Bloody shovel

Don't call it a spade

Trump’s 7 Country Ban

1ikd4h

1ikfc1

This is momentous. Any country that bans Somalis is on the right track.

Next goal is stripping citizenship.

 

Advertisements

63 responses to “Trump’s 7 Country Ban

  1. Pingback: Trump’s 7 Country Ban | @the_arv

  2. Steel T Post January 29, 2017 at 15:41

    It’s wonderful. I talked to somebody yesterday who was all concerned about those with green cards who can’t get back in. I said they can live in their own country. They said it would be a huge disruption to their lives if they had a job. I said killing them would be an an even bigger disruption to their lives, compared to living in their own country. They shut up.

  3. Pingback: Trump’s 7 Country Ban | Reaction Times

  4. iFruit(cake) January 29, 2017 at 19:53

    Yes, sure, Somalis are infectious, maybe we also should quarantine the entire Somaliland.

    Next goal is telling people who are citizens: “baby, we ain’t exactly gonna DNA-test you for genomical purity, but we have a gut feeling that if we did, you wouldn’t pass the test. Therewith, you ain’t no citissen ‘nmore”.

    This is what makes, some times, my tone wry on this blog (which I check often and comment on often because I find interesting): the most, appallingly, obvious double standards in the world.

    You post something like this now, and you have said that “Chinese are discriminated against in shitholes like Indonesia”, lol!

    And the real answer (don’t self-deceive yourself right now, please) for why it wouldn’t be cool if Indonesians and Malaysians treated their Chinese ethnic minorities like you say the West should treat Somalis is “because I’d like it this way”.

    So like we have things that are as true as our lunch today, we have things that are as rightful and morally good as… our lunch today ;)

    I’ve never found a post on this blog saying: “Humans can be ranked by value according to cognitive ability: every group higher on the scale on average shall be benefit from positive bias in every controversy with any group beneath, under every moral, political and cultural respect”: IQnon, the naughty daughter of Gnon (because whenever the quarrel is about Caucasian whites and other smarter groups your bias will be favorable to those other groups).

    I have to deal with many more low-intelligence people than you ever could, and it’s been like this for all life, and there’s few people who are as stressed out about low-IQ people as I.
    Whatever task they are involved in will be slowed down, and their “contribution” will both make your part of work twice harder than it should be AND make sure the final result can’t be reasonably good.

    But then, you won’t say that there should be an immigration ban on <80 IQ Whites, and that 95 IQ Somalis.

    And that picture is uglily (I mean bigly) disrespectful (to use a mild term).

    In other news: “Actor Commits Suicide Live on Facebook Following Sexual Assault Arrest”.

    Narcissistic mode fully ON even moments before suicide. But hey, he was an actor and an handsome one. He also was black in a white majority country.

    The truth is, I think, most of them would be happier in “their countries”.
    Fake refugees forcefully sent back from Northern Europe to their African lands have cried with joy at the airport (at the trip’s end).
    We know from many sociological studies that people in an environment where they feel/are inferior fall sick.

    If for once in your life you’d put yourself on others’ shoes, you’d see many new things, and be more sympathetic hopefully.

    Take for instance their complaints about books of history of (whatever you choose, from music to figurative arts to physics and economics) “full of white people only”.
    It’s not that hard to understand that it must be annoying, if not sickening, for them.

    “In previous Facebook posts, Bowdy spoke of the challenge of finishing college while raising two children (he would go on to have four more), and his dreams of playing professional basketball being quashed by injuries. He is survived by his widow Whitney, and six children.”

    How much would you bet that if he did all of this in “his country” he’d’ve been much more balanced, relaxed, and he’d be alive now?

    They want to come drawn by the economic bait, but psychologically they hardly enjoy any benefit, the contrary is true.

    For instance,

    • spandrell January 29, 2017 at 20:22

      There is no double standard. There is only one standard: my taste.
      I have vast experience in many countries, and know people of all sorts of cognitive ability. So cut it out with the lecturing. I know people too. Although I wouldn’t call myself a people person, like President Trump does.

      And please, be brief in your next comments. I will ban you if you keep writing walls of text like this. No offense but my attention and that of the other commenters has limits.

      • aleksanderpwnz January 30, 2017 at 09:10

        “There is only one standard: my taste.”

        Yes, but presumably this relies on a deep (and hopefully correct) understanding of society and morals (or else why would anyone care?). The OP presumably thinks that the moral code that made you think Trump’s action was good, can’t be the same as the one you use when talking about Chinese being discriminated against.

        I don’t really agree as far as content is concerned, because you obviously think society is a huge fight for survival among ethnic groups). But you could change your tone: Whenever you talk about whites being discriminated against, you sound appalled and righteous; whenever ethnic groups you don’t like are discriminated against, you sound happy and excited. Even if you believe the two groups’ goals are mutually exclusive, you could at least try to sound as if human lives of low-IQ ethnic groups matter to you. It seems unnecessary to glee at the misery of other people.

        Btw, I also like many of your posts, especially the ones focused on philosophy and history :)

        • spandrell January 30, 2017 at 09:24

          Plenty of blogs doing that kind of rhetoric. But here I call it like it is. And Somali misery just makes my coffee taste better in the morning.

          • aleksanderpwnz January 30, 2017 at 09:56

            Well, I do value honesty! Although I think you (and society) would benefit from changing that part of you. Or do you think it is impossible to have a stable society wihout all ethnic grous actively hating each other?

            • spandrell January 30, 2017 at 10:03

              Well I try my best to not be this honest in real life.

              Ethnic groups are going to hate each other anyway. That’s what ethnic groups are for. Decades of liberal propaganda have if anything made it worse, and enabled the worst behaving of them to get advantages over the others. I just don’t see how diversity works out.

              • aleksanderpwnz January 30, 2017 at 10:17

                Homogeneous countries possibly are more stable because of less ethnic friction, but that doesn’t mean that it’s a good idea to emotionally hate other ethnic groups. I mean, society might also be more stable if we systematically euthanized old people, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to consistently hate old people alive now. That just distorts your views.

                • spandrell January 30, 2017 at 10:27

                  Hate subsides when groups stop misbehaving. The Chinese didn’t hate their Muslims for 100 years. Now they are starting to do so again.

                  • aleksanderpwnz January 30, 2017 at 10:47

                    And if people would just hate the Others harder, ethnic strife would disappear (because of the annihilation/subduing of minorities), and all nations would be more stable, stronger and better off. Fine.

                    But if ethnic strife is inevitable, shouldn’t you promote hatred of high-IQ groups in the US as well? Sure, Asians and Jews are currently good for the economy, but won’t their mere presence eventually cause problems?

                  • spandrell January 30, 2017 at 11:07

                    Watch your tone. I am not promoting hatred. That’s leftist propaganda. I’m just member of an ethnic group who wishes to defend itself, by any means necessary.

                    And no need to be maximalistic. Getting diversity numbers low enough that ethnic strife isn’t plausible is good enough. See China proper, say.

                    Where have you seen me promote further immigration of Jews or Asians to the West?

                  • aleksanderpwnz January 30, 2017 at 11:23

                    Sorry if I misunderstood you. You hate minorities, and you write hateful blog posts about minorities, but you don’t promote hatred? Also, your comment above suggests that Chinese are right in hating Muslims, because that will eventually lead to Muslims misbehaving less. Did I misinterpret that too?

                    So you think that the ratios of Jews and Asians in the US are currently low enough that they won’t cause ethnic strife?

                  • spandrell January 30, 2017 at 11:38

                    I had my second coffee and I figured that following your terminology isn’t a good idea.
                    You can resent people’s misbehavior without hating them.

                    As for high IQ minorities, I’ve no idea what’s a good ratio. You might have to ask Amy Chua. I gotta say that the stable long term scenario would be complete assimilation, i.e. miscegenation. Else there’s bound to be conflict.

                  • aleksanderpwnz January 30, 2017 at 11:56

                    You can also resent people’s misbehaviour without being happy about their misery, and writing gleeful blog posts about their misfortunes. That’s the part I think the OP reacted to, and it’s what turns me off every time (although presumably what turns a large part of your readership on). How about taking the attitude “It’s really unfortunate, but reality forces me to support the deportation of minorities, even though I wish them no harm in principle.”?

                  • spandrell January 30, 2017 at 12:00

                    That’s how I feel about the Christian Syrian family who got sent back according to the Daily Mail. But about Somalis? Nah, screw them. They wish me harm.

                    And anyway, they’re just being sent back home. It’s not like Trump is having them tortured or something. Big deal.

                    Maybe it’s just me but this is a pretty common attitude in Asia towards people’s misfortune in general.

                  • aleksanderpwnz January 30, 2017 at 13:04

                    “Somalis? Nah, screw them. They wish me harm.”

                    No, you know that is untrue. Most Somalis don’t literally want you (or even white Americans in general) to be harmed; although their presence in the US may for complicated reasons eventually harm white people in general.

                    But let me get this straight: You promote being happy for other groups’ misery, as long as these other groups would be happy for your misery?

                  • spandrell January 30, 2017 at 13:09

                    I wouldn’t be so sure about that. You assume benevolence in general, I see no evidence for that.

                    I’m not a fan of abstract moral principles in general, they are nonsense in Wittgenstein’s terms. But in this particular context, oh yeah. They picked up the fight. Bring it on then.

                  • aleksanderpwnz February 4, 2017 at 16:27

                    “I’m not a fan of abstract moral principles in general, they are nonsense in Wittgenstein’s terms. But in this particular context, oh yeah. They picked up the fight. Bring it on then.”

                    I’m pretty sure this is how violence spirals start, which is probably much of the reason why I don’t like this way of thinking. You suggested that China should hate (or wish misery on) their misbehaving Muslims, but they are angry because China has been trying harder and harder to control and assimilate them. Which I’m sure you’ll say is because they need to secure their borders or something, but that’s the point. If we’re going to avoid violence spirals, we need to promote not wishing other people’s misery just for the hell of it.

                • danielchieh January 30, 2017 at 15:54

                  I don’t think there’s as much hate as some people seem to think. Hate is irrational, takes a lot of energy. What you’re seeing is dislike, but when forced to be in contact, this dislike turns into hate as the human heuristic mind tries to focus on a way to solve this problem.

                  For example…

                  I don’t hate feminists, really. I just want them away from me. I hate them because of rational self-interest, when their harridan ways proceed to corrupt more women, and then proceed to reduce the market of worthwhile women to me. As such, my hate is completely in line with my rational self-interest.

                • iFruit February 2, 2017 at 00:25

                  Alexander, are you familiar with evolutionary psychology, cognitive biases, and adaptive cognitive biases?

                  Even if you take 100 identical people, dress 50 of them black and the other 50 yellow they’ll form 2 groups of equally-dressed, and start harboring rivalry and enmity and aggressive feelings for the other group, along with developing aggrandizing stereotypes for their group and debasing ones for the other group.

                  This is extremely hard-wired, and answers to between-group tribal struggles from the dawn of the history of hominids.
                  Decades of full-fledged propaganda from all sides has just made most White “nice people” suppress it into their subconscious, nothing more (and no other effect on all other peoples).

                  “Hate subsides when groups stop misbehaving.”

                  “Misbehaving” is a very problematic concept. I’d rather say, each people is what it is and behaves the way it behaves; like each person.

                  For example, higher ethnocentrism plus marked mental superiority will lead even numerically tiny groups to dominate politics, culture and the economy of a country.
                  This can lead to problems, even big, in many ways, as history assures us (see South Africa now).

                  You say “assimilation and miscegenation” but to the superior group this is humiliating and harmful.
                  I’d go for separation.

                  Maybe one day a 1% of high-IQ headstrong ethnocentric Western whites will form a coalition, acquire a territory and make their state, a sort of Israel, somewhere in North America or Europe.
                  They’ll follow non-violent eugenic practices (no need to sterilize anyone: just create a culture and social environment that rewards knowledge, striving for excellence, and creates the conditions to make intelligent people want to mate among themselves), they’ll make sure to make their children learn 3, or, better, 4 languages in their young age, and so on and so on.
                  This state will be hardly democratic, or downright authoritarian, with a marked element of collectivism.

                  You can’t have any of this with bodies of population in the hundreds of millions.

                  “I’m just member of an ethnic group who wishes to defend itself, by any means necessary.”

                  Let’s segregate from normies and characterless, form an average IQ 110 state somehow somewhere (at least a political platform for now), and the rest laid out above.
                  Technology will make the world more and more global, even if your traditional right programs succeed and borders hold up, without eugenics our ethnic group and its nations would lag behind others pitifully.

                  “There is no double standard. There is only one standard: my taste.”

                  From an hyper-rationalist, that’s a funny admission.

    • Contaminated NEET January 29, 2017 at 23:27

      Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?

    • Barack HUSSEIN Bin Laden January 31, 2017 at 10:49

      i completly believe that, their all satan

  5. Herzog January 29, 2017 at 23:09

    Ethiopians (even Muslim Ethiopians) detest Somalis, Kenyans detest Somalis. Must be because they’re raciss, can’t have anything to do with having been exposed to — have suffered from, that is — actual Somali behavior for decades on end.

    As to the disrespectful picture, in war it gives some relief, may even be necessary, to disrespect your enemy to an extent. After you have achieved victory, you can start respecting them again; from a distance.

  6. The slitty eye January 30, 2017 at 00:56

    He should have banned Paki and Saudi too

  7. lalit January 30, 2017 at 05:33

    Spandrell, Any comments? Is this is the beginning of the fightback by the forest dwelling Gauls against the Desert Hordes of Arabia?

    https://www.thequint.com/world/2017/01/30/quebec-city-islamic-cultural-centre-gunmen-open-fire-on-people-at-quebec-city-mosque

    What is it that happens when the (Pagan pbvi) Saxon starts to hate?

  8. Jonelle Cusato January 30, 2017 at 08:20

    How about everyone go back to their own country. America belongs to the Mexicans and Native Americans. We have no rights to this land. We stole it. We should all be deported and let the true owners stay.

    • spandrell January 30, 2017 at 08:24

      I agree Trump could start by deporting the likes of you. But we don’t want you in Europe either, so please self-deport to Africa.

      • aleksanderpwnz January 30, 2017 at 09:15

        What would be the rule behind such a deportation? What law would you propose to Trump in order to ensure people like Jonelle Cusato were deported from the US?

        • spandrell January 30, 2017 at 09:27

          The 5th Column Repatriation Act. Those who act in order to make the USA more like Africa should cut the process and directly go to Africa. 欽此.

          • Rhetocrates February 4, 2017 at 18:27

            I could get behind that. Let’s make it the 14th amendment.

            As to ‘no rights to this land,” check out adverse possession.

    • random observer January 30, 2017 at 15:48

      All Mexicans of full or partial Spanish ancestry are also imperialists and beneficiaries of empire.

      Those of full Spanish or immigrant ancestry should by your lights have no right to Mexico itself and be asked to go back to Europe [the Middle East in some cases]. They certainly would have no rights on el Norte.

      Mexicans of full or majority [or to be generous, any] indigenous ancestry can stay as they have pre-Conquest rights to live in the land of their ancestors. Which is pretty well south of the Rio Grande for almost all of them.

      If you can find Mexicans on either side who are full or majority descendants of Apaches, Navajos, Yaqui, and other actual SW peoples, then they have rights there and probably already know that. If they aren’t already living those particular identities.

      Also, it’s a matter of taste but if we are to give North America back to indigenes we should restore it to Neolithic conditions of life and political organization for them. No need to leave white man institutions behind.

      • Seth Largo (@SethLargo) January 31, 2017 at 00:20

        Sailer’s “flight from white” rule applies to mestizos. Older mestizos, to the extent that they think about such things, consider themselves white by and large, which is why 40-50% of Mexican-Americans mark ‘white’ on the Census. Younger mestizos, in contrast, are adopting an indigenous persona, even the ones that have more of a Spanish phenotype (e.g., 70% European Eva Longoria).

        Anyway, my point is, your generosity would mean that even Jorge Ramos has land rights because very few Mexicans are 100% Spanish, even though, until recently, one had to be almost 100% Amerind to count as an ‘indio.’ Now, your average 60/40 Spanish/Amerind split considers himself an indio.

        • random observer January 31, 2017 at 14:37

          Educational. Well then, if I’m applying the generous form of my attitude then most Mexicans would in fact have the right to stay in Mexico after all rather than being returned to Spain. Although anyone with that much Spanish is still a beneficiary of colonization- they wouldn’t exist if it hadn’t happened. Just as Mexico’s Middle Eastern descendants wouldn’t have had anyplace to immigrate to. We have a thing here in Canada where non-white people of immigrant descent get all huffy about our aboriginal people and the horrible white colonization, seemingly unaware that they benefited from all that too.

          My larger point, though, was to respond to Jonelle Cusato’s comment that “America belongs to the Mexicans and Native Americans”. Considering that few such Mexicans have either Spanish or Indian blood from north of the current border, and excepting those Indian peoples who do, Mexicans have no ownership at all.

  9. Etjon Basha January 30, 2017 at 11:24

    I beg to differ.

    The way this was implemented was pure third-worldism: you do not revoke the visas of people who were granted one unconditionaly while they’re flying, for fuck’s sake. You make it clear that each and every visa form now on will be subject to “extreme vetting”, or that visa revokation and citizenship stipping are back on the table for such and such acts, but you do not vet people after the fact and, worse, apply it only to those who happen to be outside the US at the time. At the very, very least you make it known that all those who travel outside the US (if non-citizens born in X foreign country) will be “vetted” before being allowed back, effective 30 days form now.

    The way this was done dealt a blow to the legitimacy of Trump’s program, and got the US a little bit closer to Brazil. I am astounded that no one on the right appears to see this.

    • spandrell January 30, 2017 at 11:35

      Inconveniencing Muslims in no way deals a blow to Trumps legitimacy among his followers. And that’s all he cares about. The educated cucks weren’t with him to begin with.

      • Etjon Basha January 30, 2017 at 11:38

        It’s not about muslims, and it sure ain’t about cucks of leftists. It’s about rule of law and reasonable predictability of a developed nation’s legal framework. He won’t lose any followers over this (which, to repeat my point, I find incomprehensible) but he has locally defeated his larger purpose while seemingly advancing it: you do not make America Great Again by turning it into Brazil.

        • spandrell January 30, 2017 at 11:40

          Well as I always say, if you can’t comprehend something, you have a bad model.

          John Robb says Trump wants to make America into something more like China or Russia, and he may have a point.

          • Etjon Basha January 30, 2017 at 11:44

            I insist on Brazil: I find it doubtful that either China or Russia would engage in such blatant and open whims of the moment (not nowadays, anyways). This is the soft version of the proverbial knock on the door at midnight. Maybe you hate Trockyist agents, but tomorrow it may be you.

            But perhaps you are right, and I just do not have a proper model of Trump’s constituency (if so, where did all those guys who spoke of rule of law the entire time go? voted for Hilary? Johnson? Home?)

            • spandrell January 30, 2017 at 11:51

              Those are a select minority of cucks, nothing compared to the rising tribalist hordes.

              Personally there’s a lot of shit I’m willing to take if it stops population replacement.

              • Etjon Basha January 30, 2017 at 11:57

                Seeing 1) how utterly inconsequential this is, 2) how easy it was to get right,3) that nevertheless they didn’t even try and that 4) nobody cared about any of this (even just to note it in passing), I’d say that apparently most Americans see it as you do. Pity.

                • Seth Largo (@SethLargo) January 31, 2017 at 00:31

                  Banning current visa and green card holders was indeed retarded. It was bound to lead to sad scenes at airports, to create protests, and to result in overblown news reports that would turn (and are turning) lukewarm Trump supporters cold.

                  Trump has the White House, a majority in both houses, and most states on his side. Over the next 4-8 years, he could have created a sane immigration policy quietly, rationally, via legitimate political protocols instead of via fiat. It was, as you say, easy to get right. He is creating his own resistance.

                  • Etjon Basha January 31, 2017 at 00:38

                    Its even worse than that. By this stupid, third-world bravado he inconvenienced at most a hundred guys who happened to be outside of the US at the time, among the couple million US muslims. Are we to believe that these hundred just happened to be the “bad guys” and everyone else is good? Come the fuck on, he just made a stupid mistake, an empty show of force while a rational policy would have been :1) full 4 years moratorium on all new entries from country X, 2) a long list of misdeeds gets you stripped of your Green Card from now on (failure to report intent to commit extremist acts would be chief among these), 3) a 4-year stay on all citizenships granted to Green Card holders form country X. There silly rednecks, that’s how you do what you promised and avoid destroying rule of law. I find myself most amused with Spandrell, this really doesn’t sound like something he’d get behind apologetically. But maybe victory is intoxicating.

                  • Eli January 31, 2017 at 05:27

                    No. What Trump is doing is actually brilliant.
                    He lets all the cucks , the SJWs and various branches of the Cathedral work extra hard on demonstrating, suing etc. Let them all cry and fight to their oblivion.

    • Jim-Bob January 30, 2017 at 23:42

      The administration made it clear that the travel ban had to be sudden and unexpected or the bad guys would have rushed to get into the country before it came into effect, as would have happened with the 30 days’ warning you propose.

      Whatever inconveniences this caused for foreign travelers are regrettable but I can live with it. If that makes them angry at the U.S. and they decide that maybe they don’t want to live in such a place, so much the better. I’ve watched for 30 years as what Americans want has been ignored in favor of foreigners’ feelings and so that left-wing posers can virtue-signal by flooding us with 100 million fundamentally incompatible aliens. At this point I’m too angry to give a shit about whether this makes us look “a little bit closer to Brazil” – which we were headed for anyway under progressive rule. The time for niceties or caring what “we” look like to foreign countries has passed. Take your fucking lectures about how we’re supposed to behave, “Etjon Basha”, and stick them up your ass.

      • Etjon Basha January 31, 2017 at 00:00

        You really don’t get it, do you? It’s not how you “look”, it’s what you are becoming. It’s your children who will live in the less certain legal framework that you are creating, not mine. Why are you so obsessed with other countries’ opinion of you when at no point did I bring that up as an argument (most countries wouldn’t even understand what rule of law is and how you broke it, nevermind “judge” you for it)? But nevermind, keep destroying legal predictability and the day will unfortunately come when the boot shall be on the other foot. Enjoy the ride.

        • Rhetocrates February 4, 2017 at 18:33

          I’d rather my children live in an uncertain legal framework with their own kind than a certain legal framework beseiged by diversity.

          And yes, I understand that I won’t get the former. Not at this late date. But the move by Trump is a show of solidarity.

          • Etjon Basha February 4, 2017 at 18:53

            I dare say that you are inclined to take the benefits of legal certainty for granted, an understandable reaction in truth, willing as you appear to be to erode these for no practical benefit. Still, at least you agree that the risk exists and undertake it willingly.

  10. Karl January 30, 2017 at 15:25

    Spandrell, you might be a pessimist, but the comment’s section here shows that are have remarkable patience.

  11. rcglinski January 30, 2017 at 18:30

    Politics sure is nutty these days. I have a family member I do email discussions with insist that Trump had just banned Muslims from entering the country. I had to reply basically “as someone who genuinely desires a ban on Muslim immigration I have to tell you this doesn’t come close to what I’m looking for.”

    But if it’s a start, it’s a good start.

  12. Starveling January 30, 2017 at 18:49

    Bring on the helicopter rides, really. It wasn’t that long ago I was closer to the left- go back a few years and I was a labor lefty. I still harbor labor sentiments, by the by, but the left in America no longer (and hasn’t within my lifetime) represented me. As such, I default to tribal loyalties.

    So far so good from Trump for me. Once our house is no longer on fire and our demographics are restored we can see about real politicking again. Until such a time, however, consider me on the nationalist right.

    These people arguing with you about ‘due process’ and ‘rule of law’ seem to forget that it was their side that did most of the dismantling of these things. They wished to use this system they have built upon the traditional American nation, only now we have the remote to their doomsday device.

    Turnabouts fair play, bastards. Removal of some kebabs doesn’t phase me. I’d love to see it expanded, truly.

  13. spandrell January 31, 2017 at 00:43

    Let me just say that it behooves us to give Trump the benefit of the doubt. Everybody’s been saying he’s stupid since 2 years ago, and look at him. There’s tons of technical legal details that I don’t know but I assume Trump’s team does know which might have influenced this decision.

    And at any rate, it feels good. So there.

    • ricksean February 1, 2017 at 01:43

      Trump is trying to pull off a Political SpaceX. If he continues on his trajectory and the USA is not a fuming crater in a year from now, he will have demonstrated to the general public the following:
      – All current democratic leaders are incompetent and ineffective, and have been hiding behind excuses for years.
      – The Mainstream Media does not have the insight or the power it pretends to have.
      – The liberal agenda is neither at the forefront nor at the foundation of western civilisation.
      – You can actually get what you want if you stop giving a fuck and start being a man.

      I don’t think the Democrats or the European Elites can survive that. This shit is fucking great.

  14. Mark Citadel February 2, 2017 at 00:08

    The best part is the autistic screeching that has resulted from it! Will Trump go full Pinochet? Only time will tell!

  15. spandrell February 4, 2017 at 17:05

    “they are angry because China has been trying harder and harder to control and assimilate them.”

    That’s bullshit. You are buying the enemies rationale. Don’t do that. They picked up the fight, because they want power, and they saw a break, so they took their chances. That is how this works.

    And being publicly happy of the misery of your enemies is a good way to bond with your friends.

  16. Rhetocrates February 4, 2017 at 18:40

    Here’s my basic, naked rationale for liking what Trump did.

    As a person with a tribal identity whether I like it or not (but at least I’m honest about it, unlike our white/Jewish globalist internationalist overlords who say we’re “all one human race,” by which they mean they’re going to do their damnedest to abduct everyone else’s children into their own tribe), I want power. Not personally, I’m a somewhat retiring sort, but for my people. The most basic form of power is to be able to tell someone you don’t like to get out of your house. Trump (who is one of my people, even though he’s rich) is telling a tiny fraction of people I don’t like to get out of my house.

    It’s a start.

    Whether or not it’s a start that will backfire, or is a brilliant move to distract our enemies with a trifle while we get real work done by transforming the architecture of politics, is a questio to be asked. If it’s the former, that’s unfortunate in the extreme.

    But you’re certainly not going to get any sympathy from me by talking about how it’s legally suspect and how I should care about all those Somali crocodile tears.

    Completely aside, Spandrell, I think you’d like Richard Francis Burton’s “First Footsteps in East Africa.” It’s free online.

Please comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s