Friday, November 13, 2020

Back To Obama

Here's some good news, via Steve Sailer--Obama hasn't given up on America!

Feel better?

"I'm not yet ready to abandon the possibility of America—not just for the sake of future gen­erations of Americans but for all of humankind," writes @BarackObama:

11:11 PM · Nov 12, 2020

And that may have been the cue for Biden to give us a foretaste of what a Back To Obama movement might look like. Remember how Obama said he wanted to Trans-form America? Again, per Steve Sailer:

So we’re already back to the good old days of the Late Obama Age Collapse when square-jawed macho crazy men in dresses were given important jobs in the National Security establishment:

That reminds me of an article that appeared yesterday: Trump Must Tackle The Military’s Diversity Cult. The author is right but, as it happens, Trump has other things on his mind just now. Nevertheless, it's a salutary reminder that the people who want to Trans-form America are still in place and still committed. Here's an excerpt:

The mainstream media is deeply upset that the president will not tolerate anti-American, anti-white, left-wing propaganda masquerading as government “training.” Government agencies, universities, and federal contractors are all racing to comply with Trump’s executive order, leaving many “professional diversity consultants” and other leftist grifters out of work.

This is a serious achievement, but much more work remains to topple the diversity cult embedded within our government, our businesses, and our universities. If Trump is able to gain a second term, he must make this a priority.

There’s no better evidence of this insanity than the commander of Air Force recruitment complaining that the service’s pilots are too dang white.

Major General Ed Thomas wrote in an October op-ed for Yahoo on why it’s a problem that 86 percent of Air Force pilots are white men. According to him and the rest of his service chiefs, diversity is a “war-fighting imperative.” He backs up his argument with the claim that we “risk losing ground to Russia and China, both of which are integrating potential game-changing technologies like artificial intelligence and hypersonic flight.” He says, without any hint of irony, that the solution to this problem is “improving our diversity.”

Notice he does not say we are losing our “diversity edge” to China or Russia, nor that these two countries are catching up to us thanks to racial quotas and white (or, in China’s case, Han) privilege training. They just seem to be finding the best people in their population to advance their military capabilities.

Back to Steve Sailer:

Meanwhile, this sensible book by a Wall Street Journal reporter warning about the dangers of the trans fad among adolescent girls has just been banned by Target stores:

In Prog Trans-formed Biden America, book banning will again be a thing!


  1. "It suffices for an intransigent minority ... to reach a minutely small level, say 3 or 4 percent of the total population, for the entire population to have to submit to their preferences. Further, an optical illusion comes with the dominance of the minority: a naive observer (who looks at the standard average) would be under the impression that the choices and preferences are those of the majority."

    -- Nicholas Taleb, "Skin in the Game"

  2. This guy is debating the wisdom of the Founding Fathers?

    LOL. The audacity of a dope.

  3. So diversity is a “war-fighting imperative”? God help us. How did that guy ever get to four stars with such gob-smacking stupidity? Where did all this rot come from? Certainly must have started pre-Obama. So Howard Zinn replaced von Clausewitz? As a lifelong student of Military History I can state with metaphysical certitude that no Marshal in Napoleon’s Grand Arme√© or Landser in the German Wehrmacht nor soldier in Lord Wellington’s mixed bag force of British, Prussians, & Dutch @ Waterloo were concerned with “diversity”. Moreover, I have serious doubts the U.S. military could withstand a “full-on violence war” (h/t Bruce Thornton) such as was waged during the Russo-German War of 1941-45 where casualties sometimes upwards of 10,000 per week were logged (Russian losses much higher: in the first three months of Operation Barbarossa the Red Army would suffer about 3 million casualties). Granted, the only “full-on violence” war potentially for the U.S. in the foreseeable future would be Red China or possibly North Korea, but I can’t fathom the public having the inner resolve to see a conflict such as that through if the casualties were in that ballpark.

    Yes - the U.S. resolve has been written off before & those that did were proven irredeemably wrong as I hope I am now.

    But that kind of weltanschauung is simple shocking from a General Officer.

    1. Gen. Thomas doesn't know WTF he's talking about. Diversity for the sake of diversity has quite the opposite effect. It's profoundly detrimental to military readiness and combat effectiveness.


  4. Exhibit “A”:

    Okay so who’s in charge of the military?

    Can you imagine is someone had done this to Obama?

    1. The generals are in charge of the military and, yes, they did do it to Obama, too. Obama didn't try to stand up to the generals when they ignored him. Trump has tried and so he has to go.

  5. Our system is founded on civilian control of the military, when the military establishment goes rogue like this we’re in very dangerous territory.

    In which instance did the military conduct such an affront to Obama?

    1. In Syria. I forget the exact details. It was toward the end of his presidency and he told the military not to do some bombing in Syria and they simply went ahead.