Thursday, February 2, 2017

Violence in The Current Year

The violence and rioting at Berkeley are intended to be a win-win for the left.  I don't think that the timing is coincidental to Trump's inauguration.  Trump has been wrong-footing the left and "flooding the zone" by moving to keep campaign promises with record speed.  The left has been exhausted trying to maintain their outrage.  Enter Milo.  The location and the advance notice gave the leftist globalist scum time to plan their rioting for maximum effect.  It allows them to seize the initiative from Trump and make headlines about Nazis and white supremacists, as to build sympathy to their cause.  Right on cue, CNN tweeted this:



This looks is a win-win for the left, because I think they are anticipating Trump sending in federal troops like he threatened to do in Chicago.  Federalizing law enforcement helps the left in both the long and the short term.  In the long run, when their is a Democrat President again, they can point to a Trump precedent to start overthrowing local police in places they don't like.  In the short term, any violence by federal troops against protesters will inflame passions even more and add sympathy to their cause.

But Trump is smarter, and out Alinsky's the left with this tweet:


Further, as Buzzfeed, of all places, points out, this is no empty threat.  If Trump goes after the city and the college for civil rights violations, there will be personal hell to pay by the mayor and University President who allowed brutal attacks:

Federal higher education laws and regulations are layered with anti-discrimination provisions that made possible the withdrawal of funding for discrimination based on race, religion, and sex. Should Trump follow through with his threat, the Department of Education, through its Office of Civil Rights, would conduct a formal investigation, after which a university could lose funding based on the findings, Loss said.

Using the left's favorite federal tactics against them would be a joy to watch, as well actually advancing the cause of justice.  I think Trump will outmaneuver these communists after all.

The Alinsky tactic to be used is:
Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

In this case the leaders like the mayor, police chief and university president can be isolated and made to pay. Un example pour les autres.

Thursday, January 12, 2017

Yawn - Chargers to Leave San Diego

The impending move of the Chargers to Los Angeles has left with me with a so what feeling.  I lost emotional connection with them a few years back.  I had no intention of supporting another hold-up of the city finances.

The only silver lining is that maybe we will have incentive to figure out how to make stadiums profitable without football teams. If that problem could be solved, we could build stadiums and not get soaked on the deal.  

So long.  And good luck playing second fiddle to the Rams in LA. 

Friday, December 30, 2016

Putin, Trump, Obama and Our Shared Interests with Russia

The current insanity over the Russian hacking of DNC emails, not yet proved in my opinion, is another tempest in a teapot.  It has merely provided Obama another opportunity to demonstrate his petulance and contempt for Trump.  It's ironic that the hacks, as revealed on Wikileaks, demonstrate just how corrupt the media and Democratic party are.  Their collusion is only surprising as to the vastness of its extent.

Worth considering is the extent to which our nation's interests align with Putin's.  This is not the same as admiring Putin, who is a dictator and likely murderer.  But he is also the leader of a singularly important nation, whose interests have changed since the cold war.  Full disclosure, I am a former officer in the U.S. Submarine force, but that doesn't influence my thinking here.

First and foremost, both Russia and the U.S. have an interest in isolating and defeating Islamic extremism.  Russia is ringed by Muslims 'stans on its southern border.  Their experience with the Chechens demonstrated the need to contain the spread of extremism.  The U.S. interest in this matter is actually less clear, but certainly, our security from terrorism has to top the list.  With this common interest, cooperation with Putin on defeating ISIS in Syria, keeping the Sunnis and Shiites divided to contain extremism makes sense.  For the record, I don't think that the Arab Muslim world can ever be democratic due to the high rates of consanguineous marriage; Steve Sailer laid this out over a dozen years ago.

The other conundrum with Russia is the confluence of continued warfare in the Middle East and the Russian violation of the Ukrainian border and seizure of Crimea.  One of the key sources of conflict in the Middle East are the asinine borders that do not respect natural geographic feature or traditional tribal regions.  The rise of ISIS stems from the fact that Sunni tribes in both eastern Syria and western Iraq feel greater kinship to each other than to Shiite governments in Damascus and Baghdad respectively.  A redrawing of the borders is necessary to end the incessant warfare and migration crises.  But the U.S. is wedded to a policy of strictly maintaining the sanctity of borders worldwide.  We believe that a failure to do so would allow mischief to break out along Chinese, Indian, or other regions.  This is where Russia comes in.  Their seizure of the Crimea was just, in my opinion, given that it was stolen from the Russian federation in the 1950s by Khruschev.  Were we to grant the legitimacy of some border changes with Russia, they might be amenable to a deal where we redraw Middle East borders, as a one-time exception to the sanctity of borders policy.

I believe that the future of Europe has been put in danger by Muslim migration.  Dealing with the root causes, other than Merkel's fecklessness, is in our long term best interest. Only Europe and the Anglosphere share our values, so helping to save them from themselves is in the U.S. national interest.

The final way in which our interests align also involves Europe.  For various political reasons, Putin has postured as the only defender of traditional Christian values.  I doubt that he is sincere, but his example in promoting these values stands as a contrast to the current European model of attempting to destroy Christianity within the borders of Western European nations.

So I applaud Trump for his tweet.    

He knows he has time to deal with Putin.  Putin smartly decided not to retaliate against Obama's petulance, which was the alpha male move.  A relationship based on mutual respect and recognizing shared interests will serve the U.S. well when it comes to Russia.  Since Russia abandoned international Communism, our interests can often be aligned.

Thursday, December 29, 2016

Natalist Nationalist Policies

I have staked out a position as a limited-government nationalist, but haven't delineated how that differs from standard conservatism or from more right-wing proposals from the alt-right.  Here are two natalist policies consonant with the desire to keep America great into future generations.

A key issue for nationalists is the high levels of immigration, illegal and otherwise.  Much of the apologia for allowing the immigration centers around low U.S. birth rates the need for more workers.  But importing people who lack the intellectual or cultural wherewithal to successfully integrate into our European (and more specifically Anglo-Saxon) society is a death sentence for the Bill of Rights in the long term. (To be clear, I am calling for an end to all immigration immediately with an emphasis on building a wall at the southern border.)   What should be done to ensure the future of our people and a future work force?  Increase the birth rate of the native born.  I know that natalist policies have been a mixed bag; but I ultimately believe that incentives matter and can work in this area.  For example, the high rates of illegal immigration have kept down wages for nannies, and at least one study linked this to higher birth rates of native-born Americans when compared to Europeans. 

Tax policy can provide huge incentives for couples to have children.  But we want couples who are already successful to have children because they have already demonstrated genetic fitness, and because they have the financial resources to provide for children.  I propose a massive increase in the child tax credit that is a percentage of adjusted gross income. The total value of the credit should be in the range of 5% of AGI per child capped at $1 million in income.  That means a couple earning $200,000 per year would get a $20,000 credit for two children.  That might be too generous, I would need expert help to get the incentive just right.  Basing the credit on a percentage of AGI would also encourage couples who already have children to earn more money, which can only help the economy and their kids.

Another key issue is that college bound women waste their peak fertile years in college.  However, for the benefit of our society, it is best to educate women to eventually join the work force.  In order to increase the birth rate, we need some way to encourage college-aspiring women to have babies starting at 18 but still retain the opportunity for college. This might be remedied by a policy that provides scholarship money to woman who delay the start of college to have children.  This policy is intended to have "unintended" consequences.  First, I know that many such women who have a child will not want to return to work or college soon.  My gut instinct, based on some reading, is that removing more women from the work force and returning them to traditional roles will result in a more traditional and conservative society.  Fat young women who have no business being in college, as evidenced by their selection of critical dance theory as a major, are a ready source of "troops" for leftist causes.  Further, pregnancy alters the brains of women; I would bet that it does so in ways that make women more amenable to supporting traditional societal norms.  

I intend to write more about both natalist and nationalist polices.  If you are reading this column by way of twitter, I wrote this for John Rivers, whom I follow.  He makes great points, but I keep thinking that more detail is needed to implement national policy that will achieve the results we mutually desire.  Just hating the left isn't going to change the trajectory of the nation.  Since we are descendants of the people who invented Western civilization and modern industrial society; there's no reason to believe we can't start to figure out how to reverse the current trends in America that put us on a trajectory towards third world dictatorship.



Thursday, November 17, 2016

From Libertarian to Conservative to Nationalist

Some of my friends stopped talking to me about politics as I have made a journey from libertarian to right-wing nationalist.  I owe my friends an explanation.  Everyone else is welcome to read of course, but if I don't know you, I may not publish your comments.

First, I want the same things that I always wanted for this country; limited government, liberty, the rule of law, entrepreneurial culture, and an expanding economy.  I came to realize that although libertarians and even conservatives claim to want those things as well, the way they pursue those ends undermines their goals.  It's a little like happiness, if you want to be happy, you don't pursue material possessions and partying, which might seem like the road to happiness. Instead, you pursue worthwhile goals, you find your place within your community and in relation to God.  Then you find joy, a much deeper emotion, and more happiness.

The key break with conservatives is the realization that all men are not created equal.  They may be equal in the eyes of God, or we may value equal treatment before the law for the citizens within our borders.  But not all peoples are equally adept at thriving in a society of limited government and advanced technology.  But this equalist fantasy pervades conservative thinking. They fantasize that majorities of mestizos, arabs, and blacks can become conservative voters; so they refuse to address a key way that the left defeats conservatives, by importing peoples whose children and great-grandchildren will vote for socialism and less freedom.  You can call me racist, but that wouldn't address the truth of my argument.  The left lies and says that by increasing the diversity of America, it makes America stronger.  In fact, racial diversity harms social cohesion, as many studies have shown.  But conservatives eschew truthful arguments for fear of being called racist.  In fact, their fear of being called bad names and not receiving approval from their leftist colleagues, acquaintances, and neighbors always puts them on the defensive, so THEY ALWAYS LOSE the culture war.  As Andrew Breitbart famously said, politics is downstream of culture.  This is why I have abandoned the niceties of policy discussions of tax codes and other mainstream conservative topics.  Until we build a social consensus about acceptable norms that are based on the traditions of our European forebears, we are doomed to extinction by a combination of immigration and being out-bred by an imported permanent underclass.

When one considers what the "good life" consists of, it cannot be a life devoted to mere material possession or self-interest.  Taking one's place in a community of shared values is a key to long-life happiness.  Intact families that produce new generations to carry on our work are the linchpin of this joy.  Our shared values based on shared religious conviction that allow us to agree on how to raise children and set their moral compass.  By definition, multiculturalism is a direct threat to these shared values.  Conservatives have no answer as to how to combat this, because they are unwilling to risk approbation by saying political incorrect things.  They are unwilling to say that Islamic belief is incompatible with freedom and democracy; that a mestizo underclass will always vote for socialism; or that blacks are dependent on the good-will of whites in our society.

Further, our lack of cultural cohesion leads to an atomization that also helps the left; atomized people, disconnected from their communities, are susceptible to believing in anything.  Further, they can be intimidated and made compliant without the intervening structures of church, community, and strong social organizations to protect them.  The belief in unrestricted individualism that underlies contemporary conservative and libertarian thought actually works against their own goals by disconnecting people from community.  In my nationalist view, we seek to take our place in our community and do the work that God grants us; we are willing to enforce our community norms, passing down the religion and traditions of our forefathers.  Because we also want limited government, we are not asking for government enforcement of our norms; merely non-interference in our right to discriminate and censure those who violate our values. Further, we seek a government that doesn't enshrine in law practices inimical to our religious and cultural convictions; so we oppose gay marriage, and marijuana legalization, as two examples.  We recognize that it is a tightrope to walk with respect to government overreach, especially concerning drug use.  But the recent spate of legalizations of marijuana just shows that politics is indeed downstream of culture.

The other key reason for my break with conservatives is that conservative politics only "wins" when it benefits globalists, never when they protect average Americans.  NAFTA was passed with Republican votes, and without unrestricted immigration, might have been good for America.  But conservatives did squat to control the border when Republicans held Congress.  The truck driver from Scranton may not follow politics much, but he knows when he is getting screwed.  He may not vote for the Democrat because they voted for regulations that make his job harder and more expensive; but he knows that Republicans won't ever roll it back. I'm tired of voting for people who say their policies will help Americans in some abstract way, but whose only victories come when big business is helped.  (By the way, the Democrats are even worse about this, but they don't claim to be a conservative party.)

As a practical matter, limited government nationalism mostly will agree with conservatives on many policy matters, and I seek an anti-Marxist alliance with libertarians and conservatives.  The difference is emphasis, the willingness to use so called hate-facts, and brave cries of racism from the left.  Ending immigration, illegal and otherwise is made the top priority.  Allowing Middle Eastern strongmen to enforce the peace to prevent chaos that results in migration crises is another goal.  The policies of the nation will be judged on the impact to the nation as a whole.  As Trump said, "America First."  But ultimately, politics and policy is no longer the goal; I want to change the tone of the culture.  The only policy that really matters is immigration, because your culture is highly dependent upon your ancestry.



Tuesday, November 1, 2016

San Diego Voter Guide - Vote NO!

My TrumpNation Guide To San Diego Ballot Propositions.

In a previous post on California ballot measures, I mostly recommended voting NO.  I am repeating this same recommendation for local ballot initiatives in San Diego.  There is all sorts of disguised skullduggery afoot, as I explain below; so if you don't know, Vote No!



Measure A. 1/2 Cent Sales Tax for SANDAG. NO
They say they will fix potholes with the money; maybe they will maybe they won't.  They can spend the extra money however they want within the listed priorities.

Measure B. Lilac Hill Development near Escondido. YES
The developers are having troubles with the seemingly endless regulation needed to build a project of this size.  So I say yes, as part of my bid to poke the eye of all regulators.

Measure C. Hotel Tax for Downtown Charger Stadium. NO
Raises the hotel tax to build a stadium downtown for the Chargers.  Just say no to professional sports owners getting sweetheart deals from cities.

Measure D. Competing Hotel Tax Measure for Charger Stadium. NO
Supposedly a better deal for taxpayers than Measure C; but my same objection to funding billionaires businesses applies.

Measure E. Removal of City Officials. NO
Provides for removal of "mayor, city attorney and City Council members to forfeit their job outright if they are convicted of a felony, found civilly liable for fraud or declared incapacitated by a court."  Source: VOSD.  Only voters should remove elected officials.  Further, this opens up the door for judicial shenanigans.  A friendly judge could declare the mayor "insane" and voila, the City Council President is Mayor.

Measure F. Probation Period for City Attorneys. NO
This measure would decrease the probationary period for city attorneys from 2 years to 1 year.  The elected City Attorney needs the right to shape the staff, so no. Plus, if this is a problem it can be a campaign issue.  It was one reason I voted for Jan Goldsmith in 2008, because he promised to clean up the managerial practices of the then City Attorney  We need to fix issues by electing the right people, which is why I am voting for Trump.

Measure G. More Teeth for Police Oversight. NO
This would give the Citizens Review Board a new name, more power to investigate and issue subpoenas.  This might be good if the San Diego police were doing a bad job.  But I fear that the police will get hamstrung and crime will rise as a result, like we are seeing in Baltimore, New York, and Chicago.

Measure H. Change to City Contracting Legal Language. NO
Supposedly uncontroversial measure removes requirement to publish advertisement of contracts in local paper, so too bad, NO! Much good work in uncovering corruption has been performed by perusing public documents.  Dave Maass is an example of someone who has done such work.

Measure I. Keep San Diego High School in it Current Location. NO
Directs the city to lease a portion of Balboa Park to the school district which would keep San Diego High in its current location.  I can't help but think this will also save taxpayer dollars and save the flagship high school.

Measure J.  Take More Money out of Mission Bay RentalsNO
Increases from 25% to 35% the amount of money that the city can shift out of Mission Bay Park to other parks from the rents it produces.  Seems unfair to me.

Measure K.  November Elections No Matter What Happens in June. NO
Requires a run off for Mayor and other offices even if the winner of the June primary got over 50% of the vote.  Since Republicans turn out better during primaries, this favors Democrats.  If Democrats want their lazy voters to make a difference, turn them out in June. 

Measure L.  November Elections for Ballot Measures. NO
Allows certain type of ballot measures to only be voted on in November.  Why bother having a June election if it is meaningless?

Measure M. Raise Limits on Affordable Housing City Manages. NO
This would increase the number of units of "affordable housing" the city is allowed to manage.  Stop all the regulations that prevent new homes from being built instead.

Measure N.  Taxes on Marijuana if LegalizedNO
The only good that would come of legalized weed would be a reduction of violence due to no more black market.  This would re-establish the black market and the violence by raising the price of marijuana above street prices. As we have seen in New York City with the death of Eric Garner, cigarette taxes kill.

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

Twatter, Fazeborg, and Gulagoogle

The big tech companies are treading dangerous ground. They are lying to their users, and by extension they are lying to their advertising. But before I explain, a quick note about twatter. Twitter, whose founder, Jack Dorsey, never saw a fascist jackboot he didn't want to shine with his own spittle, is an outrage amplification machine. Something about the media is addicting. And the more the outrage, the more addicting it feels. I honestly have been getting better night sleep by limiting my daily exposure to Twitter.

The basic problem with big tech is that their claim to be neutral in American politics in the dialogue between right and left is provably false. Everyone knows this intuitively, yet they all continue to claim how evenhanded they are.

Scott Adams has stated this more eloquently than I will be able to. In describing his position if he is in fact being shadowbanned, he said.
If one political party can use the machinery of social networks to reduce free speech, that is an attack on American values at the deepest level. As a patriot, I would feel obligated to help kill Twitter. (And you wouldn’t want to bet against me.) 
I understand Twitter is looking for a buyer. If management is shadowbanning me, that would be breach of fiduciary responsibility, screwing both the shareholders and the employees who hope the company can be purchased. In my view, shadowbanning would make Twitter too toxic to own. That toxicity – treason in my view – would transfer to the buyer.
There are two key issues, one moral, one legal.  Let's take the legal one first.  If the search/promotion/display policies of any of these platforms claim to be neutral, but in fact are being manipulated actively for political reasons but the stated policy of the network is to let the users decide, then they may run afoul of the law, as advertisers using their platforms aren't getting what is expected.  Scott Adams nails the ethical piece, as claiming to be a free speech platform, but secretly suppressing speech is tantamount to treason to our nation's founding principles.

I especially loathe Jack Dorsey and hope he eventually suffers the traditional penalty meted out to traitors.

UPDATE

Reader Foxfier provides a helpful link about a suit brought by American Freedom Law Center on this topic against Twitter and Facebook.  This suit will probably lose, but I like the "public square" argument, that these platforms form the equivalent of a street corner, where the free speech of individuals can't be suppressed based on viewpoint.

I would love to see lawsuits based on securities violations or false advertising by these corporations, because I think they are more vulnerable there.