Download Stripping the Gurus PDF



SINCE DONALD TRUMP’S unexpected-by-almost-everyone win in the U.S. Presidential Election, much ado has been made of cartoonist Scott Adams’ prediction, in late 2015, of a Trump landslide victory.

Adams, a trained hypnotist, based his prognostication on Trump’s undeniable skills as a “Master Persuader”—while also suggesting that Hillary Clinton’s campaign was working with a comparably world-renowned expert in that psychological/marketing art and science, Robert Cialdini.

Several weeks after the election, Adams summarized his reasons for that successful prediction:

The Master Persuader filter says Trump didn’t identify and match the preferences of the people so much as cause them to think the way they are thinking [i.e., by first pacing/matching their extreme emotional states, and then leading them to more neutral positions]. My filter on the election says that Trump’s skill for persuasion could have given him the victory with DIFFERENT policies than the ones he championed—such as Bernie Sanders policies. And Trump would look like a populist in that case too.
Keep in mind that most voters are handcuffed to their party’s candidate. That guarantees that most elections will be close, no matter who runs. The winner is the candidate who can move perhaps 5% of voters from column A to B. And the Master Persuader had a year-long election cycle and total media exposure to get that minor task accomplished. This is why I predicted Trump’s win a year before it happened.

Adams is correct about the small percentage of swing voters in contemporary America, as the Washington Post confirms: “[P]olarization is so intense in the United States today that a cardboard cutout with an ’R’ on it would get about 43 percent of the vote, and one with a ’D’ would get about the same.”

Adams continues:

You might be thinking that Clinton’s email problems and the Comey announcements made her an unusually weak candidate, and that means any sane Republican could have beaten her. But you’d be wrong. The reason that the emails, the Comey decisions, and WikiLeaks were so effective is that Trump had been labelling Clinton “Crooked Hillary” for months. That created the confirmation bias trap that made everything Clinton ever did sound suspicious. None of the other candidates would have crafted such a perfect persuasion trap....
If you believe Trump’s skill for persuasion wasn’t the key variable in his win, you have to imagine some other candidate beating Clinton with the same set of policies as Trump. Personally, I can’t imagine it.

Adams is correct in the implication that Trump’s persuasion skills and technics only matter (in terms of winning the election) to swing voters. But given that, The Donald’s extremist rhetoric and fear-mongering (i.e., his “opening bids”) would be as likely to repel those on-the-fence voters as to “emotionally match” them.

Trump’s own campaign, while even giving a shout-out to Adams and his prediction just prior to the election, provides a more plausible explanation for their victory, as being the product of a targeted get-out-the-vote strategy:

Trump pollster John McLaughlin credited Tuesday’s results to the real estate mogul’s energizing of disaffected, conservative-leaning voters who sat out 2012.
Trump’s campaign identified those tens of millions of registered voters and operatives targeted those who were middle-aged and earned less than $60,000 a year, using polling methods to sift out the ones believed most receptive to Trump.
Six out of 10 wound up being women, many turned out to be unaffiliated with either party and most were “moderate to conservative,” McLaughlin said.
“When we looked at this list, we said we could win,” he said.
The data was then passed along to Trump’s field operations and the Republican National Committee, which contacted likely Trump supporters through at-home visits or phone calls.
They included 1 million voters in Florida and 800,000 in Ohio—both among the five battleground states that Trump flipped from blue [i.e., Democrat] to red.

When only half the eligible electorate bothers to vote, motivating your own potential supporters to cast a ballot is far more important than persuading swing voters to cross to your side. It is exactly for that reason that Bernie Sanders could have won.

Plus, “Pennsylvania Republican chairman Rob Gleason said Trump’s opposition to free-trade deals such as NAFTA struck a chord with voters in the state’s struggling industrial and rural areas.”

No less a liberal advocate than the filmmaker Michael Moore brought up exactly that point, in enumerating the reasons why (in his view, misled) Americans, especially those living in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, might consider voting for Trump:

Clinton would have campaigned more in WI/MI/PA, except that “until a day or two before the election, no polls of these states ever showed her losing them.”

Cue the phenomenon of the “shy Trump voter”: people who responded with false answers to polls because they knew that giving the politically incorrect “wrong answer,” if it ever got out, could cost them their friends, their homes, and their jobs, at the hands of vindictive Social Justice Warriors.

Yet, since the final pre-election polls only differed by an additional 1% from the 2% popular-vote margin won by Hillary, that “shy” phenomenon is a very small part of the story, hardly worth mentioning, in spite of Adams’ trumpeting of the idea.

Adams is further wrong in his assertion that Trump’s campaign emphasized persuasion over policies. For, in reality, more than 70% of Trump’s ads were concerned only with policy, while less than 25% of Hillary Clinton’s ads had the same emphasis.

Combine all that with the Democrats’ divisive focus on identity politics...

The soul-searching seems likely to continue for months, possibly right up until the next election. But less than two weeks after their unexpected election day results, some are saying Democrats might be focusing too much on urban minorities and the targeting of various blocs, while ignoring the economic plight of working class votes in rural areas that the GOP overwhelmingly carried to victory....
Former President Bill Clinton himself seemed to be aware that his wife’s campaign was vulnerable, and made a concerted effort to win areas of the Rust Belt that went to Trump. Stories that came out after the results were known indicated that Clinton’s advice went unheeded, and that Hillary Clinton’s much younger campaign staff wanted to focus on expanding the minority vote.

...and it becomes much easier to imagine another candidate winning with Trump’s policies ... or Trump losing with Bernie Sanders’ platform. Conversely, any tenable Republican candidate with sensible (e.g., wall/vetting) immigration policies, who spoke to the concerns of unskilled rural voters and openly defied political correctness run amok, would probably have done as well as Trump. That is, would have been able to eke out a win over the most-hated presidential candidate ever fielded by the Democratic party, whose primary appeal was in being potentially the “first woman” to sit in the Big Chair, in the Oval Office.

Plus, the effects of persuasion do not correlate with a state’s number of Electoral College votes. So if persuasion really was the bigly factor responsible for Trump winning, he would not have lost the popular vote, but won the arbitrary divisions of the Electoral College (where the latter win again came from a smartly executed get-out-the-vote strategy).

Adams again:

If you think Trump is a lucky incompetent who inherited money from his father, you have to explain why he has succeeded in real estate, reality TV, and now politics. Can incompetent people win that bigly in three different arenas while everyone is watching?

It is well-known that if Trump had merely put the money he inherited into a decent mutual fund, he would have significantly greater wealth than he does today: “Imagine Trump had retired in 1982, sold his real estate holdings and invested his $500 million in the S&P 500.... [E]very dollar invested in January 1982 would have been worth $40 by December of 2014. That means Trump’s initial $500 million would have grown to $20 billion. That’s twice what Trump says he’s worth today.”

Trump’s public successes have certainly gained him brand equity—but on the other hand, his surname has become so toxic to some that his properties are now being branded as “Scion” rather than “Trump”!

So, given his “barely there” election victory, the only “success” that really needs explaining is Trump’s impressive foray into reality TV, where he has made a name for himself alongside the likes of the Kardashians and Ozzy Osbourne.

Plus, while Adams predicted a “landslide” Trump win, and went so far as to tweet out “L-A-N-D” on Election Night, we all know that Hillary actually won the popular vote ... and many of the states that Trump carried were won with very slim margins. So Adams’ prediction of a “landslide” was actually wrong. And without the “luck of the draw” in the last-minute Comey/emails reminder to the voters, Clinton could well have won both the popular vote and the Electoral College ... in which case, no one would be talking about Adams’ predictions today.

By all indications, Adams did even bother to understand what would constitute a “landslide” before predicting that one would occur:

One generally agreed upon measure of a landslide election is when the winning candidate beats his opponent or opponents by at least 15 percentage points in a popular vote count. Under that scenario a landslide would occur when the winning candidate in a two-way election receives 58 percent of the vote, leaving his opponent with 42 percent.
There are variations of the 15-point landslide definition. The online political-news source Politico has defined a landslide election as being on in which the winning candidate beats his opponent by at least 10 percentage points, for example.... Political scientists Hill and Kathleen Thompson Hill say a landslide occurs when on candidate is able to win 60 percent of the popular vote....
One generally agreed upon definition of an Electoral College landslide is a presidential election in which the winning candidate secures at least 375 or 70 percent of the electoral votes.

Worse, this is how close Adams’ fanciful “landslide” victory came to being a loss: Trump won “by just 0.3% in Michigan, 1.2% in Pennsylvania, and 0.7% in Wisconsin. If Clinton had won all of these states’ 46 electoral college votes, it have would been enough for her to win the presidency.”

Further, if Trump hadn’t strategically chosen the evangelical Christian Mike Pence as his running mate, thus delivering to himself 81% of the evangelical vote—with 26% of the electorate being white evangelical Christians—he wouldn’t likely have won, even given all his persuasion skills and other strategies:

According to the Public Religion Research Institute, “the proportion of white Christians in each of the 50 states is more strongly correlated with support for Trump than is the proportion of white residents without a college degree in the state.” If we use education as a proxy for class, in the states that flipped Trump it mattered less than religion.
The places where Trump outperformed expectations to clinch the election—like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Iowa—all have white Christian majorities....
The key this year was turnout. The Obama coalition, faced with an uninspiring Democratic candidate, stayed home in droves in key states. The Christian right—losing ground demographically and in the culture wars—came out to vote. While Clinton piled up redundant votes in safe states like California, evangelicals helped to pry loose the upper Midwest for Trump.

The detrimental results of that “deal with the devil” will haunt America for years, if not decades, to come: Trump is a pussycat compared to the real apocalyptic homophobes, sexists, anti-abortionists and creationists who have “Jesus on their side”:

While only 36 percent of all Americans believe that the Bible is God’s Word and should be taken literally, 59 percent say they believe that events predicted in the Book of Revelation will come to pass. Almost one out of four Americans believes that 9/11 was predicted in the Bible, and nearly one in five believes that he or she will live long enough to see the end of the world. Even more significant ... over one-third of those Americans who support Israel report that they do so because they believe the Bible teaches that the Jews must possess their own country in the Holy Land before Jesus can return.

Devout Catholics are possessed of no more rationality or intellectual competence:

For all my papist infidels: 2017 = 100 year anniversary of Fatima, apparition warned of war w Russia ushering in end times. Right on sked!

By “infidels” the crazy woman is referring, one assumes, to non-Muslims, not to Inquisition-worthy heathens who fail to believe that wine is the blood of Christ, etc. That is, to “infidels” in the Islamic sense, not the Catholic sense.

(I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian community, beside people who were among the most honest and utterly fearful specimens of humanity I have ever met. Yet, that said, the only people I witnessed committing academic fraud in my university days had previously gone to Bible College. And the most utterly untrustworthy people I have ever encountered, who made it a daily practice to deliberately deceive their potential customers without technically lying, followed the Bible to the letter.)

There is a saying that “You have to be good to be lucky, and you have to be lucky to be good.” But even with getting lucky, Adams was still half-wrong. That is no vindication of his “Master Persuader” theory. Plus, there is also another saying: “To a child with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” Which is to say, Scott Adams has his own obvious confirmation biases.

Adams again:

The Master Persuader movie did a good job in predicting Trump’s success. It also predicts Trump moving to the middle, persuading Pence to be more LGBTQ-friendly, and good relations with other countries.

But that “move to the middle” is simply what one would expect from any president, or indeed from nearly any elected official:

Obama moved to the center when he took office. Aside from his foreign policy, so did George W. Bush. Clinton was a centrist Democrat, and Reagan and George H.W. Bush were both centrist Republicans.
Everyone campaigns to the right or left of where they actually end up governing. And why shouldn’t they? All the incentives that exist in a primary disappear in the general election, and disappear further once a candidate takes office.

Plus, consider this (from Sep 23, 2016): Trump is headed for a win, says professor who has predicted 30 years of presidential outcomes correctly:

Nobody knows for certain who will win on Nov. 8—but one man is pretty sure: Professor Allan Lichtman, who has correctly predicted the winner of the popular vote in every presidential election since 1984....
[In Lichtman’s system the] keys are 13 true/false questions, where an answer of “true” always favors the reelection of the party holding the White House, in this case the Democrats. And the keys are phrased to reflect the basic theory that elections are primarily judgments on the performance of the party holding the White House. And if six or more of the 13 keys are false—that is, they go against the party in power—they lose. If fewer than six are false, the party in power gets four more years....
So very, very narrowly, the keys point to a Trump victory [which narrow win, contrary to Adams’ bluster, is all Trump managed, with WI, MI and PA being won by a total of 100,000 votes]. But I would say, more to the point, they point to a generic Republican victory [i.e., where a different Republican candidate could have won with very different policies than Trump espoused].

Lichtman has explained the rationale behind his “key questions” elsewhere:

[T]he real key is not the candidates, or the issues, or the debates, or the ads, but rather the performance of the party holding the White House—that essentially, American voters are ultimately pragmatic. And if the party holding the White House did a good job, they’d give them four more years. If not, they’d toss them out....
And we came up with a decision rule, a very simple one: If six or more of the 13 keys went against the party in power, that is, the answers to the questions were false, the party in power lost. If fewer than six keys were false, the party in power won. And that held, retrospectively, for every election over 120 years.

Unlike Adams’ laughable, one-off quackery, where persuasion blindly overrules all other forces combined, only one of those 13 legitimate keys concerns the “charisma” of the challenging presidential candidate. And none of them include minor scandals like “Pussygate.”

And then there’s this, from across the pond:

Several news reports, including one by Chris Cillizza, political reporter for The Washington Post, compared the 2016 Donald Trump political campaign to “The Waldo Moment,” a 2013 episode in the second series [of British television’s Black Mirror]; later, in September 2016, episode writer Charlie Brooker also compared the Trump campaign to the episode and predicted Trump would win the 2016 election.

Adams comes closer to real insight in this:

The Master Persuader filter says that young people have not yet experienced multiple situations in which the media scares the public over nothing. To them, the fear of Trump is real because the Internet and the media says it is real. To people my age, we have seen one fake media scare after another. We don’t believe in fake scares the same way that that young people do because we’ve been through it so many times.

But then, the same insight was voiced much earlier by the hyperbolic radio talk-show host Glenn Beck and his dodgy colon:

I don’t question your right and reasons to feel fear. But don’t fear Donald Trump the way I feared Barack Obama. I read a perfect election summation: The people who were against Mr. Trump took him literally but not seriously. His supporters took him seriously but not literally. It is the same pattern of 2000 and 2008. We heard President Obama was coming for our church and our guns. We were mocked. We thought those who laughed were lying or stupid. Yet, I still go to church, sometimes with a gun.

All of that is a far cry from the predictive powers Scott Adams is being wrongly credited with; but it’s better than nothing. Particularly since, less than a month before the election, Adams went so far as to reverse his entire prediction:

If the latest groping/kissing allegations against Trump hold up—and I assume they will, based on quantity if not credibility—it won’t matter what WikiLeaks says about Clinton. She will win easily.

Yet again, given the small percentage of swing voters in contemporary American politics, “winning easily” (e.g., in a “landslide”) is in principle not possible for either party. Since Adams himself acknowledges that swing voters constitute only a negligible part of the electorate, his prediction of a landslide (for Trump or for Clinton, depending on the time of the month!) was inherently illogical from the beginning of his utterly bumbling forays into electoral prediction. That is so in spite of the (nearly completely irrelevant) fact that Trump is undeniably a world-class opening-bidder, deal-maker, and persuader.

If nothing else, Adams’ collection of electoral near-hits and outright misses offers corroboration of the avowed modus operandi of his autobiographical story: How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big.

* * *

The concerns of many Americans regarding immigration are reflected in the testimony of a highly educated Chinese-American woman, who immigrated legally to America:

I have long been a card-carrying member of what Hillary Clinton calls the “basket of deplorables.”
I am “deplorable” because I reject the reigning politically correct and intellectually intolerant paradigm, which mandates that women and minorities serve as tokens of diversity according to their so-called racial and gender identity.
In this paradigm, I am “deplorable” because I dare to have a dissenting opinion. Long before Trump became a presidential contender, my support for the rule of law and opposition to amnesty for illegal immigrants made me a xenophobe. My references to black-on-black crime in discussions about police-community relations made me a racist. My use of the term “radical Islamic terrorism” made me an Islamophobe....
I am a first-generation immigra[nt]. My family came to the United States legally—we submitted the relevant documentation, answered the necessary questions, waited in line for years, and followed America’s laws.
Yet our respect for America’s rule of law is entirely irrelevant to Democrats, who are eager to hand out citizenship to illegal immigrants for political gain....
[O]n the crucial issue of defeating terrorism and keeping the homeland safe, [Trump] has called for a ban of Muslims from terror-prone countries and for conducting extreme ideological vetting of immigrants who wish to enter this country.
The response from the media and the political establishment has been loud and furious, but Trump has pressed on regardless. His proposal can certainly be fleshed out further, but it is far more sensible than the reluctance by President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to identify radical Islamic terrorism by name, or the delusion by many on the Right who think radical Islam can be cleanly and clearly separated from peaceful Islam at all times.

For all of his personal flaws and excesses, Winston Churchill was obviously a vitally important head of state during WWII, when Europe needed a leader of exactly his “Keep Calm and Carry On” temperament and principles to defeat the Nazis. Donald Trump has already proved his related worth in the vital cultural war of Western civilization against the Islamonazis and their Regressive Leftist enablers.

(The fact that Churchill later began the influx of “temporary workers” from the Indian subcontinent is irrelevant, as those immigrants started successful small businesses, integrated, and most importantly, were proud to be British. Today’s lot, who value their hyphenated identity more than their citizenship in a once-great country, cannot be compared in any positive way. The same facts apply to typical twenty-first century Third World immigrants to any First World country ... and, indeed, even to hyphenated “African-Americans” who in reality are simply Americans. And as far as “First Nations” aboriginals go: The concept of nationhood goes back only to around the time of the French Revolution ... or at most to ancient Egypt, united under a single pharaoh. No aboriginal people, on any continent, ever even had the concept of nationhood ... though they did indeed frequently refer to themselves by a term meaning “The People,” implying in both theory and practice that other races/tribes were not human.)

And if you think Bernie Sanders would have been competent to be POTUS, you really need to read this.

Or if you imagined voting for the so-called libertarian Gary Johnson, consider his gobsmackingly ignorant “What is Aleppo?” knowledge of foreign affairs...

...and his Social Justice Warrior-like penchant for being triggered by phrases like “illegal immigrant” (3:16+):

And then consider Hillary Clinton’s epically absurd and dangerous claim that “Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.” Hardly surprising, given that 20% of her campaign contributions have come from the Saudis.

The U.S. election debate has seen repeated allegations from Republican candidate Donald Trump that President Barack Obama, and Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, have refused to use the phrase “Islamic extremism.”
Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama have responded by saying that the West must not fall victim to ISIS’s efforts to engage in a battle of ideologies.
Tackling Muslim extremists in the U.S. is made easier, they say, if you have the support of the broader community and do not demonize an entire religion.
Speaking at a forum in New York hosted by Reuters, Mr [Tony] Blair added: “But if you refuse to acknowledge this is happening and that they are doing it in the name of religion. This is an ideology that will need a long time to defeat it. But there is no point in not calling it what it is.”

When even the former “Islamizer in Chief” of the UK gets such an obvious point, you (Hillary and Obama) know you are on the wrong side of history.

Not yet done with proving herself toxically witless, Clinton has further stated that the next president of the USA should be “a praying person.”

And not yet done with proving himself to be the worst president the USA has ever had, the genuine Christian Obama weighed in:

President Barack Obama still won’t call radicals Islamists because he says he doesn’t want to “validate” their claims that they’re speaking for the Muslim religion.
Confronted Wednesday by Gold Star mother Tina Houchins, whose 19-year-old son died in Iraq before he took office, Obama told her the issue “has been sort of manufactured.”
“I’ve said repeatedly that where we see terrorist organizations like al Qaeda or ISIL, they have perverted and distorted and tried to claim the mantle of Islam for an excuse, for basically barbarism and death,” he told the woman, questioning him at a townhall put on by CNN.
Then, making an obvious reference to Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, Obama lambasted “people aspiring ... to become president” talking “about Muslim-Americans here and the notion that somehow we’d start having religious tests.”
“You were clearly talking about the Republican nominee, Donald Trump, just then,” said moderator Jake Tapper, interrupting him.
A defiant Obama replied, “No, I wasn’t”....
Obama said he’d be offended if his religion, Christianity, was being demonized in the same way.
If terrorists were “killing and blowing people up and said we’re on the vanguard of Christianity, well, I’m not, as a Christian, I’m not going to let them claim my religion and say you’re killing for Christ.”
“I would say that’s ridiculous. That’s not what my religion stands for.”

Ah, but rewind just a few hundred years of secular, rational and humanistic forces, and that is precisely what his made-up “Religion of the Prince of Peace” stood for, in witch-hunts and Inquisitions. And to this day it stands for homophobia and eternal damnation for all infidels who disbelieve.

Plus, ISIL/ISIS is at the “vanguard” of Islam only in the sense that they are taking the Qur’an deadly literally ... as any fundamentalist Christian would take the Bible, in desiring a return to its literal meaning, and with similar Crusading results.

None of these people are even remotely competent to lead the most powerful nation on earth. But then neither was George W. Bush.

Nor is Donald Trump. But if it comes down to “one issue,” he’s the least ignorant and/or duplicitous candidate available. As one of his supporters stated:

Political correctness is the biggest issue facing America today.... The ironic name disguises the real nature of this force, which ought to be called invasive leftism or thought-police liberalism or metastasized progressivism....
“[I]t’s almost impossible to have polite or constructive political discussion. Disagreement gets you labeled fascist, racist, bigoted, etc. It can provoke a reaction so intense that you’re suddenly an unperson to an acquaintance or friend. This [2016 election] is a war over how dialogue in America will be shaped. If Hillary wins, we’re going to see a further tightening of PC culture. But if ... Trump wins, we will have a president that overwhelmingly rejects PC rhetoric. Even better, we will show that more than half the country rejects this insane PC regime”....
Political correctness is ... an effort to control people. Like the Newspeak in George Orwell’s 1984, the goal is to make it impossible for people to speak, or even think, unapproved thoughts....
[W]hen “respectable” people won’t talk about things that a lot of voters care about, the less-respectable will eventually rise to meet the need. That’s what Trump’s doing. And a lot of people are cheering him on not so much because they’re fans of Trump personally as because they’re happy to see someone finally stand up to the PC bullies.

As another anonymous voter explained:

[A]ccording to RealClear Politics’ last analysis before the election, Trump’s average unfavorability ratings were sky-high: 58.5 percent of Americans found him rather unsavory, while only 37 percent appear to actually like the guy. But Trump has put political correctness on the defensive, and this was the greatest factor in my choice to vote for him....
We don’t want to end political correctness so that we can say hateful things. We want to stop feeling silenced and condemned for having alternative viewpoints. We want to articulate thought-provoking, uncomfortable truisms, and not be told, “you can’t say that,” without even a modest effort at explaining why.

As Camille Paglia further observed (12:46 - 13:21):

Getting rid of the orthodox religions because they were too conservative has simply led to the new religion of political correctness. It’s the same kind of fanaticism. I have found that second-wave feminists, it’s like the Spanish Inquisition. I’m not kidding. Any form of dissent, even within feminism, is treated as heresy, and they actually try to destroy you. When I wrote my piece on date-rape, in 1991, there was clearly an organized campaign, among feminist groups, to get me fired from my university.

The situation in academia has gotten immeasurably worse since then, as Dr. Gad Saad explains:

* * *

If it was frightening to hear Trump “talking like a New Yorker” and allegedly asking, “If we have [nuclear weapons], why can’t we use them?” then we should have been just as scared at hearing Hillary allegedly ask about the possibility of ordering a drone strike on WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange. (Both Trump and Clinton deny those respective allegations.) Or if Trump’s “locker-room banter” about rich and famous men being able to “grab [women] by the pussy” is over the line, Hillary’s assent to the documented attempts at destroying the lives of women her husband slept with are far worse. Or, if Trump’s plan of building a 1000-mile wall/fence along the Mexican border is racist/xenophobic, then are Obama and Hillary Clinton also racists/xenophobes, for voting in favor of a 700-mile barrier in the Secure Fence Act of 2006?

(Sixty-five countries have fences on their borders. Are they all racist and xenophobic? Even the non-white ones, such as India, Bangladesh, Morocco, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia?)

Or, if the extreme vetting of immigrants is likewise “racist,” then consider Barack Obama’s statement during his time as a Democratic senator in Illinois:

[We need] to better secure the border, and to punish employers who choose to hire illegal immigrants. We are a generous and welcoming people here in the United States, but those who enter the country illegally and those who employ them disrespect the rule of law, and they are showing disregard for those who are following the law. We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked, and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently, and lawfully to become immigrant[s].

On Election Night, as Trump was closing in on victory, journalist Nate Cohn gave the following analysis:

How to think about this election: white working class voters just decided to vote like a minority group. They’re > 40% of the electorate.

And yet:

Trump won big among whites without college degree[s]—leading over Clinton by 39 points. But 49% of college-educated whites also voted Trump.

And more:

Immediately after the Brexit vote, British political scientist Rob Ford offered a thought that seems fitting here. He asked whether people were feeling like strangers in their own country—and said that’s how people voting for Brexit have felt for years. Seems like it has an analog here in the States.

Who to blame? Foremost, the Regressive Left (incl. its feminists) and Generation Snowflake for pushing “live and let live” but “intolerant of intolerance” natural bleeding-heart liberals like myself reluctantly into conservatism and the alt-right, as a direct consequence of their constant accusations of “racism,” “sexism” and “xenophobia” directed at anyone who has seen too much of the real world to have any use for their infantile, “safe space” incubated ideologies. When to be white is to be condemned for being inherently privileged/racist, regardless of how hard you have worked to get to your place in life; when to be a white male is to be pilloried for supposedly being irrevocably privileged/racist/sexist, worthy of death; and when to be a white person who recognizes the supply-and-demand effects of unfettered immigration (even of skilled white workers) and the dangers of Islam is to be racist, xenophobic, Islamophobic and deplorable, you need not wonder why the “racist,” “sexist,” “xenophobic” and “Islamophobic” candidate won.

The rules of the [1970s “racial détente”] deal were pretty straightforward. For whites, they stated that outright racist statements and explicit appeals to white racial identity were essentially banned. Along with this, whites accepted a double standard about the appropriateness of cultural and political tribalism. For obvious and reasonable historical and economic reasons, black and brown people explicitly pursuing their own interests was viewed differently than whites doing the same thing.
The other side of the deal was that so long as white people were sufficiently punished for acts of outright racism, minority leaders and communities would be cautious with accusations of racism. The key here was that once leveled and proved, the accusation of racism was a blow most whites could not come back from. From Jimmy the Greek to Michael Richards, being labeled a racist was a black mark that did not wash off easily....
There is a misconception that political correctness was responsible for the breakdown of the racial détente. This is incorrect. Political correctness, as loose a term as it is, was the means by which we continually renegotiated the terms of the deal. After all, the primary rules for whites had exactly to do with what was acceptable to say.
Privilege theory and the concept of systemic racism dealt the death blow to the détente. In embracing these theories, minorities and progressives broke their essential rule, which was to not run around calling everyone a racist. As these theories took hold, every white person became a racist who must confess that racism and actively make amends....
Within the past few years, as privilege theory took hold, many whites began to think that no matter what they did they would be called racist, because, in fact, that was happening. Previously there were rules. They shifted at times, but if adhered to they largely protected one from the charge of racism.... Under the détente, racism was something you did; under privilege theory it is something you are.
That shift, from carefully directed accusations of racism for direct actions to more general charges of unconscious racism, took away the carrot for whites. Worse, it led to a defensiveness and feeling of victimization that make today’s whites in many ways much more tribal than they were 30 years ago. White people are constantly told to examine their whiteness, not to think of themselves as racially neutral. That they did, but the result was not introspection that led to reconciliation, it was a decision that white people have just as much right to think of themselves as a special interest group as anyone else.
Furthermore, the ever-present drumbeat from the Left that every conservative victory is the death throes of bad, old white people who are about to be swept away by waves of brown immigration is making many whites dig in. On a certain level, how can you blame them? They are explicitly being told that their values and way of life are under the sword. How do we expect them to react?

Or from The Left’s Unstable Coalition is Ceding Culture Creation to the Right:

What was once a request or plea from a victim class to get a seat at the table is now a clapping and stomping protestation for the elimination of whites.
The political progression has transitioned from “your school is too white,” to “your company is too white,” to now, “your neighborhood and even family is too white.” Likewise, political programs and signaling have moved from equal opportunity to broadcasting #BlackLivesMatter and rainbow flags whenever the political moment arises....
This filters down to the cultural aspect, where the only cultural commonality for the Left is to be anti-white. Mocking whites for their appearance, making whites the antagonists in films, making white towns harbor dark secrets below the surface, and even commercials that portray whites as the goofy, non-serious figures, play into this. It is the one thing that the entire Left can rally around,
But it is its weakness.
Each step the Left takes allows counter-propaganda to step in and sweep up more whites. Whites are the elastic voter pool. Politically, in order to maintain power in the democratic system, the Left has changed what simply was considered a policy debate for most into a struggle for survival.

Note that, in terms of game theory, tit-for-tat reciprocity is the optimal strategy for winning. That is, you cooperate with others until they stop cooperating, at which point you retaliate whenever they wrong you, and be nice only when they are. In connection with the ideas above, whites thinking of themselves as a special-interest group, and voting appropriately, can be seen as a form of retaliation toward the myriad other groups who have failed to hold up their end of the deal, i.e., have failed to cooperate. It may not be taking the moral high road, but given the betrayal by non-white groups in this “game,” it is a necessary survival strategy. That is, while morally “two wrongs do not make a right,” any person or group who allows himself to consistently be wronged without retaliating is on the road to extinction.

Note also that the classic Robbers Cave social-psychology experiment demonstrates that encouraging people to celebrate their separate cultural/racial identities and differences (e.g., in multiculturalism) inherently causes conflict. Those negative attitudes and behaviours toward other “outgroups” can only be overcome, not by mere contact, but by working together on a shared project (e.g., a nation), where in order for one person/group to do well everyone must succeed.

Compare a sports team, where fans and coaches don’t care about their players’ race or creed, so long as each player is helping them win; then just extend that concept to a nation. Compare also the “jigsaw classroom” where, again, in order for any one person on a team to win they must all help each other out, so that everyone’s potential is maximized.

As Clay Routledge explained it:

Identity politics, especially what is going on within the academic left, is strange because it is at odds with much of what we know about intergroup relations. Decades ago, psychological scientists established that dividing people into groups and highlighting group differences leads to in-group bias. It also leads to hostility if the groups perceive themselves as fighting over scarce resources. It is human nature to defend one’s in-group and to be suspicious of and hesitant to trust out-groups. Identity politics makes relations between groups worse because it constantly reminds people of their group identity and what distinguishes them from members of other groups. Experimental research also shows that making people feel like victims, which is common in identity politics and on college campuses, increases feelings of entitlement and reduces prosocial behavior.
Feelings of victimhood are also contagious. This is called competitive victimhood. Research shows that when one group is accused of victimizing another group, it causes members of the supposed victimizing group to perceive their own group as victims. Therefore, a lot of identity politics activism is causing harm to intergroup relations. The key to helping members of disadvantaged groups and improving intergroup relations more generally is to focus on what unites people, not what divides them. We often call this a common in-group identity or a superordinate group identity.
For instance, in the U.S., it is better to highlight that we are all Americans instead of constantly thinking about all the different group memberships we hold.

That said, the alt-right and the far-left (incl. SJWs and third-wave feminists) are ideological mirrors of each other, with comparable propensities for fascism and over-the-top cultic behavior toward their respective demonized out-groups. If SJW behaviours before the election hadn’t already proved that, their literal riots and death threats following it certainly did:

The new study by PPRI has determined that liberals are much more intolerant towards other people's beliefs. According to the report, “Political liberals are far more likely than conservatives to say they removed someone from their social media circle due to what they shared online.”
It goes on to say, “Nearly a quarter (24%) of Democrats say they blocked, unfriended or unfollowed someone after the presidential election, compared to just 9% of Republicans and 9% of Independents who were triggered to do the same.... Almost three in ten (30%) of Democratic women removed someone from their social network because of their political opinion.”

Even a generation ago, as the Deadhead conservative Ann Coulter noted, during the Clinton impeachment hearings, to be a Republican at a Grateful Dead show was to risk having your car tires slashed by “peace-loving” hippies!

If those acts of terror already seem quaint compared to what we have seen since then, worse is yet to come. A PJ Media article, How ISIS Plans to Sack Rome, quotes from an Islamic State eBook on their how to accomplish their caliphate goal:

European Muslims can ally with “a growing population of left-winged activists (people who are against human/animal abuses, Zionism, and Austerity measures etc.)” who “look up to the Muslims as a force who are strong enough to fight against the injustices of the world” in countering a growing divide between Muslims and “right-wing neo-Nazis.” It specifically cites people who are “sometimes” allied with Anonymous or anarchy groups....
If you have ever been at a pro-Palestine/anti-Israel protest, you will see many activists who are not even Muslims who are supportive of what Muslims are calling for (the fall of Zionism). It is most likely here that connections between Muslims and Left-wing activists will be made, and a portion from them will realize that protests are not effective, and that armed combat is the alternative,” the book states. “So they will start to work together in small cells of groups to fight and sabotage against the ‘financial elite.’”
The book predicts such “recruits” sympathetic to their cause “will give intelligence, share weapons and do undercover work for the Muslims to pave the way for the conquest of Rome.”

The American-flag hijabs donned by protesters during the Women’s March on the day after Trump’s Inauguration, and the chanting of “Allah [sic] akbar” by sympathetic feminists in Germany, were highly visible signs of that deplorable alliance. Not to mention that one of the organizers behind the Washington march, Linda Sarsour, has met with former Hamas operatives, and “has cousins serving prison time in Israel because of their work for” that terrorist organization. (For further damning information on Sarsour, see The Anti-Semite Who Organized the “Women’s March on Washington”.)

Consider also Jonathan Haidt’s observations in When and Why Nationalism Beats Globalism:

One must first look at the globalists, and at how their changing values may drive many of their fellow citizens to support right-wing political leaders. In particular, globalists often support high levels of immigration and reductions in national sovereignty; they tend to see transnational entities such as the European Union as being morally superior to nation-states; and they vilify the nationalists and their patriotism as “racism pure and simple.” These actions press the “normative threat” button in the minds of those who are predisposed to authoritarianism, and these actions can drive status quo conservatives to join authoritarians in fighting back against the globalists and their universalistic projects....
Think carefully about the way your country handles immigration and try to manage it in a way that is less likely to provoke an authoritarian reaction. Pay attention to three key variables: the percentage of foreign-born residents at any given time, the degree of moral difference of each incoming group, and the degree of assimilation being achieved by each group’s children.
Legal immigration from morally different cultures is not problematic even with low levels of assimilation if the numbers are kept low; small ethnic enclaves are not a normative threat to any sizable body politic. Moderate levels of immigration by morally different ethnic groups are fine, too, as long as the immigrants are seen as successfully assimilating to the host culture. When immigrants seem eager to embrace the language, values, and customs of their new land, it affirms nationalists’ sense of pride that their nation is good, valuable, and attractive to foreigners. But whenever a country has historically high levels of immigration, from countries with very different moralities, and without a strong and successful assimilationist program, it is virtually certain that there will be an authoritarian counter-reaction, and you can expect many status quo conservatives to support it....
[T]he globalists could easily speak, act, and legislate in ways that drain passions and votes away from nationalist parties, but this would require some deep rethinking about the value of national identities and cohesive moral communities. It would require abandoning the multicultural approach to immigration and embracing assimilation.

Prev   Table of Contents Next

Download Stripping the Gurus PDF