Happy Halloween: Stock Market Predicts Trump Victory

October 31, 2016 Hunter Wallace Politics 20

Well, we have our answer on this question:

“Watch the performance of the stock market between August 1 and October 31. If stocks go up during that three-month stretch, expect Clinton to win. If stocks slide, Trump will likely prevail.

At the moment, Trump has a slight edge because the S&P 500 (the main U.S. stock market index) has fallen a small amount since August 1. But it is nearly back to where it was on that day.

It might sound far-fetched, but the stock market has been astonishingly accurate at predicting the winner in every election since 1944, according to Sam Stovall, a stock market expert at S&P Global Market Intelligence. …

The S&P closed on August 1: 2,170
The S&P closed on October 31: 2,126

About Hunter Wallace 12392 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

20 Comments

      • Even if I were a voter, as I am not, I would not be voting for Hillary, as I am now making clear to you for the third or fourth time, you piece of shit.

        • For me Mr B., it’s the first election I’ll be voting in, in years. It’s the first one with a half passed viable candidate worth voting for in a long time. Trump is still a monkey wrench thrown into the gears of the machinery of state, and not much else.

          • Oh, don’t worry, James, my abstaining has nothing to do with any indifference to Trump. I’m rooting for him and am pleased the polls show him closing the gap with Clinton. There simply came a point at which I decided I would never vote again. Part of me will miss the fun of voting for him.

            Your assessment of Trump sounds just about exactly right, by the way; but as you say, that’s enough to make him worth voting for.

  3. Because of the election, I just watched CNN for the first time in many years. They are SO disgustingly biased. It’s one thing to know they are disgusting, but something else entirely to experience it.

    They reported, accurately, that Obongo’s spokesman, Josh Earnest, said that G-Man Comey has opened himself to widespread criticism from legal experts of “both parties”. That was just a statement of obvious fact. There’s no need to hear Obongo/Earnest state facts that anyone with eyes and ears ID aware of.

    But CNN didn’t even mention the main news from Earnest’s press conference. Earnest stated that Obongo (1) has the greatest respect for his appointee, Comey; (2) has always regarded and continues to regard Comey as a man of “integrity”, “principle”, and “character”; and (3) does NOT believe that Comet had any intention of influencing the election.

    Then I watched Kike Wolf Blitzer talking to Kike Adam Schiff about Comey. Neither of them mentioned Obongo’s defence of Comey.

    Then I watched Fox News (which I also haven’t watched for years. They are supposed to be “right wing”. They presented a wide variety of viewpoints, mostly anti-Trump (from Juan Williams, Bill O’Reilly, Geraldo Rivera, George Will), but also anti-Clinton.

    Many Clinton supporters don’t give a damn what the facts are. They don’t even want to know. They are all about spin. But many soft Clinton supporters could be swayed, but they live in a safe-space comfort-zone echo chamber, only going to places like CNN, where they are spoon fed nothing but propaganda.

    Obviously Obongo doesn’t really want to defend Comey, but he also hates Clinton, and doesn’t want to get dragged down with her. He appointed Comey (of course the Negro puppet only did what his masters told him to do), so if he attacks him, then his own judgement would be called into question. Obongo is worried about his “legacy”, and is even more concerned about his own post-presidency “foundation” scams. He wants those million$ in the charity racket. And he wants to stay in the good side of the FBI in case he’s ever under investigation.

    Anyway, Obongo’s official defense of Comey’s character and motivations should be announced as widely as possible, to counter Dem spin, and demoralize soft Clinton supporters.

  4. Many cons have attacked the GOP for veering ‘leftward’ and abandoning/betraying true conservatism. They say the Democrats won because GOP’s brand of Conservatism is just Liberalism 10 or 20 yrs behind.

    But this overlooks what really happened in the 90s. Clinton veered ‘rightward’ in abandoning big labor and pandering to the newly rising class of the ‘creative class'(lately mocked by Thomas Frank) and the super-rich ‘free trade’ class.

    And all this multi-culti globalist thing may hurt a lot of whites, but it has also been great for white privilege for those who are part of the upper-middle class or above. Diversity saves cities because immigrants, esp docile ‘Hispanics’ and Asians, are preferable to blacks and mostly take cues from white elites.

    And even though PC may attack ‘white privilege’ today, its global effect is to undermine nationalism and sovereignty in EVERY nation.

    Homo pride parades have spread even to Turkey. East Asian elites(apart from China) are total flunkies of American PC as so many of their academics study in the US.

    And children of immigrants soak up all the Hollywood-MTV crap and spread it back in their own homeland. If you’ve met Iranian-Americans, you know what I mean. It almost makes you admire the Islamic Revolution for boosting nationalism against US influence.

    So, the reason why Democrats came on top wasn’t so much because ‘left’ won and GOP just followed. It was because Democrats were more creative and cunning in co-opting the ‘rightist’ factions and agendas from the GOP.

    People like Ann Coulter always say it was rise of color that did the GOP in. Sure, this is true in some states like CA., and it shouldn’t be overlooked.

    But so many whites(even in mostly white states) are pro-Democratic for reasons that the Dems now offer both super-privilege and proggy symbolism.

    People like Ann Coulter are really butt-hurt because they can’t believe that so many rich whites and Jews(and Asians) have gone over to the Dems even though GOP has been more shamelessly pro-rich in its agenda. Coulter and Co. couldn’t accept the fact that Democrats also offer sweet deals to the Rich class.

    But the narrative began to shift with the Trump campaign because it is now out in the OPEN: GOP must realign by being the party of middle class and working class. This is why Mr. Bane Mitt Romney is shi**ing.

    In 2012, Coulter was defending the makers against takers. Now, she is saying the so-called ‘makers’ are the takers because they are ones funding globalism against the will of white American majority who are hurting like Buchanan warned in the 90s.

    With the Dems having become a ‘uniparty’ that attracts super-rich donors and the educated rich class, traditional GOP is caught in a jam.

    GOP offers even more riches to the rich class, but the rich class’s response, “We are swimming in more dough than we can spend. We can make tons under the Democrats.” Look at rich folks in Hollywood and Silicon Valley in ultra-demmy California. They are loaded with dough.

    Rich folks want more profits but they want good publicity too, and GOP label is ‘party of greed’ whereas Clinton’s remade Dem Party is effectively a party of ‘greed’ but one wrapped in symbols of Civil Rights and ‘gay rights’ and Diversity. “Profits for progress”.

    But Trump offers a major chance for realignment. Win or lose, he has exposed how hollow the GOP has become. GOP is in a bind. Its core base, the Evangelicals, is a liability as well as an asset. Bush II won reelection by rousing up this Base. But the closer GOP gets to this Base, the more it looks uncool, dumb, and ignorant. That Terry Schiavo and stem cell stuff really alienated lots of American voters, especially the richer and better-educated folks.

    But then, if the GOP panders to the libertarian rich class, it alienates the base. Besides, the globalist rich class have it so good under the Dems. It aint the New Deal Party no more, but then US is no longer a manufacturing-centered nation.

    But surely even the Dems know that politics is getting stranger and weirder. Democrats are present itself as the party at war with both ‘homophobia’ and ‘Islamophobia’. ?!?! It’s the party that defends Muslims from Trump while destroying Muslim nations like Libya and Syria. It also professes to defend wonderful Muslims from deplorable white monsters, but it also supports Israel over Palestinians(most of whom are Muslim). Progs denounce ‘western oppression’ but use the power of the west to push homo agenda all over. How long can Democrats carry on as the Party of BDS and Haim Saban?

    The conflating of minority politics and progressive politics(struggle for equality) paradoxically made Privilege the New Progress.

    In a way, leftist politics has been both anti- and pro- minority.

    It was about the majority class of workers and peasants against the minority-privilege class of aristocrats or super-rich bourgeoisie.

    Or, it could be an anti-imperialist struggle of majority of native folks against minority elite-alien rulers. British ruled as alien elite minorities in places like Egypt, India, and parts of Africa. Native majorities rose up against them.

    In such cases, leftism was pro-majority and anti-minority. The Will of the Masses. The French Revolution infused an ideological underpinning to the notion of the majority masses rising up to overthrow the elite minority aristocrats. Of course, the French Revolution created a new elite, but it was supposed to represent the Will of the People.

    But the Will of the Majority could lead to a kind of oppression. The majority oppression of the minority. It was one thing for the oppressed majority to overthrow the tyrannical minority but quite another for the majority to deny the minority ‘basic human rights’ or rule of law of the nation. This was blatantly true with blacks and American Indians in America. They were denied the basic rights that only applied to whites.

    And this was also a problem with various ethnic groups in Europe. German minorities could be mistreated in non-German majority lands, and non-Germans could be suppressed in German-majority lands.

    Even so, the comprise between Catholics and Protestants showed that an understanding and truce could be reached. In Catholic majority lands, the Protestants would be tolerated and allowed to do their own thing, and vice versa. This way, Catholics accepted their minority status in Protestant-majority nations, and Protestants accepted their minority status in Catholic-majority nations. Catholic minorities would not try to subvert or take over majority Protestant nations, and Protestant minorities would not try to subvert or take over majority Catholic nations.

    So, even as a majority nation would more-or-less favor the will of the majority, the minorities would be given certain rights and protections as well.

    And this seemed pretty acceptable to most places. It’s like modern Turkey came to tolerate people of all religions but still maintained itself as a mostly Modern-Muslim nation. Its secular government protected the rights of minorities, but there was no doubt about the Islamic-Turkic character of Turkey.

    But if Protestant minorities were okay with their soft-inferior status in Catholic nations and if Catholic minorities were okay with their soft-inferior status in Protestant nations(and if Christian minorities were okay with their soft-inferior status in Muslim nations), Jews were one minority group that was not okay with their soft-inferior status in Christian-Gentile nations. So, even though there was no overt anti-Jewish laws in the US, the idea of US as essentially a majority-white-gentile-Christian nation rubbed off wrong on the Jews. It wasn’t enough that Jews were tolerated and allowed to operate freely as individuals. The whole character of the US had to be changed. The idea that white-gentile-Christian identity/history/culture matters more than others is seen as an affront to the Jewish minority(but Jews are adamant that Israel must be defined by its majority Jewish population that must remain a majority forever).

    All things being equal, a nation with majority and minority will be ruled and dominated by the majority. Suppose People A are a majority and People B are a minority in a certain nation. Suppose both peoples are equal in intelligence and other abilities. Then, People A will have the dominant position over People B. Even if laws apply equally to all, the fact that there are more People A will mean more of People A as successful businessmen, doctors, scientists, etc.

    But suppose the minority People B are higher in IQ and certain abilities essential for social success. Then, this will cause problems. People A will feel that the nation should reflect the majority culture as the core culture, but People B may not be so compliant on grounds that the smarter people should rule. Smart people always want control over dumber folks. Imagine you have an IQ of 100 and you’re in a room full of kids with 80 IQ. Do you want to control them or be controlled by them?

    Anyway, if Jews had been of regular IQ, they might have been just another minority happy with their lot. In America, they might have been like Cubans and Italians and content to be tolerated and allowed to their thing. But if you’re someone like Alan Dershowitz with someone like Dan Quayle, you’re gonna feel like the Marx Brothers running circles around stiff, witless, or dumb goyim.

    This is further complicated by the fact that Jews gained power quietly than loudly. If you’re part of a regiment of British troops in India, your minority-imperial power over the natives will be obvious. You shoot loud volleys of gunfire, and the brown natives drop like flies, and you fly the British Flag and tell the ‘wogs’ that your bloody bloke kind are now in control. What can be more obvious than that? It’s like what the Romans did. You declare your kind to be minority-elite rulers over the native population.

    In contrast, Jews didn’t take over white gentile societies with such exclamatory actions. Furthermore, many successful Jews merely passed as ‘white’. It was like the gradual takeover over aristocratic Western Civilization by the bourgeoisie. French Revolution was an anomaly. In most places, the bourgeoisie took the reins of power from the nobility peacefully(though dramatically). In time, the aristocrats had only their titles left, and they could either marry with the bourgeois families(that strove for respectability) or sell their titles. There has been a kind of merging of Jews and Wasps in the US along the similar manner. Wasps, seeing their fortunes slip away, figured one way to remain on top was to marry with up-and-coming Jews. Because the Jewish Revolution was a silent revolution, many people still don’t know that US is a minority-ruled nation. But the minority-rule is more effective in the US than in the USSR under Bolshevism.

    The Minority Paradox in America makes for strange politics. On the one hand, minority status in the American Narrative is associated with oppression and denial of rights: Black slavery, Jim Crow laws, Chinese railroad workers, American Indians, and even Irish Catholic minorities.

    But the most powerful people in America are the Jews, members of a minority. (Even among whites, it was minority Episcopalians who often had the dominant power over other groups.) So, minority power(at least that of Jews) has become the ruling power in America. US is a nation ruled by a powerful minority that, however, automatically conflates minority status with ‘victim-hood’. (This is also complicated with blacks and sports. Blacks are minority but totally dominant in sports that defines so much of American Culture. And when one considers that Media and Sports teams are largely owned by Jews, things get stranger yet. All these tough blacks who make mega-bucks pose as victims on the sports fields. And the owners of these teams, the billionaire Jews, also pose as members of an Eternal Victim Group. Victimism is addictive, and its junkies are like avicts).

    Not all minorities are doing well in America. American Indians are in the pits. Even though some blacks gained great success in sports, entertainment, and government, many blacks are stuck in the ghetto. Many Mexicans are stuck in menial jobs generation after generation. Hawaiians are just getting fatter from too many snack chips. But then, no group is doing as well as the Jews, and that means minority privilege rules America. And yet, Jews use the media to push the narrative that minority status = victimhood. According to this narrative, all ‘victim’ minorities should band together against the oppressive deplorable white majority. But there is a huge difference between a Jewish billionaire on Wall Street and a fat Hawaiian on a beach sitting on his whale-butt munching on Doritos. Also, white community is divided between the globalist ‘creative class’ that collaborate with the rich and the ‘deplorables’ who are losing out in the NWO. So, reality is far more complex than what the PC narrative gives us. Yes, there are minority groups in the US that are doing considerably worse than the White Average. But there are also minority groups that are doing considerably better and hold immense power. Jews rule many elite institutions. Asians take so many college slots. And homos control so much of pop culture and advertising.

    The Minority Paradox is best illustrated by the status of homos in the West. They are portrayed so often as a victim-group deserving of compassion and sympathy, but no group has been more celebrated by advertising, TV, and pop culture in general than homos. They are treated like the new aristocrats, the new royalty, even like angels or gods. And a lot of this owes to Jewish power that either sees in homos their mirror image of the ‘successful outsider minority’ or a proxy that will divert attention away from Jewish Power that is behind the ‘gay’ mask. It’s like Ivan the Terrible uses the silly idiot boy to draw attention of Ivan’s enemies. Homos are so vain that when the Globalists put a crown on their head, they can’t help play along even though homos may draw the ire as the face of US imperialism.

    https://youtu.be/4RA9z3SfnSo?t=1h6m34s

    Will the West survive? One look at history, and the main reason for downfall of regimes, kingdoms, civilizations, and political orders was lack of courage, fear of truth, and culture of dishonesty. This is understandable since every order fears the unfettered truth that may speak truth to power. Truth can bring down an order, but lies and dishonesty can lead to a much bigger fall.

    Take Japan in the 30s. Honest criticism might have brought down the repressive military order(that was leading Japan down a reckless path), but Japan would have been spared. But a culture of lies led to Japan’s war with China and then with US, and then Japan itself was crushed totally.

    Even though Japan was headed toward destruction, the culture of honor-correctness-and-cowardice led to silence and the total destruction of Japan. That silence destroyed Japan.

    Same with Germany. Surely, many Germans knew Hitler was leading Germany on the path to disaster, but they remained silent or just went along. To be sure, there could be severe penalty for anyone who dared to be courageous.

    Failure to speak honestly is like a doctor not making the necessary diagnosis based on the symptoms.

    West is doomed unless it breaks out of PC and speaks truthfully. It’s like cancer. Ironically, Susan Sontag who once called white race a ‘cancer’ later wrote about cancer as dangerous metaphor and how it silenced many people from dealing honestly. Too many people thought it was better to just give up all hope OR deny the fatality of the condition or keep the truth from the patient(like in IKIRU by Kurosawa).

    But the ONLY chance one has is to speak honestly that cancer is present and that something must be done about it. One must be honest, forthright, and take action.

    But in the West, truth is seen as cancer whereas lies are administered as treatment.

    The demographic threat to Europe from Muslim and especially African migration is HUGE, but Europeans are supposed to welcome it as Diversity or an opportunity to atone for ‘racism’ and Holocaust. But the result will be Eurocaust for white folks.

    West is like a cancer patient that won’t acknowledge that it is suffering from the cancer of Diversity. Rather, PC tells the Western Patient that this Diversity is the cure and that chemotherapy(or demotherapy that defends the racial integrity of the West) is the cancer. So, welcome the cancer as the cure and reject the only effective treatment as the disease.

    Now, the truth can kill, but lies will kill far more.

    Also, even when truth kills, it kills effectively only until the desired outcome is achieved. In contrast, the Lie will lead to endless killings.

    Suppose a bunch of coyotes are attacking sheep. That is the truth. This truth will kill in the sense that those coyotes will have to be hunted to save the sheep. Dead coyotes may be sad, but it must be done in order for the sheep to live. And once the coyotes are gone, there is no more killing.

    But suppose the Lie is told about the coyotes and sheep. Coyotes kill the sheep, but the Lie says that the collie dogs are killing the sheep whereas coyotes are helping the sheep. Such a lie will lead to endless killings. Coyotes will go on killing sheep(without end) while innocent sheep-herding dogs will be hunted down in the conviction that dogs must die in order for the sheep to live.

    Killing by truth is limited and effective. Killing by lies never end.

    EU is being invaded by Africans and Muslims. But PC tells whites that nothing bad is happening. If anything, PC says this Diversity is a cure for EU. Without it, “Europe wont’ survive.” And the real enemies of EU are the patriots who call for defense of homeland.

    Yeah, right. It’s like saying shepherds should welcome coyotes while killing the collies defending the sheep from the coyotes.

Comments are closed.