An interesting article from http://www.vdare.com/about Donald Trump's appeal. This follows this post about the REAL reason there is a "broken immigration system." Remember, “Amnesty” means ANY non-enforcement of existing immigration laws! This follows this comment and this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants! Also, you can read two very interesting books HERE.
Please follow me here.
See also: David Frum On Ann Coulter’s ADIOS AMERICA!—And Peter Brimelow’s ALIEN NATION
Speculation that columnist
Ann Coulter might not be disinclined to
Donald Trump’s candidacy began
when she characterized her attitude toward him as “blind worship…like
the North Korean people with their dear, dear leader.” Her description
of him as “my hero, our savior” and “the greatest candidate for
president ever” did little to dispel the rumors. But her
declaration that Trump’s policy paper on immigration was “the greatest political document since the
Magna Carta” and that she “totally would” marry him if he were single may have been the broadest hints yet that an outright
endorsement might be in the offing.
Today she places him in the company of the Almighty with the release of her book
In Trump We Trust: E Pluribus Awesome!
The clarity with which Miss Coulter makes her preferences known is rivaled only by that of Trump’s own message. As she
reminds us, he
announced his candidacy “in a speech talking abou
t 
Mexican rapists, pledging to
deport illegal aliens and build a wall.” All hell broke loose and within a week, he had lost tens of millions of dollars:
Univision dumped Trump’s Miss USA pageant; NBC dumped both the Miss USA and Miss Universe pageants;
Macy’s dumped
his ties; and ESPN dumped his
Trump National Golf Club.
Any other Republican would have issued a clarification that “what he
meant was that Mexico was sending us its
Albert Einsteins and
Niels Bohrs to do the jobs Americans won’t do.” Trump instead barred Univision employees from his properties and
dismissed the neckties
as made in China
anyway. He shot to the top of the polls, and it turned out that the
Establishment had no back up plan for dealing with resistance. They had
never needed one before.
It was just the same as when ABC Hispanic correspondent Tom Llamas [
Tweet him]
told Trump the term “anchor babies” was offensive
and Trump responded that it was a perfectly good expression which he
intended to go right on using. Every other Republican was cowering
before the beast of Political Correctness—until Donald Trump calmly
revealed it as nothing but a paper tiger.
Coulter understands the psychology involved:
It’s extremely rare for people to take positions that
will hurt them with their friends. Trump lived among fancy
Manhattanites. What he was saying on immigration was going to cost him
friends. The standard response to someone who wants to restrict
immigration is: You don’t understand—your positions are very gauche, very déclassé. These are the opinions of ethnics in the outer boroughs. Other people would say, “Oh, my gosh—did anyone see?” Trump said, Yeah, I think I still want to build a wall. The sophisticates didn’t have a comeback.
Journalists hastened to attribute Trump’s success to a vague “anger” among voters, without going into
why they might be angry or
what they might be angry about. But as Coulter points out, “if it was
just tough talk the voters were hungering for, why didn’t
Governor Chris Christie go anywhere?”
Others claimed voters were merely responding to Trump’s colorful
personality. But Coulter notes that “the one thing voters weren’t wild
about was his personality.” Admittedly, he can be coarse and vulgar. But
“the problem with trying to find an old-school WASPy, understated, dry,
less-is-more, antique leather, sturdy wood and brass type to take
Trump’s positions” is that such a person couldn’t endure the sort of
abuse such positions would evoke, much less fight back.
If Arianna Huffington’s
Huffington Post had put coverage of Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign in its entertainment section, can anyone imagine him
tweeting: “I fully understand why her
former husband left
her for a man—he made a good decision”?
And just how much
gravitas do we have a right to expect of a presidential candidate in contemporary America? As Coulter points out, “Our
current president was a
community organizer, the last guy was a
president’s son, and the one before that was a rapist.”
Hard as it may be for journalists to understand why American voters
would care more about protecting their livelihoods than about stirring
up a war with Putin, we are forced to consider the possibility that
Trump is popular
because of the positions he has taken. And although there are a number of these, “they all come down to
taking America’s side—on trade, on
war, on outsourcing, on NAFTA, on
NATO, on our borders, on
terrorism.” Strange to say, this has proven very popular with Americans.
As Coulter points out, the Republican Party has been dominated for
many years by bankers and corporatists who only really agree with
Republican voters on one issue—keeping their taxes low. By facilitating
globalization, the GOP has benefited them at the expense of everyone
else, guaranteeing them “a much bigger share of a much smaller pie.”
We have imported millions of peasants and destroyed the middle class
in order to make the very rich much richer. It was an alliance between
the super-rich in search of cheap labor and old-fashioned socialists in
search of a proletariat more amenable to their plans. Coulter writes:
It’s not in the Anglo-Saxon
character either to take orders or to give them. That’s why the
socialist left finally gave up on traditional Americans and pinned their
hopes on immigrants, who bring their socialism with them. If you want a
conservative country, you need a conservative populace. Immigration is
changing the country, and there will be no changing it back. If you
don’t understand that, you are the enemy of any conservative
undertaking.
Before Trump’s announcement, the Republican Party had always
successfully prevented the voters from being given a choice on the
issues which affected their own lives by distracting them with secondary
issues or events happening on the other side of the world. As Coulter
puts it, “If your elected representative is talking to you about ISIS,
he’s planning to outsource your job and move Syrian refugees into your
neighborhood.”
Donald Trump foiled this diversionary strategy with a single speech.
Main Stream Media
coverage of Donald Trump is itself one of the
biggest stories of this campaign.
In one of her most effective chapters, Coulter cites forty-two nearly
identical MSM complaints that Trump has not offered enough “policy
specifics”—over a period in which he
released no fewer than six policy papers on subjects such as
immigration, taxation, trade,
veterans’ affairs and
health care, all loaded with
concrete proposals.
How paranoid do you have to be to see a conspiracy in a pattern of dishonesty this extensive and consistent?
Personal agency is another concept with which journalists covering Trump’s campaign have had difficulty. When Leftist thugs
attacked Americans peacefully attending
Trump’s rallies, journalists told us that
“fists flew,” as though it were normal for fists to fly about unattached to anyone in particular. Such
violence only occurred at Trump’s rallies, they solemnly intoned—as though the
failure of conservatives to beat up Hillary’s supporters were proof of Trump’s lawlessness.
Millions of Americans still believe that Donald Trump made fun of a
handicapped reporter. This is a 100% MSM fabrication intended to
distract from the correctness of Trump’s earlier observation that many
Muslims in America celebrated the 9/11 attacks (although his claim that
“thousands” did so may have been hyperbole). Coulter tracked down “more
than two dozen people reporting separate instances of between a dozen
and forty Muslims celebrating the 9/11 attacks in the New York vicinity
at a minimum of six different locations.” Yet the entire media
establishment rose up as one to deny that any such thing had happened.
One reporter, the
Washington Post’s Serge Kovaleski, even
disavowed his own story written one week after the attacks [
Northern New Jersey Draws Probers’ Eyes
By Serge F. Kovaleski and Fredrick Kunkle ,September 18, 2001]. Trump
responded with a funny impression of a flustered man trying to deny his
own words, and the MSM claimed he was
mocking a physical handicap Trump had no way of knowing the journalist had.
Americans who lived near our southern border were being
murdered, shot,
raped, their
livestock slaughtered, their homes broken into, and their property destroyed. John McCain
called them “crazies” for objecting. “We have a very extreme element within our Republican Party,” he told
The New Yorker, criticizing Trump for having “galvanized” them.[
John McCain Has a Few Things to Say About Donald Trump By Ryan Lizza , July 16, 2015 ]
When Trump sided with his own long-suffering Arizona supporters against McCain,
Frank Luntz “interrupt[ed] him with the monumentally irrelevant ‘
But he’s a war hero!’”
Trump pointed out that getting captured does not make one a hero. This
entirely correct and reasonable remark was construed as “an attack on
McCain’s war record,” and a week of frenetic denunciations followed.
But at the end of it, polls showed that Trump’s favorability among
Republicans had nearly doubled, while he was more popular with vets and
those currently serving
than McCain himself!
Studies have
demonstrated that media attacks can backfire, resulting in increased support for
causes such as gun rights.
The outcome of the present election may depend on whether or not the
public grasps the full extent of journalistic dishonesty in contemporary
America.
They will if they read
In Trump We Trust—order it
here.
Martin Witkerk [Email him] is an independent philosopher.
Posts
