Posts Tagged ‘republicans’

Republicans Will Be The Biggest Casualty Of The Trump Revolution, At First

Wednesday, January 17th, 2018

Every industry has a life cycle. It starts out young and vital, then succeeds, and at that point, “everyone else” takes notice — that is, the people who were not the pioneers who created it — and comes on board, and starts doing the usual human stuff that makes everything fail. Then the industry degenerates to a chummy old boys club of one variety or another.

You can see this across the board, in entities as different as the automobile industry, worldwide religious denominations, hip-hop music and crypto-currencies. Founders create; participants partake, and by shaping the industry toward their needs with their greater numbers, they reduce it to the mean, at which point it loses what made it distinct and powerful.

Republicans face the same problem. Trump called them out on it not in so many words, although he did that as well, but by being a better example of what their industry was when it was vital. The GOP needs to wake up if it wants to stop the hemorrhage of lost elections:

The upset is the 34th Democratic pickup in the 2018 cycle. “Republicans have [already] flipped four seats from blue to red — two in the Republican-trending Deep South, one in New Jersey and one in Massachusetts,” Dave Weigel notes. “But on average, even in races that went against them, Democrats have improved on their margins from the 2016 rout. In other Tuesday elections, Democrat Dennis Degenhardt won 43 percent of the vote in Wisconsin’s 58th Assembly District; in 2016, Hillary Clinton won just 28 percent of the vote there, and no Democrat contested the seat. In Iowa’s 6th House District, Democrat Rita DeJong won 44 percent of the vote; in 2016, the party’s nominee won just 35 percent. In South Carolina’s 99th House District, Democrat Cindy Boatwright lost with 43 percent of the vote; the party had not run a candidate for the seat in this decade.”

On paper, the Republican candidate is great, if we are thinking of the “old way” of doing things. Responsible, respectable, probably good with business. But the new Republican mandate is culture change, which means doing away with all the egalitarian ideas that culminated in globalism. Right-wing voters are going to sit out any candidate who does not join the populist train.

In contrast, the Democrat candidate demonstrates a better fit for the cultural wave:

Her campaign focused not on attacking Trump but fighting the opioid crisis, improving access to health care and bringing good-paying jobs to the region. She didn’t need to talk about the president to benefit from an outpouring of progressive energy and conservative apathy.

She’s the chief medical examiner for St. Croix County, a former EMT and a member of the school board. She is also a trustee for the local food pantry and sits on the board for a community center that helps victims of sexual and domestic violence.

The first paragraph of the biographical page on Schachtner’s website notes that she is “a former member of the Wisconsin Bear Hunters’ Association,” and that “she and her family have enjoyed hunting in Wisconsin for generations.” She’s been married to her husband, Joe, for 39 years, and they have six grown children and nine grandchildren.

German-American name (i.e. Western European) plus a record of practical (business, like Trump) experience plus a campaign focused not on ideology but practicality… likes to hunt… traditional family structure… the Democrat is more in line with the cultural wave than the Republican, so the Democrat won.

Republicans should consider themselves on notice. They had a good thing going, where they went out there and ranted about god, guns, Israel, defense, abortion, and pro-business and then got elected, at which point they had to play the injured but nobly truthful hero and the money and votes kept rolling in. That approach failed the voters, and now they are having their revenge.

On the plus side, a purging of cucks — those who are more concerned with social pretense than real world results — will benefit both parties and could enable the GOP to get rid of fake Anglo William F. Buckley and his milquetoast conservatism. His innovation was to make a GOP that was compatible with the rising tide of Civil Rights activity, which essentially condemned the GOP to being a minority party. Popular, but unwise in the long term.

When the other side wins everything over a seventy-year span, it means that the strategy employed by the Right is not working, and with the rise of Trump, the Reagan-Buchanan ideal has won out over the Buckley ideal, with the Buchanan side emerging in crypto form. Trump has created a conservatism of two parts:

  1. A rigorous traditionalism. He appeals to masculinity, honor, social order, family, and even — most controversially — the type of race realism that says that every ethnic group must consider itself a nation, and see any other ethnic group as a competitor who wants to conquer it and take its women.
  2. An immense practical realism. At the end of the day, full bellies and lack of fears of being invaded by violent foreign powers make people happy. They dislike globalism not just because it fundamentally changed America but because economically, it fails, transferring money from the first world to the third world, which has fewer expenses and therefore gets ahead.

Trump is strategic enough to avoid wearing his traditionalism or concern over Obama’s “fundamental change” of America on his sleeve; instead, he uses the second plank to amplify the former. Traditionalism endures because it works, not just socially but financially, and so by applying sound business logic, he is uncovering the undiscovered core of conservatism.

Those who fail to pick up on this cultural wave sweeping the West — with Farage, Schultz, and Trump in the lead — will find themselves ignored by those who they think “should” vote for them, according to the late industry old boys club, and replaced by those who are either more conservative Democrats or populist Republicans. Right now the latter are scarce, but not for long.

Where Conservatives Lost The Understanding of Conservatism

Saturday, August 19th, 2017

The same people who shriek “define your terms!” in any debate are perfectly comfortable living among entirely vague terms. Think of “equality,” or even “justice.” We have no simple, straightforward way to define these without referring to institutions, not their goals or the ideas behind them.

Conservatism fits into the same trap. As written here before, it descends from Plato, who wrote that our pursuit was to find the best life possible, that this consisted of virtue instead of pure self-interest, that it had a relative morality of “good to the good, bad to the bad,” that civilizations have a life cycle in which democracy is death, and that our best use of our time is to pursue transcendentals, or immutable yet ongoing goals such as excellence, beauty, goodness, accuracy and ascendancy.

This brings us into conflict with not just Leftists, but the world. In this life, we either have purpose, or we become agents of entropy, falling back into navel-gazing and pursuit of our own fascinations that are unrelated to the world. Conservatism emphasizes that purpose by focusing on order, which is naturally larger than the individual or materiality; the Left denies that purpose by focusing on universal acceptance of the individual, which by its equation of good and bad is a rejection of order, hierarchy and transcendentals.

With the French Revolution, the notion of “conservatives” arose to refer to all of those normal and learned theories that existed before egalitarianism rose and took over. Conservatives are a resistance movement in favor of tradition, classical knowledge, logical fact, truth and wisdom. But because it must collaborate with the Left in the new regime, it is compromised, and so most conservatives gave up on reclaiming their nations and focused instead on themselves with a “work hard, pray hard” ethos that emphasized business, patriotism, equality as a means toward meritocracy, and religion, but only as applied within the individual. They would never violate holy equality by suggesting a goal for civilization, only personal choices.

This confusion becomes visible whenever conservatives decide they like some egalitarianism, but that it can go too far. They forget that ideas naturally lead to others, and that any idea will expand in scope until it has the power it needs to implement itself, which in the case of universal philosophies like egalitarianism, is essentially world control. You can see this in action in a creative but misleading article which hopes to show us “good” egalitarianism versus that dark side communist stuff:

The American Revolution was sparked by the Enlightenment, Judeo/Christian moral beliefs, mixed with Greek and Roman philosophy and political theories. At its best, the American Revolution promotes universal human equality–a work still in progress–individual freedom, freedom of thought and speech, the rule of law, etc.

The French Revolution, in contrast, is Utopian, collectivist, authoritarian, intolerant, and punitive. It is anti-religion generally and anti-Christianity specifically. It accepts the belief that the ends justify the means.

Other than the obvious comparison to communism, which is not wrong so much as it is misleading, the above misses the point because the actual history is that the French Revolution and American Revolution were motivated by the same ideals, but the Americans choose to try to restrain them in the hopes that democracy would not take on its final form as they read about in Plato. The intent behind the founding of the United States seemed to be to create an extremely limited government that would hold democracy in check, and be run by the wealthy, educated and accomplished citizens arising from a natural aristocracy.

At its core, however, this does not differ from the French idea, which had an ideological heritage going back to the Enlightenment™ and the Renaissance.™ The individual is equal, in this view, and so all are treated the same under the law, which eliminates the privilege and power of aristocrats and the naturally more competent by degrees, essentially seeking to limit the power of those who are succeeding so that those who are not can participate as well. Instead of recognizing social order, this strives against it, and the Americans tried to re-implant social order in it through a complex series of rules designed to preserve the manor-based order that had bloomed in the new colonies.

In other words, like the French order, the American one was Utopian. Worse than believing that the ends justify the means, it believed that ends could be passed on by regulating means, at which point only the good and safe remained, which removes the need for society or its leaders to have agency and be working toward the good, as opposed to simply avoiding past known evil methods. The question of intent was not addressed, and so over time, as always happens in democracy, it was filled in by the default actions to which humans gravitate. This quickly asserted itself as mob rule, because if not driven by purpose, a human reverts to thinking of himself, and so will demand the ability to do anything he wants — despite not being able to name these things or their utility — and have an iron law where society cannot throw him out. And so, the American order fell into the same condition as the French order, because the two are different locations on the same continuum from hubris through full Soviet Communism.

A fellow anti-democracy analyst explains this in terms of what the founders did not see versus what they were able to comprehend:

It is not entirely unexpected that Dunning-Kruger cases like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison would have completely misunderstood what Plato was trying to warn them about. They believed that Plato was warning them that democracies always give way to authoritarianism, and thus built strong defenses against authoritarianism into the design for their democracy. But what Plato was really trying to tell them was that democracy inevitably devolves into such horrendous moral, social, and economic chaos that decent, smart, educated people will, with full deliberate intent, beg an authoritarian leader to take power and restore order, even if it does impinge on their liberties to some degree. The fear that these pseudointellectuals really did design a system that will make it impossible for a Caesar to come and save us is what keeps me awake at night.

In other words, if we do not have a purpose for our civilization, we fall back into being rabble, no matter how smart or educated we are. It happens in little stages, one year at a time, with those who are feeling alienated working like fanatics to dismantle whatever they can. They are clever, not intelligent, and so their methods are crude but effective in that they zero in on the support structures that keep society away from anarchy. For them, life is somehow not fair because they were born men and not gods, and it is this sense of hubris that makes them want to overthrow every order and replace them with anarchy where whatever is popular — that which gives in to the same impulse in others, since it is an infectious lowest common denominator among humans as it is with our simian ancestors — wins out every time, this being an order they think they can control since they share the disease with others, and so know what they want to hear, and therefore what they will support by making false elites and false leaders out of whoever says it.

Let us revisit Robert Conquest’s second law of politics:

Any organization not explicitly and constitutionally right-wing will sooner or later become left-wing.

With what we know, we can expand upon this: any organization which is not explicitly directed toward a purpose will sooner or later become infected with hubris, from that give rise to a collective of individuals called a Crowd, and through that, arrive on the spectrum of Left-wing beliefs which terminate in Full Communism. We either have purpose, or ourselves, and when we declare ourselves to be the end instead of a purpose, everything unravels into silliness and stupor. The individual fears purpose because if there is a goal, the individual can fall short of that goal, and this is the root of all of the social horror that humans experience.

It is likely that people push for socialism, communism, equality, feminism, and the like not for economic reasons, but simply because they want to avoid being judged as individuals, and in the anonymity of egalitarianism can escape notice of their failings. This in turn dooms them because by becoming solely inwardly-focused, as happens with hubris and individualism, they lose sight of anything that could give their lives meaning, and end up in a darkened room formed of desires and power but without any potential for growth or discovery.

Conservatives understand this fundamental spiritual truth of humanity, which is that we die inside if we are given too much power as individuals, much as civilization dies if power is given to the wrong people. It loses momentum and collapses into its own circular inertia. Then everything grinds to a stop, much as it is in the contemporary West, which gave up on any hope of greatness during the second world war and has focused on growing its economy ever since so that some of us can win the wealth lottery and escape the Brazil 2.0 that is arising around us.

But as with any human structure, “conservatives” are a varied lot. The Bell Curve applies mercilessly here as well, which means that perhaps one percent of conservatives are worth reading, listening to and following; the rest are repeaters, and because they are focused on self and not world, they are repeating excuses, scapegoats, superstitions, trends, fads, panics and stampede-inducing ideas. This means that by definition, most conservatives are mostly wrong about most things most of the time. That does not mean that conservatism is wrong, only that any idea as interpreted by a group gets reduced to what is most convenient for the individual to belief in the context of an imaginary justification of his life to other people in his social group. Tom Wolfe calls that the fiction-absolute, and we might categorize it along with justifications, excuses and superstitions as the human animal attempting to control, rather than understand, his environment:

Even before I left graduate school I had come to the conclusion that virtually all people live by what I think of as a “fiction-absolute.” Each individual adopts a set of values which, if truly absolute in the world–so ordained by some almighty force–would make not that individual but his group . . . the best of all possible groups, the best of all inner circles. Politicians, the rich, the celebrated, become mere types. Does this apply to “the intellectuals” also? Oh, yes. . . perfectly, all too perfectly.

The human beast’s belief in his own fiction-absolute accounts for one of the most puzzling and in many cases irrational phenomena of our time. I first noticed it when I read a book by Samuel Lubell called The Future of American Politics. Lubell was a political scientist and sociologist who had been as surprised as everybody else by the outcome of the 1948 presidential election. That was the election in which the Democratic incumbent, Harry Truman, was a president whose approval rating had fallen as low as 23 percent. Every survey, every poll, every pundit’s prediction foresaw him buried by the Republican nominee, Thomas E. Dewey. Instead, Truman triumphed in one of the most startling upsets in American political history. Lubell was determined to find out why, and so he set out across the country. When he reached a small Midwestern town that had been founded before the turn of the 19th century by Germans, he was puzzled to learn that the town had gone solidly for Dewey despite the fact that by every rational turn of logic, every economic motivation, Truman would have been a more logical choice. By and by Lubell discovered that the town was still predominantly German. Nobody had ever gotten over the fact that in 1917, a Democrat, President Woodrow Wilson, had declared war on Germany. That had set off a wave of anti-German feeling, anti-German prejudice, and, in the eyes of the people of this town, besmirched their honor as people of German descent. And now, two World Wars later, their minds were fixed on the year 1917, because like all other human beasts, they tended to champion in an irrational way their own set of values, their own fiction absolute. The question Lubell asked was very much like the question that Thomas Frank asked after the election of 2004 in his book What’s the Matter with Kansas? By all economic and political logic, the state of Kansas should have gone to John Kerry, the Democrat, in 2004. But it didn’t. Had Frank only looked back to Samuel Lubell, he would have known why. The 2004 election came down to one state: the state of Ohio. Whoever won that state in the final hours would win the election. Northern Ohio, the big cities of Cleveland, Toledo on the Great Lakes, were solidly for Kerry. But in southern Ohio, from east to west, and in the west was the city of Cincinnati, Ohio went solidly for George Bush. And the reason? That great swath of territory was largely inhabited by the Scots-Irish. And when the Democrats came out in favor of gun control, the Scots-Irish interpreted this as not merely an attack on the proliferation of weaponry in American life but as a denunciation, a besmirching, of their entire way of life, their entire fiction absolute. Guns were that important in their scheme of things.

Leftists have the same thing, only worse: for them, the best life can only be found in being defined by their opposition to the majority, and so they are addicted to and dependent on their image as Leftists to make them feel good. This is why they are fanatical and their cluster of opinions is narrower than people on the Right.

But on the Right, most conservatives still do not understand their own belief system. They have a gut instinct toward certain ideas that they think put the world in balance, like fairness derived from competition instead of government subsidy. They distrust anything that violates their local culture. Some of this is fiction-absolute, and some of it is common sense, ingrained over centuries. The Left can disrupt this easily however by shifting context, at which point the gut instinct gets a bit confused. To avoid this, conservatives tend to operate within a narrow context, which means that they always appear to be failing to answer the insane prevarications of the Left.

Because their beliefs are hybridized with Leftism by the very nature of having to work with a system — democracy, equality, tolerance — that is fundamentally Leftist, most conservatives have forgotten the nature of conservatism. To them, it is the methods it uses to fix human mistakes, and not the purpose of engaging in those, which is to create a virtuous civilization in which each person is rewarded for engaging in virtuous living. The point is to be good, not to have “muh freedom” or strong business and defense, and only secondarily is this related to defending Christianity, Israel, or even America. Conservatism is the same philosophy worldwide, but it is applied differently depending on where a society is in its cycle from birth to death, and therefore both what can be done and what must be done to address the problems of that stage are both relevant questions. That conservatives change strategy with context does not mean that their goal or principles change, only that they are using different methods to achieve them depending on their environment, but the problem with this is that most conservatives will understand only the methods and not the goals, which is why conservatism today is seen as a parody of itself scripted by the Left, even by its strongest adherents.

Even worse, conservatives succumb to a basic fiction, which is that if something is demonstrated to be logical or good, the rest of civilization will magically discover it and move toward it, a delusion which is a common solipsistic pathology of assuming the world will eventually agree with them that in turn makes them inert and unable to act:

“It often seems that partisans believe they are so correct that others will eventually come to see the obviousness of their correctness,” says behavioral scientist Todd Rogers of the Harvard Kennedy School, lead author on the research. “Ironically, our findings indicate that this belief in a favorable future may diminish the likelihood that people will take action to ensure that the favorable future becomes reality.”

…Data from over 800 people in China, Japan, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom indicated that the belief in a favorable future is a cross-cultural phenomenon, and additional findings revealed that the biased belief is distinct from other phenomena such as optimism and the false-consensus effect. Even when people are given an incentive to make accurate predictions about how people’s beliefs will change between now and the future, they tend to believe others’ attitudes will change over time to fall in line with their own current beliefs.

Importantly, field experiment data suggest that believing in a favorable future can influence people’s behavior in the here and now. Working with the Democratic Governors Association, Rogers and colleagues sent out two variations of a fundraising email to more than 660,000 supporters. Recipients were less likely to open the email if the subject indicated that a Democrat had the lead in a closely contested race compared with a message that suggested he was trailing in a closely contested race. Of those who opened the email, people were less likely to click the donation link and were less likely to make a donation when the Democrat was portrayed as having the lead compared to when the Democrat was portrayed as being behind.

What you are seeing here is the philosophical equivalent of the endorphins released when your body realized that it is freezing to death and cannot generate enough heat to save you. This triggers a dump of happy opiates into the bloodstream so that everything seems rosy and warm in those moments before inevitable death. This is mental state of the average conservative: in order to feel good about their existence in a dying civilization at all, they must rationalize their position by assuming that the rest of the world will someday agree with them. This allows conservatives to be individualists, or those who focus on their own working hard and praying hard, and ignore the fact that the world is falling apart around them and that if they do not intervene, we will all be doomed. Similarly, white nationalists spent generations waiting for that moment when whites would awaken and start the race war. Both of these are preemptive justifications, not realistic thinking, and represent a deep inner despair.

Coming from the ashes of an election in which Americans elected a man with almost no relevant experience, a shady past and obvious leanings toward the far-Left, the Alt Right attempted to fix these core problems of conservatism. Instead of confusing goals with method, it wanted solely to discuss goals and ignore method. Instead of focusing on the personal, it argued for re-taking society and making it healthy again, in a viewpoint that saw a temporary authoritarianism as better than a long-term one. It hoped to slide between the insanity of mainstream conservatism, which was trapped in hopelessness and a “work hard, pray hard” outlook that left it entirely impotent, and the non sequitur of the underground Right including white nationalism, which had no plan but endorsed and exhibited pathological behaviors that sent ordinary, upper half of middle class European-descended Americans fleeing to the hills.

After Obama, it is clear that Western Civilization is in decline, and as Samuel Huntington predicted, there was a “Berlin 1945 moment” for Leftism and liberal democracy which has created a void where we once thought our future would be. There is a space for someone to inherit the future which people expect will naturally follow this one, and so ideological conflict has broken out in the remains of the fallen West. For those who are conservative, but recovering from the errors of conservatives in the recent past, we realize that now is the time when we must seize authority and restore Western Civilization because any other goal will devolve into a variant of Leftism, and leads to defeat both for us and our people.


Thursday, June 8th, 2017

Conservatives are those who wanted the old order (“1788”) but accepted that they had to work with the victorious Left, and so have bent their beliefs to fit within an egalitarian spectrum.

From this idiocy comes conservative praise of liberty, justice, peace, freedom, equality, and diversity, all of which are symbols or proxies for doing actual good, which is the main concern of conservatism.

Even more, all of these require us to accept the status quo as permanent and therefore to consider it good, even though as is evident it is not just mediocre but outright evil.

The mental hobbling that ensues turns conservatives into the defenders of values that are the precursors to Leftist issues, effectively making the Right into agents of the Left.

Perhaps the worst and most common form of this is “Dems R the Real Racists,” or DR3, in which conservatives use the Leftist idea of equality to argue for conservative ideas, but instead merely strengthen Leftist ones.

Egalitarianism is the singular idea of the Left. If you are egalitarian, you are at least partially Leftist; most conservatives are in fact hybrid Leftists, which is why conservatism usually fails. Diversity is merely racial egalitarianism, and “anti-racism” is a political movement to suppress criticism of or resistance to diversity.

For this reason, any conservative expressing DR3 has not only been subverted, but has joined the other side. Conservatives recognize realism plus qualitative concerns; nothing in that requires enforcing equality or diversity. Further, we are not ideologues but realists, and so we have no need to enforce symbolic obedience to a singular political agenda. Conservatives consider racism part of freedom.

DR3 can be easily spotted by the trope of confusion over the party polarity shift in the 1960s and the Leftist mental chewing gum that is their incessant bloviation about the “Southern Strategy”:

Whenever a Democrat accuses a Republican of being racist, the talk show host will immediately go on a pre-programmed rant about how the Democrats supported slavery, the Democrats founded the Klan, Robert Byrd was a Klansman, Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act blah blah.

…Whenever Republicans try the “Democrats are racist” line, liberals retort that the Republicans simply absorbed the racist segregationist Southern Democrats as well as their agenda.

We can spot DR3 in its current form wherever conservatives accuse the Left of racism or reverse racism, inadvertently strengthening the Leftist argument against nationalism:

Many on the Dissident Right mock cuckservatives for engaging in “DR3” or DemsRRealRacists i.e. incapable of defending their values on their merits, they concede the Left’s moral premises, but accuse them of being the “real racists”, homophobes, sexists etc.

The Right will never win this debate unless we reframe it as follows:

  1. Anti-racism is censorship. As long as we are in a democracy that makes the pretense of having free speech and free thought, we need to stop witch-hunts against people for having the wrong opinion. We may smash those who are actively traitors to an enemy, but adopting racism is no more allegiance to Hitler than advocating socialism makes one an agent of the Soviet Union (although many turned out to be that anyway).
  2. We are nationalists. Racists concern themselves with whether specific other races are up to snuff; nationalists point out that diversity never works, and therefore it does not matter if the specific racial groups are good or bad because for our purposes, any racial, ethnic and cultural group but our own is bad.
  3. Theory is not always reality. The ideas of equality and diversity are assumptions, not theories proven to work over the long-term in the real world. No one should be forced to adopt an assumption as real without some indication of a corresponding tendency of reality to reward the implementation of that assumption.

Any time we turn tail and run, or worse accept Leftist precepts as our conclusions, we have self-defeated. This gives the Left a double victory: they are the party left standing, and we self-destruct, appearing incompetent (and rightfully so) to all who are watching.

Bodyslamming The Narrative

Saturday, May 27th, 2017

Most of us have an intrinsic and instinctive sense of when we’re being underestimated and handed a line of bull. Regardless of our race, class or political orientation, we’ve all been treated like idiots by authority figures who were less intelligent than ourselves. We may not always have a bushel of data or a briefcase of legal facts for every instance. You know when you’re being told to shut up and obey Big Brother. You can’t prove it, but you can’t ignore what your brain is telling you in giant neon letters. People sense it and the reaction becomes a survival instinct. Thus, if a media figure exhales, much of The Right assumes they are lying.

So yes, Trump’s anti-media lines were always some of the biggest applause generators at his campaign rallies, from the very beginning. But you know what? The same was true for Ted Cruz. And Ben Carson. Hell, even Jeb Bush and Carly Fiorina were getting their biggest responses by going after the media at the 2016 Conservative Political Action Conference. As Jesse Walker pointed out yesterday, the anti-media element of the political culture war has been with us, very strongly, since at least Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew. With newspapers from 1960-2000 busy with the work of consolidation, professionalization, and New York Timesification, the more tabloid, populist, and conservative values long associated with American newspapering and pamphleteering were consciously and ahistorically shoved aside (read Jack Shafer’s great obit of Roger Ailes on this point), meaning that almost every new technological crack in the media edifice has been breached at first with a firehose of non-lefty content. When the journalistic class reacted to each new turn with abject horror, the cycle of mutual alienation and open antagonism continued anew..

So “Reason” Magazine goes “Oh, Noes!” The Conservatives don’t trust the media. What a shocker. You get three steps here.

1) You get anger.

2) You get Cynicism.

3) You get contempt.

Just 24 hours after being charged with assault for allegedly body-slamming a reporter in his Bozeman campaign office, Republican Greg Gianforte on Thursday defeated Democratic opponent Rob Quist to win the special election for the U.S. House seat in Montana. The race was thrust into the national spotlight in dramatic fashion on Wednesday night after Guardian reporter Ben Jacobs described being “body-slammed” by the GOP candidate, and a Fox News crew who witnessed the incident said the former technology and software executive “grabbed Jacobs by the neck with both hands and slammed him into the ground behind him.” “I’m sick and tired of you guys,” Gianforte said in audio of the event released by The Guardian.

Apparantly, half of Montana is sick and tired of them as well. And this has led to quite the bought of recrimination against those evil !KKKONSERVATIVE! Neanderthals.

Remember when Ronald Reagan body slammed a reporter to the cheers of the conservative grassroots? Neither do I. Yet in the aftermath of the assault on Ben Jacobs, a reporter for The Guardian, by Greg Gianforte, the Republican candidate for a special House election in Montana, too many conservatives are either doubting the event occurred, despite audio evidence and witness testimony by a Fox News crew, or praising Mr. Gianforte for giving the press what it deserves.

They never wonder whether it comes from seeing stories written every day about the mental problems of Modern !KKKONSERVATIVES!

To many observers on the left, the initial embrace of Seth Rich conspiracy theories by conservative media figures was merely a confirmation of the right’s deformed soul. But for those of us who remember that Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity were once relatively mainstream Reaganites, their extended vacation in the fever swamps is even more disturbing.

Now all of this sounds almost reasonable until we look at what many of these same media outlets had to say about Ronald Reagan while he was still a thing.

“The Reaganites on the floor were exactly those who in Germany gave the Nazis their main strength and who in France collaborated with them and sustained Vichy,” wrote the Washington Post’s Henry Fairlie about the GOP convention that nominated Reagan in 1980. “Ronald Reagan was hated, and still is, in the feminist-establishment circles in which I grew up,” said Tammy Bruce, for many years the head of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization of Women. “That milieu subsists on enemies and hatred…They knew Reagan was evil.” “Reaganism is economic elitism,” said CNN’s Bill Schneider in a 1984 magazine article. “It is the view that hunger in America is merely anecdotal, that the homeless are homeless by choice, and that only the morally unworthy have been hurt by the administration’s policies.”

It’s not just the Far Right that Hitlarps. For a guy with just one nut, he’s been the man for over half a century. Obviously Gianforte shouldn’t have dropped the RKO on some chicken-sh!t dweeb from The Manchester Guardian. He’s apologized and maybe not just for career advancement. But am I supposed to be self-critical for laughing when these liars, hacks and propaganda ministers finally get their comeuppance? They’ve had it coming to them since back in Oswald Spengler’s day.

Anyone who thinks the media exists to tell them the truth probably thinks Public Schools still exist to give every child a quality education. They probably believe Democracies select the most capable leaders. They probably would have hated the Spanish when William Randolph Hearst yelled out in bold headlines “Remember The Maine!”

I remember the Maine. I remember that time Dewey beat Truman. I remember Lawrence Walsh getting to say anything he wanted on the front pages of The Washington Post and The New York Times both one day before the 1992 Election. Amazing how these things keep just coincidentally happening.

So Greg Gianforte shouldn’t have lost it, but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist from Huntsville, AL to figure out why he felt provoked. You can only lie, condescend and insult people for so long before they spit on their hands, run up the pirate flag and start slitting throats.

Hopelessness As A Personal Philosophy

Monday, May 15th, 2017

If the Right has an equivalent the impotent “raising awareness” of the Left, it is the idea of hopelessness. Conservatives adore negative headlines, so that they can throw vegetables at the screen and then retire, secure in their viewpoint but not in their future.

Think of the average stodgy conservative you know. Probably older, probably male; he like to watch Fox News or read The Wall Street Journal. Every conversation begins the same way:

You won’t believe what those crazy Leftists are doing now! They are trying to make transgenderism a national passtime! It just grinds my gears. This country is going to hell in a handbasket. There really is no hope. People are just… shrugs …just broken!

You can distill this to three simple words: I GIVE UP.

After this, the conservative has himself a six-pack, goes to bed and then wakes up the next day to work, work, work all day. He goes to church on Sunday. He waves the flag and praises the veterans. He reads conservative books, watches conservative television, and rants with his like-minded friends about how bad everything is. And he does nothing else.

Conservatives relish stories of social decay like ordinary people enjoy pornography. For them, it tells them that they are right and everyone else is wrong. This is all they need, since their philosophy is based in the personal morality of mass religion. The question is not reality; it is the self.

In other words, they are materialists and individualists just like the rest.

If the Alt Right has done one thing that has shaken the system to the core, it has been re-inventing conservatism to be focused on history, myth, legend and future instead of finding reasons to yell at the television screen right now.

The conservative has always been a dying breed. As the old saying goes, one is liberal in youth and conservative in old age. By old age, they are beaten down by the world and believe in inertia above all else. Nothing will ever change, they reason, and so all they can do is be outraged and keep plugging away at those jobs, churches and patriotic events.

Renovation came to conservatism after recognizing that, much as mainstream conservatives have been captured by the Establishment, independent conservatives have been captured through their personal philosophy of hopelessness. They do not want solutions; they want reasons to be right, so they can keep piling up money and enjoying a luxury lifestyle without interruption.

Conservatism as a principle — realism mated with a transcendental desire for the best possible outcomes — wins out over all else. In the hands of the herd, it is destroyed just as thoroughly as anything else, and turned into a personal philosophy of being better than other people. It will not be sad to watch that die.

Why Both White Nationalists And Leftists Attack Me

Tuesday, February 28th, 2017

File photo: lumpy Leftists.

Over at a site that has been on my reading list for years (and on which my writings have appeared) a rather detailed and articulate attack against me has appeared. It makes sense to analyze this in good faith and see what points it makes.

The author argues that I am (1) a mainstream conservative and (2) a world Zionist disinformation agent. Unbounded accusations like this cannot be refuted simply because there are too many inputs; I can show that the Bank Of The Learned Elders Of Zion did not send me any checks, but maybe they used another source, or pay me in Kentucky Burley. Same with the mainstream conservative accusation: perhaps I keep a television in the basement crawl space to covertly watch Fox And Friends late at night.

The first argument takes this form:

dispatched to re-direct WN into American patriotardism

By “patriotardism,” the author seems to be suggesting an affiliation with the GOP and its defense of the “proposition nation”/”magic dirt” nation state. Fortunately, we have some source material: “Nationalism Rises As The Proposition Nation Fades Away”, The Death Of The Proposition Nation, Race-Nationalism Versus Ethno-Nationalism” and perhaps most fundamentally, “Patriotism Or Nationalism?”.

One might also wonder how the GOP jives with the four pillars advocated here for the restoration of Western civilization, the rejection of democracy, the dislike of equality, and other notions that are part of the mainstream conservative lexicon.

He does make a good point about mainstream conservatives however which is that they are the Rightists who were willing to work with the new, post-Revolutionary order as established in France, giving rise to the terms “Right” and “Left.” However, the impulse toward conservatism occurred long before that, and it is this type of “roots conservatism” — found in Plato and Nietzsche — that informs my advocacy of it and understanding of the term.

Moving on to the “Jewish Question” or JQ, which is always a point of conflict:

Of course those in service of the YKW do not feel the need to be especially covert about their advocacy in all places nowadays, particularly with The Alternative Right Tentosphere being what ((it is))), as it is devised to be YKW friendly – markedly so in its charter name site, Alternative Right, which re-published the Brett Stevens article “The Roots of Modern Anti-Semitism.” They feel no need to be ashamed of their defense of Jewish interests, they are free to exercise their chutzpah, as they do by way of Stevens in this article. However, the real points for style in shabbos service come into play as Stevens and committee go to work confounding and re-directing proper ethno-nationalist understanding of the world that the more sophisticated and Jew-wise would otherwise be sorting out.

My point is simple: Western Civilization’s decay is the result of poor decisions made by Western people. We cannot blame anyone else. In addition, we should cheer Jewish nationalism because it ends the diaspora and revitalizes nationalism. Western Civilization rose by being reflective, or intuitively bonded to the best aspects of reality and geared toward qualitative improvement of the experience of life, and breaking away from that by relying on scapegoats is beneath us, inaccurate and will lead to more horrifying stuff like The Holocaust. We are not murderers, nor are other racial groups our concern; our goal is to restore Western Civilization and make it better than ever before. This is the goal of any sane and healthy civilization, and we are not sane and healthy now, nor have we been for a long time, although the French Revolution really formalized our decline.

He wonderfully clarifies my argument here:

blaming our demise solely on our individualism and lack of rectitude

Yes. That is our illness. Everything else is a symptom. We do not achieve victory by fighting symptoms, but by going to the cause. Degeneration — first moral, then mental, and now physical — is the hallmark of the decline of the West. As one observer said, “Civilizations die by suicide, not murder.” We lost our way and have made ourselves miserable, and are now self-destructing.

This is the difficult problem we must solve. If stopping civilization decline were easier, there would be more great civilizations still in existence. Instead, it serves as the means by which every advanced human civilization so far has passed into darkness. This is the challenge before us: to save civilization.

Whether or not Jews are a symptom of this problem, they are not its source. Even more, whipping people up in a fury against them fails because it both distracts us from the actual cause, and inspires people to do ignoble things like genocide. We do not need to kill those who might appear to be our enemies; we need to fix ourselves, which includes excluding everyone else.

It is the same way with the African-Americans. Some wish to blame them, but the actual cause is diversity, which in fact gets more deadly if it involves “nice” groups because then your people hybridize with them, erasing the original population. This type of soft genocide leaves behind a civilization capable of none of the great acts of the old.

On this issue, the philosophers have it right: our civilization entered into decline because people became individualistic, or acting for themselves first against the natural ways a civilization structures itself. Individualism is reality-denial, a form of hubris. The only solution is a cultural change reversing this pathology.

Stevens wants us to believe that the Jewish population were probably once European

Much of Jewish genetics originate in Southern Europe, which makes sense given the proximity of that region to Israel, and that we know Israel was a trading hub between West, East and Africa. That would lead to a mixed-race group of Caucasian and Asian roots with some African.

Think about this another way: if you take New York and analyze the people who are successful in business there, most will be Caucasian, followed by Asians, with a few exceptional African-Americans who have made it big in business. If all of these wealthy people go to the same schools, country clubs and the like, they will intermarry, producing an ethnic mix resembling the Judaic mixture.

Jews are not the enemy; they are what is left after a civilization dies in the higher socioeconomic classes. Again, think of New York. The reason pro-Aryanists fear The Eternal Jew is not because the Jew is the threat, but because the Jew is a symbol of our future if we do not end diversity.

we should be able to relate to them as being of common European origin

Race is not binary. Consider the fringes, such as parts of Italy where the population is clearly intermixed with Persian and Phoenician remnants, or parts of Russian where the population despite being blonde/blue has a quarter Asiatic mixed into it. That does not mean we should do more than understand these other groups as being similar but crucially different to us.

The same is true of Spain, for example. Many Spaniards show clear evidence of admixture with Moors or Sephardim. Many Americans have Asiatic (Amerind) heritage, or some like the Melungeons of Appalachia, show African admixture. What does this mean? For starters, that admixture makes a group different, but not so radically different that we cannot understand them.

My hope for the Jewish people is the same as their hope: for the diaspora to end with a prosperous, safe and stable Israel as their ancestral homeland and a place for all Jews. Of course, the White Nationalists would work to prevent this and instead focus their energies on dreams of genocide, which then allows the actual problems of the West to go unchallenged.

Not coincidentally, this is also my hope for Western Europeans — and every other group, including Eastern Europeans, Africans, Southern Europeans, Asians and any other identifiable human group.

Our path lies between cuck and sperg, which means that we are trying to find a path between the cowardly GOP who will never act to save Western Civilization, and the White Nationalists, who will act on one issue obsessively and ignore the rest. The middle path is crucial here.

He continues:

First of all, deconstruction is a mainstay premise of what modernity does to clear-away “the arbitrary” in its quest after foundational essences. It is NOT so concerned to not subject to arbitrary deconstruction and experimentation the precious inheritance that is. So, we already have a clue that Stevens is going to probably give us not something radically different for our interests at all (certainly not White Post Modernity) but something a lot more like bald modernity and nihilism in the service of the “reality of inequality”, a “reality” that just so happens to serve the ehem, rather unequal position now of Jewish power and interests – who will try to placate us, if we are good sheeple, by sneaking-in some “radically” traditional Noahide consolation.

Deconstruction is also a powerful method for reducing the seeming omnipotence of certain socially-acceptable illusions. For example, “the reality of inequality” applies to the failure of democracy and diversity.

the “irony” is that the notion of necessity that he is alleging as being opposed to fatalism and the humility (as opposed to hubris) to know one’s factual limitations is, in fact, of an appeal to a less socially interactive and agentive kind of cause and effect – it heads toward deterministic cause and effect quite the opposite of the agency that appeals of social critique and social constructionism.

And yet, life is deterministic. People have different innate abilities and inclinations. It sounds almost like he is arguing for Leftist universalism here, or the idea that people are equal and that accurate portrayals of reality are discernible by all people equally. That is clearly not the case, which is why hierarchy is needed.

democracy is put aside as something that doesn’t work because people start worrying too much about what others think

Yes, and for many other reasons too. Democracy is what the cucks defend. Mob rule is the downfall of the West.

Modernity has not only been atop a short list of the most profoundly transformative ways of life, it will remain to feature as an integral capacity of any competent post modern culture.

Modernity, which is the era which begins with the assumption of equality, has created vast degeneration in the West. The sooner we escape this time of illusion the better.

those peasant revolts! they were based in delusional thinking too – they should have just known their place!

His objections are starting to sound very Leftist. We need hierarchy; peasants who pretend to be kings are prone to make terrible decisions. Look at our history since the time when we rejected monarchy.

Stevens reverses this, and says that the unversities are merely responding to what students want. He is disingenuously suggesting that these liberal teachers, cultural Marxist and Jewish academics are innocent, they are merely responding to market demand of students, not indoctrinating them and selling them endless words, endless critique aimed at effecting the teacher’s personal interests along with peer Jewish and liberal interests.

Another way to look at this is that academia aims to sell its product to students who already agree with it, which thanks to the Leftist high schools, is most of them; however, the bigger argument is that Leftism is always more popular because it flatters the ego, and so people flock to it for social reasons.

Because you think that we just hate reality, beauty and happiness, we aren’t dealing with reality, not accepting what “is”, we only care about what we think “ought” to be. Do you really believe that Brett?

Yes. People are not good, and only some can become good through self-discipline and a sense of reverence. The rest are self-interested monkeys who behave like a prole revolt and destroy everything good. We can see this exemplified in Leftism and the associated movements that follow it, including White Nationalism, which attempts to destroy Western Europe through trace admixture and uniformity.

While it was not totally surprising that Alternative Right blog spot would unabashedly re-publish his Jewish advocacy, viz., the article quoted in the post, it was a little surprise to see it republished uncritically (save the capacity for critical comments) at Alt, and it appears that critical of them as I have been, that I still gave them too much credit. I assumed that it had to be the case that Stevens was not only selling a new podcast but a new website: why, after all, would these sites, supposedly wise to the JQ, be promoting the work of one with a long-standing track record of ardent defense and attempted exoneration of Jewish interests?, and why would AltRight re-post it, allowing for comments, yes, but re-post it un-accompanied by any critical editorialization of its own?

Alternative Right publishes a number of authors with somewhat divergent views. This can help expand dialogue about Right-wing topics instead of turning us into a Right-flavored version of Leftism, which forces conservative thought into a dogma or ideology and thus lessens its actual potency by making it related to symbol and not reality.

You would have to ask the editors there what their intent was, however. So far, I have found no reason to criticize them, even when they publish articles that I personally disagree with in whole or in part.

The points I take away from our dialogue here today are thus: there are no binaries regarding nations; each group acts in self-interest. The groups that succeed will unite individual self-interest with that of the group, which requires people who are not individualistic. Those who argue in favor of individualism are, at their heart, Leftism, or believing in the equality and goodness of humanity, which history shows us is nonsense and drivel. Even white people — especially white people! — are prone to become narcissistic and self-preening instead of focusing on the end results of their actions in reality. Rightism is found in rejecting the preening and focusing on reality, and this is what made the greatness of the West.

Majority Rights will succeed where it offers an alternative to the modern time. Once we assume equality, no amount of racial awareness will stop that from eventually extending to its natural end result, which is inclusion of everyone as equal. For that reason, we need a method of thinking outside of modernity/equality, and this is found in some of the ideas I pursue that are feared by both the underground white nationalist Right and the mainstream cheeseburger cuckservative Right.

I do not expect these ideas to be immediately accepted. No new idea ever is, mainly because it takes on a new form and so is unfamiliar to its audience. However, it seems to me that the greatest threats come to us from failed ideas of the past dressed up as something desired, for example Leftist pro-democracy talk disguised as pro-white or pro-nationalist.

For my ideas, the bottom line is this: we are here to restore Western Civilization. We know that to do that, we need to escape from the house that equality built, because it is the ideology of our enemies. In the interim, there will be those who try to sell us the same old thing in a new form because they know it will be popular. It makes sense to ignore those.

All in all, this seems a productive dialogue. We have gotten to the core of two ideals — my futurist traditionalism versus DanielS’s racialist democracy — and can compare them as they really are. This offers a lot to someone who is looking for an option to the present, and wondering how deep they must cut to get beneath the necrotic flesh and encounter healthy tissue again.

Is the Alternative Right Actually White Nationalism In Disguise?

Friday, July 29th, 2016

Neurotic Vox theorizes about the Alternative Right:

The alt-right is often dismissed as white supremacist Trump supporters with Twitter accounts, and they are certainly that. But spend some time talking to key players and reading the movement’s central texts, as I did, and you’ll find it’s more than a simple rebranding of the white nationalist movement. It’s the product of the intersection of a longstanding, long-marginalized part of the conservative movement with both the most high-minded and the basest elements of internet culture. It’s a mutated revival of a monster William F. Buckley thought he killed in the early 1990s, given new energy by the web.

In my view, this is totally wrong: the Alternative Right is an alternative to white nationalism as much as the Republicans.

The goal of the Alternative Right is to establish principles by which civilizations thrive, in contrast to the dying principles upon which we base our current time.

These include nationalism, naturally since all other options have failed, but also extend to many other options. In particular, the Alternative Right studies how the the common sense opinion of a population is replaced by that of its professional politicians.

A better way to view the Alternative Right: a recognition that liberal democracy has failed, and a searching for alternatives which are both not oppressive and not prone to decay like liberal democracy.

Of course the establishment wants it to be equated to white nationalism — they fear it!

Will To Pettiness

Saturday, July 2nd, 2016


It’s a tough slog being a Republican in DC. Especially, if you are the Washington Post’s Official Republican™. So what does one do to get by? He behaves himself. Wears a sharp bow-tie. He does exactly what The Washington Post’s Official Republican™ is supposed to do.

So how does the bow-tie wearing Official WaPo Republican™ behave? The cucking is eminently predictable. This means he treats other Republicans the way Ramsay Bolton treated his fellow peers. He feeds them to the ravening hounds. Richard Nixon? He has a long shadow…Tsk, Tsk, Tsk. According to Will, Republicans can never be traitors. They can never truly play the Game of Thrones against Liberals. Never mind that the Dems have just all but nominated the real world equivalent of Cersei Lannister in a rigged primary season Tywin would have smiled fondly over. In Willworld, only Republicans have to maintain any code of honor.

And how about that rabble-rouser Ronnie Raygun? He was too risky. As Goerge H. W. Bush put it – “Wouldn’t be prudent.” Reagan of course won two elections and had the Soviet Union teetering on its heels. One would think Will would let bygones get gone. But no, Cucks have got to Cuck.

Will, who has built a highly lucrative career, aided by his special relationship with his sometimes friend, Ronald Reagan, feels highly incensed as if betrayed by his former, special pupil, whom he coached before the Great Debate with Jimmy Carter. Will fears that the Great Communicator has become the Great Disinformer by not adhering to Will’s approved script and will prove no match to the Great Manipulator–Mikhail Gorbachev. So the characteristically unflappable, intellectual guru of the “Far Right,” reacting like a wounded bull seeing the world through his darkly, red-colored glasses, viciously attacks the President.

Will, you see, accused Reagan of not being manly enough when he met with Gorbachev in Iceland to discuss what would later become Perestroika and the end of the Soviet Menace. Like Michael Jackson implying the Fresh Prince of Bel Air had latent homosexual tendencies, George Will was castigating Ronald Reagan over his low testosterone levels in foreign policy.

It would take time before the WaPo needed their Cabana Boy Cuckservative to properly insert dagger in a Republican Party vertebrae, but in the Mid 00’s; Liberalism’s needs again called. Will delivered with a column designed play right into the Democratic Party’s mid-term campaign strategy.

Today, with all three components of the “axis of evil” — Iraq, Iran and North Korea — more dangerous than they were when that phrase was coined in 2002, the country would welcome, and Iraq’s political class needs to hear, as a glimpse into the abyss, presidential words as realistic as those Britain heard on June 4, 1940.

So guess how George Will reacts to the nomination of Donald J. Trump?

Conservative columnist George Will told PJM he has officially left the Republican Party and urged conservatives not to support presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump even if it leads to a Democratic victory in the 2016 presidential election. Will…had a message for Republican voters. “Make sure he loses. Grit their teeth for four years and win the White House,” Will said during an interview after his speech at a Federalist Society luncheon.

This is classic Cuckservative behavior. Conservatives are supposed to be with them to the bloody, gore-smeared hilt when they nominate Bob Dole. When factions of the party not up to the WaPo Official Republican™ standard nominate a Reagan or a Trump, the knife is sharpened and aimed at the vertebrae. If one of his can’t win the day, than no Republican can win at all.

This sniveling scribe of Cuckservatism leaving the GOP is a positive sign for the GOP. George Will going away is like having a case of colon cancer go into remission. George Will supporting Gary Johnson is essentially what Gary Johnson deserves for being Gary Johnson. Trump should take pride in having George Will show his campaign the well-rounded pair of heels bought off and paid for by The Washington Post. Again Trump has flushed an enemy of Conservative America out into the open. George Will’s will to pettiness is revealed before all in its repulsive, Cuckservative glory.

How They Will Stump The Trump, And Make Him Victorious

Friday, March 18th, 2016


Right now, the predators and parasites are swarming. The voters clearly want Donald Trump as the president, and he has united groups on both left and right toward this end. The perception is that “business as usual” has become corrupt.

If our elites were anything but stumbling incompetents, they would go forth first with an agenda that does not include confirming that fact. But one succeeds in liberal democracy by being a salesperson, which demands a quasi-aggression that involves never considering anything but your own needs. And the GOP Establishment is acting by its needs.

Those who are currently in power in “conservative” politics know that a usurpation is coming. If Donald Trump wins, he proves not only that they were wrong, but that they were not trying for a good outcome. This implies that our current GOP Establishment has no intention of achieving conservative results, but wants to play-act at being conservative so that the money keeps rolling in.

Being a controlled opposition party pays well, it turns out. Politicians can make money by consulting or giving speeches; lobbyists, lawyers, consultants and all the staffs do well also. This is the difference between seeing politics as goal-oriented, and seeing it as a job or career. The GOP Establishment elites are careerists, and that involves working within the system and getting along with everyone more than getting anything done.

If Trump gets elected, the risk is not that he will fire them; it is that all of us will have been shown, clearly and dramatically, that we are getting nothing for our donations and votes to the GOP. Voters will demand replacement of anyone who has prospered in this system.

The GOP Establishment is going to block Donald Trump and in doing so, will make him more powerful than ever before.

They are the gatekeepers, and they will find ways to keep him out. There are thousands of rules, laws and regulations which could conceivably either frustrate his nomination, invalidate his election or form a lawsuit which could sabotage the campaign. They will use something clever, not something smart.

In doing so, the idiot elites will prove what Trump was saying all along: the GOP does not want to win; it wants to stay employed.

The next step from this, fortunately, will be the removal of all GOP elected leaders as their voters sleep in on voting day, and in the resulting liberal turmoil, massive discontent with liberal democracy itself.

For the first time, our people may see the actual problem instead of the proxy, the cause instead of the effect, and act on it. Not all of them — of a hundred people, one can understand the issues required. But people fortunately act with a herd instinct, and when the sheep walking point sniffs a wolf, they all panic together.

It will be delicious.

Nikki Haley’s opposition to President Donald Trump

Tuesday, January 26th, 2016


Henry Olson correctly describes why the GOP no longer has any legitimate right to call itself a Conservative Party.

Thanks to Donald Trump, American elites are finally paying attention to blue-collar, white America. They do not like what they see. Racist. Bigoted. Irrational. Angry. How many times have you read or heard one or more of these words used to describe Trump’s followers? Whether they are the academic, media, and entertainment elites of the Left or the political and business elites of the Right, America’s self-appointed best and brightest uniformly view the passions unleashed by Trump as the modern-day equivalent of a medieval peasants’ revolt. And, like their medieval forebears, they mean to crush it.

The Governor of South Carolina attempted to say these things nicely. It was almost as if she could bore Donald Trump to sleep ahead of the Iowa Caucus through the mind-numbing force of her predictably ill-informed vapidity. She adopted the atrocious pose of a Southerner who had grown. She denounced the vile ¡RACISM! of a church shooting in Charleston. She forgot to look up the proper name of the church. There is no historic Mother Emmanuel Church in Charleston. I’m sure both of her special black friends were still quite deeply impressed. With The Cathedral, it’s always the thought that counts.

You should obey Governor Nikki and stop being so gosh darn mean. Bad Redneck; no shotguns and Wild Turkey. Ya’ll do know your place, am I right? The British Aristocracy could at least piss on you with a certain flippant panache. “Villains ye were, villains ye remain!” Scans like Shakespeare. Instead we get the Dominatrix of Dullness. If she ran an S&M Dungeon, her clientele would fall asleep. She’d be dumb enough to think they were passing out and try to come up with a more comprehensive safe word policy.

And then we get to the reason all us Unreconstructed Southerners are such horrible people. We aren’t willing to sit down while our bettors abolish us.

“No one who is willing to work hard, abide by our laws, and love our traditions should ever feel unwelcome in this country.”

Genghis Khan had a work ethic worthy of J.J. Watt. He’d follow the laws; after he executed a couple of obnoxious justices on the USSC. As long as he got to rape another woman in every village, he never felt the slightest bit unwelcome. Nikki could be happy and so could Genghis. Civility is such a special thing.

I’ll offer a protip. You don’t want either Genghis or JJ anywhere near your franchise QB. Do you think those guys raping women in Cologne were taking the day off? Nobody is going to respect traditions that you are not willing to defend. Nobody is going to incur the social cost and inconvenience of obeying a law that you are too lazy or gutless to enforce.

“It means welcoming properly vetted legal immigrants, regardless of their race or religion.”

According to the laws on the land circa Y2K, Mohammed Atta was properly vetted. How did that work out for NYC and Logan Airport? Way to hammer out that vetting. I hope the vetters were properly courteous and respectful when they signed off on all 21 of the student visas. It’s a pleasure to watch bureaucracy work like hell.

“[T]here’s a tendency to falsely equate noise with results. Some people think that you have to be the loudest voice in the room to make a difference. That is just not true. Often, the best thing we can do is turn down the volume. When the sound is quieter, you can actually hear what someone else is saying. And that can make a world of difference.”

Be quiet you ignorant boobs. When your jobs get destroyed, when your women get raped and when your communities are no longer like anything you would personally recognize, we want you to object more pleasantly. We don’t like it when The Hookworm People keep bringing up all these unpleasant topics. But hey, she was willing to be patient and tell us these things nicely.

People wonder how Donald Trump was able to nuke these turkeys with such a significant Wake-Up Bomb. Nikki Haley was assigned to address the President after The State of The Union Show. She did one thing right. She ignored what went on during The State of The Union Show and spoke athwart the real President instead. She addressed the man who truly drives America and took up her cudgel against Donald Trump. She showed us that America is a strange and foreign country to the people in the GOP who seek to govern Amerika. If you want to smash the Uniparty, you have to vote Trump or Cruz this GOP Primary session. Otherwise, just wipe that cuck off your chins and vote for Hillary and get it over with.

Recommended Reading