Category Archives: Election / Politicians

President Zuma sings about KILLING white South Africans (again)

Once again, President Zuma sings about KILLING white South Africans. Liberals refuse to notice this. Increasingly, physical violence against whites is ignored, condoned, even encouraged. See Jesse Benn’s article promoting “white wounding” in the Huffington post.

Yale professor on Carly Fiorina’s business record: She ‘destroyed half the wealth of her investors yet still earned almost $100 million’

She was CEO of HP from 2000-2005. 2005 was well after the tech bubble had popped. Many of the companies that were hurt then – Microsoft, Cisco, Oracle, etc. – had long since recovered. HP’s stock did not start rising until AFTER Fiorina was fired. By the way, HP’s stock dropped from $55 when she was hired to $19 when she was fired – a far greater drop than that of those other tech companies. . . .

One theory of women CEOs: They don’t bring in women CEOs (peacemakers) to make the necessary changes that save a company. They bring them in when the ship is sinking so that they can maintain the status quo as long as possible and rent seek on the company’s past successes.

Trump and the libertarian implosion

Important analysis.

Trump and the libertarian implosion:

—“Libertarians had their hour, but their embrace of dubious causes made them irrelevant. The movement needs to think hard about how to reengage conservatives again. But there’s no sign of that. Instead it’s pursuing its alliance with the left in support of freeing drug dealers… a program that has no possible positive outcome either for America or for them.”—

The Communist Infiltration of the Democratic Party #new left

Gramsci argued that communists’ route to taking power in developed, industrialized societies such as Europe and the United States would be best achieved through a “long march through the institutions.” This would be a gradual process of radicalization of the cultural institutions . . .

In the context of American culture, “the long march through the institutions” meant, in the words of Herbert Marcuse, “working against the established institutions while working in them.” . . .

While the Frankfurt School was neo-Marxist, many of its adherents were less interested in economics and redistribution of wealth than in remaking and transforming society through attitudinal and cultural change. They incorporated Marxist class theory into sociology and psychology while also assimilating Freud’s theories on sexuality. Thus, Marx’s theory of the dialectic of perpetual conflict was joined together with Freud’s neurotic ideas, creating a sort of Freudian-Marxism. Their stated goal was a total transformation of society by breaking down traditional norms and institutions such as monogamous relations and the traditional family. This was to be accomplished by promoting and legitimizing unhinged sexual permissiveness with no cultural or religious restraint. . . .

Alinsky’s handbook, Rules for Radicals, first published in 1971, included an admiration for the prince of darkness, Lucifer, noting that he was “the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom…”

By the 1960s Marcuse and Alinsky were recognized as two of the most influential leaders of the New Left, which gained strength and numbers by taking a leading role in the anti-Vietnam War movement. However, Alinsky and Marcuse were critical of the violent and confrontational tactics of many of the anti-war radicals, such as Bill Ayers and the Weathermen, preferring instead that radicals work behind the scenes and bore into the establishment. This was seen later in the 1960s with Alinskyites positioned to take advantage of President Johnson’s “War on Poverty” programs, to direct federal money into various Alinksy projects.

Alinksy succeeded in what would be a crowning achievement: the recruitment of young idealistic radicals — Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama — who would go on to climb to the top of political power in the Democratic Party. Hillary wrote her senior thesis at Wellesley College in 1969 on Alinsky’s methods and remained a friend of Alinsky until his death in 1972. A decade later, Barack Obama was trained in the methods and Rules for Radicals in the Alinsky-founded Industrial Areas Foundation in Chicago. . . .

One of Alinsky’s unique contributions, explained as the seventh Rule for Radicals, was the tactic to avoid debate on the issues by systematically silencing, ridiculing and marginalizing people of opposing views. At the same time, allies in the media provided cover and a framework of acceptance for radical issues and leaders. Traditional values of morality, family, the work ethic and free market institutions were made to appear outdated — even reactionary, unnecessary, and culturally unfashionable. Ultimately this evolved into what has become known as political correctness, which now envelops the culture.

By 1980, the counter-cultural alliances would include radical feminist groups, civil rights and ethnic minority advocates, extremist environmental organizations, and advocates of liberation theology, anti-military peace groups, union leaders, radical legal activist organizations like the ACLU, human rights watch-dog organizations, community organizers of the Alinsky model, national and world church council bureaucracies, anti-corporate activists, and various internationalist-minded groups. Working separately and together, these groups could count on a sympathetic media and favorable coverage, which facilitated building bridges to the Democratic Party and becoming vocal constituencies deserving attention and legislative action. . . .

By the early to mid-1980s a third of the Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives supported the budgetary priorities and the foreign policy advocated by the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), the leading revolutionary Marxist think tank in the United States, located Washington, D.C. Robert Borosage, the director of IPS, was succeeding in one of his stated goals to “move the Democratic Party’s debate internally to the left by creating an invisible presence in the party.”

Regarding “Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says study”–conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html


Distribution differences. I’ve been writing about this for years. Libertarians are smarter than progressives, progressives are smarter than middle left and conservatives. Smart conservatives identify as libertarian, smart leftists identify as progressive. by comparing the minority elite against the majority the conclusion is obvious. This bit is an interesting explanation: People who vote republican are smarter than people who vote democrat. Why? Distributions.

Besides, these self-identifying things don’t tell us much. Instead, look at voting patterns: class, race, income, religion, country of origin, marital status, education and attractiveness determine your voting preferences. Single women vote left and that is the left’s appeal since single women are so significant that they tilt the majority distribution (in america.). Single women guarantee left movement, married women right movement. The rest is noise. We vote our status signaling, which means we vote our reproductive strategies in competition with one another. Not surprising.

Conservatives are better looking. The world appears more just and fair than it does to people who are less good looking. (Data on this since I think the 70’s? Remains constant.) People give you more time and attention, treat you more positively, and you make more money. etc. Also roughly equates: genetic, social, and economic classes are highly correlated. This means the status quo is a positive. ie: conservatism.

On the other hand, the way it works is this: 87% of republicans are white. And the republican party is increasing in its ‘whiteness’. The democratic party is increasing in its brownness (non whiteness). The academy is largely underclass, and business is largely middle and upper middle class. non-whites vote left and white single women vote left. Obvious stuff really: successful families wanna hold what they make, and underclasses want to take it. Simple.