Media censorship of white victims, vs. fanning flames of black victims

I don't know why the media are trying to censor the pictures and video clips of the carnage left by yet another Islamic terrorist, yet again in France. ("Too graphic for us to show.") Do they think nobody is connected to the internet?

Nearly 100 Europeans murdered for no reason by a Muslim? Sorry, can't show that on TV.

One or two black bodies are shot by police under uncertain circumstances? Let's run that on a loop for the next week.

They know that airing videos like that will whip up ethnic hatred among the group that the victims belonged to. It has been clear since the Rodney King footage that their goal has been to incite race riots to keep whitey in his place.

But now they are revealing something new -- at least in their minds, whitey himself is so close to launching an ethnic attack, that white victims must be censored at all costs, lest it incite a white riot.

We're about to find out how correct their assessment is. These things are happening too often, and with such a disgusting cover-up from the media afterwards, that whitey is about to strike back. And we don't half-ass things by driving trucks through a crowd to kill dozens -- we're poised to drop a nuke on Riyadh. When the 29-page report on the Saudis funding 9/11 is released tomorrow, we'll be even closer.

It's mind-boggling how ignorant of history the media is -- do they not remember us dropping not one nuke but two on Japan only 70 years ago? Not exactly ancient history. Whitey will only be fucked around with for so long, and then we end the problem for good.

Of course, they're not that stupid. They know about white people laying waste to their enemies throughout history. They see it as their goal to prevent such large-scale collateral-damage attacks ever again, and their method is to keep white people from any awareness of how they're being fucked around with, all while cheerleading for a ratcheting up of the forces that are cooking whitey's goose.

In their minds, people are just a bunch of insensate robots whose only perception of the real world comes through a media stream. Control the flow of mediated information, and you control their perception, and therefore their willingness to act.

Fortunately for us, we are flesh-and-blood human beings with functioning sense organs and half a lick of common sense. Only a retard couldn't tell what's going on around him.

Some will play up the role of the internet media, which can circumvent the centralized mass media, and provide images and videos of the carnage in Nice that the propaganda outlets will censor. There's some truth to that, but angry mobs have been stirred to torches and pitchforks before modern media were invented -- simply by word-of-mouth reports of what atrocities have been committed against their people by some other people.

Word-of-mouth among family, friends, acquaintances, and co-workers is not something that the corporate media can control. And it doesn't take long for word to spread.

The media are only inviting reprisals by censoring white victims so bald-facedly. We live in a more civilized age (or so it seems), so they can rest assured that we won't literally storm their office building with torches and pitchforks. But we will be busting up the corporate media monopoly to allow for honest networks to give it to us straight, whether it's whites committing crimes or, more likely, non-whites running amok yet again.

That will allow us to deal with small problems as they arise, and nip them in the bud. By encouraging a long steady build-up of resentment, the mass media are only ensuring that our solution will be a giant explosion rather than a series of smaller and controlled solutions.

The dramatic arc of Sessions' rise to VP

A comment I left at Conservative Treehouse:

I’m impressed by how well Trump is able to stage the VP stakes that even his diehard followers are on the edge of their seats — when there has never been any possibility other than Jeff Sessions. I understand the media all falling for it — they’re gullible and desperate for gossip. But he clearly knows what kind of drama the electorate wants as well.

Act I: Sessions is introduced and made familiar to the audience, and portrayed as an unlikely hero. First as the intro speaker during the Mobile rally of 35,000, then once Trump has dominated so many primaries, Sessions makes the rounds of the Sunday news shows.

Act II: Sessions is withdrawn from public view, to create dramatic arcs about him wavering in his resolve, unsure whether he has the courage to govern as VP. After the nomination is locked up, the decoys are deployed, who seem more capable and eager to accept the job, if he doesn’t step up and take the role that is made for him.

Act III: Sessions emerges from temporary obscurity, having firmly resolved to throw down the gauntlet against the Establishment, as the decoys are withdrawn.

Trump knows that the most compelling hero narrative involves an intermediate period of wavering, planting doubt in the mind of the audience and heightening the tension — will he heed the call or not? It makes his ultimate acceptance of the role a bold deliberate choice, rather than just being blown along by the winds of fate.

I don’t mind spoiling this before the movie is over, since some of you seem like you’re about to commit suicide if it’s an awful pick! O ye of little faith…

In battleground states, college-educated Boomers are key for Trump victory

A series of Quinnipiac polls in Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania show Trump ahead of Crooked Hillary in all three, when the Libertarian and Green choices are included.

Looking through the cross-tabs, the biggest difference I see from recent Presidential races is that college-educated whites and Baby Boomers are very strongly in favor of Trump on the East Coast, although not to the same extent in the Midwest, where Trump is within striking distance among those groups, but where he relies more on the non-college-educated and on Gen X (Juggalos for Trump).

He wins among those groups as well in FL and PA, but on the East Coast he is put comfortably over the top by the educated Boomers.

In related news, the Reuters tracking poll shows a steady rise in Trump's numbers in the Mid-Atlantic region, to the point where he's finally polling ahead of Hillary. He is likely doing even better there, since Reuters consistently underestimates his support and overestimates hers. Unfortunately there's no recent data from there based on age, although he's within single digits among the college-educated.

The region not only includes PA but also NY, NJ, MD, and DE. Perhaps this regional trend is being driven only by a very strong movement in PA, but I have to think that he's doing well (even if not leading) in other Mid-Atlantic states too. It's a liberal place, and now that the La Raza judge brou-ha-ha has gone away, and with Islamic terrorism coming back to the forefront after Orlando, places that were the sites of the 9/11 attacks are going to start giving Trump a serious hearing.

In general, Trump is making it respectable for East Coast professionals to be Republican again -- the message is not one of cultural apocalyptic doom, nor selling out the little guy in order to boost the 1%. The original 13 colonies aren't going to believe that the end is near, since they've been through a lot worse for a lot longer. And the tradition of civic engagement makes its professionals want to do something to look after the working class and small businesses, outside the mediation of churches as you find further inland.

On the flipside, the Quinnipiac polls suggest that young people will voluntarily repeal the 26th Amendment this time around. They have the highest rates of saying Johnson or Stein, although very few of them offer the answer of "someone else" when the pollster tries to restrict them to just Clinton and Trump. Translation: they don't like either of the major candidates, and while a small handful will vote third party, most will just stay home.

They're giving the Libertarian or Green response just to alleviate cognitive dissonance when prodded by a stranger. It allows them to feel both engaged and morally pure. But since they barely know who Johnson and Stein are, largely because neither is really campaigning, they don't know what they stand for. And that haziness may allow them to feel vaguely morally pure in "supporting" them to a pollster, but will not motivate them to locate the polling station, leave home, and actually push the button for them.

A voluntary quarantine of the Millennials is the best we can ask of them. Strange as it may sound, it's the Boomers to save the day -- but then, it's always the Wonder Years of the '60s and '70s with them, before the country went down the tubes in so many ways. They're the perfect audience for the non-ironic message of "Make America Great Again".

Trump's law-and-order appeal will be real, but not as high as Nixon's

With the return of 1960s-level civil conflict, various people are comparing Trump's law-and-order appeal to Nixon's in 1968 and '72. They are similar, but different enough to not get our hopes up about this issue giving Trump as much popularity as it did to Nixon.

There are two separate cycles going on: 1) societal cohesion, where periods of collective violence alternate with periods of collective harmony; and 2) individual opportunistic crime, where we see rising and falling rates of homicide, rape, etc.

Peter Turchin has described the cycles in societal cohesion, which show a 50-year period between high points (and between low points). The last low point was circa 1970, when there were race riots, students descending on the Pentagon to blow it up, labor strikes, and so on and so forth. The previous low point was circa 1920, which also saw even worse race riots, labor wars, and violent anti-war activism. Before that, it was the Civil War and Reconstruction Era of circa 1870.

That suggests a new low point will be reached circa 2020 -- of course, it could happen a little sooner or a little later. But we're already seeing the outlines of it, with black racial grievances taking collective and violent form against the government, although no real youth / student movement, no anti-war movement, and no labor uprising. Leading up to the November election, there won't be nearly the same level of collective civil conflict that there was by November 1968, let alone '72.

As for the rate of violent crimes that are individual and opportunistic (rather than collective and ideological), it has been falling steadily since a peak in 1992. It looked to have plateaued in the 2000s, but has dropped continually through this decade. The same goes for property crimes (burglary, theft, etc.).

In 1968, by contrast, violent and property crime rates had been soaring for nearly a decade.

Nixon was therefore appealing not only to those who were sick with how close the society felt to civil war, but also to those who were sick of having to watch their back when they left the house to run errands, and coming home to find it burglarized.

In 2016, the rise of ethnic group violence from blacks lashing out at the white government is becoming more and more worrisome to normal voters. If more of the Islamic terrorists turn out to be American residents rather than 9/11 style invaders, then that too will provide another example of collective violence by aggrieved ethnic minorities.

Still, it hasn't spread to students and anti-war activists setting off bombs, or striking workers defending their picket lines with force against scabs. And people have never felt safer from crime -- they have almost no stories about robbery, burglary, let alone rape and murder, that are circulating through their social circles, compared to how commonplace it was during the last crime wave.

Trump's appeal to law-and-order themes will be real, especially when running against someone who is not only weak on this issue, but broadcasts and even brags about her weakness -- which normal people will interpret as only likely to worsen the situation, as the violent groups smell fear among political leaders and really go in for the kill.

But we shouldn't think that these themes will be as important for voters now as they were in 1968 and '72, when the situation was a lot worse for both individual and collective violence.

As Democrats sell out on platform, Trump officially "to the left" of Crooked Hillary on economics

At their cargo cult Congress meeting over the weekend, the Democrat delegates to the platform committee have been largely voting along factional lines for the topics that actually matter to ordinary Americans -- trade policy (TPP), single payer healthcare, stopping the revolving door between lobbyists and politicians, and so on.

With far fewer Sanders delegates, it has been rubber-stamping the corporate globalist elite agenda on one matter after another.

Although there had been widespread discontent among progressives that the Democrats have been turning into moderate Republicans, they had thought that the massive showing of a populist like Bernie Sanders during the primary would score them something this time around, even if it's a non-binding platform statement. Now that this minimal degree of compromise has been rejected by the Establishment, progressives are feeling betrayed rather than merely let down.

The talking head posers ("Hey fellow progressive kids") are trying to give the impression of building bridges to the "Bernie or bust" voters, but they're not having any of it. See the long list of dismissive replies to this tweet by Sally Kohn:

Wow, some great progressive things going on in #DemPlatform debate -- and drawing *very* powerful distinction w regressive Trump and GOP!!!

— Sally Kohn (@sallykohn) July 9, 2016

One of the party-wide changes this season has been the unmasking of supposed fellow travelers in the media, who now stand as bald-faced shills for the Establishment, against their populist-craving audience. For the Democrats, it began with Elizabeth Warren and then Rachel Maddow, right as Hillary clinched the nomination. Sally Kohn isn't as big of a figure as them (kind of a Jew dyke version of Laura Ingraham), but it's yet another example, and on yet another network.

Who knows if that trend will continue when Bernie inevitably endorses Crooked Hillary, but given the rest of the examples, it's not out of the question that his voters will shake their head and call him a sell-out.

If you search for Twitter responses to #DemPlatform that also mention Trump, their main gripe is that by being in favor of a job-off-shoring agreement like the TPP, the Establishment has handed the election to Trump, who will beat Crooked Hillary over the head with his populist stance. In fact, Trump has gone farther than Bernie by promising to pull us out of NAFTA, which we've already been in for nearly a quarter of a century, as well as slam 35% tariffs on off-shored manufactured goods.

As I discussed in this post, the downwardly mobile Sanders supporters will start to warm up to Trump, big-league. The progressives who have made it economically looked like they would eventually be brought back into the Democratic fold, but they seem pretty pissed by how little compromise there was on the platform. Whether they stay home, vote Green, or write in Bernie, it doesn't look like they'll be voting Democrat in the fall.

We'll have to wait until after their Convention to see which way they'll go. Right now they seem more demoralized and inclined to simply not vote at all. But if all hell breaks loose in Philadelphia, they just might be emboldened to launch a "Bernie write-in" campaign. If they had been gifted a candidate with more backbone, they could also draft him into campaigning himself as an Independent.

Major trainwreck ahead, either way, can't wait to tune in. We have a fractured party elite and a united electorate on our side -- they have a united Establishment and a fractured electorate!

Sean Hannity tries to get his street reporter lynched by angry black mob

The first segment on Hannity last night had a street reporter on the scene of a protest and stand-off with police in Baton Rouge, in the midst of rising tensions after two police officers shot an armed black ex-con who may or may not have been reaching for his gun.

Hannity kept trying to feed inflammatory questions to his poor street reporter, who wisely ignored most of what was coming into his earpiece, and escaped with his life. A tense protest of ghetto blacks is the last place where a civics debate makes any damn sense, but Hannity was in full cuckservative logic-master mode -- "Ask them if they believe in the presumption of innocence for the police officers" who just killed a member of their community, etc.

I was away from the TV screen at first, and thought he was just joshing the reporter, who was being a party-pooper. But then when I saw the scene, I understood why he didn't want to ask Hannity's questions -- he didn't want to become the first reporter to have his murder live-streamed on both Fox News and Wurlstah.

Here's the video (first segment, then resumes around 31 min):



Some portions that had to be cut for time constraints...

Johnathan, Johnathan -- Ask them if they think an all-black jury can deliver a fair decision to the black-killing police officers.

Johnathan, Johnathan -- Ask them if they think they should have to recite the Preamble to the Constitution in order to receive their EBT card.

Johnathan, Johnathan -- Ask them if they still support the first African-American President, when average black IQ has fallen two points since the Bush administration.

Johnathan, Johnathan -- Can you ask the one ranting about white people hanging black folks from trees, if he can start speaking English instead of Ebonics.

Johnathan, Johnathan -- Ask them if they feel triggered by a white reporter invading their comfort zone at the protest site.

Johnathan, Johnathan -- Ask them why they can call cops "pigs" but the cops can't call them "niggers".

Johnathan, you still there? -- Ask them what their Originalist basis is for sticking a shiv in your gut like that.

With flop of witch hunt over six-point star, Jewish media discovers America doesn't view them as a victim group

For over a week, the media has been desperately trying to pin the label of anti-Semitism on Trump for tweeting a picture of Crooked Hillary that had a six-point star in it, despite it being solid rather than interlocking lines like the actual Star of David.

Unlike some of the other witch hunts that were halfway successful for a short while anyway -- about disavowing the KKK, women who get an abortion, and a judge using reverse racism against Trump -- nobody is picking up this six-point ball and running with it. It's only Jews in the mainstream media, and in the SJW realm of Twitter.

Why is this one failing? The others had to do with what Jonathan Haidt calls sacred victim groups -- women who get an abortion and become the target of legal action, blacks, Mexicans, etc.

The non-reaction to this latest attempted witch hunt shows that Americans don't view Jews as a victim group, let alone one that ought to receive special reverence for its victimhood. The morons in the media kept trying to tie the six-point star to the piles of cash in the background of the image, to argue for the anti-Semitic connotation. Of course, if anyone in the audience actually bought that dubious connection, they would have been reminded that Jews are in fact incredibly wealthy, powerful, and influential -- and therefore, not a member of those who are poor, powerless, and marginal.

Since the culture wars erupted in the '90s, we've heard time and time again that "race plus power equals racism," hence why blacks cannot possibly be racist -- they lack the power to oppress whites. To the liberals who buy into that worldview, Jews fall into the same category as whites -- those with wealth and power, who if anything will be the perpetrators rather than the victims of racism.

That was more out in the open back in the '80s and '90s, when black leaders railed against Jews as much as against garden-variety whites (Jessie Jackson calling New York "Hymie Town," and the Crown Heights Riot between blacks and Jews in Brooklyn). Blacks don't have time to micro-analyze all the wavelengths of whiteness -- if you're Caucasian and wealthy and powerful, you're probably a racist just waiting to act on it. And you most definitely can never be the victim of racism.

Blacks hate Mexicans, too, but they at least allow them to be victims of racism, along with other poor and powerless minorities. When Jews tried to join in the victimhood club over the past week, finally having a tale to tell about how Trump did a problematic thing about their ethnic group, the ordinary black person didn't buy into that being racism, and at most thought to themselves:

"Yep, sucks to be you guys (witcho control over Hollywood, Wall Street, and the media). It's awesome being black -- we can cry racism over anything and get a public hearing."

Getting no support from the black section of their audience, let alone from white people, Jews in the media now understand that nobody buys the image they're hawking of their group being another victim group that is persecuted by the wealthy and powerful.

If they were reflective, they would understand that this is because Jews are wealthy and powerful themselves, and so it sounds just as ridiculous to try to claim victimhood status as it would for WASPs. But knowing their record, they will probably chalk it up to every group on the planet being secretly hateful toward Jews, a worldview that they will bitterly cling to for the rest of their days.

Hopefully this means they'll drop this failure of a witch hunt, but at the least we can tell that non-Jews no longer take claims of anti-Semitism seriously. They have to clear a certain threshold, whereas claims of racism against blacks get a pass no matter how baseless.

Downwardly mobile progressives not so fearful of losing liberal elite's respect, consider Trump

Progressives reacted to the announcement that Crooked Hillary will not be indicted with intense exasperation, as though they had been betting on an FBI indictment all along, which would have opened the door to Bernie receiving the nomination instead.

I had no idea how many of them had been holding out hope on this -- they didn't mention it much in public, perhaps so as not to jinx it, and were just crossing their fingers really hard. Even if Hillary had been indicted, did they really think that the Establishment would choose the anti-Establishment candidate to take her place? Sounds highly naive to me, but then it was their only hope, however remote.

With those hopes dashed, it seems unlikely that they will be voting for Hillary in the fall. If they had been so deeply committed that they were still convinced that Bernie had a conceivable path toward the nomination, just a few weeks before the Convention, it shows that they aren't party loyalists, whose mindset would have begun to change toward accepting Hillary a month ago, after the California primary.

In a further twist, I've noticed that most of the ordinary anonymous audience members for the higher-profile progressives are open to voting Trump, many saying outright "Trump before Hillary". There's no support for the Libertarian ticket, and only tepid support for the Green Party.

This response stands in contrast to the higher-profile progressives themselves, such as the Young Turks and David Sirota, who while happy to continue bashing Crooked Hillary, are still nervous to voice even a whisper of support for Trump. They know damn well that Trump is going to torpedo the TPP and other ruinous globalist trade deals, as well as pull us out of NAFTA. And they know damn well that he will end our imperialist foreign policy of nation-building, regime change, and provoking nuclear World War III with Russia.

But, these visible progressives would instantly become the target of the liberal elite and their minions if they were to give Trump an inch. And being higher up on the class pyramid than debt-saddled baristas and NEETs, losing their respectability within elite social circles is a strong enough deterrent to keep quiet about how Trump is superior to Hillary on at least these two central progressive goals.

As for those struggling baristas, though, they don't seem to care about their respectability in the eyes of the liberal elite. They may have tried to join the elite and failed to reach it, or they may have always set their sights more modestly, especially if they're the slacker type. Either way, their class interests do not involve connections with members of the elite. So they are not as easy to shame toward Hillary and away from Trump, compared to those professional-class progressives who want to socialize with writers for The Atlantic, or who want to some day give an over-glorified PowerPoint presentation at a TED Talk.

The struggling ones are not exactly the blue-collar Bernie supporters, since they've probably studied at college for at least a few years. In a period of general downward mobility, they are the ones whose family started off middle class, and they are ending up lower-middle class or below.

As a result, they do not live in the city itself, let alone in the trendy neighborhoods, like the professional-class progs do. They probably live in a middling suburb that they're in a love/hate relationship with, and find the trendy urban neighborhoods a little too pretentious and stuck-up once they visit them for real. They resent the fact that the progs with managerial type jobs in the city look down their nose at anyone who's poor and unfashionable enough to have to live in the suburbs.

When there is such a sharp divide between the voting behavior of urban vs. non-urban residents, perhaps it's no surprise to see the suburban Sanders supporters lending their ears to Trump, while the urban ones go to great lengths to reassure their fellow cosmopolitans that they're not proles like those Trump voters.

As one example of a broader type, there's Cassandra Fairbanks from Twitter (tens of thousands of followers), who recently put a video on YouTube called "Why I, a Bernie supporter, prefer Trump to Hillary Clinton," and whose description simply reads "and I'm not sorry" -- anticipating the attempts at shaming from lib elites and their minions, and flatly defying them.

At first she doesn't seem like a natural Trump voter -- Millennial, female, liberal, living in the deep-blue state of Maryland. But then there are signs of not belonging to, and not really aspiring to, the professional/managerial class: tattoos, swearing, (apparently) single mother, and living in Silver Spring rather than DC itself or an elite suburb like Bethesda or a striver suburb in Northern Virginia.

Blue-collar workers are natural Trump voters, but in this age of stagnation and widening inequality, the theme of "Make America Great Again" will also resonate with the downwardly mobile within the middle class. How can Crooked Hillary tell such people that "America is already great"? She is clearly targeting the yuppies with that message -- meaning the non-urban and downwardly mobile would rather gouge their own eyes out than trek out to the polling station to vote for her in the fall.

Before, it looked like they might just stay home -- and some undoubtedly will -- but I'm noticing more and more who are saying, "Yeah, Trump sometimes says things that your casually racist uncle would say, BUT..." The downwardly mobile liberals who are not joining in all the cosmopolitan reindeer games are becoming more open to putting aside their gripes in the culture war, if it'll improve their material situation.

The only trigger left to pull is some big solution to student loan debt -- like a one-time jubilee -- and these folks will be eager to leave the house on Election Day.

Songs that give shout-outs to different regions across America

I've been thinking about what classic songs could be used as "Make America Great Again" anthems, and settled on "In America" by the Charlie Daniels Band (1980). The line about "just try and lay your hand on a Pittsburgh Steelers fan" will be especially relevant this election, with Trump's focus on the Rust Belt.



Back when we had a more cohesive nation, songs like this at least mentioned various places around the country, and often provided some local flavor from each one. As our country has become more fragmented, you don't hear that anymore, a topic I touched on in this old post:

There are plenty of newer songs on the "America" theme list, although I doubt they kick as much ass as "Living in America" by James Brown, from the Rocky IV soundtrack. What's really fallen off a cliff are songs that highlight several regions specifically, not just an overall American theme, nor boasting about why your state is better than everyone else's. That's a sign of regional fragmentation.

"California Girls" (the Beach Boys or the David Lee Roth version), "Dancing in the Street" (the original or the Jagger / Bowie cover), and "The Heart of Rock & Roll" are the only ones that run a tour across the whole country. One of the songs from Bon Jovi's Slippery When Wet album has a fade-out that calls out a bunch of places -- Detroit, southern New Jersey -- but I can't remember which one, and lyrics websites don't say either.

There's also no more songs about red states, the last major one being "If You're Gonna Play in Texas" by Alabama, another triumph from that peak year in music, 1984.

If there's another song like "In America" during the Trump administration, it will probably have to refer to states or regions rather than cities, which have become so uniformly pro-Democrat since 1980.

A look around the county-level electoral map of Reagan vs. Carter reveals some notable exceptions from our point-of-view. Of course, most of the Northern industrial cities voted Democrat, but then so did a lot of the rural South -- that was the old New Deal coalition, no longer strong enough in numbers in 1980. And then there were quite a few big cities that voted for Reagan -- Indianapolis, Columbus, Cincinnati, Seattle, and Los Angeles. Also funny to see suburban DC voting Republican, on both the Maryland and Virginia sides.

The major change, though, is the surrounding metro area turning Democrat, where in 1980 it was usually only the city itself that was deep blue. Make the suburbs great again!