Past and future identity politics

The SJW Narratives on race and society, as well as the Democrats’ Rainbow Coalition, are ultimately doomed to failure because they are all predicated on a nonexistent People of Color vs Whites scenario that does not, and has never, existed:

Decades before Brown v. Board of Education ― the landmark 1954 Supreme Court case that found “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal” ― a Chinese family from rural Mississippi brought its own legal challenge to Southern school segregation before the Supreme Court.

In 1924, grade school students Martha and Berda Lum were barred from attending their local, all-white school because of their status as people of color. The family sued the school in an unprecedented but little-known lawsuit that made its way to the nation’s highest court.

A new book, Water Tossing Boulders: How a Family of Chinese Immigrants Led the First Fight to Desegregate Schools in the Jim Crow South, documents the family’s struggle for educational equality.

Although the Lums sought to fight racism against Asian-Americans and provide their daughters with access to a quality education, their lawsuit was itself rooted in pronounced anti-black racism. The Lum family brought the challenge because they didn’t want society to see their daughters as being in the same category as black students, or force them to attend the same institutions as black children.

The girls’ mother, Katherine, “knew that such a classification would have instantly disenfranchised her family,” the book says. “For Katherine to send her children to the colored school would be to yield to the trustees, to agree with them that her daughters were not worthy of the privileges afforded to whites.”

However, there is also an important lesson for the more cuckish conservatives here. Neither the various Asian identity groups nor Jews are actually on the side of Whites. They may have more characteristics in common with Whites than other identity groups, but they also have their own identities and their own tribal interests, which contradict White interests every bit as dramatically as other identity groups, and as the Lum case demonstrates, they will never hesitate to cast aside White interests in pursuit of their own.

Ironically, the Alt-White’s fixation on Jews is not only somewhat misplaced, it actually understates the extent of the challenge facing Whites. The historical fact is that the Jews are not, and were never, unique in being an identity group capable of nepotistically exploiting a high-trust, high-altruism majority for their own benefit, they just happened to be the only group present in Western societies in sufficient numbers to do so. White Americans, and to a lesser extent, several European nations, as well as the Jews themselves, are currently in the process of discovering that various Asian identity groups, particularly the Han Chinese, are not only every bit as accomplished in this regard, but are considerably more numerous, and quite possibly more ruthless.

Various Asian groups are already driving out Jews from the elite universities originally created by and for whites, and the Chinese are now invading the Jewish power center of Hollywood in force. This is not an accident nor is it the usual corporate train wreck. The next step will be for Asians to begin replacing Jews in the media and in the Democratic Party elite; the Chinese-Hispanic political alliance is likely to be even more formidable than the historic Jewish-Black alliance.

This is why the Alt-Right is not going to fade away, but will gradually become more influential in the White Party, which is now the proper name for the Republican Party. The Alt-Right’s conceptual models, which are based on identity rather than ideology, not only describe past and current events much more accurately than the mainstream alternatives, but also provide much more accurate predictive models.

Even his hindsight isn’t 20/20

Nate Silver takes great pride in being less completely wrong than some of the other pollsters, in an article entitled “Why FiveThirtyEight Gave Trump A Better Chance Than Almost Anyone Else (Except the LA TIMES/USC and IBD/TIPP Tracking, Who, Unlike Us, Actually Got It Right). NB: I added the bit in parentheses. At no point does Silver mention any polling organization, or individual, who did correctly predict the election results.

Based on what most of us would have thought possible a year or two ago, the election of Donald Trump was one of the most shocking events in American political history. But it shouldn’t have been that much of a surprise based on the polls — at least if you were reading FiveThirtyEight. Given the historical accuracy of polling and where each candidate’s support was distributed, the polls showed a race that was both fairly close and highly uncertain.

This isn’t just a case of hindsight bias. It’s tricky to decide what tone to take in an article like this one — after all, we had Hillary Clinton favored. But one of the reasons to build a model — perhaps the most important reason — is to measure uncertainty and to account for risk. If polling were perfect, you wouldn’t need to do this. And we took weeks of abuse from people who thought we overrated Trump’s chances. For most of the presidential campaign, FiveThirtyEight’s forecast gave Trump much better odds than other polling-based models. Our final forecast, issued early Tuesday evening, had Trump with a 29 percent chance of winning the Electoral College.1 By comparison, other models tracked by The New York Times put Trump’s odds at: 15 percent, 8 percent, 2 percent and less than 1 percent. And betting markets put Trump’s chances at just 18 percent at midnight on Tuesday, when Dixville Notch, New Hampshire, cast its votes.

So why did our model — using basically the same data as everyone else — show such a different result? We’ve covered this question before, but it’s interesting to do so in light of the actual election results. We think the outcome — and particularly the fact that Trump won the Electoral College while losing the popular vote — validates important features of our approach.

Translation:

  1. I’m a Gamma and I can’t admit that I’m wrong without explaining how being wrong only proves that I was right to do what I did. 
  2. Almost anyone else means anyone not KellyAnne Conway, Scott Adams, Nassim Taleb, Mike Cernovich, Vox Day, LA Times, IBD, or TPP Tracking.
  3. A 29 percent chance of winning is practically a near certainty. I mean, sure, you might have interpreted that to mean that Hillary was probably going to win, but that just shows how you don’t understand polling as well as I do. The fact of the matter is that we were closer to getting it right than everyone else who didn’t get it right.
  4. And by “29 percent”, I of course mean 28.6 percent.
  5. And by “such a different result” what I mean is “exactly the same result as everyone else, except those other guys who actually got it right and whom I will carefully refrain from mentioning.”

We strongly disagree with the idea that there was a massive polling error. Instead, there was a modest polling error, well in line with historical polling errors, but even a modest error was enough to provide for plenty of paths to victory for Trump. We think people should have been better prepared for it. There was widespread complacency about Clinton’s chances in a way that wasn’t justified by a careful analysis of the data and the uncertainties surrounding it.

Translation:

  1. We strongly disagree with the idea that I could have been wrong. The Secret King is never wrong, by definition! You just don’t understand how the appearance of being wrong only shows that I was mostly right, and that just goes to show how much smarter I am than you. Still undefeated!
  2. Next time, don’t pay any attention to what I say before the election. Just wait until it is over, and then I’ll explain what I meant and how that proves I am right. Always.

Remember, at one point, Nate Silver and 538 gave Hillary Clinton an 87.3 percent chance of victory as recently as October 19. The good news for Trump, the Alt-Right, and even the Republicans is that these hapless morons are too proud to admit or learn from their mistakes, which means they are going to screw up just as badly, or perhaps even worse, in future elections.

#IOVOTONO

On December 4th, Italians have a beautiful chance to sink another knife into the bleeding, wriggling corpse-to-be of the European Union:

Italy referendum result could send shockwaves through markets and DESTROY Europe

THE EU’s days might be numbered with Italy about to vote on a referendum which could send shockwaves across the continent. Analysts believe the outcome of the ballot on constitutional reform could have massive global implications. With many European leaders already coming under severe pressure from anti-EU parties ahead of elections next year the significance of the Italian result is huge.

Defeat for Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi could lead to even deeper social turmoil in countries already struggling with austerity, immigration problems and a growing contempt for Brussels.

Ana Thaker, a market economist at PhillipCapital said the Italian result could be as “significant as Brexit”.
She said: “Britain’s decision to leave the European Union was the first sign of trouble in the European Union. If Italy decides to leave, it is confirmation that the union is in trouble and could spark a long-term market rout which European equities would suffer from the most.”

This is the next major political front against globalism. Show your support for Italy, for Matteo Salvini, and for the Lega Nord. The hashtag is #IOVOTONO

“The Alt-Right Hails its God-Emperor”

Like the rest of the mainstream media, Andrew Marantz of the New Yorker is trying to figure out what on Earth is going on in the aftermath of the God-Emperor’s ascension:

The alt-right is united less by ideology than by sensibility; a hallmark of that sensibility is a careful attunement to social norms, and a perverse delight in desecrating them. This is easy to do on the Internet, where anyone can say anything. Mike Cernovich, whom I profiled last month, became a prominent vessel of pro-Trump populism by saying unconscionable things on Twitter. “This election was a contest between P.C. culture and free-speech culture,” he told me the day after Trump’s victory. “Most people know what it’s like for some smug, élite asshole to tell them, ‘You can’t say that, it’s racist, it’s bad.’ Well, a vote for Trump meant, ‘Fuck you, you don’t get to tell me what to say.’ ” Cernovich, who grew up working-class in rural Illinois, visited his home town in February. He said, “My parents voted for Obama, but they told me, ‘If it’s Trump versus Hillary, we’ll go with him. He gets us. He talks like us.’ Since then, I never doubted that he’d be President.”

The morning after the election, an influential alt-right blogger who goes by Vox Day wrote, “Donald Trump has a lot to do . . . It is the Alt-Right’s job to move the Overton Window and give him conceptual room to work.” Day and his peers have been doing this job for months. They have flooded the Internet with offensive images and words—cartoon frogs emblazoned with swastikas, theories of racial hierarchy—and then ridiculed anyone who had the temerity to be offended. “Racism and sexism are a) human beliefs, and, b) as legitimately held as any other belief,” Day told me in a recent e-mail. No picture is shocking. No idea is bad. Who gets to define bad, anyway? “Remember that rhetoric is the art of emotional manipulation,” Day added. Last week, on his blog, Day wrote, “There is no more Republican vs. Democrat. It is now whites vs. non-whites and white quislings.”

It’s rather amusing to see a political reporter utilizing rhetoric – and less crudely and ineptly than the average journalist – in order to denounce the use of rhetoric in a political campaign. (It’s even funnier to see a presumably secular left-liberal affecting horror over postmodern relativist norms.) You’ll notice that because he didn’t get anything sufficiently strong enough to provoke the desired emotional reaction from his exchange of emails with me, he had to resort to digging up something from Twitter that would serve his rhetorical purpose.

That’s legitimate, of course. I’m certainly not complaining about it, and indeed, I only spoke to him because Mike and I both observed that he gave Mike a reasonably fair shake in the bio-piece he’d written about Mike. And what a fantastic title; it’s truly better than I would ever have imagined. But then, consider what he chose to use from what I gave him, and then think about how he chose to present it. It should be illuminating for those of you who have read SJWAL. As I did not ask for permission to quote his emails, you’ll have to make do with my end of the exchange.


EMAIL ONE

The Alt-Right has a not-insignificant element with #GamerGate experience. While there were more left-wingers in #GamerGate than right-wingers, we all learned how to rapidly blunt the effect of even mass media attacks by dozens of journalists operating in collusion. So, once we saw the mainstream media utilizing the same tactics to attempt to disqualify and discredit Donald Trump that we had seen used against us, we knew that our conceptual shock tactics would be effective against them too. I would say most of the memelords set to work after Super Tuesday, when it became apparent that Trump could win, not only the Republican primary, but the election.


I can’t speak for anyone else, but I would say that we knew people were responding positively to concepts previously ruled out of bounds by the mainstream media by March 2016.


I don’t think the election was about expression at all. I think it represented a significant portion of the white majority shifting from the ideology politics it has historically practiced to the identity politics that the various minorities have been practicing for decades. That’s why policies and ideologies, from abortion to expression to war with Russia, all proved largely irrelevant to both sides.


The next move is to defeat the counterproductive attempt by the cuckservatives and moderates to ease up on the rhetoric. But really, we don’t have to do anything, since the angry, riotous reaction by disappointed Hillary supporters will see to that.

EMAIL TWO

1. Chiefly, agreeing with and amplifying their accusations while demonstrating their collusion, ineffectiveness, and dishonesty.


2. When readers stopped responding emotionally to the accusations.


3. They rendered the various accusations toothless.


4. I doubt they’ll need to change much. What worked with the game journos worked even better with the mainstream media. The media seldom does anything beyond double down, again and again. We openly mock that. I mean, look at how they’re still all screaming RACIST SEXIST blah blah blah. It’s like the Robin Williams sketch. “Stop! Or I shall say ‘stop’ again!”


At this point, who doesn’t know that everyone at the NYT, the WaPo, and ABCNNBCBS believes Trump is an evil racist sexist Nazi badthinker? But if they change their tactics, we’ll adjust.


5. I’m not a memelord. While I’ve been known to meme from time to time, I’m not that dank. I would say “organic harmony” is a more accurate description than “open collaboration”. We don’t do organization or hierarchy. No one is in charge. If someone lands on something that works, or that everyone thinks is funny, others pick it up.

EMAIL THREE

Racism and sexism are a) human beliefs, and, b) as legitimately held as any other belief. Regardless of whether they are wrong or not, regardless of whether they are justified or not, it is no one else’s business what you happen to believe. Given that the definitions of both racism and sexism are in constant flux, that isn’t a question that can be meaningfully answered.


I believe racism is the belief in the intrinsic inferiority of other races. Perhaps your definition is more expansive, more relative, or more nebulous. Hence the difficulty in saying what “actual racism” or “actual sexism” looks like.


But regardless of how you or I would define the terms, no word, image, or meme can be racist or sexist in itself, because an inanimate symbol is not a belief, and furthermore, is an unreliable indicator of any individual’s actual belief, including the original creator’s.


For example, I am an American Indian, but I can certainly create a funny anti-Indian meme about redskins if it happens to suit my purpose. To insist that because X has created, let alone posted, meme Y, you can accurately ascertain X’s genuine beliefs, is to commit a basic category error. Remember that rhetoric is the art of emotional manipulation, and that nothing manipulates the emotions of the US left like racist themes.

What Marantz presented was a fair, but very limited snapshot of an intrinsically complicated subject. And he presented it in a rhetorical manner meant to emotionally manipulate the reader towards disapproval of Trump supporters, the Alt-Right, Chuck Johnson, Mike Cernovich, and me. That’s fine, that’s in line with his publication’s objectives and his responsibilities, and neither Mike nor I was unaware of it. He certainly appears to have remembered the second half of my last sentence, the half he did not quote.

Anyhow, I suspect it will be useful for some of you to see how the media process plays out when seen from the other side of the story.

How the God-Emperor ALREADY saved the world

I have spoken to several Europeans in the aftermath of the US presidential election, and they’ve all been very curious about what happened, and how it was possible for Donald Trump to win when everything they had heard from their medias indicated that he was a) very, very bad, and, b) certain to lose by a huge margin.

Of course, they were even more deluded than the US electorate, as the European media took the already misleading US narrative and exaggerated it, just as the US media does the same thing in reverse.

What is interesting is their reaction to finding out that Hillary Clinton supported NATO membership for both Ukraine and Georgia. It can be best described as “aghast”. Learning about Hillary’s foreign policy on Russia also suffices to convince them that Donald Trump was, in fact, the vastly preferable candidate. One man even said, “well, no wonder he won, given that he was clearly running against a madwoman.”

Unlike Americans, Europeans take the idea of war with Russia very, very seriously and understand it is something to be absolutely avoided at almost all costs. There are still millions of people who remember the brutal swath that the Red Army cut across Eastern Europe on its way to Berlin. They also understand that a considerable quantity of the natural gas that heats their homes comes from Russia, and that the first consequence of any military action will be for that pipeline to be shut off.

Very, very few Americans or Europeans understood just how serious the danger that Hillary Clinton posed to the world was. First, she supported NATO membership for Ukraine:

The former U.S Secretary of State is a far more vocal critic of Vladimir Putin than her party rival Bernie Sanders. She has argued that Ukraine deserves more military equipment and training and financial aid (the latter dependent on the government’s ability to carry out the necessary reforms). The U.S. Democrat’s frontrunner for the White House has also urged other E.U. states to be more committed to sanctions and has supported the strengthening of ties between NATO and Ukraine (unlike Bernie Sanders who sees NATO expansion as a provocation against Russia).

Second, she supported NATO membership for Georgia, who had already started and lost a brief war with Russia after being encouraged to join NATO in 2008.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Washington will continue assistance to Georgia in the field of security and defense and supports country’s NATO membership. The Secretary spoke at the opening of the U.S.-Georgia Strategic Partnership Commission plenary session in Batumi, Georgia. Georgia is strategic partner of U.S. as regards the issues of regional and world security. She stressed that increase in combat readiness of Georgia and matching it with NATO standards continues within the framework of agreement reached by both countries’ presidents, Gruziya Online reports.

Third, the woman who would likely have been Secretary of Defense under Hillary favored direct military intervention in Syria and called for spending $3 billion on military assistance for Ukraine.

The woman expected to run the Pentagon under Hillary Clinton said she would direct U.S. troops to push President Bashar al-Assad’s forces out of southern Syria and would send more American boots to fight the Islamic State in the region. Michele Flournoy, formerly the third-ranking civilian in the Pentagon under President Barack Obama, called for “limited military coercion” to help remove Assad from power in Syria, including a “no bombing” zone over parts of Syria held by U.S.-backed rebels. Flournoy, and several of her colleagues at the Center for New American Security, or CNAS, have been making the case for sending more American troops into combat against ISIS and the Assad regime than the Obama administration has been willing to commit.

Meanwhile, Russia has consistently warned, since 2008 when Ukraine submitted a Membership Action Plan and Georgia indicated its desire to do so, that it would respond to any such actions by invading and conquering both countries. This is just one of the many implicit warnings delivered.

Admission of Ukraine and Georgia to NATO will place Europe on the verge of a large-scale crisis, Russia’s Permanent Representative to NATO added. “One can’t imagine the situation when those countries [Ukraine and Georgia] keep cherishing the hope to join NATO and the alliance really plans to admit them, as this would explode the situation and put Europe on the brink of a crisis, whose size and scale can’t be imagined today,” Grushko said.

The warnings are not, as some foolish neocons insist, mere bluff. Russia has already invaded both countries for much smaller provocations than NATO membership. I strongly suspect that the troop movements that were taking place on both sides, which combined consisted of nearly one million troops, indicate that if Hillary Clinton had been elected President, Putin would have ordered the invasion and occupation of Ukraine before January.

I think the idea was for Crimea to become a NATO base as part of this ongoing campaign to surround Russia which has clearly been in the works now for the last 25 years despite the fact that when the Soviet Union fell in 1991 and even before that, the end of the Warsaw Pact, there were assurances that were given to Russia that NATO would not move eastward. Twelve new countries have been added to NATO since that time and Ukraine would have been number 13 and would have been actually I believe the most dangerous from Russian point of view…. I think that it is clear that the United States is pursuing what it views as its interests as it always does, the United States government. In Syria, in the Middle East and in regard to Russia and we, I believe, are very likely to see an even more aggressive policy in Europe against Russia if Hillary Clinton and her entourage come into power with the November 8 election.

For 25 years, the US has been knowingly playing a dangerous game, trying to see how far they can push Russia without provoking it to war. As her record in Georgia, Libya and Syria clearly shows, Hillary has no strategic vision, no understanding of war, and would have almost certainly erred on the side of excess provocation.

Many congressional members say that Putin has not been deterred, but he has, to some degree, because if he wanted to he could order the full-scale invasion of the entirety of Ukrainian territory. That he has kept Russian direct personnel support for the separatists’ brutal aggression relatively small (1,000 military and intelligence personnel by recent NATO estimates) demonstrates that his decisions are rational (to him) and done with some awareness of the likely consequences.

And that is why Donald Trump has been one of the most effective Presidents in U.S. history, even before he has taken office.

A new Castalia author

We are extremely pleased to welcome to the ranks of Castalia House novelists one of the most successful authors of modern military science fiction, David VanDyke. David has published with Castalia before; his “What Price Humanity?” was published in There Will Be War Vol. X and was a finalist for Best Novelette in the 2016 Hugo Awards.

David is also a military veteran who has served in two branches of the U.S. military, the US Army and the US Air Force. As an author, he is chiefly known for Plague Wars, the bestselling mil-SF series that currently consists of 12 books and has made him one of the 100 best-selling authors in science fiction. He is also, with BV Larson, the co-author of several Star Force novels. Amazon currently has him ranked at #86 in the science fiction category.

So, you can understand that Castalia House is proud to announce we will be publishing print editions of the entire Plague Wars series, paperback and hardcover, in both English and German. The first volume, Plague Wars Book 0, The Eden Plague, is now available at Amazon and Barnes & Noble, and can also be ordered by your local bookstore.

THE PLAGUE WARS


Not all plagues kill. But there are those with much to lose from the advancement of the human race, and there is nothing more dangerous to the hidden powers of the world than a plague with the ability to improve Mankind through simple human contact. When veteran combat lifesaver Daniel Markis finds a mystery woman with armed invaders in his home and it all goes sideways, he turns to his brothers in arms to fight back. On the run from the shadowy Company, soon he finds himself in a war for possession of a genetic engineering puzzle that threatens the stability of the world. But who is behind it all – and are they even human?


No zombies were harmed in the making of this book. In fact, no zombies appear anywhere in this book. Seriously. It’s not a zombie book.


The Eden Plague is Book 0 in David VanDyke’s bestselling Plague Wars series.

We expect to publish Plague Wars Book 1, Reaper’s Run, and Book 2, Skull’s Shadows, by the end of November, and to publish the German versions of all three before the end of the year. As I have a few remaining Audible codes for the SJWAL audiobook, the first 10 people to buy the hardcover edition of THE EDEN PLAGUE from Amazon can email me a copy of their receipt to receive a free download code. Be sure to put HARD EDEN in the subject so I will see it.

But that’s not the only new print edition we have to announce. As you may know, of all the many excellent books we have published, mine included, the one of which I am most proud is THE MISSIONARIES by Owen Stanley. The book has been very well-received, has the highest Amazon ratings out of all of our books, and is a worthy throwback to an older, more literary age.

It is now available in hardcover and paperback editions, and is also available at Barnes & Noble. I’m sure those who have read it will be delighted to learn that I have spoken with Mr. Stanley, who has informed me that he is now working on a new novel. If you’re a Stanley fan, this is definitely one book that merits a place of honor on the bookshelf.

And finally, Scott Adams says: “If you’re baffled by the election results, you might want to read some #1 best selling books.”

Stop, or he’ll say stop again

John Scalzi hasn’t learned that no one cares anymore.

John Scalzi ‏@scalzi
This just in: supporters of a racist presidential candidate upset and offended to be called out on their racism. Get used to it, folks.

John Scalzi ‏@scalzi
Woke up to people offended about my tweet about how people voting for a racist are offended about being accused of racism. Well, yes.

Francisco Silva @DrCisco
@scalzi I wouldn’t say they are all racist, but they definitely all voted for a racist, so it ends up the same. They are “racism enablers”

John Scalzi ‏@scalzi
John Scalzi Retweeted Francisco Silva
Yup. If you voted for a out-loud racist with racist plans, you voted for racism, and, you know. That’s racist.

Robot @_RobotPanda
@scalzi I’m seeing you and all the other salty democrats are dead set on electing Trump a second time in 2020.

John Scalzi ‏@scalzi
This is the “if you call people out on their racism, they’re going to keep doing racist things to spite you!” argument.

John Scalzi ‏@scalzi
The Cinemax Theory of Racism. Or, why voting Trump was racism, even if you don’t see yourself as A racist.

That’s just it. We ARE used to being called racist. And you know what? WE DON’T CARE. It’s not the irony of a dishonest and hypocritical white SJW living in a 99.99 percent white rural Bradford, Ohio calling people who are actually multiracial or living in diversity-enriched places that renders people indifferent, it’s the fact that the emotional pain of being called disqualifying names is now considerably less than the emotional pain of discovering that you’re increasingly surrounded by diversity and vibrancy.

Not that this will convince McRapey that if he just calls people “racist” a few thousand more times, they’ll totally come to see things his way. SJWs always double down.

Minnesota didn’t nearly go for Trump because the DFL voters liked Trump’s policies, but because what used to be Camp Snoopy is now a vibrant-infested Camp of the Saints and Dinkytown has been invaded by 100,000 Somalis, several of whom have died in suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks around the world. Those places are no longer Minnesotan in any meaningful sense, they are now African, and most Minnesotans don’t want to live in Africa. They are nice people, they don’t hate anyone, but one doesn’t have to hate a people to not want to live in their country rather than one’s own.

The more time passes, the more whites are learning that they would much rather be called racist than suffer living in a diverse and vibrant society as the possibilities for white flight disappear. The more time passes, the more whites are going to decide that they are willing to do as the Hispanics and Asians do, and drive out diversity and vibrancy from their societies.

This is what is called “the right of free association.” The right to freely associate comprises, after all, the right to disassociate.

And let’s not forget, John, that you voted for a Satanist pedophile….

Making bestsellers great again

Mike Cernovich is tearing up Amazon post-election.

Never seen that before. (It’s because we put out a Createspace version in case the paperback didn’t make it out before the election.)

If you haven’t picked up a copy yet, you can go Kindle, Paperback, or Hardcover. It’s an espresso of analysis, small but very intense.


The media believes that Donald Trump rose to power and claimed the Republican nomination for President through his public speaking skills, his charisma, and the force of his will. But the truth is that his rise was inevitable, due to the media’s stranglehold on American culture.


There are four engines driving the Trump train forward. First, Trump is a nationalist, so he puts America and American citizens first. Every other candidate in all four parties, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, and Green, is a globalist who does not care about the United States and is unwilling to give any priority to American workers over their foreign competitors. No less than the Democrats, the GOP is characterized by a desire to change the essential nature of the United States through unlimited immigration. While many Republicans in Congress may disagree with that assessment, their failure to take any non-defensive actions has already spoken much louder than their words. While they have defeated amnesty attempts by both the Bush and Obama administrations, they have taken no steps whatsoever toward restoring America’s traditional demographic balance.


Second, Trump has rejected the concept of white guilt. In the U.S., and throughout the West as a whole, whites are singled out as the evildoers of society. We’ve even seen social justice warriors claim that only whites are even capable of being racist, because “racism is prejudice plus power.” That appears to be the only mathematical equation they’re capable of constructing. They are certainly unaware of the historical one that states “diversity plus proximity equals war.”

Mike Cernovich, MAGA Mindset: Making YOU and America Great Again, 2016

In Sessions we trust

Chris Christie, not so much. It appears – appears – as if the God-Emperor Ascendant may not be interested in business as usual.

Chris Christie’s fall from grace is now complete.

Months after Christie, having lost his presidential primary to Donald Trump, had ambitions for becoming Trump’s vice presidential candidate, Christie just suffered another dramatic fall from grace after President-elect Donald Trump shuffled his transition team three days after his surprising victory, and increased the influence of Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, one of Washington’s most vocal critics of illegal immigration, while diluting that of Christie.

According to the WSJ, Chris Christie was removed as Trump campaign transition chairman on Friday, a position that will now be filled by Vice President-elect Mike Pence, the transition team confirmed. Christie will remain on the transition team’s executive committee as a vice chairman, along with Ben Carson, both largely figured positions; they will be also joined by retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Mr. Sessions.

The most drastic change on staff was the elevation of Rick Dearborn, the staff chief of Mr. Sessions’ Washington office, into the role of transition director. The move sidelined Rich Bagger, a top ally of Mr. Christie’s who held that role for the last several months. Mr. Bagger couldn’t be reached for comment.

Aside from the now effective elimination of Chris Christie from any positions of power in the Trump team, what is notable is the rapid rise of Jeff Sessions, one of the handful of names tossed as Trump’s candidate for Treasury Secretary.

It’s hardly a fall from grace to remain on the team. Trump isn’t the sort to cast loyalty away lightly, but he’s also not going to let a man with questionable judgment in hiring and team-building remain in charge of his entire Cabinet. He might consider making Christie Secretary of Education; the man has a long history of dealing effectively with teachers.

This underlines something that was already very clear: the God-Emperor is absolutely ruthless when it comes to taking action on underperforming team members. He doesn’t care how it looks, he just shuffles the deck and draws.

1st Law in action

“Campaign chairman John Podesta said the defeat was due to a pro-Donald Trump bias in the media.”

Riiiiiiight. I don’t know if it is Podesta’s morality or his grasp of observable reality that is more tenuous, but regardless, after hearing him say that, I have no problem whatsoever believing that he might be the cannibalistic ghoul that his artistic preferences suggest he is.

In other news, Besta Pizza changed their logo in response to the expose by The Donald redditors. I wonder why they might have done that?