Category Archives: Cultural Marxism

The Social Justice Bubble

In economics, the term ‘bubble’ will mean different things to different people, but it’s safe to say that a bubble involves a dramatic mispricing of an asset or an asset class which leads to severe dislocations when those mispricings are brought back into line.

These mispricings are caused by inflation, or the increase in the money supply, credit supply or both. This increase provides the demand which is used to bid up asset prices. This rise in prices tends to be the foundation for a wider paradigm dependent on the continued trend of asset prices. For example, the recent housing bubble was fueled by the increase of cheap credit, which was a response to the post 9/11 recession. On the back of that, increases in stock and commodity prices, prospects in related businesses, and local small business activity all took shape. What culminated in the 2008 collapse started a few years before when housing prices started to slow, and by the depths of the crisis in late 2008, the damage had radiated to commodities, stocks, bonds, and local businesses, ultimately leaving the financial system as a while in a perilous situation.

Given the fact that the high asset prices seen were dependent on the increase in money supply during the early phases of bubble, the tapering of the monetary spigot brings with it the collapse as the asset price rises cannot continue upward without fresh injections of money or credit. If prices stop rising, they level off and then fall, exposing the weaknesses in debt structures and business models predicated on high asset prices.

That basic blueprint of bubbles-as-economic-growth has been at the heart of the post gold standard modern economic machine of the last 50 years or so. From the stagflation of the 1970s, to the  80s Savings and Loan crisis and 1987 crash, to the Internet bubble of the 90s, to the housing bubble of the 2000s, the economy has lurched from bubble to bubble, each one a bit larger than the last. As I write we’re in the midst of yet another bubble, constructed in the wake of the 2008 collapse to mitigate its effects.

A similar bubble has taken shape over that time in the cultural arena. We can term this the ‘social justice’ bubble, which has burst over the course of this past year in spectacular fashion, culminating in the election of Donald Trump.

Much like bubbles in economics, the social justice bubble was built on the back of an inflation, of sorts. Instead of the money supply increasing, what artificially increased was the value of certain words, to the extent that these words now have entirely new meanings or suddenly deemed to encompass things they didn’t originally. Thomas Sowell did a more comprehensive job of outlining this inflation, in addition to comparing it to the monetary variety, in his 1995 book The Vision of The Anointed. He writes:

[O]rdinary vicissitudes of life become “traumas.” Any situation which they wish to change becomes a “crisis,” regardless of whether it is any worse than usual or is already getting better on its own.

Verbal inflation, like monteary inflation, would have no effect if everyone understood what was happening and could adjust to it immediately. A ten-fold increase in the price level would mean nothing if everyone were free to add a zero to the sums in all contracts, laws, cash on hand, etc., and do so immediately. Inflation has an economic effect precisely because there is no such instantaneous and total flexibility. In the real world of lagging adjustments, borrowers pay back less than they owe, workers are paid less than they were promised, and the government cheats its way out of part of the national debt by paying it off in dollars that are worth less than the dollars that were borrowed. Verbal inflation likewise enables some people to cheat others. When “harassment,” “discrimination,” or even “rape” are redefined to include things going far beyond the original meanings of these words, there would be no real change if everyone understood what the inflated words now mean and neither social stigmas nor the penalties of the laws applied to the vast range of new things encompassed by these new meanings.

In both cases, runaway inflation us not just a zero-sum game. Monetary inflation not only redistributes benefits but can also reduce the sum total of those benefits, by undermining the credibility of the monetary unit and with it undermining the predictability of the whole system of which it is part, causing the economy to be less productive as people restrict what they do and plan, in order to avoid vastly increased risks. For similar reasons, human relations suffer when the verbal common currency of social interaction loses its meaning and predictability, so that people now protect themselves from new risks by various ways of withdrawing from one another and reducing their cooperation.

The intellectual justification for monetary inflation as a policy comes from the mostly Keynesian view that falling prices are a grave danger to an economy. Beyond this, it is viewed by many economists as a cause of recessions and depressions, and as such there is no good reason why inflationary policies should not be pursued, if the alternative is to allow prices to fall. The end result is to effectively take the position that unless prices rise higher and higher  in perpetuity, the world will come to an end. Indeed, this is where most name brand economists, like Paul Krugman are, having never seen an inflationary policy proposal that wasn’t the right thing to do at the given time.

This paradigm is reflected in the cultural Marxist ideas of ‘social justice,’ and ‘tolerance.’ Much in the same way prices can never decline lest the economy collapse, social justice acolytes hold that culture can never become more traditional. Consider this quote from a prominent 20th century cultural Marxist Herbert Marcuse, taken from his essay Repressive Tolerance:

This essay examines the idea of tolerance in our advanced industrial society. The conclusion reached is that the realization of the objective of tolerance would call for intolerance toward prevailing policies, attitudes, opinions, and the extension of tolerance to policies, attitudes, and opinions which are outlawed or suppressed. In other words, today tolerance appears again as what it was in its origins, at the beginning of the modern period–a partisan goal, a subversive liberating notion and practice. Conversely, what is proclaimed and practiced as tolerance today, is in many of its most effective manifestations serving the cause of oppression.

There are two important things to note. First is the admission that ‘tolerance’ really means ‘acceptance of all viewpoints apart from the ones we disagree with.’ The second is the logical reality of Marcuse’s view means that tolerance is an ever fluid concept. At the time he wrote this, in 1965, for example, homosexuality was very much an attitude which was suppressed. According to Marcuse, ‘tolerance’ in this instance means to be intolerant of anti-homosexuality.

Applied to 2016, you can substitute transgenderism for homosexuality. The issue is that as time goes on, any and all things which were looked down upon for any reason become subject to a Marcusian appeal to ‘tolerance.’ Taken to its logical extension, it means that human standards for decency are always negotiable in accordance to this tolerance doctrine.

The verbal inflation that Sowell describes is a tool used to prop up the social justice complex in the same manner as monetary inflation is used to prop up the price level. In both instances, the props are needed because the underlying foundations are extremely weak.

For example, in the name of ‘equality’ and ‘tolerance,’ the physical standards required to serve in the armed forces have been decreased in order to allow women to pass the threshold. This means that the armed forces are being filled with objectively less fit, less strong individuals than before. However, to speak out against it is deemed as ‘sexist,’ the word in this case referring to the truism that men and women have different capacities for physical undertaking and thus are not going to be equally suited to performing the same exact tasks.

The effect of the social justice bubble has been to elevate words such as ‘sexism,’ to great heights, to the the point they supersede reality. The violations of racism, sexism, homophobia and others have been crudely redefined in modern discourse to mean ‘disagreeing with anyone apart from straight white, Christian males for any reason.’ Thus, once charged with such a violation, at the very least the conversation is over. You have ‘lost’ the argument. It is in this manner that ‘dissidents’ are silenced, in accordance with the intolerance of their position as espoused by Marcuse.

It creates an environment in which pretty much everything becomes a social justice cause, with every slight an assault on humanity. In other words ‘ordinary vicissitudes’ suddenly become traumatic, as Sowell described. The totality of this can be described as ‘political correctness.’

The cultural Marxist influenced academics at Western universities gave the intellectual green light for the social justice bubble, and the media which megaphones it far and wide facilitates its spread to the public at large, so as to steer it in the right direction, away from traditionalism and towards a more nihilistic world.

During this expansion phase of the bubble, crazy things start becoming the new normal. During the housing bubble it started to be normal to see basically any space with a toilet and a sink going for seven figures merely because of their location in metropolitan areas. This was seen as a good thing because it was evidence of the ‘robustness’ of the market. If everyone wanted these properties such that prices were rising, it must mean that they were truly valuable. Basic supply and demand, they would say, not understanding that the ‘demand’ was artificial in nature.

Similarly, the social justice bubble has yielded similar madness. The sensitivity to ‘microagressions,’ the very existence of ‘trigger warnings,’ the need for ‘safe spaces,’ the looming threat of ‘rape culture,’ the never ending scourge that is ‘cultural appropriation,’ among other things, are the everyday symptoms of the bubble. Social justice defenders say these are good developments, because they show the robustness of the ‘tolerance’ movement in their acquiescence to anyone with a grievance, no matter how small.

Witch hunts for those who dare to disagree with the cultural Marxist line are the order of the day. Indeed, even not voicing your approval loudly enough is sufficient to get you into hot water, as Brett Favre found out last summer.

Seemingly every week there is a new celebrity being put on trial in the court of public opinions for some comment he or she made that might be deemed offensive to some group. At the very least, these trials end in ostracism for the defendant, and often times they result in boycotts, terminations and blacklistings. Look no further than Billy Bush, who got fired from the Today Show for merely laughing at Trump’s crude talk 11 years ago.


The sort of madness that allows for such absurd housing valuations and offensive comments to be worthy of termination is par for the course in a bubble. It also means that the demise of the bubble is baked into the cake. An economic bubble requires a never ending expansion of credit and debt at ever greater amounts. This is impossible for the simple fact that production, and thus incomes do not rise in the sort of exponential manner needed to keep up with the required debt expansions.

At some point, there will be ‘too much debt,’ which will require debt loads to lessen, which in turn reduces the impetus for asset price increases, which in turn threatens the house of cards which was founded on such asset price increases. This is what happened in the Great Financial Crisis of 2008.

In terms of the social justice bubble, the requirement of a never ending expansion of grievances was always going to test otherwise well meaning people who merely wanted to be left alone. That idea, being an anathema to the social justice warrior, has resulted in the insertion of the social justice cause being inserted into all facets of life, from the regulation of Halloween costumes, to concerns over the symbolism of one’s flag, to the politics of public bathrooms. You can’t even watch a ball game without being lectured to about some social justice cause or another.

At some point, when faced with constant charges of racism or sexism, used as an attempt to bully someone out of their ‘offensive’ position, the defendant will finally respond: ‘I don’t care.’

Indeed, this ‘I don’t care’ was a significant part of Donald Trump’s campaign to Make America Great Again. This was highlighted in the first Republican Debate of the Primary season, in the now infamous exchange Trump had with Megyn Kelly.

Kelly opened the debate with a question about several ‘misogynistic’ things Trump had said over the years on social media and elsewhere and asked if that represented the temperament befitting a President. The totality of the situation is illustrative of the social justice bubble in that Kelly, in this instance a proxy for the media generally, was raking a potential President of the United States over the coals for high crimes against social justice, and doing so in front of a record national audience to maximize the level of social ostracism. That it was the first question of a debate to help determine who holds the office of the Presidency further highlights the importance ascribed to social justice by its purveyors.

Trump responded in a playfully dismissive way, and then made the more serious point that the United States no longer had time for political correctness. In doing so he signaled that he was not going to allow the media, the megaphone of the social justice bubble, to bully him as they had done to Republican candidates in the past.

More significantly, he gave the green light to others to finally say ‘I don’t care’ without fear. Trump’s campaign was the bursting of the bubble, yet it wasn’t until late on election night, when Wisconsin flipped from blue to Trump red that the social justice set realized that something had gone horribly wrong.

Up until that point they had surmised that the vast majority of the country held their views on social justice issues, and agreed with their methods of wielding power over the population through constant programming via the news and entertainment media, indoctrination of youth at colleges, and public shaming of dissidents.

This was evident in the way Hillary Clinton campaigned, using the enormous sums raised at six-figure per head dinners in the Hamptons and Hollywood to fund her attack through the use of legacy media. She relied heavily on celebrity endorsements, who used that legacy media platform to blare the message that it was ‘cool’ to vote Clinton because famous people said so.

They didn’t entertain the idea that there were huge swaths of the country, namely the parts beyond the city limits of NYC, San Fancisco and Los Angeles who not only didn’t buy into the social justice bubble, but were actively against it, in part because of the fact that bubble was built disparaging people like them. When you turn on the television and see caricatures of rednecks with funny accents and their ‘Jesus freak’ attitudes being made fun of, you tend to feel that the new social justice order might not be for you. Throw in your small town being decimated by the factory shutting down, and you’re ripe for revolution.

And it came on November 8. That night was to the social justice bubble what the failure of Lehmann Brothers was to the housing bubble. It was the moment when no one could further lie to themselves about the true state of the world. It was an incontrovertible rebuke to the idea that the housing mess was contained to subprime and that the economy was set for a new expansion forthwith. It was an incontrovertible rbuke to the idea that Trump’s rally sizes didn’t matter, that the mainstream polls were fundamentally underestimating the true nature of his support, that demographics meant that Hillary Clinton was an overwhelming favorite to win.


Yet, it wasn’t viewed as such. One of the most curious features of modern bubble thinking is the fact that the inevitable burst of the bubble leads its cheerleaders to deny vehemently that they were fundamentally wrong about the causes of said bubble. Instead, they prefer to believe the mistake was a more tactical error. If only the Federal Reserve hadn’t raised interest rates so fast, or if only XYZ regulation had been put into place, they would say, the financial crisis wouldn’t have happened, or it would have been much less severe.

Furthermore, they go so far as to promote the reconstruction of a new bubble to replace the mess left by the bursting of the old one. This is what happened in late 2008 and early 2009, as a bevy of bailouts, interest rate cuts, money printing, and debt expansion took place in order to prop up an economy savaged by the burst housing bubble. The falling prices symptomatic of the busting of a bubble and a recession/depression had to be actively combated, according to conventional economic thinking, no matter how much money printing and new debt was needed. The fact that prices had collapsed precisely because they were too high in the first place, such that artificially forcing them back to crisis-inducing levels doesn’t make sense, is summarily ignored.

Similarly, the bursting of the social justice bubble, and with it the idea that everything is racist and sexist, has been responded to by merely repeating those charges, but a bit louder than before. This started on CNN during election night, when Van Jones declared that the election was a ‘whitelash.’ Most of the usual suspects in the mainstream echoed this language. Consider the opening few sentences from this Slate article, tiled There’s No Such Thing as a Good Trump Voter:

Donald Trump ran a campaign of racist demagoguery against Muslim Americans, Hispanic immigrants, and black protesters. He indulged the worst instincts of the American psyche and winked to the stream of white nationalists and anti-Semites who backed his bid for the White House. Millions of Americans voted for this campaign, thus elevating white nationalism and white reaction to the Oval Office.

This is nothing more than misguided conjecture, but in the eyes of social justice bubble thinking, this rises to an accurate description of reality. The narrative has gone from ‘Donald Trump is a racist, sexist, homophobic xenophobe,’ to ‘The United States is a racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic country for electing him.’ Instead of reexamining their worldview, the social justice left has chosen to double down.

It is in this context that the post-election protesting, rioting, and assault on the Electoral College is taking place. And more than anything else, it is highlighting the reasons Trump won, and the reasons the social justice bubble was popped.

In protesting, and in some cases inciting violence over what is a legitimate election result, the social justice left has displayed the very fascist tendencies they accused Trump of harboring. The enlisting of psychiatric professionals to assist with Trump related trauma, and the inability for college students to attend class owing to an election result suggests that these people did not have the mental fortitude required of taking charge of a nation. The fact that the legitimate election result has now seen the Electoral College, a pillar of the founding of the country, come under fire, is a microcosm of the overall social justice desire to undermine traditionalism generally.

All of that was shunned by the electorate on election night, and for good reason. Despite this, the post election outrage suggests that the social justice left will not go quietly into the night, and will try to reconstruct the burst bubble anew. At the vanguard of the reconstruction efforts has been the media, just as it was at the vanguard of the construction of the bubble.

It was the media which megaphoned the social justice agenda far and wide, and it is the media which hounds non-adherents to the social justice agenda into submission. With respect to the election, the media airwaves were essentially a nonstop Trump bashing exercise, with the exception of a handful of personalities on Fox News.

To the extent that one feels legitimately traumatized or fearful of a Trump presidency, it is most likely down to the media, which endlessly sensationalized every slightest thing about Donald Trump, and built him up to be a caricature of everything that a social justice warrior would despise. That this ‘monstrosity’ still ended up winning is understandably a shock to that system. The problem is the compromising of that system in the first place, through the false characterizations and ginning up of a false narrative by the media.

If the media hadn’t presented anyone with the temerity to have disagreements with the status quo in politics and the culture as a whole as literally Hitler 2.0, the reactions to a Trump victory would have been far less hysterical.  Furthermore, had the media presented an accurate picture of the electorate, rather than believing that the entire country thought the same way as liberals in NYC and San Francisco did, they would have better prepared its audience for the strong possibility that Trump could win. It didn’t, with most major news outlets believing, even on election day, that a Clinton victory was a 80-90% certainty.

Yet this same media, which now has had its credibility shattered, has pointed to ‘fake news’ as a substantial reason for Trump’s victory.

Looking with horror as the pieces of the burst bubble are strewn across the floor, tactics such as this, and the incessant gaslighting (Trump’s transition team is in shambles! Trump is breaking his promises! Trump might put Neocons in his cabinet!) are blatant attempts to wrestle back control. The simple fact is that ‘citizen journalists’ like Mike Cernovich, Paul Joseph Watson, Vox Day, Stefan Molyneux, Bill Mitchell and others were spot on throughout the course of the election, while the legacy media did nothing but create a false narrative based on faulty polls and faulty political analysis.

In their death rattle, these legacy institutions are using their last shred of credibility to attempt to strip those who were on the right side of the argument of their own credibility. These citizen journalists dominated the internet and social media during the campaign, using their much smaller but much freeer platforms to engage in ‘real talk,’ circumventing the legacy media and its singular, social justice approved messaging. Even President Obama admitted as much, lamenting the fact that narratives are much harder to implement on the masses thanks to the freedom that is the internet.

The key to the success of the alternate messaging was that it was grounded in truth. The social justice bubble was founded on the cultural Marxist idea that anything goes as long as it feels good. Such a principle, if you can call it that, is unsustainable, much like the attempt to expand credit indefinitely is unsustainable. The opposition to the social justice bubble was successful because it was full of truisms that people knew deep down, but were afraid to say publicly. Multiculturalism doesn’t work. Men and women are different. Illegal immigration is bad.

It is why this opposition will not falter now that it has been unleashed. In order to reconstruct the social justice bubble, its proponents will have to be ever more radical, ever more violent and ever more punitive in its efforts, and in so doing will expose even further the intellectual, moral and historical bankruptcy of their position.

To paraphrase Von Mises, there is no way to avoid the collapse of a boom brought about by expanding credit. The only determination is whether that collapse will be voluntary, via a cessation of credit expansion letting the chips fall where they may, or the final collapse of the currency itself as a result of an unending credit expansion.

In terms of the culture war, the US chose to have a voluntary collapse on November 8, by symbolically halting the verbal inflation decimating the culture. From here, it is incumbent that the country and culture moves forward to truly positive heights, such that the results of rejection the social justice bubble are sufficient enough to render those who want to restore that bubble to look unequivocally outrageous.

The American Revolution, 2.0

For those who control the levers of power in Washington, and for the global special interests they partner with, our campaign represents an existential threat. This is not simply another 4-year election. This is a crossroads in the history of our civilization that will determine whether or not We The People reclaim control over our government. – Donald Trump, 13 October 2016


On 21 December 1989, Nicolae Ceausescu, Romania’s Communist leader, addressed the public in a speech intended to restore calm. He promised the workers increased social benefits, including a raise in wages, and declared that the casualties in Timisoara from a few days earlier were the result of foreign agitators who wished to undermine the sovereignty of Romania. He called upon the people to stand and fight against these agitators.

Ceausescu was jeered. The public knew the truth, and Ceausescu and his wife Elena would be executed four days later.

That truth was that the government had ordered the military to fire on civilians engaging in a protest in the city of Timisoara on 17 December. The protest was over an order of eviction for Laszlo Tokes, a Protestant Bishop, for speaking out against the injustices the Romanian government had perpetrated on its people.

Thousands protested, surrounding Tokes’ apartment, engaging in demonstration. This was eventually met with gunfire, from the military on its civilians. This act sparked a nationwide Revolution, which culminated in the overthrow and execution of the Ceausescus.

Though the situation in 2016 United States is much different on the surface, there are many parallels to be drawn with the situation in Romania circa December 1989. Whereas the Romanian people were suffering under the economic failure that is communism, the American people of 2016 are suffering under a similar economic failure that is best described as corporatism. In both cases, an undercurrent of dissent had been created among the masses. In Romania, it ended up becoming a wave which overwhelmed the elites. It remains to see what happens in the United States.

If nothing else, the Trump campaign should have alerted even the most dim witted among us to the fact that there is a global establishment/elite, and they exist solely to keep themselves enriched and in power. This establishment,despite the existence of conservatives, has only succeeded in driving the country Leftward. Previously, this view was the province of ‘wingnuts,’ purveyors of ‘conspiracy theories,’ and increasingly, anyone who leans right.

Consider the following from Angelo Codevilla, in his piece After the Revolution:

In today’s America, a network of executive, judicial, bureaucratic, and social kinship channels bypasses the sovereignty of citizens. Our imperial regime, already in force, works on a simple principle: the president and the cronies who populate these channels may do whatever they like so long as the bureaucracy obeys and one third plus one of the Senate protects him from impeachment. If you are on the right side of that network, you can make up the rules as you go along, ignore or violate any number of laws, obfuscate or commit perjury about what you are doing (in the unlikely case they put you under oath), and be certain of your peers’ support. These cronies’ shared social and intellectual identity stems from the uniform education they have received in the universities. Because disdain for ordinary Americans is this ruling class’s chief feature, its members can be equally certain that all will join in celebrating each, and in demonizing their respective opponents.

This is why Obamacare was jammed through Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court despite being unconstitutional, this is why Paul Ryan passed Omnibus, why the DNC rigged the Democratic Primary against Bernie Sanders.

This is why, the day after Americans celebrated the 240th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, the FBI declared Hillary Clinton had basically committed a crime, but didn’t really, and thus wasn’t going to press charges. Beyond this, the mere optics of the situation say quite a bit. If chargers were to be pressed, the FBI would have had to put President Obama on the stand, who then would have had to either tell the truth, condemning Clinton and thus handing the presidency to Trump, or perjuring himself and risking all that came with that.

To avoid that catch-22, the FBI did its best to botch the case, handing out immunity to anyone with a pulse, and even allowing key evidence to be destroyed. Their goal was to make the whole case go away, cementing the idea that the elites exist to protect the elites.

This explains why Clinton, two months later, called half of Trump supporters ‘deplorables’ and ‘irredeemable,’ essentially excommunicating them from America. The mainstream media, the mouthpiece of the establishment, enthusiastically agreed with Clinton, like it agrees with and defends the establishment position generally.

The Leftward March

Despite the fact that ‘communism’ is still a dirty word in America, its elites have not shied away from borrowing the tactic of suppressing dissent, dissent against the Leftward March in particular. Codevilla provides insight as to some of the changes that march has inflicted on America over the last five decades or so:

Fifty years ago, prayer in the schools was near universal, but no one was punished for not praying. Nowadays, countless people are arrested or fired for praying on school property. West Point’s commanding general reprimanded the football coach for his team’s thanksgiving prayer. Fifty years ago, bringing sexually explicit stuff into schools was treated as a crime, as was “procuring abortion.” Nowadays, schools contract with Planned Parenthood to teach sex, and will not tell parents when they take girls to PP facilities for abortions. Back then, many schools worked with the National Rifle Association to teach gun handling and marksmanship. Now students are arrested and expelled merely for pointing their finger and saying “bang.” In those benighted times, boys who ventured into the girls’ bathroom were expelled as perverts. Now, girls are suspended for objecting to boys coming into the girls’ room under pretense of transgenderism. The mainstreaming of pornography, the invention of abortion as the most inalienable of human rights and, most recently, the designation of opposition to homosexual marriage as a culpable psychosis—none of which is dictated by law enacted by elected officials—is enforced as if it had been.

Let’s step back for a moment. One of the defining characteristics of this multi decade Leftward March has been the replacement of Christianity with a sort of secular atheism. This secular atheism is a religion in its own right; the Father, Son and Holy Spirit have been replaced by Equality, Fairness and Diversity. The seven deadly sins of this new religion are sexism, racism, Islamophobia, homophobia, nationalism, Anti-Semitism and Judgmentalism.

As I’ve written before, these new deadly sins are the vector through which societal control is meted out by the elites. Furthermore, the thresholds for committing one of these sins are continually lowered such that the only narrow band of thought and behavior which is acceptable is complete acquiescence to the most cutting edge of Progressive views at the time.

In 2016, the Current Year, the proles who enthusiastically support the modern tenets of leftism – such as transgender acceptance – are on the Right Side of History and can feel comfort in the fact that they are Good People.

The problem arises in the future. As Codevilla describes, things that were once unthinkable or taboo can commonplace and normal in a short period of time, and one was bandied as a bigot if one did not fully accept those changes. In the same way, a Goodperson in the Current Year 2016 may find himself or herself faced with a new test for Goodpersonhood in a future Current Year – namely the complete acceptance of things such as incest, pedophilia, or bestiality, for example.

Balking at such a test, and refusing to accept those things as normal may brand one a Bad Person, worthy of the same social ostracism one was eager to foist upon someone who wanted to stop illegal immigration in 2016. This is the ultimate flaw with leftism, in all of its guises – it’s a never ending race to the bottom which runs counter to human nature. As a result, any and all manner of Stasies, dictatorial iron fists or Twitter Trust and Safety Councils are needed to perpetually shield the March against gripping reality.

Ultimately, reality and truth win out, and the hope is it happens before there is some sort of terminal crisis. Trump’s candidacy, and concomitant movement is in may ways is that Enough is Enough moment. An email from Bill Ivey, former Clinton official, to John Podesta, Clinton campaign chair, part of the Podesta Email dump released by Wikileaks, suggests that the elites understand what is happening. Part of it reads:

 …And as I’ve mentioned, we’ve all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry.


The unawareness remains strong but compliance is obviously fading rapidly. This problem demands some serious, serious thinking – and not just poll driven, demographically-inspired messaging.

‘Poll driven, demographically-inspiring messaging.’ Aka playing on the seven deadly sins, which mostly involve demographics. With these two paragraphs, the entire leftist modus operandi is laid: Divide people up based on their individual characteristics, and then deliver targeted messaging based on each characteristic in order to stir emotion. Once that emotion is stirred, it can be directed towards the end of voting for leftists.

Hence the constant barrage of ‘Trump is racist, Trump is sexist, and so forth.’ This email, written in March, reveals that even then Democrats had been concerned that their standard messaging wasn’t working, as evidenced by an admitted rapid fading of compliance. Ivey recommends ‘serious thinking’ about how to restore such compliance.

All Out War

It is not a stretch to imagine that the smear campaign waged against Trump over the last week constitutes a the sort of escalation in tactics required given the failure of run of the mill ‘demographically-inspiring messaging.’

Rationally speaking, the Billy Bush tape simply displays an alpha male engaging in crude, vulgar sex talk, which while disturbing to some, is a rather accurate commentary on sexual relations. Anyone who tries to intimate that high status men do not have ‘leeway’ with women that does not apply to ‘regular’ men is at best a liar.

The women involved in the latest sexual harassment charges against Trump highlight a different, more pernicious issue. At the second debate, during discussion of the Billy Bush tape, Anderson Cooper asked Trump multiple times if he had ever sexually assaulted a woman in the way that was described on the tape. Never mind the fact that on that tape, Trump declared that women LET him touch them, owing to his star status.

Cooper asked Trump multiple times in succession, as if to warn Trump that he better be careful how he answered. That exchange was the green light for the parade of sexual assault accusers that followed. That this sort of thing was so predictable immediately raised questions. Beyond that, a few of the accusers have had holes poked in their stories since the start. It appears that at least one of them might be a Clinton plant.

Summer Zervos, the woman who nearly broke down in tears while reading her account of an alleged assault has had her account rebutted by her cousin, who claims she spoke highly of Trump until April of this year:

“I am completely shocked and bewildered by my cousin, Summer Zervos, and her press conference today. Ever since she was on The Apprentice she has had nothing but glowing things to say about Mr. Trump. For almost a decade, my cousin would talk about how much she looked up to Mr. Trump and viewed him as an inspiration – a success story she wanted to copy. Summer would also talk about how kind and caring Mr. Trump was on the show, and how he would even visit children in hospitals without telling the press. She has praised the good things he’s done for her life, and in fact she converted her friends and our family to become Trump supporters even though we’ve never been active in politics before.


“That was until Summer invited Mr. Trump to her restaurant during the primary and he said no. I think Summer wishes she could still be on reality TV, and in an effort to get that back she’s saying all of these negative things about Mr. Trump. That’s not how she talked about him before. I can only imagine that Summer’s actions today are nothing more than an attempt to regain the spotlight at Mr. Trump’s expense, and I don’t think it reflects well.” – John Barry, Mission Viejo, CA (first cousin of Summer Zervos)

That should make for an odd Thanksgiving gathering for sure.

Jokes aside, these allegations beg the question: How is it that a man who has been at the center of media attention for 40 years, a time during which countless women were in his orbit, having had no charges of sexual assault during that time, is now all of a sudden is bombarded with a torrent of charges of sexual abuse by an Establishment which is mere weeks from possibly losing the Presidency to that same man who has an agenda destructive to that same Establishment?

Given such a question violates multiple deadly sins, do not expect it to ever be posed, let alone answered, by anyone other than Dissidents of the Leftist March.

Indeed, those on the right, the GOP establishment types in particular, were lightning quick in not only denouncing Trump’s comments on the Bush Tape, but outright withdrawing their support for his candidacy. In doing so, they highlighted what most people already suspected, which was that they never really supported Trump, and were looking for any excuse to jump off the train.

There were even internet rumblings that the source of the Bush tape was an operative from the Romney/Paul Ryan camp, which is unconfirmed at the time of this writing, but plausible given the rapidity and coordinators of the disavowals from GOP establishment Republicans.

This facet of the saga is particularly interesting, given the timidity shown by  GOPe Republicans such as Paul Ryan in standing up to anything Obama and the Democrats have attempted to do. The acceptance of the farce that is condensing  an entire budget into a single bill, which therefore just has to be passed so as not to avoid the ‘disgrace’ of shutting down the government. Meanwhile the budget is usually chock full of goodies handed out to special interests. GOPe and Democrat voices are the first to trot out the old lines about children and the sick elderly suffering because of political grandstanding. In actuality, they are preying on normal human compassion to force through handouts to their friends. It is the singular establishment mindset at work.

Even if Trump were to win, Ryan would be one of Trump’s biggest enemies in Congress. This is because Trump’s nationalist agenda is in direct contrast with Ryan’s corporate donors, who have installed him to push through legislation such as TPP, among other things. On a personal level, there is the observation that Trump, a political neophyte, came into the GOP and immediately shot to the top of the food chain. Ryan, on the other hand, has paid his dues for nearly two decades, climbing up the Party ladder. In a GOP which is all about order, and the ‘next guy in line,’ Ryan had placed himself in pole position in terms of a GOP nominee for 2020.

In the high likelihood he does harbor Presidential ambitions, Ryan would have every reason to combat Trump, and more broadly Trumpism, given Trump’s election would render his political career a huge waste of time. In other words, the ascendancy of Trumpism would simultaneously bring about the death of GOP RINOism. This fight is a fight for survival, and as such it is bound to be very dirty and very intense.

As mentioned earlier, it is not confirmed that GOPe players were behind the leak, but the fact that Billy Bush is the cousin of one Jeb Bush has done little to quell that speculation. Even if there was nothing nefarious, the sharp and swift abandonment of Trump by prominent Republicans, as well as the wall to wall coverage given to every Trump controversy by the media, and culminating with this train of sexual assault accusers, has ended up possibly, almost incredibly, having the effect of turning Trump into a victim. Trump seems to be latching on to this point in his latest speeches, in particular the speech he gave yesterday afternoon in Palm Beach:

The establishment and their media enablers wield control over this nation through means which are very well known. Anyone who challenges their control is deemed a sexist, a racist, a xenophobe, and morally deformed. They will attack you, they will slander you, they will seek to destroy you career and your family. They will seek to destroy everything about you, including your representation.

Trump has been transformed from the Big Bad Racist Wolf to Laszlo Tokes, a dissident who saw the guns of the government turned on him for merely saying out loud what most people had already known to be true. With each attack, each slander, each new accuser who comes out of the woodwork at the most convenient of times, the idea that the elites are trying to screw over Donald Trump, the representative of The People, grows stronger.

Overplaying Their Hand

Much like the thousands who formed a ring around Laszlo Tokes’ apartment in 1989, many are doing the same for Donald Trump. It started last weekend with Paul Ryan getting heckled by his own constituents in Wisconsin, and continued that afternoon when an impromptu rally took place outside Trump Tower. When Trump came down to greet the throng of supporters, there was momentary pandemonium on the streets. It has continued all week on social media and message boards, which have become the true vanguard of the culture war underpinning this election.

And yet, the establishment, the media in particular, does not understand any of this. Throughout the multi decade Leftist March, all that was required of the press to take down a Republican was a middling scandal. An affair with a staffer, some dodgy tax returns, a questionable comment about minorities or the poor, you get the idea. These sort of things were then megaphoned into the public conscience until the offender got on his knees, groveled and begged for forgiveness. The moment that happened, the game was up, for the penalty for committing a deadly sin in politics is the death of one’s campaign.

Donald Trump has endured literally dozens of these sort of ‘controversies,’ big and small, without folding. It is not only a testament to his fortitude, but a stunning rebuke to the argument put forth by some conservative commentators that literally any other GOP candidate would have beaten Hillary Clinton. A ‘normal’ GOP candidate would have also been susceptible to ‘normal’ campaign ending takedowns from the establishment media. It’s that simple.

Having had dozens of their attacks fail over the course of the campaign, the establishment media has responded by going even harder than before. Indeed, the authors who introduced the most recent sexual assault accusers in the New York Times earlier this week, Megan Twohey and Michael Barbaro, were the same authors who wrote a piece in May which attempted to portray Trump as a serial abuser of women in the work place and his private life. Less than two days after that story dropped, the principal subject of the story was on TV refuting those implications and said that Trump treated her like a gentleman during the time they dated.

If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.

Except, at this late stage in the game, the increasing intensity and fervor of these accusations, which seem to increase by the hour, starts to feel more and more like desperation. It starts to feel like the lady doth protest too much. It starts to feel like the boy who cried wolf. Especially when it comes from the media, which has overwhelmingly lost the trust of the public, owing to its lies and obfuscations. Furthermore they’ve shown an unwavering commitment to pushing the same Political Correctness line at the exact time that is falling out of favor with more and more people. It is all done to secure the continuation of the Leftward March, but its casualties are exactly the victims this march purports to save.

To wit, in (possibly) drumming up charges of sexual assault against Trump for political gain, they have potentially done great damage to real sexual assault victims by trivializing the charge. This is in the same vein other ‘deadly sins’ such as racism and homophobia have now been rendered worthless by the ever expanding actions which now can be covered by those terms.

As a result, the media will be fundamentally altered, for the worse. A Trump victory means the death of legacy media. A Clinton victory means they go on as loyal Clinton/establishment servants for a time, but the last shred of legitimacy it had in the eyes of the people will be lost. More ominously, the media will have completed its transformation from mere dishonest advocates, to outright enemy combatants in the coming conflict.

On this conflict: it is only a matter of time before the public turns against the Leftward March and rises up to defeat it, as the Romanian people did to the communists in 1989. The most obvious event that will usher this home in America is the election of Donald Trump. If Trump does not win, the situation will be a bit murkier.

There is a school of thought that a Clinton presidency will be compromised, owing to the fact that it was so hotly contested. The ongoing Wikileaks saga and the obvious fact that she was allowed a free pass by the FBI  would render her a very weak president in the eyes of many.

I disagree with this view. I believe that Clinton does not care how she attains power, as long as she gets it. She will note the fact that the country was ‘so close’ to succumbing to fascism as a pretense for implementing fascist tactics herself, under the guise of ‘anti-fascism.’ We’re talking executive orders out the wazoo, major restrictions on the second amendment, and explicit declarations of ‘seven sins’ violations as criminal. In other words, the Leftward March will proceed at warp speed, having been motivated by the near death experience that was Donald Trump.

Given the fact that at least half the country already protests the massive, fundamental transformation of America, an acceleration of it has potentially explosive implications, up to and including war. Unfortunately, that is the only resolution when differences that are this stark exist among the populace.

The most likely scenario is that the massive war the establishment is wishing to ignite with Russia comes to pass, and the country is instantly ‘united’ in that manner. It is my view that an escalation with Russia is almost a certainty should Hillary Clinton win. Her record is no different to your run of the mill neocon who worships the military-industrial complex. She, like them, supported all American adventures in the Middle East, and supports American actions in the proxy war with Russia in Syria. She, like them, is quick to label Putin as the new Hitler (during the 5 minutes a day that comparison isn’t being made about Trump).

Trump, on the other hand has dared to put forth the idea that diplomacy with Russia is possible, and that the two nations could even be allies. The Russians agree, saying that a vote for Hillary is essentially a vote of nuclear war.


None of this matters however, because Donald Trump once talked about what women would LET (let, as in allow, as in consent to, LET) him do with their private regions.

This is what it has come to, unfortunately. A culture ground down by decades of cultural Marxism has allowed tabloid gossip, salacious drama, feelings and smear campaigns to supersede discussion of substantive issues, like the prospect of nuclear war. And for this we claim to be an enlightened and forward thinking generation.

Unfortunately, because we have declared ourselves so enlightened, we are also above learning anything from the multitudes who walked this earth before us. The Leftist March is all about that idea: that whatever feels good in the present IS good solely because it is in the present. History is to be ignored, which is why leftists always talk about progress as if it is a linear thing. We can’t go ‘back’ to the old way, they constantly tell us; we must keep moving ‘forward,’ even if that means straight into a buzz saw.

It is not a stretch to say that the modern slavish devotion to the Leftward March, ostensibly in the name of a constructive inclusiveness, may ultimately usher in the use of perhaps the most destructive force ever known to man, nuclear weaponry. Future historians will look back with amazement at how stupid we were to allow things to get to this point in the first place.

But for now, YOLO.


‘America Deserves Better’

After the debate last night, one of the more common refrains was that America deserves better, America can do so much better, or the American People were the losers of this debate, and similar sentiments.

The simple answer is this: No, America does not deserve better.

Andrew Breitbart once said that politics is downstream from culture, so if one is wondering why our politics are in the gutter, the first place to look is upstream at the culture.

And what you’ll find there is a culture which has been in decline for decades now.

Earlier this morning, the Wall Street Journal had this piece about the debate in which the following was written in response to the outrage over the Trump Tapes last Friday:

Our email inbox is filled with Republicans saying this is a double standard because while Mr. Trump may talk like a lout, Bill Clinton acts like one and Hillary Clinton enables him. Oh, and Democrats still revere JFK, who was a sexual predator in the White House.


This is all true, and it is a bit much to see the same liberals who said Mr. Clinton’s actual exploitation of an intern was merely about sex, or who called Paula Jones trailer trash, now wax indignant about Mr. Trump’s bragging. The same moralists who celebrate misogyny in pop music and a sex-crazed culture are also conveniently outraged by a man who was marinated in that culture before he entered politics.

This is spot on. We have a culture which celebrates autotuned, dumbed down music as fine art, has no qualms with the ubiquity of pornography, and eschews personal responsibility, whether that be in the realm of our diets, our commitments to marriage vows, or any hardship which may befall us. We’ve gone from scoring a touchdown and handing the ball to the ref and high-fiving our teammates, to grown men twerking in the endzone.

I don’t say this to make judgements, as I’m far from perfect in any of these matters. I only say this to highlight the fact that a culture with an eroding morality, while at the same time allowing everyone with a pulse to participate in the political process, is going to end up with nothing more than mudfights.

If everyone is granted the same rights to vote, the only way to win over a majority is going to be through an appeal to emotion, going down to a base level which all of us can relate to regardless of our individual variations in intellect and education.

This is something many have failed to understand, particularly when analyzing Donald Trump. Based on your competitive college debate rules, Trump probably hasn’t won any of the debates he has participated in throughout this election cycle.

Actually, let me rephrase that.

Based on pre-cultural decline competitive college debate rules, Trump hasn’t won any of the debates he’s been in.

That isn’t because he doesn’t possess the intellectual rigor to debate on that level. It’s because he possesses the intellectual rigor to understand that the current electorate, with its almost negligible attention span, has no time for nuanced policy discussions.

Barack Obama didn’t win his candidacy in 2008 because he flawlessly opined about the intricacies of Wall Street regulation and cap and trade. He won because he kept saying ‘Hope and Change,’ and this tapped into an emotional vein commonly felt among millions of people. That was what carried him to the presidency.

The chattering classes understood this to a large degree back then (recall Chris Matthews tingling leg), but this time around they want to judge Trump on a highly technical policy wonk basis.

The rise of the ‘fact checker,’ more aptly described as pedantic geeks with little grasp of normal human expressions, such as sarcasm and facetiousness, is emblematic of the punditry missing the mark.

Nobody gives a shit if Trump ‘lied’ by saying that Clinton ‘acid washed’ her server, when she actually used ‘BleachBit.’ The point is that she tried to destroy evidence of wrongdoing, which itself constitutes wrongdoing. The ‘fact checker’s’ subsequent attempt to declare the entire argument invalid on such technicalities would be laughable, but for the fact these positions are elevated to legitimacy by a media pushing an agenda.

That Trump relentlessly blows through these sort of ‘fact checks’ is to them evidence of the absence of intellect in the Trump campaign as a whole. The reality is that Trump understands that disseminating truths and half truths with a dose of emotion embedded is far more effective.

If we’re going to have a culture which embodies the Marcuseian dictum of ‘whatever feels good is good,’ we shouldn’t be surprised that our politicians have evolved to be world class liars who specialize in lying to the public, ensuring their stranglehold on power by playing to that feelgood element.

Any politician who is honest, and was prepared to be principled on things such as the unsustainability of entitlements, wouldn’t last long in the politics game. So those lamenting the reality show nature of this election, I’d submit this: If you really want a Lincoln-Douglas level of debates, you need a Lincoln-Douglas electorate, with a Lincoln-Douglas grasp of the English language, and a moral and intellectual pedigree befitting that level.

Until you get there, stop moaning, and stop promoting cultural changes which advance the dumbing down of society.




Reality Doesn’t Care About Feelings, Vol. 5 – P***y Riot

Yesterday we got a couple leaks, one concerning Donald Trump, and the other concerning Hillary Clinton. Both links confirmed we already knew about each candidate, but I’ll go through them in turn.

First, Wikileaks dumped a pile of emails from John Podesta on us. Podesta is a Clinton operative, currently as the Chair of Hillary’s campaign, and in the past as Chief of Staff to President Bill Clinton. The biggest concentration of dirt is contained in the emails which compile excerpts from paid speeches Hillary Clinton gave to donors, big business interests and others (see here and here), for which she got paid tens of millions in speaking fees. Some of the more choice quotes are as follows:

Clinton explicitly says it is important to be two faced as a politician to better deal with the competing interest of the public and insiders:

CLINTON: You just have to sort of figure out how to — getting back to that word, “balance” — how to balance the public and the private efforts that are necessary to be successful, politically, and that’s not just a comment about today. That, I think, has probably been true for all of our history, and if you saw the Spielberg movie, Lincoln, and how he was maneuvering and working to get the 13th Amendment passed, and he called one of my favorite predecessors, Secretary Seward, who had been the governor and senator from New York, ran against Lincoln for president, and he told Seward, I need your help to get this done. And Seward called some of his lobbyist friends who knew how to make a deal, and they just kept going at it. I mean, politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody’s watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position. [Clinton Speech For National Multi-Housing Council, 4/24/13]

Clinton, speaking to Goldman Sachs, opines about how the blame for the financial crisis could have been handled better, from a political point of view:

“That was one of the reasons that I started traveling in February of ’09, so people could, you know, literally yell at me for the United States and our banking system causing this everywhere.  Now, that’s an oversimplification we know, but it was the conventional wisdom. And I think that there’s a lot that could have been avoided in terms of both misunderstanding and really politicizing what happened with greater transparency, with greater openness on all sides, you know, what happened, how did it happen, how do we prevent it from happening?  You guys help us figure it out and let’s make sure that we do it right this time. And I think that everybody was desperately trying to fend off the worst effects institutionally, governmentally, and there just wasn’t that opportunity to try to sort this out, and that came later.” [Goldman Sachs AIMS Alternative Investments Symposium, 10/24/13]

Clinton admits that the passage of Dodd-Frank was largely a political maneuver, so the politicians could have been seen to be ‘doing something’ outwardly. Inwardly though, different story:

Clinton Said Dodd-Frank Was Something That Needed To Pass “For Political Reasons.”
“And with political people, again, I would say the same thing, you know, there was a lot of complaining about Dodd-Frank, but there was also a need to do something because for political reasons, if you were an elected member of Congress and people in your constituency were losing jobs and shutting businesses and everybody in the press is saying it’s all the fault of Wall Street, you can’t sit idly by and do nothing, but what you do is really important. And I think the jury is still out on that because it was very difficult to sort of sort through it all.” [Goldman Sachs AIMS Alternative Investments Symposium, 10/24/13]
Clinton expressing her very globalist ‘dream’ of a Unihemisphere setup in North America, essentially dissolving the individual identities of America, Mexico and Canada:
Hillary Clinton Said Her Dream Is A Hemispheric Common Market, With Open Trade And Open Markets. “My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.”  [05162013 Remarks to Banco Itau.doc, p. 28]
In terms of foreign affairs, in particular the goings on in the Middle East, sounds Trumpian in discussing refugees:

“So I think you’re right to have gone to the places that you visited because there’s a discussion going on now across the region to try to see where there might be common ground to deal with the threat posed by extremism and particularly with Syria which has everyone quite worried, Jordan because it’s on their border and they have hundreds of thousands of refugees and they can’t possibly vet all those refugees so they don’t know if, you know, jihadists are coming in along with legitimate refugees. Turkey for the same reason.”

[Jewish United Fund Of Metropolitan Chicago Vanguard Luncheon, 10/28/13]
Despite knowing this full well, she wants to bring more of these sort of refugees into the country, and decries those who oppose this as bigoted racists.
Clinton admits that Saudi Arabia is the one of the largest purveyors of Radical Islam. These comments are particularly jarring given the fact that believing this, she has no problems referring to them as allies, and taking in their millions to the Clinton Foundation:
“And they are getting a lot of help from the Saudis to the Emiratisto go back to our original discussionbecause the Saudis and the Emiratis see the Muslim Brotherhood as threatening to them, which is kind of ironic since the Saudis have exported more extreme ideology than any other place on earth over the course of the last 30 years.” [2014 Jewish United Fund Advance & Major Gifts Dinner, 10/28/13]
There are other choice email threads, like this one in which it is indicated that HRC would have qualms using an executive order to impose gun control and liability on gun manufacturers. And this one, in which the multitude of problems with the Iran deal are outlined, not least of which being the transfer of ‘billions’ to Iran to ‘enhance its funding for terrorism and its efforts to gain hegemony in the region,’ thereby making it, as per Trump, one of the worst deals ever signed indeed.
As I said earlier, most of this merely confirms a lot of what we already knew about Clinton. She’s a stereotype of a power hungry politician who will sell herself to the highest bidder as long as she is installed in a position of power. The end results of her actions are of little consequence.
The other leak which dropped yesterday, by the Washington Post, was of a video of Donald Trump talking on a hot mic with Billy Bush before an Access Hollywood appearance, all the way back in 2005. This is making waves because in it, Trump is describing an encounter he had with a married woman, in a crude manner. Here is a transcript of what was said:

“I moved on her, and I failed. I’ll admit it,”


“Whoa,” another voice said.


“I did try and f— her. She was married,” Trump says.


Trump continues: “And I moved on her very heavily. In fact, I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture. I said, ‘I’ll show you where they have some nice furniture.’”


“I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn’t get there. And she was married,” Trump says. “Then all of a sudden I see her, she’s now got the big phony tits and everything. She’s totally changed her look.”


At that point in the audio, Trump and Bush appear to notice Arianne Zucker, the actress who is waiting to escort them into the soap-opera set.


“Your girl’s hot as s—, in the purple,” says Bush, who’s now a co-host of NBC’s “Today” show.


“Whoa!” Trump says. “Whoa!”


“I’ve got to use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her,” Trump says. “You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait.”


“And when you’re a star, they let you do it,” Trump says. “You can do anything.”


“Whatever you want,” says another voice, apparently Bush’s.


“Grab them by the pussy,” Trump says. “You can do anything.”

This led to outrage in the media. Various Republicans followed Paul Ryans lead in decrying Trump’s comments as the worst thing to ever have happened to mankind:

Paul Ryan statement

The media giddily suggested that the GOP camp was internally turning on Trump to the point where his withdrawal from the race was imminent. #NeverTrump acolytes celebrated on Twitter and other social media, sensing their finest hour might be upon them.

All because Trump confirmed to the world, in a rather blunt manner that he is indeed a heterosexual man who desires beautiful women.

Trump’s comments were indeed crude. They were not comments one would make in front of female relatives, or perhaps any female at all. They are, however, comments which are similar to those that have been made in that sort of context (amongst the fellas) by 99.9% of all heterosexual men over the age of 15 or so, in all of human history.

The outrage over this is thus disingenuous at the very least, on multiple levels.

For a start, the outrage flame is being fanned by those on the left, women of the feminist bent, and the weak willed men of the GOP establishment persuasion. This coalition outright promotes (in the case of leftists and feminists) or meekly allows(in the case of the GOPe) acceptance of any and all forms sexual deviancy, right up to and potentially including pedophilia. They’ve never heard of an ‘open marriage’ or ‘modern family’ arrangement they didn’t like.

Yet when Donald Trump speaks crudely of pursuing a woman, in a private conversation, all of a sudden these people reach into their trash cans, rummaging through the waste to find their Bibles and crosses, brush off the slime and start waving them around madly. Spare me.

Furthermore, these are the same people who praise female pornography series like 50 Shades of Grey, and made it one of the highest selling books of all time and a commercial success. This is mostly because of, and not in spite of its depictions of Christian Grey as a dominant billionaire who imposes his will on women sexually. These books are rife with intricate descriptions of rough sex and male dominance in the bedroom.

Given what we know about Trump already, and in light of this new release, what is Trump, if not an aged, real life version of Christian Grey? Despite their protestations, some women will take very well to this confirmation that Trump behaves as Grey does. There is evidence they already do, if this smattering of tweets is anything to go by:

trump fantasies

This saga has only shown what we already knew to be true about playboys, beautiful women, and fame. So again, spare me.

The legions of people in the media and politics attempting to position themselves as holier-than-thou paragons of virtue over this is, to use Paul Ryan’s terminology, sickening. In shaming what is essentially normal heterosexual male behavior in which they themselves have likely engaged in at some point in their lives, they are further cementing themselves as nothing more than weak virtue-signallers.

And in that context, the wider scope of the Trump Tape outrage is juxtaposed with the findings in the Podesta emails released by Wikileaks.

We have become a society which has devolved into being obsessed with being on The Right Side of History, with this ‘right side’ defined solely by Cultural Marxists and their ideals. Even supposed ‘conservatives’ strain themselves to adhere to this ‘right side.’

This desire to be seen as a Good Person, in the context of this election, means that one must ignore the fact that Hillary Clinton is perhaps the most corrupt individual ever to seek the Presidency, to ignore the fact that her tenure as Secretary of State was replete with failure, criminal mishandling of state secrets, and unending war in the Middle East. One must ignore the fact that her agenda explicitly seeks to erase the identity of the United States through her antagony toward the Second Amendment, literal erasure of its borders and introduction of immigrants she knows to be potentially dangerous. One must ignore that she is firmly in the camp that wants WW3 with Russia, which indeed is depressingly close, and would be all but confirmed with her election.

We must ignore this all, confirming ourselves as Good People, because Donald Trump made some off color remarks about a beautiful woman he tried to bed 11 years ago. We must ignore it all because Donald Trump may or may not have called a woman ‘Miss Piggy’ nearly 20 years ago. We must ignore it all because Donald Trump took a $900 million loss in 1995 and may have not have had to pay taxes in the years after, because the law says you don’t have to pay taxes on a loss until you make it back all the way.

This, from a ‘modern’ culture which fancies itself to be the most progressive, tolerant, and intelligent people who have ever lived.

One of the reasons I think this is the most important election of our time is the fact that it is essentially a Referendum on Virtue-Signalling, amongst other things. If the United States willingly chooses war, soulless globalism and the eradication of its traditional culture simply because Donald Trump is a bit boorish, we’ll have all the confirmation we need of the abject stupidity of crowds, and their susceptibility to succumbing to the contemptible ‘gotcha!’ and smear politics which has dominated campaigns for decades. This highlights the ultimate failure of pure one citizen, one vote democracies.

Of course, Franklin warned us about keeping the Republic centuries ago, but it’s the Current Year now. Nothing those BadPeople of yesteryear thought or said is of any consequence. Our generation’s current stance in history is that of the proverbial 20 year old kid who knows everything, until he reaches 25 and realizes he doesn’t.

I suppose that means we’ll reach this stage of true enlightenment at some point, just further in the future. It’s just a shame that we’ll have to incur unnecessary damage, hardship and wasted time to get there. (You can strike all of this, maybe, if Trump manages to pull himself out of this).

“You’re Racist” Is Losing It’s Grip as a Control Technique

In my piece on the fall out over Matt Lauer’s performance at an NBC presidential forum earlier this week, I made the point that the outrage is founded on an ever shifting understanding of objectivity as it pertains to the media. Of the outrage, I wrote:

Herein lies the crux of the angst from the media, and those on the left over Lauer. Those parties have all declared Trump to be an uncouth buffoon who says offensive things and thus isn’t fit to be president. That basic assertion is a given, a concrete foundation from which everything else follows.

To this end, Matt Lauer’s greatest sin on Wednesday night was that he didn’t spend the entirety of his 30 minutes with Trump calling him a racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe, Islamophobe, Transphobe, whatever phobe repeatedly. That would have been ‘doing his job.’

I’d like to expand on this a bit further, if I may.

Back in January, the Huffington Post decided that a disclaimer should accompany each and every article it posts which relates to Donald Trump. It reads like this:

Note to our readers: Donald Trump is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, birther and bully who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S.

It serves as a Surgeon General-esque warning to readers: ‘You are consuming content the subject of which is a really bad person. Be careful.’ On the back of that declaration, many mainstream journalists feel no compunction in writing about Trump and his supporters in increasingly disturbing ways.

They’ve declared Trump and his supporters to be deluded, and as such the ‘sane’ leftist has a direct duty to ‘un-delude’ the Trump supporter, as one would do if one had a friend or family member who obviously needed Institutional care. Some have taken the route that Trump and his candidacy represents the extinction of democracy, and thus is a threat to the Republic. More worryingly, others have advocated outright violence at Trump rallies.

The leftists’ recent self described abandonment of objectivity in the face of a supposed existential threat would make perfect sense if there was objectivity in their viewpoint in the first place.

On the surface, there is. The main charges against Trump – racism, sexism, xenophobia, and Islamophobia – are real phenomenon with clear definitions. The issue is that none of them actually apply to Trump, objectively speaking.

The charge of racism is based on Trump’s stance on immigration, in particular his comments on illegal immigrants from Mexico. Regardless of Trump said, the bottom line is that ‘Mexican’ isn’t a race. The charge of sexism is largely based on public comments Trump has made which ultimately amount to the same type of locker room talk men have had with each other in one form or another since the beginning of time. Women have their own version of this sort of crude talk as well. Neither of it is sexist.

Showing affection to one’s own country, wanting to advance its interests while preserving its culture and history is not xenophobic. Wanting to curb immigration from a group of people which have inflicted disproportionate amounts of terror against us does not amount to Islamophobia.

This is all objectively true, yet those on the left are steadfast in their condemnation of Trump as a bigot. Consider this  from former President Bill Clinton from a stump speech earlier this week:

In it, he says of Trump’s Make America Great Again campaign slogan that ‘if you’re a White Southerner, you know exactly what it means…What it means is that I’ll move you back up on the social totem pole, and other people down.’

Never mind that Clinton also used the phrase Make America Great Again during his 1992 presidential run, as is shown in the end of that video.

His stance on illegal immigration, as shown in the following video from the his 1996 State of the Union address, is almost Trumpian:

So why isn’t Bill Clinton, himself a white Southerner, and thus must have known what Make America Great Again ‘really meant’ when he used phrase himself, who took a tough stance on illegal immigration, a racist?

Well in some circles, he is. This is because of his 1994 crime bill which stiffened penalties for drug violations, which had a disproportionate impact on black communities and increased the black incarceration rate as a result. One of the themes of Hillary Clinton’s campaign was how she was going to distance herself from the ‘racism’ of that bill in order to assure the black community that she is on their side.

Bill Clinton is not the only leftist icon which has his legacy re-litigated in our new age of hyper political correctness and social justice. Figures such as FDR and Martin Luther King have been criticized by leftists for racism and homophobia, respectively. The Washington Post has been called for the expunging of Woodrow Wilson, one of the most progressive presidents ever, from official places of honor. This is in light of protests, ongoing at the time of this writing, over the fact that Wilson’s name still adorns one of the departments at Princeton University. The ferocity of some of the reporting suggests they would like to expunge Wilson from history entirely.

This sort of judgement of historical figures by today’s standard of safe spaces, trigger warnings, and microaggressions leads me to believe that no president in history, up to and including the 2008 version of Barack Obama, is electable in 2016. The vast majority of past presidents would have been disqualified for their racism and/or sexism. The rest, including 2008 Barack Obama would be disqualified for not having the ‘right’ stance on gay marriage.

Obama eventually got with the program, and by 2012 he was singing the correct tune. He had to do so in on order to conform to an ever changing, ever ‘progressing’ culture. The modern left is infused with the Marcusian belief that anything goes as long as it feels good, and doubly so if it represents a break with moral traditions of the past. If Hillary Clinton were to win, I have no doubts that in four or eight years, the candidate that stands before us now will look like an extremist bigot compared to the politician she will end up being in order to conform to the future cultural zeitgeist.

These continual shifts in interpretations and after the fact declarations of bigotry ultimately cheapen those terms, especially since the threshold for being a bigot is continually lowered. If wanting strong borders is now bigotry, there are now hundreds of millions, even billions around the world who now can be described as bigots. The term itself is rendered near meaningless as a result.

This sets the stage for Friday, when Hillary Clinton decided to delineate  Trump supporters in the following manner:

You know, just to be grossly generalist, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables.”


“Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people — now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive, hateful, mean-spirited rhetoric.


That other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they’re just desperate for a change. They don’t buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won’t wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they’re in a dead end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.

She said these remarks at a campaign rally, but she made similar remarks in a television interview that aired earlier in the day, suggesting that these remarks were well thought out, an perhaps even focus group approved.

In trying to demonize half of  Trump supporters (a figure in the tens of millions domestically, perhaps hundreds more globally) using terms such as racist, sexist and homophobic, she is trying to levy a serious charge on hundreds of millions. Some outlets have tried to defend Clinton, claiming that because she was disparaging something negative, so it the comments were fine.

As previously discussed, the utter meaningless of those terms owing to their overuse has weakened the charge considerably. To deem Trump supporters racists or sexists is to attempt to attach the stringent punishment for those transgressions, ostracism from society and de-legitimization, to views as simple as having a strong country with strong borders which follows the law.

In other words, you should be silenced if you don’t like illegal immigration, or, you have ever disagreed with, or said something nasty about a woman or a person who is not white. Her remarks then come across as nothing more than a declaration that a whole group of people is unworthy, hence ‘deplorables.’ It is an insult, pure and simple.

Ultimately, this is all those on the left seem to have. The charge of racist/sexist/homophobe was once so grave that it forced society to conform to the leftist dogma in order to avoid those damning labels. In 2016, we’re finally beginning to see the Law of Diminishing Returns reduce that stranglehold. People are no longer scared of those labels, not because they are more emboldened to be bigoted by a person like Trump, but because the terms themselves have less and less meaning when they’re applied to every single transgression, big or small.

In short, when everything is racist, nothing is.

On Phyllis Schlafly

Earlier this week, Phyllis Schafly died, aged 92. She was a conservative icon, and as such there was much outpouring of joy on Twitter and other apparatchiks in the leftist media.

Although I was aware of who she was, I didn’t know the extent to which she was a force for preserving traditionalist views for over half a century. Her most notable achievements came in the gender relations arena, particularly her battles to stop feminists from passing the ERA in the 1970s.

For this, she became the mortal enemy of the feminist, and therefore the eternal friend of civilization itself. Indeed, of feminism, she believed that it was “doomed to failure because it is based on an attempt to repeal and restructure human nature.”

The aspect of human nature which the feminist is interested in is the fact that men and women are different, and thus have different roles to play in families and societies as a whole. Feminism rejects the obvious biological fact that men and women are different and ascribes any differences to ‘social constructs.’ It seeks to reshape the world in its image, to the point that it’s logical extension would lead one to posit that a 5’0” 105 pound woman is equally as capable of saving people from a 10 story burning building as a 6’2” 195 man.

Schalfly stood steadfast against such absurdity for decades, and thus is deserving of respect. There is a bit of a paradox, at least on the surface. In spending her adult life championing traditional views, and exalting the traditional housewife, she was a tireless worker outside the home. She gave speeches all over country, wrote and/or edited dozens of books, learned a law degree, wrote regular columns, and appeared on radio for years.

She also had 6 children, breastfed all of them, and taught them all basic reading and writing before they entered school. In short, she ‘had it all,’ which is what feminists claim their ideology offers women.

Yet the results of 50 years of feminism don’t really bear that out. Women are less happy now than they were during the 1970’s, while men have roughly maintained their level of happiness. Women are marrying later, and the fertility rate in the US is the lowest on record.

A far cry from Schlafly, who actually attained what feminism claimed to offer. Yet, Schlafly is universally met with scorn by feminists.

What squares the apparent paradox is the fact that Schlafly, in embarking on professional pursuits, had no burden, beyond a moral one to uphold traditional views. She had married a wealthy lawyer, so she didn’t need the money from her speaking fees or book sales. She could fully concentrate on her roles as a wife and a mother, while taking the spare opportunities she had to engage in activism, which she called a ‘hobby.’

She would work on her early books after 10pm, when her kids went to bed. She didn’t go to law school until she was in her 50s, at which time her children were all at least in their teens and thus didn’t necessarily need the constant supervision toddlers would have.

She ‘had it all’ precisely because she eschewed the feminist model. She married well, had children, raised them while slowly building up her professional ambitions when she could. Then, in her 50s, after her children had grown, she embarked on her largest and most expansive efforts.

The feminist model preaches to women to do the opposite –  establish a career first, then look for a husband after age 30, then have kids, then juggle them with the expanding career. It doesn’t work, for multiple reasons. Nature, not society, has given women a relatively short window to have children. Waiting until after 30 severely limits that window, and increases the likelihood of complications. Furthermore, having a child right when professional ambitions are escalating is a recipe for disaster. Both the child and the job need one’s full attention, and by definition only one can win it.

It is little wonder that the modern woman, influenced by 40 years of feminism is so unhappy. Perhaps she would be better off to take a little inspiration from Phyllis Schlafly, and much, much less from Betty Friedan.

On #Brexit

At the end of last year, I was struck by the following quote from this article in the FT, which tried to set the table for the coming political year in the West.

Countries such as France, the UK and the US are already multicultural and multifaith societies. Attempting to reverse those social changes is both unrealistic and a recipe for conflict. It is legitimate, however, to insist all citizens subscribe to certain values, to make multicultural societies work.

To me, it was emblematic of the fundamental problem with progressivism in all forms – it is completely focused on maintaining short term comfort above all else, and it has the seeds of its own destruction within its tenets. And here was the FT brazenly putting forth that line of thinking.

This sort of religious adherence to maintaining the Status Quo, regardless of its effectiveness,  is often justified by an appeal to one’s aversion to the unknown. The biggest banks and corporations, for example, simply had to be bailed out by taxpayers and central banks in the aftermath of the Financial Crisis, because the alternative would have been unknown, and therefore worse. Thus, the system and all its machinations, which had brought about the one of the worst panics in the history of the modern economy, had to be maintained at all costs.


23rd June 2016 has the potential to go down in history as a date in which those costs finally proved to be too much for the average citizen to bear. In voting to leave the European Union, Britons sent a message to the globalist elites – We’ve Had Enough.

The nature of the EU itself made it a foregone conclusion that a portion of its membership would eventually reach the conclusion the Brits did. The EU, in short, is a soft fascist dictatorship. Before I get accused of hyperbole, here is the dictionary definition of fascism:

A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

While there is no singular face of EU dictatorship in the vein of a Hitler or Mussolini, the collection of ‘Eurocrats’ in Brussels, all with their unwavering promotion of ‘The European Dream,’ does suffice. Indeed, even the most ardent proponent of the EU admits, through gritted teeth, the existence of the euphemistic term ‘democratic deficit.’

The endless regulations emanating from Brussels satisfies that condition of fascism relating to government control of the capitalist setup. In terms of suppressing the opposition, the means the EU favors is a combination of outright ignoring certain democratic decisions made by voters, and a perverse level of political correctness which shames people into submission. To date, the EU doesn’t point guns at its subjects per se; rather it points the threat of being labeled racist, xenophobic, or Islamophobic.


Consider the fact that the St. Georges cross is increasingly being redefined as a racist symbol of hate, such that English people who proudly display their national flag are deemed racist by extension. The aim is to suppress pride in English culture and heritage, so as to replace it with the amalgamation of ‘European.’ As such belligerent nationalism is merely replaced by belligerent pan-Europeanism.

Even of one still refuses to agree with my assessment, one cannot deny that the EU at the very least saddles its citizens with yet another layer of bureaucracy which must be waded through. It’s of little surprise that, with stagnating growth and a slow and steady decline in industry over the past four decades, Britons decided to have a rethink as to the virtues of EU diktat, and the ‘open market.’

Then, of course there is immigration. David Frum, writing in the Atlantic, had this to say about the immigration issue as it pertained to the UK.

The force that turned Britain away from the European Union was the greatest mass migration since perhaps the Anglo-Saxon invasion. 630,000 foreign nationals settled in Britain in the single year 2015. Britain’s population has grown from 57 million in 1990 to 65 million in 2015, despite a native birth rate that’s now below replacement. On Britain’s present course, the population would top 70 million within another decade, half of that growth immigration-driven.


British population growth is not generally perceived to benefit British-born people. Migration stresses schools, hospitals, and above all, housing. The median house price in London already amounts to 12 times the median local salary. Rich migrants outbid British buyers for the best properties; poor migrants are willing to crowd more densely into a dwelling than British-born people are accustomed to tolerating.


Is it possible that leaders and elites had it all wrong? If they’re to save the open global economy, maybe they need to protect their populations better against globalization’s most unwelcome consequences—of which mass migration is the very least welcome of them all?


If any one person drove the United Kingdom out of the European Union, it was Angela Merkel, and her impulsive solo decision in the summer of 2015 to throw open Germany—and then all Europe—to 1.1 million Middle Eastern and North African migrants, with uncountable millions more to come.


David Brooks, another mainstream writer, voiced similar concerns during an appearance on PBS Newshour following the vote. In it, he expressed sadness at the result of the referendum, but his real regret seemed to be that the elites merely pushed too hard in their actions. In other words, they had essentially dumped too many immigrants too soon on populations like the British.

This sort of mass migration set about a culture clash which had been bubbling under the surface for years, but is rapidly coming to the fore. The mainstream progressive narrative of the joyous nature of multiculturalism is becoming exposed as less than truthful on almost a daily basis. In the quote I opened this piece with, the FT insisted that because multiculturalism was already here, it must persist, albeit with a base level of values everyone must adhere to.

This sort of thinking goes out the window when you have to start handing out pamphlets to which explicitly detail that things like hitting women and children, fondling or groping women, and urinating in swimming pools, among other things, are frowned upon.

This is further exacerbated by the existence of a generous benefits system. The truth, which is becoming more apparent by the day, is that open borders and generous welfare states cannot coexist. One must pick one or the other. A failure to do so will lead to a situation in which new entrants to the country don’t even have to learn the language in order to be taken care of. And from there, the host culture is on the path to a slow, but sure destruction.


These realities made the EU an unworkable construct, and the Leave vote an inevitable one. Given the Remain coalition was made up of the vast majority of government officials, in the UK across Europe, and worldwide; academia, mainstream media, and multinational business interests, it is clear that the referendum was also in part a referendum on the viability of the elites and their globalist agenda.

In rejecting the bid to stay in the EU, the voters made their thoughts clear. In response, so did the elites, as it were. The night of the referendum, I watched the BBC broadcast of the results trickling in. As the Leave vote looked more and more certain, the mood of the panelists and the hosts continued to sour. The grave mood was befitting the death of an important head of state, or an act of terror, rather than a democratic vote to determine the level of self-determination the country would have going forward.

In the days following the referendum, the media have played up the ‘buyer’s remorse’ angle, using the movements in global financial markets to buttress their arguments. All of a sudden, the fact that the Leave campaigners may have exaggerated some of their claims is evidence of callous treachery, despite the fact that politicians have never been strangers to such discrepancies between rhetoric and action. In most cases, however, the discrepancies favor the dominant narrative, and as such are swept aside.

More cynically, they have attempted to paint a picture of the average Leave voter being an uneducated white racist from a rural part of the country, while prominently featuring anecdotes of anti-immigration abuse both on and offline.

That these sorts of tactics have been generally well received, and even amplified on social media reinforces the fact that the progressive, globalist view of the world is still the most dominant, if not the most loudly proclaimed. On Twitter, sentiments such as the following were put forth as the new reality for the future of Britain in the context of Europe as a whole.


This picture, posted on twitter, was supposed to represent the ‘cost’ of Leave, in that the fine wines, pastries, fruit and waffles of the continent were to be lost, with only the drabness of baked beans left for the British to enjoy.

A shockingly high number of people don’t see the inanity of that attempt to crystallize the Brexit consequences. It isn’t as though the UK is going to start floating off into the Atlantic Ocean, away from the continent. The goods and services the continent does well are still going to be accessible in the UK, and vice versa.

More importantly, those delicacies are only made possible thanks to the differentiation in cultures that exist. In prioritizing this push to a ‘European’ culture, you lose Italian Culture, French Culture, German Culture, Spanish Culture, and so forth. The attributes unique to each culture and group of people which are responsible for the products known and loved the world over are lost in the transition to an amorphous blob of dedifferentiation that is pan-Europeanism.

For those who purport to champion the superiority of diversity, it is strange that they can’t seem to understand that such diversity is only possible if, at some level, peoples are permitted to do things their own way. In this regard, the negative stigma applied to nationalism is unwarranted.


One of the more curious aspects of the vote and the subsequent fallout is the complete lack of foresight shown by those in the media, financial and political class. It was all but assumed that the Remain vote would win the day, and as such the stock markets around the globe moved higher in celebration.

A huge part of the reason for the optimism came from the fact that the most recent polling had shown a clean victory for the Remain side. That actual voting resulted in a firm victory for the Leave side pointed to the fact that there was a significant ‘hidden’ Leave contingent.

The explanation for this is that the Remain position was touted as the view which ‘respectable’ and ‘tolerant’ members of society held. Thus, it is natural that anyone who dared to see some logical points in the Leave argument would want to keep it to themselves so as to not subject themselves to the emotional shaming tactics which are part and parcel of the progressive/globalist toolkit of debate.

In other words, normal, hardworking, respectful people who are not by any means racist or xenophobic were kept silent in public simply because they dared to disagree with the Remain argument. In the privacy of the ballot box, where the threat of ostracism was voided, they were able to make their voices known. This dynamic is the antithesis of a free society.


As such, the result of this referendum is only the beginning, or as per Churchill, the end of the beginning. Fascist dictatorships just hand their power away once it has been attained. Ideologies which depend on bullying those for the crime of disagreeing don’t admit defeat when outclassed in logical debates. It is vitally important that Leave voters make the result stuck by establishing a government that will follow through on the referendum’s aim.

David Cameron has volunteered to step down as Prime Minister; he must be replaced with a PM who was an ardent Leave campaigner and has no qualms about going the full distance. Half measures will only make things worse.

As I mentioned earlier, the subsequent financial tumult is being used as evidence that a mistake was made. S&P, a ratings agency which should have no credibility owing to their shenanigans leading up to the last Financial Crisis, has cut the credit rating of the UK. Any further fall in markets, or slowdown in the economy will be blamed on Brexit. As will any future terrorist attack which takes place anywhere in Europe.

These claims would be unwarranted. For a start, the global markets have been on a knife edge for nearly two years, making minimal gains in that time, on aggregate. The ‘recovery’ of the post Financial Crisis in developed economies has been tepid at best, with policy makers attempting to blow a bubble to replace the last bubble which popped in 2007.

It is only a matter of time before the post Financial Crisis bubble pops, and it is true that Brexit may be the straw that broke the camel’s back. But that is only because of the existence of the other straws.


If Brexit is to be truly successful, it will be because it rids itself of the EU morass completely. That means replacing the rules and regulations which hampered British industry with…nothing at all. It must totally eliminate the extra layer of bureaucracy instead of merely replacing it with another, more British flavor. During the campaign, many Leave proponents pointed to the success of Switzerland as a model for the UK post EU. What was less mentioned was the fact that Swiss success owes largely to their greater degree of liberty and lesser degree of regulation and government control, in comparison to their continental neighbors.

Unless Britain goes down the same path as the Swiss in all aspects, the Brexit vote will not be a blow to globalism. Rather it will be a loud scream from a tied up victim which can easily be rectified by a strategically placed piece of duct tape.

In terms of this larger context, as a person who favors less government, less regulation, and a higher level of liberty for individuals, I am enthusiastic about what happened on the 23rd of June. Even if it turns out to be a false alarm for the globalists, the cat will be out of the bag. Through events such as this and the US election, the public is becoming more and more aware of the fact that their disillusionment is not without merit and the policies of progressivism and globalist thinking are mostly to blame.

The media, big business and political establishment which have got this wrong, and have been getting it wrong will start to lose their influence. The proliferation of the internet has meant that information can no longer be controlled and shape to fit the ‘approved’ narrative. Ideas and narratives must now stand on their own two feet, which can only bode well for the values of liberty and freedom.


The stakes are high. Even before the Brexit vote, there were growing sentiments across Europe that the EU project is disagreeable. Anti-EU sentiment was already much greater in many countries around Europe, which suggests that multiple referendums along the lines of Brexit are on the way. Should more countries leave, the financial, political, and cultural burdens will be that much greater on the remaining countries, which will further increase the discontent. This downward spiral could essentially be the way the EU ends.

It will be the breakdown of the post-WWII order, a paradigm which was 60 plus years in the making. If elements of it have proven to be a failure, it is right that these elements are dismantled and replaced with something better. That will not come without pain, or discomfort. It is not unlike the pain the body most endure when going through chemotherapy. However, if the end result is a cancer free life, the temporary loss of hair, weight and general sickness and discomfort will have been worth it.

That point, perhaps more than any I’ve made, is the most important one to get across, for we live in a world which has a hyperfocus on short term comfort above all else. If the very culture that affords us the many comforts we enjoy is to be maintained, the opposite focus must be attained. Historically, only a major crisis has forced people to change their thinking. Much of the promise in the Brexit vote lies in the fact that the emergence of longer term thinking at the expense of the short term has happened before the point of existential crisis.

It is a sign that there is hope for those who value Western Civilization and want to see it preserved and propagated.

An Open Letter to Principled Conservatives

Dear Principled Conservatives,

I suspect that today, the 4th of May 2016, most of your greatest fears have been realized. Donald J. Trump is going to be the Republican Nominee for President of the United States. The immediate fall out has been intense, with many on social media burning their Republican cards, literally and figuratively. Many have pledged to support Hillary Clinton in the fall, and feel no compunction in doing so. In their eyes, a guaranteed continuation of the Obama Doctrine in all respects is superior to Donald Trump.

I understand your line of reasoning, because the fact of the matter is that Donald Trump is not a principled conservative, at least in the Ronald Reagan mold.

The Reagan Revolution, which many of you cite as the foundation for your conservatism, probably began in 1964, with Reagan’s famous ‘Time for Choosing’ speech. While it was full of memorable quotes, I’d like to highlight the following:

…And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man’s relation to man.


This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

From this sentiment grew an ideology based on economic and social conservatism. Added to this was a military toughness which developed as a response to the threat of communism spreading across the globe. Most of those views are what the self-styled ‘Principled Conservative’ of 2016 purports to hold.

In my view, two strains of Conservatives apply this label to themselves – the ‘Establishment’ Republicans who have descended from the Reagan/Bush political family tree, and their supporters – and the Tea Party types who rose up at the beginning of this decade, partly in opposition to those Establishment strain.

Both groups have failed, for different reasons.

The failure of ‘Establishment’ Republicans is rooted in the discrepancy between the rhetoric and the actions. As much as you might recoil at the sound of terms like ‘neocon’ and ‘RINO,’ the potency of those terms come from the fact there is some truth in them.

Over the last four plus decades, Republican administrations and Congresses have overseen massive increases in the size of government, exactly what Reagan spoke so steadfastly against in 1964. During election season, many Republicans trip over themselves mentioning Reagan, weaving his ‘government is the problem’ threads into the fabric of their campaigns.

Yet when the final figures are tabulated, government is always bigger. The amounts the average taxpayer, present and future, are to be responsible for, are always larger.

Any attempt at serious cuts in government spending can’t be done because even slowing the advance of government would be admitting that the campaign promises can’t be kept, which in turn would be effectively ceding power to the Democrats.

This is the frame establishment Republicans have ended up working from. The desire to maintain power became superior to the desire to do what is right for the American people.

It’s been much the same trend with respect to social conservatism. In this regard, mainstream Republican candidates have often played lip service to ‘Judeo-Christian values’ and vowed to stand up for the traditional family. Yet it was Reagan himself who introduced no-fault divorce in 1969 as Governor of California, ushering in a wave of broken families and ultimately a fatherless generation. Once again, the actions didn’t match up with the rhetoric.

To the tea party strain of Principled Conservatism, your failures have been more operational in nature. Where the establishment strain talks the talk but doesn’t walk the walk, you talk the talk and run the walk.

If the United States is an aircraft carrier which is going in the wrong direction, you are attempting to turn it around by tying a rope to a row boat, tying the other end to the aircraft carrier and paddling with all of your might. It’s a futile effort.

Free Northerner wrote a fantastic post about why right-wing activism in its current form will fail. I suggest you read it in full.

The gist of it is that the cultural and political zeitgeists are dominated by progressives. They currently hold the power, and determine what is and isn’t acceptable.

Because of this, a true adherence to the Reaganesqe tenets of Principled Conservatism, to the letter, is becoming more and more unacceptable. Establishment types have come to understand this over the years, which is why they’ve evolved to betray those principles once in office in an attempt to hold on to power.

In many ways, I can sympathize with these politicians for behaving this way. After all, they are human, and as such are subjected to the observations of Lord Acton with respect to power. This is why the Founding Fathers were so torn over the idea of giving the government lots of it in the first place.

If you as Principled Conservatives are actually prepared to walk the walk in terms of the ideology, you will first need to have a culture which is amenable to such an ideology. How, for example, do you expect to actually cut spending enough to run a balanced budget, when roughly half the country doesn’t pay taxes, and thinks the half that does isn’t paying enough?

How do you expect to cultivate a society of strong families and tight knit communities when nihilism has replaced faith, and the idea that there is something larger than oneself is foreign to most?

Andrew Breitbart famously said that politics is downstream from culture. That means that the culture has to change before the politics. Both strains have failed to understand this. The Establishment strain has tried to mold its politics to the culture, while the Tea Party has tried to jackhammer the culture with its politics.

The end result is Establishment candidates who end up adopting non Principled Conservative views, or a handful of hardline Tea Partiers who are easily marginalized and dismissed. Both strategies are losing strategies.

If you actually do want to implement true, principled conservatism, as opposed to merely using the idea as an avenue for power, the only way to achieve it is to reshape the culture.

The quickest way of doing that, believe it or not, is a Donald Trump presidency.

As I mentioned before, the culture is controlled by progressive ideals. Despite what you may feel about Trump, the bottom line is that he is a winner, and has a winner’s attitude. You simply don’t acquire billions of dollars and then seemingly on a whim walk into the most crowded Republican Primary field ever and come out the victor, all the while being a rookie, without having some sort of predilection for success ingrained in you.

That habit of success, when applied to the country writ large, is going to transform it positively. Recall that this is an America which prefers to be apologetic to the rest of the world about its exceptionalism, a stance directly opposite to what Reagan held.

The course modern politicians, including Principled Conservatives, have set us on is one that makes America more like the rest of the world. Trump, on the other hand has been explicit in his wish to repudiate the ‘false song of globalism.’

Trump’s campaign seeks to free America from the chains which it has tied to itself over the course of the last 50 years. These chains include phenomena like political correctness, globalism, excessive regulation, the transformation from an economy resting on savings and investment, to an economy resting on credit expansion and conspicuous consumption.

If, and only if such trends are reversed, Reagan style conservatism will both be palatable and effective in the United States once again.


It was Jeffery Lord, a Trump supporting political commentator on CNN who had the most poignant remark in the aftermath of the Indiana Primary last night. Paraphrasing, he stated that the Reagan/Bush domination of the 80s elections ushered in a certain complacency in the GOP. The growing web of lobbyists, donors, strategists and so forth created a DC echo chamber which grew further and further away from the public at large. In short, the GOP became the very ‘little intellectual elite in a far distant capitol’ which Reagan had feared. When the average American thinks of the GOP, they think of images like the following:


It screams ‘out of touch.’ Yet the GOP remained supported, by a constituency who saw them as their only hope, for simply being less bad than the Democrats.

And then they stopped supporting.

The canary in the coal mine was the defeat of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in 2014. His defeat by a Tea Party candidate in a primary was the first of a sitting Majority Leader in history. John Boehner was next to fall, and finally the heir apparent to the throne of GOP Establishment politics, Jeb Bush, was eviscerated by Donald Trump.

I implore you, Principled Conservatives of all stripes, to heed the call. Understand and accept the change in trend, or get left behind. To the Establishment strain, you are holding a losing hand. To the Tea Party strain, you are holding a winning hand, which is being played poorly. The sooner you understand this, the sooner you will be able to seize the opportunity that comes with a Trump Presidency.

This opportunity is to actually restore Principled Conservatism. For example, media and entertainment entities which promulgate political correctness and other leftist culture staples are starting to struggle and will need replacing.

Instead of hand-wringing, Principled Conservatives should be working to build alternatives, molded in the image of the truths that Principled Conservatism speaks to. The likes of Milo Yiannopoulos, Mike Cernovich, Steven Crowder, and others have built impressive outlets for views consistent with many of Reagan’s views, despite not being Principled Conservatives by the letter of the label.

As it is with Trump. I completely disagree with him on some of his major positions, in particular on trade. I don’t agree with the GOP Establishment view which supports ‘Free Trade,’ because their version of it is a falsehood. Real Free Trade doesn’t involve government decree at all.

I still support Trump, because I believe that at a fundamental level, his candidacy is an catalyst for course correction. Once the aircraft carrier has been turned in the right direction, we can concern ourselves with the details of how we move forward, in that right direction.

You, Principled Conservatives, want to be there when that discussion is had. Getting behind Trump is the first step. There is still time to punch your ticket to the Trump Train. Don’t wait too long though.

A Few Words On The Belgium Attacks

There is something going on…Go to Brussels. Go to Paris. Go to different places. There is something going on and it’s not good, where they want Shariah law, where they want this, where they want things that — you know, there has to be some assimilation. There is no assimilation. There is something bad going on.

You go to Brussels — I was in Brussels a long time ago, 20 years ago, so beautiful, everything is so beautiful — it’s like living in a hellhole right now

  • Donald J. Trump (26 Jan 2016)


I’m not going to beat around the bush here. What happened in Brussels was a direct consequence of the weak, appeasing doctrine that is multiculturalism, and its parent doctrine cultural Marxism. I’ve written about this doctrine multiple times on this blog, and at its core is a view that the West is full of unnecessary repression which must be removed so man can be truly free.

In the context of culture, Western civilization was erected on things like the rule of law, individual rights and personal freedoms. Whatever it is about Muslim culture, it doesn’t mesh very well with Western values. You can come up with whatever reasoning you like as to why, but the basic truth is that it is not compatible with Western ways.

This is not in any way racist or ‘Islamophobic.’  I have no issues with a multi-ethnic society. That is, a multi-ethnic society that retains the same Western values, specific to the nation involved. A multi-ethnic nation which speaks the same language, follows the same customs, respects the same traditions upon which that country was founded and made into an attractive place to live. This is all fine.

What is not fine is the importation of various world cultures into one nation and expecting the foreign cultures to have a say in the daily life of the host country. That is an invasion, an erosion of what made that country attractive in the first place.


The cultural Marxist appeal to tolerance seeks to promote the views of the ‘oppressed’ at the expense of the ‘oppressors.’ In this context, the (nominally) Christian oppressors in the West must be held down in order to appease the oppressed Muslims. This is how you get nonsense like the following:


To be sure, the #stopislam trend on Twitter is not the most appropriate response in the world, but the idea that being offensive on the internet is worse than a terrorist attack in which over 30 are killed, hundreds more injured, infrastructure damaged and thousands of lives irreparably damaged is incredibly disturbing.

There were many tweets similar to the one posted above in response to the hashtag. In addition to that, there were countless voices who preemptively struck down the ‘right wing racist rhetoric’ that was sure to follow in the wake of the attacks.

To me that shows the level of indoctrination that is rampant in the West today. It has reached, dare I say, nearly the same levels that Nazi Germany reached, albeit not in the same way. The Nazis convinced their people that anyone who didn’t look like the ‘master race’ was basically subhuman and rife for Nazi control.

Cultural Marxism preaches something similar, except that anyone who does look like the master race, or is a member of the master gender, master sexual orientation or the master religion should not be tolerated. Cultural Marxism is on some level a reverse Nazism.

That’s the only way you can cultivate a mentality that places the ridicule of an ‘oppressed’ minority religion as a greater offense than the slaughter of nearly three dozen of your countrymen.

At some point, the average citizens will start to sour on the notion of multiculturalism, and the cultural Marxist viewpoint in general. The empty platitudes of Prime Ministers, candle light vigils, and lighting up of tourist attractions in the colors of affected countries will start to enrage people rather than sadden them.

The social media ‘activism’ which involves trendy hashtags and Facebook filters will also continue to ring hollow, given the same people participating in these ‘look-how-solemn-and-grave-I-am-for –remembering-the-dead-and-showing-solidarity’ exercises are the same people who declared that anyone who wanted to think twice about allowing hordes of Syrian refugees into the country no questions asked was a bigot.

The truth is that these ‘bigots’ were more interested in the preservation of their culture than submitting to politically correct concerns. That is the same choice the United States electorate will have in the fall. Piers Morgan wrote a strikingly accurate column today in the Daily Mail. Surprising, because I rarely agree with Piers Morgan. But I suggest you read the column in full. I’ll leave you with his closing comments:

Hate Donald Trump all you like, but at least he seems to recognise the magnitude of the threat and at least he has firm proposals for how to try to defeat it.


They may not win him the Politically Correct Pontificator of the Year award. But how many more scenes like this morning’s appalling images from Brussels are we going to tolerate before we try a non-PC option to beat these disgusting excuses for human beings?


At the end of our interview, I asked Donald Trump to send a message to the large majority of non-violent, decent Muslims who are as disgusted by these attacks as the rest of us.


‘I have great respect for Muslims,’ he said, ‘I have many friends that are Muslims. I’m just saying that there is something with a radicalized portion that is very, very bad and very dangerous. I would say this, to the Muslims, when they see trouble, they have to report it, they’re not reporting it, they’re absolutely not reporting it and that’s a big problem.’


Is he so wrong?


The Paradigm Shift

Elizabeth Warren is not a happy woman. The Massachusetts senator went on a Twitter tirade yesterday against Donald Trump, calling him a loser, a business failure, as well as putting forth the typical suite of tired claims that he’s a racist, sexist, and so forth.

Warren has made her name positioning herself as a staunch defender of the little guy against large interests, Wall Street in particular. Her comments are not so out of the ordinary in that sense. What is peculiar is the seemingly hysterical manner in which she made them. This was an 11 tweet stream of consciousness that seemed to be coming out of desperation. The desperation, in turn, stems from the fact that is that Donald Trump, and all that he represents, is clearly not going away, and even stands a good chance of becoming president. I’ll go through some of her tweets to understand what she, and by extension what has become of ‘polite society,’ are so fearful of in a Trump presidency.

American Values

Warren’s tirade was split into two parts. The first focused on Trump’s business and personal failings, decrying him as a loser. It then transitioned into why such a loser would be dangerous for the country. The above tweet is at the beginning of that phase of the rant, warning Americans Trump is prepared to tear down America’s values.

Her specific wording is telling. ‘An America that was built on values like decency, community, and concern for our neighbors,’ refers to America is at it stands now. However, that is not the original America. That America was built on values such as individualism, personal freedom and self-determination.

The replacement of the original America with the one of which Warren speaks was a gradual one, and it spanned across economic and cultural milieus. More specifically, the rise of the Cultural Marxist viewpoint has come to form the backbone of modern Western values.

I referenced Cultural Marxism extensively in my piece last week about the cultural importance of a potential Trump presidency. I briefly described the role of Cultural Marxism as it applies to the current culture of perpetual outrage and victimhood. I’ll now spend some time going into the academic history behind cultural Marxism.


First, I must point out that leftists go to great lengths to try and pretend that the concept of Cultural Marxism doesn’t exist, and that those who use the term are merely right wing extremists who use the term as a dogwhistle to conceal their bigotry. This article from Jeremy Wilson of The Guardian is a good example of how far those lengths are. I mention it because in trying to discredit the concept, it also contains a quick and dirty summary of the origins of Cultural Marxism:

It begins in the 1910s and 1920s. When the socialist revolution failed to materialise beyond the Soviet Union, Marxist thinkers like Antonio Gramsci and Georg Lukacs tried to explain why. Their answer was that culture and religion blunted the proletariat’s desire to revolt, and the solution was that Marxists should carry out a “long march through the institutions” – universities and schools, government bureaucracies and the media – so that cultural values could be progressively changed from above.


Adapting this, later thinkers of the Frankfurt School decided that the key to destroying capitalism was to mix up Marx with a bit of Freud, since workers were not only economically oppressed, but made orderly by sexual repression and other social conventions. The problem was not only capitalism as an economic system, but the family, gender hierarchies, normal sexuality – in short, the whole suite of traditional western values.


The conspiracy theorists claim that these “cultural Marxists” began to use insidious forms of psychological manipulation to upend the west. Then, when Nazism forced the (mostly Jewish) members of the Frankfurt School to move to America, they had, the story goes, a chance to undermine the culture and values that had sustained the world’s most powerful capitalist nation.


The vogue for the ideas of theorists like Herbert Marcuse and Theodor Adorno in the 1960s counterculture culminated with their acolytes’ occupation of the commanding heights of the most important cultural institutions, from universities to Hollywood studios. There, the conspiracy says, they promoted and even enforced ideas which were intended to destroy traditional Christian values and overthrow free enterprise: feminism, multiculturalism, gay rights and atheism. And this, apparently, is where political correctness came from. I promise you: this is what they really think.

The biggest point of contention Wilson seems to have is that the Frankfurt School thinkers were actively trying to destroy Western Civilization. That may be conspiracy, or it may be factual, but what isn’t up for debate are the ideas which were put forth.

One of the major ideas of Marcuse’s seminal work, Eros and Civilization, was that people in modern civilization suffered from what he called ‘surplus repression,’ a phenomenon which was at odds with Eros, the life force:

The distinction between rational and irrational authority, between repression and surplus-repression, can be made and verified by the individuals themselves. That they cannot make this distinction now does not mean that they cannot learn to make it once they are given the opportunity to do so.

According to Marcuse, a certain level of basic repression was necessary in order to achieve the ends of basic survival in a world of scarcity. This is obviously true on many levels, as progress in general in large part requires delayed gratification.

Marcuse argues that once this basic level of survival is achieved, continuing on in the ways of repression is detrimental, and against the nature of man. It is very much an argument against phenomena like the consumerist culture of the West. He writes:

And the fact that the destruction of life (human and animal) has progressed with the progress of civilization, that cruelty and hatred and the scientific extermination of men have increased in relation to the real possibility of the elimination of oppression — this feature of late industrial civilization would have instinctual roots which perpetuate destructiveness beyond all rationality.

Here he bemoans the fact that while humans have advanced, the advancement has not brought with it the liberation from repression. Instead, humans have been become even more prone to the ‘repression’ that makes people beholden to a work-spend-consume cycle of living.

Marcuse advocates a releasing of the Eros beyond the repressive states of the industrialized world as it stands. He outlines a course for that as follows:

The notion of a non-repressive instinctual order must first be tested on the most “disorderly “of all instincts – namely, sexuality. Non-repressive order is possible only if the sex instincts can, by virtue of their own dynamic and under changed existential and societal conditions, generate lasting erotic relations among mature individuals. We have to ask whether the sex instincts, after the elimination of all surplus-repression, can develop a “libidinal rationality” which is not only compatible with but even promotes progress toward higher forms of civilized freedom…


…This change in the value and scope of libidinal relations would lead to a disintegration of the institutions in which the private interpersonal relations have been organized, particularly the monogamic and patriarchal family.


These prospects seem to confirm the expectation that instinctual liberation can lead only to a society of sex maniacs – that is, to no society. However, the process just outlined involves not simply a release but a transformation of the libido: from sexuality constrained under genital supremacy to erotization of the entire personality.


It is a spread rather than explosion of libido – a spread over private and societal relations which bridges the gap maintained between them by a repressive reality principle. This transformation of the libido would be the result of a societal transformation that released the free play of individual needs and faculties.

The takeaway here is that Marcuse wanted a society governed by the idea that if it felt good, it was good. He wanted the ‘pleasure principle’ to replace the ‘performance principle.’ Getting there required the dismantling of the old constructs. Monogamy and patriarchal families are specifically mentioned in this excerpt, but it also applies to concepts such as feminism, homosexuality, which Marcuse also deals with directly, and multiculturalism.

Furthermore, it is important to note that Marcuse, out of all of the Frankfurt school thinkers, was the one to gain the most currency in society as a whole, as the counterculture movements of the 1960s in both Europe and America were buttressed by his thinking on an intellectual level. Given that these same baby-boomers, now middle aged, are the ones who populate the cultural institutions from college administration to Hollywood, imposing their views on them, it is difficult to take Wilson’s claims that Cultural Marxism is a ‘conspiracy theory’ very seriously.


To further push these ideals onto society as a whole first required tolerance of them. Marcuse writes of tolerance in a 1965 essay called Repressive Tolerance, in which he outlines his view that tolerance and free speech are wholly dependent on dominant points of view, and as such true tolerance would require the repression of the dominant, ‘oppressive’ view. The very first paragraph is instructive enough:

This essay examines the idea of tolerance in our advanced industrial society. The conclusion reached is that the realization of the objective of tolerance would call for intolerance toward prevailing policies, attitudes, opinions, and the extension of tolerance to policies, attitudes, and opinions which are outlawed or suppressed.


In other words, today tolerance appears again as what it was in its origins, at the beginning of the modem period — a partisan goal, a subversive liberating notion and practice. Conversely, what is proclaimed and practiced as tolerance today, is in many of its most effective manifestations serving the cause of oppression.

Of course, according to Marcuse, the right is responsible for the oppression, and thus “liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right, and toleration of movements from the Left.”


The moves we have made towards this type of tolerance in 21st century have been pretty clear. Being tolerant today means elevating the non-male, non-white, non-heterosexual, non-Christian, and non-affluent above the male, white, heterosexual, Christian and affluent at all costs, regardless of merit. It is the Marcusian worship of the Eros at play, the feel-good, or pleasure principle taking precedent over the performance principle. This is what is currently considered to be ‘decent,’ and forms the basis of political correctness.

Such values of ‘tolerance’ are what Senator Warren fears will go by the wayside in a Trump presidency. She intensifies the scorn here:


To the extent terms such as racism, sexism, Islamophobia and xenophobia have any weight, it is because they represent the specter of oppression that cultural Marxists rail against. The individual who is guilty of the charge is therefore an oppressor and guilty of a grave crime, because that individual ultimately stands in the way of freedom through the liberation of Eros, to put a Marcusian bent to the analysis.

These words are tossed out like candy by Leftists in order to instantly shut down the opposition, which, according to Marcuse, they have the right to do given that their position is one of liberation. The Right leaning person who is invariably guilty of the ‘-ism’ charge is oppressive. Authoritarian tactics are thus valid on such a barbarian. Speaking of authoritarians:


Given support of Leftist ideals is not only fine, but the Marcusian definition of ‘tolerance’, the only reason Trump’s authoritarianism is to be feared is because it originates from the Right.


The issue that those such as Warren are ultimately going to have to make peace with is that the Frankfurt School ideals are bankrupt and unsustainable with respect to societal and civilizational progress. Consider Marcuse’s explicit call for monogamous and patriarchal family units to be dismantled as a precursor to his ideal world.

The patriarchal family unit had been a target for the Frankfurt school for some time, right from its origins around the time of World War I. Later on, in 1950, Adorno increased the level of contempt by suggesting that those who are raised in such conditions are likely to become racists and fascists.

This, as mentioned before, is unacceptable in that racists and fascists prevent progress and foster oppression. In this manner, the Frankfurt School was essentially declaring patriarchal families as breeding grounds for the personality disorder of authoritarianism and the mental disease of racism.

Given that the patriarchal family is the basis of civilization, the move to dismantle it ultimately results in the erosion of civilization. Once eroded, the Eros that Marcuse so wanted to liberate would have to return to its box so that society can be rebuilt. That logical progression is what ultimately dooms cultural Marxists and why their opponents actually possess the winning hand.

In the 50 or 60 years since Marcuse’s work began to permeate the culture, society has become more and more progressive. It has also begun to crack in ways it never has before. Just in the realm of feminism, the ‘liberation’ of women and their encouragement en masse to enter the workforce has resulted in nothing but sky high divorce rates, a reduced birth rate to the point that many Western nations are not reproducing at an above replacement rate level, and higher rates of birth defects in the babies that are born because women are having children later in life. Consider the following results of a study of the happiness levels of white collar workers in America:

Are you a 40-something year old single professional woman making less than six figures a year? If you are, you must be incredibly unhappy. This according to a recent survey which revealed the profiles of unhappy workers.


Those who were the unhappiest were single females, aged 42, in “professional” jobs (think doctor or lawyer), making less than $100k a year. What about the “happiest” person, according to the survey?


Well, that lucky worker is a 39-year-old male who’s married with a wife who works part time. He also has a young child at home and works in a senior management position, raking in around $150k-200k a year.

The woman described is pretty much the composite of what feminists would have you believe is the ideal woman. Yet she is the unhappiest. This fact is buttressed by the fact that there are record amounts of women currently taking antidepressant medicine.

The truth is that the feminist prescription for improving society is not in league with reality. Real women, when subjected to the ‘freedom’ from patriarchal ‘oppression’ seemingly don’t take very well to it. That hasn’t stopped progressives from continuing to push it, but it is an important point to make.


The ‘oppressive’ views of those like Trump, or indeed myself, are in line with reality. The differences between men and women are not socially constructed, but biologically constructed, and therefore are not open to adjustment.

Statements such as that are not controversial when viewed objectively, but in Marcusian terms, they are ‘repressive.’ However, if that repression results in societal advancement and harmony, there is nothing wrong with it. Liberation for liberation’s sake is pointless.

On a visceral level, Donald Trump represents something completely terrifying to the cultural Marxist view: an unapologetically confident man. He is the perfect embodiment of the aggression which Marcuse is critical of as it pertains to his ‘performance principle.’ Should Trump become president, he would be the most powerful individual in the world.

The mere presence of such a man totally antithetical to the cultural Marxist view in such a position could be enough to shift the tectonic plates of culture. The aggressively confident man represents oppression to the cultural Marxist, and thus Trump would stand in opposition to everything they have worked for over the last few generations.

The fear is that a Trump presidency might inspire others to follow in his footsteps, to strive to be better, and to accept nothing less. If in a generation this sort of man is the norm, as opposed to the limp wristed man who is the norm now, the liberation of society from cultural Marxist clutches will be likely, even certain.