Hillary’s condition

August 9th, 2016

Hillary has been photographed being stabilized by two assistants as she climbs the stairs. This used to be Hollywood’s way of depicting someone as drunk – that he needed assistance to climb stairs without falling over and falling down.

Hillary is known to have injured her head by falling down.

Hillary has seizures. Seizures are typical of repeated severe alcohol withdrawal. Diazepam is used to control seizures and to treat alcohol withdrawal, and Hillary is accompanied everywhere by a man with a Diazepam injection pen.

Hillary is frequently unavailable for lengthy periods, while Trump is always on and ever ready to speak off the top of his head.

Hillary was famously unavailable for a considerable time during the Benghazi incident.

No such thing as moderate Islam

August 5th, 2016

If a Muslim is not murdering innocents and raping children, he is a bad Muslim.

“Hang on” I hear you say: “Did not you tell us that Alawites, the guys in Syria that the State Department is trying to genocide, are moderate?”

Yes, Alawites are moderate. Their religion also has more gods that you can shake a stick at, they drink wine, celebrate Christmas, and eat pork. They celebrate something suspiciously like mass with wine and bread, plus a pile of pagan deities. Since Christianity is dead in the water, maybe we should convert to Alawism, since the likely alternative is that we get converted at swordpoint to Islam, or we males get killed and our women get converted at swordpoint to Islam. But I digress. Back to moderate Islam.

The great majority of Muslims are profoundly disinclined to blow themselves up in a pizza parlor. But they create an environment were the guy who is apt to blow himself up in a pizza parlor is holier than they are, an environment where the guy who is apt to blow himself up in a pizza parlor can fade into the woodwork when the police come looking for him.

There is no moderate Islam in the sense that there is no Islam where the adherent to the faith who engages in violence against non Muslims is viewed as bad, unholy, an outsider, no Islam where Jihad is not as Islamic as motherhood and apple pie are American. There is no Islam that fails to provide a favorable environment for terror. Terror is so fundamental and intrinsic to Islam, that any supposedly Muslim religion that seriously disengages from terror really is not Muslim, and any Muslim monarchy that fails to support terror gets assailed as inauthentically Muslim, as not taking Islam seriously, and it is transparently apparent that any nominally Muslim monarchy that fails to support terror is inauthentically Muslim, does not take Islam seriously.

For thirteen hundred years, no one has managed to coexist with Islam except in a state of war and near war. We will not be the first.

We have to either convert to Islam, convert to some faith capable of holding its own against Islam, or forbid Islam and expel Muslims.

Converting to Islam is the solution we do not want, the solution that will inevitably happen if we do nothing much. Hillary plans to bring in a hundred million or so male military age Muslims screaming for infidel blood and white pussy, and even if she fails to do so, the militarized Muslim womb will outbreed us, if nothing is done. In America and Europe large numbers of fertile age white women are converting to Islam, because Muslims are the only men that can get away with being manly, and Muslims are abducting and enslaving large numbers of young fatherless welfare girls.

The Cathedral thinks it can convert Muslims in the same way it has been so successful in converting Christians, persuading them that all religions, rightly understood, are progressivism.

See also Scott Alexanders triumphalist exposition that progressivism is simply western culture, and everyone naturally converts to progressivism western culture because it so much nicer and more humane and wiser and better and truer than any of the alternatives.

In fact progressivism sucks, and men suffer terribly under it, for it is brutally contrary to human nature, and unless you actively crush Islam the way the Cathedral actively and aggressively crushed, and continues to actively aggressively crush, Christianity, it is not going to absorb Muslims. Rather we see the reverse happening. Aggressive Muslims get pussy and the girls are glad of it. The Cathedral defines Christianity as misogyny, hatred, homophobia, and so on and so forth, and crushes it with unrelenting ruthlessness, but is disinclined to do this to Islam, because islam is brown, and browns can never be racist, misogynist, or homophobic. Also because if it went after Islam the way it goes after Christianity, Muslims would start cutting the throats of progressives.

The Cathedral has had some considerable success at converting Muslims to progressivism, as for example Iran. Turkey, however, has definitively put an end to the program in Turkey.

For a long time it looked as if the Cathedral program, educate Muslims into understanding that Islam, rightly understood, was progressivism, seemed to be succeeding. And then we started to see head scarves all over the place.

As the Cathedral became ever more hostile, hateful, and destructive towards males and masculinity, coming to a supposedly right understanding of Islam became ever less popular among Muslims, and we started to see those headscarves multiply.

The Cathedral rationalized away the ever expanding sea of headscarves. For a while it was still possible to believe that the Cathedral program could succeed, the Hillary could bring in a hundred million male military age Muslims screaming for infidel blood and white pussy, they would convert to progressivism, they would buy homes in green leafy suburbs with affirmative action mortgages, pay their mortgages, and replace the missing grandchildren to pay off social security.

This delusion was punctured at Benghazi in Libya:

“With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans,” Clinton told him angrily. “Whether it’s because of a protest or whether a guy out for a walk decided to go kill some Americans, what difference at this point does it make?”

Well it would not make much difference whether because of a protest or whether a guy out for a walk. But it makes a huge difference that it was neither of these. It was a bunch of guys in military uniform, with military weapons, with chain of command, with military insignia of rank, equipped with the apparatus and institutions of a modern western state, that were, and are, applying this apparatus and these institutions to suppress progressivism and enforce Islam, in the way that Clinton and company have long been using this apparatus and these institutions to suppress Islam and enforce progressivism.

What was revealed at Benghazi, and has continued to be revealed ever since, is that the progressive program to convert Muslims to “moderate Islam” (aka progressivism) was entirely dependent on the efficient modern coercive apparatus of the modern state, and that it really is not working any more, even in the rapidly declining number of countries where progressives command the efficient modern coercive apparatus of the modern state. (Libya, and now Turkey, being among those were progressives have been removed from theocratic power.)

Mean, median, and chastity enforcement.

August 3rd, 2016

Men are polygynous. Women are serially monogamous. Women are hypergamous.

It follows that the mean number of sexual partners a man has will always be enormously larger than the median number of sexual partners a man has.

The mean number of sexual partners a woman has is necessarily equal to the mean number of sexual partners a man has.

It follows that the median number of sexual partners a woman has will always be larger than the median number of sexual partners a man has.

Hence the necessity in patriarchal societies of using extraordinary and disturbingly drastic means to enforce female chastity, aka double standard. Or, equivalently, eggs are precious, sperm is cheap.

Why Trump is Hitler

August 2nd, 2016

You have doubtless seen lots of people arguing that Trump is Hitler. Often “Trump is literally Hitler!”

Of course people who read my blog know what “literally” means, and though Trump is obviously not literally Hitler, there is in fact a good argument that Trump is Hitler.

But for some strange reason, Democrats never make the argument out loud in plain words. I wonder why.

The argument, said outright in plain words, is:

Hillary’s nomination speech was in large part urging black people to murder white people, and promising to use the justice department to prevent police from enforcing law on black people. If police, for some mysterious inexplicable reason, wind up arresting and killing a disproportionate number of black people – well that is disparate impact, which illegal. You don’t have to prove racist motivation. Disparate impact is racist. Treating people according to the content of their character is racist regardless of motivation if the outcome is bad for non asian minorities.

This has been the law and practice for a very long time, and failure to apply this law to school discipline and law enforcement is an unprincipled exception. Unprincipled exceptions always go away sooner or later, and Hillary, truthfully or untruthfully, is promising to remove this unprincipled exception for policing and school discipline. I hope she is being untruthful, but sooner or later it will be the truth. Unprincipled exceptions are always removed sooner or later.

Hillary also promised to take away the guns of law abiding people (law abiding gun owners being almost entirely white Republicans) so that colored criminals can kill them (Criminal gun owners being mostly black Democrat voters. In other words, she promises to take away the guns of white Republicans so that black Democrats can kill them once she has appointed enough anti gun supreme court judges.

Hillary also promised to keep the borders open, and in particular open to poor suffering Muslim refugees, who are generally brown or black, male, military age, and always vote Democrat. Every few weeks we read of some outrage where black male military age Muslims murder large numbers of people, usually large numbers of white people. It is unclear how many black male military age Muslims we will get under this policy, but there are several hundred million such in the world, and they would all be much better off coming to America to live on crime, welfare, and voting Democrat. So there is a good chance that Hillary will bring in a few hundred million black male military age Muslims screaming for infidel blood and white pussy, to permanently change the electoral landscape so that whites are permanently outvoted, and we end up with a brown republican party competing with a slightly darker brown Democrat party over who will burn the most white shops, murder the most whites and rape the most white women.

Trump’s nomination speech was law and order, and he proceeded do demonstrate his capacity to maintain law and order in a wide area around the convention center. Among his various law and order measures was that he was going to stop illegal immigration and Muslim immigration.

We all know that lawlessness and disorder is in very substantial part, non white criminals preying on whites, for example Kristallnacht in Ferguson, so this means Trump is the pro white candidate and Hillary is the anti white candidate.

And, of course, Hitler was the pro white candidate, therefore Trump is Hitler.

And I now raise another glass of moonshine, this time to 27. Februar 1933.

Fertility and corporal punishment

July 31st, 2016

To 1933, wives in movies are never spanked by their husbands.

From 1933 to 1945, wives in movies are sometimes spanked, but it is shocking, unexpected and unusual.

From 1945 to 1963, wives in movies and on television are sometimes spanked and it is routine, respectable, and usual. For example in “I love Lucy” we are never shown a spanking on screen, but Lucy is regularly very afraid of receiving a well deserved spanking for her many amusing misdeeds.

In the Western “McLintock” the authority figure, representing virtue, middle class respectability, and normality, unambiguously endorses the husband beating the wife severely for gross misbehavior, with a small coal shovel.

From 1945 to 1963, appropriate and proportionate corporal punishment of wives is depicted as normal, proper, appropriate, expected, and respectable. As in McLintock, it is what respectable middle class husbands do ensure that their wives and families behave in a respectably middle class manner – since women, unless restrained, have a not at all middle class preference for drama.

This had a dramatic effect on marriage and fertility in the US, almost as spectacular as the disastrous fall in fertility that ensued when McArthur emancipated Japanese women. Marriage went up, fertility went up.

USA fertility and corporal punishment of wives

USA fertility and corporal punishment of wives

We see a significant rise in fertility when spanking starts being depicted, and massive rise in fertility when it starts being depicted as normal. When spanking stops being depicted as normal, stops being depicted at all, soon followed by a massive demonization of men who rule their families and a hate fest against them, which is to say, against marriage and husbands, as marriage was traditionally understood, fertility drops like a stone, as spectacularly as when women were emancipated in Japan.

The high high fertility period was the gap between first wave feminism (Amelia Earhart getting a ticker tape parade for being transported across the Atlantic by a man like a sack of potatoes) and second wave feminism.

During that period it once again became socially acceptable to refuse to hire women for jobs for which they are inherently unfit, and once again became socially acceptable to spank one’s wife (McLintock). During that period women were once again expected to aspire to becoming wives and mothers, rather than despise that role.

Before 1933, no corporal punishment of wives depicted in Hollywood. 1933 to 1945 portrayed as shocking and unexpected, though not necessarily wrong. It is often justified in the context of the movie, but it is also depicted as the act of an outlaw – illegal but romantic.

We first see corporal discipline of one’s wife (spanking) portrayed in the media as normal, legal, proper, and socially acceptable in 1945, and fertility abruptly rises, and this depiction continues to 1963. whereupon it abruptly, suddenly, and totally stops – and fertility starts falling.

As the MRAs argue, feminism has artificially raised female status above male status. When a man and a woman walk in opposite directions down the corridor, the man gives way and the woman walks right down the middle of the corridor. Women continually interrupt men with impunity. (Perhaps the reason I am not totally unsuccessful with women despite being old, fat, and bald is that I am competing with the likes of Scott Alexander.)

But the MRA demand, actual equality, feminism done right, is obviously absurd and unworkable, because of the obvious inferiority of women in the male sphere. (Obviously women are superior in the female sphere, such as babies, home, housework, and finding my car keys.)

Thus, for example, no one really expects women to bear the costs of their own decisions, because women really should not be making those kind of decisions unsupervised. Thus “equality” in practice means women make decisions and men pay the costs of those decisions.

So what we have to sell is the principle of patriarchy – that women should be ruled by fathers or husbands, that men really are superior, that women should give way and should not interrupt. All women should be deferential to all men, but should obey those men and only those men who are committed to care for them.

And we have to reject and dismiss consent culture. Consent does not make sex right, nor lack of consent make sex wrong. Moment to moment consent is bad for everyone, and particularly bad for women. Women lack agency in sexual matters, making “rape” ill defined. The concept maps poorly to real life situations. “Rape” used to mean dating a woman without the consent of parent or guardian, irrespective of how she felt about it, or whether you physically had sex with her. We did not really have a word or concept for what we are now calling rape until the late eighteenth century or so.

The very concept of rape and consent attributes unrealistic agency to women. As in the old testament, we should give female consent as little moral and legal weight as possible, because the word is difficult to fit to real life events.

I don’t think women have agency in sexual matters, since between menarche and menopause their sexual actions are driven by volcanic forces of which they are scarcely aware. They do not want what they want, and they do want what they do not want. Nor do female children get “talked into sex”. If you have good preselection from adult women, female children with no breasts who have not yet experienced menarche will sexually harass you. The problem of adult men having sex with female children is primarily a problem of badly behaved female children, not badly behaved adult men. With women who have boobs, men pursue, and women choose, for sperm is cheap and eggs are dear. Pre boobs, and pre menarche, which is to say pre eggs, the shoe is apt to be on the other foot.

Thus, for example, Scott Alexander’s girlfriend consented to sex with lots of people, not including Scott Alexander, felt bad about it, felt that a gay man could do what she did without feeling bad about it or making Scott feel bad about it, so proceeded to surgically disfigure herself and declare herself to be a gay man. Clearly she would be much better off had she received a few severe spankings followed by some nonconsensual sex from Scott Alexander.

The population collapse is nothing to do with automation etc, since emancipated women in poverty stricken third world countries reproduce even less.

It simply a matter of whether or not men and women can enforceably contract with each other to durably form patriarchal families. If they can, total fertility per woman is around six or seven. If they cannot, total fertility per woman substantially less than replacement. If something in between (as for example the fifties when marriage as traditionally understood was illegal, but was nonetheless depicted on television as normal, normative, and respectable) then the fertility rate is something in between. The economy makes scarcely any difference, short of outright famine and hard Malthusian limits.

Timor Leste proves that if men have the opportunity to be patriarchs, they will not let poverty stop them. They will do whatever it takes.

Back in the fifties, when spanking was respectable, employers tended to advertise for married men, because they expected married men to be more highly motivated.

So we set up society so that prosocial behavior, reasonable competence, upholding order, and a bit of hard work pretty much guarantees a man will become a patriarch, and lo and behold, we will get prosocial behavior, order, hard work, and lots of well brought up children.

If, however you deny men the opportunity to become patriarchs, they hang out in their mother’s basements and watch cartoon porn, regardless of whether their society is rich or poor.

If patriarchy is the law of the land and I have a legal path to be a patriarch but no job, I can find a job, or create one, or scrape up a living somehow. If patriarchy is outlawed and I am legally prohibited from being a patriarch, I will be receptive to the life of the outlaw, the life of the bum, the vagrant, or hanging out in my mother’s basement. Jobs are not the problem. The lack of a reason to get a job is the problem.

If you look at high fertility and low fertility times and places, the factor that massively outweighs absolutely everything else by far, is whether or not a man and a woman can make a deal to form one household and have babies and expect their partner to be forced to stick to it. Patriarchy is necessary for this, since one household must have one captain, but patriarchy is in itself insufficient – the woman also needs protection that her children will neither be torn away from her, nor will she and they be abandoned by their father. The deal has to guarantee both the authority of the husband over his wife and children and the economic and emotional security of the wife and children, has to guarantee the father and husband obedience and respect, and the wife and children that they will be protected and looked after.

Reality is that wherever and whenever men have the option to be a patriarch, the overwhelming majority of men gladly make whatever sacrifice necessary to attain that role, even if extremely poor.

Hookers are only a marginal improvement over masturbation. What progressives offer men is just not what most men want, as revealed by men’s actions.

Yes, a harem is better than just one wife, but a changing rotation of whores is not a harem. The point of having more than one woman is having more than one woman. If I sleep with several women that is really great. If one of them sleeps with another man that is really bad and I will certainly dump her, probably beat her, and might well kill her. I will be very angry and sad for a very long time.

Look at the typical male polyamorist. He is psychologically scarred and mentally crippled for life. Having a bunch of whores rather than owning a woman, or better, owning two women, just really sucks brutally. Those guys are traumatized and damaged.

It unmans men, as if every day a bully beat them up, and they could do nothing about the daily humiliation but suck it up. Just look at what it does to men. It would be kinder to cut their balls off, which is pretty much what progressives are planning to do to us.

The typical male polyamorist looks as if a fat blue haired feminist has been beating him up every day – indeed, he would probably love it if a fat blue haired feminist beat him up every day.

Whores are a marginal improvement on beating off to anime. When men are reduced to such desperate straights, it totally crashes their testosterone and they buy an anime cuddle pillow and weep bitter tears upon it.

The criminalization of patriarchy was the criminalization of the deepest and most powerful need of white men.

Report on moonshine

July 30th, 2016

About a year ago, I produced thirty liters of moonshine.

Tasted as if distilled from dead rats and kerosine

Double distilled it. Still tasted as if distilled from dead rats and kerosine.

Forgot about it for a year. After a year, tried it again. Not bad at all.

The next big thing in progressivism

July 30th, 2016

Recently there was ass bandits. Then there was transgender.

For a while it looked liked the next big thing would be pedophobia – the “anti bullying” campaign sought to protect pre pubescent children of ambiguous sex who had physically affectionate relationships with obviously homosexual middle aged males from being “bullied” and sought to normalize pre pubescent children of ambiguous sex who have physically affectionate relationships with obviously homosexual middle aged males.

But no, it is clear that the next big thing is not pedophobia but killing white heterosexual males.

Ann Coulter reminds us:

as the country reels from the cold-blooded murder of five policemen in Dallas and three in Baton Rouge, Lezley McSpadden, mother of Mike Brown, America’s most famous cop-assaulting criminal, appeared on stage at the Democratic National Convention.

In this regard, I notice that six of the nine “Mothers of the Movement” have different last names from their snowflakes. The children with the same names as their mothers were the two who were gunned down by black gangs, as well as one schizophrenic, who, unfortunately, had grabbed an officer’s baton and was hitting him with it when he got himself shot.

Hillary claims to oppose cop-killing, so why is she using her convention to promote the biggest lie in the pantheon of anti-cop lies, and to celebrate a man whose most famous act was to violently assault a police officer?

The overwhelming majority of rape accusations are false

July 28th, 2016

Follows from the poster girl principle. If poster girls suck then every other girl sucks as badly or worse. For example for example Marie Curie was a second rate scientist, therefore there are no great female scientists. Emmett Till was not lynched, nor killed for whistling at a white woman, therefore there are no examples of blacks being lynched in an obviously unjust fashion, or with reckless disregard for justice.

Earlier I posted this argument, but the early version neglects to mention the internal evidence from the Rolling Stone editors that they knew their rape story was unlikely to be true, went looking for something better, could not find it.

In 2015 Rolling Stone issued an apology for their “Rape on Campus” story. Their investigating reporter saw lots of red flags, that would have convinced any reasonable person that the rape accusation was false, and that going ahead with the story was likely to blow up in their faces, but they decided to go ahead with the story anyway. Deep within the apology there is a guilty line that I missed the first time around, and everyone seemingly missed. After encountering lots of horrid red flags that made it glaringly obvious that it was a really bad idea to pursue this story, that the complainant was lying through her teeth

That summer, Erdely began interviewing multiple UVA assault survivors.

In other words, there was a whole big pile of University of Virginia “Assault Survivors”, but all their stories sucked even worse than Jackie Coakley’s story, so they wound up going with Jackie Coakley’s story for lack of anything better. They were determined to do a rape on campus story about evil white males. They knew, consciously or subconsciously, that the story they had was false, but despite looking around, despite having lots of other “Assault Survivors”, could not find anything better.

In the “Rape on Campus” story Jackie Coakley, the supposed rape victim, lied to the reporter Erdeley, and it rapidly became obvious that she was lying. Erdeley lied to her editors, and her editors lied to the readers. The editors falsely led the reader to believe that Ryan Duffin, the love interest that Jackie Coakley was catfishing with her rape story, had been interviewed, thereby making the story seem as if it had not come from a single source, that Jackie Coakley’s story had supposedly been checked with the other people supposedly involved in that story. That the editors lied indicates mens rea, that they knew this was a mighty weak story and needed some creativity to make it seemingly credible.

In the original story Rolling Stone tells us:

a “shitshow” predicted by her now-former friend Randall, who, citing his loyalty to his own frat, declined to be interviewed.

Implying that they sought out witnesses and encountered the male wall of solidarity protecting rapists and penalizing rape victims. In actual fact, the editors knew full well that “Randal” (real name Ryan Duffin, the man that Jackie Coakley was catfishing in an unsuccessful campaign to get him to sleep with her) had not declined to be interviewed, because they had not attempted to interview him. Had they attempted to interview him, would have learned much that was inconsistent with Jackie Coakley’s story.

The magazine knew from the beginning that Jackie Coakley’s story was not credible, went looking for someone with a more credible story, decided to stick with Jackie Coakley. Therefore, rape complainants with a more credible story than Jackie Coakley are rare or nonexistent.

This is the same argument I made previously, but this time with internal evidence from the magazine that they knew their story was weak and went looking for something better.

At the time of the article, the University of Virginia had not expelled a single student for sexual assault, therefore if any of these “Assault Survivors” were credible, they would be telling pretty much the same story as Jackie Coakley. Therefore, every single one of them was even less credible than Jackie Coakley, and we can see the mens rea that the editors knew that Jackie Coakley was not credible.

Scott Alexander argues against the poster girl principle that maybe there are lots of real rapes, and the person gets convicted, so, no big deal, that the reason that fictitious campus rapes gets reported is because some people doubt their reality, therefore no prosecution, therefore controversy. So, because of controversy, we hear false rape allegations widely reported and fail to hear real rape allegations, because they get dealt with efficiently. But, until the story, no expulsions for sexual assault from the University of Virginia, and yet lots of “Sexual Assault survivors”. So either the university was letting people get away with rape, or else all the “sexual assault survivors” are lying. And, since Jackie Coakley was what the Rolling Stone ultimately ran with despite knowing their story was weak and looking for something better, all the “sexual assault survivors” at Virginia were lying even more blatantly than Jackie Coakley. Rolling Stone was looking for a more credible story, looked at all the other “sexual assault survivors”, did not find what it was looking for.

Rolling Stone tells us that in the previous year at Virginia University, their had been 38 complaints of sexual assault.

of those 38, only nine resulted in “complaints”; the other 29 students evaporated. Of those nine complaints, four resulted in Sexual Misconduct Board hearings.

None of these four resulted in anyone being expelled for assault.

So, either the University is blowing off real sexual assaults, or thirty eight of thirty eight complaints of sexual assault were flagrantly bogus.

And if any of those thirty eight complaints were not flagrantly bogus, Rolling stone would surely have gone with that one instead of, or as well as, the one they did go with.

Trump explains crony capitalism to the masses

July 23rd, 2016

If you already know all the stuff that Trump is explaining, his speech is kind of dull, but for leftists and normals, it is full of shocking news, as for example the Obama policy of swiftly releasing violent immigrant criminals to continue predating on white people in order to drive us out, or simply kill us. That was pretty boring to me. Of course our rulers want us dead. Remember that incident with Angela Merkel and the flag. Also bears shit in the woods and the Pope is not Catholic. But it totally shocked the audience.

At 28 minutes into his speech, he explains crony capitalism:

Hillary’s single greatest accomplishment may be committing such egregious crimes and getting away with it, especially when others, who have done far less, have paid so dearly.

Audience cheers enthusiastically.

When that same secretary of state rakes in millions and millions trading access and favors to special interests and foreign powers I know the time for action has come.

Audience cheers enthusiastically.

I have joined the political arena so that the powerful can no longer beat up on people who cannot defend themselves

Audience cheers enthusiastically.

Nobody knows the system better than me.

Trump gives evil supervillain sneer, as if he is condescending to the audience, after just having robbed them.

Audience is silent and confused.

He carries his condescending sneer a little bit over the top.

Audience laughs nervously.

Trump gives an asshole smirk, like he is saying “Oh what a naughty boy I am, and I got away with it.”

Audience roars with laughter.

Then he gives a mock surrender, holding his hands up as if being arrested by the audience for the innumerable crimes of which we know perfectly well he is guilty.

Laughter continues for quite a while. He waits for everyone to get it. Yes, he knows how the powerful special interests abuse the system, having abused the system quite thoroughly. He knows how Hillary takes millions for access by special interests and special favors to them, having paid her millions for access and favors.

Holds up his hand to signal audience to stop laughing, and to signal he is going back from non verbal communication, to verbal communication.

Which is why I alone can fix it.

Wild cheering with a little laughter.

Alt right at the Republican National Conventional

July 23rd, 2016

The left thinks the alt right has taken over the Republican Party and gave the Nazi salute from the Podium, and are fantasizing about creating a replacement Republican party in which white males will no longer have significant representation. The reason the Never Trumpers were unable to agree on anything is that some of them wanted Ted Cruz as nominee, and some of them wanted an unspecified nonwhite female nominee and a general purge of whites and males, to be purged not only from the Republican party and from history, but from the physical universe.

In actual fact less than one percent of the Republican National Convention was alt right, and none of them would have given the Nazi salute, though I suppose a few of them quietly murmured “14 words” and “27. Februar 1933” but they were treated as a respectable faction of the Republican party and received the same firm police protection that all the Trump factions received.

By “taken over” progressives mean “not attacked on sight with baseball bats”.

Still, if you are an alt right, not being physically attacked on sight by state sponsored thugs wielding baseball bats with police protection is intoxicating.

Trump has not gone all the way to “no enemies to the right”. Notoriously, he disowned the alt right before he refused to disown it, and refused to disown it before he disowned it. But if the alt right was at the Republican convention, like every other major faction that backed Trump, and gets wall to wall police protection, he is not disowning them all that much.

So, I will raise a glass of moonshine to Trump, and to 27. Februar 1933.

Listening to Trump’s acceptance speech:

… We will be a country of law and order

The attacks on our police and the terrorism in our cities threaten our very way of life. Any politician who does not grasp this danger is not fit to lead our country

Americans watching this broadcast tonight have seen the recent images of violence in our streets and the chaos in our communities. Many have witnessed this violence personally. Some have even been its victims.

Beginning on January 20th of 2017 Safety will be restored.

Hmm. Obama promised to stop the oceans from rising, Trump promises to deter the dindus from thuggery – after having very successfully deterred any thuggery in the vicinity of the Republican convention.

In the reply to Trump’s speech, the mainstream media issued a pile of statistics showing race relations are simply wonderful.

I have another statistic.