General

GOP Pledge: No More Talking About Trump

/3 Comments/in /by
GOP Pledge: No More Talking About Trump

The media are so desperate for Republicans to nominate Donald Trump that they’ve turned over 96.7% of their programming to covering him, with brief interruptions for Emmett Till updates. Like dogs playing a game of fetch for eternity, they never tire of rehashing Trump’s legal troubles, his behavior on Jan. 6 (which has now been more investigated than the Kennedy assassination), his payment to a stripper, his call to election officials in Georgia and on and on and on.

It has become clear that the media also plan to make the GOP presidential primaries entirely about Trump. Every Republican running for president is required to spend half of any interview answering questions about the former president. Even when they’re not saying anything at all about him, somehow the media make it about Trump.

E.g.:

Ron DeSantis gives a speech in South Carolina not mentioning Trump.

Headline: “Ron DeSantis says little about Trump indictment; decries unequal justice and ‘weaponization‘” — USA Today

Mike Pence announces he’s running for president.

Nikki Haley attacks Trump.

Headline: “Nikki Haley accused of ‘MAGA agenda’ after supporting abortion restrictions in town hall” — The Guardian

Candidates who aren’t talking about Trump are attacked for “enabling” him. MSNBC’s totally objective, nonpartisan anchor (and former Biden press secretary) Jen Psaki denounced Republicans on Monday, complaining that, unless they’re constantly berating him, “they are effectively enabling a guy who led an attempted coup. And for what? To maybe win a handful of delegates?”

Republicans, forget the pledge to support the party’s nominee. It’s pointless, irrelevant, stupid and openly defied, as it was in 2016 by Jeb! and John Kasich. The pledge we need candidates to take is this: We jointly refuse to answer any more questions about Trump. All of you, except Chris Christie.

Do you really think the media are trying to help you with this endless focus on Trump? They’re putting Republicans in a no-win situation: Either the candidates are forced to take an utterly indefensible position by defending Trump, or they’re required to write off the votes of all Trump supporters.

Democrats will never be asked to criticize any part of their coalition — and they’ve got a much crazier base than Republicans do. Why are Republicans held responsible for every nut on the right, while Democrats are allowed to skate on the core beliefs of their base?

Here are some questions Democratic candidates ought to be asked but never will be.

— Do White lives matter? Why did Democratic presidential candidate Martin O’Malley have to apologize for saying “All lives matter” in 2016?

— What percentage of White people do you believe are racist? Should teachers and college professors who indoctrinate students to believe that all Whites are guilty of “systemic racism” keep their jobs?

— Did Joe Biden really believe that “Empire” actor Jussie Smollett was nearly lynched by White guys shouting, “This is MAGA country!” in the most affluent part of Chicago during a polar vortex? Did Kamala Harris believe it? Nancy Pelosi? Cory Booker? They said they did. Do you think such psychotic paranoia is, as liberals like to say, “normal”?

— If one unionized teacher could stay home while still being paid, but 10 children would die, which would you choose? The American Federation of Teachers, a major Democratic donor, relentlessly fought to keep schools closed throughout the pandemic. A Reuters study later found that the school closures led to a 43% rise in drug-related 911 calls for people aged 20 and younger.

— Should the police be defunded? If not, will you denounce left-wing “philanthropist” George Soros? A major source of dark money for Democratic causes, this sinister figure gave $35 million to anti-police activists in 2021. Last year, as the murder rate continued to soar, he pledged to give more.

— How about ICE? Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez campaigned on abolishing ICE. Other Democrats who support abolishing ICE include Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Kirsten Gillibrand. House Democrats have actually introduced legislation to abolish ICE.

— What is a woman? Do you think Biden’s Supreme Court pick, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, was lying when she claimed under oath not to know the answer to that question, or is she stupid?

— Should men be allowed in girls’ bathrooms, locker rooms and prisons? Should they compete in women’s sports? Should children be allowed to poison and mutilate themselves under the belief that they can change genders? Are Republican governors who ban these practices guilty of “hate” — as claimed by almost all Democrats? Do you agree with Biden that such measures are “ugly” attacks from “hysterical” and “prejudiced” people?

— If Blacks, Hispanics, Whites and Asians are not disciplined, arrested and imprisoned at their exact proportions in the population, is that proof of racism?

— Is it OK to be White? If so, will you call on liberal “hate watch” groups and college administrators across the nation to stop treating that phrase as “hate speech”?

— Should Al Sharpton be required to pay income taxes? This Democratic kingmaker has been a guest of President Biden’s at the White House at least twice, the Obama White House more than 72 times and has his ring kissed by any Democrat running for president.

The last time The New York Times investigated, about 10 years ago, Sharpton owed more than $4 million in income taxes.

While we’re on the subject, he’s also responsible for the Tawana Brawley hate hoax in 1987, and in the 1990s he helped gin up angry mobs in Crown Heights and at Freddy’s Fashion Mart in Harlem, which resulted in eight deaths.

True, that was a long time ago. Do you think if DeSantis had met with David Duke a really long time ago, the media would say, “no biggie”?

Democrats have won three national elections in a row by making them all about Trump. Unless the GOP is intent on committing suicide, their No. 1 objective has got to be preventing this from happening again. Every Republican candidate for president (except Chris Christie) has got to take this pledge. I promise not to answer any more questions about Trump. 

     COPYRIGHT 2023 ANN COULTER

Tom Sunic interviews Richard Lynn on Race and IQ

/6 Comments/in /by

Casting an Irishman as Oppenheimer

/4 Comments/in /by

Surprising to see this bit of Jewish paranoia in Newsweek. The usual line is that it’s just a religion or culture open to everyone. However, it’s quite possible that more and more Jews will insist on an ethnic identity and Middle East ancestry rather than being grouped in with the hated White people.

And don’t get me started on what Hollywood does with roles depicting real-life Jewish villains. Ask Edmund Connelly.

When it comes to casting, should it matter that Oppenheimer was a non-observant Jew, a Jew who essentially denounced his Jewish identity? It should not. Judaism is an ethnoreligion. We are a religion, we are a people, we are an ethnicity. Jews originated in the Levant. There are varying degrees of religious observance. But when it comes to one’s ethnic identity, there is no litmus test for how Jewish one is. …

If Hollywood continues its robust commitment to diversity—and it absolutely should—then it needs to acknowledge Jewish people are an ethnicity. We are a people, we are a nationality, with a lineage that can be traced back to a very specific geographic location in the world. And, as is the case with every other ethnic minority portrayed in TV and film, Jews deserve real, nuanced, accurate representation. Otherwise, Hollywood’s myriad endeavors in the diversity equity and inclusion space is a mere exercise in hypocrisy.

Meloni’s failure

/3 Comments/in /by

From Google translate:

Italy’s right-wing government cannot limit mass immigration

Even with some tightening of the law, Italy’s right-wing government under Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has not succeeded in reducing the influx of illegal migrants. Instead, she obviously stabs her voters in the back. Not only is the number of illegal migrants increasing: she also works with Brussels.

Already during the election campaign in Italy, Giorgia Meloni became the focus of attentive observers, who pointed out her membership in the globalist “Aspen Institute” (supported by the Rockefellers and Gates, as well as the WEF ) . A Trojan horse, so to speak – or a “submarine” of the globalists, so some suspected. And as is usual in politics, politicians and parties should not be judged by their promises but by their actions. The actions and the facts in Italy speak for themselves, as a recent report makes clear.

For despite the harsh attitude towards illegal migration to Italy and the invaders from predominantly Muslim immigrants, reality does not live up to expectations . The voters, who wanted stricter restrictions on migration movements to Italy, will be mercilessly disappointed. This is shown by current figures from the southern European country. Indeed, from January 1st to July 17th, the Italian Interior Ministry registered a total of 78,182 arrivals compared to 33,187 in the same period last year. These were predominantly economic migrants, as shown by the most common countries of origin, which in descending order were Ivory Coast, Guinea, Egypt, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Tunisia, Burkina Faso, Syria, Cameroon, Mali and others.

Italiens Rechtsregierung kann die Massenzuwanderung nicht begrenzen

Trump’s Endorsement Got DeSantis Nothing

/1 Comment/in /by

Trump’s Endorsement Got DeSantis Nothing

Donald Trump is indignant that Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis would dare run for president when he KNOWS Trump is running. According to the former president and big baby, this is a betrayal of epic proportions because Trump endorsed DeSantis during his first gubernatorial run. (Whereas winning the presidency by promising to build a wall, and then reneging, is a trifle, hardly worth mentioning.)

      DeSantis, he says, would be “working at a Pizza Hut” if not for Trump’s endorsement. [Counter-argument: DeSantis is a graduate of both Harvard and Yale, and didn’t pay someone to take his SATs for him, as Trump did.]

But since Trump won’t shut up about his splendiferous endorsement of DeSantis, let’s see how valuable it really was.

Answer: It was utterly irrelevant.

Trump endorsed DeSantis on Dec. 22, 2017, shortly before he officially announced his candidacy, tweeting, “Congressman Ron DeSantis is a brilliant young leader, Yale and then Harvard Law, who would make a GREAT Governor of Florida. He loves our Country and is a true FIGHTER!”

The response was Earth-shattering!!! Actually, it had absolutely no effect. Not the slightest little bump in the polls. Weeks later — thanks to Trump’s back-breaking work typing out a tweet — DeSantis’ primary opponent, Florida Commissioner of Agriculture Adam Putnam, led DeSantis 23% to 18%, according to a Florida Chamber of Commerce poll.

Although DeSantis wasn’t shy about touting Trump’s endorsement, by early June 2018, Putnam had a double-digit lead over him. A Fox News poll, for example, showed Putnam ahead 32% to 17%, and an NBC poll had Putnam leading DeSantis 38% to 21%. Not only that, but Putnam had outraised DeSantis $30 million to $10.8 million.

That’s the old Trump magic!

It wasn’t until the first primary debate at the end of June 2018 that DeSantis soared in the polls and never went back down. As Floridapolitics.com reported, numerous surveys showed “a dramatic leap to the top for DeSantis since the two [primary candidates] squared off in the nationally televised debate in Orlando on June 28.”

It’s not that DeSantis is an amazing debater — he’s not — but two months before the election, voters started paying attention.

By the time of the second and final debate on Aug. 8, 2018, DeSantis was leading Putnam by 20 points, and went on to win the primary 57% to 37%. Trump had nothing to do with it: DeSantis was underwater from Trump’s December 2017 endorsement right up until the voters got a look at DeSantis for themselves.

True, Trump reminded voters of his DeSantis endorsement just before that first debate, and there were no polls between Trump’s re-endorsement and the debate a week later, so maybe the second time’s the charm!

Were Florida voters especially enamored of Trump in June 2018? Hardly. A Marist/NBC poll, taken between June 17 and June 22, had Trump down 20 points on the “deserves to be reelected” question.

Indeed, Trump’s endorsements only seem to “work” by random chance — or when his aides tell him who’s going to win, and then, at the last minute, he endorses that guy. (See J.D. Vance.)

Remember Alabama? Even in the Trumpiest of Trump states, his endorsed candidates in 2017 lost in both the primary and the general election. This was during Trump’s first year as president, when he was at the height of his powers — before we knew he was going to betray us. (Some of us had an inkling.) Trump’s endorsements did the impossible, producing a Democratic senator from a deep red state.

His endorsement of Herschel Walker in 2022 cost Republicans a Senate seat in Georgia. His endorsement of Doug Mastriano (for claiming the 2020 election was stolen) cost Republicans the entire state of Pennsylvania. Also: Kari Lake in Arizona, Tudor Dixon in Michigan, Don Bolduc in New Hampshire and so on.

How about the race that obsessed Trump more than any other? Far more than a couple of tweets, Trump waged a jihad against Georgia’s Republican Gov. Brian Kemp in 2022, practically turning himself into David Perdue’s campaign manager.

He even used half a million dollars from his PAC to defeat Kemp — marking the first time Trump spent his donors’ money on something other than his own properties and family members.

Result: Kemp slaughtered Perdue in the primary, 74% to 22%, and then increased his margin of victory in the general election from four years earlier.

And never forget that in the weeks before DeSantis’ reelection in 2022, Trump repeatedly attacked him at rallies, calling him the oh-so-witty “Ron DeSanctimonious.” The day before the election, Trump hinted at an imaginary DeSantis scandal, telling The Wall Street Journal, “I will tell you things about him that won’t be very flattering. I know more about him than anybody other than perhaps his wife, who is really running his campaign.”

As we all now know, DeSantis went on to win reelection by 20 points, the largest margin in 40 years, in an otherwise rotten year for Republicans (thanks to Trump).

Moral of the story: A Trump endorsement is electoral poison.

Aside from the insanely narcissistic rank stupidity of Trump thinking he has the right to demand that no other Republican run against him, DeSantis owes him absolutely nothing. Next year, when the “justice-involved” former president is angling for a presidential pardon and decides to endorse DeSantis, the governor should refuse it. That will bring the country together.

     COPYRIGHT 2023 ANN COULTER

The Parasites’ Paradox

/12 Comments/in , /by

In this vale of tears, there is an almost Newtonian nature to life and events not only in their physical aspects but in their moral ones as well: that is, any action by individuals or groups that pushes their society down a particular path in any direction—whether one leading to freedom, stability, wealth, thrift, and power, or tyranny, chaos, poverty, and degeneracy—tends to contain within it reactive elements that make future pushes in the opposite direction easier in some way.

For example, take the interrelated elements of intelligence, thrift, wealth, and power. And furthermore, take the example of Victorian England. As Edward Dutton has argued, from at least the early modern period into the late nineteenth century, average intelligence was increasing and that, combined with the generally English and particularly Victorian ideals of thrift, honor, hard work, etc., made the English elites masters of technology and wealth such as the world had never seen and allowed them to project their power to all corners of the globe.  But the path beyond that was by no means a straight line in the same direction, and as H. G. Wells showed in The Time Machine, it could easily take the elites that travelled it in an opposite or at least ironic direction.  As Wells showed in rather extreme fashion, the wealth and power that intelligence and thrift built bred led to complacency, decadence, and (through dysgenic laziness and sensualism) stupidity, to the point that by the end (at least in terms of the story) the brilliant elites who once conquered the world ultimately ended up as frivolous dunces, preyed upon by the descendants of their workers.

And quite some time after the Victorian age, a very similar dynamic is playing out in the US in particular and in the West in general, thanks in large part to another peculiar trait that makes nations within the Occident powerful and weak: individualism and high trust individualism.

As Dr. Kevin MacDonald showed in Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition: Evolutionary Origins, History, and Prospects for the Future, white Europeans, especially northern Europeans, lack tribalism and nepotism due to their evolution in a climate too harshly cold and in an area without a major resource (such as a fertile river basin) that was controllable on a year-around basis by an extended kinship group. They instead developed a high-trust society based on oaths and honor and reputation rather than unquestioned bonds of blood. That in turn led to an extremely flexible social structure in which talent could rise and individuals were freer to pursue scientific truth for its own sake.

But every strength is usually linked to a weakness of some sort, so this high-trust individualism becomes a liability to the nations it helped raise when those nations come under assault by a parasitic elite determined to destroy them or at least enrich themselves at the expense of all others.

The standard composition of this elite appears to be led in almost every case by a mix of international, globalist bankers and financiers—with a large representation of Ashkenazi Jews (high enough to punish people and institutions with views they don’t like), with some non-Jewish Whites and non-Whites, and including a political  class of Whites (with an ever-increasing percentage of non-Whites), often with ties to elite financial corporations: France’s Emmanual Macron is a former Rothschild employee; England’s Rishi Sunak had been a prominent Goldman Sachs employee; and in the US both parties swear fealty to Israel and to George Soros or his GOP counterparts.

As the elites of the European Middle Ages (a far better crowd than our own, in my opinion) gained their wealth and power through control of the land, the court systems, and the military, so our elites ensure their wealth and domination through control of central banking and opinion-making institutions (the media, academia), the buying or rigging of elections (think especially Soros’ criminal-coddling DAs), and the vicious and deadly, if in many ways inefficient, killing machine that is the military-industrial complex—though few of those involved ever get near a battlefield and none is killed on it (I told you the medieval ones were better).

While all this is a sweet deal to our elites who are increasingly disconnected from the people they rule, the corruption and inefficiency they produce amount to a raw deal for everyone else, especially Whites. But it’s a deal that threatens to awaken their wrath against the parasites who then face the paradox: unless they find within themselves the restraint to parasitize their host society only to a non-lethal degree (as almost no parasite can), their activities will soon degrade the wealth, social capital, and order built up prior to the parasitism, which had kept the host population content and fairly indifferent to the parasitism in its early stages. If, on the other hand, they continue to increase their parasitic machinations, their only chance of doing so lies in increasing their power by complete authoritarian control guaranteed to increasingly enrage the host population against them and thereby render the retribution against them all the more ferocious when it comes.

The particular means of maintaining repressive control can vary through time and geography, and in our time and in the West, it has taken the form of ever-increasing censorship, accelerating demographic replacement, and an increasingly incestuous relationship between big business and big government: in other words, muzzle, fire, or outright replace those who object to what’s being done to them and their nation. The last tactic is by far the deadliest, as it ultimately prevents the cohesion that would allow heritage Americans to throw off the parasites’ yoke and take back their nation—and the same goes for the nations of Europe. Ultimately, even with miscegenation and replacement, the parasites cannot escape their own paradox, as even very disparate people do not need perfect union to rebel against and destroy their masters; but it does guarantee that what will emerge from the rubble will be a polyglot patchwork of feuding tribes and regions rather than a nation in the true sense that has regained its freedom. The dissident’s challenge, then, is a race against time to take back or salvage part of his true nation, using the parasites’ paradox against them.

His first task in that is to take measure of the nature and composition of the TWASH (those whom the American system hurts): while most people who aren’t benefitting from our elites’ crooked endeavors are hurt by it to some extent, there are those who are especially, massively affected by it, with the owners of small businesses destroyed by the lock-downs and Whites stuck in the increasingly dark and always dysfunctional public school systems coming readily to mind; these are the people so blatantly punched in the face by the current order that the current platitudes and social taboos on race and gender, etc., are nothing but outrages to them. One of the things making it difficult for dissidents to correctly see and act on the parasites’ paradox is the love those dissidents feel toward their particular group and their desire to appeal to that group as a whole, be it Whites in general, Southerners, etc.— asking them to focus on subgroups makes them feel vaguely disloyal or dishonest. The problem with this ‘everyone in the group’ focus is that only a limited percentage of each group is TWASH (and some TWASH is outside of the group) and the rest still have a comfortable enough existence, at least materially, that the elites can usually threaten them by holding over their heads the prospects of getting them fired, making them unemployable, etc. They make an example of small numbers of them to keep the rest in line.

Thus it is critical to begin with the TWASH, giving unique focus and appeal to each subgroup of them and uniting them to leverage their power to influence, one after the other, the critical groups above them. For immediately above the TWASH lies a larger group of those who still have their jobs and reputations but are hurt enough by the parasitism (in the form of inflation, insults against them with antiwhite propaganda, etc.) that they’d be glad to oppose the regime—nonviolently, I mean, as with everything I say here—if only the effort were not futile. Above them lies an even larger group that would oppose the regime if opposition is either easy or likely to be successful. Together these three groups constitute a critical mass capable of imparting to our ideas legitimacy and respectability in the eyes of the gray men of the world: that is, those who hold no strong beliefs but will swing one way or another based on what everyone else, or at least the respectable majority of them, seems to favor. And once you get the gray men—who at this late stage of the infection are feeling pain from the parasites’ activities as well—on the side of your ideas and plans, you have the means to overwhelm those who yet support the regime either for profit or ideology, allowing you to expel the parasites from the halls of power and take back your old nation or create a new one for your people within your part of the ruins of America’s former imperium.

Hunter’s ‘Love Child’ and Conservative Madness

/2 Comments/in /by

Hunter’s ‘Love Child’ and Conservative Madness     

Right-wingers (and The New York Times’ Maureen Dowd) are browbeating President Biden for not embracing his son Hunter’s illegitimate child — the result of drug-crazed, unprotected sex with a stripper.

Conservatives are so enjoying bashing the president that they’re taking a strikingly unconservative position. We don’t believe in polyamorous three-person “families” or “Heather Has Two Mommies” or “Junior, meet your half-brother from Daddy’s unprotected sex outside of marriage!”

We’re the ones who believe that marriage means something. (Thus, our opposition to gay marriage.) Ideally, a man wouldn’t have any “parental rights” to a kid he fathered unless he’s married to the mother, and she wouldn’t get access to the sperm-donor’s bank account unless she’s married to him.

But the law has come a long way from such straightforward rules, so, yeah, Hunter is going to have to pay up — and I hope he has to pay through the nose, pay so much that it hurts. But the idea that a crack-fueled roll in the hay entitles the mother to be treated like an honored member of the family is absurd.

What are conservatives and Dowd imagining exactly? That the stripper — accompanying the 4-year-old child — should be invited to Biden family dinners, weddings and vacations? How will this be explained to the other grandchildren? Uncle Hunter smoked crack cocaine then ejaculated inside a woman who takes her clothes off for a living. Be polite and ask her how she enjoys her work!

Just because Hunter is a total degenerate doesn’t mean society should allow unfit mothers to use their capture of his sperm as a winning lottery ticket, entitling her entrée into someone else’s family.

The stripper is getting 18 years of child support payments and the Biden genes — which I’m sure never even occurred to her when she was having unprotected sex with the son of a former vice president. She could just as easily have forgotten her diaphragm with the guy selling tube socks on the street.

The Kardashians are a bad enough influence. How will a stripper’s “love child” showing up on the White House Christmas card affect other girls looking to upgrade with an “unwanted pregnancy”? Punish Hunter with massive child support payments, not by turning the mother and her child into heroes.

Under English common law, going back to 1235, any child born outside of wedlock had no rights at all, was unable to inherit, and was “looked upon as the son of nobody,” as Sir William Blackstone put it. (If that were still the law, I bet the stripper would have remembered her diaphragm.)

It doesn’t matter that “it’s not the kid’s fault.” Of course it isn’t. This is like the anchor baby argument. We’re supposed to ignore our borders because IT’S NOT THE CHILD’S FAULT! And now we’re supposed to ignore the purpose of marriage because IT’S NOT THE CHILD’S FAULT! We don’t take a sledgehammer to the basic building blocks of civilization to avoid somebody, somewhere, having hurt feelings.

Sorry, but we can’t legislate that all children be born to good parents. We can, however, legislate that marriage, and marriage alone, carries legal consequences unavailable to the unmarried. That’s a pretty good incentive for would-be parents to spare future generations the heartbreak of being born out of wedlock. Rushing to salve the hurt feelings of today’s illegitimate children merely ensures that we’ll have a lot more illegitimate children tomorrow.

It was (of course) the Warren court that cast aside the collective wisdom of 48 states and hundreds of years of common law to nuke the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate kids. Using infantile logic, Justice William O. Douglas (author of Griswold v. Connecticut) announced in Levy v. Louisiana (1968) that illegitimate children ARE NOT NON-PERSONS! Therefore, state laws that required marriage for the creation of certain rights and duties violated the Equal Protection Clause.

Justice John Marshall Harlan II dissented, saying it was “preposterous to suggest that the State has made illegitimates into ‘nonpersons,’” pointing out that, a “man may recover for the death of his wife, whether he loved her or not, but may not recover for the death of his paramour.” That does not make the paramour a “non-person.”

That very year, Black people in Detroit released a hit song discouraging illegitimacy (“Love Child“), even as a cranky, four-times-married White man in Washington, D.C. (Douglas) opened the floodgates.

Since the court found it “unconstitutional” to distinguish between the children of married parents and unmarried parents, the illegitimacy rate in the U.S. soared from 24% for Blacks and 3.1% for Whites to 69.4% for Blacks, 28.2% for Whites and 39.6% overall. With that came an explosion in child poverty, criminality, educational deficits, teen pregnancies, behavioral problems and on and on and on.

Conservatives used to care about those things. But the fun of bashing Hunter seems to have overwhelmed their respect for marriage, as well as their understanding of incentives.

     COPYRIGHT 2023 ANN COULTER