Thursday, October 29, 2015

Rubio, you rubes! Rubio, we (now) say

Steve Sailer writes:
The experts initially settled upon Latino-in-Law Jeb Bush on the grounds that Jeb’s Mommy Issues that led him to marry the woman in the world least like ol’ Barb made him the perfect fit. But those pesky Republican voters have so far failed to grasp the palpable brilliance of this strategy. So last night the experts shifted their allegiance from the Latino-in-Law to the Birthright Latino.
The headline from Reuters' report on the debate: "Rubio, Cruz dominate rowdy Republican presidential debate". The third paragraph opens, "In a dominating performance, Rubio, the U.S. senator from Florida..." Charles Krauthammer--who, thanks to Dick Morris, doesn't quite earn the worst-prognosticating-political-pundit-on-television title--gave Rubio the gold medal. And so on.

Meanwhile, post-debate polls tell a different story. CNBC and Drudge Report--websites that probably do not have a large amount of visitor overlap--each conducted their own, asking respondents who they thought won the third debate:

CNBC and Drudge polls, respectively

Results from a third NewsMax poll were quite similar, with Trump dominating at 46%, followed by Cruz at 20%. These polls are not scientific, but the participation numbers were huge. I follow Trump's social media presence closely. No heads-up was given regarding the polls, no push effort made at all so far as I'm able to tell. The results were spontaneous.

They show that of the Establishment-approved candidates--Rubio, Bush, Kasich)--Rubio fared the least poorly. Consequently, he's the new last great hope, but the Establishment has been impotent over the last several months and it's quickly running out of time to make something happen.

Carson appears to have been crushed. In desperation, the Establishment had freshly crowned him as the new 'front runner' after a single poll--with a margin of error of 6 points and in the midst of survey after survey after survey finding Trump in the lead--showed Carson beating Trump by 4 percent.

Cruz is an ambitious 44 year-old politician. VP, which we audaciously predict he will be offered, is a spot he'd be thrilled with. A Trump-Cruz pairing would be a nightmare for the GOP Establishment because it would see the hated outsider teaming up with the disliked, dissenting insider against the corrupt, inept Establishment, an Establishment that gets, in total, about one-fifth of primary voters' support in polls like these.

Trump and Cruz are the two best of the ten remaining GOP contenders on illegal immigration. Neither appear to be of any use on curtailing legal immigration. Trump likely gets the National Question at some level, Cruz probably does not. But the good need not be the enemy of the perfect.

Trump is neutralizing all the Cultural Marxists' standard tactics, he's repeatedly pledged to build a border fence and effect the removal of tens of millions of illegals, and he has a real shot at the presidency. As someone who has been in the restrictionist trenches for over a decade, this is far and away the best the prospects for real restrictionism have ever been. The hour is getting late, but it's not quite midnight yet.

Illegal immigration is the easier sell. Make it first and then we move on to legal immigration.


Anonymous said...

He's not against illegal immigration because the Mexicans are brown. Trump is not, and never will be a WN. He's against illegal immigration because he is for rule of law and against overcrowding. If the Mexicans were overwhelmingly high IQ, well behaved people who had very few children and low rates of welfare usage, he would not be against their presence.

If you think he will someday move on to halting legal immigration and repatriating legal immigrants back to their homelands, you're dreaming. Two of his three wives legally immigrated to the United States.

He is not against legal immigrants, as long as they are law abiding and don't use welfare. He is not against the entirety of the Jewish/Hispanic/Asian/Black races. He is against individuals who break laws and use welfare. It's obvious that he has nothing against Colored people who behave how he wants them to behave. A WN would never let his kid marry a Jewish person.

chris said...

Trump is my Caesar.

jjbees said...

Even if all the people coming to america were high IQ, had a high future time orientation, were civil, nice people, it still wouldn't be right.

White Americans have the right to their own country no matter what. It is a first principle.

No one stands up for us. Even Trump could care less.

Audacious Epigone said...


I'm suggesting that Trump does half the lifting. Then someone else, existing in an environment less reflexively hostile to the idea of restrictionism, does the rest. But Trump isn't clearly an H-1B shill, either.


Of rubes, rubios, and rubicons.


I've never seen any indication that he wants to elect a new people. The well-being of working-class whites probably isn't his top priority, but I've been following him pretty closely over the last several months and have never gotten a whiff of any disdain for middle America from him, in his words or in his non-verbal communication. That he reached out to Jeff Sessions says a lot about where his instincts are on this, even if it's not top-of-mind for him personally.

Anonymous said...


No they do not. They should have the right to go back to their ancestral countries and make those countries homogeneous.

If you really want to carve out your ideal nation-state, take West Virginia, and take all of the low IQ, uneducated prole Whites with you. That way you can deal with their obesity and their bastard children and I won't have to look at them anymore. We don't need you. We don't need certain non-Western peoples either, but that's a different topic. We will automate the blue collar jobs, and have a majority SWPL paradise.


Why do you care about bottom of the barrel Whites? Why is it that people who claim to be into "hbd" can be honest about Blacks and Hispanics but when it comes to Whites vs other Whites, they suddenly become truth-deniers? Social class, IQ, education, income, and family structure are all correlated with each other (but not perfectly). Why do you and the other WNs want to promote the interests of the low class, low IQ, high school dropout, low income, obese Whites with bastard kids over the interests of the high class, high IQ, high income, healthy Whites with intact families?

To be logically consistent, one must support Europeans over Africans and Latin Americans, but one must also support the smartest, healthiest, most educated, highest status, and most well behaved Europeans over all other Europeans.

jjbees said...

@anonymous, supporting whites and supporting only high IQ high social capital whites are two different causes.
Whites, low class or high class, deserve to exist and have their own country, full stop. Why should whites have to be super high IQ and high class to justify their existence? No one else does.

The mean African IQ is considered mentally retarded according to professional psychometric testing, and yet these people are entitled to the full dignity and inclusiveness of their own countries, communities, laws, and way of life.

Having your own country, living among your own people, enjoying each other's company, should not be means tested. All human beings have a right to this, and it ought to be inviolable. The rights of white people to their own land and way of life is under assault, sadly by a lot of crazy white people.

While I think we should promote eugenic births, to make our communities more healthy and happy and productive, my first priority is that my people have a homeland. Like Houellebecq writes in "Submission" when his Israeli girlfriend flees the islamifying France: "There is no Israel for me."

It is perfectly logically consistent to want to have a homogeneous country without being a eugenicist. On one hand you strive to love your culture and your sense of community and civic camaraderie and trust. On the other you seek perfection of the human individual, whereas in the first you simply desire your own place and time.

Our leaders continue to give away our patrimony...who knows where this will lead us....

New York said...

I hear the Trump-Cruz being floated hopefully in a number of places. It makes me wonder if Trump would be bold enough to take on a Cruz VP, born in Canada, after being so loud about Obama's possible Kenyan birth. Would anyone notice/care? I don't know.

Anonymous said...


You can have your homeland IN EUROPE. I am so tired of the logically inconsistent meme "africa for africans, yada yada, white counties for everyone." EUROPE is for the Europeans.

Nobody says that Caribbean countries should be homelands for Blacks, even though those countries are mostly filled with Blacks. Likewise, US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand should be majority White versions of Singapore, but not exclusively reserved for Whites. Europe is the only geographical location that has the right to be homogeneously European.

Audacious Epigone said...


At the most recent debate, Trump answered that he was too trusting but that he doesn't forgive those who betray his trust. Caesar's clemency was his downfall. I don't think it will be Trump's.


Beyond jjbees' sentiments, total fertility is an enormous issue. People of European descent comprised 25% of the world's population in 1950. In 2000, it was about 16% and by mid-century it'll be less than 10%. Western Civilization does not survive on Ashkenazi Jews alone.

You're conflating the dysfunction of the bottom quintile of whites with the broad swath of working-class and middle-class whites with IQs in the 90-110 range. These people make the US what it is.

And there is a social-culture affinity that matters here, too. My son is almost 2 and my daugther is -1 months. If one of them turns out to have an IQ of 80, should I give that one up for adoption? Stop loving it? Stop doing what I'm able to do to give him/her a meaningful existence full of wonder and discovery?

The American Indians lost. This isn't their land anymore. They are a salient example of how allowing foreign settlers to remake society is a recipe for self-immolation. We would be prudent not to follow their example.

New York,

Yeah, that's the biggest potential problem I see: "One thing working against Cruz as vice president is the issue of eligibility. Cruz was born in Canada. Given Trump's previous vociferous skepticism regarding Obama's eligibility, that could present a problem."

Anonymous said...


One of my mothers friends has three kids: 1 who is technically above well above the White American average in IQ, but was totally average at our high school. 2 who are clinically retarded. Sure, she and her husband love those two kids, but they don't invest heavily in their futures like they invest in their "above average kid" - they pin all of their hopes on her and they expect her to care for them when they are old.

You may value race over everything else, but I value getting stuff done over everything else. If I have an illness or injury, I'm going to choose a doctor of any race over a White person with no medical training whatsoever. Same goes with hiring decisions. If I get promoted within my company to the point where I'm able to hire and fire people, I'm not going to hire a White person with a GED and a rap sheet over a Colored person who has a Bachelor's degree from Caltech and a clean criminal record.

You won't win. Even in Europe, where they actually do have the right to remain majority European, 99% of people know better than to become White versions of North Korea. To have a functioning country, you still need to let in foreign diplomats, MNC executives, foreign language teachers, translators, and temporary visitors. You still have to have some level of international trade and diplomacy. Even Japan allows for foreign students, foreign language teachers, interpreters/translators, MNC executives, and racial foreigners married to Japanese people.

I never said anything about middle middle class Whites. I consider them to be my allies. I do look down on lower middle class Whites and lump them in with lower class Whites, because in the past few decades they have increasingly aped the behaviors of their social inferiors. I don't look down on people whose IQ's are in the 100-100 range. If we lived in a hunter gatherer society, I would respect even people whose IQs equal 60. If we lived in Ancient Rome, I would respect people whose IQs are over 70. If we lived during the industrial age, I would respect respect people whose IQs are over 85. However, now that we live in the information age, even people whose IQs are between 90 and 100 are becoming unnecessary. If current trends continue, in 20 years time the minimum IQ needed to function in society might be around 115. If this is the case EVERYBODY should try to marry the highest IQ person they can get, regardless of race.

Audacious Epigone said...


I'm not a white separatist, but I'm a white nationalist and a citizenist (in addition to being a localist, which effectively means being a secessionist--enough with the ists, I know), two things that are not mutually exclusive. These things were perfectly compatible with US immigration policy from the mid-twenties through the mid-sixties.

Contributing to and functioning in society are two different things. A burger-flipper who contributes marginally or modestly negatively does not deserve disdain. Regression to the mean, random trait variations, mutations--these things make it impossible to ensure that everyone is graduate-level material, civically-minded, conscientious, etc.

jjbees said...

Anonymous, "99% of people know better than to become White versions of North Korea" argue the same tired liberal propaganda: "We need diversity and multiculturalism if we are to remain dynamic and competitive!" We can let in all the diplomats and other people we want as long as they aren't allowed to settle here, to say that "our" country is going to be 99% our ethnicity and that is non-negotiable.

And you keep harping on IQ as if it is the end all be all of human civilization...there are millions of high IQ indians, and yet in general india is known for corpses floating down the river, people shitting outside, and other various social ills. All high IQ indians are good for are fleeing india as soon as they can, to undercut the wages of europeans in their own countries. Maybe if they cared about their fellow Indians they would put some effort into fixing their country...but then different castes are practically different races, and there is no real fellow feeling between a dalit and a brahmin.

You are arguing for a caste system of huge inequality...and the end result will be people shitting in the streets, rampant crime, no sense of community or civic responsibility, etc. Race is important, no matter how you spin it. Have you ever actually interacted with people of different races? Do you not notice their ethnocentrism? I went to school where some of the graduate departments were full of foreigners, and they all worked only with eachother, socialized only with each other, spoke only in their native language, ate only native foods, like an island in my american university. One graduate I met was a guy who basically had zero friends and was depressed because there was no one like him in the department. You think the foreigners had anything in common with him or even wanted to interact with him? There were no shared social mores or values...these "high IQ" ubermensch are actually just financial locusts here to parasitically vacuum up resources and social capital, and will leave as soon as it's gone.

I have no desire to live in the cosmopolitan locust world you desire to inhabit, with no place to call my home, no traditions, no culture, no people, and so on.

Anonymous said...


The place you can have for your homogeneous desires is EUROPE. You only don't want to live in the world that I want to live in because I wouldn't give you the entire world.