Posted On: Friday - September 24th 2021 4:50AM MST
In Topics: Immigration Stupidity Pundits Race/Genetics
I saw the Tucker Carlson clip below yesterday on Steve Sailer's blog where there are and will be more great comments - Tucker Denounces Great Replacement. The straightforward post title of Mr. Sailers denotes an important change in Mr.
Carlson's explanation for the immigration stupidity in general.
Maybe it's that this time it's tens of thousands of Haitians right there on the TV that got Tucker thinking along these lines. Maybe he already knew what most of us, iSteve readers, and VDare readers/writers have understood for a decade or two but got so upset with this latest that he decided to "damn the
No, he didn't say "white", just "Americans", but per VDare's Mr. Brimelow's terminology, the historic American nation WAS White America , ~90%. Tucker did use the term "legacy Americans" in his explanation for the "Great Replacement".
Please watch the clip, but if nothing else, go to about 2 minutes in and watch for 45 seconds. Speaking of Biden, Mr. Carlson said "This is the language of eugenics. It's horrifying." Perhaps he meant something closer to "genocide", a much more accurate term for it. (Maybe next show!) Earlier on, he used the term "suicidal" for Biden's actions, so one can put that together with the rest and get to "genocidal" easily enough.
(You can watch the whole 10 minutes, of course, but I stopped it at 3 1/2 minutes, as the rest may be the subject of another post here.)
This is an important step for Tucker, whatever the reason he took it. I am amazed this was even let to air, vs. the network pulling the plug, preferring dead air instead, much less that youtube still has it on. I wish that somehow, just half the number of Americans that follow the sportsball would follow the words of Tucker Carlson.
PS: It's not that I don't agree that the other two major causes of support for the massive immigration invasion, cheap labor and votes, are true. The replacement of the historic American nation is the overarching reason that enables those that support it for the other reasons to more easily have their way. This will be the subject of a subsequent post.
Comments:
Moderator
Tuesday - September 28th 2021 10:03AM MST
PS: Thank you, Dieter for that report of the panic vs anti-panic in the German government, along with your analysis of some of Peak Stupidity's favorite music. I have not read any of Salmon Rushdie's books, though I should have purchased "The Satanic Verses" at the time of that trouble just for support.
For Alarmist and Mr. Hail: Yes, that point of going through the ballots and procedures of the disputed election would be good for those in State government to use to push their reforms. However, every time they even bring up using requiring an ID card, the simplest and most obvious first thing, the black leaders will complain about that being somehow racist. That's all the other side has to do often, even at the State level. They can just get some black "leader" to rail against whatever they don't want (do to its ability to provide a more honest vote next time). Most politician will cuck out before they brave being called that deadly word RACISSS!!
Back to the States, yes, that is one hope, as I have written on this blog (I think it was re: Rick DeSantis of Florida). I appreciate your teaching Mr. Kief about what actual States' Rights are about Mr. Hail. I will add that - maybe you meant this - the use of "The United States is going to ..." vs. "The United States ARE going to ...." is more than just slipping up in grammar. The mentality of Americans has changed, and of course, the press who use this expression wouldn't have it any other way.
Lastly, I appreciate the brief story of the election dispute of 1876. I do know about Reconstruction, as, believe it or not, I was taught about it in elementary school. For some reason, I think because the words were new to me, I can remember the very title of the chapter in my State history book, "Carpetbaggers and Scaliways". Yes, it was a different country then - why do you ask?
For Alarmist and Mr. Hail: Yes, that point of going through the ballots and procedures of the disputed election would be good for those in State government to use to push their reforms. However, every time they even bring up using requiring an ID card, the simplest and most obvious first thing, the black leaders will complain about that being somehow racist. That's all the other side has to do often, even at the State level. They can just get some black "leader" to rail against whatever they don't want (do to its ability to provide a more honest vote next time). Most politician will cuck out before they brave being called that deadly word RACISSS!!
Back to the States, yes, that is one hope, as I have written on this blog (I think it was re: Rick DeSantis of Florida). I appreciate your teaching Mr. Kief about what actual States' Rights are about Mr. Hail. I will add that - maybe you meant this - the use of "The United States is going to ..." vs. "The United States ARE going to ...." is more than just slipping up in grammar. The mentality of Americans has changed, and of course, the press who use this expression wouldn't have it any other way.
Lastly, I appreciate the brief story of the election dispute of 1876. I do know about Reconstruction, as, believe it or not, I was taught about it in elementary school. For some reason, I think because the words were new to me, I can remember the very title of the chapter in my State history book, "Carpetbaggers and Scaliways". Yes, it was a different country then - why do you ask?
Hail
Tuesday - September 28th 2021 3:10AM MST
PS
...continued...
1876 vs 2020: Contrasting disputed elections
One of the most angrily disputed elections ever in the USA was the 1876 election, which at times even makes 2020 look tame.
The story of that election and the angry fighting and lawfare over it, down to the very last day or two before the new president took office, is an amazing story. I believe there were threats to raise state militia forces over the disputed election.
It makes you really appreciate how little central-government control there is in the mechanics of these elections.
The Republican candidate in 1876, Hayes, became president. But it's a coin flip on who "should have" won given how much fraud there was.
In the end, the Democrats agreed to end the all legal challenges and allow Hayes to take power in exchange for a final end to the so-called Reconstruction regimes in place after the US Civil War in some Southern states, which included the attempt to enforce state regimes in the South which seemed to favor the Black Man over White Man (all Blacks being Republicans in these days).
Those Reconstruction influences which remained in 1876 all in 1877, never to return (or, if you wish, returning in the 1960s, in modified form; but by the 1960s and since there were far fewer Blacks in these states, after migrations to northern cities. Whites could vote their way to power).
What I am describing is called in US political history the "Compromise of 1877." It was a monumental political event even if not so well known in a direct sense. In political terms, it is the definite end of the "Civil War era," which we can date to late 1850s to 1876/77.
So "Reconstruction" finally ended once and for all through a hotly disputed election and through partisans on both sides attempting lawfare attacks on suspicious results and all kinds of tangles of state laws either opening paths of attack of closing them off. So it was complicated then, and now. Both sides committed fraud, especially in some Southern states (the disputed states were all in the South, I think), which had chaotic and weak and sometimes-corrupt state-regimes under Reconstruction.
I bring this up in part to contrast with the disputed election of 2020, when there was nothing like a grand compromise attempt. The disputed US election of 2020 was all about how best to crush the other side. It would be as if Hayes slipped in in 1876-77 and then proceeded to re-invade the Southern states and re-disenfranchise all White men who had fought for the Confederacy in 1861-65. That would have been entirely stupid, very stupid, even many generations before Peak Stupidity was reached in our time.
...continued...
1876 vs 2020: Contrasting disputed elections
One of the most angrily disputed elections ever in the USA was the 1876 election, which at times even makes 2020 look tame.
The story of that election and the angry fighting and lawfare over it, down to the very last day or two before the new president took office, is an amazing story. I believe there were threats to raise state militia forces over the disputed election.
It makes you really appreciate how little central-government control there is in the mechanics of these elections.
The Republican candidate in 1876, Hayes, became president. But it's a coin flip on who "should have" won given how much fraud there was.
In the end, the Democrats agreed to end the all legal challenges and allow Hayes to take power in exchange for a final end to the so-called Reconstruction regimes in place after the US Civil War in some Southern states, which included the attempt to enforce state regimes in the South which seemed to favor the Black Man over White Man (all Blacks being Republicans in these days).
Those Reconstruction influences which remained in 1876 all in 1877, never to return (or, if you wish, returning in the 1960s, in modified form; but by the 1960s and since there were far fewer Blacks in these states, after migrations to northern cities. Whites could vote their way to power).
What I am describing is called in US political history the "Compromise of 1877." It was a monumental political event even if not so well known in a direct sense. In political terms, it is the definite end of the "Civil War era," which we can date to late 1850s to 1876/77.
So "Reconstruction" finally ended once and for all through a hotly disputed election and through partisans on both sides attempting lawfare attacks on suspicious results and all kinds of tangles of state laws either opening paths of attack of closing them off. So it was complicated then, and now. Both sides committed fraud, especially in some Southern states (the disputed states were all in the South, I think), which had chaotic and weak and sometimes-corrupt state-regimes under Reconstruction.
I bring this up in part to contrast with the disputed election of 2020, when there was nothing like a grand compromise attempt. The disputed US election of 2020 was all about how best to crush the other side. It would be as if Hayes slipped in in 1876-77 and then proceeded to re-invade the Southern states and re-disenfranchise all White men who had fought for the Confederacy in 1861-65. That would have been entirely stupid, very stupid, even many generations before Peak Stupidity was reached in our time.
Hail
Tuesday - September 28th 2021 3:03AM MST
PS
Dieter Kief wrote:
__________________
"Mr. Hail - What does follow from your remark about the AZ audit, that 'it is up to state law, in principle, to decide which ballots are to be counted and which rejected?"
Which laws do apply? Who should act now?"
__________________
.
I reply: As The Alarmist has also said here, there is no national election authority. States make their own election laws, and it comes down to state officials. There is no high authority looking over their shoulder, such as that case of the Austrian election a few years ago when a court overturned an election over irregularities and ordered a re-vote. All states are different.
This discussion quickly goes in this direction: The original form of government in the United States is hidden in the name itself ("united States"), a group of independent 'States' which 'united' in a group for defense and trade purposes, but were 'States' of their own, in the political-science sense.
The long story short is there are a lot of vestigial clues to the State-as-sovereign theory (which held for most of the history of the centuries-long mega-project of NW-European civilization-building project in North America, and of which the entity The United States---now referred to in the singular as a quiet offense against rules of grammar but bowing to new realities---is one manifestation). Elections are one of these clues of the old way of things.
All that the law says is that states determine their election results and send delegates to vote for president according to the state's instructions. Voters do not elect presidents. The electors sent by the states do. Hence the 'electoral college,' another anachronistic institution from the late 18th century.
Consider this: How could the US Southern states get away with effectively not allowing (very many) Blacks to vote for so many years? A few tricks were used, but there was no intervention from the gods (Washington DC) to overturn these laws (there would be today) specifically because states controlled their own election laws.
So this must be understood first of all in any discussion of US election law.
Dieter Kief wrote:
__________________
"Mr. Hail - What does follow from your remark about the AZ audit, that 'it is up to state law, in principle, to decide which ballots are to be counted and which rejected?"
Which laws do apply? Who should act now?"
__________________
.
I reply: As The Alarmist has also said here, there is no national election authority. States make their own election laws, and it comes down to state officials. There is no high authority looking over their shoulder, such as that case of the Austrian election a few years ago when a court overturned an election over irregularities and ordered a re-vote. All states are different.
This discussion quickly goes in this direction: The original form of government in the United States is hidden in the name itself ("united States"), a group of independent 'States' which 'united' in a group for defense and trade purposes, but were 'States' of their own, in the political-science sense.
The long story short is there are a lot of vestigial clues to the State-as-sovereign theory (which held for most of the history of the centuries-long mega-project of NW-European civilization-building project in North America, and of which the entity The United States---now referred to in the singular as a quiet offense against rules of grammar but bowing to new realities---is one manifestation). Elections are one of these clues of the old way of things.
All that the law says is that states determine their election results and send delegates to vote for president according to the state's instructions. Voters do not elect presidents. The electors sent by the states do. Hence the 'electoral college,' another anachronistic institution from the late 18th century.
Consider this: How could the US Southern states get away with effectively not allowing (very many) Blacks to vote for so many years? A few tricks were used, but there was no intervention from the gods (Washington DC) to overturn these laws (there would be today) specifically because states controlled their own election laws.
So this must be understood first of all in any discussion of US election law.
Dieter Kief
Tuesday - September 28th 2021 2:05AM MST
PS: PS
Alarmist, 1) I agree with what you wrote about the audits.
2) Ampel or Jamaika - that is the question in Germany after the election, right.
Let's wait and see what will happen!
Most important change: Ms. Merkel will be gone soon. Since she will leave office, her inner circle of fat boys ((medical) Dr. Braun, chief secretary of her office and Peter Altmeier, economy-minister) might have to go soon too.) - That would diminish the panic at the head of state - especially if Armin Laschet would be the next chancellor (he worked closely with Hendrik Streeck as the Prime Minister of Northrhine Westfalia, what he still is.
Professor Hendrik Streeck is a virologist who made one of the first solid CO-19 field studies, the Heinsberg study, which Steve Sailer wrote about too - elaborated about even).
Prof. Streeck is a solid no-panicker who is pro-vaccine but firmly against vaccine passports and all that - öh - psychologically not least - let me say: Unwise strategies. Martin Kulldorff of the Great Barrington Declaration remarked oftentimes recently, that he is afraid that vaccine passports might backfire and weaken the vaccines and the states' authority in the CO-19 case, what he looks upon as bad things.
If Olaf Scholz, the reasonable SPD politician would make it to the top in a coalition with the Lib-Dems & the Green Party, there would be the question of what he would do with SPD chief panicker and permanent CO-19 TV-expert (at times you think he .l.i.v..e.s. in these TV stations)? - - - Karl Lauterbach? Karl Lauterbach is Prof. of social medicine and medical doctor and a nightmarish doomsayer of the Neil Ferguson type.
He is wrong as Ferguson too with his predictions, time and time again - but always with the public at his ear - - - -. A miracle - ours are "the times of the miracle and wonder!" (Paul Simon, Graceland).
These are the most interesting phenomenons for me in this pandemic. The examples of Ferguson in GB and Lauterbach in Germany and Fauci in the US show: No way can a public discourse about a new and severe illness be held in our western societies as they are right now without - the religious context of salvation, protection (The Lord is Watching Over You - May You Be Blessed...) - without religion I said and it's momentary most common hybrid forms of public rituals in the context of the TV news-coverage and (in Germany quite important) political talk shows. - The constant references to doom being religious at their core too - the Holy Bible is stuffed with doom and the Apocalypse and so on.
Now here is a fork in the analytical road ahead so to speak, take a left-turn and think about sociologist Max Weber (protestant w.o.r.k e.t.h.i.c and the c.h.a.ri.s.m.a of political leadership vs. a rational approach to reality via an ethic which is based in societal realities - thus reflecting the simple facts that we humans are unable to lead perfect (=pure/ lives (= lives without sin). So think too (and as important) of atheist philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach (and his pupil Marx) and maybe most important sociologist Emile Durkheim, who discovered, that rituals are a fundamental force inhuman societies, because they lay the ground for all kinds of more elaborated interactions (such as the law, not least, and our customs and ethics and values etc. pp.). -
- Or think of the Grateful Dead and The Doors and Motorhead here and Thomas Mann's two novels 1) The Magic Mountain (illness as existential to the human condition), 2) Dr. Faustus (mental illness ass a mass phenomenon in the Third Reich).
And think of David Guterson (Our Lady of the Forest - great review by our host here on the blog!) and Jonathan Franzen's Purity not least (about Faust and Big Tech/the silicon valley way of life and - puritanism as the idea which connects the IT-nerd's mentality with the mentality of the greater public and their need (thriving) for - relieve) - and think of the Eagles' 1) Hotel California and about 2) those Eagles' lines too about - puritanism and - liberty (in the USA): They called it paradise, I don't know why, somebody laid the mountains low / while the tide got high (and: put up a bunch of ugly boxes,/ Jesus people bought them) ((Oh - I know that I referred to two different Eagles' songs - and I know why I referred to Hotel Califonia: Because of the subtext in this song of liberty/liberation and - paranoia here and and of transcendce (the "Mission bell" there. Sexual and spiritual liberation// (the booze an drug references - and the tour-references... - the magic moments of rock-star g.r.a.n.d.e.z.z.a and have it all at once: Admiration...adoration (women) ...and liberation... - - - Heavenly pleasures aplenty - right here right now - - - ).
(See Salman Rushdie's novel The Ground Beneath Their Feet*** - Rushdie begins this furious Rock-novel with a reference to Snow White and the glass-coffin...Purity (Snow White) and reality wrapped up in one of the Grimm brother's graet fairy tale metaphors...).
**** See ancient Greek mythical figure Antaios (the Anti-man (that's what the name Antaios means, actually - the one who opposes - so Antaios is the archetype of the young man) who could have been killed by Archilleus only because Antaios lost the Ground Beneath His Feet - that's the Rock'n'Roll arch-temptation (that's what makes Rock'n'Roll so rude and so attractive, that there is this archaic tension at play to either - 1) check in to the Hotel California// or chose th more humbel path: "...the valley is green and the mountains are high / If you want to see God you got to move to the other side (out of the worldly Rock'n'Roll context (Barcley James Harvest**** (!) The Hymn, which warns: "...don't try to fly to god you might not come down...".
Stay tuned everybody!
Alarmist, 1) I agree with what you wrote about the audits.
2) Ampel or Jamaika - that is the question in Germany after the election, right.
Let's wait and see what will happen!
Most important change: Ms. Merkel will be gone soon. Since she will leave office, her inner circle of fat boys ((medical) Dr. Braun, chief secretary of her office and Peter Altmeier, economy-minister) might have to go soon too.) - That would diminish the panic at the head of state - especially if Armin Laschet would be the next chancellor (he worked closely with Hendrik Streeck as the Prime Minister of Northrhine Westfalia, what he still is.
Professor Hendrik Streeck is a virologist who made one of the first solid CO-19 field studies, the Heinsberg study, which Steve Sailer wrote about too - elaborated about even).
Prof. Streeck is a solid no-panicker who is pro-vaccine but firmly against vaccine passports and all that - öh - psychologically not least - let me say: Unwise strategies. Martin Kulldorff of the Great Barrington Declaration remarked oftentimes recently, that he is afraid that vaccine passports might backfire and weaken the vaccines and the states' authority in the CO-19 case, what he looks upon as bad things.
If Olaf Scholz, the reasonable SPD politician would make it to the top in a coalition with the Lib-Dems & the Green Party, there would be the question of what he would do with SPD chief panicker and permanent CO-19 TV-expert (at times you think he .l.i.v..e.s. in these TV stations)? - - - Karl Lauterbach? Karl Lauterbach is Prof. of social medicine and medical doctor and a nightmarish doomsayer of the Neil Ferguson type.
He is wrong as Ferguson too with his predictions, time and time again - but always with the public at his ear - - - -. A miracle - ours are "the times of the miracle and wonder!" (Paul Simon, Graceland).
These are the most interesting phenomenons for me in this pandemic. The examples of Ferguson in GB and Lauterbach in Germany and Fauci in the US show: No way can a public discourse about a new and severe illness be held in our western societies as they are right now without - the religious context of salvation, protection (The Lord is Watching Over You - May You Be Blessed...) - without religion I said and it's momentary most common hybrid forms of public rituals in the context of the TV news-coverage and (in Germany quite important) political talk shows. - The constant references to doom being religious at their core too - the Holy Bible is stuffed with doom and the Apocalypse and so on.
Now here is a fork in the analytical road ahead so to speak, take a left-turn and think about sociologist Max Weber (protestant w.o.r.k e.t.h.i.c and the c.h.a.ri.s.m.a of political leadership vs. a rational approach to reality via an ethic which is based in societal realities - thus reflecting the simple facts that we humans are unable to lead perfect (=pure/ lives (= lives without sin). So think too (and as important) of atheist philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach (and his pupil Marx) and maybe most important sociologist Emile Durkheim, who discovered, that rituals are a fundamental force inhuman societies, because they lay the ground for all kinds of more elaborated interactions (such as the law, not least, and our customs and ethics and values etc. pp.). -
- Or think of the Grateful Dead and The Doors and Motorhead here and Thomas Mann's two novels 1) The Magic Mountain (illness as existential to the human condition), 2) Dr. Faustus (mental illness ass a mass phenomenon in the Third Reich).
And think of David Guterson (Our Lady of the Forest - great review by our host here on the blog!) and Jonathan Franzen's Purity not least (about Faust and Big Tech/the silicon valley way of life and - puritanism as the idea which connects the IT-nerd's mentality with the mentality of the greater public and their need (thriving) for - relieve) - and think of the Eagles' 1) Hotel California and about 2) those Eagles' lines too about - puritanism and - liberty (in the USA): They called it paradise, I don't know why, somebody laid the mountains low / while the tide got high (and: put up a bunch of ugly boxes,/ Jesus people bought them) ((Oh - I know that I referred to two different Eagles' songs - and I know why I referred to Hotel Califonia: Because of the subtext in this song of liberty/liberation and - paranoia here and and of transcendce (the "Mission bell" there. Sexual and spiritual liberation// (the booze an drug references - and the tour-references... - the magic moments of rock-star g.r.a.n.d.e.z.z.a and have it all at once: Admiration...adoration (women) ...and liberation... - - - Heavenly pleasures aplenty - right here right now - - - ).
(See Salman Rushdie's novel The Ground Beneath Their Feet*** - Rushdie begins this furious Rock-novel with a reference to Snow White and the glass-coffin...Purity (Snow White) and reality wrapped up in one of the Grimm brother's graet fairy tale metaphors...).
**** See ancient Greek mythical figure Antaios (the Anti-man (that's what the name Antaios means, actually - the one who opposes - so Antaios is the archetype of the young man) who could have been killed by Archilleus only because Antaios lost the Ground Beneath His Feet - that's the Rock'n'Roll arch-temptation (that's what makes Rock'n'Roll so rude and so attractive, that there is this archaic tension at play to either - 1) check in to the Hotel California// or chose th more humbel path: "...the valley is green and the mountains are high / If you want to see God you got to move to the other side (out of the worldly Rock'n'Roll context (Barcley James Harvest**** (!) The Hymn, which warns: "...don't try to fly to god you might not come down...".
Stay tuned everybody!
The Alarmist
Monday - September 27th 2021 3:39PM MST
PS
The AZ (and any other audits that might follow) will never be used to overturn the 2020 election. There are no “do-over” provisions in the US Constitution. The courts will simply point out that all the necessary Constitutional formalities were carried out, and that is the end of the challenge.
What the audits are good for is prompting very necessary corrective actions, which is why the machine is dialing down what should be explosive revelations and why states like Texas and Georgia are taking flak for cleaning up the electoral process in any way.
At the risk of mixing metaphors, the farce is strong with the Borg.
Beam me up, Scotty.
On another note, will Deutschland go Ampel or Jamaika?
The AZ (and any other audits that might follow) will never be used to overturn the 2020 election. There are no “do-over” provisions in the US Constitution. The courts will simply point out that all the necessary Constitutional formalities were carried out, and that is the end of the challenge.
What the audits are good for is prompting very necessary corrective actions, which is why the machine is dialing down what should be explosive revelations and why states like Texas and Georgia are taking flak for cleaning up the electoral process in any way.
At the risk of mixing metaphors, the farce is strong with the Borg.
Beam me up, Scotty.
On another note, will Deutschland go Ampel or Jamaika?
Dieter Kief
Monday - September 27th 2021 11:48AM MST
PS
Mr. Hail - What does follow from your remark about the AZ audit, that "it is up to state law, in principle, to decide which ballots are to be counted and which rejected?"
Which laws do apply? Who should act now?
I too am a bit astonsihed at the moment that there seems to be very little interest in these questions. - Is there more to come from those who organzied the AZ audit?
Mr. Hail - What does follow from your remark about the AZ audit, that "it is up to state law, in principle, to decide which ballots are to be counted and which rejected?"
Which laws do apply? Who should act now?
I too am a bit astonsihed at the moment that there seems to be very little interest in these questions. - Is there more to come from those who organzied the AZ audit?
Dieter Kief
Monday - September 27th 2021 11:31AM MST
PS De-Paywalled
Tucker Carlson - Interview With Blogger Curtis Yarvin aka Mencius Moldbug
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_8aT3pQo_I
Tucker Carlson - Interview With Blogger Curtis Yarvin aka Mencius Moldbug
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_8aT3pQo_I
Hail
Sunday - September 26th 2021 10:09AM MST
PS
Moderator said: "I can put your Arizona election results comment here in a post anytime, if you would be OK with that. I'll say that I will add the same commentary at the bottom about all this never going to be able to reverse the '20 election."
Feel free to use it as you see fit.
There is always some value in getting more reliable data about some historical event or controversy. There is surprisingly limited interest in the Arizona Audit, probably in part because people feel it is hopeless especially once they got the "Insurrection" narrative going, ran a good-old-fashioned political purge, and swore-in Biden two weeks later.
(I don't think Steve Sailer has paid much of any attention the Arizona Audit despite it going on over several months. I think he has even said he believes Biden won fair-and-square, tacitly rejecting the idea of electoral irregularities as being enough to tip the scales in close states.)
Moderator said: "I can put your Arizona election results comment here in a post anytime, if you would be OK with that. I'll say that I will add the same commentary at the bottom about all this never going to be able to reverse the '20 election."
Feel free to use it as you see fit.
There is always some value in getting more reliable data about some historical event or controversy. There is surprisingly limited interest in the Arizona Audit, probably in part because people feel it is hopeless especially once they got the "Insurrection" narrative going, ran a good-old-fashioned political purge, and swore-in Biden two weeks later.
(I don't think Steve Sailer has paid much of any attention the Arizona Audit despite it going on over several months. I think he has even said he believes Biden won fair-and-square, tacitly rejecting the idea of electoral irregularities as being enough to tip the scales in close states.)
Hail
Sunday - September 26th 2021 9:58AM MST
PS
RE: Moderator
I agree generally with your comments on the Arizona election and Election 2020, the core of which is this:
"I think the whole effort is hopeless. It's fine to set the record straight, but there is no way the political class will let even a bullet-proof explanation of a Trump victory in Arizona mean anything. They will just ignore the issue. The election results will not be changed, unless it's in the context of a coup (a real one this time)."
People made a lot of hay out of the election-fraud topic, for and against, in November and December 2020. But it was all under a fog of war and no one could be sure one way or another.
But people believed there was fraud. Now forgotten, but up until at least noon EST January 6th 2021, multiple US Congress members sided with the many millions of regular people suspicious of some of the vote totals especially from late-night mystery-ballot-dump states. A group of Republican Senators were planning to protest the counting of the electors from the disputed states and try to procedurally send them back to the disputed states' legislatures to sort out, for an emergency audit or possible revote if major fraud was found. This was very possibly all so much political theater (but still unprecedented in our time --- possibly excluding Florida 2000), but it all came to a screaming halt when the other side got their Reichstag Fire moment involving a few dozen protestors taking selfies, some in silly costumes, after being let in the US Capitol.
Enough suspicious-looking activities, anomalous-seeming results, and the multiple 4am mystery-ballot dumps (which of course were almost always 90%+ for Biden and in some cases literally 100% for Biden in a batch of thousands of votes) --- it all amounted to filling in so many checkboxes on the list red-flags for election fraud. But suspicion is not data. The Arizona Audit results --- which were under a coverage boycott by every news outlet other than One America News and possibly Newsmax --- is finally good data.
I believe the basis of good policy is good analysis.
The basis of good analysis is moral courage and good data.
Moral courage, however well intentioned, but without good data will not get you far and leave you flopping around in the wind (many of the Jan 6, 2021, protestors were of this kind). Good data without moral courage is tantamount to an intellectual ghetto (the Internet encourages this in several ways; the HBD movement in general is assumed to be guilty of this).
The Arizona Audit's claimed goals are not to overturn the election but to identify weaknesses in the voting system. It's widely assumed the D team will do what it can to tip the scales again in 2022, 2024, 2026, 2028, and on, until they Californianize US national politics, but much belt-tightening and vigilance could at least be a delaying action. But delaying towards what end? When is the cavalry coming?
RE: Moderator
I agree generally with your comments on the Arizona election and Election 2020, the core of which is this:
"I think the whole effort is hopeless. It's fine to set the record straight, but there is no way the political class will let even a bullet-proof explanation of a Trump victory in Arizona mean anything. They will just ignore the issue. The election results will not be changed, unless it's in the context of a coup (a real one this time)."
People made a lot of hay out of the election-fraud topic, for and against, in November and December 2020. But it was all under a fog of war and no one could be sure one way or another.
But people believed there was fraud. Now forgotten, but up until at least noon EST January 6th 2021, multiple US Congress members sided with the many millions of regular people suspicious of some of the vote totals especially from late-night mystery-ballot-dump states. A group of Republican Senators were planning to protest the counting of the electors from the disputed states and try to procedurally send them back to the disputed states' legislatures to sort out, for an emergency audit or possible revote if major fraud was found. This was very possibly all so much political theater (but still unprecedented in our time --- possibly excluding Florida 2000), but it all came to a screaming halt when the other side got their Reichstag Fire moment involving a few dozen protestors taking selfies, some in silly costumes, after being let in the US Capitol.
Enough suspicious-looking activities, anomalous-seeming results, and the multiple 4am mystery-ballot dumps (which of course were almost always 90%+ for Biden and in some cases literally 100% for Biden in a batch of thousands of votes) --- it all amounted to filling in so many checkboxes on the list red-flags for election fraud. But suspicion is not data. The Arizona Audit results --- which were under a coverage boycott by every news outlet other than One America News and possibly Newsmax --- is finally good data.
I believe the basis of good policy is good analysis.
The basis of good analysis is moral courage and good data.
Moral courage, however well intentioned, but without good data will not get you far and leave you flopping around in the wind (many of the Jan 6, 2021, protestors were of this kind). Good data without moral courage is tantamount to an intellectual ghetto (the Internet encourages this in several ways; the HBD movement in general is assumed to be guilty of this).
The Arizona Audit's claimed goals are not to overturn the election but to identify weaknesses in the voting system. It's widely assumed the D team will do what it can to tip the scales again in 2022, 2024, 2026, 2028, and on, until they Californianize US national politics, but much belt-tightening and vigilance could at least be a delaying action. But delaying towards what end? When is the cavalry coming?
Moderator
Saturday - September 25th 2021 9:11PM MST
PS: (BTW, I didn't put in links, but you can find my "Ship of Fools" review posts with the "Books" topic key, from mid-February of '19)
On Arizona, Mr. Hail, I gotta say again that this is not a "current events" site really. I will admit right here that I'm not even following the Arizona story. That is not to say that it's not important that the record be set straight. I applaud these hard-working activists, especially the non-government ones not getting paid, for doggedly pulling out numbers that demonstrate that there's no way any country that calls itself a democracy can say the voting there was done properly.
The numbers in your comment show that it is indeed ridiculous for anyone to claim that the Arizona voting results were settled properly. I can remember right back to the late night (I guess early morning) of Nov 3rd-4th though. For most of the States in question, they shouldn't have even BEEN in question, as like results for the Biden side would have already been called. Then, the counts, were things to trend normally, showed that most of these States ought to have stayed red. As I watched on State after another, over the next couple of days, turn color, I already understood that there was just no way for Trump to win it. The D's were going to do whatever they had to do, and from watching the counts change,, they were doing it right before our very eyes.
However, getting back toward my thoughts in the 1st paragraph, the reason I'm not following the story is not just that I've been reading on other political issues, or (some days) staying away from it all. It's also that I think the whole effort is hopeless. It's fine to set the record straight, but there is no way the political class will let even a bullet-proof explanation of a Trump victory in Arizona mean anything. They will just ignore the issue. The election results will not be changed, unless it's in the context of a coup (a real one this time)
I can put your Arizona election results comment here in a post anytime, if you would be OK with that. I'll say that I will add the same commentary at the bottom about all this never going to be able to reverse the '20 election.
On Arizona, Mr. Hail, I gotta say again that this is not a "current events" site really. I will admit right here that I'm not even following the Arizona story. That is not to say that it's not important that the record be set straight. I applaud these hard-working activists, especially the non-government ones not getting paid, for doggedly pulling out numbers that demonstrate that there's no way any country that calls itself a democracy can say the voting there was done properly.
The numbers in your comment show that it is indeed ridiculous for anyone to claim that the Arizona voting results were settled properly. I can remember right back to the late night (I guess early morning) of Nov 3rd-4th though. For most of the States in question, they shouldn't have even BEEN in question, as like results for the Biden side would have already been called. Then, the counts, were things to trend normally, showed that most of these States ought to have stayed red. As I watched on State after another, over the next couple of days, turn color, I already understood that there was just no way for Trump to win it. The D's were going to do whatever they had to do, and from watching the counts change,, they were doing it right before our very eyes.
However, getting back toward my thoughts in the 1st paragraph, the reason I'm not following the story is not just that I've been reading on other political issues, or (some days) staying away from it all. It's also that I think the whole effort is hopeless. It's fine to set the record straight, but there is no way the political class will let even a bullet-proof explanation of a Trump victory in Arizona mean anything. They will just ignore the issue. The election results will not be changed, unless it's in the context of a coup (a real one this time)
I can put your Arizona election results comment here in a post anytime, if you would be OK with that. I'll say that I will add the same commentary at the bottom about all this never going to be able to reverse the '20 election.
Moderator
Saturday - September 25th 2021 8:54PM MST
PS: I almost forgot - a couple of Sailer posts reminded me that I wrote a 3-part review of Tucker Carlson's "Ship of Fools" book. (Mr Sailer had a review in Takimag.) I just perused my reviews to be sure of what I remembered.
The book is not solely about immigration. That's one of many ills Tucker described. However, his general solution for all of the problems, including immigration, is that the elites just need to get more in touch with the people. Tucker did not at all get into any evil reasons the elites want this invasion - it's just that they don't understand and need to get in better touch with the common people, as in years past.
I was disappointed with his take there, in a book that came out in summer or fall of '19. Now, granted, maybe Tucker didn't want to put in the book what he would say on TV.
Anyway, Mr. Hail, I'll take your word, of course, that Tucker Carlson has used most of the same language before. This latest was a new development for me.
The book is not solely about immigration. That's one of many ills Tucker described. However, his general solution for all of the problems, including immigration, is that the elites just need to get more in touch with the people. Tucker did not at all get into any evil reasons the elites want this invasion - it's just that they don't understand and need to get in better touch with the common people, as in years past.
I was disappointed with his take there, in a book that came out in summer or fall of '19. Now, granted, maybe Tucker didn't want to put in the book what he would say on TV.
Anyway, Mr. Hail, I'll take your word, of course, that Tucker Carlson has used most of the same language before. This latest was a new development for me.
Moderator
Saturday - September 25th 2021 8:39PM MST
PS: Mr. Hail, while I was writing the last one, I did a search for "Tucker" in Mr. Sailer's archives on unz.com. (BTW, that alone works pretty good, with only a couple of hits for a Cynthia Tucker, couple for a Justin Tucker, one for a Chris Tucker and a few other random Tuckers earlier on) I recognize almost all the posts that I see as ones that I have read, from the title and the blurb.
Possibly this one, from not that long ago, April '21,
https://www.unz.com/isteve/adl-immigration-and-high-fertility-of-minorities-would-lead-to-a-catastrophic-great-replacement/?highlight=tucker
is the closest I've found so far (page 3 of 5 of the search hits). From that post:
[In an excerpt from an article by Tali Arbel of WSB TV] "▼The Anti-Defamation League has called for Fox News to fire prime-time opinion host Tucker Carlson because he defended a white-supremacist theory that says whites are being “replaced” by people of color."
From the same excerpt: "He [a spokesman from the ADL] said Thursday during a guest appearance on “Fox News Primetime” that “the left and all the little gatekeepers on Twitter become literally hysterical if you use the term ‘replacement,’ if you suggest that the Democratic Party is trying to replace the current electorate of voters now casting ballots with new people, more obedient voters from the Third World.”
A couple of videos I tried to watch are gone - nothing really nefarious there - but from this one, going by the context, Mr. Tucker is trying to frame this still in terms of the voting. Yes, he does mention replacement though. I can't tell from the Sailer post whether Tucker himself (not the ADL spokesman) actually used the word "white voters" rather than something else.
I guess my feeling from the clip in this post is that Tucker Carlson has dropped the bit about it all being about the votes. When you leave that out, the whole thing becomes much more sinister, IMO.
Possibly this one, from not that long ago, April '21,
https://www.unz.com/isteve/adl-immigration-and-high-fertility-of-minorities-would-lead-to-a-catastrophic-great-replacement/?highlight=tucker
is the closest I've found so far (page 3 of 5 of the search hits). From that post:
[In an excerpt from an article by Tali Arbel of WSB TV] "▼The Anti-Defamation League has called for Fox News to fire prime-time opinion host Tucker Carlson because he defended a white-supremacist theory that says whites are being “replaced” by people of color."
From the same excerpt: "He [a spokesman from the ADL] said Thursday during a guest appearance on “Fox News Primetime” that “the left and all the little gatekeepers on Twitter become literally hysterical if you use the term ‘replacement,’ if you suggest that the Democratic Party is trying to replace the current electorate of voters now casting ballots with new people, more obedient voters from the Third World.”
A couple of videos I tried to watch are gone - nothing really nefarious there - but from this one, going by the context, Mr. Tucker is trying to frame this still in terms of the voting. Yes, he does mention replacement though. I can't tell from the Sailer post whether Tucker himself (not the ADL spokesman) actually used the word "white voters" rather than something else.
I guess my feeling from the clip in this post is that Tucker Carlson has dropped the bit about it all being about the votes. When you leave that out, the whole thing becomes much more sinister, IMO.
Moderator
Saturday - September 25th 2021 8:16PM MST
PS: Mr. Hail - regarding your comments on Mr. Carlson:
Of course Steve Sailer has been courageously saying this since at least around the timeframe 2016. I can only go by that date myself because that's when I started commenting on and regularly reading his blog. I don't think Mr. Sailer has any thoughts of it being a conspiracy theory, as I don't, but he has long asserted that, yes, the elites hate the White middle class and immigration policy has been written (along with being appropriately non-enforced) to change the demographics of America's population since Hart Cellar.
BTW, VDare's Peter Brimelow has been bringing the one old quote up (goes something like "we'll just replace the voters" or "elect a new people") for many years maybe the 20 during which I've been following that site.
Mr. Sailer doesn't write very much about the ethnic group that is generally heavily supportive of this replacement policy. He will touch on it once in a while though. So, he and I'm sure others I don't read have long been writing about the most basic reason behind the immigration invasion. VDare writes about the demographic changes in detail. They don't get into the "why" as much, as far as the elites wanting to overwhelm the White population, as that's just not their main thing
On Tucker, I will say that I don't watch TV. I have only watched clips of him every few weeks or so on average. However, the last couple of times I watched, I was pleased enough with his stance, but I didn't hear him go any farther than "the D's want the votes", to paraphrase.
There is a lot more I have obviously missed, but I'm going by my viewing of this clip vs. what I watched in a few clips a couple of months ago.
---- I'll continue in another comment.
Of course Steve Sailer has been courageously saying this since at least around the timeframe 2016. I can only go by that date myself because that's when I started commenting on and regularly reading his blog. I don't think Mr. Sailer has any thoughts of it being a conspiracy theory, as I don't, but he has long asserted that, yes, the elites hate the White middle class and immigration policy has been written (along with being appropriately non-enforced) to change the demographics of America's population since Hart Cellar.
BTW, VDare's Peter Brimelow has been bringing the one old quote up (goes something like "we'll just replace the voters" or "elect a new people") for many years maybe the 20 during which I've been following that site.
Mr. Sailer doesn't write very much about the ethnic group that is generally heavily supportive of this replacement policy. He will touch on it once in a while though. So, he and I'm sure others I don't read have long been writing about the most basic reason behind the immigration invasion. VDare writes about the demographic changes in detail. They don't get into the "why" as much, as far as the elites wanting to overwhelm the White population, as that's just not their main thing
On Tucker, I will say that I don't watch TV. I have only watched clips of him every few weeks or so on average. However, the last couple of times I watched, I was pleased enough with his stance, but I didn't hear him go any farther than "the D's want the votes", to paraphrase.
There is a lot more I have obviously missed, but I'm going by my viewing of this clip vs. what I watched in a few clips a couple of months ago.
---- I'll continue in another comment.
Hail
Saturday - September 25th 2021 6:44PM MST
PS
_________
** Results of Arizona Maricopa County forensic audit of Election 2020 **
In summary:
57,000+ problematic votes were cast and counted, (2.75% of votes cast).
Some of these were definitely illegally cast under law. Most would be rejected under a strict-scrutiny system. The rules were all relaxed, citing --- prepare yourself, this may come as a shock --- citing the ongoing Corona Flu Apocalypse and health catastrophe. Election authorities did their part to Slow The Spread (or whatever) by loosening the rules.
This in addition to whatever effect there was of the mandated mass mail-in voting without spillover into legal grey area on individual ballots, though of course some argue the entire mail-voting system mandate was of questionably legality.
All 57,000+ of these flagged votes are at least clearly in a grey area of legality and some even into a black area of "should have been rejected" --- absent the Corona-Panic's awesome power.
57,000+ illegal or legal-grey-area votes
2.07 million: Total votes counted in the county of Maricopa, including said 57,000 flagged votes.
That is a 2.75% problematic (arguably mostly or all illegal/rejectable) ballot rate.
The margin for the official results for this county--as certified by the governor under a cloud of suspicion, and over objections by the Arizona State Senate--in early December 2020:
Biden:Trump 50:48. The exact gap was 2.17% for the county itself.
Arizona statewide margin, certified result: 49.4% Biden to 49.1% Trump; absolute margin of 10,457 votes. The Maricopa County questionable-ballot rate exceeds the official victory margin by over 5x.
Exit polls suggest two-thirds of all votes counted in Arizona in 2020 were sent in by mail; all polls agree that mail-in voters broke for Biden by large margins. The official turnout in Arizona, as certified by the governor under a cloud of suspicion, was several points higher than normal, reaching 80% in 2020 vs. the mid-70s in other recent presidential elections; only 74% in 2016.
We can speculate on three sources of the +6 point voter-turnout rate, 2016 vs. 2020: (1) mail-in voting encouraging the marginal, lowest-info, laziest layer of potential voters to vote; (2) higher enthusiasm in 2020 than 2016; (3) one form or another of increased level of illegal voting.
If the 57,000 problematic ballots broke 60:40 for Biden, and if every single one of the problematic ballots were rejected rather than counted, and if all other counties' vote-totals were held constant, Trump would have won Arizona by a narrow margin. Trump won in in 2016 by 3.5 points.
US regime media headlines began reporting, early Friday, that the Arizona Audit had "confirmed that Biden won," when in fact what was meant, afaict, is there is no way to tell with certainty that the questionable-ballot margin would be really be 60:40 or not, or even which kind of problematic ballots should or should not be rejected.
The audit firm is not the government. It only worked in an advisory capacity. It is up to state law, in principle, to decide which ballots are to be counted and which rejected. But there are always grey areas requiring judgement calls. And then there are emergencies, for which laws can be suspended --- i.e., here the Corona Flu-Virus Catastrophe, which definitely threatened millions of deaths, they all sang in unison, and voting laws must be relaxed immediately to prevent more piles of flu deaths.
What is sovereignty? As a famous political theorist once put it, the sovereign is he who (or they who) have the power not to make "laws" but to make "exceptions," to decide when to make exceptions (declare emergencies) and when to go by the book. Grey areas on ballots seem a clear case of that, as does much else about the political effects of the Corona-Panic.
Back to the 2.75% questionable-ballot / potentially-illegal-ballot rate found for Maricopa County. Assuming it is correct --- and given the audit firm's triple-checking system and close scrutiny of every single ballot cast and counted, we should trust it --- we still would want to know:
(1) How much higher is it than normal for the same place? For example, is the base rate for this county 0.8-1.0% and then in Corona-Panic Year One it reached 2.75%, a 3x rise in 2020 over the elections of the previous few decades?
(2) Are other places higher or lower in absolute/relative terms? This is much harder to know. Arizona was not even one of the states with the late-night mystery-ballot dumps appearing from big metropolitan-area machines, conveniently appearing just in time to save Biden and make him president.
(3) European elections seem to publish full results including invalid/rejected ballots (sometimes called "spoiled ballots"). Why do I find no comparable data for the Arizona election? Surely they rejected SOME, somewhere. Did they reject ballots at some higher or lower rate than in the past? We should want to know that.
_________
** Results of Arizona Maricopa County forensic audit of Election 2020 **
In summary:
57,000+ problematic votes were cast and counted, (2.75% of votes cast).
Some of these were definitely illegally cast under law. Most would be rejected under a strict-scrutiny system. The rules were all relaxed, citing --- prepare yourself, this may come as a shock --- citing the ongoing Corona Flu Apocalypse and health catastrophe. Election authorities did their part to Slow The Spread (or whatever) by loosening the rules.
This in addition to whatever effect there was of the mandated mass mail-in voting without spillover into legal grey area on individual ballots, though of course some argue the entire mail-voting system mandate was of questionably legality.
All 57,000+ of these flagged votes are at least clearly in a grey area of legality and some even into a black area of "should have been rejected" --- absent the Corona-Panic's awesome power.
57,000+ illegal or legal-grey-area votes
2.07 million: Total votes counted in the county of Maricopa, including said 57,000 flagged votes.
That is a 2.75% problematic (arguably mostly or all illegal/rejectable) ballot rate.
The margin for the official results for this county--as certified by the governor under a cloud of suspicion, and over objections by the Arizona State Senate--in early December 2020:
Biden:Trump 50:48. The exact gap was 2.17% for the county itself.
Arizona statewide margin, certified result: 49.4% Biden to 49.1% Trump; absolute margin of 10,457 votes. The Maricopa County questionable-ballot rate exceeds the official victory margin by over 5x.
Exit polls suggest two-thirds of all votes counted in Arizona in 2020 were sent in by mail; all polls agree that mail-in voters broke for Biden by large margins. The official turnout in Arizona, as certified by the governor under a cloud of suspicion, was several points higher than normal, reaching 80% in 2020 vs. the mid-70s in other recent presidential elections; only 74% in 2016.
We can speculate on three sources of the +6 point voter-turnout rate, 2016 vs. 2020: (1) mail-in voting encouraging the marginal, lowest-info, laziest layer of potential voters to vote; (2) higher enthusiasm in 2020 than 2016; (3) one form or another of increased level of illegal voting.
If the 57,000 problematic ballots broke 60:40 for Biden, and if every single one of the problematic ballots were rejected rather than counted, and if all other counties' vote-totals were held constant, Trump would have won Arizona by a narrow margin. Trump won in in 2016 by 3.5 points.
US regime media headlines began reporting, early Friday, that the Arizona Audit had "confirmed that Biden won," when in fact what was meant, afaict, is there is no way to tell with certainty that the questionable-ballot margin would be really be 60:40 or not, or even which kind of problematic ballots should or should not be rejected.
The audit firm is not the government. It only worked in an advisory capacity. It is up to state law, in principle, to decide which ballots are to be counted and which rejected. But there are always grey areas requiring judgement calls. And then there are emergencies, for which laws can be suspended --- i.e., here the Corona Flu-Virus Catastrophe, which definitely threatened millions of deaths, they all sang in unison, and voting laws must be relaxed immediately to prevent more piles of flu deaths.
What is sovereignty? As a famous political theorist once put it, the sovereign is he who (or they who) have the power not to make "laws" but to make "exceptions," to decide when to make exceptions (declare emergencies) and when to go by the book. Grey areas on ballots seem a clear case of that, as does much else about the political effects of the Corona-Panic.
Back to the 2.75% questionable-ballot / potentially-illegal-ballot rate found for Maricopa County. Assuming it is correct --- and given the audit firm's triple-checking system and close scrutiny of every single ballot cast and counted, we should trust it --- we still would want to know:
(1) How much higher is it than normal for the same place? For example, is the base rate for this county 0.8-1.0% and then in Corona-Panic Year One it reached 2.75%, a 3x rise in 2020 over the elections of the previous few decades?
(2) Are other places higher or lower in absolute/relative terms? This is much harder to know. Arizona was not even one of the states with the late-night mystery-ballot dumps appearing from big metropolitan-area machines, conveniently appearing just in time to save Biden and make him president.
(3) European elections seem to publish full results including invalid/rejected ballots (sometimes called "spoiled ballots"). Why do I find no comparable data for the Arizona election? Surely they rejected SOME, somewhere. Did they reject ballots at some higher or lower rate than in the past? We should want to know that.
Hail
Saturday - September 25th 2021 6:19PM MST
PS
(...continuing from previous, comment part 3/3...)
On Tucker Carlson (and all other Fox figures; and most other media figures) as political actor:
Tucker, and his staff (note, Tucker does not write his own monologues but has a team of writers, but much like a politician) and Fox News heads themselves, are all well aware that they are political actors with major agenda-setting power.
All these people (plus the most enthusiastic outside observers interested in politics and influence, sharp enough to notice both the the dog-that-didn't-bark and well-aimed dogwhistles) further know that the know the monologues are the most important segments to air on these shows. Fox News hosts famously banned any of their hosts from mentioning the voter fraud allegation in Nov and Dec 2020 and in 2021 have banned any mention of the Arizona Maricopa County audit.**
They are of course NOT reporting news. They are partly agenda-setters and partly selling a well-packed product as a business, and a lucrative one at that.
(There is also the curious overrepresentation of Blacks on Fox News in these segments ["and now, for commentary, we go to a Black minor celebrity well-known in the greater Memphis area..."], far exceeding their share of population, as usual in the USA. Why are they doing this? It touches on both agenda-setting and more. Even Tucker does this. There is a case that Fox trotting out its long line of often-second-rate Black commentators is an example of the quasi-doctrine of Black moral superiority in the USA, by which I here mean this: They are allowed to make points Whites are not. There is both agenda-setting and packaged-entertainment-product going on there.)
Immigration seems much more often a primary subject or major secondary subject of Tucker's monologue than others. At some point the Fox News bosses saw Tucker had become the most popular show on cable news with this kind of talk, and so they loosened the rein. But this rein-loosening happened several years ago already.
BTW, check the video again but I believe Tucker said it as "a great replacement" and not as "The Great Replacement." (The latter, capitalized version being the "conspiracy theory.") In spoken form it is of course ambiguous. At it is also an easily missable line, crammed in at the rear of the monologue, not something he somehow weaved the entire monologue around, as the ADL claims.
__________
__________
** -- Since I see PEAK STUPIDITY has had no mention on the Arizona Audit as of now, two days after its report was released, I'll toss in my summary of the results in a comment here next.
(...continuing from previous, comment part 3/3...)
On Tucker Carlson (and all other Fox figures; and most other media figures) as political actor:
Tucker, and his staff (note, Tucker does not write his own monologues but has a team of writers, but much like a politician) and Fox News heads themselves, are all well aware that they are political actors with major agenda-setting power.
All these people (plus the most enthusiastic outside observers interested in politics and influence, sharp enough to notice both the the dog-that-didn't-bark and well-aimed dogwhistles) further know that the know the monologues are the most important segments to air on these shows. Fox News hosts famously banned any of their hosts from mentioning the voter fraud allegation in Nov and Dec 2020 and in 2021 have banned any mention of the Arizona Maricopa County audit.**
They are of course NOT reporting news. They are partly agenda-setters and partly selling a well-packed product as a business, and a lucrative one at that.
(There is also the curious overrepresentation of Blacks on Fox News in these segments ["and now, for commentary, we go to a Black minor celebrity well-known in the greater Memphis area..."], far exceeding their share of population, as usual in the USA. Why are they doing this? It touches on both agenda-setting and more. Even Tucker does this. There is a case that Fox trotting out its long line of often-second-rate Black commentators is an example of the quasi-doctrine of Black moral superiority in the USA, by which I here mean this: They are allowed to make points Whites are not. There is both agenda-setting and packaged-entertainment-product going on there.)
Immigration seems much more often a primary subject or major secondary subject of Tucker's monologue than others. At some point the Fox News bosses saw Tucker had become the most popular show on cable news with this kind of talk, and so they loosened the rein. But this rein-loosening happened several years ago already.
BTW, check the video again but I believe Tucker said it as "a great replacement" and not as "The Great Replacement." (The latter, capitalized version being the "conspiracy theory.") In spoken form it is of course ambiguous. At it is also an easily missable line, crammed in at the rear of the monologue, not something he somehow weaved the entire monologue around, as the ADL claims.
__________
__________
** -- Since I see PEAK STUPIDITY has had no mention on the Arizona Audit as of now, two days after its report was released, I'll toss in my summary of the results in a comment here next.
Hail
Saturday - September 25th 2021 5:31PM MST
PS
(...continuing from previous...)
I'd say Tucker himself highlights something very close to this (immigrants displacing natives and dispossessing them of their own nation) *at least* once a week in his monologues, and in a given five-episode week, at least four episodes have at least some clear reference it, be it by Tucker or a guest.
All thinking people understand the problem. Both Left and Right and Center all understand it, some favor it, some oppose it, but all understand it. There are plenty of low-info, low-awareness, shallow-thinking people who don't quite grasp it all, but it is guaranteed that all who appear on the Tucker show understand it well, except maybe a few of the old "Arguing With Idiots" segments (now dropped, it seems).
Given that all understand it (i.e., it is not breaking new ground), and given that it is a regular feature of the Tucker show (heard either from the host directly, from the host indirectly, or by proxy through guests the host clearly sympathizes with, some combination of the above every night, or nearly so), and given afaict that several times a month it the main focus of the entire show...
...I'm wondering what is substantively different here.
The thing that is different seems to be the single phrase "great replacement."
The only reason it has made news is the ADL and others have seized on it as a way they think they can successfully lobby to get him cut from Fox News entirely by tying it to a "right-wing conspiracy theory." I think the quasi-ethnonationalist-sympathetic Right has only highlighted it AFTER the ADL highlighted it in a renewed formal demand to remove Tucker Carlson for racism.
(...continuing from previous...)
I'd say Tucker himself highlights something very close to this (immigrants displacing natives and dispossessing them of their own nation) *at least* once a week in his monologues, and in a given five-episode week, at least four episodes have at least some clear reference it, be it by Tucker or a guest.
All thinking people understand the problem. Both Left and Right and Center all understand it, some favor it, some oppose it, but all understand it. There are plenty of low-info, low-awareness, shallow-thinking people who don't quite grasp it all, but it is guaranteed that all who appear on the Tucker show understand it well, except maybe a few of the old "Arguing With Idiots" segments (now dropped, it seems).
Given that all understand it (i.e., it is not breaking new ground), and given that it is a regular feature of the Tucker show (heard either from the host directly, from the host indirectly, or by proxy through guests the host clearly sympathizes with, some combination of the above every night, or nearly so), and given afaict that several times a month it the main focus of the entire show...
...I'm wondering what is substantively different here.
The thing that is different seems to be the single phrase "great replacement."
The only reason it has made news is the ADL and others have seized on it as a way they think they can successfully lobby to get him cut from Fox News entirely by tying it to a "right-wing conspiracy theory." I think the quasi-ethnonationalist-sympathetic Right has only highlighted it AFTER the ADL highlighted it in a renewed formal demand to remove Tucker Carlson for racism.
Hail
Saturday - September 25th 2021 5:16PM MST
PS
"This is an important step for Tucker, whatever the reason he took it."
People have been making comments along these lines at regular intervals for almost five years running now, ever since Tucker returned to the air in late 2016.
(My memory told me he returned pre-Trump and helped push Trump over the edge; wiki has his first episode Nov 14, 2016, after the election.)
Steve Sailer himself has been among them. Search his post-titles for ones including the word "Tucker" or "Carlson." Variants of this post are regular appearances over there, including regular reference to the idea that immigration policy is meant to displace White Americans and crush White Middle America.
"This is an important step for Tucker, whatever the reason he took it."
People have been making comments along these lines at regular intervals for almost five years running now, ever since Tucker returned to the air in late 2016.
(My memory told me he returned pre-Trump and helped push Trump over the edge; wiki has his first episode Nov 14, 2016, after the election.)
Steve Sailer himself has been among them. Search his post-titles for ones including the word "Tucker" or "Carlson." Variants of this post are regular appearances over there, including regular reference to the idea that immigration policy is meant to displace White Americans and crush White Middle America.
Saturday - September 25th 2021 8:04AM MST
PS "What will our hospitals be like a year from now?"
News flash, Tucker, they are already like that.
News flash, Tucker, they are already like that.
Moderator
Friday - September 24th 2021 7:48PM MST
PS: Rex, what they want to do is bring in those that will take jobs from whites, destroy white living spaces, destroy white institutions, and destroy white society. It's not like we've got somewhere else to go. Keep an eye on South Africa.
Purposeful race mixing is eugenics, yes.
Purposeful race mixing is eugenics, yes.
The Alarmist
Friday - September 24th 2021 6:56PM MST
PS
Why that dirty rayciss mutha Tucker !
Why that dirty rayciss mutha Tucker !
Rex Little
Friday - September 24th 2021 12:12PM MST
PS No, "genocide" is not more accurate. Nothing Carlson quoted had anything to do with killing whites off--THAT would be genocide. Increasing the amount of black DNA in the national mix is eugenics--lousy eugenics, but eugenics nonetheless.
II
People seem to understand that these forensic audits are more about understanding what was happening and how it happened than about the actual de-ligitimization of the 2020 elections and - the practical consequences that would (have to...) follow a serious attempt to deligitimize the Biden presidency. - Slow down, don't move too fast - - - -
So - this thing will go on - on the field of insights and enlightening the public rather than on the field of dealing with practical political power - not least since there is no juridical tool installed for a major blow at Washington.
II b
I've listened to Curis Yarvin's - talk/monologue directed at Tucker Carlson and his viewers on YouTube. Yarvin says, that the power is not with the president any longer. - I get the impression, that he re-enacts '68 in a system-theoretical (Luhmann) rather than in the Marxist vein, which is a replay nonetheless...
Whatever. What he says fits in nicely with the attitude with which most people engaged in these forensic audits seem to have, in that they are not attempting to shift the political power away from the Joe Biden presidency.
Legitimacy is something different altogether though. Having the power is one thing. Being looked upon as a politician with this legitimate version of power is soemthing else. - The actual polls seem to indicate that the perceived or - felt - legitimacy of the Biden presidency is not getting stronger, as would be normally the case, but weaker. - This might well be a toll, the Democrats are paying for their loose appraoch with reagrd to the legitimacy of their way to the Biden-Harris-Presidency (now I htink of the almost famous newsweek article - which somehow seemed to admit that yes: Not every move in the election process was really correct! - A stunning article - almost lke a public attempt to re-purify the US public sphere via a public confession (a catholic/protestant mix of puritan impulses and a catholic urge to confess in that regard).
These things might all hang together - and well be not in perfect order too.