Replies: @Anon87
  208. Hunsdon says:
    @SunBakedSuburb

    Trump talks down to his audience. (Hell, I could be wrong.)

  209. Anonym says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Then try the Marxist kind. They had very little immigration. Or anything else.

    In that system, you have to be a party cadre to get ahead. White people who are capable of running a business are known as Kulaks and end up in a ditch or in a gulag. To be part of the cadre you need to be an observant Marxist. It seems a large part of that revolves around in being incompetent to the point where you struggle to make enough money on your own, and envious to the point where you want to kill people and take their stuff. When these people are promoted to positions of power it’s generally not a prescription for economic success or accomplishing the business of a country.

    (Those are of course, the non-Jewish types who gravitate to the party. The Jewish types are often of that bent as well. You have guys like Schiff who bankroll Communism for their tribal/economic benefit but they aren’t the same who in the party doing the work.)

    Over time this kind of socialism seems to turn even something as productive as East Germany into a something not as productive. If we must have socialism it should be for the benefit of a white population or nation within the white population (and not for the benefit of Jews unless in Israel). If we must have socialism let it be a national type.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  210. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @The Alarmist

    That’s precisely why the Dems like income taxes.

  211. AndrewR says:
    @Wilkey

    Well we all are victims in certain ways. I don’t see any point in pretending otherwise. What matters is what one does with that knowledge. It’s unhealthy and unhelpful to blame all of one’s problems on others. It’s also unhealthy to blame all of one’s problems on oneself. Put crudely, leftism at its worst tends to promote the former, while conservatism at its worst tends to promote the latter. Wisdom means seeking a balance.

    And you make some good points about marriage, but you also seem to be downplaying systemic forces that have contributed to the decline in marriage and stable families. The social, legal and economic incentive structures that were in place for our grandparents have been almost completely replaced. Women have pushed men out of much of the workforce, and even men who work in male-dominated fields often earn less than their potential mates, many of whom are strong independent women who don’t need no man.

    • Replies: @Wilkey
  212. L Woods says:
    @SFG

    Unfortunately, a lot of the dissident right indulges feminism for posturing/autism reasons (look at me, I’ve got mine/muh aryan warrior princesses in wheat fields). They don’t seem to grasp that a society with feminism (and the rest of the panoply of subversion and degeneracy) but without minorities isn’t anything worth striving for or preserving. Trying to attract women to the “movement” (such as it is) for the purposes of attaining power is also stupid: women will flock to whoever appears to be winning, and desert whoever appears to be losing. They aren’t a cause of success (although they do undermine it at times). Attempting to reverse the arrow of causation is basically cargo cultism.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
  213. Anonymous[119] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    I think that long term that will be seen as a bit of genius. You have to start innoculating the citizenry into not being so irrational about children if you are ever going to cut down on immigration.

    I agree. I think stuff like that is key. We have to be a lot harder nosed as a people, more callous. It’s possible for us to become that way, see how we were in WWII.

    How do peoples hold ground? Muslims don’t inform on any violent action taken towards non-Muslims period, and also what they consider to be Muslim traitors/apostates. That’s what allows no-go zones. Once you have this sea in which young males can swim with impunity, that’s all you need. Jews are pretty much the same in Israel. Or a Chinatown. (“Forget it Jake, it’s Chinatown”.) Consider the opposite – how would a no-go zone form if every time a group of young Muslims attacked a non-Muslim, a group of goodMuslims were to inform on them to the local mainly white police force?

    If we are to hold ground, I think the primary thing we need is to hold the attitude as a people that action towards non-whites and white traitors is something we don’t inform on. That includes shaming “virtue” signallers. It also includes recognizing the point of a jury, and that membership on a jury involves saying what you need to say to get on the jury, and then voting from the perspective of “Is it good for the whites?”, not according to the laws on the books.

    • Replies: @Anon
  214. AndrewR says:
    @Svigor

    Uh, no, you made his very dumb claim even dumber. A society where chattel, intergenerational slavery exists is the farthest possible thing from libertarianism.

  215. Malcolm Y says:

    David French

    Bret Stephens

    Ben Shapiro

    I wonder do they have anything in common?

    • Replies: @Grimsby
  216. Whiskey says: • Website

    Drudge has a picture of Pelosi and all the female Congressional Democrats gathered on the steps of the Capitol.

    That image encapsulates the reality of Western Society post WWII. White men are simply not needed. Indeed Western politics is pretty much White women plus Managers plus non-Whites against White men. And White men are not needed because we don’t face industrial warfare, and women make as much or more then their male peers and thus despise them.

    Men have not changed much npr have women, evolution does not work that fast. What has radically changed via economics and technology (the pill, condom, TV, social media) is women’s independence and social power. All across the developed world even including semi-developed nations like Iran or Tunisia or Algeria the TFR is below replacement. For Iran way below replacement. Unless men have higher status and earnings power most women will ignore them.

    This is not going to change, any more than those GM and GE factories are coming back, or working and middle class men will earn anything over White women. Indeed White women benefit tremendously from this system — as shown by their voting patterns and consistent and constant invitations to immavaders all over the West.

    The only solution is dominance, and an adoption of African ways. In many ways Africans are superior to all other races — they don’t bother with high paternal investment, or monogamy, or marriage. Those factories, jobs, and money/status/social power are not ever coming back. Among other things, women don’t want them coming back — they want more and more immavaders who they vote for constantly. Time for White men outside the upper managerial class to realize that marriage is as dead as the Holy Roman Empire, turn to the African model. And for High IQ White men in particular to impregnate as many White girls as possible. Numbers matter. Instead of being a source of shame in the old dead system of monogamy and the nuclear family which is not coming back lets have White men spread their seed and create boots on the ground. Young White kids where there were none.

  217. Daniel H says:
    @Bubba

    >>I’m surprised Bolshevik Neocon Bill Kristol has not denounced Tucker yet.

    He got Brett Stephens to make a lame attempt at satirizing Tucker. Fail.

    • Replies: @Bubba
  218. Clyde says:
    @Impolitic

    I had to rewatch that monologue three times. I’ve never seen anything like it on TV. He should run for president.

    Thanks I guess I better watch it.

  219. Anonym says:
    @Jus' Sayin'...

    Well done for reading them, but I really don’t care to read the critical views of 2 media-promoted Jews and a Shabbos Goy about Tucker’s monologue, which stood out to me as great when I saw it a few days ago. If Stephen Miller had written a critique, I would read it without question. As for Shapiro, images of memeworthy Abigail are worth more to me than a thousand words from Ben.

    Yes, I understand that the establishment right would hate Tucker’s monologue. It would be more interesting to me to find the exceptions that prove the rule – some supporters.

  220. conatus says:

    THE Tuck’s main message( and dangerous it is) is that The Elite does not care about ‘We the people!’ WE are not in this together. If there is an unsaid truth that is it. This is not the United States of America, it is the Disparate States of America. Rich and poor divided forever.
    Look at the Gini coefficient which measures wealth inequality, the higher the number, the more UNequal your country is:
    China .42
    USA .41
    Russia .37
    UK .34
    Canada .34
    France .32
    Japan .32
    Germany .31
    Belgium .28
    Finland .26
    Norway .26
    Compared to our other civilized partners, the Elite in the USA does not care about the people they rule. (Perhaps they ‘loathe’ the people they rule?)They consider themselves separated by meritocracy. The elite sees themselves as working harder(even if Dad got them into Penn) and screw you Mr. Tentooth.
    Our Gini coefficient was in the .30s in the 1960s so what happened?
    From 1973 to 2017, net productivity rose 77.0 percent, while the hourly pay of typical workers essentially stagnated—increasing only 12.4 percent over 44 years (after adjusting for inflation). This means that although Americans are working more productively than ever, the fruits of their labors have primarily accrued to those at the top and to corporate profits, especially in recent years.
    We got robbed by the Elite. They stole OUR Productivity thru mismanagement and rewarded us with no pension, no health care, and opioid addiction…Gee thanks!

  221. Maciano says:

    God, Shapiro is so predictable. Welfare state. Social fabric. Bad choices….źzzzzzzzz

  222. Anonym says:
    @Svigor

    You’d think borrowing money with the intent to defraud the lender would be something you could be prosecuted for.

    You’d think that, and the spirit and maybe the text of the law implies or says it outright. But when you make that sort of money, if you are unethical, you can find top flight lawyers who will find the letter of the law that allows you to do what you want, if it can be done. At what point does the debt of a company become enough to risk insolvency? How can you prove that the empty suits with good CVs guys like Romney installed in the plundered company only care about getting their big pay packets for as long as things worked out and not the company’s best interest?

  223. Anonymous[119] • Disclaimer says:
    @S. Anonyia

    I’ll be honest – I spoil my sons more than my daughters. I know a lot more about how to upskill a son in life than a daughter. How to make build things, how to understand science, etc. How to set a son on a path to becoming an engineer.

    My daughters frequently only want girl toys, cute dolls and the like. How many of those are really needed? I don’t want to turn my daughters into men. However, I would like them to at least know enough about science and business so that they can make intelligent mate choices, to be able to identify the smarter, more successful males and not merely the BS artists.

  224. Anonym says:
    @The real Buddy Ray

    Yeah, he would have to hire a head hunter to search those people out. That’s something Trump should have done rather than firing the people who were remotely sympathetic to working class whites.

    Have you dealt with corporate HR people? Find me one who has not drunk deeply of the diversity/modern corporatist kool-aid.

    • Replies: @The real Buddy Ray
  225. Dtbb says:

    The welfare system is easier to game if the mother is unmarried. I have seen over the years plenty of couples, black, hispanic and white, who never marry in order to maximize benefits. They live in subsidized housing as a couple together on the sly. Their kids learn this behavior and continue it. No one ever checks or they avert their eyes. I wonder if this behavior could skew statistics and conclusions from them because the system is built on lies which leads to looser morality in other areas.

  226. @snorlax

    This is one I never understood. You wouldn’t take your kids with you to rob a bank or hike for days across the desert, but the vicious unethical person in this scenario is… The President of the United States?

    • Replies: @snorlax
  227. MarkinLA says:
    @Svigor

    As long as you keep to the story that you are borrowing the money for expansion or acquisitions, you aren’t defrauding anybody. The real issue is why anybody would buy these junk bonds knowing that the rules for Chapter 11 bankruptcy are so bad for the bondholders that you will likely never recover anything.

    I have been on the screwed end of some junk bonds that were supposedly senior secured debt. By the time all the reorganizations were done and the bond holders pushed father and farther back due to debtor in possession financing to complete the reorg, I ended up with 20 cents on the dollar. Imagine what the unsecured bondholders got.

  228. @Jack Hanson

    You and everyone else posting this bullshit needs to explain how you flank a district judge giving himself “Whatever I Want” powers without setting off a Constitutional Crisis.

    Jack, i’m sure 415 is sorry for sending you to your millennial “fainting couch” with scary thoughts of a “Constitutional Crisis”.

    Seriously, if populists/nationalists are going to be stopped in their tracks in fear every time some globohomo judge issues their globohomo decree, then this thing is over. It’s been crystal clear for at least 25 years that the American “left”\establishment has absolutely no respect or interest in republican government or our Constitutional order and will impose what they damn well please. If you a conservative/nationalist isn’t willing to ignore, flip ’em the bird, provoke a “crisis” then … game over.

    Trump could not have had better ground to fight this battle on.

    On the “muslim ban” he has black letter law–executive visa issuing/denail power and explicit legal language to keep out threats. I’d argue that in fact there is no possible constitutional order for a free republican nation where the chief executive does not have to the power to deny entry to foreigners deamed trouble. It’s call detering invasion. But even more simply, this was a great opporutinity to keep nailing home the point “foreigners have no right to enter the United States.”

    The DACA issue was even more laughable. DACA itself was–at least quite possibly–unconstitutional. But there is no way that an elected president tossing out the previous president’s executive orders can be unconstitutional. That’s what elections are for.

    Trump should have simply rejected these judicial usurpations and carried on. And use the brazen natural of the usurpation as a “teachable moment”. In each case note:
    — we have federalism and republican government where the people elect leaders to make and enforce laws
    — there is a limited set of issues over which there is federal purview and an even more limited where there is an legitimate question about constitutional or federal law; most issues are reserved for the states and the people
    — the people are sovereign and entitled to make the laws they desire; their elected representatives–not judges–are responsible for making law
    — judges who insert their own personal political opinions of “how things ought to be” for the constitution and law are traitors to our consitution, our nation
    — there is no constitutional right for foreigners to enter the United States; this is privilege which the American people can bestow or revoke at will
    — judges who don’t like what the law is, or don’t like the executive actions i take and want to do something different, should refrain from unconstitutional usurpation of legislative or executive authority, step down, run for office, take their case to the American people and ask for their vote.

  229. MarkinLA says:
    @Dave Pinsen

    Probably find some prostitute that Carlson DIDN’T want to have sex with and turn that into a smear campaign.

  230. @Dave Pinsen

    Tucker would run into the same problem Trump has in the White House: personnel is policy, and he has no personnel. He’s a cable TV pundit, albeit one with admirable honesty and courage; he doesn’t have a Rolodex of qualified people who share his views to staff an administration with.

    This is Trump’s greatest failing. He had millions of “qualified people who share his views to staff an administration with.” Maybe not 63 million who were willing and qualified, but at least 10 million who were qualified and would have helped to MAGA for the price of a phone call.

  231. @Bubba

    He’s probably still hanging out with the rapper Fat Joe. May still be hungover or recovering from whatever drugs.

    • LOL: Bubba
  232. @SFG

    SFG, there’s no doubt that the typical–know little, do little, whine much–American woman–one of the most comfortable and cossetted creatures in the history of our planet–is indeed quite a noxious beast.

    However … i still hold out hope of fixing the problem rather than just throwing up our hands “ok, bitch go eat a bullet”. They still have one critical mission, but it’s not in the military. Indeed, i want my daughters panting and sweating … but in the delivery room, not on the battlefield.

  233. densa says:
    @gregor

    Well said. Republicans must rethink their ideas of who is the servant, who the master.

    But first, Republican leaders will have to acknowledge that market capitalism is not a religion. Market capitalism is a tool, like a staple gun or a toaster. You’d have to be a fool to worship it. Our system was created by human beings for the benefit of human beings. We do not exist to serve markets. Just the opposite. Any economic system that weakens and destroys families is not worth having. A system like that is the enemy of a healthy society. 

    Trump should be hearing footsteps behind him. So far he has been merely a transitional figure in populism’s rise. He could learn and align himself with Tucker and maybe even Rand Paul.

  234. @gman

    ‘Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook wrote an entire book about this. Sandberg explained that our first duty is to shareholders, above our own children.’

    Isn’t it a happy coincidence, then, that immigration restriction is both good for the shareholders and good for our children?

  235. @Jack Hanson

    So basically what I said: that anyone else unwilling to cross the Rubicon and face whatever come what may is going to have the same problem with a district judge in a Hawaii courtroom deciding he’s kingmaker.

    But Trump didn’t fight back.

    Options include:

    1. Legal brief pointing out that the judge thinks his own ruling is full of shit, i.e., he didn’t judge his own conduct by the standard he applied to Trump.

    2. Executive order directing the judge to vacate his order. An executive order telling a judge what to do is exactly the same as a judicial order telling the President what to do.

    Trump has balls, but he’s not really trying.

  236. @Anonymous

    Take away the Koch Brothers’ pro-mass-immigration, pro-welfare-buttressed-labor, “libertarian,” propaganda budget, sure, but what will our legislators spend that 70 to 80% tax revenue on?

    Are they going to use it to finance a welfare-roll-reducing wall?

    Are they going to spend it to shore up Social Security and Medicare in an era of automation-induced part-time work?

    Social Security and Medicare are contributory programs that US citizens pay a significant portion of their often meager, earned-only income into, with the self-employed paying in twice as much—15.3%, not 7.65%.

    Many single earners could use that money for increasingly unaffordable necessities, like housing, during working years, but they pay it into the system, year after year after year, with only the dual-earner parents having SS checks big enough to live on in retirement. Those dual-earner parents get child tax credits all through their earning years in their family-friendly, absenteeism-friendly jobs, and then at retirement, they have two SS checks and two pension or 401k income streams per household.

    Although most wealthy people seem very concerned with taxation that soaks up lower percentages of their massive income than SS taxation takes from citizens living on $25k, they are dismissive about the amount of money Americans pay into the system. When you are trying to cover bills on $25k, it is a lot.

    Past presidential candidates, like Romney, have equated contributory Social Security with non-contributory welfare payouts to citizens and noncitizens—welfare that rewards them for sex, reproduction in single-breadwinner households and part time or temp work that keeps them under the programs’ income limits.

    Mrs. Romney—someone who has never competed for voted-best-for-moms jobs with welfare-fueled applicants—even got together with Maria Shiver, another person who has never don3 that, to generate a report on how much more non-contributory, 100%-free welfare the US could provide on top of the already heaping smorgasbord of welfare and child tax credits for single-breadwinner moms.

    .Gov cannot use any such 70–80% tax to reinforce contributory SS; that is not how the pay-as-you-go system that used to run surpluses works.

    So, would they use a 70–80 percent tax hike on the wealthy to reinforce Medicare, a program that is never, ever free of charge to the US citizens who paid into it for a lifetime. Even after they turn 65, they still pay hundreds in premiums per month.

    While it is true that people consume the most healthcare at the front end of life and during the last six months of life, Republicans will not be at all happy at the ballot box if they decide to keep funding their cheap, foreign servants at the front end of life, fully funding illegal alien birthing, healthcare and education, in addition to all of their other monthly pay-per-birth welfare, taking care of them free of charge to the max degree on the front end of life, while, on the back end of life, cutting the Medicare that US citizens paid into all during their working lives and all through their retirement.

    A minimum basic income, if that is what Cortez is proposing to institute with the 70-80% wealth tax, would never pass and it is just being dangled out there as false hope by Democratic Party, a party that has no intention of delivering it since it would shut down capitalism, and they know it.

    A 70 to 80-percent wealth tax would just be spent to foster the only thing that could pass: more non-contributory, marriage-undermining and wage-undercutting, social-engineering programs, like .gov-financed EBT groceries that increase by well over $100 per person / per household with each additional birth in single-breadwinner households, more rental subsides that increase with each out-of-wedlock birth, bigger monthly cash handouts that increase per baby produced, more electricity assistance and bigger cash windfalls from the US Treasury Department that exceed the current refundable child tax credit max of $6,431.

    Like Tucker, I think marriage is the make-or-break economic issue for most US citizens, but not just due to family formation. Keep in mind that most US citizens—and most voting citizens—are not welfare-eligible, single breadwinners, with wages supplemented in multiple ways by .gov.

    In a rigged economy, catering to working parents with kids under 18, being non-married is particularly brutal for those who are welfare-ineligible and single, with low or lower-middle wages, whether they are childless and single, single with kids over 18 or single non-custodial dads.

    Education does not help in most cases.

    We have been sold a false bill of goods over several generations, when marriage was still considered mandatory for reproduction for many raised in middle-class households, even as everything in the broader culture and all social programs undercut marriage, with umpteen “experts” falsely suggesting that it is possible for most educated or skilled, non-married, non-welfare-eligible individuals to support themselves in a labor market with many jobs, catering to family-friendly, dual-earner crony parents or single-earner, welfare-reinforced parents.

    Unless you are an MD, RN, CS or law school-caliber student, a much bigger economic issue than college is: the person you marry and whether or not you marry.

    The issue of good personal choices, and a linear path to keeping a roof over your head via good choices, is now complicated by the fact that some nouveau-approved “good choices” are rewarded by government and a market hungry for welfare-eligible workers who can afford to accept low pay, while some time-honored good choices are punished by both government and the marketplace.

    Take single parenthood, which is now rewarded with multiple monthly welfare layers, $6,431 in yearly child tax credit cash and a wide range of jobs, wherein welfare-eligible moms and people with other types of unearned income are favored due to their ability to work cheaply.

    Outside of widowhood, or in cases where divorce was necessary to avoid danger, single parenthood was clearly designated as a bad choice in the recent past. Part-time work, supplemented by welfare-for-single-breadwinner womb productivity, was not regarded as the glorified “good choice” for above-reproach “working families.”

    But completing a degree, even a degree outside of high-paying medical or technical areas, was regarded as a good choice, a respected choice. So was marriage-before-children, regardless of whether you had a degree, could afford a show wedding and a show house.

    The limited social programs of past eras had morality baked into them, unlike the programs of the Un-Great Society and beyond. Take Social Security, which was designed as limited, insurance-like benefit, which provided for two groups that did not individually pay in: stay-at-home moms and the kids of dead workers who paid in. The SS system is based on work and paying in, but acknowledges that the rearing of children is work that parents do best since it is them, not low-wage babysitters, who will be judged if moral values are not imparted properly to their children. The SS system acknowledges that a dead parent cannot be responsible for a child, but his / her child should have the benefit since s/he paid in.

    Tucker is right that American despair is rooted in overwhelmingly bad economic options, painted as good options, adding to the despair. Only a tiny handful of professions guarantee a decent standard of living for one person, much less for a family. Few jobs offer wages, or job stability, sufficient to cover rent for a sub-par, one-room apartment in a safe area of the city, even if the individual indulges in no (or next-to-no) luxuries.

    [MORE]

    Funny thing, the stay-at-home moms of yesteryear mostly retired into paid-for homes, whereas most of today’s working women will not—even many of the married ones—but especially the single ones, and yet, femeimsts are constantly lauding all the progress for women due to feminism. There has been no progress for most women, with most single, childless women and most men going backwards in terms of the opportunity for a decent quality of life.

    Tucker talks mostly about men, thinking of traditional family formation, and I agree that most men in the fake-feminist era are in various types of no-win economic situations. But plenty of women are too, including plenty of the women who actually bother to vote. Many of us blame it on feminism—more than people realize.

    A double social-engineering whammy drives wages down in the female-dominated industries where most women work and will always work, regardless of feminists preaching against traditionally female jobs, as long as automation does not eliminate those jobs. Teaching and hospitals are just two female-dominated areas, offering better wages than most women get despite what teachers claim.

    Many college-educated women who need for earned-only income from one person to cover all bills are not able to snag a mom-dominated, stable job, like teaching, which is said to be “perfect for a mom so that she can be at home with her kids in the summer.”

    So, you take your bachelor’s degree and other useless, costly and time-consuming, state-issued certifications into the “voted-best-for-moms” office jobs arena, where employers cater to women who “have somethin’ comin’ in” from a spouse, child support or welfare and child tax credits, making it easy for them to accept low pay and part-time hours, in exchange for extreme leniency on matters of kid-related absenteeism.

    As a single, childless, welfare-ineligible citizen, it is hard enough to compete with all of the married moms out there, willing to work office jobs for beans due to spousal income—for far less than what it takes to cover monthly bills on one, earned-only income stream.

    Add in all of the welfare-assisted single moms who, thanks to Uncle Sam, are now able to discard the men who impregnate them, opting for a life of part-time or temp work that keeps them under the income limits for multiple welfare programs, either by working continuously in low-wage, part-time jobs or off and on in slightly higher paying temp jobs, giving up the welfare during months when they go over the income limits.

    Due to dependents and withholding, no matter how absentee and non-quota-meeting, those moms collect higher paychecks than childless colleagues—struggling to cover all bills on a low, earned-only and often uncertain income stream—not to mention their child tax credits and the monthly welfare added to their wages during months when they are eligible.

    As long as their womb productivity continues, men are not necessary to so-called working moms in this rigged system, set up by Democrats and supported by one Republican Administration after another, but after their kids turn 18, single moms are in the same economic boat as most of the single, childless women.

    College-educated and skilled, single, welfare-ineligible job seekers would have plenty of rent-covering job options if more parents in dual-earner households did the work of raising their own kids, freeing up—rather than doubling up on—the limited supply of living-wage jobs with benefits. The middle class would double in size if all moms raised their own kids.

    That is how it worked in past eras: most non-serious “career” women raised their own kids. All of the moms in dual-earner households are not working to make ends meet; many of them are working in absenteeism-friendly mom-dominated jobs for keeping-up-with-the-Jones’ money.

    That frivolous “choice” should not be a government-facilitated “choice,” but that is just what non-refundable child tax credits do.

    All of the good jobs held by dual-high-earner parents are not rocket-science jobs, not even close. In past eras, when the household-supporting jobs were spread out over more households, we had a much bigger middle class. There were fewer upper-middle-class—but really wealthy—households, with two salaried earners not taking any risk to create jobs for other Americans.

    Society falls all over its feet to accomodate these dual-earner households, giving them, too, tax break after tax break for having kids, plus tons of above-firing absenteeism privileges at work, while elderly grandparents or low-wage, NannyCam-surveilled daycare workers do the work of raising their kids for them.

    I am glad to hear Republicans talking about the issue of marriage, albeit they are not likely to address any of the economic fallout for single, childless, non-wealthy voters like me.

    Republicans are also likely to propose more child tax credits for dual-earner parents as a solution for the marriage-meltdown problem. They won’t limit that labor-force-rigging handout to the stay-at-home moms who do not compete for jobs in an underemployed nation, whereas Democrats are likely to address marriage breakdown—if they ever do—by offering the same thing: more and bigger child tax credits to dual-earner parents.

    It was a great debate between Tucker and Ben Shapiro, the kind of substantive debate that used to be more common in the mainstream media.

    Tucker is right about the link between structural economic problems and American despair, particularly among middle-aged, white people who were raised under a different set of moral rules, but also among the young.

    Despair just exhibits differently when people are young, and the world still stretches out before them, seeming to offer up at least a bigger range of bad options.

    Ben Shapiro is wrong to idealize the way free markets function in a top-down, globalist economy. He apparently has never owned a small Main Street shop, trying to compete with Bigly, centralized, government-favored corporations. He might or might not have worked in Big Capitalism’s low-wage pot-pourri of temp, part-time, scam and churn jobs.

    This dead-end sea of downwardly-mobile “opportunity” produces a lot of the despair in depopulating, formerly middle-class segments of America, but many of those rural people commute for two hours, back and forth, to work in the city in $10-to-$12-per-hour churn jobs that do not cover the cost of rent.

    Shapiro is right to call “moral decay” moral decay.

    He is also right to mention attitudes toward stay-at-home mothers (and dads in cases where they do it). It is mostly moms and will likely always be because……nature.

    In my memory, TVland had a big role in reshaping attitudes toward childrearing, slowly over a couple of decades, with fake-feminist politicians, like Hillary Non-Cookie-Baking Clinton, chiming in to play a leading part.

    The moral decay thing applies across broad categories.

    Politicians always spare groups they assume comprise their voting blocks. But there is so much moral decay in the USA, starting with marriage decline or maybe with much worse things, like murder, but not even close to ending there. There is plenty moral decay to go around.

    To avoid offending any one group, real reformers should just go after all of it. From corruption in our lobbyist-run government to about 100 different areas of individual morality, Americans have just let it go.

    I have always been skeptical of the Republican focus on abortion, regarding it as just a way to divert attention away from the topics that Tucker was talking about: economic topics that would force the wealthy to examine the moral impact of eat-your-own capitalism, including welfare-reinforced mass immigration. But there is a good argument that, when you start devaluing life with individual abortions, you end up with extreme devaluing of life, manifesting in things like multiple school shootings.

    I don’t know whether or not government can resuscitate the interwoven moral values that built up over hundreds (or thousands) of years, and then were dismantled, one by one, starting sometime in the Sixties.

    I do know that I am tired of voting against my own economic interests in this brutal economy, even though I would support a tax credit only for the stay-at-home moms who do not compete with me for scarce, rent-covering jobs. It might also reduce the number of cheap laborers with plenty of unearned income related to womb productivity, competing for rent-covering jobs in crony, back-watching gangs, driving wages down.

    It would also ramp up morality, upping the number of households where the most interested parties teach their kids’ morality: parents.

    If something that simple could make marriage with a stay-at-home, non-working parent more economically feasible, I would be for it since it does not hurt single, childless people in the labor market, unlike the other social-engineering rigging for so-called “working families.”

    As for predatory lending, just like the overall, national credit and car loan debt, it is a horrible manifestation of the structural problems in the American economy that Trump boasts about, just as Obama, Bush II and Clinton and the corporate media all boasted about the same welfare-rigged economy.

    Americans cannot even afford cars anymore, much less homes or apartments.

    The single mommas do it like this: They spend away all year long, charging it up despite having access to multiple layers of monthly welfare and / or rent-covering child support checks. Then at what they call their “taxes” time, they get a check of up to $6,431 to reward sex and reproduction in a single-breadwinner household from the US Treasury Department. They sometimes cover their debt with part of that bigly check, using the rest of it to fund things like more $900 tattoos, trips to the beach with a boyfriend or master bedroom furniture from Ashley.

    “Poor” moms boast about their child tax credit purchases at work to colleagues, struggling to cover rent, food and all other bills with zero monthly welfare and “tax breaks” the size of a Costco membership. These are the non-womb-productive citizens with no spousal income, the tax code’s red-headed stepchildren.

    The same group—non womb producers living on earned-only income—are the ones getting the shaft on things like rent-covering UC between voted-best-for-moms, absenteeism-friendly churn jobs.

    Despite all of their monthly welfare and tax-code welfare, and despite the fact that most charity, too, goes to people with kids, single moms are the ones with access to free, government-paid lawyers to help them navigate the UC system—lawyers who go into courtrooms, where single moms tell judges they have it so hard and need their UC……….to cover their subsidized rent and extra, non-EBT-covered food between churn jobs.

    Yes, .gov spends money on that legal service, too. Everything must be done to assure that single moms have no need to marry in order to get an independent household, unlike thousands of generations of mothers who came before them.

    That unearned UC income does, at least, count when their other, monthly, pay-per-birth benefits are tabulated, albeit the craftier, street-smart mommas know how to time the reporting to get max benefits.

    What happened to last year’s $6,431 child tax credit money, momma? Don’t spend it all at once.

    Though a few people are allowed to stay on UC for months and months, most Americans never get a dime of UC or any other form of government check, making it very difficult to cover rent between churn jobs.

    The large market of welfare-eligible & welfare-ineligible, underemployed citizens is one of America’s few growth markets, tapped by predatory lenders and other types of poverty-industry businesses to the tune of billions. It is there for a reason: the bigly-bad bottom-80% economy that politicians and the media won’t stop lying about.

  237. @snorlax

    Rolodex-wise Tucker would have a better handle on who the fellow Trumpists (Tuckerists?) are, although probably not nearly enough to fill his entire administration.

    He would have enough if he asked them to present themselves.

  238. @Unladen Swallow

    Not realizing this would be an open ended fishing expedition that the Dems would use to constantly threaten and harass him as well as feed numerous spurious allegations to their lapdogs in the MSM. It still amazes me that Sessions with all his years in politics could be that naive.

    Now that Sessions is gone, why has Mueller not be instructed that a huge of portion of work is illegal and has to stop? It’s illegal for him to investigate anything other than the stupid Russia bullshit and process crimes.

  239. @Dave Pinsen

    When you don’t have a bench (not Trump’s fault, mind you – Trumpism is new, and without many deep-pocketed supporters), you take the son-in-law.

    He didn’t TRY to find a bench.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
  240. Wilkey says:
    @AndrewR

    And you make some good points about marriage, but you also seem to be downplaying systemic forces that have contributed to the decline in marriage and stable families.

    I’m not really downplaying them, though. Those forces are real. It’s just that for a large fraction of single people they aren’t really as insurmountable as they seem.

    Feminism, divorce laws that favor women, labor policies (like mass immigration) that depress men’s wages most, a systemic antipathy towards maleness – all things that work against marriage, and all things that need to change.

    But if a victim mentality takes hold, aided and abetted by some very legitimate objections to current policies, then things will get even worse than they need to be.

    • Agree: AndrewR
  241. TheJester says:

    I finally figured out the definitive argument for differences between men and women and the pathology within our culture:

    Nancy Pelosi
    Maxine Waters
    Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
    Angela Merkel
    … as starters

    If men behaved in this way, they would be awarded a quick ticket to an insane asylum for being unhinged, hormonal, irrational, emotional, inconsistent, clueless … totally enveloped by their cognitive distortions. It would become a national pass time assigning them DSM-defined personality disorders.

    However, within all to0 many female cliques, these behaviors are now considered normative behaviors. And these women are accreting to leadership positions in Western Civilization. Sad … and dangerous.

    With respect to Tucker Carlson’s monologue: Superb … one for the ages!

    • Replies: @Rosie
  242. @Anonymous

    But then we’ve come full circle. Personnel is limited not just because it doesn’t exist, but because they’re probably turning down a place in the Trump administration for reasons that would not apply to a Tucker administration: because it sounds like a madhouse, because they’ll get the stench of Trump on them, and the rest.

    Personnel is limited because he’s not trying to find it.

  243. @snorlax

    Tucker is a top-3 most-watched cable newscaster, so I don’t think he has much problem with mass appeal. Whatever Tucker would lose vis-a-vis Trump with 50-or-older blue collar males, he’d make back tenfold with everyone else.

    Why would you expect him to lose votes in that demographic?

    • Replies: @snorlax
  244. snorlax says:
    @415 reasons

    I don’t make the rules, I’m just telling you them.

    (It mostly bothered Nice White Women, who are wired to emote, not coolly analyze.

  245. snorlax says:
    @ben tillman

    I don’t, I’m just conceding the point for the sake of argument.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
  246. snorlax says:
    @J.Ross

    Other than us “far-rightists,” maybe half a percent of the white population at most, the frog doesn’t notice it’s being boiled.

  247. snorlax says:
    @Mr. Anon

    I don’t particularly care for (or about) Pence, I’m just pointing out a somewhat surprising phenomenon.

  248. @snorlax

    Whom is this argument intended to respond to? I don’t get the idea that Tucker would do worse among this demographic than Trump did.

    • Replies: @snorlax
  249. snorlax says:
    @ben tillman

    Dave Pinsen’s comment that I was replying to.

  250. @snorlax

    Heh. Well, I missed that one. Sorry for the mistake, and thanks for explaining.

    Counterinsurgency

  251. Hail says: • Website
    @Tiny Duck.

    How can David French be Jewish? His name is literally “French.”

  252. @ben tillman

    The Bolsheviks had no qualified personnel either. Didn’t even slow them down. For that matter, it never even slowed the Democrats. I mean, a Secretary of State who sets up her private e-mail server?

    Counterinsurgency

  253. IC8 says:
    @SFG

    Yeah, who ever heard of a New York jew being liberal? He’s obviously just a poor, innocent victim of his evil blonde shiksa wife’s manipulation. Has anyone else noticed the “blame white women for everything” crowd here are all either jewish or fanatically philo-semitic? Total “coincidence”, I’m sure.

  254. Hail says: • Website
    @Anon

    Feminists shriek that the NS policy put women in the home and placed men at work, but it made good sense(and New Deal Era in America wasn’t all that different; in both US and Germany, women entered the workplace in huge numbers only during the wartime due to manpower shortage). Both NS and ND understood the relation between biology and sociology. Men’s role is to ‘hunt’ and bring home the bacon. Women’s role is take care of home and hearth.

    So, jobs are many times more important to men than to women.

    I would amend to this to:

    “So, allocating good jobs to men is much more important to society and to the creation of a healthy and sound next generation than allocating (good) jobs to women.

  255. One of David French’s reasons for attacking Tucker is Tucker’s opposition to loan sharks. Mr French is a white person who seems to think it’s a good idea if loan companies are encouraged to lend money to impulsive, low IQ blacks at very high interest rates.

    I may be a racist, but I’m not a bad person out to rip off non-whites. Mr French appears to be both.

    • Agree: Dan Hayes
  256. @Hail

    There are tons of Jews named after places in Europe. Everyone named Deutsch is Jewish. I’ve dated girls named French and London who were Jewish. Hamburg, Pressburger, Wiener, Posner, Frankfurter, Krakauer and on and on.

    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    , @Hail
  257. L Woods says:
    @YetAnotherAnon

    The entitlement of “educated” women is risible, but at least this bit of comedic dysfunction benefits me for once.

  258. J.Ross says: • Website

    Has Tucker started the fire? Yellow vests are now attacking banks. I’m guessing that Macron is going to have to get enormously drastic (which, with his subtlety, is risky to him and his owners) or be replaced by another bank tool.
    This, from anon:

    Banks are being popularly burned.
    More everything being burned to the ground period.
    One of the leaders of the Yellow Jackets is arrested

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/03/world/europe/yellow-vest-france-arrest-eric-drouet.html

    Except that only makes Yellow Jackets more furious
    Media still in complete damage control saying it’s over or saying it died down but never has things gotten worse out here.

    From English-language French paper TheLocal.fr:

    [MORE]

    It might have seemed like the “yellow vests” had calmed down but it’s a new year and there are renewed calls for protests in France, including in Paris, this Saturday for Act VIII of the demonstrations.
    Several “yellow vest” social media groups are busy organising demonstrations across France for Act VIII this Saturday (January 5th) in the hope that, with the festive period out of the way, people will be ready to rejoin the ranks of the gilets jaunes.
    It is also hoped by protesters that not only the new year but also the arrest of one of the movement’s leaders Eric Drouet for organising an unauthorised protest on Wednesday will have fired up some of the group’s supporters.
    Drouet, who was released on Thursday has called on “yellow vests” to protest at the Place de la Bourse, home of the historical Paris stock exchange in the 2nd arrondissement of the French capital.
    Meanwhile another group is calling for a demonstration at the Trocadero in the 16th arrondissement and Place de la République, as well as in other locations that will be revealed at the last moment.
    Police will no doubt be uncertain of how seriously to take these locations after the surprise protest at Montmartre on December 22nd during Act VI of the demonstrations. A protest was originally planned for Versailles before the location was changed at the last minute.
    And perhaps more worryingly for the government is that some of the online groups have called for an “end to pacifism” and a “hardening” of the movement.
    On Thursday, France en Colere (Angry France) – one of the “yellow vest” social media groups led by Drouet – issued an angry open letter to French President Emmanuel Macron in response to the French leader’s New Year’s Eve address in which Macron acknowledged the “anger” among anti-government protesters but warned that hateful speech and actions would not be tolerated.

    https://www.thelocal.fr/20190104/act-viii-what-to-expect-from-the-yellow-vest-protests-this-saturday

  259. Corn says:
    @neprof

    Sadly I think you’re right. Not to sound like a grandpa but sobriety was once considered one of the virtues. Alot of under 30s seem to think getting stoned is a civil right.

  260. Rosie says:
    @S. Anonyia

    Also I think people get high out of boredom/idleness. The unemployment/sporadic employment/ennui comes first, then the drugs. Rare to find someone with a full-time job who is a true addict and not just a dabbler. The media and pop culture loves to play up the stories of someone whose perfect life falls apart due to addiction but that doesn’t happen all that often.

    This. I don’t blame blue-collar men for drowning their sorrows in dope and video games, but then I can hardly blame blue-collar women for not wanting to marry them, if indeed that is what’s going on.

  261. @Anonym

    I wasn’t speaking of HR. People like Bannon and Stephen Miller should have been recruiting. Kobach should have been in the administration. Mr. Unz would have been a good fit. And he does have political aspirations. There are lots of talented people. Trump didn’t want them. He preferred his daughter and son-in-law who clash with populists like Bannon and Kobach.

  262. J.Ross says: • Website
    @L Woods

    Don’t worry about the female problem. Everyone who has been camping with women knows exactly what will happen when that which is taken for granted gets iffy.

  263. Dan Hayes says:
    @ben tillman

    ben tillman:

    Agreed! In Italy, Jews are definitely named after towns.

  264. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @ben tillman

    If he hasn’t done so already, he should recruit every friend of Stephen Miller.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
  265. @snorlax

    Sarah Palin had a sold-out, three-year, 100-city arena tour? I must have broken through the space-time continuum, into a parallel universe, in 2008 and re-emerged in this one just in Time for Trump’s 2015 campaign. Your claim would seem completely ridiculous if not for these Sleestaks who followed me back and now materialize in my garage.

  266. Rosie says:
    @TheJester

    I finally figured out the definitive argument for differences between men and women and the pathology within our culture:

    What do you make of this fellow?

    https://diversitymachtfrei.wordpress.com/2019/01/04/french-eco-nut-we-should-limit-our-births-so-we-can-better-receive-the-migrants-who-are-knocking-at-our-doors/

  267. Forbes says:
    @Svigor

    Agreed.

    Lefties, commies, and socialists proudly fly their freak flag after 100 million deaths, and we’re supposed to give them (still) a respectable hearing.

  268. Bubba says:
    @Diversity Heretic

    If I had the time now I would devote more time to finding the article – please give me a few more days.

    Can’t believe a person with your credentials was not even looked at for a position within the Trump administration – the RINO swamp is worse than I thought! And you really nailed it with the example of the bleach blonde CINO (Catholic in name only). There are thousands of conservative, highly intelligent American Catholics far more qualified than Calista who should have been considered for that job. What a joke…

    I still support President Trump, but not nearly as enthusiastic as I was in 2016. He sure let us down with all of this establishment nonsense. What drives me nuts is that he keeps using the wall as a nasty threat of a bargaining chip, whereas in 2016 he was proud of it and going to build it immediately.

    If President Trump doesn’t come around immediately and start doing things for his base (I like his tweets, but his actions are another thing), then he will be crushed by Kamala Harris in 2020 and become another loser incumbent and vilified for years like Herbert Hoover, Jimmy Carter and George Bush I.

    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
  269. @snorlax

    Why don ‘t they just get rid of the pregnancy loophole? You signed up to die fighting. Forced abortion. Or go into combat with a bun in the oven. See how many women sign up offered that deal.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    , @L Woods
  270. Tucker is a national treasure.
    Both brilliant and kind, his character shines throughout his speech.
    If he were to run for POTUS he would get my vote.
    The juice hate him and that is an honor badge.

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
  271. Rod1963 says:
    @S. Anonyia

    Try working at a cement quarry as part of the labor gang and get back to about being lazy.

    You do realize that teaching requires a 4 year degree? And you’re telling a ex-factory worker to go out and go into $40-100K debt to get a degree in the chance he’ll be hired and then put to work in a all black or Hispanic school where every day is sheer hell. This is what schools do with new teachers – put them in the worst schools in the district.

    Almost two decades ago, there were bunch of engineers and scientists who became public school teachers after the Dot. Com collapse. Within a few years almost all quit or were forced out.

    You have to be joking.

    LVN’s. LPN’s are dominated by women. No sane guy wants to work in a field dominated by females in this day and age. All it takes is for him to say the wrong thing and he’s finished. This is why male LVN’s are so rare.

    Secretaries? Are you kidding. Unless he’s gay forget about it.

    In short those “pink collar” professions are not men friendly. Teaching used to be. Not anymore once women took over.

  272. @Wilkey

    The Mormons in my town had their own BSA troop that never participated in any BSA activities with other troops. The Mormons had some kind of weird deal with the BSA. Mormons have always been separate and separatist and elitist. That’s why they were driven into Utah. Mormonism is a heresy and cultish and shouldn’t be treated as a homegrown all-American anything.

  273. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Chrisnonymous

    Perhaps fighting wasn’t their purpose to begin with? A pregnant, non-deployed soldier is still one more statistic proving how diverse and female-friendly the army can be.

  274. @Bennis Mardens

    The juice hate him and that is an honor badge.

    I’m not sure they do yet but they might start soon. Carlson probably has more enemies in his own tribe than among them.

  275. @S. Anonyia

    So you concur that the parasitical dependent class is swelling with every passing decade. But then this peculiar conclusion: the solution is …. to let more decades of parasitical dependence accrue so the problem can swell even larger?

    There may very well be some pain involved in ending the infection. But to let it metastasize is to store store up even more pain and more harm.

    Perhaps your view is that if such pain can be deferred until after your own life, it won’t matter anymore (to you). That may be true. But that view is how we got into this situation in the first place.

    I prefer to bite the bullet and bear the pain now rather than to store up sorrows for our descendants. It is not only better for them, it is better for us, even if harder.

    I hope you will eventually agree this.

  276. MEH 0910 says:
    @Hail

    David French is a Christian whose Twitter avatar is John Calvin.

    • Replies: @Hail
  277. Hail says: • Website
    @YetAnotherAnon

    We document how shortages of marriageable partners affect both the probability of marriage and income levels.

    And therefore total fertility.

  278. Hail says: • Website
    @ben tillman

    Many of us gentiles are named after places, too, but none is named (e.g.) “John Israeli.”

    Last month, someone pointed out that Internet commentator Halsey English is Jewish (see #163). His name is Halsey English! I mean, isn’t that a kind of name-fraud?

  279. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @ben tillman

    My suggestion from a couple years ago comes to mind:

    Well, Trumpism is new, so there’s little bench to draw from with any government experience – the only name that comes to mind immediately is Michael Anton (“Publius”), and he’s already in the White House. But Trump should think outside the box here and get some outside help.

    He’s got a database of millions of Americans who donated small dollar amounts to his campaign. Start there, with a universe of loyal supporters, and shoot out an email to all of them with a link to a recruiting site featuring a 20-minute Wonderlic IQ test. Follow up with the top 1% with a test more targeted to government service skills and filter from there (background checks, then in-person interviews for the best scorers on the second round).

    There’d still be some bumpiness with this route, as these recruits wouldn’t have government experience, but government isn’t rocket science, and “quantity has a quality all its own”. Trump will be better off filling government roles several ranks down with smart but inexperienced loyalists than with the status quo of an experienced but leaky and disloyal establishment.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    , @ben tillman
  280. Grimsby says:
    @Malcolm Y

    You don’t wonder at all. You think you know that they’re all Jewish.

    But you’re wrong about that, as you’re probably wrong about most things. French is Presbyterian.

    You could have found that out with 5 seconds of Googling, but you’re lazy as well as uninformed.

  281. @Hail

    The last name French is actually Irish. I just found this when I looked. I’m surprised it’s Norman in origin. I thought it came from anglicising a Gaelic name: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defreine

  282. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Dave Pinsen

    I wish he had read this. His big flaw was that he did not anticipate flat-out mutiny.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
  283. Bubba says:
    @Futurethirdworlder

    I may use “Trotskyite neocon” in the future. Thank you for that.

    And the world needs to read more Rudyard Kipling!

  284. MEH 0910 says:
    @Tiny Duck.

    I agree with David French and other Jewish writers that whites are literally the worst.

    Tiny Duck(period), you’re reaching Iron Sheik levels of commenting.

    RIP Gene Mean

  285. @Anonym

    If we must have socialism it should be for the benefit of a white population or nation within the white population…

    Who says “we must have socialism” at all? The 1921 and 1924 immigration bills were the work of, other than some labor allies, rather rabid anti-socialist people. Indeed, that was one of the selling points of the bill– keep the socialists out.

  286. Hail says: • Website
    @MEH 0910

    Thanks for this info;

    Here is David French (b. 1969, Kentucky) writing in National Review in 2017:

    I don’t think I know what the word ‘evangelical” means anymore […]

    I grew up in a fundamentalist, sectarian church — the a capella churches of Christ — and when I left that church I eagerly called myself Evangelical. For most of us who came of age in the late 1980s and early 1990s, it was a way of distinguishing yourself from the mainline and the extremes. It broadcast that you took your faith seriously […]

    (From essay “It Might Be Time to Retire the Term ‘Evangelical’“)

  287. @Futurethirdworlder

    Trotskyite is more correct. Has it occurred to you that the neocons weaponized a corrupt form of *capitalism in order to destroy it?

    Add “social” and “identity” issues, and Antonio Gramsci is part of the mix as well.

    pitting every Briton against an asiatic coolie

    Lafcadio Hearn, the Anglo-Irish writer born on his namesake island, said that the coolie didn’t outwork the white man, but merely “underlive” him. I wonder if Kipling was familiar with Hearn.

    …the Briton would lose his job and end up outside parliament demanding more socialism.

    Derb himself said the old folks he grew up around who themselves grew up under classical liberalism were the most convinced socialists of all. They built the welfare state, but how protectionist were they?

  288. Bubba says:
    @Daniel H

    Brett Stephens and Bill Kristol are a nauseating combination. I’m surprised these 2 know-it-alls did not receive wedgies every day throughout grammar school and high school.

  289. Anon[668] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    It also includes recognizing the point of a jury, and that membership on a jury involves saying what you need to say to get on the jury, and then voting from the perspective of “Is it good for the whites?”, not according to the laws on the books.

    I’m a big believer in jury nullification (they don’t know what’s in your head, so what can they do to you, as long as you keep your mouth shut?), but I think in most cases you don’t even need to go that far. Just literally interpret “beyond a reasonable doubt” for what it says. Also, on juries there is no “snitches get stitches” law, so you can report any weird racist vibes from black members to the judge with impunity, repeatedly: just get it in there on the record and for the appellate court to consider. There’s also a lot of room in civil cases and the “preponderance of the evidence” standard for flexibility.

    White women tend to cave in when in the physical presence of people exerting psychological pressure, too high on the agreeability scale, so white men need to hold the fort.

  290. @Bubba

    Thanks for your comment! I should also add that I supported Trump financially before Iowa and have two post-graduate degrees. At this point I’m just indifferent to Trump and share your assessment that he’ll be crushed by Kamala Harris, or any Democratic nominee who isn’t Lucifer’s first cousin. I saw another commentator who had the judgment I lacked and didn’t bother to submit anything through that website.

  291. L Woods says:
    @Wilkey

    But in most cities and towns there is little shortage of good young women who would make great wives.

    Ahahahahahaha. Ok.

    • Replies: @Trevor H.
  292. L Woods says:
    @Chrisnonymous

    A general tried that once. The feminists shrieked and he was rebuffed.

  293. @Svigor

    Sir James Goldsmith, “The Trap.”

  294. Impolitic says:
    @Hapalong Cassidy

    Yeah. I liked the book, but the one friend I have who’s actually from Appalachia (a conservative) hated it, thought it was slander, so I’m more inclined to see Vance as suspect.

  295. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Jack Hanson

    I don’t know that he makes a living doing anything.

  296. KunioKun says:

    It is obvious that the 40 year old arguments shills for both parties have been using to keep boomers in line are ridiculously out of date. Tucker’s comments at the end warning that people are going to have to abandon old timey bumper sticker arguments was great.

    • Agree: Cagey Beast
    • LOL: AndrewR
  297. Moses says:
    @AndrewR

    Nothing wrong with that.

    Non-Chinese people in Singapore might beg to differ.

    Sure, because non-Chinese people want to replace the Chinese as the group running Singapore.

    Nothing wrong with that either. This is all about power, which is beyond morality.

    Do you want your group to remain in control, or not?

    Humans are tribal. Always have been, always will be. Ask the Israelis.

  298. @Reg Cæsar

    ‘Murica and the UK would also qualify, per capita wise that is.

  299. @snorlax

    All that tells me is that Trump is a crap communicator. He uses both language and his “bully pulpit” like an idiot. A great example is his reliance on Twitter (the domain of Twits). Not one single adult I know IRL pays the slightest attention to tweets from Twits nor even has a twitter account.

    As President, Trump has the ability to communicate directly with the American people via idiot box (which a huge number of people still, inexplicably, rely on for information). Where are Trump’s fireside chats? His Reaganesque conversations directly with the people?

    I think all the hullabaloo about immigration is nothing but a “Look, Squirrel!” to shut up folks like us, that there never was nor will be any serious (much less successful) effort to curb it.

  300. AndrewR says:
    @YetAnotherAnon

    Well sure, if you are willing to move the goalposts as many times as you want to, you can argue that Singapore isn’t sufficiently “diverse” to demonstrate that diversity and prosperity aren’t mutually exclusive. But I value my time and intellectual integrity, so you’ll have to argue that to someone else.

  301. @SunBakedSuburb

    I was reading something last month that Billy Bush was still unemployed.

    I get that he was just an entertainment reporter, but he was still a reporter. It’s not your job to pass judgements or correct the language of the people you’re interviewing. It’s to get the interviewee to say something interesting, and not in a gotcha-type* way. I worked with a guy who got on a high horse, and was fired for it, and rightfully so.

    He would have already landed another gig if he wasn’t George W’s first cousin, even though he always went to great pains to point out the two of them had different politics.

    *Gotcha’s are the kiss of death to a reporter. Once you screw one person over, whose to say you won’t screw the next one, too.

  302. JMcG says:
    @Kyle

    Kyle, there isn’t work always available. I know a guy with a landscaping/tree trimming business. He gives his Mexicans 100.00 cash per 8 hour day. Maybe a little more for a hard or longer day.
    The Mexicans girlfriends/wives make another 100 or so as mini maids. So they are at 1k/week cash if they get work every day.
    They have kids on AFDC and get food stamps, free medical and subsidized electric/gas.
    They live in little trailer parks for cash rent. They drive clapped out cars with no insurance. One t-boned a car down the road from me on New Years Eve, just over the DUI limit. The cop let him go, said there wasn’t a point in wasting time arresting him.
    That’s the kind of worker you’re competing against as a blue collar guy.

    It really is terrible out there.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  303. @MikeatMikedotMike

    If you keep trying to play by a set of rules the other side is ignoring, you’re going to lose.

    I think this was Jeff Sessions’ downfall. He should have stayed in the Senate, and should have helped Trump find a pitbull “Elliott Ness” of an A.G. to clean house at the swamp-weaponized DOJ & FBI. Coulda woulda shoulda.

    I hope Trump survives his pledge to Build A Wall. Good grief did he dither or what. “Read my lips” and all that.

  304. Meimou says:
    @415 reasons

    Tucker would not be easily charicatured as a racist

    Please. The people who thinks he animus torwards non whites are cucks and leftwingers. People he will never have.

    • Replies: @415 reasons
  305. Anon87 says:
    @AndrewR

    Ok. Thank you for the reply.

  306. @Hail

    Jews have chosen some gentile names with remarkable regularity they particularly like Scottish ones;
    Lewis, Wallace and Grant are scottish names but jews have adapted them.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    , @Reg Cæsar
  307. @Bubba

    Kristol is too busy selling shoes these days after his “flagship” Meekly Standard flamed out and cratered in the wake of his so-very-altruistic #NeverTrump / David French fellatio club.

  308. @Dave Pinsen

    Absolutely! That wouldn’t get him very far, but that could be a small part of a more comprehensive plan.

  309. @Dave Pinsen

    Yes, that’s what I’m talking about — though you have taken it further and filled in some details. If we could think of it, why couldn’t he or someone in his campaign?

  310. @J.Ross

    Yet even now it’s not too late to implement this policy to some effect.

  311. IHTG says:
    @IHTG

  312. Marty T says:
    @Impolitic

    He shouldn’t run for president. He can do much more good on tv.

  313. Trevor H. says:
    @L Woods

    Right? That’s what I was thinking. There are some good, decent young women but they are a distinct minority. The vast majority are completely beholden to the mass-media juggernaut and most are fat and delusional anyway.

  314. Andrew says:

    That Bret Stephens NY Times piece-wow. All one can say is he is no Rob Long, who, whatever one’s politics, can at least do those kind of satires amusingly from time to time in National Review. Not that most people are still bothering to read them anymore I suppose.

  315. Marty T says:
    @Thea

    Exactly. I didn’t watch the Tucker segment but what he said seems pretty mild. The “shortage of marriageable men” has been talked about for decades.

    Feminism is surely a cancer, but the real enemy is big, globalist corporations who pay their CEO’s millions while working to promote leftist policies and stifle freedom of speech. Of course many have pulled advertising from Tucker in fear of leftist twitter mobs. I want to see Tucker attack these companies and their decision makers by name. It’s one thing to discuss the sexual market but it’s time we focus on our enemies – by name.

  316. @Meimou

    Right but he wouldn’t be as prone to gaffes that lead to a strong perception amongst most of the 60% of Americans who don’t support trump that he is a racist. E.g. Shithole countries. Listen, *I* agree that Haiti is a shithole country, and that it’s refreshing for someone to cut through the bullshit and just say it. But strategically, it’s probably not best for increasing support for Trumpist ideas to have the person saying this be the President of the United States, and I think a President Tucker would be less likely to say stuff like that.

    • Replies: @Anon
  317. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @JMcG

    Illegals can do all kinds of stuff that regular people would be arrested for in most any upscale suburban community. Most profit by jailing people and making them pay for the privilege, and the local courts are very good at getting the money out of incarcerees-unless of course they really have no money. Illegals have no money, for the most part. Not in a bank account, not in real property, not in personal property worth seizing. They will sit in jail and not make bail, then be tried and fined and they can’t pay the fine, so will be released after a little jail time. It costs the city to do that.

    If they get in serious trouble, magically they’ll make bail-then vamoose. Short of mass murder or being a well known drug kingpin maybe, Mexico is not going to extradite a Mexican. They are amazingly good at making it back into Mexico when that’s what they want to do, another good reason for a wall.

    But they don’t get bothered for “little stuff’, like driving just over the blood alcohol limit, poaching, littering, throwing trash into other people’s dumpsters, pilfering loose lumber and plants or public pissing and shitting as long as they are a little discreet. Cops look the other way.

    • Replies: @JMcG
    , @Reg Cæsar
  318. JMcG says:
    @Anonymous

    Exactly. It’s anarchy on the margin. Marginal anarchy. It’s the point where everything starts to break down. It’s hard to be the guy that says “I do!” When the question is “Who gives a f**k?”
    That’s what is happening to the country writ large.

  319. Anon[363] • Disclaimer says:
    @415 reasons

    Where is the evidence that he even said it? If people can just make up things about you and half the country will believe it without any evidence, then what difference does it make?

  320. Anonymous[398] • Disclaimer says:
    @Chase

    Gilded Age America had a huge alcoholism problem. Prohibition didn’t come out of nowhere.

    • Replies: @Corn
  321. Corn says:
    @Anonymous

    Indeed. Every now and then some libertarian pops off, “Well, cocaine and opium and heroin and all that used to be legal in the 1800s!”

    Yes it was. And when society realized its addictive power society moved to restrict it. Unlike nowadays where libertardians want to just ride the decline.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  322. @snorlax

    The previous record was set in 1896 by William Jennings Bryan, also in Madison Square Garden, on his way to losing all five boroughs (!!!!!—a near-impossibly bad performance for a Democrat, even then) of NYC.

    There were no “boroughs” in 1896. Those were the result of the imperial revolution of 1898. The City then was Manhattan, and the handful of small surrounding islands like Bedloe’s and Welfare. (Known by other names today!) Oh, and maybe a bit of the Bronx, which, like Nassau, wasn’t a county yet.

    Should anyone bring up the tired old “Kerry [or Obama] carried Lincoln’s states” canard, remind them that Lincoln comfortably carried upstate (to whom he owed his beard), and Douglas took the city.

  323. @Aguynamedme

    Lewis, Wallace and Grant are scottish names but jews have adapted them.

    How did you leave out Irving, as a first name, and Gordon, both for first and last? I’d read a third of all Americans surnamed Gordon were Jewish. Appears to commemorate Grodno for some.

    Davidson is also a Scottish name, but seems perfectly appropriate for Jews. Robertson is Scottish, Robinson English, but Jews prefer the latter. Edward G Robinson said he was hardly the first to adopt it, and that made it easy.

  324. @Aguynamedme

    Irving Wallace’s son David went back to Wallechinsky. I can only applaud him for that, and wish more of his brethren would do the same. Same with Italians.

    Speaking of Wallechinsky, did anyone here know that there is an International Society of Olympic Historians? Sounds so iStevey! Is there one for golf-course historians, too?

    David was also the common-law brother-in-law of, of all people, the Andean-American mystic Carlos Castañeda. Sister Amy was his “witch”. According to Amy, their mother was something that rhymed, but Irving was a saint. What a weird family. Sounds like the Bundys, or the Simpsons in reverse.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
  325. @Anonymous

    Illegals can do all kinds of stuff that regular people would be arrested for in most any upscale suburban community.

    The law doesn’t apply to those who are above it. Nor, likewise, does it apply to those this far below it.

    Law is so middle-class.

  326. @Corn

    Indeed. Every now and then some libertarian pops off, “Well, cocaine and opium and heroin and all that used to be legal in the 1800s!”

    Yeah, but there was less bastardy and divorce in the Victorian era as well. Pappy’d horsewhip you for doing those things. Then once you were fifteen, you were too busy supporting yourself to bother with them.

    It was only when people started using those substances that it occurred to lawmakers to restrict them.

  327. @Reg Cæsar

    I’ve bought about 3 copies of David Wallechinsky’s big Olympic history book over the years.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by iSteve, at whim.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The sources of America’s immigration problems—and a possible solution
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?