Iraqis agree with Trump
Surprisingly, some Iraqis seem less offended by Mr. Trump’s comments linking terrorism to Islam than American liberals.
Iraqis have endured years of Islam being used to justify mass killing, and some see Mr. Trump as a truth-teller in calling out Islam — or a certain brand of it — as the problem.
Or maybe, in a part of the world where people respect what Steve Sailer calls “big men,” they respect and even like Trump for being a big man while Obama, who is always apologizing for America, is viewed the opposite way.
Lion of the Blogosphere 
Uh, sorry, it’s not the ME that Sailer talks about as the lair of the Big Man. Just sub-saharan Africa.
Explainer21
November 18, 2016 at 8:01 PM
Bin Laden’s “Strong Horse” then… same deal.
steve@steve.com
November 18, 2016 at 9:03 PM
The “big man” is big in many parts of the world, not just Africa.
Peregrino Nuzkwamia
November 18, 2016 at 10:49 PM
No, you don’t get it. “Big Man” refers to a state of mind on the part of little people. The Big Man is constantly expected to provide for others, those others never intending to do anything for themselves. As Anthony Daniels also tells us, this is a peculiarly African outlook. While non-African societies can have big men (e.g. Putin), they are not faced with that same supplicating insouciance. Iraqis on the whole tend to be quite self-sufficient, for example as mechanics and the like.
Explainer 21
November 19, 2016 at 1:31 AM
The “big man” thing is not just Africa. It’s common in tribal societies generally. It’s been especially noted in Polynesia.
Peregrino Nuzkwamia
November 19, 2016 at 1:12 PM
Most Muslim cultures (besides the Chechens) seem to be more Most Depraved Man than Big Man-oriented.
snorlax
November 19, 2016 at 2:55 AM
Actually big men exist in all societies. Economic status is irrelevant.
Churchill, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt, MLK, Gandhi, Mandela, George Bush, De Gaulle etc
Why?
Humans like social hierarchy.
Most humans are literally genetically hardwired to (a) follow Alpha Males (b) not see reality in a nuanced way.
The Philosopher
November 19, 2016 at 11:57 AM
I know this is in an old thread and a little too late…but I can’t help myself. I don’t think the definition of ‘big man’ can be stretched to include people like Churchill or Roosevelt, or even most of the people on that list. It is surely only appropriate for primitive, tribal societies in which poltiics is still about personal relationships and straightforward patronage and cannot account for the way politics would be gained and wielded or the way powers are diffuse in mature, advanced societies like Britain and America.
Of course you will be able to find parallels between the attributes of leaders in primitive ‘big men’ cultures and those in civilised countries, but then you could also find them with chimp hierarchies. But they aren’t really the same.
prolier than thou
November 20, 2016 at 4:45 PM
I defend Trump’s opposition to the Iran deal here:
https://pragmaticallydistributed.wordpress.com/2016/11/18/trump-and-irans-nuclear-program-the-hamiltonian-perspective/
From Britain, Pragmatically Distributed receives this question from prolier than thou:
So how does wanting to rip up the Iran nuclear deal fit in with this Hamiltonian ethic? By all accounts it’s been successful, and opening up to trade with America is surely in America’s interests. What are the critical American interests which require these kind of entanglements with Iran?
In the first place, the deal itself is dubious simply because it was signed by a terrorist supporting Iranian government with an outgoing “American” President whose policy has been to overthrow Western-allied Muslim dictators in Libya and Egypt, and intentionally replace those regimes with ones led by Islamic terrorists. At a minimum the deal should be subjected to a very skeptical review by a Trump administration; and that administration should be free to alter or scrap this deal as it sees fit.
Aside from the questionable nature of the agreement itself and the equally questionable nature of the parties who agreed to it, there is the general issue of preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
Trump’s broader opposition to Iran acquiring nuclear weaponry remains true to the best traditions of Hamiltonian foreign policy realism because his goal maintains the regional status quo, which is currently:
The reality of a nuclear Iran does not have to be factored into the present actions of regional powers because Iran is not nuclear at present.
Ensuring Iran does not become nuclear – regardless whether the means to accomplish this involves harsh sanctions or an Israeli and/or American air attack against that program – leaves the region in its present strategic condition.
In the case of Iran it is, interestingly, the arguments of non-interventionists which are radical because an Iranian nuclear arsenal would alter in undesirable ways these current considerations for Iran, its neighbors, and the United States.
Even assuming the probability Iran would use a nuclear weapon in a first strike is zero (used either directly or by covertly handing them to a terrorist proxy) a nuclear weapon gives Iran immunity from the consequences of future non-nuclear aggression. Western experience with Pakistan has demonstrated that a Muslim bomb allows an unstable, hostile government to safe harbor terrorists such as Bin Laden and attack its neighbor, India, with Kashmir separatists without having to fear conventional retaliation.
Nuclear weapons would give Iran considerable freedom to push the envelope of what terrorist and military activity it can engage in similar to that which Pakistan now enjoys. It is not difficult to see realistic scenarios where Iran would use them as shields for their hostile behavior: They may attack oil tankers in the Persian Gulf with conventional missiles in order to raise oil prices, or force the West to give into diplomatic blackmail (more airlifted Swiss Francs?) knowing that the West would be hesitant to counter-attack. Even the risk of moderate financial sanctions in response to greater Iranian aggression would be curtailed.
[…]
The Undiscovered Jew
November 18, 2016 at 8:23 PM
Can you please link to my article on the main page?
The Undiscovered Jew
November 18, 2016 at 8:27 PM
And don’t forget about the Twelfth Imam.
Lion of the Blogosphere
November 19, 2016 at 12:16 AM
And don’t forget about the Twelfth Imam.
Ivanka will protect you from him.
The Undiscovered Jew
November 19, 2016 at 4:22 PM
Jimmy Carter is a good bellwether for how the Trump presidency could go. Obv similar scenario with a corrupt establishment losing to populist vote coming in. Plus man with a common touch thing. Carter was a good man.
Maybe the neocon/foreign agent faction of the CIA will intervene again to topple a former soviet republic and suddenly we got American embassy/corporation hostages a la Iran?
Or another hoax Anthrax scare?
Or another hoax USS ship attack?
Or another hoax telegram to the Mexican embassy from Germany?
Or another hoax WMD report in Iran?
The people that reach the top of any social system with genuine rent and power privilage are usually psychopathics or paranoid schizos. Even the papacy or religious institutions in fact.
Economic and ecology math modelling has known this for 60 years. Trump only posses 1 dark triad trait, but he better recruit people with all 3 to flame out operatives serving under other foreign flags.
Let’s see how a guy with top 1% social intelligence fares against top 1% verbal.
The Philosopher
November 19, 2016 at 7:17 AM
lol, bizarre rambling
james n.s.w
November 19, 2016 at 11:01 AM
Bizarre to someone with 10% of my general knowledge. And 3% of my income.
The Philosopher
November 19, 2016 at 11:52 AM
Liberals taking offense on behalf of the (clearly guilty) other is a condescending intra-group strategy of dominance.
It’s the height of hypocrisy because libs insulate themselves from negative consequences and it also happens to be treason.
fakeemail
November 19, 2016 at 11:10 AM
Liberals like to pretend that they understand Islam better than actual Muslims and Arabs. Ditto for everything else.
fakeemail
November 19, 2016 at 11:11 AM
COTW.
Vincent
November 19, 2016 at 12:05 PM
It’s LOL-worthy that Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton proclaim that ISIS is not Islamic, while the leader of ISIS has a Ph.D. in Islamic Studies.
Hermes
November 19, 2016 at 2:22 PM
He doesn’t understand his own religion as well as HRC does.
Lion of the Blogosphere
November 19, 2016 at 2:38 PM
But, my dear boy, his degree is not from Harvard.
Glengarry
November 19, 2016 at 2:57 PM
http://www.wnd.com/2016/11/trump-gets-tough-looks-to-ban-muslim-brotherhood/
destructure
November 19, 2016 at 12:57 PM
“Bizarre to someone with 10% of my general knowledge. And 3% of my income.”
Hysterical.
Vincent
November 19, 2016 at 1:01 PM
Wahhabism and Shiites have been in conflict since the 18th century. Wahhabism was the religion of the first Saudi Kingdom. In 1801 the Wahhabist sacked the Holy City of Karbala in Iraq and massacred thousands of Shiites, including women and children.
Wahhabism is the official state religion of Saudi Arabia, but it is muted version of Wahhabism that recognized the Saudi royal family. At the end of WW I there were Wahhabist militias that wanted to recreate the first Saudi Kingdom by expanding Saudi Arabia into Iraq and Jordon. The Saudi King wanted to respect the borders negotiated with the British and exploit the newly found oil wealth. The Saudi King used British arms to slaughter the rebellious Wahhabist militias and negotiated a deal with loyal Wahhabist that made Wahhabism the official religion and gave the Wahhabist control of Mecca under the condition they keep Mecca open to all Muslims.
Al Qaeda and ISIS hark back to the 18th century Wahhabism Since terrorism is essential 18th century Wahhabism and Wahhabist have been slaughtering Shiites for more than 200 years, it is not surprising that Shiites see Wahhabism as the problem.
Both Bush and Obama have been reluctant to identify Wahhabism as the problem because a muted version of Wahhabism is the state religion of Saudi Arabia and they fear that it could lead to the overthrow of the Saudi Royal family further destabilizing the region.
mikeca
November 19, 2016 at 4:10 PM
As a Jew, I have no problem with Sunni Muslims, but I despise Shi’ites. Sunni power!
Otis the Sweaty
November 19, 2016 at 10:11 PM
Why? Are you Teimani?
nebbish
November 20, 2016 at 2:25 AM
Internalized racism. These guys need some good old fashioned kaffirsplaining.
Seth Largo
November 19, 2016 at 7:50 PM
Hamilton: I genuinely don’t get why negrofication of everything is so lucrative sometimes. Ditto superheroes, Star wars, music, white collar firms, academia and so on.
The answer must be guilt, in reaction to constant propaganda. Many liberals have secret ‘rac-ist’ thoughts. So splashing money on pro Magic Negro projects or adopting black babies and so on ‘absolves them’.
Nothing much different from getting out the rosary beads and reciting 10 hail mary’s for lusting over your friend’s wife 200 years ago or making pilgrimage to Mecca to make up for having homo tendencies in middle eastern countries today.
To be clear there’s no such thing as morality, so you can all relax.
JEEZ.
The Philosopher
November 19, 2016 at 8:19 PM
Hamilton was based on a book written by Ron Chernow, a distinguished Jewish historian. He was indeed part of the creation of Hamilton, who advised and consulted Lin Miranda, and his gang of ghetto boys. He loves it and feel a sense of awe for creating this multicultural mosaic, which is a common behavior among Jewish elites, more so than White gentile elites.
JS
November 20, 2016 at 12:28 AM
“Hamilton: I genuinely don’t get why negrofication of everything is so lucrative sometimes”
Perhaps making the cast and music nonwhite is ironically the only way you can tell the story of America’s founding fathers without it becoming bogged down by issues of race?
prolier than thou
November 20, 2016 at 3:29 AM
Lin Manuel Miranda would be labeled “white” by the vast majority of blacks and Amerindian day laborers.
Seth Largo
November 20, 2016 at 6:23 PM
Lion,
What is your opinion on the latest “Hamilton” incident with Pence? Having liberals constantly lecture Americans on race is why half of the country hates these people.
Here is an interesting critique of Hamilton coming from the independent Left: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2016/07/you-should-be-terrified-that-people-who-like-hamilton-run-our-country
Essentially, the cultural elite is terrified to admit that Hamilton is just “Schoolhouse Rock” as Michael Tracey calls it. As such, they keep pushing that it is the most important work of act of the 21st century.
JerseyGuy
November 20, 2016 at 12:00 AM
I already tweeted about it.
Lion of the Blogosphere
November 20, 2016 at 12:15 AM
Hamilton shows great creativity, if you want to say something positive about it.
The same reason why East Asians do not receive accolades in America, due to their lack of verbal talent, which is probably more of handicap than not being able to do math equations in school, because America’s post scarcity era is a cultural tradition solely connected with verbal IQ.
JS
November 20, 2016 at 12:32 AM
“Big Man” is not a Sailerism, but a term from anthropology most associated with Polynesia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_man_(anthropology)
It made an appearance in Guns, Germs, and Steel, which, I imagine, is how it became popularized in the HBD blogosphere.
Also, a pro-tip for those considering reading Guns: just read Collapse. It sufficiently rehashes Guns in condensed form and also delves into forward-looking ideas that have direct relevance to the present/future. A much better book, imo…
anon
November 20, 2016 at 5:30 AM
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21710264-worlds-rising-superpower-has-particular-vision-ethnicity-and-nationhood-has
This is hilarious. The Chinese authorities extradited a Brit and Swede citizen and when the globalists complained, they bluntly said there were really racially Chinese even though the two had renounced their citizenship and taken on another nationality and seized them anyway.
Hahahahahahahah!!!, the chinese are not just HBD aware, but so bloody minded they don’t give a fuck what the legal semantics say.
Money quote:
Yet being a member of the “Chinese family”, as Mr Xi puts it, carries expectations too. At a reception in San Francisco last December for American families who had adopted Chinese children, China’s consul reminded them that “you are Chinese”, citing their “black eyes, black hair and dark skin”; he encouraged them to develop a “Chinese spirit”.
You are – really – Chinese is what he meant.
Economist than has to backpedal to do some sexplainin why China is not really Chinese but a multi-kulti bastion and how the han race is a social construct.
Hahaha.
Be de bum….that’s Our media!
That’s me!
http://image.slidesharecdn.com/theeconomist-brandstrategypresentation-130810005859-phpapp01/95/the-economist-brand-strategy-presentation-37-638.jpg?cb=1376096656
The Philosopher
November 20, 2016 at 7:12 AM
China has more billionaires than refugees (583).
The country has 1.3b people.
Get Sessions and his team on a plane there pronto to study how to make world class immigration policy.
The Philosopher
November 20, 2016 at 7:17 AM
The new meme on NeoGaf and DailyKos is that Trump will be impeached within 2 years. This is how they are keeping themselves going.
The reality is that Trump has 10s of millions of armed supporters, and the overwhelming support of the rank and file military. Beyond that, the Republicans have 0 electoral incentive to impeach him.
If for some reason McConnell and Ryan went through with impeachment, and there is no chance either of them ever would, Trump could easily pull and Erdogan and call his supporters out into the streets. The end result of attempting to impeach Trump would only be to make Trump supreme dictator for life.
Otis the Sweaty
November 20, 2016 at 10:40 AM