The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Robert Weissberg Archive
The Left Has Already Won the 2016 Election
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Donald Trump’s entry into the crowded field of GOP presidential hopefuls has, supposedly, “shaken things up.” Not really. Everything he offers is either vague (e.g., negotiating a “good deal” with Cuba) or fantasy (e.g., forcing Mexico to pay for a border fence). What is attention-getting is his loose cannon flamboyant style and once that is acknowledged, he hardly threatens the status quo. Indeed, no GOP candidate, declared or waiting in-the-wings—genuinely challenges politics as usual. All tacitly accept a Left-wing manufactured consensus that has been untouchable for decades.

That said, what would a genuinely shake-things-up candidate look like? One who would tap into the public’s desire for political change on emotionally charged issues?

Let me suggest that such a candidate would advance the following four policies, none of which is addressed by anybody in today’s Left dominated political landscape.

First, drop the “diversity-is-our strength” crap. It is a lie, and virtually everybody knows it is bogus and the evidence is indisputable. It’s all a fig leaf to cover racial quotas. Today’s world abounds with internecine violence and if a rich, vibrant human tapestry were so wonderful, how do you explain the millions of civil war refugees? Would McDonald service improve if the counter staff consisted of one Mexican, a Han Chinese speaker, a transgendered female and a black woman? Ask the average Frenchman how the importation of millions of Muslim North Africans has enriched France. Today’s diversity mania only provides useless, make-trouble jobs for Directors of Diversity, Deans on Inclusion and Outreach and similar parasites. Diversity is inevitably a problem to be managed, not an asset. A polyglot, multi-racial America already provided enough problems; let’s not make it worse by celebrating this fantasy.

Similarly, it’s time to junk affirmative action. We’ve had it for a half century, spent trillions trying to make it work, and it now has become a tax on the economy and has probably hurt race relations. Judging by the successes of popular initiatives to ban racial preferences in education, most Americans understand that affirmative action has become little more than extortion that terrifies businesses and schools into employing those they would prefer not to hire. Think of all the money saved by skipping futile search for those possessing the correct genitalia or skin color. Further add the costs of cleansing the workplace of anything that somehow, in some nearly invisible way, might generate a discrimination lawsuit. A visiting Martian might assume that America’s quest for fairness via affirmative action is Chinese plot to hobble the US economy.

And while we are at it, time to retire radical egalitarianism. People differ and so do groups, and differences in ability are often intractable and all the King’s Men, and all the King’s horses cannot level differences no matter how many Department of Justice consent decrees. No amount of coerced sensitivity training or Politically Correct terminology can obscure this reality. Particularly onerous is the federal government’s fixation with closing gaps in educational achievement. Policy after policy has sought to uplift the bottom all the while neglecting the smartest of the smart. Nor will we ever have a competent military, or a police or fire department that “looks like America.”

Fourth, restore shame, stigma and marginalization as tools to stamp out bad behavior. All are cheap social control techniques that have proven successful since the beginning of time, and they can certainly help in today’s troublesome world. Disruptive third-graders do not need “behavior coaches” or school nurses to prescribe Ritalin. Put them in the back of the classroom facing the wall and let the rest of the class heap scorn on them. Jeb Bush had it right the first time—time to start shaming unwed teenage mothers for their lax moral standards. And while we are at it, make dependency of food stamps a public humiliation by returning to publicly visible paper food stamps and further add separate checkout lanes for those on the public dole.

Many similar proposals can be added–How about cheaply solving our crime problem by shipping miscreants to cut-rate Mexican jails? Or fully embracing Darwin by eliminating the job-killing endangered species list? Or cutting pointless education spending by lowering the mandatory school attendance age to 15? And there are more.

For convenience, let’s call this hypothetical candidate Fred (or Fearless Fred, according to some), and further suppose that he is a middle-aged white, college-educated male with ten years of elected state and local political experience. So, what might become of such a candidacy?

Let’s begin with the upside. The initial poll numbers for Fred’s campaign are likely to be fairly high. After all, nothing he advocates is crackpot, illegal or would require massive political transformations. In many instances, a few administrative changes would be sufficient. These measures are also likely to be effective and are much cheaper than current spending. Moreover, many Republicans (including the libertarians) plus numerous Independents who oppose the racial spoils system and invasive, Utopian government regulations would love them.

Unlike many brain-numbing financial solutions to our woes (e.g., a national tax on consumption), each of Fred’s proposals is readily understood. Everybody can grasp the idea behind shaming welfare recipients to promote independence. All in all, given today’s white bread and mayo GOP field where 12% makes one a front-runner, Fearless Fred would instantly displace Jeb Bush or Scott Walker as the top dog.


The outpouring of spontaneous grass roots support would be reminiscent of the early Tea Party. Millions would agree with Fred regarding what nearly everybody knows to be true but has been made unspeakable by both the mainstream mass media and the political establishment. Fred could also skip raising hundreds of millions for his campaign. An expensive slick media campaign would be replaced by the Internet, talk radio tee-shirts and bumper stickers. Recall how in 1968 Eugene McCarthy funded his campaign on a broken shoe string thanks to enthusiastic volunteers. I can easily envision bumper stickers like “Not Even Trillions Can Get Blood from Turnips—Vote Fred.” Endorsements would come from Duck Dynasty.

Now for the bad news. Elite reaction would be vitriolic. Poll numbers aside, Fred would be likened to David Duke or, more likely, George Wallace, who wants to turn the clock back on racial progress. A cordon sanitaire would be imposed. Both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal would condemn him as a racist lacking sympathy for the poor, the disadvantaged and everybody else who had become dependent on government largess. The RNC leadership would insist that Fred was not a “real” Republican despite his past election as a Republican. As for his support in the polls, all would be dismissible as “hate,” and something to be cured. Petitions would demand boycotts of advertisers on whose program on which Fred appeared.

Indeed, pressure would be put on all the current “respectable” GOP primary candidates to sign a pledge that they would not be on the same stage as Fred or even acknowledge him other than to denounce him as a screwball threat to America. Nor would today’s respectable candidate dare poach one of Fred’s campaign planks regardless of its popularity. Yes, a self-defined Socialist is acceptable but not some crank who defends merit over skin color.

Of course all of this is hypothetical and unlikely to occur. Brave Fred types are exceedingly rare though millions share his views. Our hypothetical scenario merely to demonstrate that today’s Right, at least as embodied by the Republican Party has lost the war and does not even know it. Like dogs who have internalized the location of the invisible buried electric fence, they don’t even think about going over the line. They’ve all drunk the Left’s Kool Aid and grown to like it. As Willie Nelson would put it, Turn Out the Lights the Party is Over.

Hide 83 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Two quibbles here: One, McCarthy indeed had rabid volunteers on the ground. But he was also backed by a couple of wealthy heirs and was the first to admit it. He was till the end of his long life a staunch opponent of “campaign finance reform”.

    Two, not all food-stamp recipients are perpetrators; some are victims. Many Americans were forced onto the rolls by losing their job prospects or big chunks of their wage potential to foreign-born competitors (whether legal or not is irrelevant) who also qualify.

    A shaming strategy would thus further hurt the American victims, while having no effect on the aliens, who have no shame. This could blow up in our faces.

    Back to the drawing board…

    • Replies: @JustJeff
    , @iffen
  2. Dutch Boy says:

    I notice that none of Fearless Fred’s initiatives is aimed at our corrupt financial elite. Fearlessness should be more fearless.

    • Replies: @Lepanto
  3. Fearless Fred should be named Reckless Fred. In addition to all of the things that Prof. Weissberg mentions, Fred could, once he attains any prominence, expect relentless investigations into his past, probably extending to junior high school, all with the objective of finding some incident that demonsrates his “true nature” as a race-baiting bigot. Or anything at all (“Fred Sometimes Failed to Feed Pet Dog,” (recalls neighbor of thirty years ago)). Ten years of votes in any legislative body will provide lots of fodder for mischaracterizations, especially for procedural votes. He might also expect tax audits going back as far as the statute of limitations.

    The Jimmy Stewart “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” ideal is as dead as that of Cincinnatus.

    • Replies: @Jeff77450
  4. Even if Fred would become president The Powers That Be would stop his agenda. Congress will oppose him, the courts will struck down his acts and the bureaucracy will refuse to obey him while mass media will make him a villain.
    The truth is that the will of the majority doesn’t matter, so politicians play within the Overton Window.

  5. Realist says:

    “Now for the bad news. Elite reaction would be vitriolic. Poll numbers aside, Fred would be likened to David Duke or, more likely, George Wallace, who wants to turn the clock back on racial progress.”

    You forgot Adolf Hitler. A pipe dream….not going to happen.

  6. Realist says:

    Democracy doesn’t work because idiots can vote.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    , @Jeff77450
  7. There is no genuine left in U.S.politics. All this diversity/feminism/gay rights stuff is just a sort of pseudo-left. A genuine left that would unite working people based on their shared economic interests is almost unthinkable in current day America.

    • Thanks: Nancy
    • Replies: @Oldeguy
    , @Nancy
  8. Truth says:

    This article is so superficial and bereft of true cognition, it would take one twice as long just to refute it all.

  9. there is already a presidential candidate who endorses some of the points you list above–Senator Jim Webb. He has already come out against affirmative action. Wrote a paper on it. He has said that liberals a make “whipping post” of white males. All the presidential candidates have already publicly condemned the Confederate flag recently. Except one, who gave no comment on the issue. Guess who that was.

    But there has strangely been no discussion of Senator Jim Webb above, or indeed on this site at all, or on other Dissident Right websites.

    Why is that?

    One reason might be that Dissident Right sites and writers are not leaders but followers. You don’t lead your audience, you follow them. Your audience is Republican. Why? Because they are brainwashed, just like the liberals/Dems. And all the Dissident Right sites and writers want is followers, readers and clicks. You, like your readers, don’t really want to change anything.

    • Replies: @SFG
    , @Kevin O'Keeffe
  10. Hibernian says:

    Give it your best shot.

    • Replies: @Truth
  11. Immigrant from former USSR [AKA "Florida Resident"] says:

    Dear Professor Weissberg:
    I subscribe to all your points.
    However, there is a deep problem of too many people with relatively low IQ,
    for whom there are not many jobs (and will be even less in future) in the society with modern technology (robotization etc.)
    Either one have to suggest sterilization and euthanasia,
    or make a peace with welfare.
    I use this occasion to say, what an important book has recently been published by Prof. Weissberg:
    “Bad Students, not Bad Schools”,

    Respectfully, F.r.

  12. SFG says:
    @leftist conservative

    I really like Jim Webb–he’s pretty much what I wanted to see.

    I think he’s not ‘diverse’ enough for the Democrats, and too anti-business for the Republicans.

    • Replies: @DCThrowback
  13. If you include cops, firemen and other assorted government parasites as being on the ‘government dole” and needing massive amounts of shame and scorn, then I am all for it. Government employees are the ones getting rich off the tax payers.

  14. Clyde says:

    The Donald is the wild card here. If he gets the Republican nomination the above essay will be obsolete. If Trump is indeed serious, I give him above 50% chance of getting this nomination. The Donald vs The Hillary would be a great match up. If provoked (slimed by Hillary proxies), the Donald will not be afraid to give her the Rosie O’Donnell treatment.

    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    , @Ace
  15. Gene Su says:

    I think it is high time for a “racialist” conservative like Robert Weissburg to address why the political establishment is so afraid of blacks and how they won the civil rights movement. Everyone said and says that blacks are inferior in intelligence and historically irrelevant but I think otherwise. I think there are several points to this:
    1. When Martin Luther King started the marches in the South, he was hated and sneered at by a lot of whites. When Malcolm X and his Black Muslims started taking center stage, a lot of whites then began to accommodate MLK. Whites are very scared of the Black Panthers and Black Muslims and are willing to accommodate “moderate” blacks.
    2. I think it is an over-generalization that to say that white southerners are the most conservative in the US. They welcomed the New Deal and other welfare programs more than most people. Remember that LBJ was a Texan. His War on Poverty was meant to butter up whites, not blacks.
    3. Black elites have some very good connections to some of America’s more important foreign allies like Saudi Arabia. I think this is the basis of black political power, not the voting block.
    4. When a race riots occurs, the police really don’t have many options. Here is what Fred Reed said some time ago:
    a. If they let the rioters have their way, the entire city burns down.
    b. If they use lethal force, they may kill a lot of innocent protesters and bystanders.
    c. If they go at it with billy clubs and tear gas, they might get injured by the rioters… and some property might still get damaged.
    That doesn’t mean they can’t successfully suppress a riot. Mayor Daley of Chicago went somewhere between options b and c to do it. However, our cowardly liberal elites are so scared of a confrontation that they would rather appease the dregs with welfare.
    5. Many blacks really genuinely believe that they are under attack. It is not just about innate stupidity. It’s the way the media spins interracial attacks. Note how they were so quick to talk about that white nutball in Charleston in terms of race and hide attacks committed by those of color.
    Whew… long post. Read as you wish.

    • Replies: @Nico
  16. Fish says:

    May it’s time for another video?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Truth
  17. Roger P says:

    The left is already using shame and ostracism to enforce their mores. They are being spectacularly successful.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  18. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    you’re just mad cause you’re …’bereft of true cognition’ you obviously don’t have an ‘elastic mind’ like Truth!

  19. Truth says:

    Just don’t have the energy, Bro, but you’ve been reading my posts long enough now, go ahead and give it a shot; you be “Truth” for one post.

  20. Truth says:

    A video you want? OK, In homage to Mr. Weissberg’s article, Fortune 500 companies sending their limos into inner-city Baltimore and Newark handing out executive jobs, and forced integration, I’ll cal this one; “Whiskey was right”, otherwise known as;

    Uh Oh! Part XXXX!

    • Replies: @fish
    , @anon
  21. Flower says:

    How many times do you guys have to go through this? It doesn’t matter what fearless Fred says, or promises, or claims or shouts or announces or declares, if it is all a lie. Obama promised and claimed to no end, but how much of it has he actually done? How much of it was premeditated lies?

    Your “shaming” strategy is a laugh. And to whom or what are you going to compare a person to, as a basis for said shame? Is Fred going to tell all the faggots that they are deviant abominations? It would be the last thing Fred would ever say. Is Fred going to condemn Feminists as aberrant distortions of proper womanhood/motherhood? On the morning after, Fred would be found dead, with a high heel shoe implanted between his eyes and a Tampax shoved up each nostril. Is Fred going to detail to us how our national religion of money is placing every noble, gentile, honorable human endeavor as trivial when compared to making money and consuming? By the time Fred would get done shouting, “Shame, shame!”, the MSM Journalists and advertising weasels will have convinced the American public that the traditional concept of “Shame” is actually a badge of accomplishment!

    It’s pretty clear, Bob, that you are as frustrated as the rest of us. But you are fighting the universal law of Entropy. Loosely stated, entropy means that, over time, left on it’s own, everything turns to shite. What this means is that it takes absolutely no energy or effort for things to deteriorate; however, it takes great amounts of energy to put things right, and even more energy to keep it in that right condition.

    Why are you complaining, Bob, what we have is what we wanted.

    • Replies: @Brother John
  22. “Or fully embracing Darwin by eliminating the job-killing endangered species list?”

    Spoken like a true semi-educated American.

    The passenger pigeon was not “unfit” for survival. 19th Century accounts say they darkened the sky with their numbers. They were simply shot by the thousands and shipped to New York City in barrels. Why didn’t the Red Army let “Darwin” have free rein in the extermination of the Jews, for that matter?

    Can you imagine a rigorous enforcement of the Endangered Species Act creating more jobs and not “killing” jobs? I can. How about bright college students in California “adopting” cougars and serving as public “guardians” of them?

    A Confederate Battle Flag flying in a Southern sky devoid of honeybees would probably appeal to you. The honeybees are no more “unfit” to survive than Stonewall Jackson was (he was shot by one of his own men in the “fog of war”).

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @aandrews
    , @Anonymous
  23. @SFG

    Like Jim Webb or not, NumbersUSA gives Webb a D+ on immigration.

    • Replies: @Kevin O'Keeffe
  24. J Yan says:

    This article puts the P in paleoconservative with all the grace of a dog lifting its hind leg.

  25. Opposition to affirmative action would be wildly popular and give Fearless Fred a nice bump…. for about 3 days, until the media-industrial complex set to work on him.

    1. As several commenters have already said, every word he ever wrote, check, every word anyone who ever worked for him wrote, going back to the lemonade stand he put up in 4th grade, would be scrutinized. The same goes for every vote he ever made going back to Student Council. (Contrast this with the current occupant of the White House, whose academic and medical history is sealed off in Fort Knox).

    2. NBC Nightly News might interview a few college kids: White Male Kid says: “Yeah, like, I mean, I think you should be judged by the content of your character and not the color of your skin.” Female White Kid immediately sets him straight: “That all sounds very nice, but you can’t like, ignore 600 years of systemic racism and White Privilege that’s still with us…” White Male Kid: “Well, yeah, that’s like true, but…” Cut!

    3. NYT/Slate/Huffington Post/Vox etc. gin up the Public Radio crowd : “Is Fred’s call for a “colorblind society” a codeword for brutalizing all the non-white people?” (Hint, hint).

    4. Fearless Fred is now “controversial, linked to extremist groups, hot button, far-right, continues to be dogged by questions about ____________” Fred.

    He continues to get positive reviews on the right wing blogs and news sites but it’s over. I’m convinced the great mind-altering miasma which gets released by the mainstream online press, Twitter, etc. and the effect it has on the minds of voters, especially unmarried women, is more omnipotent than the triumvirate of the military/ secret police/ and controlled press which dominated the USSR for the better part of a century.

    • Replies: @njguy73
  26. @leftist conservative

    I’ve contributed $350 to Webb’s Exploratory Committee, and despite being a lifelong Republican, I’m more excited about his Presidential campaign, than I have been about any other, since that 1996 night when Patrick Buchanan won the New Hampshire primary.

  27. JustJeff says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Good point. That’s the problem with all well-meaning attempts at helping the poor, though. Mixed in with the genuine victims are the shameless parasites and the hopelessly stupid.

    • Replies: @Bill
  28. @DCThrowback

    “Like Jim Webb or not, NumbersUSA gives Webb a D+ on immigration.”

    His voting record in the Senate ain’t that hot on a lot of issues, as he’s freely admitted. He tended to go along with the leadership as a quid, in order to try to get the quo of attention for his pet issues. He realized that was a losing strategy, which is why he 1) declined to seek re-election to a 2nd term in 2012, and 2) chose to seek the Presidency instead. Because being a member of the U.S. Senate is, sadly, pretty much a waste of time (although Jeff Sessions does some good work there, admittedly).

  29. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Roger P

    I’ve been applying for jobs lately.

    A lot of companies make a point of listing thier ‘corporate values’… global outlook, celebrating diversity, etc.

    There are sorts of signals or ‘dogwhistles’ as the left likes to say. There is a real effort out there to purge the workforce of anyone who doesn’t show overt enthusiasm for certain ideological positions.

    It’s getting to a point where anyone who is sincerely Christian, or just conservative will literally be unable to get a job.

    • Replies: @Flower
  30. fish says:

    Awwwww……was dat you…..trying to bring a little culture to dat white girl?

    You go boy!

  31. Lepanto says:
    @Dutch Boy

    I noticed that too. Nothing about shaming the corporate welfare class. And it sounds like Fearless Fred might be in on the race baiting.

  32. Only someone on the extreme right would say we have been operating under ” a Left-wing manufactured consensus that has been untouchable for decades.” This article is hogwash. His “Fred” scenario seems lifted straight from the movie “Bullworth”.

  33. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says:

    But under 8 yrs of ‘leftist’ Clinton, 8 yrs of ‘moderate con’ W. Bush, and 7 yrs of Obama, it seems the rich have gotten richer, poor got poorer, cities have gentrified, and the group doted on most by the elites, the homos, is more powerful than ever.

    What goes by the name of today’s ‘lefitsm’ isn’t real leftism.

    Also, affirmative action doesn’t really help American blacks since African immigrants take a big chunk of it, along with Hispanics(even white ones).

    And diversity serves the elites since yellows and browns serve as buffer to dangerous blacks.

    So many ‘progressive’ and ‘leftist’ slogans and programs may undermine white middle class and underclass but they are a boon to urban whites and white upper class.
    What do white urbanites fear most? Black crime. Also, they want cheap hirelings who are docile. Better off with yellows and browns as buffers and cheap hirelings than blacks.

    If programs are favored by the 1%, can they be said to be truly ‘leftist’?

    • Replies: @rod1963
    , @Anonymous
    , @Swiggity
  34. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says:

    Fearless Fred should be a socio-cultural warrior and leader than a political candidate.

    He should be a leader like MLK or the Pope.

    That way, his fortunes won’t be tied to elections.

  35. Wally [AKA "BobbyBeGood"] says: • Website
    @Eustace Tilley (not)

    Truly spoken like a semi-educated American:

    “Why didn’t the Red Army let “Darwin” have free rein in the extermination of the Jews, for that matter?”

    There was no “extermination of the Jews”. The scam is simply scientifically impossible as alleged and there are no actual mass grave excavations and verified contents which can be shown.

    Throw off your ignorance.

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  36. iffen says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    I don’t care very much for the idea of out-sourcing prison jobs to Mexico.

  37. How many of you guys think that our votes matter? That who we elect is actually a choice? That politicians actually do their job and for the good of country and citizens?

    How many are delusional to the level that they still think their vote matters?

    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
  38. Flower says:

    Just wait until you will be required to take your morning cocktail of 1/3Methedrine, 1/3Cocaine, and 1/3 Spanish Fly, in order to keep your job.

    (Remember the “666”)

  39. Tom_R says:


    I agree with you, except I would banning immigration first and foremost on the list. In fact, 90% of the people support it.

    Yes, such a President would be hounded by the libs–berated, harassed, framed.

    So what is the solution? Do you have a workable, practical solution?

    If you think there is no solution, then, are you saying that we, in this modern age, in the world’s greatest democracy, are doomed to being a powerless, oppressed people, under the subjugation and control of an anti-American Oligarchy?

  40. @Wally

    You repeat this nonsense so often, you’d think you’d be able to prove it.

  41. rod1963 says:
    @Priss Factor

    “If programs are favored by the 1%, can they be said to be truly ‘leftist’?”

    Spot on. Programs than benefit the 1% or more precise the .o1% at the top of the pyramid are neither left nor right. Such distinctions are meaningless at that level, there is only power and wealth. At that level you have senators and congressmen on speed-dial.

    Say like John Corzine, Adelson, the Koch Brothers.

    Look back over the last twenty five years in terms of economic policy in this country or even back to the Reagan era when neo-liberal economic policy was being instituted by Wall Street. Things have gotten progressively worse for the working and middle-class across the board. Blacks got pushed to bottom of the economic ladder. But at the same time, for those at the top things have gotten better and better in terms of wealth creation and in terms of influence within the government.

    That’s what’s been going on all this time – a massive transfer of wealth from the lowest strata of society to the highest.

    Historically it has happened many times, it is the nature of the elites to do this. They never have enough.

    All the while both political parties put on kabuki theatre with all sorts of hot button social wedge issues to fragment and distract the populace while the ,01% bends them over and picks their pockets clean and destroys their futures.

    Sure they throw welfare at the masses, but it’s not out of compassion it’s just to silence them until they are finished extracting every bit of wealth out of the country and people.

  42. Renoman says:

    Fred of course is right, he’s always right and if we don’t start listening to him the only way to control the population will be Marshal law. All things in moderation especially Human Rights.

  43. Art says:

    Oh my’ – no attack on media, no attack on Wall Street, no attack on foreign policy – this article is 100% Jew 101.

    Ignore it – it is written to cause trouble. Mossad – “by way of words we make war.”

  44. aandrews says:
    @Eustace Tilley (not)

    “Spoken like a true semi-educated American.”

    Yeah, really. If that!

    • Replies: @grapesoda
  45. Marian says:

    Elections don’t matter. They are just an elaborate ruse to make the average Joe think they matter. The “two” parties are actually one. We now live in a fascist dictatorship. Not voting, or rather not rubber stamping, is the logical choice.

  46. Maj. Kong says:

    The GOP’s current 20+ candidates is going to collapse eventually down to 5 or so by the time we get to New Hampshire.

    The median R primary voter is doped up by Fox News, and Fox will only give certain people a platform.

    Donald Trump would be better off running as a Democrat, or as a Ross Perot Mk. II

    He has no obvious constituency in the GOP, the same as Pat Buchanan. Further, no one is ever elected President in the last 100 years without being a Governor, Vice President, wartime General, or Senator.

    Trump would have been better off running for Governor of New York last year.

  47. Maj. Kong says:
    @Astuteobservor II

    Several hundred (fraudulent) votes made the difference towards electing Al Franken to the US Senate in 2008.

    4 votes got Sinn Fein a seat in 2010, and Sinn Fein doesn’t even show up to vote.

  48. Anonymous [AKA "BritKiller"] says:
    @Eustace Tilley (not)

    Why are you reading a website started by Americans, you dumfukk? Does it make you feel good about yourself to make ignorant bigoted comments from behind the safety of your computer screen?

    Good for you for knowing useless tidbits of information. You’re SOOOOOOOOOOOO educated. We’re all really impressed. How much ancient Latin and Greek do you know and how many of the classics have you read in their original languages? How many of the great philosophers have you read? Btw you’re obviously sockpuppeting because there’s another annoying female Brit poster here with no job and no life who makes ignorant jingoistic comments. Why don’t you get a job instead of posting on American websites all day?

  49. grapesoda says:

    Ha, sad that you need this to feel better about yourself. The weak always try to take shots at the strong in a pathetic attempt to build themselves up. The strong invest their energy in themselves and care not for the pathetic little sheep.

  50. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Priss Factor

    White females have been the biggest beneficiaries of Affirmative action.

  51. Bill says:

    Yeah, that’s the real brilliance of this article. It gives me something to agree with Truth about.

    Libertarian HBD is the most utterly bizarre ideology ever. The smarter sort of Libertarian (Cowen, Caplan, say) grasps this and reacts to it by staying away from HBD. The dimmer sort of Libertarian can’t resist parading their total inability to understand what humans are like by adhering to both at once, all in-public like.

    I mean, seriously, when black people ask “How come we are poor in this grand Libertarian paradise while guys named Blankfein are not,” what is the Libertarian/HBD plan for a response? “Sorry, darkie, it’s because you are stupid and impulsive. Born that way, I’m afraid. Tough luck.”

    The response may be true, but you don’t get to use it in Libertaria, for reasons which are completely obvious. If you want to go around saying things like that, you have to bring back the whole Jim Crow apparatus of intimidation and control.

  52. Bill says:

    Pretty sure the hopelessly stupid are genuine victims.

  53. weissberg, eh?

    say, shouldn’t a fearless candidate do something about the bankers?

    oh… hmm…

  54. anon • Disclaimer says:

    If you click through to some other vids with entertainment reporter Madison Brooks in it, you will see she tries to cultivate a wacky, nympho persona (that always seems to accidentally get caught on camera).

    In other words, in real life the bro with the weak game would never stand a chance with that lib princess other than as a one-night shock-value flirt fling.

    • Replies: @Truth
  55. MarkinLA says:

    It also doesn’t work because idiots can run and win elections and people who aren’t idiots know it and use it.

  56. Ron Unz says:

    Well, as someone who’s actually been involved in quite a number of major political campaigns, several of them successful, let me contribute my own perspective…

    First, media totally dominates our political world, so much so that there’s no other factor of even remotely comparable importance. Aside from the desire of campaign consultants to get rich, the only reason politicians raise money is to buy media, mostly paid (i.e. ads) but also free (i.e. campaign consultants who can effectively spin reporters and shape the coverage).

    Personally, I think the best metaphor I’ve ever encountered for understanding the role of media in politics is found in the Warlock stories of Larry Niven, the noted SF writer. In his framework, mana is the raw power source behind magic, the resource necessary to produce desired effects, much like hydrocarbons that power our industrial civilization. Basically, media is the mana of political campaigns.

    So the two, somewhat independent, needs of a political campaign are to acquire sufficient mana and then to shape it effectively. Elected officials, celebrities, and those with connections to major media organs tend to have automatic access to reasonable supplies of mana, but their effectiveness at using it can vary dramatically. Also, in the case of elected officials, they may be used to controlling the mana in their local area, but are often unprepared for the situation elsewhere, where their usual sources of power do not apply.

    Candidates who do not start with such a powerful, pre-existing base are faced with drawing sufficient mana for their campaigns to even come into being. If the media doesn’t cover you, then you don’t exist, and your 2% in the national polls would be comparable to that of a fictitious individual provided as a placebo (non-existent individuals with invented names sometimes get 5% or higher support in political polls).

    So, how to get mana? Well, one less pleasant way, is to do or say sufficiently outrageous or controversial things that the media covers you. For example, a few weeks ago some unknown individual with no funding paid $200 to file a California ballot initiative mandating the death penalty for all homosexuals, calling it “The Sodomite Suppression Act” or something like that. Normally, random ballot initiatives get zero coverage, but he got lots of ink and maybe some electronic coverage, probably millions of dollars worth of free mana. The problem with this approach is that the mana comes in the form of a massively destructive blast from all directions, which probably doesn’t help you actually get elected. Over the years, various rightwing Republican candidates for president have knowingly or unknowing followed this sort of approach to cope with their lack of funding, without a history of much success. To some extent, the proposed positions of the hypothetical “Fred” represent an attenuated version of this strategy.

    Now getting hit by a blast of pure mana isn’t a great recipe for winning a campaign, but it beats having no access to any mana at all, which is the fate of an unknown candidate whose positions are bland or mainstream. And the crucial possibility is that a sufficiently skilled political sorcerer may be able to divert and capture at least a portion of the mana in that blast, reshaping it to power his own defenses and perhaps even a counterattack. This is not easy—indeed it’s *exceptionally* difficult—but pretty much the only option under the circumstances. Thus, suffering a massive, one-sided attack may provide the only slight chance of winning.

    If the Opposition largely controls the sources of mana, namely the media, they may realize this, and deliberately avoid providing any visibility to the “dangerous ideas” of their opponent, following the classic “blackout strategy.” Notably, the MSM and the Republicans used this approach quite effectively against the Ron Paul campaign in 2008. (And if your response isn’t sufficiently disciplined, they can shape any slight carelessness into a crushing disaster, as was used against the Howard Dean campaign in 2004.)

    One counter-move is to try to take advantage of any ill-discipline among your massively mana-rich opponents. For example, if they’ve decided upon a classic “blackout strategy” but you can provoke a few of them into foolish attacks, that not only provides you some necessary resources, but the chance for easy early victories if their smarter and more powerful elements stick with the blackout.

    And the ideal situation is to take positions that *seem* crazy and very vulnerable, thereby drawing the shock and the attacks, but which are actually much stronger and more defensible than realized. Once again, this is *not* easy to pull off.

    In political campaigns my own preferred approach has always been a combination of strategic offense and tactical defense, namely trying to quickly occupy a position astride the Opposition lines of supply and communications, thereby almost forcing them to attack lest they risk the entire collapse of their front.

    Anyway, that’s my somewhat rambling and metaphorical contribution to this discussion. Take it for what you will…

  57. Truth says:

    “In other words, in real life the bro with the weak game would never stand a chance with that lib princess other than as a one-night shock-value flirt fling.”

    That would break that young man’s heart. He looked like a Marcello Mastroianni flowers and poetry type.

  58. Fourth, restore shame, stigma and marginalization as tools to stamp out bad behavior.

    Not to worry, shame and stigmatization will never go away. From time to time, the system just changes the definition of “bad” when its interests change.

  59. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Ron Unz

    Interesting post, Ron. Do you know any good book length primers analyzing the hows and whys of media in politics?

  60. @Flower

    I like the use of the Law of Entropy to explain our current trajectory, but it’s still incomplete; it’s like using gravity to get the couch down from the 8th floor to the moving truck. You could take it down in the lift, but, if you’re careless, stupid, or just destructive — like our political masters, welfare brood mares, and fellow traveling media — you just chuck it off the balcony.

    • Replies: @Jeff77450
  61. njguy73 says:
    @Patrick in SC

    NYT: Tom Friedman on why Fred is like the Flintstones character, and why Hilary is Jane Jetson

    Slate: We Used To Think People Like Fred Were History. Now They’re Back. Why?

    Salon: What Does Lena Dunham Think About Fred?

    Grantland: Chuck Klosterman On How Fred Reminds Him Of The Failed Solo Albums Of Kiss Members

    Buzzfeed: 6 Reasons Fred Is A Douchebag

  62. Jeff77450 says:

    [It’s very much preferable to combine several short comments into a longer, more substantive one]

    Sad but true.

    • Replies: @Realist
  63. Realist says:

    I made my point succinctly.

  64. Geschrei says:

    Brave Fred types are exceedingly rare though millions share his views.

    If by “millions” you mean single digits (out of a population of 320+) you’re probably correct. But even so, and assuming that they are willing and able to vote their conscience and select Fearless Fred in their state’s GOP primary, I seriously doubt he would even begin to approach the number of delegates to challenge for the nomination. And in the exceedingly unlikely event he attained it, he would no doubt rival McGovern ’72 in Electoral College futility come November.

    How can I be so sure? Simple – I read the news today (oh boy). If anything, the events of the past few days have finally exploded the “US is a center-right country” myth once and for all. I was born in 1960, and save for the possible exception of tax policy, there isn’t a single significant domestic issue that hasn’t swung violently to the left since then.

    To me, the only thing more ridiculous than imagining that there is a wellspring of conservativism out there, just waiting to be tapped by some “Brave” political hack, is the continued charade from the progressives that conservative forces are still firmly in control, and they are still the marginalized opposition. And I doubt even the fulfillment of Dr. Weissberg’s 2016 prediction will change that.

    • Replies: @Swiggity
  65. Swiggity says:
    @Priss Factor

    The issue you bring up with white Hispanics is interesting, since it illustrates the point where liberals are disconnected from society in that they’d probably either blow a gasket or make a dozen mental leaps to explain why Filemon Vela isn’t REALLY white.

  66. Swiggity says:

    It remains to be seen what the Republican Congress does, should a Republican win the White House. Congress, not the president, makes the laws- hence Obama’s failure to get anything major passed since 2010 due to his complete refusal to make concessions to the Republicans. Will a President Bush III veto laws passed by Congress denying amnesty and authorizing a border wall? Will Boehner and McConnell even bother to pass those things, or will they give us “tough” border security and enforcement by promising that they will deport more, all the while refusing to actually remove a significant number of illegals? Or will the Republican party recognize that it’s future is heavily contingent on the deportation of illegals, and that investing in farming technology and deporting even half of the illegals would immediately create demand for workers, many of whom have been out of work and would like a job.

    The reason why you’ve seen things constantly moving to the left throughout your 55 years is because for the majority of your life the Democrats controlled the House and Senate- from the time you were born until you were 34 the Democrats never lost control of the House. Now the Republicans appear set to control the House for the forseeable future and likely the Senate as well, so it is possible that unimpeded Republican control may lead to a Republican Supreme Court (being that Ginsberg and Kennedy will either die or retire in the next several years) and therefore conservative rulings on law in the future such as the status of anchor babies or the legality of concealed carry, and maybe even renewed Court support for marriage being one man and one woman. Or maybe the Republicans will play the coward and try to grab votes from progressives that would never vote for them, which echoing the “diversity is strength” statement that has not benefited the Republicans at all.

  67. Swiggity says:

    “Diversity is strength” is one in particular that I’d like to see end. But you won’t get Republicans ever saying that, with the exception of a few- very few- Congressmen who advocate for the end of the diversity visa and sheepishly say “we can take those diversity visas and get more Indian college grads instead” because he so fears his conservative constituency will turn against him should the liberals in media brand him a racist. As long as the Republican party constantly uses coded language while Democrats are in-your-face claiming that you are unfairly privileged for being of European descent, the Republicans will never really stand for anything and will allow the slope to keep slipping until Democrats are quoting Marx and declaring that white Americans are the bourgeoisie and must be eradicated in a racial-class war for there to be true equality. But at least by then civil war would be inevitable, so people with guns would be ready for those who assume a mostly white military drawn from rural areas will consent to waging war on themselves.

  68. Ace says:

    Speaking of The Donald is not dumb. It’s worse — it’s not witty or original. It was old two days after his ex used it. It’s about as witty and original as “Congresscritters” or “Obummer.”

  69. @Ron Unz

    this is scary as fuck. the one important fact that I learned from your post is that media access = election. whomever the media favorites would most likely win. and they can be subtle as fuck. just reinforces my own opinion that voting is a farce to pacify the masses.

  70. Nico says:
    @Gene Su

    I think yours is one of the best and most succinct summas on the topic. I’d just like to rejoin/converse with a few of your points, as I think they deserve to be expanded upon:

    When Martin Luther King started the marches in the South, he was hated and sneered at by a lot of whites. When Malcolm X and his Black Muslims started taking center stage, a lot of whites then began to accommodate MLK. Whites are very scared of the Black Panthers and Black Muslims and are willing to accommodate “moderate” blacks… Black elites have some very good connections to some of America’s more important foreign allies like Saudi Arabia. I think this is the basis of black political power, not the voting block.

    True, and true. There is something about Islam that strikes terror in Christian, and especially European Christian, hearts. Understandable given our history, but of course self-hating academics now spin it to make it look like Christians were the aggressors. I have never heard a straight answer to the question, why, if Christians had no right to take the Holy Land and then Spain in the Crusades, did the Muslims have any right to take the Holy Land, North Africa, Spain and Asia Minor many years BEFORE the Crusades and the Balkans many years AFTER the Crusades?

    That said, keep in mind that before 2001, most American whites were only barely aware of the existence of Islam and even moreso before 1979. As has been argued on these pages, up through the 1980s you still had bands of urban Irish, Polish or Italian youths who still had enough morale, social cohesion and virility to render them capable of intimidating blacks. Ultimately they, like the rest of Middle America, were cowed into submission by the liberal cosmopolitan Yankee/Jew/Plastic Paddy elite which DID know and fear Islam, because (see for example Bush, Cheney) they were heavily involved in maintaining the supply lines of petroleum that kept America running.

    When Arabia’s tank begins to run dry I suspect the retreat of the the rabid dog of P.C. multiculturalism which paints both Islam and blacks as meek and pure relics of “noble savagery” will be as swift and as entertaining as it will be messy and frightening.

    I think it is an over-generalization that to say that white southerners are the most conservative in the US. They welcomed the New Deal and other welfare programs more than most people. Remember that LBJ was a Texan. His War on Poverty was meant to butter up whites, not blacks.

    Points well taken, but I suspect you are making a classic U.S. political error in confusing placement on the left-right spectrum of either politics or society/culture with one’s position on the “issues.” The south’s outlook on life, society and the political process has for a long time been VERY patriarchal and conservative relative to that of the rest of the country, even if at some intervals southerners have been happy to line up in front of whoever was throwing the handouts. Keep in mind that the Republican Party barely existed in the South between 1932 and 1964, and didn’t really take off permanently until the 1980s. People like LBJ, Ann Richards, Bill Nelson and so forth would nowadays be considered by most southerners with adequate political memory to be wolves in sheeps’ clothing and once a brash Bill Clinton helped expose them for what they really were, the game was up mighty quick for most of them.

    Many blacks really genuinely believe that they are under attack. It is not just about innate stupidity. It’s the way the media spins interracial attacks. Note how they were so quick to talk about that white nutball in Charleston in terms of race and hide attacks committed by those of color.

    Yes. See above and “cowed into submission.” It is mostly the fault of a certain category of whites, although that would probably not be true if the average black actually had the same cognitive power as the average white. That is manifestly not the case. It’s not just that I.Q. tests show otherwise: it should be evident to anyone who has had a fair cross section of the various ethnic and socioeconomic shades of American society. After a while, one inclined to time-saving can become quite well-attuned to more or less reliable “cues” that hint as to the likelihood that a person or group up ahead is might rough one up, that a given job candidate will “get it” quickly enough to be worth my time (or will simply “get it” at all), etc.

    Skin color happens to be one such cue, as is the presence or absence of epidermal body modifications such as tattoos or piercings. Not perfect, but on average better than nothing.

  71. Elijah says:

    Perhaps the author should then run for president? He has his plan all laid out, now he just needs to stop pontificating and actually do something.

  72. Grey says:

    Okay, I truly understand but I have a major mental blockage due to this : quote
    “First, drop the “diversity-is-our strength” crap. It is a lie, and virtually everybody knows it is bogus and the evidence is indisputable. ”

    Diversity absolutely IS strength – in ALL matters. But it only works where there are consequences for non-performance. A few simple thought experiments will prove this out.
    1) take two islands large enough to support sustainable populations of predators. Now introduce these predators – in the case of this example dogs, Island A gets 500 randomly selected mutts (fertile), Island B gets 500 purebred poodles of the same size class(fertile). In 500 years which one still has dogs? Obviously, Island A – the mutts will have the diversity to handle the changing environment, those that cant will die off, those that can will survive and breed. Island B will have at best an inbred low fertility waning population.
    2) take two towns in the same environment with same resources. Town M is inhabited by menonites, Town R is inhabited by technocrats. Both get cut off from the rest of our global society. Which one is more likely to survive? What if instead of being cut off from global society they instead get invaded by aliens? which one is more likely to survive now?
    3) take 3 companies performing the same sort of advertising- One makes a premium product at a premium price, Two makes a lousy product at a very low price, and number Three makes a pretty decent product at a fairly low price. In an economy where there are massive sales taxes based on the sale price of item, and low incomes in the customer base, which product would you buy? Company number Three would probably not need to be replaced where company Two would, and company One is too expensive after taxes to afford, so most people will go for company number Three (all else being equal of course).

    So diversity IS strength – in a free competition where results are allowed to cause their effects. It is only when results do not count (or are not allowed to count) that diversity becomes weakness.
    In the diversity of Global Cultures, Western (European) culture has proven to be among the best – at least in part because it steals ideas and traits that gives it the best competitive advantage from the diversity of other cultures. Japan, China, and India, have borrowed some of the same traits from western culture to integrate into their own, and by doing so have gained strength in the realm of global commerce and culture.

    It is removing the consequences of competition that makes ‘diversity’ of liberal thought so damaging.
    Just like welfare, they don’t want any of the protected classes to suffer for under/non-performance.

    • Replies: @Romanian
  73. @Truth

    Is that one of those white ivory tower terms to say you don’t agree? The problem is, you say it’s too much to refute, but I really don’t have any particular reason to think you can refute it.

  74. Truth says:

    Some other time, my friend. At some point I will come by a mood to pointlessly waste an hour of my life deconstructing arguments that I have successfully deconstructed many times in the past. But not now, for now I’ll just make jokes.

  75. Romanian says:

    That’s interesting, but the argument falls flat for me because of one caveat.

    Even if European civilization and its offshoots were not all they are cracked up to be, they would still have the right to exist and, by that, I mean the right to exclude even meritorious foreigners from their ranks. So, if some guy shows up at your door and claims that he is moving in with you because he is so much smarter and has credentials and reputation, and he’ll be making decisions in the house from now on, you still get to slam the door in his face and call the police. The Japanese haven’t won the right to keep immigration out, they simply exercise their sovereignty in choosing to keep people out and have a declining and aging population and appearing to be economically stagnant (we know better).

    Competition is fine and dandy, and inevitable, in many areas. But part of success and sovereignty should also mean, to a certain extent, getting to a point where you are neither neurotic enough to have to be on top all the time, and neither are random people challenging you to a dance off in the street every time you go out, hoping to win your stuff off of you. It means, civilizationally, stacking the deck a bit for your idiot son by leaving him an inheritance or sending him to school as a legacy. Or trying to make sure your neighborhood stays the way you like it, despite some people’s faddish architectural preferences.

    PS You can have diversity in a culturally and ethnically homogenous nation as well. It’s called neurodiversity. And you’re not going to argue that Mestizos beat Swedes, are you?

  76. Fred is anti diversity, anti affirmative action, and anti radical egalitarianism. All that tells me is Fred is not a Democrat. It doesn’t tell me much about what kind of president he will be. But so far so good. Fred is also pro shaming, stigmatizing and marginalizing. Now I know Fred is a hater and an ass hole and I don’t need to know anything more about him.

    See how it works? Chris Christie was riding high until it was discovered that he is an ass hole. If Fred wants to win he should conceal the petty and vindictive aspects of his nature.

    • Replies: @Wally
  77. Wally says: • Website

    You are certainly one of the most mentally challenged to post here.

    In spite of your intentions you have thoroughly supported Fred’s / Weissberg’s points.

  78. Oldeguy says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Bravo ! “All this diversity/feminism/gay rights stuff” is carefully nurtured ( by unmerited media attention ) distraction to prevent the emergence of just such a movement.

  79. Bolteric says:
    @Ron Unz

    Giving this some more thought. Would it not make sense to befriend the media? Feign surrender. There’s got to be a way, perhaps a middle road, that can be a win-win. I do agree with *how* Difficult this would be – akin to the camel passing through the eye of a needle. But hey, rich men also need to enter the kingdom of heaven.

  80. Nancy says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Sooo true, and not said, shouted!, often enough. I’m 73 yo, and remember as a child ‘absorbing’ that Repubs were the business owners (the bosses) and Dems were the workers. Somewhere.. in the 70’s.. with the Powell Memo?, the Dems sold us out. Hmmm…. wonder who ‘bought’ them? There are no leftie liberals…. just ignorant, excitable sheep herded by parasitic termites.

    Forget this ‘identity’ politics, we want REAL politics… economic!

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Robert Weissberg Comments via RSS
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
Becker update V1.3.2
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement