Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sunday, 19 February 2017 20:34.
Wow, such a breadth of choice
The Germans are non-ironically having an election in which Angela Merkel and Martin Schulz are the two front runners.
The choice seems to be quite simple.
Either you vote for Angela Merkel’s CDU and face the death by demographic replacement which will surely arrive by the year 2050 as things continue as they are, or alternately you vote for Martin Schulz’s SPD and face the death by demographic replacement which will surely arrive by the year 2050 as things continue as they are.
There are some policy disagreements that they have on other issues and usually I would actually go to the length of highlighting them and describing them, but when it comes to the issue of Germany it frankly doesn’t even matter anymore. After all, if Germany is going to seriously cease to exist as a nation then making projections about a nation which will not even be populated by the same people would be a pointless exercise from the perspective of ethno-nationalism. It is extremely sad.
In any case, let’s see how the situation looks in the polls at present, for this thoroughly pointless election:
Germany’s Christian Democrats (CDU/CSU) have slumped to second place in an opinion poll conducted by the Emnid institute, with the Social Democrats (SPD) in the top spot for the first time since 2006.
The SPD’s climb comes after the party picked the former President of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, as its candidate for chancellor.
Emnid’s poll of 1,885 voters found that the SPD would get 33 percent of the German vote, while Chancellor Angela Merkel’s CDU and its Bavarian sister party, the Christian Social Union, would get 32 percent.
Schulz’s party has gained 12 points in the last four weeks, according to German newspaper Bild am Sonntag.
The SPD’s surge in the polls will add more pressure on Merkel, as she seeks her fourth term as chancellor within an uneasy CDU/CSU alliance. Merkel has faced tough criticism from the sister party over the controversial decision to temporarily open Germany’s borders to refugees in 2015.
This the latest in a series of polls that shows SPD’s rapidly rising popularity among German voters. Emnid’s poll chimes with separate findings by Politbarometer, a long-standing German election poll from German broadcaster ZDF, which showed Friday that only 38 percent of voters would like to see Merkel carry on her job as chancellor and that 49 percent preferred Schulz.
But Germany hasn’t completely fallen out of love with Merkel. ZDF’s poll also found that 71 percent of Germans think that the current chancellor is doing a good job, despite her party’s drop in popularity.
German elections are scheduled for September.
Such vibrant campaigning
Meanwhile, the way that Martin Schulz is conducting his campaign has drawn criticism from Wolfgang Shaeuble, a very strange-looking criticism at first brush:
Martin Schulz, the German center-left’s candidate to be chancellor, is behaving like U.S. President Donald Trump, according to German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble.
“If Schulz calls upon his supporters to chant ‘Make Europe great again‘ then that’s almost literally [like] Trump,” Schäuble told Der Spiegel in an interview published Friday.
He said Schulz, a former European Parliament president, was acting in a “populist way.”
Schäuble said Schulz needed to “think a little [bit more].” He warned that in times when there is a surge in populist movements, politicians should be careful with their language.
The SPD’s move to nominate Schulz as their candidate for chancellor in the September 24 federal election led to a surge in party membership applications. Opinion polls show that backing Schulz helped the party to its highest approval rating since 2013.
At first a person would think, “Hmm, something is very wrong here, in what important way does Martin Schulz resemble Donald Trump, aside from the use of a similar campaign slogan?”
Surely Schaeuble is just a ridiculous old man who is approaching senility, and he has begun to make even less sense than usual in his statement?
Nevertheless I decided to actually give Schaeuble’s statement some thought. Could I manage to find some unintended ‘sense’ in Schaeuble’s seemingly nonsensical statement?
After about twenty milliseconds of deep thought – which in neurological terms is basically ‘instantly’ – I arrived at the answer. First, take a look at this quote concerning Schulz:
[...] Martin Schulz, the president of the European Parliament, is a close friend of mine. On most issues connected to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict we disagree. He is closer to the Israeli mainstream, and his positions resemble those of Labor Party chairman Isaac Herzog. He once told me, during a frank and stern conversation, “For me, the new Germany exists only in order to ensure the existence of the State of Israel and the Jewish people.” [...]
Secondly, take a look at this quote concerning Trump:
President-elect Donald Trump on Wednesday morning ripped the Obama administration’s treatment of Israel and pledged to end the “disdain and disrespect” for the country.
“We cannot continue to let Israel be treated with such total disdain and disrespect. They used to have a great friend in the U.S., but not anymore. The beginning of the end was the horrible Iran deal, and now this (U.N.)! Stay strong Israel, January 20th is fast approaching!” Trump wrote in a series of tweets. [...]
If you look at it from that angle, then Schaeuble accidentally spoke a kind of truth in the midst of his babbling, somehow.
There indeed is a resemblance between Schulz and Trump. From the perspective of Jewish Zionists in the global sense, the two individuals are almost completely identical.
Pro-life congressmen stood in front of the Capitol — along with Janet Porter, the Ohio woman who led the fight for passage of that state’s “heartbeat bill” — all in support of Rep. Steve A. King (R.-Iowa) and his Heartbeat Protection Act of 2017, H.R. 490, which restores legal protection to unborn children once their pulse is detected.
“It is a profound religious and moral understanding that every human person has the right to life,” said King, who was joined by Rep. Louie Gohmert (R.-Texas), Rep. Trent Franks (R.-Ariz.), Rep. Scott G. Perry (R.-Pa.), and Rep.Don Bacon R.-Neb.), along with other prolife supporters of the bill.
“The question that has hung before the courts, since 1973 is: ‘When does life begin?’–we all know when that is,” the congressman said.
“We stand here and assert that it has to be a distinctive moment. You can’t guess a thing called viability. You can’t say 22 weeks versus 20 weeks. You have to say it is at a specific instant. The most precise instant that we can describe and that we can identify by science is the moment that that heartbeat begins,” he said.
“The core tenet is this: If a heartbeat can be detected, the baby is protected,” he said.
Restrictions on abortion will hasten the decline of the overall White American population which already only comprises 47% of children under age 18.
The 2010 census shows where those effects would be grouped:
Is it going to be extremely inconvenient for minority groups to have a sharply reduced access to abortion services? Yes. No woman wants to have to be perpetually worrying about what her family planning options are as restrictions are tightening over and over again. But perhaps the inconvenience would be ironically ‘embraced’, particularly among Hispanics who could just go with the flow and have a Hispanic baby-boom. Hispanics can wait these laws out and reverse them in about half a generation, when demographics will dictate elections and identity politics will be entrenched in different ways in different zones within the United States.
The Northeast and Midwest of the United States will experience a ballooning African-American population next to White Americans. The Southwest will continue merrily along its way into becoming a Hispanic outpost, and the Southeast will be a mixture of all those things happening simultaneously.
Technically, ‘White America’ as a geographically contiguous concept has been pushed further upwards on the age-pyramid for quite a while now. The incoming administration is now taking moves that—unintentionally—will guarantee that the concept will be brought to an end.
The United States will have one of two futures to choose from:
Ethnic balkanisation within two generations.
Turning itself into Brazil.
Of course, Americans will probably manage to muddle around and inadvertently choose both options simultaneously, so that they can experience the worst aspects of both scenarios. Because why? Because it’s America of course.
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Monday, 23 January 2017 05:59.
Well, that day wasn’t actually today. Besides, American White Nationalism stopped making sense even on its own terms quite a while ago, around about the time when a sizable portion of them began to seriously endorse a certain New York real-estate developer named Donald Trump during the GOP Primary campaign.
Nevertheless, I’ll start with a quote from The Right Stuff:
Today, this hallowed Day One of the Trump Age, we watch the man who has ran this country for the last eight years fly off into the distance on his presidential chopper and into the curio cabinet of political kitsch, a relic of a party that no longer exists.
Unsurprisingly, TRS is extremely enthusiastic about the result that has been brought about. But they are not the only ones. Also, this person is enthusiastic:
We did it! Congratulation Donald J. Trump President of the United States of America!
That is the outcome which they’ve delivered. But that’s not all there is to it. Let’s go to David Duke’s recent radio broadcasts on the inauguration of Trump, since they act as a barometer for ‘the movement’ in America as a whole. It has been observed that he tends to echo the general median of where White Nationalism in America is standing on any given issue.
On 20 January 2017:
So right out of the gate, Duke basically admits that ‘there are Jews around him’. That’s an understatement if I ever saw it.
Mobilised them behind what? Elevating Jared Kushner to the position of being the most powerful Jewish person to ever exist in the world?
It’s actually saddening to see this level of hype being attached to Donald Trump. How on earth can the election of Donald Trump be considered ‘a more important event’ than the Battle of Tours or the breaking of the Siege at the Gates of Vienna?
These quotations are going to be haunting people later on.
On 16 January 2017:
David Duke’s analysis of the TRS scandal is of course completely divorced from facts, but that’s not even the most important part of this. Notice how the core principle which American White Nationalists claimed to adhere to, the position of taking a strong line on the ‘Jewish Question’, is completely abandoned by the wayside.
On 18 January 2017:
To actually answer this ridiculous question, the answer is: No.
No, they are not doing ‘good work’. Can anyone actually tell me what ‘work’ the TRS people have done that has actually been of any use? Is there anything at all measurable?
Posted by DanielS on Friday, 13 January 2017 05:03.
Why Trump will win - posted on Fri, 15 Apr 2016 14:00 | # 8
The trend culminating in Trump’s overwhelming adherence. Ever since the Kennedy/Nixon debate the trend was established that if given a tough choice between two presidential candidates, the one with the lowest hairline would win - Kennedy winning by a hair over Nixon.
Setting a trend for generations of U.S. Presidents to come, only interrupted by a few exceptions and Lucian Sarti.
WASHINGTON: At times it has seemed as though this presidential campaign was occurring in some alternate universe. Up is down, no means yes, day is night.
Donald Trump’s tweets, speeches, interviews, debate statements, news conferences and off-the-cuff remarks — that is, pretty much every utterance made during his waking hours — have been a source of hyperbole at hyper-speed. His misstatements have been so ubiquitous that Hillary Clinton’s slippery words often slithered right on by unnoticed.
Trump made pernicious use of fictional numbers, concocted certain events and both contradicted and mispresented his earlier self.
Clinton took actual facts and went beyond them, promising more than she can deliver, cherry-picking numbers and otherwise standing for the lawyerly Washington tradition of paying partial heed to reality while bending it to her advantage. Cautious by nature, she was most inclined to stretch facts to their snapping point when on the defensive about her email practices, which was often. Clinton’s defensive position, in essence: The dog ate my homework.
With Election Day finally, nearly upon us, some lowlights from both candidates:
For Trump, day is night
On Clinton’s approach to borders: “She wants to let people just pour in. You could have 650 million people pour in and we do nothing about it. Think of it. That’s what could happen.”
The facts: For this to happen, every other country in the Americas, from Mexico south to Chile’s southern tip, and a chunk of Canada would have to empty its entire population into the US.
But wait, there’s more.
Trump said that under Clinton, this could happen “in one week.”
This was no a slip of the tongue — at several events he’s spoken of 600 million coming in under Clinton; at another, 650 million. This doesn’t faintly resemble anything Clinton has proposed for the US (population 325 million).
Trump is riffing off of a leaked Clinton speech to bankers in which she spoke of her dream of a “hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders.” The remarks in context suggested an interest in free commerce, not necessarily the free movement of people. But no one is talking about packing whole populations from other Western Hemisphere countries into the US like sardines.
Numbers are always pliable in the political arena; for Trump they are often whatever he wants them to be. He routinely overstates the US trade deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars, no matter how many times he’s called on it.
On the battle of Mosul, Iraq, and other operations against Islamic State militants: “Whatever happened to the element of surprise?”
The facts: Many generals agree with Trump that it is folly to tell ISIL that it is about to be attacked. But those are armchair generals. Real ones tend to see the value in pre-announcing a major offensive.
In the case of Mosul, signaling an assault in advance was a way for Iraqi forces to warn civilians in the city and to encourage a resistance movement to weaken ISIL before the battle began. Moreover, any element of surprise had been long lost; preparations for the battle began more than a year ago, with the US part in it under close scrutiny by Congress.
More broadly, Trump’s theory that secrecy should surround all such operations reflects a lack of understanding of how this battle against ISIL has developed over the past two years, as well as certain obligations to keep Congress informed. Basic decisions like when to assault Mosul are left to the Iraqi government, because it is the Iraqis who will have to govern the place when the fighting is done.
The US wants the Iraqis to own the Mosul problem – both militarily and politically — so they don’t repeat the mistakes that allowed ISIL to capture the city in the first place.
Mosul was the obvious last major target of an Iraqi counteroffensive against ISIL, whose ability to defend the city had been undermined by months of US airstrikes against its leaders and financial and military resources. Surprise was not an option.
When Clinton accused him of calling climate change a hoax invented by the Chinese: “I did not. I did not.”
When asked about telling people on Twitter to check out a sex tape: “It wasn’t ‘check out a sex tape.’”
The facts: On these and other occasions, Trump has blithely denied making statements he plainly made — even though he was caught on tape making them.
In a 2012 tweet, he wrote: “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make US manufacturing non-competitive.” He later claimed he was kidding, but he’s also repeated the claim that climate change is a hoax, and one that benefits China. In 2014: “Snowing in Texas and Louisiana, record setting freezing temperatures throughout the country and beyond. Global warming is an expensive hoax!”
During this campaign, he also tweeted “check out sex tape and past” of former 1996 Miss Universe Alicia Machado, whom Clinton discussed in a presidential debate as an example of Trump’s derogatory comments about women.
Machado, a Clinton supporter, criticised Trump for body-shaming her by calling her “Miss Piggy” when she gained weight. Was there a sex tape? In a manner, yes. Machado was filmed in a 2005 Spanish-language reality show in bed with a man; no nudity is seen but she said they were having sex in the footage.
Trump: “I was against the war in Iraq, because I said it’s gonna totally destabilise the Middle East. … I was opposed to war from the beginning. … “I would not have had our troops in Iraq.”
The facts: Trump publicly supported the war before it started and praised its early progress. He’s insisted otherwise uncountable times, despite the record.
It’s true he wasn’t a cheerleader for the March 2003 invasion. For example, he said a few months before the war that the economy and North Korea were bigger problems. But that’s hardly opposition. In September 2002, he told Howard Stern on the radio, when asked if he would back an invasion, “Yeah, I guess so.” Days after the invasion, he said it “looks like a tremendous success from a military standpoint.”
Moreover, Trump offered support for a hypothetical invasion of Iraq in his 2000 book, suggesting he would favor a pre-emptive strike if Iraq were viewed as a threat to national security.
Trump did turn against the long-running war before many in Washington did. But that does not show the foresight he claimed when campaigning against Republican primary rivals who backed the invasion and when campaigning against Clinton, who voted in the Senate for the war. He was not against it when the decisions were being made about whether to start it.
Trump: “I watched when the World Trade Centre came tumbling down. And I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down. Thousands of people were cheering. … It was on television. I saw it.”
The facts: This early head-scratcher, from November 2015, helped set a pattern of tall tales that would continue through the campaign. It also fed into one of the signature insults of a campaign full of them — when Trump appeared to mock the disabilities of a New York Times reporter whose recollections from New Jersey after the 9/11 attacks did not support his own.
No video or other proof of large-scale celebrations of the falling towers by Muslims in New Jersey ever emerged.
Serge Kovaleski of the Times, who was working for The Washington Post in 2001, reported in the week after 9/11 that authorities in New Jersey detained and questioned “a number of people who were allegedly seen celebrating the attacks.”
Kovaleski has a congenital condition that restricts joint movement. In a speech, Trump went after the “the poor guy, you oughta see this guy” — making jerking gestures and taking a mocking tone.
Trump later denied he was imitating Kovaleski and further claimed “I have no idea” who he is and didn’t know of his condition. But Kovaleski said he had met Trump repeatedly, in face-to-face face interviews and at news conferences, and “Donald and I were on a first-name basis for years.”
On why he continued to raise questions about Barack Obama’s country of birth even after the president produced his birth certificate in 2011: “Nobody was pressing it, nobody was caring much about it.”
The facts: Trump himself continued to press false theories about Obama’s birthplace after they were debunked. His claim that the matter faded when the birth certificate came out belies his efforts to keep the myth alive.
“Was it a birth certificate?” he asked in a 2012 interview. “He was perhaps born in Kenya. Very simple, OK?” Trump said in 2014. “Who knows about Obama?” Trump asked in January 2016.
Clinton: The dog ate my homework
“For those of you who are concerned about my using personal email, I understand. And as I’ve said, I’m not making excuses. I’ve said it was a mistake and I regret it.”
The facts: She has made a variety of excuses on the way to a grudging acknowledgment that her use of a personal server and email for State Department business was wrong.
She’s said she used personal email because she wanted the simplicity of a single digital device, although it turned out she carried several devices. She said her email practices were “approved” when they were not — they merely had not been expressly prohibited at the time for the secretary of state.
She said she didn’t understand that material marked with a “c” that passed through her personal communications system meant it was confidential. She said other secretaries of state did it first. That’s partly true, but in a limited way and not with their own servers. She said she never passed on classified material in her system. The FBI found she passed on three email chains with information that had classified markings in the body of the emails; the State Department contended two of those chains held unclassified material.
On the Trans-Pacific Partnership: “I did say I hoped it would be a good deal.”
The facts: Clinton heartily supported the Pacific trade deal in speeches around the world as secretary of state; she did not merely hope it would turn out well. Clinton declared in Australia in 2012, “This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field.” Similar speeches elsewhere affirmed her belief that the deal, still under negotiation, was “groundbreaking,” ”exciting” and “embodied” 21st century standards.
That position became awkward if not untenable in her Democratic primary race against Bernie Sanders, a foe of the deal, and she turned against it. Her less-than-detailed explanation: The deal as finally negotiated did not measure up to her standards for protecting US wages, jobs and national security. Yet the final deal contains some of the strongest labor protections of any US trade agreement.
The subject became Exhibit A in the case made by critics that she lets political currents, instead of personal conviction, guide her.
A hacked email from Clinton adviser Joel Benenson may have inadvertently lent weight to that suspicion. “Do we have any sense from her what she believes or wants her core message to be?” he asked. “Sanders has simplicity and focus.”
Clinton: “I don’t add a penny to the national debt.”
The facts: Not true, according to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. It estimates her increased spending in areas such as infrastructure, more financial aid for college and early childhood education, would increase the national debt by $200 billion over 10 years. That is far less than their estimate for Trump, who they predict would add $5.3 trillion over 10 years. But it’s plenty more than a penny.
One for the road
Trump to Clinton: “You’ve been fighting ISIS your entire adult life.”
The facts: The Islamic State group did not exist for almost all of Clinton’s adult life. She’s 69. ISIL is 4.
Roosh has an amazing amount in common with Alt-Right internet personalities. He plays on the paranoia, helplessness, and angst of a bunch of failures and channels it into modest financial gains that keep him from having to get a real job. It’s pretty much the business model of the Cult-Right. The Cult-Right are filled with fanboy’s eager to proclaim the genius of their own personal Jebus, and that is, I think, why there is so much overlap between the Alex Jones / Stephen Molyneaux / Roosh acolytes, the Alt-Right Richard Spennttthhher fanboys, and the troll Army of the Quadroon Streicher. Their followers are professional cult members who are used to receiving their validation impersonally from a minor internet celebrity.
3. Boi-nie Endorses Shillary
He waited as long as he could hoping for the FBI indictment, but once there was no chance of that, he finally compromised his principles as we all knew he would.
2. GRAPHIC PHOTOS: On Black Death Porn
If you were a visitor to Der Daily Interracial Cuckold Porn Stormer, I am sure you would not be reading this line right now. Instead, you would have broken your finger eagerly clicking on the link because it contained the words “black” and “porn”. But, since you are still with us, I can let you know that this article makes a valid point that the ‘Kwa is strangely comfortable with images of dead and dying black men in the Mass Media.
1. Rape-ity, Rape-ity, Raper Roosh
But perhaps things changed in the intervening months? Perhaps I needed to reevaluate my impression? To find out, I scanned through Roosh’s Twitter feed, checked out some of the articles he linked, and then captured screenshots of the one’s that made me laugh the most. Conclusion: He is just as laughable a figure now as then. Why? Well, let’s start out with this…
I’ll take things a rapist might say for $400. I cannot take credit for that joke, though I wish I could. It was from an episode of Cinematic Titanic.
Because those are basically the only options the West has left, right Roosh? You’re sure you aren’t an EBT-card-carrying member of the Alt-Right?
You tell us, because previously you decried the Alt-Right as a bunch of racist betas.
Because you look like one of the muds arrested in Rotherham scandal? And while we are on the subject ...
This one is funny to me, because it is so poorly thought out. You see, the problem is: What morality do men possess, if women evolved the way they did because men were a bunch of murdering rapists? But I am sure there are White disciples of this mud who so hate White women that they would defend this defamation, because remember - the Rotherham girls loved their rapists!
So that’s what I think about Roosh, and by extension his whole alpha-male of yo’ mama’s basement philosophy. The fact that this mud is funded by White fanboys so he can wander around in White countries like some typical Middle Eastern child sex predator doesn’t prove how alpha he is, but how beta his followers are.