Projection 101, by the ever-insightful Steve Sailer.
The Machine Media are rigging the election and they feel ashamed about it, so they are lashing out in fury at their victim.
The Media Will Learn to Love Trump in Due Time, by Ben Shapiro.
He is the worst major-party candidate in history.
He’s a gaffe machine.
He’s an evil racist who wants to return black people to slavery.
He’s a brutal sexist who wants to return women to the subservience of the 1950s.
He’s a nasty warmonger who doesn’t get the fundamental intricacies of modern foreign policy, with the Manichean worldview to match.
He’s an old homophobe with a history of cruelty to workers.
Think we’re talking about Donald Trump? No, we’re talking about Mitt Romney circa 2012. That’s how the media painted one of the most honorable men ever to run for the White House, the creator of Romneycare, a northeastern Republican with a penchant for compromise and negotiation. Mitt Romney, the left claimed, was no John McCain — that halcyon of moderation and decency.
Now, of course, the media tells us that Donald Trump is a massive departure from the legacy of John McCain and Mitt Romney. He’s beyond the pale! He panders to racists! He’s a vicious sexist and sexual assaulter! He’s uninformed, unstable, ignorant, stupid! Why, compared to Mitt Romney, the man’s a monster! …
But by 2020, Donald Trump will be the new standard of civility and decency according to the Left.
Every time. Lucy pulling the football. And the PC people I know parrot it as if it were true, while insisting they are clever and well-informed and not at all inconsistent. They know they are correct because they agree with what the media is telling them.
In Soviet Europe, people who believed the propaganda broadcast by the communist elite were considered a special kind of stupid. There was a huge hunger for truth, but most people checked out mentally because they were offered only lies. The same is happening today, in the West. It is said that the photocopier eventually brought down the Soviets — today we have the Internet.
Lies and Loathing 3.0, by Steve Kates.
When at the end of the debate the question came up about whether the candidates would accept the election result, I said to myself that well, here is an exercise in the obvious. Of course you say that you will accept the result. And then Donald didn’t. …
And on thinking it over, I am now almost convinced that the question may even have been suggested to the moderator by Trump himself, precisely so that he could give the answer he gave. …
Legitimacy is bestowed only if the system is fair and perceived to be fair. Trump is in the middle of a battle he thinks, and I think, is for the future of America and the West. What he said is that he is not going to give the outcome his prior approval before he has actually seen what has happened on the day.
And I do have to say that I was surprised that he didn’t bring up Al Gore and the disputed election in 2012. It would no doubt have crossed his mind, so you have to think Trump had sifted this on the spot and didn’t wish to change the focus to sixteen years ago. He wants this election, this year, run clean. And since this is his greatest vulnerability — an election stolen by those with a proven track record of electoral theft — he wants to keep the pressure on as best he can.
Politics is ultimately what works. Does it cost him votes to focus on voter fraud in this way? No doubt. But will it also gain him votes if he can contain the fraud? Yes again. The question really comes down to how it will play out.
Russia has begun its biggest surface deployment since the end of the Cold War as it aims to effectively end the war in Syria on the eve of the US election, Nato officials warned last night.
The Kremlin is sending the full might of its Northern Fleet and part of the Baltic Fleet to reinforce a final assault on the city of Aleppo in a fortnight, according to Western intelligence.
The final bombardment is designed to shore up the Assad regime by wiping out rebels – paving the way for a Russian exit from the civil war. …
Royal Navy warships are due to escort a group of eight Russian warships, including the country’s only aircraft carrier [the Admiral Kuznetsov, pictured above], as they sail past the UK on their way to the Mediterranean.
Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte announced his “separation” from the United States on Thursday, declaring he had realigned with China as the two agreed to resolve their South China Sea dispute through talks.
Duterte made his comments in Beijing, where he is visiting with at least 200 business people to pave the way for what he calls a new commercial alliance as relations with longtime ally Washington deteriorate.
“In this venue, your honors, in this venue, I announce my separation from the United States,” Duterte told Chinese and Philippine business people, to applause, at a forum in the Great Hall of the People attended by Chinese Vice Premier Zhang Gaoli.
“Both in military, not maybe social, but economics also. America has lost.” …
“I’ve realigned myself in your ideological flow and maybe I will also go to Russia to talk to (President Vladimir) Putin and tell him that there are three of us against the world – China, Philippines and Russia. It’s the only way,” Duterte told his Beijing audience.
Good ol’ Obama and his “smart diplomacy.” Whose side is he on? This development is not good for Australia or the US.
China has also expressed support for his drug war, which has raised concern in Western capitals about extrajudicial killing.
Curious to see if his approach to drugs works. If it does, might there be some less extreme method that also works?
Scoring the Third Debate: Mild Win to Clinton, by Scott Adams, creator of Dilbert.
Clinton’s goal was to stay vertical for ninety minutes and sound more well-informed than Trump while framing him as an unstable monster. She accomplished all of that and won the debate, in my opinion.
But it wasn’t a big win. Trump only needed to act semi-presidential, and he did. We don’t expect him to have the same mastery of the facts. The bar is lower for the outsider. He needed a knockout punch but there was none. …
Ask Clinton voters why they prefer her over Trump and few people will mention the economy or any specific policies. Almost everyone will mention Trump’s “temperament” or alleged racism/sexism. Those were the only variables that mattered. …
The Wikileaks attacks are toothless so far. So toothless that Clinton’s “Russia did it” defense is good enough (for a debate) even though it is ridiculous. …
Rigging the election:
The biggest buzz from the debate seems to be Trump’s refusal to say in advance that he would accept the election results if they went against him. The pro-Clinton pundits are framing that as another example of Trump’s terribleness. But of course it is nothing but Trump keeping all of his options open as he does in every other situation when he can. He wants to maintain the right to complain later if the result looks rigged to him. That seems reasonable to me, and no real danger to the Republic. …
[A]sk yourself why the mainstream media is so keen on framing the election as “not rigged.” …
Why do I say it will be rigged? Because whenever humans have motive, opportunity, a high upside gain, and low odds of detection, shenanigans happen 100% of the time. Our vote-counting systems have plenty of weak spots. Rigging (to some degree) is a near guarantee.
And keep in mind that Team Clinton has framed Trump as the next Hitler. That gives every citizen moral cover to do outrageous things to stop him. The stakes are sky-high. In this environment, it would truly be a miracle to have an unrigged election. But again, we don’t know how much rigging there will be. It might not be enough to matter.
Trump would have been crazy to sign a blank cheque on election results when high ranking Democrat operatives admit on video that they cheat the system as much as they can. Scott Foval bragged they have been busing people in to key seats “to deal with you fuckin assholes for fifty years, and we’re not going to stop now.” Who plays nice in the face of that rank hostility?
Hillary said Trump’s response was horrible, but the real horror is that it’s so easy to vote early and often and in the wrong place. If Hillary is so concerned about people having faith in the system, she could fix the system. Instead, as George Will points out, the Democrats are doing everything they can to stop voters being asked for ID. …
It’s not Donald who has contempt for Democracy, it’s the Democrats. …
Some newspapers have declared Trump to be Hitler (Washington Post, The Daily Beast, Sydney Morning Herald, though sometimes he’s just Mossolini). So in the face of a genocidal maniac, maybe vote rigging feels like “saving the country” instead of cheating, lying, and trashing a democracy.
Bill Leak ‘singled out’ for racial discrimination investigation after cartoon prompts complaints, by Lateline at the ABC.
The Australian: Bill Leak.
Cartoonist Bill Leak says it is “absurd” he has been accused of being racist and that he is being investigated by the Human Rights Commission over a cartoon portraying an Aboriginal father and son.
Leak told the ABC’s Lateline program that the investigation stifled free speech.
“I think 18C is an abomination. Look, I can only assume that a lot of people genuinely believe that freedom of speech means the legal right to hurl abuse. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth,” he said. ”
“Freedom of speech is what created our civil and free society. It is all about the exchange of ideas, about letting people express their views in the marketplace of ideas.”
Leak says he was “bewildered” when he was accused of being racist.
Who gets to define what “racist” means? Ah, there’s the problem. Funny how only non-PC people get accused, yet the PC people discriminate furiously between people on the basis of their race. It’s Orwellian, but it’s Australia in 2016. Now Leak has to grovel to the inquisitors on the government-funded PC media.
UPDATE: Bill Leak cartoon an appropriate view of what police see in some Aboriginal families: WA’s top officer, Karl O’Callaghan.
Commissioner O’Callaghan said the cartoon by Leak, published by The Australian newspaper in August and criticised by some Indigenous leaders as an “attack” on Aboriginal people, was an appropriate portrayal of some communities.
“From my perspective, Bill Leak’s cartoon is actually an accurate reflection of what our officers see on a day-to-day basis, when they’re dealing particularly with kids from Aboriginal communities or Aboriginal families who are in trouble,” he said. …
“I think the problem is so widespread and so protracted that it’s not easy just to solve it with, you know, regular government services,” he said.
“Where you have families that are unable or unwilling to care for their children properly, there needs to be other care arrangements in place.”
“While people are trying to deal with the families and deal with things like substance abuse and alcohol abuse … those kids are still running amok in the community, creating havoc, damaging things, getting in trouble with the law.
Does anyone have the courage to declare, ‘Je suis Bill Leak’?, by James Allen.
First the defenders of 18C came for Andrew Bolt. …
Then they came for some law students at the Queensland University of Technology. …
Yet still most people look the other way. The politicians, too, turn a blind eye. Heck the Liberals, the party supposedly with John Stuart Mill in its DNA, can’t even bring themselves to indemnify the QUT students’ costs, as the Attorney-General could do any time he wishes. This is the political party that has gone from wanting to repeal this awful law to saying it’s too busy and not lifting a finger to support these students.
Now the speech-stifling zealots are using 18C to come after a prominent cartoonist who works for this country’s pre-eminent daily newspaper. I know, it sounds like something out of George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four or something that would happen in Russia, not in one of the leading and oldest democracies.
You might think the millions who emoted “Je suis Charlie” for some French cartoonists might summon up the gumption to yell “Je suis Bill Leak” for a man who simply drew a cartoon of the plight of Aboriginal children with one Aboriginal ne’er-do-well and one Aboriginal policeman. No, “that offends me,” cried the zealots as they invoked 18C and brought Leak under the aegis of this abomination of a law.
Of course, before that happened the HRC’s Race Discrimination Commissioner, Tim Soutphommasane, had gone on Facebook more or less urging people to make an 18C complaint.
Surprise, surprise, when one did the HRC accepted the complaint and is proceeding to conciliation. And did you know that Soutphommasane joined the Labor Party at 15 and worked at one time for Bob Carr (speechwriter) and then Kevin Rudd (research officer) before being appointed to the HRC for five years by Labor just before Abbott won office in 2013?
hat-tip Barry Corke
Hillary’s Advantage: The Media; Trump’s Advantage: The Issues. By Ann Coulter.
[T]he media’s entire campaign against Trump is to prevent him from talking about policy. They would rather talk about fat-shaming than trade, immigration and jobs.
Sometimes, it seems like Trump is cheating by taking the vastly more popular side of every issue. The official GOP used to send its candidates out with ankle weights, a 75-pound backpack and blinders. But Trump didn’t agree to take any staggeringly unpopular positions, however much the Business Roundtable loved them.
He’s against amnesty, for building a wall, against the Trans-Pacific Partnership, for Social Security, against the Iraq War and for extreme vetting of Muslim immigrants.
That’s why the media have to change the subject to something flashy that will capture the attention of the most down-market, easily fooled voters. Trump is a groper!
The media’s interest in sex scandals goes back and forth, depending on their needs at the moment. When the last name of the perp is “Kennedy” or “Clinton,” they’re not interested. When it’s “the Duke lacrosse team”: Guilty. …
[W’hen former U.S. senator John Edwards was cheating on his dying wife — while he was running for president, paying his mistress with campaign funds and lying to the American people about it, between lecturing us about morality with the unctuous sanctimony that passes for policy in the Democratic Party — the media primly refused to cover it. That is, until Edwards was out of the race, at which point the media refused to cover it because he wasn’t a candidate. (You guys are the best! I love the media.) …
Now, the same people who brought us the Duke lacrosse case, Mattress Girl and the Rolling Stone abomination — but who discreetly left John Edwards’ sex scandal to the National Enquirer; Bill Clinton’s serial sexual assaults to private litigant Paula Jones; and the Kennedy family’s whoring to investigative journalists Seymour Hersh (30 years later) and Leo Damore (20 years later) — these are the people who tell us they’re pretty sure Donald Trump is a groper.
Three weeks before a major presidential election.
Trump has been a rich celebrity for 40 years, employing thousands of women, but this is the first time he has been seriously accused of any sexual impropriety. You will recall that, just this May, The New York Times conducted a major investigation into Trump’s treatment of women — and came up empty-handed. …
The only reason for these 11th-hour claims is that the ruling class doesn’t want voters thinking about the immigration policies, trade deals and wars that are destroying their way of life. Ever since Trump started raising the issues that no one else would, the media and the political class have done everything in their power to try to stop our movement.
They’re so close! Just four more years of importing the Third World at breakneck speed, and America will be O-ver. Maybe it will work. And then six months after the election, Americans will realize they’ve been scammed by the media into giving away their country.
Their One-Sided Conversation: Government-funded PC Propaganda, by Tony Thomas.
Drawing its sustenance on the public purse, the [Conversation] website has become quite an empire, with international outposts and an ever-expanding staff nominally pledged to present the latest in academic research. What visitors get is an overload of green-left waffle and censorship if they dare to disagree. …
Funded out of the public purse:
[T[he Abbott government declined to extend the Gillard government’s $1m a year grants (PM Gillard also provided a $1.5m startup grant). Abbott’s education minister, Christopher Pyne, said the previous funding was conditional on the site achieving viability by mid-2015. “It had a shelf-life of three years, at which time The Conversation is meant to be self-sustaining…They were given $3.5 million — in that time they’ve expanded to Africa, the United States and the UK, and I expect that they are in a position where they will be self-sustaining, otherwise they wouldn’t be able to expand overseas in the way they have.”
[Andrew Jaspan, 64, co-founder and executive director of The Conversation] claimed that the target date “was never achievable and The Conversation told the government that last year.” He put viability forward to at least 2017. He professed to be baffled why the conservative government was declining to fund green/left academics to undermine the conservative government on issues ranging from asylum-seeker policy to Muslim terror and continuance of coal mining.
Jaspan then had to resort to a crowd-funding appeal, which raised a remarkable $400,000 before Victoria’s Labor government came to the party in September, 2015, with $1m a year for a further three years.
Here at the Wentworth Report we could do with some funding. No one who isn’t PC gets any funding from government.
The Australian arm of The Conversation has $5m revenue and costs about $3.8m a year, leaving a $1.2m surplus. What happens to that surplus is unclear but Mark Day in The Australian last November said the US operation costs $1.2m, “giving the entire enterprise an annual budget of $5m”. …
Australian salaries last year totaled about $3.3m. The financial report shows “key management” on a total $525,000 pay. …
Staff now total 34 in Australian operations, 20 in the UK, 14 in the US, 11 in Africa, 9 in France and 5 in Global, plus 8 in Global Technology for a total of 101. The board is 12 and editorial board 10.
One could run a pretty influential website with that much money. Dream on. See what we are up against in the climate “debate” and more broadly in the culture wars? The disparity in resources is awesome.
Speaking of diversity of voices, The Conversation is now formally and intricately entwined with their ABC. The love-in began a year ago with The Conversation purportedly fact-checking statements on QandA (followed by fact checks on election statements). Last month the ABC officially plugged itself into The Conversation’s daily output, ready to amplify and cross-promote the academics’ tergiversations [evasions of straightforward action or clear-cut statement].
Note that both the ABC and The Conversation are using taxpayer funds to compete against commercial news operators. The Conversation is also pumping its output into the schools sector, where kids are already drenched with green/left propaganda from the likes of Greenpeace.
Tony Thomas’ book of essays, That’s Debatable, is available here.
[Clinton] and Trump took up opposing sides on virtually all the major fault lines of contemporary America, emphasizing yet again that this election is for all the marbles: either the U.S. will continue on the road to socialist internationalism, or recover a sense of itself. This may be the last time that question is at stake in a presidential election. …
[A]s far as Hillary Clinton is concerned, anyone who stands for traditional values is simply not of the people, or any people she has any interest in representing. ….
Trump, on the other hand, affirmed that he would appoint justices who would interpret the Constitution as written, repeal Roe v. Wade and return the abortion question to the states, and protect gun rights. Chicago, he pointed out, has some of the nation’s toughest gun laws, yet also has more gun violence than any other city. …
Trump spoke of the need for strong borders, pointing to the drugs pouring into the country over the Mexican border as the reason why a border wall was needed, and declaring: “We have no country if we have no border.” In response, Clinton spoke about not wanting to send illegal immigrant parents away from their children who are citizens – an answer that may have tugged at Leftist heartstrings, but left the drug problem unaddressed. …
Ultimately, however, politically correct fantasies will collapse under the weight of reality. If that happens while she is president, … many Americans who applauded her platitudes, generalities, and appeals to sentiment on Wednesday night will be looking for ways to blame the Republicans.
hat-tip Stephen Neil
Scrap science, start over: the frightening call of a fallist, by Roxanne Henderson.
A so-called “fallist” has asked students at the University of Cape Town’s (UCT’s) science faculty to consider scrapping science as a whole if it is ever to be decolonised.
“Fallists” promote a “pan Africanist identity, post-apartheid liberation ideology”, giving rise to fears of African fascist nationalism.
At a panel discussion this week‚ published on YouTube‚ the woman responded to a question about the decolonisation of science.
“Science as a whole is a product of western modernity and the whole thing should be scratched off. Especially in Africa‚” she says.
She says, in part:
“[W]estern modernity is the problem that decolonisation directly deals with. It’s to say that we are going to decolonise by having knowledge that is produced by us‚ that speaks to us and that is able to accommodate knowledge from our perspective.
“Decolonising the science would mean doing away with it entirely and starting all over again to deal with how we respond to the environment and how we understand it.”
Imagine being at a university where people are saying that.
A reader adds:
It wouldn’t be a university in the normal sense of the word.
Substitute the idea that science is western with the idea the rationalism is western. What she is really saying is that the West, post-Enlightenment, has been advancing because of the acceptance of rational thought as a basis for making decisions and organizing society.
Outside the West some people aren’t as rational, which explains much about their societies — and why the PC crew are wrong with their silly cultural equivalence of “our culture’s no better than theirs”.
This will just send underdeveloped parts of the world back to ignorance, superstition, and tribal customs. That’s their business and OK with me, so long as the West doesn’t allow itself to be destroyed from within by PC lefties importing these people by the million into the West to vote said PC lefties into running Western governments.
hat-tip Stephen Neil
I’m white at a South African University. Am I still welcome here? By Steven Boykey Sidley.
A short time before the recent student protests I was invited to the Joburg Art Fair. As we were leaving, a guest arrived in a head-to-toe outfit that was covered in the words “Fuck White People”. People clustered around her as devotees to a prophet. The guest basked in the attention. I thought: it is an abstract political statement, I should not take it personally. And then I went home and thought little more of it.
But then the recent university protests arrived and a slow normalisation of this language took hold. A young white woman of my acquaintance arrives in class to find “Kill Whites” written on the whiteboard. This is not the first time. She now wants to leave the university she attends, despondent and bewildered.
Kill-all-whites t-shirt at the university. Not exactly welcoming.
A crowd of belligerent “Fallists” enter a lecture hall and point at the white students: “We have no reason to coexist peacefully with you, ever.”
“Fallists” promote a “pan-Africanist identity, post-apartheid liberation ideology”, giving rise to fears of African fascist nationalism.
Another young white left-wing student in a politics class tries to make a point in an interactive session and is told: “Shut up, you white bitch, your view is irrelevant.” And so she changes her major, which she loved.
These are small matters, perhaps, when juxtaposed against apartheid or structural and longitudinal poverty or lack of access to this or that. But still, the reaction from others to such utterances is thunderous in its silence. Is anyone concerned about this? Or does it just become a background sibilance against the great cacophony of more important battles?
No, no one is concerned. The western press would only be interested if some people were saying “kill all blacks”.
You are in competition with those black students for future jobs and government positions–in the division of spoils of government and corporations. They have probably figured that your “white privilege” (read “IQ”) will put you at an advantage in any fair competition, but they can squeeze you out of the running and demotivate you by such behavior.
That no one is calling a stop to it or even discouraging this behavior means it will only flourish and get more intense, until at some point someone does put the brakes on it. How much worse will it get before there is some blowback for these people? Given the experience in say Zimbabwe, perhaps not ever.
My daily experience, for the most part, seems far removed from the vicious racism of some of the Fallists, or even the anti-white lashings of the EFF, and even occasionally by the ANC as it tries to seduce those voters who would approve of the sentiment. But as I move through my day there is rarely a hint of tension with the many people of different cultures that cross my path in every way conceivable – social, business, service and serendipity. Is this a mirage?
Perhaps my antennae for trouble is overdeveloped – for thousands of years my tribe has warily looked to see when the welcome mat will be pulled up. And then we leave as fast as possible. And it has not escaped my attention that Mcebo Dlamini, along with his vile anti-white racism, is only too happy to spice it up with dollops of vitriolic anti-Semitism and archaic but still dangerous tropes about world domination. And now, in jail, he is seen as a leader and model for thousands of students.
Perhaps your instinct is telling you something useful.
hat-tip Stephen Neil
Trump debates well, but is unlikely to move the needle, by Paul Mirengoff. About “accepting” the results of an election:
If, when Trump says he’ll consider his options after the votes are in, he is thinking about perhaps declaring himself president or trying to stage a coup, then Hillary Clinton is right to be horrified. We all should be.
If Trump means he might not formally concede, then he’s contemplating being a very bad loser. To not concede would run counter to a salutary custom, but there is no requirement that losing candidates concede. Not conceding would cast Trump in a bad light, but would hardly threaten the Republic.
If by possibly not accepting the election Trump means he might vigorously argue that it was “rigged” against him — e.g., the media was horribly biased and large numbers of illegal immigrants voted — this would be nothing more than Trump expressing his opinions. The only issue then should be whether Trump’s opinions are valid. If Trump is correct that he was the victim of unprecedented media bias and or voter fraud, then he would be doing America a favor by pointing these things out.
The mainstream media and other Clinton supporters are trying to insulate themselves from criticism over bias and fraud by demonizing Trump. But Trump should not be demonized if all he’s contemplating is arguing that the election wasn’t fair — i.e., refusing to accept that the election he lost was a fair one — as long as he can provide evidence to back his argument up. …
As for the debate, there were fewer fireworks than I had expected. For the most part, the candidates debated the issues in an almost civilized manner. …
Wallace … for the most part, did a good job tonight.
Donald Trump is more similar to the Founders of our country than anyone who has run for the presidency in my lifetime. …
If Donald Trump believes — as many of us do — that the FBI is corrupt, the Justice Department is corrupt, the other party is hiring violent paid thugs to disrupt his campaign rallies, that no one knows who is really registered to vote, that the press is stratospherically biased, and that his opponent, backed up by all those corrupt entities, should have been indicted, why would a patriot, or for that matter someone who is even routinely honest, necessarily accept the results of the election of that opponent?
Ben Franklin wouldn’t. Thomas Jefferson wouldn’t. James Madison wouldn’t. Sam Adams wouldn’t. Of course, those guys were revolutionaries. These days we’re just, you know, “good citizens” who obey the rules and move on. With that kind of behavior in the past, our country wouldn’t even be here. But never mind. …
When Donald said he wouldn’t necessarily accept the results of election 2016, he was doing us all a favor. The democratic republic about whose precariousness Franklin warned us at the founding is shaky indeed at this moment. Leaders have gone beyond the law, as the new Project Veritas videos painfully remind us once again. Only the toughest love can save our republic now.
The moderator should have asked the same question of Hillary: if she loses on election night, will she concede or will she blame Russian hackers?
The full debate:
Western Australian Political Party. Some people I know are starting a party to protest the iron ore tax and big government, suggesting the proceeds of the new tax instead be simply given directly to rural voters. They now have a website, where there is form for registering the party. The party needs 500 registrations in the next week in order to be able to contest the next WA election.
There is a proposal to increase a component of iron ore royalties from 25 cents per tonne to $5 per tonne. This $4.75 increase amounts to $38,000 per non-metropolitan voter over four years. The $38,000 should be paid direct to each voter in cash or card. Instead of being wasted by politicians on what politicians want.
The party is provocatively named “Westralians Royalties For Voters $38000 Cash.” There are no other policies.
Any inquiries, please email us: email@example.com. Western Australian registered voters only please.
Rigging Elections, by Steve Sailer. Forget the Russians and underhand Democrat voting practices.
Democrats and their auxiliaries in the media routinely boast of their dream of turning America into a one-party state through changing who gets to vote in American elections.
Strikingly, this vast conspiracy to dilute the sovereignty of American voters by inviting in ringers from abroad is not covered up, nor even excused as aggressive-but-legal political hardball.
Instead, the dilution of the voting power of American citizens is praised lavishly as representing the highest value of “who we are as Americans.”
To protest, or even to notice, the open machinations to adulterate the value of your vote by importing millions of foreigners to increase the numbers of votes cast for the Democrats brands you as a deplorable.
That the Democrats want ever more non-Americans allowed into America so that these immigrants and their descendants can tip American elections toward permanent Democratic rule is something that Democrats are happy to discuss, just so long as Republicans admit that if they aren’t supportive of the Democrats’ scheme, then Republicans deserve their upcoming fate.
The origins of the immigration takeover:
Ted Kennedy sponsored the 1965 immigration act, which he hoped would increase immigration from Ireland to boost his own career. When it turned out instead to open the floodgates to the Third World, in 1990 Kennedy pushed through another immigration act to bring in more Kennedy-voting Irishmen, the diversity visa bill. Once again the Irish weren’t terribly interested, but Kennedy’s legislation set up chain migration beachheads in America for dozens of other nationalities.
It took Democrats a while to figure out that their grand strategy ought to be to give up on persuading the American people to elect them and instead for them to elect a new people. …
Up through 2000, the pro-Democrat New York Times editorial board opposed amnesty for illegal aliens, because it would be bad for working Americans’ wages. …
[T]he Democrats slowly figured out that mass immigration was the easy road to Chicago-style one-party rule.
In 1997, Peter Brimelow and Ed Rubenstein published an article in National Review, “Electing a New People,” laying out a numerical model of how the GOP was destroying itself by tolerating high immigration. They were among the first to point out what now seem like obvious truths—such as, that the GOP is in effect the white party, so the smaller the white percentage of the electorate in the 21st century, the worse the GOP does.
Donald Trump said during the third and final presidential debate on Wednesday that he may not accept the outcome of the November 8 election if it doesn’t go his way.
‘I will tell you at the time. I will keep you in suspense,’ Trump told Fox News Channel anchor Chris Wallace after he was pressed to declare that he would concede to Hillary Clinton if he loses.
Trump, who didn’t shake Clinton’s hand after the debate, revived charges that the election is ‘rigged’ in her favor by ‘dishonest’ reporters — and doubled down on allegations that voter fraud could run rampant.
He said ‘millions’ of people are on voter rolls ‘who shouldn’t be registered.’ News reports and independent investigations have found deceased Americans with active registrations, along with illegal immigrants who use driver’s licenses to obtain ballots. …
Trump was overall the stronger performer, dominating Clinton with the kind of emotional pressure that could drive undecided voters to side with strength instead of bureaucratese. …
The evening’s first fireworks erupted over immigration, but the tensest moment came during a discussion about claims by nine women that Trump manhandled them over the past three decades.
‘Those stories have been largely debunked,’ the Republican nominee said. ‘I think it was her campaign that did it. I didn’t even apologize to my wife, who is sitting right here, because I didn’t do anything! … These stories have been largely debunked … [and were] probably or possibly started by her and her very sleazy campaign. …
Trump also criticized the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation for what he said was a scheme to accept contributions from nations that expected preferential treatment from Mrs. Clinton when she was secretary of state.
‘It is a criminal enterprise,’ Trump boomed, after Wallace cornered Clinton on the pay-for-play claims.
‘There is no evidence,’ she objected. ‘And there is a lot of evidence of the good work.’
I Wake You Up for the Presidential Debate, by Scott Adams, creator of Dilbert.
I’m a trained hypnotist and a student of persuasion in all its forms. I’ve spent a lifetime trying to learn the tricks for discerning illusion from reality.
And I’m here to tell you that if you are afraid that Donald Trump is a racist/sexist clown with a dangerous temperament, you have been brainwashed by the best group of brainwashers in the business right now: Team Clinton. They have cognitive psychologists such as Godzilla advising them. Allegedly.
I remind you that intelligence is not a defense against persuasion. No matter how smart you are, good persuaders can still make you see a pink elephant in a room where there is none (figuratively speaking). And Clinton’s team of persuaders has caused half of the country to see Trump as a racist/sexist Hitler with a dangerous temperament. That’s a pink elephant. …
Trump represents what is likely to be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to bring real change to a government that is bloated and self-serving. …
If you are wondering why a socially liberal and well-educated cartoonist such as myself is not afraid of Trump, it’s because I don’t see the pink elephant. To me, all anti-Trumpers are experiencing a shared illusion. …
Trump as Hitler-in-America is an addition to reality that only some can see. It is a pink elephant. It is a classic hallucination.
State Department security really didn’t like working for Clinton, by Daniel Halperin.
State Department security personnel so disliked Hillary Clinton that many left the agency or asked to be reassigned, according to FBI documents released Monday.
“[Redacted] explained that CLINTON’s treatment of DS agents on her protective detail was so contemptuous that many of them sought reassignment or employment elsewhere,” the FBI documents state.
“Prior to CLINTON’s tenure, being an agent on the Secretary of State’s protective detail was seen as an honor and privilege reserved for senior agents. However, by the end of CLINTON’s tenure, it was staffed largely with new agents because it was difficult to find senior agents willing to work for her,” the interview summary states.
UPDATE: Hillary Clinton’s security detail laughed when she broke her elbow, by Jamie Schram.
Hillary Clinton’s security detail hated her so much that they privately snickered after she accidentally fell and broke her arm when she was secretary of state in 2009, one of her former guards told the Post.
Clinton, then 61, was in the State Department basement on her way to meet President Obama when she took a spill — and ended up in the hospital for an operation to repair her shattered right elbow.
“We sort of got the last laugh. It was kind of like payback: You’re treating us like s–t. Hey karma is a bitch! We were smiling to ourselves,” the agent told The Post on Wednesday.
But Clinton, who frequently behaved like a diva-in-chief, according to the agent, made it worse by pointing the finger at her detail for the mishap.
“She blamed us for breaking her elbow, saying it was our fault and we could have prevented that. She’s bad news,” the agent said.
The agent’s account backed up FBI documents released this week that showed Clinton’s protective detail despised her for treating them with contempt.
“When I first met her, we were given specific instructions: don’t look at her, don’t look at her general direction and if you need to talk to her, keep it short and stay out of her way,” the agent told The Post.
Madonna pledges oral sex for Clinton voters, by Judy Kurtz.
The pop queen, known for her shocking antics, made the remark Tuesday while opening for comedian Amy Schumer in New York.
“If you vote for Hillary Clinton,” Madonna told the crowd at Madison Square Garden, “I will give you a blow job.”
“And I’m good,” the 58-year-old “Like a Virgin” singer, an outspoken supporter of the Democratic presidential nominee, said to cheers from the audience.
“I’m not a tool. I take my time,” Madonna boasted.
Trump is so uncouth and lewd; he must be stopped.
On “Accepting Election Results”. In the third debate Trump refused to commit to “accepting the result of the election” should he lose. The media are spinning this as upending democracy, but are forgetting one little thing (by John Hinderaker)
But wait! Who was the last candidate who refused to accept the result on election day, as certified by election authorities? Al Gore. Did Gore “upend a basic pillar of American democracy” when he tried to overturn the result of the 2000 election? I don’t remember the Associated Press saying so at the time. In fact, I would bet that the authors of this piece of AP hysteria were rooting for Gore, at the time. Unbelievable.
Gore conceded after the election, then unconceded. Nothing enforceable.
Trump said he will wait and see what happens on election day, because of his concern about voter fraud: “I’ll keep them in suspense.” He has put the establishment on notice: any hint of voter fraud, and there might be problems.
The liberal billionaire funder, who has been tied to a globalist elite pushing the Muslim migrant crisis and multiculturalism onto Western societies, comes up a lot in private discussions between top Hillary Clinton campaign officials.
A search by American Lookout showed Soros has been mentioned at least 56 times throughout the 11 batches of emails put out by Wikileaks which show collusion between elites, the mainstream media and the Hillary campaign.
Likewise, Soros was directly mentioned in multiple subject headlines on emails, often times requesting a meeting with top Clinton official, John Podesta.
Reporters at Vegas Debate Caught Cheering for Hillary, Jesse Watters:
Watching debate in enormous room of media in Vegas. Press laughs and cheers for Hillary and groans and gasps when Trump speaks.
Trump Is Right About Press Rigging Election. But… by John Hinderaker.
[T]he most important “rigging” of the election by the press happened during the Republican campaign season, when reporters and editors helped to make Trump the GOP nominee. …
[T]he liberal press built Donald Trump into the prime Republican contender, and eventual nominee. But note what the press did not do: it did not release any of the anti-Trump bombshells that seem to have clinched the election for Mrs. Clinton. NBC has had the infamous Access Hollywood tape for eleven years, but it came to light only in the last days of the campaign, when it could do the most to assure a Clinton victory.
Why didn’t NBC leak the tape to the Washington Post during the primary season? In all likelihood, the answer is that the network didn’t want to damage Trump until it was too late for Republican voters to select a stronger candidate.
Despite a calamitous week of campaigning, betting markets on the US election are almost a mirror image of those on Britain’s EU referendum at this stage. And they could be pointing to a victory for Donald Trump.
Bookmaker William Hill says 71 per cent of the money so far staked is for Democrat Hillary Clinton. But 65 per cent of the bets by number are for the controversial Republican.
That means a lot more punters are putting smaller bets on Trump, almost exactly the same pattern as was seen in the run up to the Brexit vote when the money was for Remain but the majority of bets were for Leave.
The bookie has cut the odds on a Trump victory from 11-2 to 4-1 over the past two days in response to a surge in bets for the reality TV star and businessman turned politician. …
William Hill’s spokesman and resident betting expert Graham Sharpe, an industry veteran of 44 years standing, said: “It’s very, very similar to the Brexit vote. There is a metropolitan media bias that says Trump can’t win, but they can’t vote. In betting terms, this is not a done deal. I see parallels with the Brexit vote at this stage.”
The Coming Revolution: the thoughts of Angelo Codevilla, by Kevin MacDonald.
We are nearing the climax of a watershed election. The Ruling Class understands that Donald Trump represents a counter-revolution to all they have built up over the last 50 years. …
Codevilla’s basic idea: the cultural revolution of the last 50 years has destroyed America as a constitutional republic. As many on the Alt Right have noted, there is nothing left to conserve. The question now is where our post-republic period will take us.
Because Republicans largely agree with Democrats that they need not take seriously the founders’ Constitution, today’s American regime is now what Max Weber had called the Tsarist regime on the eve of the Revolution: “fake constitutionalism.” Because such fakery is self-discrediting and removes anyone’s obligation to restrain his passions, it is a harbinger of revolution and of imperial power.
This is why we see repeated crazy comparisons of Trump to Hitler … Despite absolutely no statements from Trump suggesting that he would suspend the Constitution and assume dictatorial powers, the concern is lurking that, like Hitler, he would do just that.
The fundamental reason for this fear among the elites: their guilty conscience. They understand that in the last 50 years they have completely upended the old order in America. They have created a revolution that opposes the most fundamental interests of the historic white American nation. They understand that this election could confirm their revolution — but only if Hillary Clinton wins.
Her victory would mean continued Leftist appointments to the Supreme Court … and it would mean importing around many millions more non-whites, the great majority uneducated, poor, and dependent and the vast majority of whom will be entirely on board with their revolution.
The last 50 years saw an illegitimate elite usurp power from the majority. It is now intolerable.
The top-down nature of this revolution cannot be overemphasized. There was never a demand by a majority, or even close to a majority, from any Western country for a complete transformation, to the point that white people will soon be minorities in societies they had dominated for hundreds and, in the case of Europe, thousands of years. This top-down revolution has never been supported by a majority of white Americans. There is anger, resentment, and fear for the future.
As Codevilla notes, because we have entered an era of fake constitutionalism and because the most fundamental interests of the traditional American majority have been ruthlessly suppressed, there is no obligation to restrain one’s passions. …
The new Ruling Class realizes that it rules by lawless bureaucratic coercion. …
While the traditional America aspired to be and substantially attained a society based on individual merit, the new elite is not a meritocracy, and not just in terms of Affirmative Action and ethnic favoritism in university admissions. The Clintons may be seen as representative of the corruption of this new ruling elite, able to flout laws with impunity.
Will either side of this election accept defeat? Trump can claim with some merit that the election was rigged, though proving it was rigged to the degree required to lose would be impossible. Clinton may claim that the Russians hacked a Trump victory, also virtually impossible to prove or disprove. The scene is set.
[D]espite appearances to the contrary, there is a unified oligarchic Establishment that straddles both the Republican and Democrat parties. This has not been so obvious in previous elections, when Republicans and Democrats were apparently quite different on some issues. However, the rise of Donald Trump has shown that the Establishment is entirely united. For example, billionaires are supporting Hillary Clinton 20–1, whereas in previous elections, they were much more split between the two parties. Not one Fortune 100 CEO is supporting Trump.
The other pillar of the Ruling Class is the media which reflects academic culture and political culture generally. The media, along with academia, and the bureaucracy, have been prime drivers of this top-down revolution, in which the moral and intellectual high ground has been seized by people hostile to the traditional peoples and cultures of the West. This new Ruling Class is completely out of touch with the interests of a majority of its citizens—particularly White Americans. Thus the print media is almost completely in the anti-Trump camp. …
The MSM environment has been closed off to the message that whites have interests, just like everybody else; that identifying as a white person who wants to advance these interests is normal and natural; that race is real; that there are real racial differences in traits important for success in a modern society and that there is no magic wand to change these traits; and finally and most importantly, that immigration and multiculturalism carry huge costs to the historic American nation in terms of social cohesion, social conflict, trust, and willingness to contribute to public goods, like healthcare, welfare, and public infrastructure.
Truth itself is under assault from the new rulers. Codevilla:
Under our ruling class, “truth” has morphed from the reflection of objective reality to whatever has “normative pull” — i.e., to what furthers the ruling class’s agenda, whatever that might be at any given time. That is the meaning of the term “political correctness,” as opposed to factual correctness.”
There is no going back. We are stepping over a threshold. Codevilla:
We have stepped over the threshold of a revolution. It is difficult to imagine how we might step back, and futile to speculate where it will end. Our ruling class’s malfeasance, combined with insult, brought it about. Donald Trump did not cause it and is by no means its ultimate manifestation. Regardless of who wins in 2016, this revolution’s sentiments will grow in volume and intensity, and are sure to empower politicians likely to make Americans nostalgic for Donald Trump’s moderation.
Tech billionaire Peter Thiel is facing backlash over his decision to donate $1.25 million to Donald Trump.
Thiel announced he was forking over the hefty sum to the Republican candidate last week, which almost immediately led to people calling for a boycott of PayPal – which he co-founded.
Other powerful figures within Silicon Valley also took a stand against Thiel’s decision, with Ellen Pao cutting ties with Y Combinator – an organization where the billionaire is a ‘part-time partner’. Pao, who has been a strong advocate for diversity in the tech industry and was an executive with Reddit, said her group, Project Include, would no longer be associated with the start-up accelerator.
The politically correct are now so powerful and unscrupulous as to threaten the income of anyone who disagrees with them. Ellen Pao justified her action thus:
‘But we are completely outraged to read about Thiel donating $1.25 million to Trump … While all of us believe in the ideas of free speech and open platforms, we draw a line here. We agree that people shouldn’t be fired for their political views, but this isn’t a disagreement on tax policy, this is advocating hatred and violence.
So they agree with free speech, except anything defined as “hate speech.” Convenient, eh? Who gets to define hate speech?
It is hard to think of an innocent reason why Democrats spend so much time, energy and money, scarce resources all, resisting attempts to purge the voter rolls, that is to remove people who are dead or otherwise have left the jurisdiction.
It’s hard to think of an innocent reason why they fight so tremendously against Voter I.D. laws. They say, well that burdens the exercise of a fundamental right. The Supreme Court has said that travel is a fundamental right and no one thinks that showing an I.D. at the airport burdens that fundamental right.
Then their is government involvement in politics by the tax authorities:
The 2010, ’12 and ’14 elections were rigged by the most intrusive and potentially punitive institution of the federal government, the IRS. … This is not a surmise. I have talked to lawyers in a position to know they say it’s still going on. The IRS is still intolerantly delaying the granting of tax exempt to conservative advocacy groups to skew the persuasion of this campaign.
Do non-citizens vote in U.S. elections? Yes, and they make a difference, according to an academic paper by Jesse Richman et al.
In spite of substantial public controversy, very little reliable data exists concerning the frequency with which non-citizen immigrants participate in United States elections. Although such participation is a violation of election laws in most parts of the United States, enforcement depends principally on disclosure of citizenship status at the time of voter registration. This study examines participation rates by non-citizens using a nationally representative sample that includes non-citizen immigrants.
We find that some non-citizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and Congressional elections. Non-citizen votes likely gave Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress. …
Our exploration of non-citizen voting in the 2008 presidential election found that most non-citizens did not register or vote in 2008, but some did. The proportion of noncitizens who voted was less than fifteen percent, but significantly greater than zero. Similarly in 2010 we found that more than three percent of non-citizens reported voting.
Our results also suggest that photo-identification requirements are unlikely to be effective at preventing electoral participation by non-citizen immigrants: In 2008, more than two thirds of non-citizen immigrants who indicated that they were asked to show photoidentification reported that they went on to cast a vote. A potential response to the inefficacy of photo-id at preventing non-citizen voting is found in laws recently passed by Kansas and Arizona that require voter registrants to prove citizenship.
In a tour de force of reproductive biology, scientists in Japan have transformed mouse skin cells into eggs in a dish, and used those eggs to birth fertile pups. The report marks the first creation of eggs entirely outside a mouse. If the process could be made to work for humans, researchers could produce artificial eggs without needing to implant immature cells into ovaries to complete their development.