Clinton Ran A Good Campaign

images.jpg

This will most likely be the most unpopular article I have ever written. Something I pride myself on though is being able to look at an event as objectively as I possibly can so that we can draw the proper lessons from it. Punditry has been unified in their opinion that Clinton ran a terrible campaign. I disagree. I think that Clinton maximized every single advantage she had. There were some things she could have done better but she was limited by other factors as well. The current groupthink only emerges because Clinton lost. If the reverse happened then they would all be saying Clinton ran a wonderful campaign and Trump a terrible one.

Loser

This brings us to the first point we have to address. If she ran such a good campaign then why did she lose? As a gamer (both computer and LCG/CCG) I know first hand that you can be a good player and have a good deck and still lose. In life there are times when you lose because the other player is just better. Clinton may have run a good campaign but Trump ran one of the best campaigns I have ever seen. Simple repeatable messages. Excellent branding of both himself and the opponent. Lastly marginalizing tactics his opponents could use against him. After all if you already know the mainstream media is biased against you then you call them fake news to turn people against them.

No Message

When you ask why Hillary Clinton was a failure the first answer people will give you is that her campaign had no message. What critics don’t understand is that this is a feature not a bug. Hillary Clinton ran as the establishment candidate to the radical change presented by Trump. The establishment candidate is not supposed to have a revolutionary message. They are supposed to say that things are going fine and that the other guy is crazy for proposing the changes that he wants done. Which is exactly what her message was.

Hillary Clinton being who she was could not run as anything but the establishment candidate. To do otherwise would be like getting a card pool filled with burn spells but making a control deck out of it or running a control character like a tank in Dota. It just would not work. One of the most important things in a candidate is knowing what you can do well and what you cannot do well.

First you had her history and connections all over the political world. People would scream fake if she was presented as the change candidate. Second she was running as the third term of Obama. If she were to be a change candidate then she would have to criticize policies enacted by Obama. Anything she said in that regard would just be used by Trump who was running against Obama just as much as he was against Clinton. More importantly the liberal media just made the case for the past 8 years that anyone who dared criticize Obama was a racist. Clinton would have difficulty doing this.

Funding

Being the establishment candidate Clinton had an easier time raising funds than Trump did. She milked this advantage for all it was worth. At the end of the process Team Clinton was able to raise 1.6 billion dollars for her election while Team Trump only raised something like 600-700 million. I cannot recall any other presidential election in recent memory where one candidate had a 2:1 advantage over the other in funding. It is true that one party will usually have the advantage over the other like with Obama outraising Romney, but never to this extent.

People have tried to say this did not matter as all the media coverage Trump got gave him something like 9 billion in free advertising. What they do not say is that of his coverage multiple studies show that over 90% was negative. If you want to consider negative advertising as money raised for the candidate then anytime someone runs an attack ad the money used for that should be considered spent by his opponent.

Political Connections

Clinton also maximized her political connections. Lawmakers, both Republican and Democrat, overwhelmingly wanted Clinton to win. This meant that major political figures did not attend the Republican National Convention or get involved in the Trump campaign. More importantly it also meant that they were able to threaten staff who used to help run Republican campaigns with being black listed for working with the campaign forcing Trump to rely on people who had gotten their experience in other countries like Manafort.

Beyond neutrality members of the Republican establishment even went over and above to help Clinton win. The Bush clan let it slip towards the end of the campaign that they would not be voting for Trump. The libertarian vice presidential candidate Weld went out and said he would only campaign in states that Trump was strong in like Georgia. Places which coincidentally the Clinton camp was trying to snipe. Most amazingly, the Republicans even ran a spoiler candidate in Mcmullin against their own guy.

Very few other candidates would have been able to achieve this much.

Last Word

I am not saying that Clinton made no mistakes. I think that she could have treated her left wing supporters better as she was trying to attract the center voters for example. While she did make mistakes she maximized every advantage that she could in ways no other establishment candidate was able to in the past.

If we are to learn anything from the 2016 election we have to give credit where credit is due. That is true for both Clinton and Trump.

 

Advertisements

The Debt Ceiling Deal Explained

th.jpg

Conservative pundits like Ann Coulter and Ben Shapiro are up in arms about Trump making a deal with the Democrats to extend the debt ceiling by three months and to provide aid for areas affected by Harvey. They cannot fathom why Trump is giving away all of his leverage and cannot see a reason as to why he is doing this. Make no mistake the conservatives have a right to be upset and it is a very dangerous time for the Republican party. But they are wrong to think there is no reason Trump is doing this.

I will try to explain as best I can why this happened and what it means for the nationalists on the Team Trump.

Before we begin the first thing you have to do to understand what happened is to forget about the Harvey relief bill. That was always going to happen no matter what. Neither party can afford to be seen holding that up. Focus exclusively on the debt ceiling.

Democrats

I will start with them because they are only marginally involved in this. Our biased media is playing this up as a huge win for Democrats. It is not. What have they actually gotten? Have any major policies they want been included in the debt ceiling increase? Has their position improved at all? All that happened is that they will have another negotiation three months down the line.  The only benefit that they got from this negotiation is that Trump agreed with them and not the Republican leadership. This was done deliberately by Trump.

Trump

To understand why Trump did this we have to understand the position he is in. Congressional Republicans have proven to be very ineffective at pushing his agenda while Democrats refuse to work with him. In a situation where one side has been useless you try to motivate them by working with other parties. In this meeting Trump provided the Democrats with a taste of the benefits of working with him.

In addition to siding with them in the meeting Trump also tweeted something at the request of Pelosi and brought the Heitkamp to his rally in North Dakota.

Trump can see that the GOP is not pushing his agenda properly. He wants to show them that he has an alternative party to work with.

GOP

The GOP is the big loser in this meeting. The debt ceiling is only a minor thing. With his recent actions Trump has shown them that he can really hurt the GOP where it counts. If you were to believe our media the GOP is about to be routed from all halls of power because of the unpopularity of Trump. The reality is that after the 2018 elections it is very possible that the Republicans will have a 60 seat super majority in the senate. By taking Heitkamp to North Dakota with him, which is one of the prime seats the GOP want to take, Trump is showing that he can throw a monkey wrench in their plans. The Washington Post ran an article saying that this guaranteed the reelection of Heitkamp which is laughably naive. We are one year from the elections. Trump can easily turn on her if the situation requires it.

The Republican political establishment thought that they could force Trump to bend to their will because he had no other options. If they did not they thought there would be no consequences except for a lame duck Presidency. Trump is showing that that is not necessarily the case and he has other options.

3 Months

Has anyone considered why this particular move was done in this deal? Raising the debt ceiling for 3 months is really insignificant. Both sides will be back at it again come December so why? These 3 months are what the Republican establishment has to show that they can be of some value to Trump so that he will work with them. If not then Trump will move to align himself further with the Democrats.

Nationalists

What does this mean for us? Obviously the best result that can come from this is that the Republican establishment realizes it needs Trump and unifies to pass the things he needs in his agenda. In this case we get most of what Trump campaigned for.

We have to be prepared for the other scenario though. What if Trump is forced to align himself more fully with the Democrats to get things passed?

First of any immigration reform goes out the window. Democrats will never agree to it and there would be no scenario where we get anything meaningful done in that regard.

The other things could still be done though. Withdrawing from onerous international agreements is something both Sanders and Trump agree on and could still pass. Raising the standardized deduction for income taxes could also be done as it would mean that more low to mid income people would be exempt from tax. Legislation to return jobs to America would be done as well. Both parties want it they just don’t want the other party to get credit for it.

I could provide more specifics but to cut everything short think of everything that Bernie Sanders and Trump agree on. That would be our best case scenario for a Trump presidency that is allied with Democrats.

Pivotal Moment

We are at a pivotal moment in the Trump presidency. Conservative pundits are condemning Trump for caring more about TV ratings than his agenda. To those people I would like to ask what has Trump actually gotten for working with Republicans in congress? With the exception of the Supreme Court nomination every other achievement of the Trump administration has been done using the powers of the executive branch.

The next three months and whatever Ryan and Mcconell get done in them will determine whether Trump governs like a Republican or Democrat.

At this point I would like to remind nationalists that while we are more closely aligned with Republicans the party itself does not matter to us. What matters is getting things we approve of passed.

 

 

 

The Truth About DACA and the Economy

Obama_Supreme_KidDailyKos.jpg

The defenders of illegal immigration are now arguing that ending DACA would cause economic doom. Some reports from CNBC state that ending DACA would cost the economy 200 billion. Still other reports say it will cost 400 billion.

Let me be clear. This is false and using a line of argument that only an economic illiterate would make.

Debunking the Theory

When the defenders of DACA give out the amount of money that the economy will lose they do so by calculating the total amount of wages all the illegals under the Dream act earn and then having that magically disappear from the economy. In what world are these jobs contingent on having illegals? If there were no illegals around these jobs would still need to be done. There is no special skill someone under DACA would have that an American would not and conversely there is no special skill an American would have that these DACA recipients would not have. Except they work for far less than an American would. Which explains why big business is lobbying very hard to keep them around.

The people who make this argument rely on the public being kept in the dark about what type of jobs the DACA illegals hold. There is an idea out there that these jobs are things no American would do at any price which is why we need the DACA illegals to fill them. Apple recently bragged that it had DACA recipients employed in its software division, marketing, and sales. Do those sound like jobs no American is willing to do? Microsoft defiantly said that they would defend their DACA employees in court. Is Microsoft running a plantation somewhere where these illegals are employed in backbreaking labor?

The reality is that there is plenty of available labor to take these jobs. The government may say that we are at full employment but we have one of the lowest labor participation rates ever recorded. There are plenty of people to take the jobs these illegals will vacate.

Going Further

In contrast to the doomsayers I would like to argue that the removal of DACA illegal in the labor pool would actually a benefit to the economy not a drain. The primary reason illegals are hired by corporations is that they are willing to work for less money and benefits. If an American were hired for the job they would have to pay more. Higher wages means that they get to spend more money on the economy and generate even more employment for the community. This is actually the free market working as intended as the only reason price of labor was down is because too much additional labor was introduced.

DACA illegals also have a much higher chance to have relatives abroad that they need to send money to. Every dollar that they send back to Mexico or any other country is another dollar that is taken out of the US economy. Instead of generating jobs and demand in the US economy it generates jobs and demand in another one. If a citizen were to get the job then almost everything would be spent inside the US. Please note that even if you buy goods made by foreign companies it still generates demand and jobs in your local community as those stores need more employees, more delivery people, and a bigger supply chain for the increased demand. These newly employed people then repeat the same cycle of demand.

Lastly it is even I would argue that it is even beneficial for the government to remove the DACA illegals. The current argument is that they pay taxes so their removal would lead to those taxes no longer being paid. Whoever fills their roles would still pay taxes too. Best of all they would no longer be part of those who are too discouraged to look for work and would be off government welfare leading to the government spending less.

To sum everything up. Whether the DACA illegals are there or not the jobs they leave still need to be done. If we hire Americans to do it it is better for the economy as a whole. Those who disagree with this have no right to ask for any minimum wage increases.

DACA: Sins of the Father?

2016-01-02-e966242f_large.jpg

With the Trump administration set to end DACA its supporters have come up with a uniform rallying cry in its defense. “In America we do not punish children for the sins of their parents”.

Except we do. All the time. One of the most important concepts that almost all Democrats hold dear is affirmative action. Doesn’t this punish the children because their ancestors were supposedly racist?

If somebody robs a bank and gives the money to his children what do we do? Do we leave the money with his children as returning it to their original owner would be punishing them? No we would return the money to the owner of the property.

What if the parent and child would illegally squat in an apartment or home owned by someone else? Would we say they can stay there because the child did nothing wrong? Or would we evict them?

If a single parent murders someone in cold blood do we keep him out of prison because it would hurt the child? No the murderer goes into prison and the child gets put into some foster home or relative.

It would actually be fairly rare to find a situation where a child is not punished in some way for the actions of his parent.

In any case the illegals are not blameless as they did cross the border without getting the proper authorization. Remember we are not talking about criminal cases here but rather civil cases where in some cases actual commission of the act is enough even without intent. I encourage everyone to keep this in mind as supporters of DACA try to make the case for its morality using the much stricter standards of criminal justice and law.

Now that we have dispensed with the platitudes let us discuss what is really happening. Why is congress both republicans and democrats so hell bent on encouraging illegal immigration?

Democrats

For Democrats its simple. Its all about the votes. I will not go down the path of people voting illegally as that is always sure to start an argument. I will just point out that political parties think in terms of decades and not just years. The DACA “children” have already been here for 8 years and for some of them even longer. They may even be adults now capable of having children of their own. Children who by virtue of birthright citizenship (something only one or two countries provide) will be American citizens. These people can then vote for Democrats in the future.

Democrats are fond of saying that Demographics is destiny as a prophesy of their eventually victory. This is the Democrats pushing that along.

Republicans

To be completely fair this next section does not only apply to Republicans. Establishment Democrats want this as much as their Republican counterparts do. Our politicans want this because it serves their corporate paymasters. Encouraging more illegal immigration with DACA and other measures like that increases the amount of labor available which reduces its cost and bargaining power. Leading to lower wages to everyone.

All Republicans and most Democrats claim to be capitalists who favor free trade and free markets. Under a capitalist system labor is just like any other commodity. If there is a scarcity of labor then its prices increase and if there is too much labor then its prices decrease. It is funny. When the free market dictate that the price of labor decrease our politicians turn into avatars of the free market. When the free market dictates that the price of labor increases our politicians cannot stand it and work to correct it.

We all want wages to increase to help the economy. The only way to do that is to control the supply of labor. Ending DACA is a step in this direction.

How Obama Wiretapped Trump

th (1)

The Washington Post recently came out with an article that says the DOJ states there were no documents showing that Trump Tower was wiretapped. They would like to focus on the strictest definition of what Trump said because to widen it would mean we would have to look at the biggest scandal since Watergate. At least Nixon had the shame to use criminals instead of the government.

Why did they not ask if there were any documents showing that the Trump campaign was under surveillance? The simple answer is because it would have come up positive. Let that sink in. The administration of the Democrats had the campaign of the Republican candidate under surveillance using the powers of the government.

Timeline

When I first brought up the fact that Obama wiretapped Trump there were some gaps in the story which we filled in using logic. At this point the only gap that exists is whether or not Obama explicitly gave the order to wiretap the Trump campaign. Everything else has been confirmed. Here is the timeline for easy reference.

1. During the primaries never Trumpers start work on the Steele dossier. This is then later on funded by Democrats.

This dossier alleges that Trump watched Russian hookers pee on a bed slept in by Obama on tape and that one of Trump’s associates had a meeting in Moscow, when multiple eye witnesses place him in the country at the time of that meeting, among other things.

2. The suspect nature of the dossier did not matter. All it was needed for was to provide justification for FISA warrants for associates in the Trump campaign. There is no one to challenge it in the FISA court as only the government is represented.

The secret FISA courts have so far rejected 9 out of 35000 requests from the government. They rejected this request twice. Obama had to shop around for another judge to approve it on their third attempt.

3. As of now Trump campaign members are now officially under surveillance. It would have been impossible to listen in on people involved in the campaign without picking up information of political value.

At this point it is worth noting that Trump would have been factually correct. When these members were in Trump Tower, and they were at certain points, then the people spying on them could listen to conversations inside Trump Tower.

4.The Democrats now have the information in raw form which needs to be processed. This takes place when Susan Rice requests for the names of the American citizens in these documents to be unmasked.

The media insists that the reason this is so is because there was a need to know who the people were for further investigation. This is false. FBI agents themselves were the ones conducting the surveillance. Administration lawyers drafted the FISA requests. They already knew who the people under surveillance were. The reason that requests for unmasking take place is so that you have a record on paper saying that this person did that instead of redacted did that.

5. Once the names are redacted they can be used for anything. They can be used for further charges. They can be leaked to the press. They can be passed on to Clinton campaign officials.

It is also important to remember that at this time Obama relaxed the rules of sharing between government agencies which means more people would have had access to the unmasked information.

A Rose by Any Other Name

I suppose it would have been more accurate to say “the obama administration abused the FISA courts to put the opposing campaign under surveillance and then used this information for political purposes in a scandal of a scale that dwarfs watergate” but that is a mouthful. Obama wiretapped Trump is much more simple, direct, and covers the essence of what happened.

The New Korean War

download.jpg

For the record I fully support an armed intervention in North Korea. In my opinion the US has tried every other option and all of them have failed. Bill Clinton tried complete and total submission. Offering a yearly tribute in oil to North Korea as well as offering to build their nuclear program with American aid. Undisclosed provisions in the deal suggest that the North Korean leaders could have personally gotten something as well. It did not work. Bush Jr tried belligerence with economic sanctions. Stopping the tribute provided by the Clintons and then using the UN to contain North Korea. The regime did not care. Obama tried ignoring North Korea. That did not work. Now it is very likely that they have nuclear weapons as well as the means to deliver them.

Equally important is that I am confident Trump is the best man for the job. In my opinion Bush made two very critical mistakes in the Iraq war which could have changed the flow of history.

Preparation

This is the first mistake. When Bush was making his case for the war in Iraq he led the public to believe that it would have been an easy task. The US military would overwhelm the Iraqi army and their resistance would crumble. Even if this was the case he should not have said so. One of the most important strategies to managing expectations is to underpromise and overdeliver. This allows you to have a margin of error in case things turn out worse than you expect. In case things work out better than you expect then you can always congratulate the troops for doing a good job and keeping casualties to a minimum.

At this point I would like to direct you to the tweets of President Trump during hurricane Harvey.  At all times he was pointing out how big and terrible the storm was while praising the capability of Texas and the American people to get through the disaster. If you think that the storm is huge then you mentally prepare yourself for lots of damage and suffering. When things turn out to be less damaging than you expect then you can always give credit and praise the first responders.

When we finally go into North Korea Trump will be using this tactic.

Nation Building

This is the second and most critical mistake from Iraq. The US army is actually very good at conventional warfare. I divide the Iraq adventure into two episodes. The first is when we actually had an Iraqi army to fight and the second was when we were fighting the insurgency. The US was actually very successful during the first phase. In fact it was so successful and so widely covered that the entire thing felt like a video game instead of an actual invasion.

Things went south went we stayed instead of pulling out right after. As a nation the US is not equipped to handle insurgencies. We just do not have the moral fortitude to do the things required to defeat an insurgency or to sustain a campaign of attrition. Part of being able to implement successful operations is understanding your own limitations. If we pulled out right after unseating the Iraqi then we would have been able to declare victory. What ever happened to Iraq after would have been a thing for the foreign section of the nightly news instead of a national concern.

I am very confident that President Trump will not make this mistake. Nation building seems to be the last thing in his mind nor is sacrificing military efficiency for humanitarian concerns which is another good thing.

I am fully aware that leaving Iraq or in this case North Korea right away may cause a humanitarian crisis. I would rather the world deal with a humanitarian crisis there, after having achieved the downfall of the Kim regime, than have the United States deal with a humanitarian crisis here after LA gets nuked.

The Brilliance of Bannon

bannon

When I first heard Steve Bannon was fired from the Trump administration I could not believe my ears. Politically speaking it made no sense. It handed a great victory to the Democrats and their allies in the media, which only further emboldens them, and plants a wedge in between the new economic populists in the GOP and its traditional conservative base. There does not seem to be any benefit to the decision. The story currently being given where Bannon is leaving the administration to fight its enemies at the head of Breitbart does not sound logical either. There is nothing Bannon could have done outside the administration that he could not have done inside it. I sincerely doubt he gave up all ties to Breitbart when he left just as I doubt Podesta or other political operators still have ties to the Washington Post and other organizations they used to have leadership roles in.

If you have been reading my articles it should be no secret that my views closely align with Bannon and I am deeply disappointed by his termination. I will pause now to cue the autistic screeching about racism from any liberal readers I may have. Over and above politics Bannon leaving the White House should be of concern to everyone. Out of every major political figure in America today Bannon is the only one who grasps the true state of the country and its vulnerabilities. It may offend some of my readers but I include President Trump in this statement. Trump understands that things are bad but in my opinion he does not fully understand how bad things are and how close to the brink we are.

I encourage everyone to read Steve Bannon’s latest interview if you have not already. In it he speaks of an all out economic war with China and about the United States being in a unique inflection point in history. He says that we are currently fighting a war to see if the hegemony of the United States will continue on to the next half of this century. He mentions that the next five years is critical as if we don’t act now we will have passed the point of no return and Chinese victory will have been assured. This is not alarmism. History is full of these inflection points. Some of them violent such as in the case of Islam and Persia or Rome and Greece. Some of them non-violent as in the case of the transition from the hegemony of the British Empire to the American one. Historically speaking America has not even been in charge for that long. Rome had a thousand years, Britain had a few centuries, America is barely completing its first.

Economic Advantage

This is the heart of the issue and one that needs to be understood the most. If you ask people, even nobel-prize winning economists, where the economic advantage of America lies you would get many different answers. Most will say something along the line of technology. Silicon Valley and the various other places computers and the programs that go along with it are developed. Others will say in the military hardware. After all more than half of America’s exports have to do with the military industrial complex which provides jobs for hundreds of thousands of Americans. Still others will say in the service sector or management. They are all wrong.

The primary advantage America has over its competitors is consumer spending. If America and China were to stop trading tomorrow America would still be able to find cheap goods. It is no secret that Vietnam, Malaysia, and other south east Asian countries already have the capability to produce goods at much lower prices than China. Companies are just kept in China because the Chinese government makes access to its market contingent on providing employment for its people. The US seems to have the opposite policy. On the other hand the Chinese would not be able to find a market that could purchase their goods at the price the US can. They have already expanded into the EU and other places that could have done it.

The reasoning behind this is simple. Americans are paid more than their counterparts and on top of this there is a well-developed financial system where almost everyone has access to a credit card. This allows people to have more purchasing power than their wage level would suggest. This may surprise some people but in less developed economies like China, India, the Philippines, and other places like that less than half the populace has access to a credit card. This means that they can only spend what their wages and savings will allow which is not a great amount to begin with. Couple this with the fact that there is social security and other forms of assistance that is lacking in other countries and Americans have more money to spend than anyone else.

This allows America to impose trade rules that are supposed to work to its advantage as a condition for access to its markets. Similar to what I described with China in the previous paragraphs. Unfortunately this is not the case as everything we have done in the economic sphere leads to the erosion of this advantage.

There may be some readers who have realized this already but wonder what this has to do with the inflection point I discussed earlier. What far fewer people realize is the system is collapsing. Consumer debt is rising at unprecedented levels. Last I checked the level of consumer debt is already past the entire GDP of China. Banks have announced record numbers of charged off accounts and have projected increasing numbers of charged off accounts for 2017. A charged off account is in essence an account that can no longer afford to pay and is sold to a collections agency. Consequently this has also tightened the eagerness of banks to increase existing credit limits or lines of credit or approve new ones. Banks will never provide data for this but I encourage you to ask people around you when the last time their bank increased their credit or approved a new card. Not to mention lowered interest rates. In the quest of our politicians to provide the cheapest goods possible for the people they have allowed the outsourcing of jobs at record pace and the replacement of onshore jobs with illegals and H1-B visa holders. Ensuring that the people who have access to these cheap goods can no longer afford them.

Military

At this point you may be thinking well what about the military? Surely American hegemony would still continue even when the Chinese beat the US in the economic field. You would be wrong. A huge military is nothing without a strong economy to back it up. Carriers need to be maintained, new technology developed, and most importantly troops need to be paid. Russia or North Korea is a great case study on what happens when there is an expensive military to sustain without an economy to support it. This is also the reason why I supported an alliance with Russia as a means to contain China. Similar to how China was used in the past to contain Russia. At its current state Russia will never be in a position to threaten American hegemony but China will.

Historically speaking Rome did not last a thousand years because it had an outstanding military. In fact in most of its battles with Persia it ended up on the losing side. Rome lasted because they had an economy that could lose a fully equipped army of 50000 men one day and turn out another fully equipped 50000 men the next. This may offend some people but it also needs to be said that America did not win World War 2 through superior generalship. It won because it massively outproduced its opponents. Japan produced a total of 2 new carriers for the entire duration of World War 2. I will leave it to the reader to find out how many America produced.

The next level of analysis is even more disturbing. What happens when a nation finds it can no longer afford its military? Does it disband it? Or does it use that military to seize resources from other nations to keep its system going?

Racism

It always comes down to this. I have already provided you with data as to why I believe the choice is binary. We either proceed with the agenda of economic nationalism with Trump and Bannon at the helm paving the way for a new century of American hegemony or we end up living under Chinese hegemony instead.

If you believe America is a racist country and Bannon is a white supremacist then you do. Nothing I say will change that. The only thing I will say in defense of America is I have not seen any other countries with active jurisprudence effectively saying that it is acceptable to discriminate against asians and whites in favor of blacks and latinos in some matters.

If you believe America is racist then you are in for a shock once China becomes the dominant power. I have seen beloved children cast out of the family for the sole reason that the person they chose to love was not ethnically Chinese. I have seen hard and talented workers denied promotions because people who were not Chinese could not rise above a certain level in some companies. This does not stop there. Criminal Justice, economic opportunities, bullying in school, and others. I will repeat people who believe America is racist have no idea what the next superpower is capable of.

I will continue trying to fight the good fight but with Bannon’s ouster I have lost any hope that America will continue its hegemony into the later half of this century. After all it is very hard to solve a problem if you fire the only person who actually knows what it is. My only consolation is that millennials who have screeched so hard about racism will live long enough to experience a world dominated by China.

The Fascists Have Won

th (3).jpg

There are a lot of good series on TV recently depicting post apocalyptic dystopian societies. You have the handmaids tale and my personal favorite the 100. This is my pitch for a dystopian setting.

Imagine a world where the highest court in the land said that the color of ones skin determines ones eligibility for higher education.

In the same world companies would be celebrated for using the same criteria to determine your ability to do the work they need.

Imagine in that world every race had an organization advocating for their interests except one.

Every other race had the right to march and protest and are celebrated for it. If the taboo race does it they are beaten and dispersed.

All other races have the right to vote in lockstep. If the taboo race does it they are declared racists. If the taboo race win an election it is assumed they do it by cheating.

In this world any ideas presented have to be approved by a central committee first.

People who go against the pre-approved set of philosophies can get services denied to them and can be terminated from employment.

Social media and other forms of modern communication are available only for people who prescribe to the pre-approved philosophy.

All the evils of the world are blamed on this one race of people while every other race is celebrated for their contributions.

I call this America 2017.

The left says the right is fascist all the while setting up their own fascist regime.

The Truth: Racism in Virginia

th

In the aftermath of the events in Virginia the mainstream media were united in their message. They uniformly asked how was it possible that in this day and age this many people were joining organizations advocating for the rights of whites? This was their attempt to push the blame on the tragedy on President Trump. The truth is the answer is much older than that. Trump has only been in power for around half a year after all. The media did stumble upon the answer and it is racism.

Before I proceed I would like to stipulate two things that I think the left and the right can both agree on. First that there is a difference between how wealthy people are treated and how poor people are treated. You could take a person who hates African-Americans and he would still be deferential if someone like Oprah told him that he would invest in his business. Police would be more likely to be lenient to someone who could afford the best lawyers no matter his color than someone who could not. Second if you target any race for widespread discrimination they will form their own groups to resist this.

Racism

When the entire issue of affirmative action was pushed into the limelight by the Trump administration the Democrat controlled media was quick to point out that it was not because of minorities that Asians and whites were losing out on university slots it was instead due to other whites. They argue that whites tend to be legacy admissions and have a much higher rate of being accepted into the alma mater of their parents than other people. What the media misses here is that these legacies are all uniformly wealthy. After all the entire reason universities give them special treatment is to get donations from their parents. Rich white people have the legacy back door. Minorities have affirmative action and scholarships which exclusively cater to minorities. What do poor white people have?

This is not limited to education. Consider criminal justice. If you get arrested and you happen to be African-American or any other minority it is very likely that there is an organization whose sole purpose is to provide representation for you. If you are a rich white person or a rich person of any color for that matter you have access to the best legal talent money can buy. If you are a poor white person what do you have?

How about employment? If you are a rich person then you are most likely doing the employing yourself. If you are a minority then you have a better chance than average since the employer would like to prove that they have a diverse working environment. What about if you are poor and white? For that matter if you cried racism when you are poor and white what would happen? How hard would people laugh?

I do not deny that some white people profited from racism. They were able to build their wealth on its back. What does this have to do with most white people? Is the immigrant from Ireland just as guilty as the plantation owner in slavery days? How about the poor white kid who worked in the northern factories? Are his descendents able to get a head start on life because of his work? The truth is when you tell a race of people that they do not enjoy the same rights and privileges that other races of people do they will form organizations that advocate for their interests.

Institutional

At this point I hope I have convinced you that there is a difference between how poor white people and rich white people are treated. If everyone were a rich white person then you could discriminate against them and they would not mind as they have the means to get by. Instead we have an entire class of people unfairly discriminated against. I would like to go further than that. I would like to argue that the racism poor white people face is worse than any racism minorities currently face. If I were to organize society into layers of privilege I would place rich white people on top as they were able to build their wealth thru the racism of the past and pass all the advantages to their family and poor white people in the very bottom as they were not beneficiaries of racism before and are unfairly targeted by affirmative action now.

I divide racism into two categories. Note that this is simply a personal division that I use. Residual and Institutional. Residual racism is racism that a single person may possess but is frowned upon by society. Society will try its best to stamp it out. Institutional racism is racism that is encouraged by society. This can be thru laws, social affirmation, or thru other means. A good example would be slavery when it was still legal. Very few people questioned it or even thought they were racist when they owned slaves.

Consider this example. A black person is told by a university or potential employer that he did not get the slot he was applying for partly because of the color of his skin. Society would explode. Boycotts, social backlash, and any number of other things would happen. A lawsuit would most likely be filed and government would use its institutional power to fine the offending party.

Consider another example. A poor white person is told by a university or potential employer that he did not get the slot he was applying for partly because of the color of his skin. Society would not explode. In fact with the most recent Supreme Court decision it is the law of the land. A person can be denied entrance into university partly because of the color of his skin. Society would even go out of its way to reward institutions like that for promoting diversity.

Final Thoughts

Due to its institutional nature people practice racism against poor white people all the time without realizing it. Once society decides to discriminate against the less wealthy majority of an entire race of people and shame them when they cry racism is it any wonder that they decide to fight back?

 

Are Democrats Racist?

michelle-racism-02.jpg

When you talk to Democrats they will tell you that the only reason that the GOP exists at all is because of racism. Any action they disagree with is quickly labeled as racist. When you talk to Republicans they will tell you that it is Democrats who are Racist because of how their policies work in the real world. Lets take a look at how these policies affect minorities.

Christian

Meet Christian. I have retracted his last name to protect his anonymity. Christian is an African-American and his lifestyle is that of a stereotypical nerd. He studied hard in high school and managed to graduate. Due to affirmative action he was able to secure a slot in Harvard. He thanks Democrats every day for the opportunities he feels their party has given him. This is where things took a turn for the worse. He found it very hard to cope with the coursework. He was used to being the smartest kid and he was now at the bottom of the class. It did not help that more pressure was put on him with all the student loans he had to take in order to afford college. He eventually cracked and dropped out. He is now equipped to face the future with his high school diploma and a mountain of student debt.

If Christian were an Asian or White he would not have qualified for Harvard and would have gone to a less challenging university instead. He would be well on his way to graduating and finding decent employment leading to future generations of African-Americans with better prospects and economic standing.

Jamal

Say hello to Jamal. He is a typical teenager. Like girls, playing online games, and basketball. He hangs out with his friends in the weekend and picks up part-time jobs when he needs money. In short he is living a happy childhood. He thanks Democrats that they keep the racist police out of his neighborhood. One day while walking home he was shot by another youth. His funeral was last week.

The police were afraid to go to his neighborhood. They know that if a situation happened and they were forced to defend themselves against a gentle giant or some other entity their life would be turned upside down for doing their jobs. If Jamal were white the police would have been patrolling his neighborhood and would have been able to prevent the shooting or get him aid promptly after the event. Jamal literally died because he was black.

Pedro

Welcome Pedro! He is a latino born to parents who legally migrated from Brazil. He is proud to be an American and is proud of Democrats for helping bring more South and Central Americans to the country even if they have to do it illegally. Due to various reasons Pedro was not able to finish High School. He attempted to work in construction and even as a waiter just to get a start somewhere but he always found that employers preferred illegals for those positions as they could be paid less. Out of work and out of luck he eventually joined a gang affiliated with MS-13.

If Democrats had prioritized Americans like him over illegal immigrants from Central and South America he would have been able to find employment and gangs like MS-13 would have been kept south of the border.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey is a father of two. Due to some complications his wife passed away a couple of years ago. He is trying to raise his two children on his salary but is struggling. He thanks the Democrats for providing an economy with full employment and he blames the evil Republicans for keeping his wages down.

Jeffrey works as a programmer for a popular company. Since there are very few out of work programmers available his salary should have been rising pretty quickly. Instead of increasing his salary or hiring more workers his company opted to hire more h1-b visa holders instead to keep costs down. If Democrats would have prioritized him first his life would have gotten better.

Just a snapshot of four lives all ruined by the racist policies of the Democrats.