The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Trump to Skip Next Debate for AIPAC Speech
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
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
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

The American-Israel Political Action Committee convention is an annual show of strength in DC. (Here’s Dana Milbank’s amusing 2005 Washington Post column AIPAC’s Big, Bigger, Biggest Moment about just how over the top the logistics of the AIPAC conference are in order to impress participants and speakers.)

Today, GOP frontrunner Donald Trump announced he was skipping the next Republican debate in favor of his “very major” AIPAC speech. (Hillary and Bernie are also speaking.) Although Trump only calling it “very major” makes it sound like he’s downplaying it as not “intergalactically important” or whatever, this will indeed be an important moment for Trump since it could affect just how negative his media coverage will be through the election. As Australian immigrant Rupert Murdoch once observed to a friend of mine in explaining his sponsorship of the neoconservative Weekly Standard, to be somebody in America you don’t need all the Jews in New York on your side, but you do need some.

From Haaretz, a long column on how antsy Jews are feeling about Trump:

Trump/AIPAC Conference Could Embroil Israel and Inflame American Jews
Speech by controversial GOP candidate could give him legitimacy he lacks, which is precisely what enrages his opponents.

Chemi Shalev Mar 15, 2016 7:56 PM

John Rivers points out on Twitter that Obama’s nomination of a mainstream Jewish white male liberal to the Supreme Court is likely to present Republicans with a problem with this influential demographic slice:

Obama’s nomination of Garland and Trump’s upcoming speech to AIPAC can be seen as a response to the dust-up btw Trump and the Jewish Right. … I expect Trump’s AIPAC speech heals the rift, but we’ll see. Some like Shapiro & Kristol have gone so far out on a limb, hard to walk back.

Presumably, Trump, the master salesman, will tell AIPAC what it wants to hear. It’s not an impossible sell: Sheldon Adelson is sympathetic to Trump, for example.

 
Hide 121 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. John Rivers points out on Twitter that Obama’s nomination of a mainstream Jewish white male liberal to the Supreme Court is likely to present Republicans with a problem with this influential demographic slice:

    Still can’t have a Supreme Court that looks like America. No Protestants need apply.

    • Replies: @Evocatus
    @Milo Minderbinder

    Like anyone really thought Obama would nominate an Anglo-Protestant, or for that matter an Italian Catholic with nine kids.

  2. John Rivers points out on Twitter that Obama’s nomination of a mainstream Jewish white male liberal to the Supreme Court is likely to present Republicans with a problem with this influential demographic slice:

    The Supreme Court is starting to look a lot like the Oscars voters. They’re too white.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    @iSteveFan

    Too (((white))) indeed.

    I wish Trump would tell AIPAC to pound sand but I suppose that's too idealistic of me.

    I am not really looking forward to him kissing up to neocons but one probably shouldn't take his AIPAC speech at face value.

    , @Anonymous
    @iSteveFan

    "The Supreme Court is starting to look a lot like the Oscars voters. They’re too white."

    #SupremeCourtBecomingSoWhite

    , @Jefferson
    @iSteveFan

    "The Supreme Court is starting to look a lot like the Oscars voters. They’re too white."

    What is extremely shocking is that the only Black person in The Supreme Court is not a Democrat.

  3. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    There are 34 Senate seats up for election this fall, 24 of them Republicans. If Trump turns out to be a Goldwater-scale disaster, Hillary could have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and be able to nominate a true radical. So Obama is forcing the Senate Republicans to roll the dice with Garland.

    • Replies: @Barnard
    @Anonymous

    The Democrats would have to finish at +14 in the Senate to get a filibuster proof majority. If you look at the seats that are up, +10 for them would be close to miraculous. I would be somewhat surprised if they took back the majority and the 2018 map for them is worse than the map is this year for the GOP.

    , @Milo Minderbinder
    @Anonymous


    There are 34 Senate seats up for election this fall, 24 of them Republicans. If Trump turns out to be a Goldwater-scale disaster, Hillary could have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and be able to nominate a true radical. So Obama is forcing the Senate Republicans to roll the dice with Garland.
     
    There is no way that the Republicans lose 14 current seats. The real threat is they will lose the close ones: IL, NH, PA, FL, WI, and then the Dems will nuke the filibuster for SC nominations.
  4. Merrick Garland?

    As in Harvard Law grad/Oklahoma City bombing judge/Clinton appointee/native Chicagoan Merrick Garland?

    Garland has a lot of experience adjudicating terrorism (domestic) cases where the perpetrators are white men. Looking fwd to discussion here on that point as the announcement settles in.

    That’d put SCOTUS at 4 Jews, 5 Catholics, nu?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Olorin


    That’d put SCOTUS at 4 Jews, 5 Catholics, nu?
     
    We basically live in an Ellis Islander kritarchy.

    Replies: @Jefferson

    , @Diversity Heretic
    @Olorin

    A very evident example of the displacement of the founding stock of the United States in one of its most prestigious institutions.

    Replies: @Wilkey, @BB753

    , @okie
    @Olorin

    As for Thomas, yes he studied for the priesthood,, but is actually a Episcopalian now , i think because of either his wife or his mentor Danforth., so there is one prot. on the court.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Cagey Beast

    , @Dr. X
    @Olorin

    Hmmm... 1.8% of the population to hold four out of nine seats on the Supreme Court???

    Nothing to see here, kids... move along, now. Just keep waving the American flag -- (you know, the one with the blue star in the middle of it).

  5. Is this even a trade off?

    That is, votes Trump will lose by being seen as reliably pro-Israel (as if there were any doubt), versus calming Israeli fears about him being Hitler Junior?

    Whereas Cruz is “religious right”, which means pro-Israel but in a creepy way.

    Right? 😉

  6. A smart strategy here would be if Trump can, even subtly, position himself as the best bulwark between American Jews (and Israel) and the various moonbats on the left Hillary has to break bread with (Black Lives Matter, etc.) who aren’t and won’t be the friends of successful white people of any description (and who aren’t too far from BDS and other anti-Israel/pro-Palestinian outfits). These folks will be a problem Jews can recognize more quickly than the Jews will be able to “become” not-white. Jews viscerally don’t like demagogues who are too popular with Gentile torches-and-pitchforks mobs, but they do understand benevolent despots (or, if you will, czars) who stand between useful Jews and the mob; and they also (at least a generation or two back, mostly on the East Coast) understand why to be afraid of black mobs.

  7. @iSteveFan

    John Rivers points out on Twitter that Obama’s nomination of a mainstream Jewish white male liberal to the Supreme Court is likely to present Republicans with a problem with this influential demographic slice:
     
    The Supreme Court is starting to look a lot like the Oscars voters. They're too white.

    Replies: @AndrewR, @Anonymous, @Jefferson

    Too (((white))) indeed.

    I wish Trump would tell AIPAC to pound sand but I suppose that’s too idealistic of me.

    I am not really looking forward to him kissing up to neocons but one probably shouldn’t take his AIPAC speech at face value.

  8. I wonder how he’ll play it. Whatever he does he’ll own it and them by the end.

    • Replies: @Charles Sledge
    @TWS

    I hope so. If anyone could give Trump trouble I would imagine it would be the Israel lobby. They pretty much control conservative politics. Whenever Israel says jump conservatives reply how high? However if anyone can do it, it would be Trump but will be a bit harder than taking on the conservative establishment as he has done but then even liberals can do that lol.

  9. It will be interesting to see Trump triangulate between the obeisance to Israel that AIPAC expects, his promises to avoid unnecessary military adventures, and the expectations of those who hope Trump really will mainstream policies favoring the interests of US citizens and of the USA over the interests of foreigners and of foreign nations. Such policies may seem unexceptional for a republic but have been utterly repudiated by this country’s ruling elites — the plutocrats and Israel-first extremists and the MSM and federal political figures they have bought and paid for.

  10. What a fork for FOX, Cruz, Kasich, and the Republican establishment:

    -Either ignore his pulling out, say nothing, and have no ratings and look weak

    -complain about it, and get called anti-Semites, get the neocons caught in a bind, and get called hypocrites because they’re all in the pocket of AIPAC.

    No doubt Cruz will claim that Trump is “ducking” him, which no one will believe.

    • Replies: @schmenz
    @whorefinder

    "No doubt Cruz will claim that Trump is “ducking” him, which no one will believe."

    I think that Kasich has already said something to that effect.

  11. Trump has no particular animus toward Israel or Jews. It should not be a surprise that he is speaking at AIPAC. Dislike of Jews/Israel and conspiracy theories about AIPAC is a fringe position in American politics, and mostly a far-left fringe position.

    • Agree: This Is Our Home
    • Replies: @le biel
    @biz

    The far left dislikes Israel because they're white-ish people colonizing brown-ish people in a pretty brutal fashion. I dislike Israel because they're no ally to the USA but they're treated as such because of the powerful Israel lobby (AIPAC etc) and Jewish stranglehold on corporate media. The USA gives Israel billions of dollars and political cover at the UN Security Council and in return we get espionage and false flag attacks (USS Liberty, 9/11). "Our" leaders are apoplectic about Iran doing nuclear research when Israel already has dozens of nukes and is a non-signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @biz

    , @Jus' Sayin'...
    @biz


    ...conspiracy theories about AIPAC is a fringe position in American politics...
     
    They are not conspiracy theories when there are MSM reports and YouTube videos of Adelson and Saban chest thumping about the unconditional support for Israel their money has bought from US politicians. Recently we saw the disgusting spectacle of a foreign head of state - Netanyahu - receiving standing ovations from a joint session of Congress after coming, uninvited, to attack a foreign policy initiative of the President, which that foreign head of state didn't happen to like. Over the years we've seen Israel get away with a steady series of attacks on the security and integrity of the USA with no effective response on the part of our politicians. AIPAC exists, it bribes and it corrupts, and it does so all too successfully. Conspiracy theories? I think not.
    , @Stephen R. Diamond
    @biz

    That the Israel lobby has, by vast money, decisively influenced U.S. ME policy is well-documented in mainstream scholarly literature.

    Replies: @biz

    , @SFG
    @biz

    And a far-right fringe position. (Hi, guys!) The center-right has been more pro-Israel than the center-left, but that may change now.

    Also usually the far right dislikes Jews, the far left dislikes Israel--anti-Israeli Jews like Gilad Atzmon are usually cool with them.

    As for conspiracy theories...I agree some people exaggerate Jewish influence, but you have to admit they punch way above their weight class.

    Replies: @biz

  12. Leftist conservative [AKA "Make Unz.com Great Again"] says: • Website

    Ivanka will have had her baby by then. Trump will likely include the text below in his AIPAC speech:

    “My new grandson is so amazing, just beautiful. I saw him nursing on Ivanka’s breasts the other day, it was unbelievable. The most gorgeous image I’ve ever seen. Those things have gotten so yuge, it’s like another set of implants! They’re just tremendous. The guy who did ’em, amazing guy, doctor Sanjiv Shukamonya, just tremendous work, incredible breast plastic surgeon. And he came here *legally*. He wants to make breasts great again and he wants to make America great again. And together, that’s what we’re gonna do.”

    • Agree: TomSchmidt
  13. “Sheldon Adelson is sympathetic to Trump, for example.”

    Sheldon could call in some favors if he can help deliver NV for Trump.

    Romney’s 206 electoral votes; + FL; NV; VA; PA =274.

    Btw, FL governor Rick Scott just endorsed Trump. Trump should seriously consider picking Scott to be his running mate (and thus helping to deliver FL’s 29 electoral votes). A Trump-Scott ticket would be a quite respectable, professional choice and not a weird, straight out of left field curve ball choice like McCain chose in ’08.

    Periodically, Trump should have Scott on the campaign stump as he continues his candidacy to get voters subconsciously used to a Trump-Scott ticket.

    • Replies: @Uncle Peregrine
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    I don't think Scott would have any appeal beyond partisan Republicans.

  14. @Milo Minderbinder

    John Rivers points out on Twitter that Obama’s nomination of a mainstream Jewish white male liberal to the Supreme Court is likely to present Republicans with a problem with this influential demographic slice:
     
    Still can't have a Supreme Court that looks like America. No Protestants need apply.

    Replies: @Evocatus

    Like anyone really thought Obama would nominate an Anglo-Protestant, or for that matter an Italian Catholic with nine kids.

  15. @Olorin
    Merrick Garland?

    As in Harvard Law grad/Oklahoma City bombing judge/Clinton appointee/native Chicagoan Merrick Garland?

    Garland has a lot of experience adjudicating terrorism (domestic) cases where the perpetrators are white men. Looking fwd to discussion here on that point as the announcement settles in.

    That'd put SCOTUS at 4 Jews, 5 Catholics, nu?

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Diversity Heretic, @okie, @Dr. X

    That’d put SCOTUS at 4 Jews, 5 Catholics, nu?

    We basically live in an Ellis Islander kritarchy.

    • Replies: @Jefferson
    @Anonymous

    "We basically live in an Ellis Islander kritarchy."

    Non Jewish and Non Catholic Mayflower WASPs still have NASCAR , Country music, and the NHL.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Jack D, @Cagey Beast

  16. Jews vote Dem.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @boogerbently


    Jews vote Dem.
     
    The Jewish votes that matter aren't cast with ballots.
  17. At this point, the debates can’t help Trump much. Cruz is too good of a debater, and Kasich is too sober in demeanor for Trump’s bullying style to look very good.

  18. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    "Sheldon Adelson is sympathetic to Trump, for example."

    Sheldon could call in some favors if he can help deliver NV for Trump.

    Romney's 206 electoral votes; + FL; NV; VA; PA =274.

    Btw, FL governor Rick Scott just endorsed Trump. Trump should seriously consider picking Scott to be his running mate (and thus helping to deliver FL's 29 electoral votes). A Trump-Scott ticket would be a quite respectable, professional choice and not a weird, straight out of left field curve ball choice like McCain chose in '08.

    Periodically, Trump should have Scott on the campaign stump as he continues his candidacy to get voters subconsciously used to a Trump-Scott ticket.

    Replies: @Uncle Peregrine

    I don’t think Scott would have any appeal beyond partisan Republicans.

  19. @Anonymous
    There are 34 Senate seats up for election this fall, 24 of them Republicans. If Trump turns out to be a Goldwater-scale disaster, Hillary could have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and be able to nominate a true radical. So Obama is forcing the Senate Republicans to roll the dice with Garland.

    Replies: @Barnard, @Milo Minderbinder

    The Democrats would have to finish at +14 in the Senate to get a filibuster proof majority. If you look at the seats that are up, +10 for them would be close to miraculous. I would be somewhat surprised if they took back the majority and the 2018 map for them is worse than the map is this year for the GOP.

  20. @Anonymous
    There are 34 Senate seats up for election this fall, 24 of them Republicans. If Trump turns out to be a Goldwater-scale disaster, Hillary could have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and be able to nominate a true radical. So Obama is forcing the Senate Republicans to roll the dice with Garland.

    Replies: @Barnard, @Milo Minderbinder

    There are 34 Senate seats up for election this fall, 24 of them Republicans. If Trump turns out to be a Goldwater-scale disaster, Hillary could have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and be able to nominate a true radical. So Obama is forcing the Senate Republicans to roll the dice with Garland.

    There is no way that the Republicans lose 14 current seats. The real threat is they will lose the close ones: IL, NH, PA, FL, WI, and then the Dems will nuke the filibuster for SC nominations.

  21. Thank God. They’ve canceled the debate!

    • Agree: gruff
  22. @biz
    Trump has no particular animus toward Israel or Jews. It should not be a surprise that he is speaking at AIPAC. Dislike of Jews/Israel and conspiracy theories about AIPAC is a fringe position in American politics, and mostly a far-left fringe position.

    Replies: @le biel, @Jus' Sayin'..., @Stephen R. Diamond, @SFG

    The far left dislikes Israel because they’re white-ish people colonizing brown-ish people in a pretty brutal fashion. I dislike Israel because they’re no ally to the USA but they’re treated as such because of the powerful Israel lobby (AIPAC etc) and Jewish stranglehold on corporate media. The USA gives Israel billions of dollars and political cover at the UN Security Council and in return we get espionage and false flag attacks (USS Liberty, 9/11). “Our” leaders are apoplectic about Iran doing nuclear research when Israel already has dozens of nukes and is a non-signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    @le biel

    I agree that it would be nice if the support went both ways... Israeli politicians ought to be coming out in support of US policies that benefit the US, like border controls.

    The strange thing is that, as Jews are white, the anti-white bias growing on the American left is eventually going to be directed at them. Why they can't see that, I don't know.

    Israel is never going to nuke the US, but Iran might, so, really, who cares that Israel is a non-signatory to TNPNW? I think you are confusing the US adopting pro-US positions and the US adopting a strategy of treating every foreign power the same... it's foreign policy for kindergarteners!

    Replies: @Ralph Raico, @Desiderius, @reiner Tor, @Mr. Anon

    , @biz
    @le biel


    I dislike Israel because... we get espionage and false flag attacks (USS Liberty, 9/11)
     
    This is exactly what I was talking about. The only people who dislike Israel are those who want to pretend that Muslims are not responsible for 9/11. This includes the loony left, and for some reason a segment of the far right.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @reiner Tor

  23. @iSteveFan

    John Rivers points out on Twitter that Obama’s nomination of a mainstream Jewish white male liberal to the Supreme Court is likely to present Republicans with a problem with this influential demographic slice:
     
    The Supreme Court is starting to look a lot like the Oscars voters. They're too white.

    Replies: @AndrewR, @Anonymous, @Jefferson

    “The Supreme Court is starting to look a lot like the Oscars voters. They’re too white.”

    #SupremeCourtBecomingSoWhite

  24. Trump will be speaking on two levels. For the general public he will sound normal and non-controversial. But to Jews and red-pilled Americans, the two groups who are in the know, there will be a second and more subtle discourse. Will Trump reach Troll Level: Expert? He came very close to this honor in his last speech to those GOP Jewish business men.

    One subliminal message will be a threat that if Jews gang up against him (as they do seem to be doing) and he still manages to win the elections; baby Israel will pay a very heavy price indeed!

    On the normal people level Trump has to get across that he has no need to pander to AIPAC since he is self-funding and Jews are such a tiny demographic, and since they normally vote Democratic. their actual voting power nil. By saying he has no need to pander he is of course pointing out that Hillary has a huge need to pander.

    Trump has to strongly criticize the Iraq, Libya, and Syria disasters and openly call for peace with Putin. Dare the collected Jews to boo those comments.

    Trump has to again say he will be an honest broker between Israel and Palestine. Of course he probably will not be, but that all depends on how American Jews treat him in the general election, doesn’t it?

    It would be wonderful trolling if Trump goes though his stump speech about getting other nations to pay for our protection — no need to explicitly mention Israel — in fact it’s better not to.

    In fact he should as much as possible avoid the subject of Israel and concentrate on making America great again — these Jews are Americans after all, aren’t they?

    To me this speech will be Must-See-TV. There will be some hecklers and some people walking out. But of course that only helps Trump as most Americans are disgusted by Israel. I also think it is great to shine such powerful spotlight on AIPAC — many Americans will be just getting introduced to it….

    • Replies: @IHTG
    @Shine a Light


    But of course that only helps Trump as most Americans are disgusted by Israel.
     
    Good job putting that at the end of your comment so people don't know to disregard it

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Shine a Light

    , @Jack D
    @Shine a Light

    I would wager that the speech Trump will actually give will be NOTHING like the speech that you just proposed. That fantasy speech is the speech that YOU would give, which is why you would never be elected dog catcher. Trump is going to AIPAC to make friends, not to spit in their faces and endorse Putin. As Steve explained, people who don't want to be total losers in America need to have at least SOME Jewish friends. I'll bet you don't have any.

    , @Anonymous
    @Shine a Light

    "I also think it is great to shine such powerful spotlight on AIPAC — many Americans will be just getting introduced to it…."

    I was completely unaware of AIPAC until a few years ago, when the father of a boy on my son's soccer team introduced me to it. The man was a Muslim immigrant and was very pleasant, intelligent, and fairly westernized. On the day we met, after we'd been talking for about 25 minutes, he started complaining to me about the disproportionate influence that AIPAC has in the U.S. I asked him what AIPAC was, and he told me, but he seemed very surprised that I had to ask.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

  25. @iSteveFan

    John Rivers points out on Twitter that Obama’s nomination of a mainstream Jewish white male liberal to the Supreme Court is likely to present Republicans with a problem with this influential demographic slice:
     
    The Supreme Court is starting to look a lot like the Oscars voters. They're too white.

    Replies: @AndrewR, @Anonymous, @Jefferson

    “The Supreme Court is starting to look a lot like the Oscars voters. They’re too white.”

    What is extremely shocking is that the only Black person in The Supreme Court is not a Democrat.

  26. I made this point on another post, but I’ll make it again: not only is the Obama pick Jewish, but it perpetuates the stranglehold that Harvard and Yale have on the Supreme Court. In France the Ecole Nationale d’Administration has a de facto stranglehold on government policy positions; in the U.S., a much larger country, the fact that all of the Supreme Court justices are from Harvard and Yale is something I find very troubling. The possibility of ever getting a SOTUS justice with a background from any other law school seems to be receding with every nomination. I think that the last non-Harvard-Yale justice was Rehnquist, a Stanford graduate, as was Sandra Day O’Connor.

  27. @Olorin
    Merrick Garland?

    As in Harvard Law grad/Oklahoma City bombing judge/Clinton appointee/native Chicagoan Merrick Garland?

    Garland has a lot of experience adjudicating terrorism (domestic) cases where the perpetrators are white men. Looking fwd to discussion here on that point as the announcement settles in.

    That'd put SCOTUS at 4 Jews, 5 Catholics, nu?

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Diversity Heretic, @okie, @Dr. X

    A very evident example of the displacement of the founding stock of the United States in one of its most prestigious institutions.

    • Replies: @Wilkey
    @Diversity Heretic

    Whites who think that further mass immigration will be good for them should be reminded of that. We're enabling our own replacement, and for no conceivable fucking reason whatsoever.

    So the Dems nominate a fourth Jew to the Supreme Court, to go with all the Jews on the Federal Reserve Board. I don't wanna hear another goddamned lecture from the Left about "diversity" ever again.

    Replies: @Diversity Heretic, @Dr. X

    , @BB753
    @Diversity Heretic

    One of the most interesting and , should I say, unfortunate developments of the last 50 years or so is the terminal decline of Wasps.
    They've been ethnically cleansed from virtually every American institution. How did it happen? Don't tell me it was just their love of gin and Jews.

  28. Adelson did *not* express support for Trump.

    Here’s the quote:

    “Trump is a businessman. I am a businessman. He employs a lot of people. I employed 50,000 people. Why not?” Adelson said during a gala in Las Vegas in February.

    “It reminds me of [a joke]: One Jewish man said to another Jewish man, ‘Do you know why Jews always answer a question with a question?’ So, the guy said, ‘Why not?’” Adelson said in comments first reported by Israeli blogger Tal Schneider. Jewish Insider later covered the report.

    Adelson’s comment is like a Rorshach test, a shibboleth, and an IQ battery.

    It’s *not* an endorsement.

    It’s “Keep your cards close. Don’t tip your hand by telling the antisemite what you’re really thinking.”

    • Replies: @Marc W
    @AnonymousCoward

    In the current climate anything that isn't a vicious, forceful denouncement of Trump is an endorsement.

    I exaggerate, but only by a little.

    Replies: @This Is Our Home

  29. I giggled a bit at the unintended message behind this.

    Speech by controversial GOP candidate could give him legitimacy he lacks, which is precisely what enrages his opponents.

    So it’s not enough for him to meet the criteria set out in your laws and get the necessary votes, for him to be President and not just a seat warmer, true legitimacy can only come from the sainted AIPAC.

  30. @Shine a Light
    Trump will be speaking on two levels. For the general public he will sound normal and non-controversial. But to Jews and red-pilled Americans, the two groups who are in the know, there will be a second and more subtle discourse. Will Trump reach Troll Level: Expert? He came very close to this honor in his last speech to those GOP Jewish business men.

    One subliminal message will be a threat that if Jews gang up against him (as they do seem to be doing) and he still manages to win the elections; baby Israel will pay a very heavy price indeed!

    On the normal people level Trump has to get across that he has no need to pander to AIPAC since he is self-funding and Jews are such a tiny demographic, and since they normally vote Democratic. their actual voting power nil. By saying he has no need to pander he is of course pointing out that Hillary has a huge need to pander.

    Trump has to strongly criticize the Iraq, Libya, and Syria disasters and openly call for peace with Putin. Dare the collected Jews to boo those comments.

    Trump has to again say he will be an honest broker between Israel and Palestine. Of course he probably will not be, but that all depends on how American Jews treat him in the general election, doesn't it?

    It would be wonderful trolling if Trump goes though his stump speech about getting other nations to pay for our protection -- no need to explicitly mention Israel -- in fact it's better not to.

    In fact he should as much as possible avoid the subject of Israel and concentrate on making America great again -- these Jews are Americans after all, aren't they?

    To me this speech will be Must-See-TV. There will be some hecklers and some people walking out. But of course that only helps Trump as most Americans are disgusted by Israel. I also think it is great to shine such powerful spotlight on AIPAC -- many Americans will be just getting introduced to it....

    Replies: @IHTG, @Jack D, @Anonymous

    But of course that only helps Trump as most Americans are disgusted by Israel.

    Good job putting that at the end of your comment so people don’t know to disregard it

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @IHTG

    Americans are even more disgusted by Arabs. So Israel is safe for now.

    , @Shine a Light
    @IHTG

    Personally I don't see much difference between AIPAC and BlackLivesMatter and I'm quite sure many Americans feel the same way.

    That said, Trump strategy for this speech should be to provoke the AIPACniks into booing him and then getting the media establishment and all the other candidates to support AIPAC like they backed BLM in Chicago last week.

    The key is that on the surface level Trump must stay squeaky clean.

    Start by attacking PAC money in politics and repeat the "you will not like me because I will not take your money"

    Next, move on the complimenting Israel and saying how much America has to learn from her. For example Trump can talk about Israel foresight in building their wall -- Trump can neg it a little by saying ours will be more beautiful.

    Move on to Israel not accepting Syrian refugees. High praise for this move. Extra points for pointing out the official reason is that taking refugees would undermine Israeli identity. he probably wouldn't go that far though.

    Move on to Israeli enhanced interrogation techniques and the destruction of terrorist houses. Point out how Trump is attack for proposing similar policies in America. The triggering should be in full effect at that point.

    The AIPACniks will have either started hissing and howling as they march out or they will sit there quietly and take it. Either way Trump wins, he wins more if they walk out. Once they walk out Trump can blame it on the fact he will not take their money!!

    Bernie and Hillary will hopefully have gone on before him and will have criticized Israel for certain things. Trump can ask why did they walk out when I praised them but cheered loudly after Sanders and Clinton said less nice things about them?

    Replies: @Jack D

  31. @whorefinder
    What a fork for FOX, Cruz, Kasich, and the Republican establishment:

    -Either ignore his pulling out, say nothing, and have no ratings and look weak

    -complain about it, and get called anti-Semites, get the neocons caught in a bind, and get called hypocrites because they're all in the pocket of AIPAC.

    No doubt Cruz will claim that Trump is "ducking" him, which no one will believe.

    Replies: @schmenz

    “No doubt Cruz will claim that Trump is “ducking” him, which no one will believe.”

    I think that Kasich has already said something to that effect.

  32. @AnonymousCoward
    Adelson did *not* express support for Trump.

    Here's the quote:


    “Trump is a businessman. I am a businessman. He employs a lot of people. I employed 50,000 people. Why not?” Adelson said during a gala in Las Vegas in February.

    “It reminds me of [a joke]: One Jewish man said to another Jewish man, ‘Do you know why Jews always answer a question with a question?’ So, the guy said, ‘Why not?’” Adelson said in comments first reported by Israeli blogger Tal Schneider. Jewish Insider later covered the report.
     

    Adelson's comment is like a Rorshach test, a shibboleth, and an IQ battery.

    It's *not* an endorsement.

    It's "Keep your cards close. Don't tip your hand by telling the antisemite what you're really thinking."

    Replies: @Marc W

    In the current climate anything that isn’t a vicious, forceful denouncement of Trump is an endorsement.

    I exaggerate, but only by a little.

    • Replies: @This Is Our Home
    @Marc W


    In the current climate anything that isn’t a vicious, forceful denouncement of Trump is an endorsement.

    I exaggerate, but only by a little
     
    Yes, that is how I knew Christie and Carson would endorse him. It is also how I am sure Tina Fey likes him. There are plenty of others of course. Kasich is a spectacular example.
  33. @Diversity Heretic
    @Olorin

    A very evident example of the displacement of the founding stock of the United States in one of its most prestigious institutions.

    Replies: @Wilkey, @BB753

    Whites who think that further mass immigration will be good for them should be reminded of that. We’re enabling our own replacement, and for no conceivable fucking reason whatsoever.

    So the Dems nominate a fourth Jew to the Supreme Court, to go with all the Jews on the Federal Reserve Board. I don’t wanna hear another goddamned lecture from the Left about “diversity” ever again.

    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    @Wilkey

    I wish that the problem were confined to mass immigration. Whites have no identity in this country, whereas blacks, Hispanics, Asians and Jews are all clannish and look out for each other. I'm trying to frame an "Identitarian" appeal to my two senators to oppose the SOTUS nomination, without sounding like I'm wearing a swastika armband. How do you say politely, "Three Jews on the Supreme Court are enough, especially when not a single WASP is presently serving." It's tricky!

    , @Dr. X
    @Wilkey

    Seems that "diversity" is America's "greatest strength," but not Israel's. The Jews are raising the height of THEIR border wall... while many if not most Jewish liberals in the U.S. are calling Trump "Hitler" for proposing an American border wall.

    http://www.breitbart.com/middle-east/2016/03/16/israel-raise-height-egypt-border-fence-block-migrants/

  34. This should be fascinating, as Trump knows exactly what he’s doing. You don’t get to be a goyim/German/Scottish/Presbyterian billionaire in New York City unless you’ve absolutely mastered the game.

    I will miss watching him smack Kasich around, though.

  35. @TWS
    I wonder how he'll play it. Whatever he does he'll own it and them by the end.

    Replies: @Charles Sledge

    I hope so. If anyone could give Trump trouble I would imagine it would be the Israel lobby. They pretty much control conservative politics. Whenever Israel says jump conservatives reply how high? However if anyone can do it, it would be Trump but will be a bit harder than taking on the conservative establishment as he has done but then even liberals can do that lol.

  36. @Marc W
    @AnonymousCoward

    In the current climate anything that isn't a vicious, forceful denouncement of Trump is an endorsement.

    I exaggerate, but only by a little.

    Replies: @This Is Our Home

    In the current climate anything that isn’t a vicious, forceful denouncement of Trump is an endorsement.

    I exaggerate, but only by a little

    Yes, that is how I knew Christie and Carson would endorse him. It is also how I am sure Tina Fey likes him. There are plenty of others of course. Kasich is a spectacular example.

  37. @Diversity Heretic
    @Olorin

    A very evident example of the displacement of the founding stock of the United States in one of its most prestigious institutions.

    Replies: @Wilkey, @BB753

    One of the most interesting and , should I say, unfortunate developments of the last 50 years or so is the terminal decline of Wasps.
    They’ve been ethnically cleansed from virtually every American institution. How did it happen? Don’t tell me it was just their love of gin and Jews.

  38. Trump’s refusal to appear at a national debate so he can appear among these Zionist stooges is an insult to Americans.

    [It’s not as though there’s nothing new to argue about! Why is it that neither Trump nor his opponents want to?]

  39. @Olorin
    Merrick Garland?

    As in Harvard Law grad/Oklahoma City bombing judge/Clinton appointee/native Chicagoan Merrick Garland?

    Garland has a lot of experience adjudicating terrorism (domestic) cases where the perpetrators are white men. Looking fwd to discussion here on that point as the announcement settles in.

    That'd put SCOTUS at 4 Jews, 5 Catholics, nu?

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Diversity Heretic, @okie, @Dr. X

    As for Thomas, yes he studied for the priesthood,, but is actually a Episcopalian now , i think because of either his wife or his mentor Danforth., so there is one prot. on the court.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @okie

    Thomas swam back across the Tiber. He's a "revert".

    , @Cagey Beast
    @okie

    Imagine the look on Prescott Bush's face if he were brought back to life and told the good news you just delivered about the last remaining Protestant at the Supreme Court? Someone should write a stage play or film that has a bunch of iconic WASPs come and see how things are now. That would be an American story but the rest of us could easily do adaptations for our own countries that would be equally sad and darkly funny.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

  40. Time for Trump to pull a JFK, as related by his journalist friend Charles Bartlett

    Trump’s relationship with the Jewish community is probably not unlike Stalin’s, friendly but aware of the very real difference in interests.

  41. @Shine a Light
    Trump will be speaking on two levels. For the general public he will sound normal and non-controversial. But to Jews and red-pilled Americans, the two groups who are in the know, there will be a second and more subtle discourse. Will Trump reach Troll Level: Expert? He came very close to this honor in his last speech to those GOP Jewish business men.

    One subliminal message will be a threat that if Jews gang up against him (as they do seem to be doing) and he still manages to win the elections; baby Israel will pay a very heavy price indeed!

    On the normal people level Trump has to get across that he has no need to pander to AIPAC since he is self-funding and Jews are such a tiny demographic, and since they normally vote Democratic. their actual voting power nil. By saying he has no need to pander he is of course pointing out that Hillary has a huge need to pander.

    Trump has to strongly criticize the Iraq, Libya, and Syria disasters and openly call for peace with Putin. Dare the collected Jews to boo those comments.

    Trump has to again say he will be an honest broker between Israel and Palestine. Of course he probably will not be, but that all depends on how American Jews treat him in the general election, doesn't it?

    It would be wonderful trolling if Trump goes though his stump speech about getting other nations to pay for our protection -- no need to explicitly mention Israel -- in fact it's better not to.

    In fact he should as much as possible avoid the subject of Israel and concentrate on making America great again -- these Jews are Americans after all, aren't they?

    To me this speech will be Must-See-TV. There will be some hecklers and some people walking out. But of course that only helps Trump as most Americans are disgusted by Israel. I also think it is great to shine such powerful spotlight on AIPAC -- many Americans will be just getting introduced to it....

    Replies: @IHTG, @Jack D, @Anonymous

    I would wager that the speech Trump will actually give will be NOTHING like the speech that you just proposed. That fantasy speech is the speech that YOU would give, which is why you would never be elected dog catcher. Trump is going to AIPAC to make friends, not to spit in their faces and endorse Putin. As Steve explained, people who don’t want to be total losers in America need to have at least SOME Jewish friends. I’ll bet you don’t have any.

  42. The fact that Trump is taunting Fox News by this snub is more important than that he will be speaking at AIPAC. In fact, I’d say the most important thing about the Trump campaign so far is that he’s winning while repeatedly flouting the power of the media and telling the world via Twitter that he’s doing it. Just this afternoon we have:

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/710151964726792192

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/710160479889575938

    If Trump can get the GOP nomination while taunting Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, the National Review, Glen Beck, etc, etc, then he will be liberating millions of people from the belief that you have to jump through all the media’s hoops without complaint or they will destroy you. Sure, Trump is a well-connected and already famous billionaire but others will follow. To me that matters more than what he’ll say at AIPAC. The mass media shakedown operation – and the low cults of spin and PR that built up to appease it – are a far greater burden on us here and now than Bibi’s Israel.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Cagey Beast

    He doesn't have to jump through the media's hoops because he is the media i.e. he's a media figure and star in his own right. He's been on TV regularly for the past almost 20 years. Suffice to say most people aren't media stars and don't have that luxury.

    Replies: @Cagey Beast

  43. @Anonymous
    @Olorin


    That’d put SCOTUS at 4 Jews, 5 Catholics, nu?
     
    We basically live in an Ellis Islander kritarchy.

    Replies: @Jefferson

    “We basically live in an Ellis Islander kritarchy.”

    Non Jewish and Non Catholic Mayflower WASPs still have NASCAR , Country music, and the NHL.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Jefferson

    NASCAR and Nashville, even with a century of intermarriage, are not Mayflower territory. The N in NHL doesn't refer to America.

    Replies: @Jefferson

    , @Jack D
    @Jefferson

    More like Jamestown WASPs. Mayflower WASPs (what's left of them - they mostly forgot to reproduce and most of the few kids that they did have are Buddhists or atheists or married to Jews, etc.) want nothing to do with any of these.

    The mistake people keep making around here is positing that there is such a thing as "white people" in America who are (or should be) somehow united in their interests. This has never been the case, even to the extent that American whites once fought a bloody civil war among themselves. Upper class "Mayflower" SWPL type whites spend most of their energy status whoring so that no one will mistake them for the "other" (bad) kind of white.

    Maybe when whites are down to a minority they will see the light and come together, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

    Replies: @Evocatus

    , @Cagey Beast
    @Jefferson

    I really wish there was some kind of Académie française or International Organization for Standardization where people could finally get a rulling and agree that WASPs aren't any old humanoids with British ancestry alive in America. Aren't WASPs haute bourgeois by definition? That's my understanding.

  44. @IHTG
    @Shine a Light


    But of course that only helps Trump as most Americans are disgusted by Israel.
     
    Good job putting that at the end of your comment so people don't know to disregard it

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Shine a Light

    Americans are even more disgusted by Arabs. So Israel is safe for now.

  45. @Jefferson
    @Anonymous

    "We basically live in an Ellis Islander kritarchy."

    Non Jewish and Non Catholic Mayflower WASPs still have NASCAR , Country music, and the NHL.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Jack D, @Cagey Beast

    NASCAR and Nashville, even with a century of intermarriage, are not Mayflower territory. The N in NHL doesn’t refer to America.

    • Replies: @Jefferson
    @Reg Cæsar

    "NASCAR and Nashville, even with a century of intermarriage, are not Mayflower territory. The N in NHL doesn’t refer to America."

    Most people in the NHL, NASCAR, and Country music are Anglo Saxon Protestants or in other word WASPs, not Catholics or Jews.

    Replies: @Bostonian

  46. @okie
    @Olorin

    As for Thomas, yes he studied for the priesthood,, but is actually a Episcopalian now , i think because of either his wife or his mentor Danforth., so there is one prot. on the court.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Cagey Beast

    Thomas swam back across the Tiber. He’s a “revert”.

  47. @Reg Cæsar
    @Jefferson

    NASCAR and Nashville, even with a century of intermarriage, are not Mayflower territory. The N in NHL doesn't refer to America.

    Replies: @Jefferson

    “NASCAR and Nashville, even with a century of intermarriage, are not Mayflower territory. The N in NHL doesn’t refer to America.”

    Most people in the NHL, NASCAR, and Country music are Anglo Saxon Protestants or in other word WASPs, not Catholics or Jews.

    • Replies: @Bostonian
    @Jefferson

    Hockey is virtually all Catholic in the northeast, both playing and especially among NHL fans.

    Replies: @utu

  48. “Sheldon Adelson is sympathetic to Trump, for example.”

    Steve, shouldn’t that tell you something about the sincerity of Trump’s immigration-restriction pitch?

    For that matter, Stephen Moore and Larry Kudlow have also come around to Trump. I know, Trump is lying to them, not the voters. Right.

  49. @Jefferson
    @Anonymous

    "We basically live in an Ellis Islander kritarchy."

    Non Jewish and Non Catholic Mayflower WASPs still have NASCAR , Country music, and the NHL.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Jack D, @Cagey Beast

    More like Jamestown WASPs. Mayflower WASPs (what’s left of them – they mostly forgot to reproduce and most of the few kids that they did have are Buddhists or atheists or married to Jews, etc.) want nothing to do with any of these.

    The mistake people keep making around here is positing that there is such a thing as “white people” in America who are (or should be) somehow united in their interests. This has never been the case, even to the extent that American whites once fought a bloody civil war among themselves. Upper class “Mayflower” SWPL type whites spend most of their energy status whoring so that no one will mistake them for the “other” (bad) kind of white.

    Maybe when whites are down to a minority they will see the light and come together, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.

    • Replies: @Evocatus
    @Jack D

    Then again, the blue haired SJW types that dictate so much about the current ethos in this country don't care whether one's ancestors hail from the West of Ireland or the hill towns of Sicily or they sailed into Massachusetts Bay on the Arabella, because they have all committed the egregious sin of being White. In the past those differences may have mattered a great deal, and to some extent they still do today, but many people are wising up.

  50. @Jefferson
    @Anonymous

    "We basically live in an Ellis Islander kritarchy."

    Non Jewish and Non Catholic Mayflower WASPs still have NASCAR , Country music, and the NHL.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Jack D, @Cagey Beast

    I really wish there was some kind of Académie française or International Organization for Standardization where people could finally get a rulling and agree that WASPs aren’t any old humanoids with British ancestry alive in America. Aren’t WASPs haute bourgeois by definition? That’s my understanding.

  51. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Shine a Light
    Trump will be speaking on two levels. For the general public he will sound normal and non-controversial. But to Jews and red-pilled Americans, the two groups who are in the know, there will be a second and more subtle discourse. Will Trump reach Troll Level: Expert? He came very close to this honor in his last speech to those GOP Jewish business men.

    One subliminal message will be a threat that if Jews gang up against him (as they do seem to be doing) and he still manages to win the elections; baby Israel will pay a very heavy price indeed!

    On the normal people level Trump has to get across that he has no need to pander to AIPAC since he is self-funding and Jews are such a tiny demographic, and since they normally vote Democratic. their actual voting power nil. By saying he has no need to pander he is of course pointing out that Hillary has a huge need to pander.

    Trump has to strongly criticize the Iraq, Libya, and Syria disasters and openly call for peace with Putin. Dare the collected Jews to boo those comments.

    Trump has to again say he will be an honest broker between Israel and Palestine. Of course he probably will not be, but that all depends on how American Jews treat him in the general election, doesn't it?

    It would be wonderful trolling if Trump goes though his stump speech about getting other nations to pay for our protection -- no need to explicitly mention Israel -- in fact it's better not to.

    In fact he should as much as possible avoid the subject of Israel and concentrate on making America great again -- these Jews are Americans after all, aren't they?

    To me this speech will be Must-See-TV. There will be some hecklers and some people walking out. But of course that only helps Trump as most Americans are disgusted by Israel. I also think it is great to shine such powerful spotlight on AIPAC -- many Americans will be just getting introduced to it....

    Replies: @IHTG, @Jack D, @Anonymous

    “I also think it is great to shine such powerful spotlight on AIPAC — many Americans will be just getting introduced to it….”

    I was completely unaware of AIPAC until a few years ago, when the father of a boy on my son’s soccer team introduced me to it. The man was a Muslim immigrant and was very pleasant, intelligent, and fairly westernized. On the day we met, after we’d been talking for about 25 minutes, he started complaining to me about the disproportionate influence that AIPAC has in the U.S. I asked him what AIPAC was, and he told me, but he seemed very surprised that I had to ask.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Anonymous

    AIPAC is a very big deal in Washington, but fairly low profile elsewhere.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @Matra

  52. @Cagey Beast
    The fact that Trump is taunting Fox News by this snub is more important than that he will be speaking at AIPAC. In fact, I'd say the most important thing about the Trump campaign so far is that he's winning while repeatedly flouting the power of the media and telling the world via Twitter that he's doing it. Just this afternoon we have:

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/710151964726792192

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/710160479889575938

    If Trump can get the GOP nomination while taunting Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, the National Review, Glen Beck, etc, etc, then he will be liberating millions of people from the belief that you have to jump through all the media's hoops without complaint or they will destroy you. Sure, Trump is a well-connected and already famous billionaire but others will follow. To me that matters more than what he'll say at AIPAC. The mass media shakedown operation - and the low cults of spin and PR that built up to appease it - are a far greater burden on us here and now than Bibi's Israel.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    He doesn’t have to jump through the media’s hoops because he is the media i.e. he’s a media figure and star in his own right. He’s been on TV regularly for the past almost 20 years. Suffice to say most people aren’t media stars and don’t have that luxury.

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    @Anonymous

    So in the recent past people could have done what Trumps is doing now but chose not to? I don't think so. Even a billionaire or head of state had to play along with the old media in a way Trump no longer has to, thanks to the new technologies. The old media, by definition, was the only way anyone could engage in mass communication and therefore mass politics.

  53. The AIPAC attendees will make sure they express their horror and revulsion. Then the smarter ones will quietly vote for him.

  54. @Jack D
    @Jefferson

    More like Jamestown WASPs. Mayflower WASPs (what's left of them - they mostly forgot to reproduce and most of the few kids that they did have are Buddhists or atheists or married to Jews, etc.) want nothing to do with any of these.

    The mistake people keep making around here is positing that there is such a thing as "white people" in America who are (or should be) somehow united in their interests. This has never been the case, even to the extent that American whites once fought a bloody civil war among themselves. Upper class "Mayflower" SWPL type whites spend most of their energy status whoring so that no one will mistake them for the "other" (bad) kind of white.

    Maybe when whites are down to a minority they will see the light and come together, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

    Replies: @Evocatus

    Then again, the blue haired SJW types that dictate so much about the current ethos in this country don’t care whether one’s ancestors hail from the West of Ireland or the hill towns of Sicily or they sailed into Massachusetts Bay on the Arabella, because they have all committed the egregious sin of being White. In the past those differences may have mattered a great deal, and to some extent they still do today, but many people are wising up.

  55. Considering that Rubio dropped out, and that there are no earthshaking primaries of relevance until NY (Apr. 19) and PA (Apr.26), Trump should seriously consider skipping any and all debates before say, Thurs. Apr. 21 or Apr. 28. And then just make it a “this is the final debate” for the nomination season, much like a “this is the final episode of Seinfeld, but don’t worry folks. We’ll see you again in the fall, around late Sept./early Oct.” And then that’s it. No more debates, period. He certainly doesn’t need any additional debates now. Voters have seen him enough times to be forming opinions one way or the other.

    The only candidate that this would hurt would be Kasich. He finally wins a state but now without any debates (since if Trump foregoes any debates for a month then so too will Cruz), this would hurt Kasich’s national exposure since he’s not gonna show up and debate with himself, and the cable news isn’t going to risk broadcasting failing ratings without Trump, a total lack of national exposure would hurt his candidacy. Cruz would most likely follow after Trump’s lead (as he did today). Why risk showing up to debate with Kasich and potentially lose his number two spot in the remaining primaries?

    Trump can then concentrate on the upcoming primaries and that’s it. Perhaps bring along on the stump people who have endorsed him, like FL gov. Scott in the West and few remaining southern states. Christie in NY; NJ; eastern PA. And that’s basically the schedule from here on out.

    Really, after 12, there’s no reason for Trump to attend any more debates, period. It would only benefit Kasich at this point for national exposure and without national exposure, zip…his polls would tank even further.

  56. @okie
    @Olorin

    As for Thomas, yes he studied for the priesthood,, but is actually a Episcopalian now , i think because of either his wife or his mentor Danforth., so there is one prot. on the court.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Cagey Beast

    Imagine the look on Prescott Bush’s face if he were brought back to life and told the good news you just delivered about the last remaining Protestant at the Supreme Court? Someone should write a stage play or film that has a bunch of iconic WASPs come and see how things are now. That would be an American story but the rest of us could easily do adaptations for our own countries that would be equally sad and darkly funny.

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @Cagey Beast

    Isn't the cast of the broadway play "Hamilton" already doing that? A few days ago the actor was invited to the White House and Obama held up cue cards and the actor would spontaneously create raps around the word held up for him.

  57. @Anonymous
    @Shine a Light

    "I also think it is great to shine such powerful spotlight on AIPAC — many Americans will be just getting introduced to it…."

    I was completely unaware of AIPAC until a few years ago, when the father of a boy on my son's soccer team introduced me to it. The man was a Muslim immigrant and was very pleasant, intelligent, and fairly westernized. On the day we met, after we'd been talking for about 25 minutes, he started complaining to me about the disproportionate influence that AIPAC has in the U.S. I asked him what AIPAC was, and he told me, but he seemed very surprised that I had to ask.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    AIPAC is a very big deal in Washington, but fairly low profile elsewhere.

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    @Steve Sailer

    When I was in university, a friend took me to an AIPAC convention at Brandeis. It seemed like they had mostly taken over the place. Of course, Brandeis is kind of unusual...

    , @Matra
    @Steve Sailer

    That AIPAC is not the bogeyman that the NRA is tells me something about power in the US - and who has it. If you really have it then the media would not be naming and shaming you on a regular basis. Everybody has heard of the NRA - or at least the "powerful gun lobby" - even in Europe & Canada, yet few know of AIPAC. (Though it must be said the term "Israel lobby" is better known in Europe and perhaps Canada than it is in the US).

  58. What the hell is he doing addressing a nest of pro-Israel lobbyists? AIPAC is the enemy. It should be given no gratuitous platform.

    If there’s anything really to Trump (probably not), he has proven himself supremely disloyal. And his supporters, blind as bats, ignore it. [Even the neo-Nazis at Daily Stormer fail to mention their Glorious Leader’s acceptance of the moral legitimacy of AIPAC.]

    • Replies: @JSM
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    He'll troll 'em, just like he did the Republican Jewish Coalition.

    Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond

    , @iSteveFan
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    Trump doesn't want any more debates. At this stage they only give his opponents and the media more opportunity to take shots at him. So maybe Trump is killing two birds with one stone here. He gets to avoid the debate without appearing to be backing down. And he gets to potentially assuage some of the venom of the people who could really make the rest of this year challenging to him.

    , @SFG
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    Enemy? More like a spoiled child that thinks Daddy's car is his.

    Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond

  59. @Wilkey
    @Diversity Heretic

    Whites who think that further mass immigration will be good for them should be reminded of that. We're enabling our own replacement, and for no conceivable fucking reason whatsoever.

    So the Dems nominate a fourth Jew to the Supreme Court, to go with all the Jews on the Federal Reserve Board. I don't wanna hear another goddamned lecture from the Left about "diversity" ever again.

    Replies: @Diversity Heretic, @Dr. X

    I wish that the problem were confined to mass immigration. Whites have no identity in this country, whereas blacks, Hispanics, Asians and Jews are all clannish and look out for each other. I’m trying to frame an “Identitarian” appeal to my two senators to oppose the SOTUS nomination, without sounding like I’m wearing a swastika armband. How do you say politely, “Three Jews on the Supreme Court are enough, especially when not a single WASP is presently serving.” It’s tricky!

  60. @biz
    Trump has no particular animus toward Israel or Jews. It should not be a surprise that he is speaking at AIPAC. Dislike of Jews/Israel and conspiracy theories about AIPAC is a fringe position in American politics, and mostly a far-left fringe position.

    Replies: @le biel, @Jus' Sayin'..., @Stephen R. Diamond, @SFG

    …conspiracy theories about AIPAC is a fringe position in American politics…

    They are not conspiracy theories when there are MSM reports and YouTube videos of Adelson and Saban chest thumping about the unconditional support for Israel their money has bought from US politicians. Recently we saw the disgusting spectacle of a foreign head of state – Netanyahu – receiving standing ovations from a joint session of Congress after coming, uninvited, to attack a foreign policy initiative of the President, which that foreign head of state didn’t happen to like. Over the years we’ve seen Israel get away with a steady series of attacks on the security and integrity of the USA with no effective response on the part of our politicians. AIPAC exists, it bribes and it corrupts, and it does so all too successfully. Conspiracy theories? I think not.

  61. @Anonymous
    @Cagey Beast

    He doesn't have to jump through the media's hoops because he is the media i.e. he's a media figure and star in his own right. He's been on TV regularly for the past almost 20 years. Suffice to say most people aren't media stars and don't have that luxury.

    Replies: @Cagey Beast

    So in the recent past people could have done what Trumps is doing now but chose not to? I don’t think so. Even a billionaire or head of state had to play along with the old media in a way Trump no longer has to, thanks to the new technologies. The old media, by definition, was the only way anyone could engage in mass communication and therefore mass politics.

  62. @biz
    Trump has no particular animus toward Israel or Jews. It should not be a surprise that he is speaking at AIPAC. Dislike of Jews/Israel and conspiracy theories about AIPAC is a fringe position in American politics, and mostly a far-left fringe position.

    Replies: @le biel, @Jus' Sayin'..., @Stephen R. Diamond, @SFG

    That the Israel lobby has, by vast money, decisively influenced U.S. ME policy is well-documented in mainstream scholarly literature.

    • Replies: @biz
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    Not really. AIPAC advocates for policies that are supported by huge majorities - approaching 80 percent in some cases according to e.g. Pew polling - of the American people. The fact that AIPAC is successful on their issues is not due to money overriding American democracy, it is due to them advocating for overwhelmingly popular positions.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @Mr. Anon

  63. @Stephen R. Diamond
    What the hell is he doing addressing a nest of pro-Israel lobbyists? AIPAC is the enemy. It should be given no gratuitous platform.

    If there's anything really to Trump (probably not), he has proven himself supremely disloyal. And his supporters, blind as bats, ignore it. [Even the neo-Nazis at Daily Stormer fail to mention their Glorious Leader's acceptance of the moral legitimacy of AIPAC.]

    Replies: @JSM, @iSteveFan, @SFG

    He’ll troll ’em, just like he did the Republican Jewish Coalition.

    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
    @JSM

    He's declining to participate in a national debate before an America-wide audience in order to troll some Zionists?

    His speaking on their platform says much more than any words he might utter.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

  64. @Olorin
    Merrick Garland?

    As in Harvard Law grad/Oklahoma City bombing judge/Clinton appointee/native Chicagoan Merrick Garland?

    Garland has a lot of experience adjudicating terrorism (domestic) cases where the perpetrators are white men. Looking fwd to discussion here on that point as the announcement settles in.

    That'd put SCOTUS at 4 Jews, 5 Catholics, nu?

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Diversity Heretic, @okie, @Dr. X

    Hmmm… 1.8% of the population to hold four out of nine seats on the Supreme Court???

    Nothing to see here, kids… move along, now. Just keep waving the American flag — (you know, the one with the blue star in the middle of it).

  65. @Wilkey
    @Diversity Heretic

    Whites who think that further mass immigration will be good for them should be reminded of that. We're enabling our own replacement, and for no conceivable fucking reason whatsoever.

    So the Dems nominate a fourth Jew to the Supreme Court, to go with all the Jews on the Federal Reserve Board. I don't wanna hear another goddamned lecture from the Left about "diversity" ever again.

    Replies: @Diversity Heretic, @Dr. X

    Seems that “diversity” is America’s “greatest strength,” but not Israel’s. The Jews are raising the height of THEIR border wall… while many if not most Jewish liberals in the U.S. are calling Trump “Hitler” for proposing an American border wall.

    http://www.breitbart.com/middle-east/2016/03/16/israel-raise-height-egypt-border-fence-block-migrants/

  66. @biz
    Trump has no particular animus toward Israel or Jews. It should not be a surprise that he is speaking at AIPAC. Dislike of Jews/Israel and conspiracy theories about AIPAC is a fringe position in American politics, and mostly a far-left fringe position.

    Replies: @le biel, @Jus' Sayin'..., @Stephen R. Diamond, @SFG

    And a far-right fringe position. (Hi, guys!) The center-right has been more pro-Israel than the center-left, but that may change now.

    Also usually the far right dislikes Jews, the far left dislikes Israel–anti-Israeli Jews like Gilad Atzmon are usually cool with them.

    As for conspiracy theories…I agree some people exaggerate Jewish influence, but you have to admit they punch way above their weight class.

    • Replies: @biz
    @SFG


    Also usually the far right dislikes Jews, the far left dislikes Israel–anti-Israeli Jews like Gilad Atzmon are usually cool with them.
     
    You have clearly not spent much time interacting with or observing the far left. Far left dislike of Jews goes back before Israel was ever a thing and continues to the present. Jews are viewed on the far left the embodiment of bourgois and middle class / upper middle class values, and also the embodiment of tribalism. Gilad Atzmon is only popular because he has renounced being a Jew and "resigned" from the Jewish people. He also spouts antisemitic rhetoric that is identical to the rants on Arab TV and Youtube videous.

    Replies: @SFG

  67. First of all, I’ll say Trump has way better judgment than me about what he should do. I didn’t think he could get away with what he has…but he did.

    I thus can only speculate, as follows.

    First of all, Trump has two choices, more or less. He can do what they want, and lose the alt-right but hopefully gain a few rich Jewish guys on his side. He can snub them, and keep the alt-right and perhaps inflame the remainder of the media against him.

    I don’t know how much he needs the alt-right at this point. He might want to be portrayed as more centrist now that he’s running for the more liberal state picks, and eventually for the country as a whole, including people who don’t vote in Republican primaries. People outside the alt-right are a lot more annoyed over trade and immigration than they are over Israel.

    Or, he might do something I haven’t thought of yet. He’s the Artist of the Deal, I wouldn’t be surprised. He might, for example, guarantee Israel’s safety in case of a direct attack on them but refuse to aid them in proxy wars like Iraq–enough to keep people worried about their relatives over there happy but still enough to please isolationists. Like I said, the guy’s smarter than me. I don’t know what he’s going to do.

    There’s a natural human tendency to think if a guy’s on your side about something you care about, he’s on your side about everything, which explains the idea that a guy who let his daughter marry a Jew and does real estate in New York is an anti-Semitic avenger.

    Personally I’m pretty annoyed at AIPAC over the warmongering and manipulation. But… who knows?

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @SFG

    As I wrote elsewhere, if the price to keep (or get back) our white homelands was doing the bidding of AIPAC, I'd be willing to pay that price.

    The problem is, there's some conflict of interest even here. E.g. Israel prefers Islamists and chaos over Assad, which created a huge refugee flow. Same thing in Iraq. Now Humpty Dumpty won't be put together again, so Syria and Iraq are gone for good, but similar events could happen elsewhere in the Middle East, which could make it harder to keep migrants out.

  68. @Jefferson
    @Reg Cæsar

    "NASCAR and Nashville, even with a century of intermarriage, are not Mayflower territory. The N in NHL doesn’t refer to America."

    Most people in the NHL, NASCAR, and Country music are Anglo Saxon Protestants or in other word WASPs, not Catholics or Jews.

    Replies: @Bostonian

    Hockey is virtually all Catholic in the northeast, both playing and especially among NHL fans.

    • Replies: @utu
    @Bostonian

    "Hockey is virtually all Catholic in the northeast, both playing and especially among NHL fans." - That's what I thought.

  69. How many delegates does AIPAC send to the Republican convention?

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    @Ed

    All of them? ; D

  70. iSteveFan says:
    @Stephen R. Diamond
    What the hell is he doing addressing a nest of pro-Israel lobbyists? AIPAC is the enemy. It should be given no gratuitous platform.

    If there's anything really to Trump (probably not), he has proven himself supremely disloyal. And his supporters, blind as bats, ignore it. [Even the neo-Nazis at Daily Stormer fail to mention their Glorious Leader's acceptance of the moral legitimacy of AIPAC.]

    Replies: @JSM, @iSteveFan, @SFG

    Trump doesn’t want any more debates. At this stage they only give his opponents and the media more opportunity to take shots at him. So maybe Trump is killing two birds with one stone here. He gets to avoid the debate without appearing to be backing down. And he gets to potentially assuage some of the venom of the people who could really make the rest of this year challenging to him.

  71. @le biel
    @biz

    The far left dislikes Israel because they're white-ish people colonizing brown-ish people in a pretty brutal fashion. I dislike Israel because they're no ally to the USA but they're treated as such because of the powerful Israel lobby (AIPAC etc) and Jewish stranglehold on corporate media. The USA gives Israel billions of dollars and political cover at the UN Security Council and in return we get espionage and false flag attacks (USS Liberty, 9/11). "Our" leaders are apoplectic about Iran doing nuclear research when Israel already has dozens of nukes and is a non-signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @biz

    I agree that it would be nice if the support went both ways… Israeli politicians ought to be coming out in support of US policies that benefit the US, like border controls.

    The strange thing is that, as Jews are white, the anti-white bias growing on the American left is eventually going to be directed at them. Why they can’t see that, I don’t know.

    Israel is never going to nuke the US, but Iran might, so, really, who cares that Israel is a non-signatory to TNPNW? I think you are confusing the US adopting pro-US positions and the US adopting a strategy of treating every foreign power the same… it’s foreign policy for kindergarteners!

    • Replies: @Ralph Raico
    @Chrisnonymous

    "Iran might" nuke the United States? Sure, in the same sense that Iran might turn Southern Baptist. A logical possibility, but in reality just a Zionist smear, thrown out there to further befuddle the dumb goyim.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous

    , @Desiderius
    @Chrisnonymous


    The strange thing is that, as Jews are white, the anti-white bias growing on the American left is eventually going to be directed at them. Why they can’t see that, I don’t know.
     
    See it? They're the ones directing it toward whites in general to deflect resentment away from themselves, whom they believe they can continue to portray as not really white as it suits them. After all, look at all the Country Clubs that won't have them. Don't you know it's [CURRENT_YEAR - 50]?

    The ones most completely fooled are themselves, but ultimately that's what matters since they're the ones with the cultural power and the other sorts of power that flow from it.

    , @reiner Tor
    @Chrisnonymous


    Israel is never going to nuke the US, but Iran might
     
    Iran can't reach US soil with its missiles. Israel can.

    Also see this.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous

    , @Mr. Anon
    @Chrisnonymous

    "Israel is never going to nuke the US, but Iran might, so, really, who cares that Israel is a non-signatory to TNPNW?"

    Who cares that Iran is not a signatory? Or is a signatory and ignores the treaty? Iran launching a nuclear weapon at the US is no more likely than Israel doing so.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

  72. @Ed
    How many delegates does AIPAC send to the Republican convention?

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous

    All of them? ; D

  73. @Steve Sailer
    @Anonymous

    AIPAC is a very big deal in Washington, but fairly low profile elsewhere.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @Matra

    When I was in university, a friend took me to an AIPAC convention at Brandeis. It seemed like they had mostly taken over the place. Of course, Brandeis is kind of unusual…

  74. @le biel
    @biz

    The far left dislikes Israel because they're white-ish people colonizing brown-ish people in a pretty brutal fashion. I dislike Israel because they're no ally to the USA but they're treated as such because of the powerful Israel lobby (AIPAC etc) and Jewish stranglehold on corporate media. The USA gives Israel billions of dollars and political cover at the UN Security Council and in return we get espionage and false flag attacks (USS Liberty, 9/11). "Our" leaders are apoplectic about Iran doing nuclear research when Israel already has dozens of nukes and is a non-signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @biz

    I dislike Israel because… we get espionage and false flag attacks (USS Liberty, 9/11)

    This is exactly what I was talking about. The only people who dislike Israel are those who want to pretend that Muslims are not responsible for 9/11. This includes the loony left, and for some reason a segment of the far right.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    @biz

    "The only people who dislike Israel......"

    Disliking AIPAC is not the same thing as disliking Israel. I have nothing against Israel existing, being a nation, being a jewish state, defending itself, etc. I do dislike AIPAC - for the undue influence they wield over american politics. Why should every major candidate for President of the United States knock head before that one particular ethnic lobbying group? Why should Israel be more consequent for the american government than, say, Ireland?

    Replies: @BB753

    , @reiner Tor
    @biz

    I don't like Israel, because it's against other white countries' nationalism. In fact, Israel could've helped Haider if they hadn't joined the hysteria against him in 1999. They chose to join it and ordered home their ambassador in protest. Netanyahu's government is criticizing the present Hungarian government. Netanyahu is criticizng Trump. Etc.

    911 was the work of Arabs. And Israelis (most famously the celebrating ones in New York) were happy that it happened, while Netanyahu might have said (I'm not sure how reliable the sources are in that case) that it was 'very good' for Israel. It doesn't make it the work of Israelis.

  75. @SFG
    @biz

    And a far-right fringe position. (Hi, guys!) The center-right has been more pro-Israel than the center-left, but that may change now.

    Also usually the far right dislikes Jews, the far left dislikes Israel--anti-Israeli Jews like Gilad Atzmon are usually cool with them.

    As for conspiracy theories...I agree some people exaggerate Jewish influence, but you have to admit they punch way above their weight class.

    Replies: @biz

    Also usually the far right dislikes Jews, the far left dislikes Israel–anti-Israeli Jews like Gilad Atzmon are usually cool with them.

    You have clearly not spent much time interacting with or observing the far left. Far left dislike of Jews goes back before Israel was ever a thing and continues to the present. Jews are viewed on the far left the embodiment of bourgois and middle class / upper middle class values, and also the embodiment of tribalism. Gilad Atzmon is only popular because he has renounced being a Jew and “resigned” from the Jewish people. He also spouts antisemitic rhetoric that is identical to the rants on Arab TV and Youtube videous.

    • Replies: @SFG
    @biz

    Really? So Trotsky, Chomsky, etc. were hated by the far left?

    If you mouth all the proper platitudes, the left lets you off.

    Ross Douthat's argument for liberalism as Christian heresy (Christianity without Christ, essentially) has a lot to it.

  76. @JSM
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    He'll troll 'em, just like he did the Republican Jewish Coalition.

    Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond

    He’s declining to participate in a national debate before an America-wide audience in order to troll some Zionists?

    His speaking on their platform says much more than any words he might utter.

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    Uh, at this point in the primary season, Trump can afford to take a complete break from all debates and it won't hurt his polls nor his continued piling up of delegates. After 12 debates, the show should be over.

    Wonder if Sheldon Adelson had anything to do with getting AIPAC to invite Trump next week to their convention?

    Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond

  77. If Bill Clinton was the first black President, Trump could be the first Jewish one.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @Judah Benjamin Hur

    That phrase ("first Jewish President") was already used up to describe GW Bush.

  78. @Stephen R. Diamond
    What the hell is he doing addressing a nest of pro-Israel lobbyists? AIPAC is the enemy. It should be given no gratuitous platform.

    If there's anything really to Trump (probably not), he has proven himself supremely disloyal. And his supporters, blind as bats, ignore it. [Even the neo-Nazis at Daily Stormer fail to mention their Glorious Leader's acceptance of the moral legitimacy of AIPAC.]

    Replies: @JSM, @iSteveFan, @SFG

    Enemy? More like a spoiled child that thinks Daddy’s car is his.

    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
    @SFG

    The Zionist lobby consists of spoiled kids?

  79. @biz
    @SFG


    Also usually the far right dislikes Jews, the far left dislikes Israel–anti-Israeli Jews like Gilad Atzmon are usually cool with them.
     
    You have clearly not spent much time interacting with or observing the far left. Far left dislike of Jews goes back before Israel was ever a thing and continues to the present. Jews are viewed on the far left the embodiment of bourgois and middle class / upper middle class values, and also the embodiment of tribalism. Gilad Atzmon is only popular because he has renounced being a Jew and "resigned" from the Jewish people. He also spouts antisemitic rhetoric that is identical to the rants on Arab TV and Youtube videous.

    Replies: @SFG

    Really? So Trotsky, Chomsky, etc. were hated by the far left?

    If you mouth all the proper platitudes, the left lets you off.

    Ross Douthat’s argument for liberalism as Christian heresy (Christianity without Christ, essentially) has a lot to it.

  80. It’s still 1938 in Boston:

    https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/03/12/catholic-memorial-students-chant-anti-semitic-taunts-newton-basketball-game/SYNt0ozzZm84DiRoSmMRMM/story.html

    Fans from heavily-Jewish Newton began the taunting by chanting “Sausage Fest!” and “Where are your girls?” at players from Catholic Memorial, an all-boys school. CM fans returned fire with “You killed Jesus!”. Much Semitic pearl clutching ensued.

    In iSteve terms, Jew still trumps gay.

  81. @Cagey Beast
    @okie

    Imagine the look on Prescott Bush's face if he were brought back to life and told the good news you just delivered about the last remaining Protestant at the Supreme Court? Someone should write a stage play or film that has a bunch of iconic WASPs come and see how things are now. That would be an American story but the rest of us could easily do adaptations for our own countries that would be equally sad and darkly funny.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    Isn’t the cast of the broadway play “Hamilton” already doing that? A few days ago the actor was invited to the White House and Obama held up cue cards and the actor would spontaneously create raps around the word held up for him.

  82. @Stephen R. Diamond
    @JSM

    He's declining to participate in a national debate before an America-wide audience in order to troll some Zionists?

    His speaking on their platform says much more than any words he might utter.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    Uh, at this point in the primary season, Trump can afford to take a complete break from all debates and it won’t hurt his polls nor his continued piling up of delegates. After 12 debates, the show should be over.

    Wonder if Sheldon Adelson had anything to do with getting AIPAC to invite Trump next week to their convention?

    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi


    After 12 debates, the show should be over.
     
    Trump said that after the last debate, but he was wrong. The show isn't over because some of the most important developments distinguishing the candidates occurred subsequently.

    If Trump were honest, he would look forward to further exposing the cucks after the Great Sanders Riot.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

  83. @SFG
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    Enemy? More like a spoiled child that thinks Daddy's car is his.

    Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond

    The Zionist lobby consists of spoiled kids?

  84. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    Uh, at this point in the primary season, Trump can afford to take a complete break from all debates and it won't hurt his polls nor his continued piling up of delegates. After 12 debates, the show should be over.

    Wonder if Sheldon Adelson had anything to do with getting AIPAC to invite Trump next week to their convention?

    Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond

    After 12 debates, the show should be over.

    Trump said that after the last debate, but he was wrong. The show isn’t over because some of the most important developments distinguishing the candidates occurred subsequently.

    If Trump were honest, he would look forward to further exposing the cucks after the Great Sanders Riot.

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    Come on, the show was just getting started when he took a powder in January debate. There's only 21 states left, seven in the Northeast/south (Trump's stomping ground) and except for CA, not much left to cause a stir over. Also, there were still about 10 candidates in the race when Trump skipped. Jeb! was still considered to be a front runner.

    At this point, its just Trump and Cruz. He has more leverage now. If he says "I ain't doing anymore", then most likely Cruz will follow since he can't afford to have a mano-y-mano with Kasich. Does he really want to risk losing his number two position and possibly elevate the last great hope for the donorist classes?

    And, even the cable news know that several Kasich vs. Cruz would be a ratings bomb. Its like Seinfeld episodes where Jerry wasn't there. Sure, it can be somewhat entertaining but do you really wanna risk losing in the ratings week after week with that worn out and tired retread cast? Just like in TV, these debates need their star attraction. Trump is in the drivers seat, he doesn't need them anymore, show should be cancelled from here on out.

    And, deep down, Cruz would be relieved as well. He can go back to focusing on UT; MT; the Dakotas and solidifying his grip on the Mountain-Plains Region of the country as before. Kasich and his confetti for winning his own state, he had his moment, but he's not the Alister on the show, serves no purpose now. If folks still don't know who to support, then they haven't been paying attention.

    Cancel the show, and let Trump campaign to get the rest of the delegates so he can focus his energies on beating Hillary.

  85. @Bostonian
    @Jefferson

    Hockey is virtually all Catholic in the northeast, both playing and especially among NHL fans.

    Replies: @utu

    “Hockey is virtually all Catholic in the northeast, both playing and especially among NHL fans.” – That’s what I thought.

  86. @boogerbently
    Jews vote Dem.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    Jews vote Dem.

    The Jewish votes that matter aren’t cast with ballots.

  87. @Chrisnonymous
    @le biel

    I agree that it would be nice if the support went both ways... Israeli politicians ought to be coming out in support of US policies that benefit the US, like border controls.

    The strange thing is that, as Jews are white, the anti-white bias growing on the American left is eventually going to be directed at them. Why they can't see that, I don't know.

    Israel is never going to nuke the US, but Iran might, so, really, who cares that Israel is a non-signatory to TNPNW? I think you are confusing the US adopting pro-US positions and the US adopting a strategy of treating every foreign power the same... it's foreign policy for kindergarteners!

    Replies: @Ralph Raico, @Desiderius, @reiner Tor, @Mr. Anon

    “Iran might” nuke the United States? Sure, in the same sense that Iran might turn Southern Baptist. A logical possibility, but in reality just a Zionist smear, thrown out there to further befuddle the dumb goyim.

    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    @Ralph Raico

    You're right. If it weren't for Israel, Muslims would be our natural friends and allies. That's why there aren't any of them that disavow democratic-capitalism and why it works out so well when they live amongst us.

    Oh, and the only way Iran would ever attack the US is by launching an ICBM at us, right? And of course they would declare war first. The Islamic world is all forthrightness and honesty. Anything else is a Zionist smear!

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous

  88. @Chrisnonymous
    @le biel

    I agree that it would be nice if the support went both ways... Israeli politicians ought to be coming out in support of US policies that benefit the US, like border controls.

    The strange thing is that, as Jews are white, the anti-white bias growing on the American left is eventually going to be directed at them. Why they can't see that, I don't know.

    Israel is never going to nuke the US, but Iran might, so, really, who cares that Israel is a non-signatory to TNPNW? I think you are confusing the US adopting pro-US positions and the US adopting a strategy of treating every foreign power the same... it's foreign policy for kindergarteners!

    Replies: @Ralph Raico, @Desiderius, @reiner Tor, @Mr. Anon

    The strange thing is that, as Jews are white, the anti-white bias growing on the American left is eventually going to be directed at them. Why they can’t see that, I don’t know.

    See it? They’re the ones directing it toward whites in general to deflect resentment away from themselves, whom they believe they can continue to portray as not really white as it suits them. After all, look at all the Country Clubs that won’t have them. Don’t you know it’s [CURRENT_YEAR – 50]?

    The ones most completely fooled are themselves, but ultimately that’s what matters since they’re the ones with the cultural power and the other sorts of power that flow from it.

  89. @Stephen R. Diamond
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi


    After 12 debates, the show should be over.
     
    Trump said that after the last debate, but he was wrong. The show isn't over because some of the most important developments distinguishing the candidates occurred subsequently.

    If Trump were honest, he would look forward to further exposing the cucks after the Great Sanders Riot.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    Come on, the show was just getting started when he took a powder in January debate. There’s only 21 states left, seven in the Northeast/south (Trump’s stomping ground) and except for CA, not much left to cause a stir over. Also, there were still about 10 candidates in the race when Trump skipped. Jeb! was still considered to be a front runner.

    At this point, its just Trump and Cruz. He has more leverage now. If he says “I ain’t doing anymore”, then most likely Cruz will follow since he can’t afford to have a mano-y-mano with Kasich. Does he really want to risk losing his number two position and possibly elevate the last great hope for the donorist classes?

    And, even the cable news know that several Kasich vs. Cruz would be a ratings bomb. Its like Seinfeld episodes where Jerry wasn’t there. Sure, it can be somewhat entertaining but do you really wanna risk losing in the ratings week after week with that worn out and tired retread cast? Just like in TV, these debates need their star attraction. Trump is in the drivers seat, he doesn’t need them anymore, show should be cancelled from here on out.

    And, deep down, Cruz would be relieved as well. He can go back to focusing on UT; MT; the Dakotas and solidifying his grip on the Mountain-Plains Region of the country as before. Kasich and his confetti for winning his own state, he had his moment, but he’s not the Alister on the show, serves no purpose now. If folks still don’t know who to support, then they haven’t been paying attention.

    Cancel the show, and let Trump campaign to get the rest of the delegates so he can focus his energies on beating Hillary.

  90. Trump knows he has to straddle his speech to be both Jew and alt-right approved. So: Criticize Obama relentlessly, talk about how he’d have negotiated the Iran Deal, mention the Israeli Day Parade, Talk about his Daughter’s fake-jewishness. The usuals. It’ll be fine.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @jackmcg

    Has Trump ever heard of the alt-right?

    Replies: @jackmcg, @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @Lot

  91. @jackmcg
    Trump knows he has to straddle his speech to be both Jew and alt-right approved. So: Criticize Obama relentlessly, talk about how he'd have negotiated the Iran Deal, mention the Israeli Day Parade, Talk about his Daughter's fake-jewishness. The usuals. It'll be fine.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    Has Trump ever heard of the alt-right?

    • Replies: @jackmcg
    @Steve Sailer

    I'd be shocked if he hasn't. All he has to do is scroll through his twitter responses occasionally.

    , @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @Steve Sailer

    Does Breitbart count? Kinda sorta? If yes, then its a safe bet that Corey Lewandowski definitely has. "If I'd have known that she (Fields) worked with Breitbart, this never would've happened."

    That quote says it all. Trump's people know which ones support him on the net and its probably a safe bet that the loyalty will be rewarded in turn.

    , @Lot
    @Steve Sailer

    Of course. Ann Coulter seems to be the political writer he favors the most, and if she isn't alt right I don't know who is. Indeed, isn't being banned from National Review an alt-right rite of passage for pre-Internet writers?

  92. @Steve Sailer
    @jackmcg

    Has Trump ever heard of the alt-right?

    Replies: @jackmcg, @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @Lot

    I’d be shocked if he hasn’t. All he has to do is scroll through his twitter responses occasionally.

  93. @Steve Sailer
    @jackmcg

    Has Trump ever heard of the alt-right?

    Replies: @jackmcg, @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @Lot

    Does Breitbart count? Kinda sorta? If yes, then its a safe bet that Corey Lewandowski definitely has. “If I’d have known that she (Fields) worked with Breitbart, this never would’ve happened.”

    That quote says it all. Trump’s people know which ones support him on the net and its probably a safe bet that the loyalty will be rewarded in turn.

  94. @Ralph Raico
    @Chrisnonymous

    "Iran might" nuke the United States? Sure, in the same sense that Iran might turn Southern Baptist. A logical possibility, but in reality just a Zionist smear, thrown out there to further befuddle the dumb goyim.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous

    You’re right. If it weren’t for Israel, Muslims would be our natural friends and allies. That’s why there aren’t any of them that disavow democratic-capitalism and why it works out so well when they live amongst us.

    Oh, and the only way Iran would ever attack the US is by launching an ICBM at us, right? And of course they would declare war first. The Islamic world is all forthrightness and honesty. Anything else is a Zionist smear!

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    @Chrisnonymous

    Although I'm poking the bear, actually, I think it is very unlikely that Iran per se would attack us. But I understand why our leaders are upset about Iran getting the bomb. They would be upset by Pakistan getting the bomb too, but that ship has sailed.

    It is possible for Israel to influence US politics and for Iran to be dishonest and pose a threat. It's also possible for the Iranian gov't to be acting in good faith and for an Iranian bomb to be a threat. None of those things are exclusive of the others.

  95. @Chrisnonymous
    @Ralph Raico

    You're right. If it weren't for Israel, Muslims would be our natural friends and allies. That's why there aren't any of them that disavow democratic-capitalism and why it works out so well when they live amongst us.

    Oh, and the only way Iran would ever attack the US is by launching an ICBM at us, right? And of course they would declare war first. The Islamic world is all forthrightness and honesty. Anything else is a Zionist smear!

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous

    Although I’m poking the bear, actually, I think it is very unlikely that Iran per se would attack us. But I understand why our leaders are upset about Iran getting the bomb. They would be upset by Pakistan getting the bomb too, but that ship has sailed.

    It is possible for Israel to influence US politics and for Iran to be dishonest and pose a threat. It’s also possible for the Iranian gov’t to be acting in good faith and for an Iranian bomb to be a threat. None of those things are exclusive of the others.

  96. @IHTG
    @Shine a Light


    But of course that only helps Trump as most Americans are disgusted by Israel.
     
    Good job putting that at the end of your comment so people don't know to disregard it

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Shine a Light

    Personally I don’t see much difference between AIPAC and BlackLivesMatter and I’m quite sure many Americans feel the same way.

    That said, Trump strategy for this speech should be to provoke the AIPACniks into booing him and then getting the media establishment and all the other candidates to support AIPAC like they backed BLM in Chicago last week.

    The key is that on the surface level Trump must stay squeaky clean.

    Start by attacking PAC money in politics and repeat the “you will not like me because I will not take your money”

    Next, move on the complimenting Israel and saying how much America has to learn from her. For example Trump can talk about Israel foresight in building their wall — Trump can neg it a little by saying ours will be more beautiful.

    Move on to Israel not accepting Syrian refugees. High praise for this move. Extra points for pointing out the official reason is that taking refugees would undermine Israeli identity. he probably wouldn’t go that far though.

    Move on to Israeli enhanced interrogation techniques and the destruction of terrorist houses. Point out how Trump is attack for proposing similar policies in America. The triggering should be in full effect at that point.

    The AIPACniks will have either started hissing and howling as they march out or they will sit there quietly and take it. Either way Trump wins, he wins more if they walk out. Once they walk out Trump can blame it on the fact he will not take their money!!

    Bernie and Hillary will hopefully have gone on before him and will have criticized Israel for certain things. Trump can ask why did they walk out when I praised them but cheered loudly after Sanders and Clinton said less nice things about them?

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Shine a Light


    Personally I don’t see much difference between AIPAC and BlackLivesMatter
     
    You should visit an eye doctor.
  97. @biz
    @le biel


    I dislike Israel because... we get espionage and false flag attacks (USS Liberty, 9/11)
     
    This is exactly what I was talking about. The only people who dislike Israel are those who want to pretend that Muslims are not responsible for 9/11. This includes the loony left, and for some reason a segment of the far right.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @reiner Tor

    “The only people who dislike Israel……”

    Disliking AIPAC is not the same thing as disliking Israel. I have nothing against Israel existing, being a nation, being a jewish state, defending itself, etc. I do dislike AIPAC – for the undue influence they wield over american politics. Why should every major candidate for President of the United States knock head before that one particular ethnic lobbying group? Why should Israel be more consequent for the american government than, say, Ireland?

    • Replies: @BB753
    @Mr. Anon

    The whole Middle East should have remained a joint French/British protectorate. An independent Irak, Syria, Lebanon, not to mention Israel were bad ideas to start with.
    Decolonization turned out to be Cold War's worst legacy. It only worked fairly well in East Asia. It's been an utter disaster everywhere else, particularly in Africa. Hard-core HBDers are free to draw their own conclusions.

  98. “John Rivers points out on Twitter that Obama’s nomination of a mainstream Jewish white male liberal to the Supreme Court is likely to present Republicans with a problem with this influential demographic slice:”

    I guess 33% of the Supreme Court is just not enough. It has to be 44%.

    Why only 44%? Why not 55%? 66%? To paraphrase Bill Clinton, we need a Supreme Court that looks like Israel.

  99. If Trump is smart he will hire an AIPAC operative and to help him write a speech agreeing 100% with their agenda, and keying him into the right terms to use. For instance, don’t say “occupied territories.” I’m not even sure what the right term is myself, I think it is “Judea and Samaria,” or or something like that.

    It wouldn’t hurt to give a mildly worded version of his temporary shutdown on Muslim immigration. AIPAC can’t officially endorse this, but it will be music to most of their ears, and signal that he is objectively more pro-Jewish and pro-Israel than Hillary. Moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem and explicitly endorsing settlements are two more key issues where he has a unique degree of freedom to out-Jew Hillary.

    Trump has everything to gain and nothing to lose here. Middle America, to the extent it has an opinion, loves Israel, and evangelicals are one of his weak spots with the base and on average more pro Israel than even secular Jews.

    If Jews are 4% of the white vote, and Trump needs an extra 4% over Romney’s share, going from ~25% of them who voted for Romney and McCain to 50% of them is both a realistic goal and gets him a quarter of the way to victory. I even think 55% is a realistic goal, which gives him 30% of what he needs to win. And that isn’t even counting the fact that being extremely pro Israel, far more than Hillary, will depress her fundraising.

    Also, Hillary’s arms are tied. Anti-Israel voters, while they don’t provide any funds to her campaign, do provide volunteers and votes. They will grudgingly put up with the normal Dem pro-Israel party line out of necessity, but will rebel if she tries to go as far as Trump is free to. No way will she explicitly endorse settlement policy without turning off Muslim voters and the academic far-left.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Lot

    In general, I think this is going to be Trump's strategy for November. Sometimes he will outflank Hillary on the right, sometimes on the left, sometimes on both the left and right. People will say (are already saying) that Trump is inconsistent, not a "real" conservative, etc. and he won't care.

  100. @Steve Sailer
    @jackmcg

    Has Trump ever heard of the alt-right?

    Replies: @jackmcg, @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @Lot

    Of course. Ann Coulter seems to be the political writer he favors the most, and if she isn’t alt right I don’t know who is. Indeed, isn’t being banned from National Review an alt-right rite of passage for pre-Internet writers?

  101. @SFG
    First of all, I'll say Trump has way better judgment than me about what he should do. I didn't think he could get away with what he has...but he did.

    I thus can only speculate, as follows.

    First of all, Trump has two choices, more or less. He can do what they want, and lose the alt-right but hopefully gain a few rich Jewish guys on his side. He can snub them, and keep the alt-right and perhaps inflame the remainder of the media against him.

    I don't know how much he needs the alt-right at this point. He might want to be portrayed as more centrist now that he's running for the more liberal state picks, and eventually for the country as a whole, including people who don't vote in Republican primaries. People outside the alt-right are a lot more annoyed over trade and immigration than they are over Israel.

    Or, he might do something I haven't thought of yet. He's the Artist of the Deal, I wouldn't be surprised. He might, for example, guarantee Israel's safety in case of a direct attack on them but refuse to aid them in proxy wars like Iraq--enough to keep people worried about their relatives over there happy but still enough to please isolationists. Like I said, the guy's smarter than me. I don't know what he's going to do.

    There's a natural human tendency to think if a guy's on your side about something you care about, he's on your side about everything, which explains the idea that a guy who let his daughter marry a Jew and does real estate in New York is an anti-Semitic avenger.

    Personally I'm pretty annoyed at AIPAC over the warmongering and manipulation. But... who knows?

    Replies: @reiner Tor

    As I wrote elsewhere, if the price to keep (or get back) our white homelands was doing the bidding of AIPAC, I’d be willing to pay that price.

    The problem is, there’s some conflict of interest even here. E.g. Israel prefers Islamists and chaos over Assad, which created a huge refugee flow. Same thing in Iraq. Now Humpty Dumpty won’t be put together again, so Syria and Iraq are gone for good, but similar events could happen elsewhere in the Middle East, which could make it harder to keep migrants out.

  102. @Chrisnonymous
    @le biel

    I agree that it would be nice if the support went both ways... Israeli politicians ought to be coming out in support of US policies that benefit the US, like border controls.

    The strange thing is that, as Jews are white, the anti-white bias growing on the American left is eventually going to be directed at them. Why they can't see that, I don't know.

    Israel is never going to nuke the US, but Iran might, so, really, who cares that Israel is a non-signatory to TNPNW? I think you are confusing the US adopting pro-US positions and the US adopting a strategy of treating every foreign power the same... it's foreign policy for kindergarteners!

    Replies: @Ralph Raico, @Desiderius, @reiner Tor, @Mr. Anon

    Israel is never going to nuke the US, but Iran might

    Iran can’t reach US soil with its missiles. Israel can.

    Also see this.

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    @reiner Tor

    Yeah. I know. Iran would never launch an actual missile anyway.
    Israel is not going to launch anything at us though. And I think the Samson Option is pretty much what I would do if I were an Israeli, so... yeah, looks like a dog bites man story...

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @Reg Cæsar

  103. @biz
    @le biel


    I dislike Israel because... we get espionage and false flag attacks (USS Liberty, 9/11)
     
    This is exactly what I was talking about. The only people who dislike Israel are those who want to pretend that Muslims are not responsible for 9/11. This includes the loony left, and for some reason a segment of the far right.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @reiner Tor

    I don’t like Israel, because it’s against other white countries’ nationalism. In fact, Israel could’ve helped Haider if they hadn’t joined the hysteria against him in 1999. They chose to join it and ordered home their ambassador in protest. Netanyahu’s government is criticizing the present Hungarian government. Netanyahu is criticizng Trump. Etc.

    911 was the work of Arabs. And Israelis (most famously the celebrating ones in New York) were happy that it happened, while Netanyahu might have said (I’m not sure how reliable the sources are in that case) that it was ‘very good’ for Israel. It doesn’t make it the work of Israelis.

  104. @Judah Benjamin Hur
    If Bill Clinton was the first black President, Trump could be the first Jewish one.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

    That phrase (“first Jewish President”) was already used up to describe GW Bush.

  105. Garland is an anti-gun extremist. Kiss Heller good bye if he gets on the Court.

  106. @Stephen R. Diamond
    @biz

    That the Israel lobby has, by vast money, decisively influenced U.S. ME policy is well-documented in mainstream scholarly literature.

    Replies: @biz

    Not really. AIPAC advocates for policies that are supported by huge majorities – approaching 80 percent in some cases according to e.g. Pew polling – of the American people. The fact that AIPAC is successful on their issues is not due to money overriding American democracy, it is due to them advocating for overwhelmingly popular positions.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @biz

    I was staying with a US Evangelical family in the summer of 1998 in Wisconsin (they were Southerners who moved there, now they're back in Alabama I think), and they told me they didn't understand why the US was so unilaterally supporting Israel. But that's maybe only because the guy was working for a company that exported stuff to the Arab world, and he had to visit Egypt and some other Arab countries a lot.

    In any event, I'd think that most of the US electorate is quite ignorant of the policies supported by AIPAC. It's easy to create pollaganda with loaded questions, but I'd doubt most US voters (with the possible exception of maybe Evangelicals and Jews) would be demanding these policies if they weren't already in place, or would much protest their disappearance.

    , @Mr. Anon
    @biz

    "AIPAC advocates for policies that are supported by huge majorities – approaching 80 percent in some cases according to e.g. Pew polling – of the American people. The fact that AIPAC is successful on their issues is not due to money overriding American democracy, it is due to them advocating for overwhelmingly popular positions."

    I very much doubt that, and I suspect you are eliding over much of the context of the polling. To say nothing of the fact that polling itself is hardly done in a vacuum or for disinterested purposes.

    The fact that a majority of Americans support Israel in some abstract sense does not mean they also support the policies that AIPAC supports. And they probably really don't support the way that AIPAC supports those policies.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

  107. @Lot
    If Trump is smart he will hire an AIPAC operative and to help him write a speech agreeing 100% with their agenda, and keying him into the right terms to use. For instance, don't say "occupied territories." I'm not even sure what the right term is myself, I think it is "Judea and Samaria," or or something like that.

    It wouldn't hurt to give a mildly worded version of his temporary shutdown on Muslim immigration. AIPAC can't officially endorse this, but it will be music to most of their ears, and signal that he is objectively more pro-Jewish and pro-Israel than Hillary. Moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem and explicitly endorsing settlements are two more key issues where he has a unique degree of freedom to out-Jew Hillary.

    Trump has everything to gain and nothing to lose here. Middle America, to the extent it has an opinion, loves Israel, and evangelicals are one of his weak spots with the base and on average more pro Israel than even secular Jews.

    If Jews are 4% of the white vote, and Trump needs an extra 4% over Romney's share, going from ~25% of them who voted for Romney and McCain to 50% of them is both a realistic goal and gets him a quarter of the way to victory. I even think 55% is a realistic goal, which gives him 30% of what he needs to win. And that isn't even counting the fact that being extremely pro Israel, far more than Hillary, will depress her fundraising.

    Also, Hillary's arms are tied. Anti-Israel voters, while they don't provide any funds to her campaign, do provide volunteers and votes. They will grudgingly put up with the normal Dem pro-Israel party line out of necessity, but will rebel if she tries to go as far as Trump is free to. No way will she explicitly endorse settlement policy without turning off Muslim voters and the academic far-left.

    Replies: @Jack D

    In general, I think this is going to be Trump’s strategy for November. Sometimes he will outflank Hillary on the right, sometimes on the left, sometimes on both the left and right. People will say (are already saying) that Trump is inconsistent, not a “real” conservative, etc. and he won’t care.

  108. @Shine a Light
    @IHTG

    Personally I don't see much difference between AIPAC and BlackLivesMatter and I'm quite sure many Americans feel the same way.

    That said, Trump strategy for this speech should be to provoke the AIPACniks into booing him and then getting the media establishment and all the other candidates to support AIPAC like they backed BLM in Chicago last week.

    The key is that on the surface level Trump must stay squeaky clean.

    Start by attacking PAC money in politics and repeat the "you will not like me because I will not take your money"

    Next, move on the complimenting Israel and saying how much America has to learn from her. For example Trump can talk about Israel foresight in building their wall -- Trump can neg it a little by saying ours will be more beautiful.

    Move on to Israel not accepting Syrian refugees. High praise for this move. Extra points for pointing out the official reason is that taking refugees would undermine Israeli identity. he probably wouldn't go that far though.

    Move on to Israeli enhanced interrogation techniques and the destruction of terrorist houses. Point out how Trump is attack for proposing similar policies in America. The triggering should be in full effect at that point.

    The AIPACniks will have either started hissing and howling as they march out or they will sit there quietly and take it. Either way Trump wins, he wins more if they walk out. Once they walk out Trump can blame it on the fact he will not take their money!!

    Bernie and Hillary will hopefully have gone on before him and will have criticized Israel for certain things. Trump can ask why did they walk out when I praised them but cheered loudly after Sanders and Clinton said less nice things about them?

    Replies: @Jack D

    Personally I don’t see much difference between AIPAC and BlackLivesMatter

    You should visit an eye doctor.

  109. @Mr. Anon
    @biz

    "The only people who dislike Israel......"

    Disliking AIPAC is not the same thing as disliking Israel. I have nothing against Israel existing, being a nation, being a jewish state, defending itself, etc. I do dislike AIPAC - for the undue influence they wield over american politics. Why should every major candidate for President of the United States knock head before that one particular ethnic lobbying group? Why should Israel be more consequent for the american government than, say, Ireland?

    Replies: @BB753

    The whole Middle East should have remained a joint French/British protectorate. An independent Irak, Syria, Lebanon, not to mention Israel were bad ideas to start with.
    Decolonization turned out to be Cold War’s worst legacy. It only worked fairly well in East Asia. It’s been an utter disaster everywhere else, particularly in Africa. Hard-core HBDers are free to draw their own conclusions.

  110. @biz
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    Not really. AIPAC advocates for policies that are supported by huge majorities - approaching 80 percent in some cases according to e.g. Pew polling - of the American people. The fact that AIPAC is successful on their issues is not due to money overriding American democracy, it is due to them advocating for overwhelmingly popular positions.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @Mr. Anon

    I was staying with a US Evangelical family in the summer of 1998 in Wisconsin (they were Southerners who moved there, now they’re back in Alabama I think), and they told me they didn’t understand why the US was so unilaterally supporting Israel. But that’s maybe only because the guy was working for a company that exported stuff to the Arab world, and he had to visit Egypt and some other Arab countries a lot.

    In any event, I’d think that most of the US electorate is quite ignorant of the policies supported by AIPAC. It’s easy to create pollaganda with loaded questions, but I’d doubt most US voters (with the possible exception of maybe Evangelicals and Jews) would be demanding these policies if they weren’t already in place, or would much protest their disappearance.

  111. @Steve Sailer
    @Anonymous

    AIPAC is a very big deal in Washington, but fairly low profile elsewhere.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @Matra

    That AIPAC is not the bogeyman that the NRA is tells me something about power in the US – and who has it. If you really have it then the media would not be naming and shaming you on a regular basis. Everybody has heard of the NRA – or at least the “powerful gun lobby” – even in Europe & Canada, yet few know of AIPAC. (Though it must be said the term “Israel lobby” is better known in Europe and perhaps Canada than it is in the US).

  112. @Chrisnonymous
    @le biel

    I agree that it would be nice if the support went both ways... Israeli politicians ought to be coming out in support of US policies that benefit the US, like border controls.

    The strange thing is that, as Jews are white, the anti-white bias growing on the American left is eventually going to be directed at them. Why they can't see that, I don't know.

    Israel is never going to nuke the US, but Iran might, so, really, who cares that Israel is a non-signatory to TNPNW? I think you are confusing the US adopting pro-US positions and the US adopting a strategy of treating every foreign power the same... it's foreign policy for kindergarteners!

    Replies: @Ralph Raico, @Desiderius, @reiner Tor, @Mr. Anon

    “Israel is never going to nuke the US, but Iran might, so, really, who cares that Israel is a non-signatory to TNPNW?”

    Who cares that Iran is not a signatory? Or is a signatory and ignores the treaty? Iran launching a nuclear weapon at the US is no more likely than Israel doing so.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @Mr. Anon

    Iran has no ability to do so; Israel does. Having said that, I don't think either of them has the combination of evil and stupid to do so. Even if they were both evil enough, neither would be stupid enough; and even if they were stupid enough, neither would be evil enough for such a senseless act. Unless, perhaps, if they were under an all-out attack by the US.

    There are reasons to oppose the Iranian bomb, and there are reasons not to force an existing nuclear power into disarmament, but the chances of Iran or Israel attacking the US with nuclear missiles without serious provocation are practically zero in any event.

    Replies: @Anonymous

  113. @biz
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    Not really. AIPAC advocates for policies that are supported by huge majorities - approaching 80 percent in some cases according to e.g. Pew polling - of the American people. The fact that AIPAC is successful on their issues is not due to money overriding American democracy, it is due to them advocating for overwhelmingly popular positions.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @Mr. Anon

    “AIPAC advocates for policies that are supported by huge majorities – approaching 80 percent in some cases according to e.g. Pew polling – of the American people. The fact that AIPAC is successful on their issues is not due to money overriding American democracy, it is due to them advocating for overwhelmingly popular positions.”

    I very much doubt that, and I suspect you are eliding over much of the context of the polling. To say nothing of the fact that polling itself is hardly done in a vacuum or for disinterested purposes.

    The fact that a majority of Americans support Israel in some abstract sense does not mean they also support the policies that AIPAC supports. And they probably really don’t support the way that AIPAC supports those policies.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @Mr. Anon

    I totally oppose both AIPAC (and Jewish influence in general) and the current US support for Israel, but even I support Israel's right to exist as a Jewish ethnostate.

    I'm happy to call out the hypocrisy of Israel's supporters (and anti-Gentilic Israelis) when they criticize white European ethnonationalists, but overall I wouldn't be happy if Israel got destroyed. I'd be happier if European and other white countries survived, too.

    I also think Israel is strong and rich enough to stand on its own, without huge aid from gentiles.

  114. @reiner Tor
    @Chrisnonymous


    Israel is never going to nuke the US, but Iran might
     
    Iran can't reach US soil with its missiles. Israel can.

    Also see this.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous

    Yeah. I know. Iran would never launch an actual missile anyway.
    Israel is not going to launch anything at us though. And I think the Samson Option is pretty much what I would do if I were an Israeli, so… yeah, looks like a dog bites man story…

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @Chrisnonymous

    If I were Israeli, I would use the nuclear missiles to retaliate for the loss of my country and for the genocide that the Arabs would likely commit if they were to win. But I'd also be mindful that there would still be a lot of Jews living outside Israel, and nuking Rome or other European cities might not be conducive to their continued survival.

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Chrisnonymous


    Iran would never launch an actual missile anyway.
    Israel is not going to launch anything at us though...
     
    Is anybody in the nucleosphere as crazy and amoral as Harry Truman?
  115. Trump of course didn’t need to skip the debate to give the speech at the conference, which has other days available for speakers. He is just using that excuse to avoid an event that can have no positive consequences.

    Whatever faux pas he may commit at AIPAC, he is safe enough with Jews. He has flourished in the one place on Earth that has as many as Israel itself.

    Sincerely,
    Captain Obvious, 1/4 Jewish

  116. @Mr. Anon
    @Chrisnonymous

    "Israel is never going to nuke the US, but Iran might, so, really, who cares that Israel is a non-signatory to TNPNW?"

    Who cares that Iran is not a signatory? Or is a signatory and ignores the treaty? Iran launching a nuclear weapon at the US is no more likely than Israel doing so.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

    Iran has no ability to do so; Israel does. Having said that, I don’t think either of them has the combination of evil and stupid to do so. Even if they were both evil enough, neither would be stupid enough; and even if they were stupid enough, neither would be evil enough for such a senseless act. Unless, perhaps, if they were under an all-out attack by the US.

    There are reasons to oppose the Iranian bomb, and there are reasons not to force an existing nuclear power into disarmament, but the chances of Iran or Israel attacking the US with nuclear missiles without serious provocation are practically zero in any event.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @reiner Tor

    Israel isn't going to nuke the U.S. under any circumstance less than a direct U.S. military attack on Israel. A lot of Israelis are pessimistic about Israel's long-term future and worry that one day the Arabs might win. To what country do you think most of them would choose to flee? The U.S. is the obvious back-up country for the majority of Israelis, and substantial numbers already have distant relatives here.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

  117. @Chrisnonymous
    @reiner Tor

    Yeah. I know. Iran would never launch an actual missile anyway.
    Israel is not going to launch anything at us though. And I think the Samson Option is pretty much what I would do if I were an Israeli, so... yeah, looks like a dog bites man story...

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @Reg Cæsar

    If I were Israeli, I would use the nuclear missiles to retaliate for the loss of my country and for the genocide that the Arabs would likely commit if they were to win. But I’d also be mindful that there would still be a lot of Jews living outside Israel, and nuking Rome or other European cities might not be conducive to their continued survival.

  118. @Mr. Anon
    @biz

    "AIPAC advocates for policies that are supported by huge majorities – approaching 80 percent in some cases according to e.g. Pew polling – of the American people. The fact that AIPAC is successful on their issues is not due to money overriding American democracy, it is due to them advocating for overwhelmingly popular positions."

    I very much doubt that, and I suspect you are eliding over much of the context of the polling. To say nothing of the fact that polling itself is hardly done in a vacuum or for disinterested purposes.

    The fact that a majority of Americans support Israel in some abstract sense does not mean they also support the policies that AIPAC supports. And they probably really don't support the way that AIPAC supports those policies.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

    I totally oppose both AIPAC (and Jewish influence in general) and the current US support for Israel, but even I support Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish ethnostate.

    I’m happy to call out the hypocrisy of Israel’s supporters (and anti-Gentilic Israelis) when they criticize white European ethnonationalists, but overall I wouldn’t be happy if Israel got destroyed. I’d be happier if European and other white countries survived, too.

    I also think Israel is strong and rich enough to stand on its own, without huge aid from gentiles.

  119. @Chrisnonymous
    @reiner Tor

    Yeah. I know. Iran would never launch an actual missile anyway.
    Israel is not going to launch anything at us though. And I think the Samson Option is pretty much what I would do if I were an Israeli, so... yeah, looks like a dog bites man story...

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @Reg Cæsar

    Iran would never launch an actual missile anyway.
    Israel is not going to launch anything at us though…

    Is anybody in the nucleosphere as crazy and amoral as Harry Truman?

  120. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @reiner Tor
    @Mr. Anon

    Iran has no ability to do so; Israel does. Having said that, I don't think either of them has the combination of evil and stupid to do so. Even if they were both evil enough, neither would be stupid enough; and even if they were stupid enough, neither would be evil enough for such a senseless act. Unless, perhaps, if they were under an all-out attack by the US.

    There are reasons to oppose the Iranian bomb, and there are reasons not to force an existing nuclear power into disarmament, but the chances of Iran or Israel attacking the US with nuclear missiles without serious provocation are practically zero in any event.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Israel isn’t going to nuke the U.S. under any circumstance less than a direct U.S. military attack on Israel. A lot of Israelis are pessimistic about Israel’s long-term future and worry that one day the Arabs might win. To what country do you think most of them would choose to flee? The U.S. is the obvious back-up country for the majority of Israelis, and substantial numbers already have distant relatives here.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @Anonymous

    And Iran's not going to use up its few nukes on the US (or even Israel) when it has more hated enemies closer to home.

  121. @Anonymous
    @reiner Tor

    Israel isn't going to nuke the U.S. under any circumstance less than a direct U.S. military attack on Israel. A lot of Israelis are pessimistic about Israel's long-term future and worry that one day the Arabs might win. To what country do you think most of them would choose to flee? The U.S. is the obvious back-up country for the majority of Israelis, and substantial numbers already have distant relatives here.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

    And Iran’s not going to use up its few nukes on the US (or even Israel) when it has more hated enemies closer to home.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS