3. List of left-wing people who wrote in support of the NATO intervention in Libya. I certainly didn’t support it in 2011, and wondered why the West wasn’t backing Gaddafi.
Trump will win every Super Tuesday state East of the Mississippi.
Alaska: Trump wins.
Arkansas: Trump wins.
Colorado: Mystery wrapped in an enigma. The process makes there no clear way to tell.
Minnesota: Cruz wins. This is not a good state for Trump or Rubio.
Texas: Cruz wins, due to local appeal.
Oklahoma: Trump wins.
2. The NYT picks its ten best comments (they’re not that good).
3. Billary lies (race and housing).
4. They Lie. Watched the movie just now (clearly an allegory about Jews, though curiously from a left-wing perspective).
5. Blacks hate Bernie (I still don’t know why; maybe I’m too smart)
Three months and one day ago, on November 26, I predicted U.S.-backed Kurdish expansionism in Syria to exactly the areas where it happened.
My predictions then:
The situation now:
And more evidence has come out since that the U.S. is directly promoting Syrian Kurdish expansionism.
Meanwhile, Turkey, which must be destroyed, is stark flaming mad about the Kurdish expansionism that is going on in its front yard, and its President has explicitly claimed he sees no problem with al-Qaeda. Sometimes, the Daily Scimitar is all too prescient.
My analysis on November 26 remains accurate and unchanged.
As usual, I didn’t watch the debate. The only ones I even tried to watch were the no-Trump one (not live) and the Rubio repeat one (live), and I only got through twenty or thirty minutes of them.
2. Donald Trump basically took my October 2013-mid-2014 stance on Libya in 2011. I first opposed the Libyan regime change from the start, then supported it in October 2013 when I saw the polls from 2012 showing the people overwhelmingly supported the revolution, then in Summer 2014 realized Osatan had no intention of achieving stability in Libya and started opposing it again. I’m more consistent in my position than Trump, but had Trump been President in 2011, he would have had a much better policy than Obama, whatever it may have been. Taking Libya’s oil is especially a very good idea. In any case, Trump’s still one flip-flop ahead of Hillary, and quite possibly one ten-year-long flip-flop. I’d rather vote for the wolf in sheep’s clothing than the wolf in wolf’s’ clothing.
This is my response to Tyler’s post Given that Trump is winning, which other views should we update?:
““Less libertarian”? Trump was the most libertarian candidate after Rand. Ron Paul only got 20% of the vote in New Hampshire and Iowa. America was never very libertarian.
#s 5, 6, and, to some extent, #1 are correct. Trump isn’t racist, judging by his Black support. Bernie seems to be racist, though /sarc.
Yes; Trump attracts Reagan Dems. NAFTA and TPP are not very popular outside certain tiny subcultures.
Views we should update:
#1 House always wins.
#2 Brashness is a path to defeat.
#3 Sophistication is a virtue.
#4 Ideology is superior to turn-on unique policy proposals.
As usual, Tyler shows no sign of being smarter than 125 IQ.”
In this post, I will focus on #s 2 and 3. These are the lack of fatality of brashness and the lack of virtue of sophistication.
Trump and Putin are generally quite similar. They both admire each other, they are strong-willed, they are wildly popular, they are foreign policy realists, they do not bow down to the dictates of the degenerate internationalist establishment. But if there’s one thing that everyone admits regarding them, it is that Trump is openly brash and unsophisticated. Putin only dispenses with gravitas on rare occasions, and still keeps a pretense of it even during them. He does not show rudeness. Part of this was because Putin got to where he was and stayed there by being a near-unanimously respected establishment politician, while Trump is perfectly willing to make any number of enemies to feed his press and his base (just see his Twitter account).
Putin doesn’t tweet. For Putin to be taken seriously, he had to have been taken seriously by Russia’s VSPs. By people who thought like Russia’s VSPs. Russia’s VUPs, their primary opponents, were so unserious, that even the greatest failures of the VSPs could not dislodge them from their position- at the commanding heights of degraded power. This was how Putin got to where he was, at first. Then, Putin showed the Russian people his competence and resistance to foreign and domestic saboteurs, thus leading to his being greatly respected around the world both as a Russian VSP and as a man standing firmly against the neo-Islamist internationalist order. Putin’s brashness is reflected primarily in his actions, not his personal interactions. Openly brash actions with sophisticated words make a truly formidable leader.
But being a VSP was never an option to any political outsider, especially in a country with such a large, strong, and old establishment as the United States of America. Kowtowing as a VSP without already existing dominance is the very objectification of beta masculinity. And beta masculinity is not conductive to the status of a genuine political outsider.
Before August 2015, I thought like a VSP, too. I have to admit that I most sadly regret it. Today, I have to freely admit that, especially for an underdog, “sophistication” is not a virtue. It is a pretense. For those fighting an uphill battle, sophistication is nothing more than another name, another mask of the herd morality so strongly condemned by Nietzsche. A virtue is precisely what it is not.
So why, Scott Adams, does Trump scare? It is because he so willfully rejects and shatters the herd morality -the political correctness, the pretense of seriousness, the complete lack of loyalty to America and American citizens so often exuded by the likes of the GOPestablishment. Even more frightening to the herd-moralists, he rejects the linchpin holding in place the power of this herd morality over the populace -guilt. This is why, despite their general lack of policy differences anybody I know has so far shown any sign of caring about, it is Trump, rather than Cruz, who is unanimously favored by the fascists –and he replies to their praise on his Twitter account in kind. Unlike the greens, the fascists have no regard for herd morality and its symptoms. It is a feature of their ideology, and a bug of the greens and their allies. Unlike Trump, Cruz does not seek to challenge the herd morality- instead, he seeks to embrace it (see his opening at the Trump-free debate).
As I have already written, Trump is a Nietzschean Superman. One example of his status as such will suffice. Trump is perfectly willing to declare bankruptcy- to claim inability to pay off his debts. Guilt, according to Nietzsche, is but an ancient byproduct of creditors’ desire that debtors pay them. Thus, likewise, the Donald has at no point in this campaign shown even the slightest sign of guilt. He is perfectly willing to default on his establishment-defined obligations to the herd. He looks at the great edifice of herd morality, and he rips it into shreds. When his opponents throw dirt at him, he throws it back at them twice as hard. He has, like Nietzsche, no regard for truth as an end in itself. Nietzsche’s “Why not rather untruth? And uncertainty? Even ignorance?” perfectly captures the Donald’s complete indifference to the facts, especially when they disfavor him.
So why, Scott Adams, are men scared of Trump? It is not because of his policies-they all either are perfectly sane or perfectly precedented. He goes from the government’s Juniper backdoors to the government’s desired iPhone backdoors. He goes from banning all but less than a tiny fraction of a percent of foreign Muslims from entering the United States to banning all foreign Muslims from entering the United States. He goes from having deportations from the border to large deportations from within the United States and the construction of a reasonably impassable border wall. He goes from having tax cuts for the rich to having tax cuts for everyone. He goes from having a national registry of all Americans in the bowels of the National Security Agency to having a national registry of Muslims. He goes from high tariffs on Chinese tires to a general 45% tariff on Chinese goods. He goes from support of the Keystone pipeline to a general acceptance of eminent domain for private use. His foreign policy is the sanest in the whole GOP.
Rather, instead of any policy objections, Trump is feared by the herd moralists because he challenges their very concept of normalcy. Of civility. Of order. As the herd-morality – humility, politeness, prudence, meekness, and cowardice before the herd, fear of inaccuracy, egalitarianism, principle, suicidal altruism, self-denial, impotence, guilt, and intolerance of opponents of all these– was all they knew, they became horrified at anything that contradicted it. And Trump contravened it greatly, being perfectly willing to go through the mud to score points against his enemies with the highest rudeness and the greatest will, without any suggestion of bowing down, to deny America’s gifts to foreigners, to speak with directly with a third-grade vocabulary instead of pretending to his adversaries’ culture, to challenge the treatment of America as a puppet of its so-called “allies”, to lie about anything he wills, to attempt to seize the house of one of his inferiors for a parking lot via the force of legislation, to take every feminist, xenophilic, and anti-majoritarian trope levied at him and break each and every these tropes in half, throwing them back at his combatants each time with satisfaction. To a perpetual member of the herd, this rudeness, this expression of master morality, from a member of an officially disfavored culprit group must seem not just as an affront, but as a full-fledged step on the road to chaos, fascism, or something even more contrary to their wishes of an equal, humble, and censored social order.
The rot of the intellectuals is deep. Scott Sumner, a true intellectual with whom I have communicated online for over a year and consider one of the finest utilitarian intellectuals on Earth, is a classic example of a man using anti-herd-morality means for herd-morality ends. This is clear from his endorsement of Sanders, the very epitome of herd morality, over Trump, the very epitome of its antithesis. Even that Nazi-onist Rubio, he claims, he would endorse over the Donald even if the former were found to be a drug dealer. The same is the case for most other educated Republican-leaners, who have a strong tendency to support more bloodthirsty, more nutty, more pathetic, more traitorous, more pro-immigration, more Russophobic, more militantly Islamistic, more establishment-subservient candidates than less educated Republican-leaners. He rejects the means of the herd morality in his posts on capital taxation, monetary policy, and supply-side economics. Yet, as clearly seen by this ridiculous comment, his ends are nothing more than the total application and fulfillment of that morality. A few months ago, I thought of him as the man in the world who is most like the religionists’ conception of God. Now, I know better. Sumner knows Trump’s rejection of the herd morality in his heart, and he quakes in fear behind him and condemns him for his rejection of the values of the herd because he fears the strong. He does not desire to make America great again.
So this is what Trump is. A Superman. An Alpha. A Lion. A man who feels no guilt. A man beyond good and evil.
Update: this article is an excellent example of a more or less self-conscious herd-moralist Jew understanding most of the above. It subconsciously inspired this post, in part.
Update: this article by a Black guy also makes some of the above points, but this author, while SJW, isn’t trembling before Trump
1. Chinese New Yorkers enraged over BLM gone amock. Note that the useless (in this context) phrase “Asian” is used instead of “Chinese”.
2. Sanders will be bad for the country and will discredit progressivism. I’d still vote for him over Clinton, if I could.
4. Trump’s foreign policy is the sanest, most brilliant and most coherent of the GOP candidates. Vote Trump, America. The foreign policy establishment is pozzed.
6. Atheists almost as democratic as Mormons are Republican (I am an exception, being an independent Republican-leaner).