One of the more interesting aspects of the Parkland shooting aftermath was the rush by large corporations to disavow the NRA. Several companies such as Hertz, MetLife, the Enterprise rental car brands, Symantec, Chubb, SimpliSafe, Delta, and United Airlines have taken steps such as ending discounts for NRA members as a show of support for the gun control movement.
The media, itself a giant corporate interest, has played its role as well, promoting these decisions as though they were the first stages of a giant snowball rolling downhill culminating in a gun ban. Those on the anti-gun side are willing Corporate America to be their knight in shining armor on this.
In truth, they don’t have to will very hard, for Corporate America has become increasingly sympathetic to the ideals of the leftist. That is, the TEPID (tolerance, equality, progressive, inclusion, diversity) views of the left are essentially the views of Corporate America as well. It is something I noted when writing about the James Damore episode last summer. Damore, you recall, is the former Goolag employee who was fired for writing a memo which, in the most polite and academically supported terms possible, outlined the fact that gender differences were responsible for the disparities in tech employment and further offered some gender-focused solutions for increasing female enthusiasm in tech.
In the wake of President Trump’s televised Immigration meeting:
plenty of individuals on the right have fallen prey to suspect media reports and misleading headlines about what the President said or didn’t say, and what he was willing to do. MOTUS has it right:
it’s fairly easy to understand why the President decided to go live with his reality show.
Let’s have a little of that transparency that Obama spoke so highly of but never implemented. Let’s hear the Democrats defend their insistence that our borders remain open to all comers and chain migration continue in order to ensure generations of future Dem voters. Let’s hear them insist, again, that if you give them whatthey want now they’ll work with you later on what you want.
Let’s hear the Democrats tell us they want a “clean DACA” bill – meaning amnesty for the Dreamers with no strings attached. Let’s hear Trump amiably agree that he too wants a clean DACA bill, by which he means funding of The Wall and an end to chain migration and the visa lottery. Note to Ann Coulter and Tucker Carlson: it’s too soon to talk about Trump being a traitor. Remember the President is fresh from a meeting with Republican leaders at Camp David last weekend. When he says “I’ll sign whatever you send me” I suspect he has an agreement with the House and Senate leaders regarding acceptable parameters. So why would they send him anything else? And I’m betting the bill includes wall funding and the end of chain migration and the visa lottery. Yes, I assume it will also include some type of legality – short of automatic citizenship – for any of the Dreamers who’ve managed to keep a clean rap sheet. But frankly I’ve always assumed that would be the case. It’s the art of the deal.
“You can’t con people, at least not for long. You can create excitement, you can do wonderful promotion and get all kinds of press, and you can throw in a little hyperbole. But if you don’t deliver the goods, people will eventually catch on.” Donald Trump, The Art of the Deal
As for Ann Coulter, bless her, but she’s overreacting:
Nothing Michael Wolff could say about @realDonaldTrump has hurt him as much as the DACA lovefest right now.
Yes, Trump did say he wanted a “Clean DACA” bill, which he explicitly defined as including “border security” (the wall), and at another point he had added “and other things” (presumably ending chain migration and ending the diversity visa lottery) to his definition of a deal.
Yes, Trump did compromise on what the wall meant – by saying it wasn’t going to be a continuous 2000 mile structure because of mountains and rivers – something he’s always said.
Between Trump’s normal hyperbole and usual extemporaneous manner of speaking, the idea that he’s making concessions or caving in are a bit overblown. So he used Jeb-like language in talking about a “bill of love.” But he also used Trump-like language in reminding the audience that walls work – ask Israel, and repeatedly making a wall (and other goodies) a non-negotiable aspect of any deal.
And if you’re still not convinced, there was a moment during Trump’s ramblings in which he mentioned that Representative Bob Goodlatte from Virginia would get things going in the House with the introduction of a bill. Goodlatte co-wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal outlining it. Here are some of the highlights:
$30 billion wall funding
5,000 Border Patrol agents and 5,000 Customs and Border Protection officers
Allows the DACA folks to remain with three-year renewable legal status – with no path to citizenship
Biometric entry-exit system
Ends chain migration and the diversity visa lottery
Gives the DOJ scope to keep money from sanctuary cities
That’s the deal. Which is why he kept saying things like ‘once we do DACA we’ll be most of the way to getting comprehensive done.’ His namedropping of Goodlatte (at 14:25 in the video) is pretty important.
Congress is the reason DACA has to be a part of the deal. That might be a bitter pill for some to swallow, but the fact of the matter is that congress, as it is currently constituted, wants DACA. As a result, our current options are as follows:
Let DACA expire, let chain migration and diversity lottery live on, and hope midterms bring us enough Trump Republicans in both chambers to actually enact legislation without shenanigans and negotiatons
Concede DACA legitimization (no citizenship), and get the wall, get no chain migration, get no more diversity lottery
#2 is far more likely and is imminent, thanks to the leverage Trump created back in September when he allowed DACA to expire, and thus Trump is going for that. It’s a simple calculation that an 80% chance of getting 70% of what you want is better than a 5% chance of getting 100% of what you want. Trump could have got rid of DACA on day one like he promised, but then he would have had no leverage to get all of the other goodies he’s after. Remember, congress doesn’t really want a wall or ending chain migration, or ending diversity visa lotteries. They are only getting on board because they have to to keep their precious DACA going.
And by doing it this way, Trump is creating a situation in which he can get things codified through legislation, as opposed to via Executive Order, which could just be undone by the next SJW president who takes over. Ironically, Obama’s desire to ride roughshod over the legislate process for the benefit for illegal immigrant will turn out to be the very thing that stems the tide in the other direction. None of this is 4D chess – just good politics.
At the end of the day though, the meeting was probably done to highlight the fact that, no, the president is not a mentally unstable, semi-illiterate buffoon who watches 20 hours of cable news per day, as the media has been saying over the last week or so. In their clamor over the Wolff book, they set such a low bar for the President to hurdle that all he has to do is show the American public a rare glimpse of the sausage being made, with him confidently and assuredly leading the discussion. All while flanked by the very Democrats who are supposed to lead the charge of impeachment-by-mental instability; the imaging of them sat at Trump’s right and left engaging with him in serious discussion alone neuters the Wolff fan fiction to anyone with an inkling of common sense, making a mockery of said media hysteria to boot.
The short answer is: no. But I don’t do short answers, so here’s the long one.
In How Dare You, I described the fact that nearly a year into Trump’s presidency, his opposition has yet to come to terms with the fact that he did actually win the election:
The larger issue here is that those who would consider themselves our cultural betters have affixed to their beliefs the status of The Truth, by fiat. What is accomplished by this is the elevation of what really are mere opinions to base maxims of the sort that are the foundation of the country, thus in theory unassailable.
And so when Trump disagrees with this or that leftist talking point, and vehemently to boot, there is a collective shock that permeates the commentariat. How dare Trump express views which aren’t in agreement with the one Truth that is Leftism in all its forms? How dare Taylor Swift not instantly condemn Trump despite having no reason to voice an opinion, and furthermore how dare Taylor Swift disagree when she is declared to be a white supremacist? How dare Sidney Crosby, a white man, turn up to the White House to accept praise from Trump?
The fact that leftism has gone without a real challenge for multiple decades, and in particular through the Obama years, has rendered the nascent Trump era to be nothing short of a hammer blow through the sensibilities of most leftists. Many still haven’t come to terms with the fact that Trump really is the president, and more fundamentally that the Leftist Truth is not held as such by a YUGE swath of America.
The recent excitement over Michael Wolff’s new book, Fire and Fury, which bills itself as an exclusive inside look at the Trump White House, is further evidence that the failure to come to terms with Trump 45 is as prevalent as ever. Indeed, it seems that Trump Derangement Syndrome has reached levels that shouldn’t be possible. In the past week, this book has been endlessly covered in the mainstream media, with Wolff himself doing interviews with basically every network and media publication to drum up the hype, bolstered by stories of how the book has been flying off the shelves in record time.
President Trump has unsurprisingly said less than favorable things about the book, and in fairness it does require the reader to suspend logic at regular intervals. For a start, it tries to advance the popular meme that Trump really didn’t want to be president. Wolff’s ‘evidence’ for this is the fact that Trump actually ran the campaign of an authentic outsider.
The Trump campaign had, perhaps less than inadvertently, replicated the scheme from Mel Brooks’s The Producers. In that classic, Brooks’s larcenous and dopey heroes, Max Bialystock and Leo Bloom, set out to sell more than 100 percent of the ownership stakes in the Broadway show they are producing. Since they will be found out only if the show is a hit, everything about the show is premised on its being a flop. Accordingly, they create a show so outlandish that it actually succeeds, thus dooming our heroes.
The Trump calculation, quite a conscious one, was different. The candidate and his top lieutenants believed they could get all the benefits of almost becoming president without having to change their behavior or their fundamental worldview one whit: we don’t have to be anything but who and what we are, because of course we won’t win.
Many candidates for president have made a virtue of being Washington outsiders; in practice, this strategy merely favors governors over senators. Every serious candidate, no matter how much he or she disses Washington, relies on Beltway insiders for counsel and support. But with Trump, hardly a person in his innermost circle had ever worked in politics at the national level—his closest advisers had not worked in politics at all. Throughout his life, Trump had few close friends of any kind, but when he began his campaign for president he had almost no friends in politics. The only two actual politicians with whom Trump was close were Rudy Giuliani and Chris Christie, and both men were in their own way peculiar and isolated. And to say that he knew nothing—nothing at all—about the basic intellectual foundations of the job was a comic understatement. Early in the campaign, in a Producers-worthy scene, Sam Nunberg was sent to explain the Constitution to the candidate: “I got as far as the Fourth Amendment before his finger is pulling down on his lip and his eyes are rolling back in his head.”
Almost everybody on the Trump team came with the kind of messy conflicts bound to bite a president or his staff.
In short, Wolff is perplexed at the fact that Trump was genuine, a trait foreign to those who work in journalism and politics. According to Wolff’s logic, the measure of Trump as a ‘serious candidate’ would have been his reliance on hundreds of so-called experts, who would have run every word he was to utter in public through carefully curated focus groups so as to craft the message which had the highest possibility of winning according to BIGDATA analysis.
Anglo interest in Iran has always centered around oil and gas, which is unsurprising. The British discovered oil early on in the 20th century and promptly set up shop. Fast forward to 1941, and in the midst of World War II, Iran was once again strategically important. Reza Shah Pahlavi, who had been in power since 1925 sought to modernize Iran, and in doing so had invited German assistance so as to reduce the British oil-centric influence.. This became a problem for the British from the onset of war, and after the Germans attacked the Soviets, Iran became vitally important to both countries as an conduit for arms supply between them.
The shah refused to cut ties with the Germans however, proclaiming that Iran was a neutral country. So the Soviets and British put the squeeze on him, invaded Iran and forced him to abdicate the throne so that his son, the more amenable Mohammed Reza Shah, could take over. After the war, both the British and the Soviets withdrew their troops (although the latter required some ‘coaxing’), and the arrangement went back to how it had been before. The British controlled the oil interests, and the Shah went about implementing modernizing reforms as his father did.
In doing so, he came into conflict with factions which wanted to nationalize the oil, and who were concerned with the Shah’s growing power accumulation versus a more equal relationship with Parliament. This came to a head in the early 1950s, when the Mohammad Mossadegh spearheaded the Parliamentary move to nationalized the oil, against the wishes of the Shah (and of course The West). On the back of this, Mossadegh became Prime Minister and sought to kick the British out, while attempting to consolidate power himself and thus weaken the monarch.
In the process, Mossadegh also came into conflict with the religious clerics (mullahs). Although they approved of the nationalization of the oil, and opposed the Western-influenced secularization and modernization efforts of the Shah, they were concerned that their role and influence would be even further diminished in a new Mossadegh-led order as opposed to the standard quo of the monarchy. So they joined the growing chorus concerned that Mossadegh was getting too big for his britches (as the shah himself was also accused of), and supported his ouster.
This came in 1953, and included help from the British and the CIA, who of course were interested in the oil above anything else. Much has been made of this 1953 ‘coup,’ but the reality was that even though there was CIA involvement, it wasn’t a clean operation. Furthermore, to the extent the CIA intervened, it was in line with the domestic trend of the day, which was to get rid of Mossadegh.
One aspect that caused a lot of consternation, and opened the door for a lot of historical revisionism was the fact that the shah was quite feckless and indecisive. He had every right under Iranian law to get rid of Mossadegh, and even though he wanted Mossadegh out, if it had come from his hand it would have reinforced the growing idea that he was an authoritarian riding roughshod over the rule of law. Thus, he sought support from the British and Americans in fomenting internal discord before doing what he had the right to do on his own.
This dynamic has been twisted a bit in contemporary accounts of 1953, which almost universally state that Mossadegh was a ‘democratically elected’ leader who was overthrown by the CIA. This is not accurate. Mossadegh was democratically elected to Parliament. From there, however, he was nominated by the Shah to become Prime Minister, and approved by the rest of Parliament in a vote. ‘The people’ had no say in Mossadegh ascending to the premiership, and it had always been the shah’s right to nominate and get rid of Prime Ministers at necessary.
Indeed, all it takes is a cursory glance at the list of Iran’s Prime Ministers to see that during Mohammed Reza Shah’s 36 year rule, there were 33 different terms. One was lucky to be in the job for more than a year. PM’s coming and going had always been the way of things, and Mossadegh’s order to leave was no different.
The fact that Mossadegh arrested the officials who informed him of the Shah’s decree, and the shah’s subsequent fleeing to Italy is suggestive of the fact that a coup was going on – but one led by Mossadegh, who at that point was illegally in the office. This was August 13th. By August 16th, Mossadegh had surrendered under the weight of pro-shah protests and the realization that many officials both in government and the military supported the shah. Recall that Mossadegh himself was viewed as becoming increasingly authoritarian, and his actions in 1953 were probalby seen as confirmation of that. CIA influence or not, the Iranians themselves ultimately preferred the Shah to Mossadegh.
Taylor Swift has gotten herself into some trouble over the past year or so, not necessarily for anything she has said or done, but rather for what she hasn’t said or done. Specifically, she has not chosen to join the bevy of celebrities and social media superstars in declaring that every little thing President Trump does or says is going to result in the immediate extinction of mankind.
I was alerted to this over the last few days or so, when Swift expressed her gratitude for what was a personally fulfilling year. As you can see from that article, she was destroyed for this on Twitter, by leftists who deemed her callous for not seeing 2017 as anything but the worst year in human history, because of President Trump, and other developments which were distasteful to their leftist sensibilities.
This led me to finding out that quite a few people harbored disappointment in the pop superstar for her silence in these matters. Her recognition by Time magazine as a ’silence breaker’ in their year end review of 2017 was roasted by The Daily Beast. The same publication has put out at least three other articles (here, here and here) in the past 12 months blasting Swift for not going all in on the Social Justice Warrior warpath in the same manner as the likes of Lena Dunham, Katy Perry and Ashley Judd, who have denounced the President, and for that matter any political views to the right of Mao.
So Roy Moore has seemingly lost in Alabama. This is a huge deal. I mentioned in my last post that if Moore had win, it would have been monumental as it would be a display of the waning power of the media. Thus, Moore’s defeat is significant in that the establishment, and the media in particular still holds the power to bully anyone it doesn’t like, effectively waging snap recall elections against Bad Thinkers who hold office. Expect pressure to be heaped on Trump in this regard. Decide if that is the politics you want.
But for Moore specifically, a lot of what did him in was incongruity. He touted himself as a Man of God first, and this was susceptible to attacks on this level. In a way, Franken was done similalry, having touted himself as a Man of the Equalist Diversity Tolerance God, and was proven a hypocrite. American voters hate that.
Not that we don’t need God back at the midst of American culture, but Roy Moore types are not the way to go.
I’m in transit, so I must go, leaving you with some thoughts from Libertas from RVF.
Sadly, this was as expected. Roy Moore was never the guy. Mo Brooks was. The voters chose wrong to get Brooks out. It’s as simple as that. Moore was always scummy with or without these allegations. This whole fiasco goes to show just how big a problem these “Cuckianity” people can be, as some are fond of saying.
But no more fighting the last war. This one was lost.
The Republicans need to adapt and immediately deploy a counteroffensive. The left is going to go all in on this next year. Expect any mundane interaction to suddenly be dredged up as “sexual misconduct” (a meaningless phrase legally speaking but just sounds bad, same as “collusion”). If the Republicans try to fight that battle, whether by going harder on it, or pleading how they’re good people on it, they will lose.
The Republicans instead need to maneuver to fight in another theater, with a sword and shield strategy.
The shield: America’s instinctive revulsion to witch hunts and star chambers. They need to emphasize the importance of evidence, due process, and fact finding. Deny, deny, deny. Point out the hysteria and moral panic. You already see Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham deploying this.
The sword: While fighting on the defensive in that theater, they need to turn the offensive somewhere else, an issue that’s equally or even more greatly emotionally charged, and that issue is immigration. As we just saw in New York twice in two months, this is deeply related to terrorism and safety. The Repiblicans need to run hard on building the wall, ending chain migration, stopping the diversity lottery, passing the RAISE Act, and so on. That way the Democrats can shriek all they want about “sexual misconduct,” but the Republicans can basically say they’re the party that’s gonna fight for your economic prosperity and, more importantly, not let in people that want to addict you to drugs or kill you.
With tax reform likely to be passed, the economy should look good, so the defining, emotive, and signature issue next year needs to be immigration. If they run on it, they’ll win. If they try to fight the Democrats on their chosen battleground, they will lose.
The Democrats successfully tested a very potent strategy. The Republicans need to respond accordingly, and it needs to be by going on the defensive there while going on the offensive on immigration, and no other issue.
Will they? Sadly, I have my doubts. Expect tons and tons of vague, idiotic “misconduct” accusations to come up next year – and make sure you’re very careful in your own lives. I joke that if I could today never get away with some of the the stuff I did in my approaches in 2014-15, which wasn’t exactly free from feminist hysteria. It’s gonna get a lot worse for men of all stripes.
A week from now, Alabama voters are set to go to the polls to decide who should replace Jeff Sessions as one of their Senators. The likely winner, Roy Moore, was already a controversial candidate due to the fact he holds some less than savory views about gays, and once refused to move a Ten Commandments statue from an Alabama courtroom.
The mainstream press loudly broadcasted these ‘transgressions’ so as to paint Moore as an unfit candidate. When the public remained unmoved, the Washington Post dropped an article which made allegations that he had a sexual relationship with a 14 year old, along with other teenagers. These allegations have come amidst what has become a purge many a Communist dictator would be proud of. Many prominent men in various fields have been accused of sexual harassment and worse, with a mere allegation being enough for immediate termination and knee-jerk public ridicule. Initiated by the explosive Harvey Weinstein revelations, the likes of Kevin Spacey, Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose, John Conyers and Al Franken and more have been caught in the firestorm.
The incessant media coverage, the condemnations, the hashtags and the moralizing surrounding the spate of allegations have mostly been about one thing – power, and who wields it. At current, those flying the Social Justice Warrior flag (especially the Feminist Division), are feeling down and out. With the rise of President Trump over the last 2 years, many of the Pretty Lies they’ve espoused are now getting exposed for what they are. The cultural shift which feels afoot is troubling to them because it means the end of their cultural dominance, initiated by the Boomers decades ago. Thus, they must lash out in one desperate attempt to regain control back from the Ugly Truth Purveyors who would render their ideology obsolete for generations.
Hence the hysteria.
From a strictly legal point of view, the vast majority of the allegations we’ve witnessed are just that – allegations. They mean that an aggrieved party has come forth. Contrary to popular belief, we have a legal system in this country that declares the accused to be innocent until proven otherwise. The burden is on the accuser to provide compelling evidence in a court of law about the misdeeds in question.
It is only after such a dispute has been adjudicated in this manner that punishment can be meted out. Many of these instances involve allegations which took place years and even decades ago. This brings statutes of limitations into play, as well as the utter lack of concrete evidence which invariably would have whittled away over the years. As a result, you have a classic ‘he said/she said’ situation which leaves us in limbo legally.
It is a different matter politically. Consider this tweet from Mitt Romney:
Innocent until proven guilty is for criminal convictions, not elections. I believe Leigh Corfman. Her account is too serious to ignore. Moore is unfit for office and should step aside.
[TWEET: Roy Moore in the US Senate would be a stain on the GOP and on the nation. Leigh Corfman and other victims are courageous heroes. No vote, no majority is worth losing our honor, our integrity.]
This excrement is indicative of a society which is more and more willing to be ruled by the court of public opinion, where feelings supersede facts and Ugly Truths take a backseat to Pretty Lies. Those Lies, namely that Equalism, Diversity and Tolerance together form the highest collective of human virtues has been at the foundation of the current political and social establishment.
It is an establishment which was formed during the political and social upheavals of the 1960s and whose excesses are now challenged by more and more people. In the face of such backlash, establishment acolytes such as Romney have one job: preserve the status quo.
Consider the cases of Roy Moore, Al Franken and John Conyers. When the Washington Post published its original story leveling the allegations, within an hour the press had prominent members of the Republican Party on camera ready to disavow Moore and call for his resignation from the race. In the subsequent weeks, the Republicans were reported to have weighed all sorts of alternatives from having the governor of Alabama postpone the special election, to mounting a charge for a write-in candidate, to outright refusing to go through with the procedural formalities of swearing a would-be Senator-Elect Moore into the Senate.
Senator Jeff Flake, like Romney, a Never Trump Republican lieutenant, explicitly stated that if the choice was between a Democrat and Roy Moore, the Democrat was preferable. All this, simply because Roy Moore represents, or at least is perceived to represent, real opposition to the status quo. A status quo which, for completeness, consists of your name brand congressional types at the head of the GOP and the Democrats, the moneyed interests which own them, the vast bureaucracy which implements their dictate on the public, as well as a mainstream media which is their mouthpiece.
Moore, by all accounts is a Trump Republican, backed by Steve Bannon, President Trump’s former strategist and campaign manager, and the man who sees as his mission transforming the Trump doctrine of social, cultural and economic populism into political power. For this Bannon has been made a pariah, a boogeyman, with everything he touches proclaimed as toxic by a status-quo seeking establishment.
It was with this backdrop that Moore went into the September Republican Primary against Luther Strange, an establishment man supported by GOP bigwigs such as Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell. The Turtle lent the weight of his office, $30 million from the GOP coffers and even coerced President Trump to engage in a halfhearted campaign appearance in Alabama on behalf of Strange. It wasn’t enough, and Strange’s defeat once again highlighted the disdain the public has for the GOP establishment and establishment politics in general.
Fast forward a few weeks, and the Washington Post drops an article alleging that Roy Moore allegedly pursued sexual relations with a 14 year old, alongside other allegations that he dated 16 and 17 year olds, all while he was in his early 30s. The allegations are all roughly four decades old, corroborated only by the words of the accusers. As I mentioned before there is little in the way of legal recourse at this juncture because of how long ago this supposedly took place.
This leaves the only conceivable motive for such information to be released at that specific time, mere weeks before a pivotal election, to be political in nature. Indeed, the Washington Post article, perhaps cognizant of the fact the allegation about the 14 year old girl might be a bit weak on its own for the reasons I described above, included the other allegations about 16 and 17 year olds so as to buttress its position and paint a richer picture of Moore’s alleged creepiness. Those other allegations, while not necessarily illegal, are certainly indecent in the minds of most, allowing negative feelings about Moore to flow more naturally.
Then there is the fact that embedded in the Post article is the admission that the women in question did not seek out the Post to go public. Rather a WaPo employee, having heard rumors, went and found the women, and after multiple interviews (suggesting coercion), they gave their accounts of Moore. Mind, Roy Moore has been a public figure in Alabama politics for the better part of 40 years, prancing around the judiciary in various capacities. One wonders why these women felt no need to voice their alleged grievances for all of that time. That is until the Washington Post tracked them down, a few weeks before an election that same ‘objective’ paper is desperate for Moore to lose.
Then, we have is the aforementioned coordinated response from the Republican leadership in DC, egged on by a jubilant mainstream media which spent countless hours discussing it, and then having that jubilance morph into anger the more and more it looked that Moore wasn’t going to succumb to the pressure and drop out.
This is to say nothing of the absurd Gloria Allred yearbook stunt. The Moore episode is a textbook political hit job, similar to the one which was attempted on Moore’s apparent ideological brethren, President Trump, also conveniently a few weeks before an election. That too was replete with calls from senior Republicans for Trump to step down, salivating from the media, and even a Gloria Allred appearance.
It obviously didn’t work. And should Roy Moore win next week, it will be another watershed in the slow but certain death of the establishment. It will demonstrate once again what a waning power the media has become; no longer can it just conjure scandals targeting its political opponents, which leave those opponents sunk the instant it breaks. In today’s world, with alternative media rising on the internet, and a general distaste for the mainstream viewpoint owing to decades of deceit and partisanship, the press is having its bias and actions scrutinized like never before.
Yet in its hubris, it believes in its indomitable might just at the moment its influence is deteriorating the most. That is why we get articles like this one, also from the Washington Post, which goes to fantastic lengths to defend Senator Al Franken from allegations that he too is a serial sexual harasser. The rationale here is blatant partisanship – because Franken is a Democrat and yells loudly about feminism from time to time, his sins are of less of a problem than someone like Roy Moore (or Trump). That Franken apologized to his accuser (most likely because there was photographic evidence) also helped his cause.
The curious thing here is that unlike with Moore, the same Republicans who wanted Moore’s head on a spike a mere hour into his ordeal have not called for anything similar with Franken. At most, they have called for a Senate Ethics Committee investigation, which Franken himself enthusiastically suggested. Franken was so eager to face his ‘punishment’ because he knows it is no such thing. Within the last decade or so, the Committee has, as its most stern mode of reprimand, administered letters of harsh admonishment to offending lawmakers. Representative Conyers seems headed for similar ‘censure’ in a Congressional Committee. Like Franken, Conyers was vociferously defended by his the most powerful Democrat allies, with Nancy Pelosi declaring that Conyers was an ‘icon,’ playing down the need for his removal from office.
What we have here is the establishment protecting the status quo. It is most clearly seen in the differing reactions to Moore and Franken by GOP Senators. Using McConnell as a proxy, his initial reaction to Moore was that his expulsion from the race was mandatory. With Franken, McConnell took a more deliberative tack, claiming a thorough investigation had to take place in the ethics committee. Likewise, with respect to Franken, Democratic Senator Dick Durban was deliberative in his insistence that ‘due process’ be carried out. However, Moore is afforded no such basic consideration. The status quo is circling the wagons.
The problem for the likes of McConnell is that their duplicity is becoming more and more apparent. He was willing to throw a threat to the status quo under the bus on a mere allegation, all for a pat on the head from the Editorial Boards of the New York Times or Washington Post, which might put a favorable sentence or two about the Majority Leader in one of its columns, before resuming regular bashing service in the next one. Thanks to the aforementioned alternative media, and the President’s famous Twitter account, more and more people turning away from what the Establishment advocates, simply because it is they that are advocating it.
Then there is the cultural angle, which begins with a denial of biological and sexual realities and is now ironically ending with the professional destruction of many of those who most avidly promote those Pretty Lies.
It is a biological reality that sperm is plentiful while eggs are relatively scarce, which imposes upon women the task of quality control with respect to male suitors. Incidentally it is this fact which explains why the majority of men are incredibly nervous in the mere presence of a woman he finds attractive, let alone in the midst of a simple interaction with one, to say nothing still of an attempt at intimate relations with one.
This is because, on a deep level, each sexual advance is a referendum on the suitability of the male, with a rejection rendering a verdict, albeit a temporary one, that the DNA of the male in question is not fit to remain in the human gene pool. It is utterly devastating when you think about it.
Yet there is a certain hope in the fact that it is possible for a man to control his destiny in this realm, because the threshold of ‘quality man,’ above which access to women would be granted, has more or less always been a known quantity at any given time throughout history. The crux, as it pertains to civilizational advance or decline and culture, has always been about the changing meaning of ‘quality’ as time goes on.
In speaking of civilization, it is worth remarking that in a way it is a very unnatural phenomenon. Civilization is a profound exercise in man working against nature to maintain order. It requires sustained drudgery on a daily basis, but such is the price of maintaining that thin veneer separating most from the harsh realities of nature.
On a biological level, men and women both pay an individual price for civilizational advance, the blunting of their inherent sexuality. On the female side, the price paid is that the quest to find the best sperm for her eggs cannot go on in perpetuity. That is, at some point she’ll have to pick a guy and remain loyal to him in all aspects, even if a ‘better’ man comes along later. For the men, the price is that once a woman agrees to be loyal to him, all of his provisional abilities are to be employed in service of her and any children that result from the union. These provisional abilities are displayed through competence in works which are beneficial to society. This creates a paradigm which offers men sexual access in exchange for contributing to society.
Without this ‘agreement,’ women would more than likely restrict sexual access to only the very best, most attractive males in a primal sense, sometimes regardless of their ability to contribute to society. These males, having the pick of the lot, would enjoy multiple women but have their resources spread thinly across them, if at all. The vast majority of men that would go without female attention, having no incentive to produce and contribute to society, would either trend towards becoming disinterested loafers or extremely violent. Neither outcome is beneficial for society.
The above is the explanation for the observations made by English anthropologist J.D. Unwin, whose 1934 treatise Sex and Culture studied roughly 85 civilized and uncivilized situations across 5000 years of history. His findings were that ‘social energy,’ which is to say civilization-building and enriching prowess, was directly linked to sexual restraint. He writes:
…Such, in brief but sufficient outline, were the postnuptial regulations of these vigorous societies; such were their methods of regulating the relations between the sexes. In each case they reduced their sexual opportunity to a minimum by the adoption of absolute monogamy; in each case the ensuing compulsory continence produced great social energy. The group within the society which suffered the greatest continence displayed the greatest energy, and dominated the society.
When absolute monogamy was preserved only for a short time, the energy was only expansive, but when the rigorous tradition was inherited by a number of generations the energy became productive. As soon as the institution of modified monogamy, that is, marriage and divorce by mutual consent, became part of the inherited tradition of a complete new generation, the energy, either of the whole society or of a group within the society, decreased, and then disappeared.
It is in this manner that the behaviour of these societies was controlled by their methods of regulating the relation between the sexes. In no case was sexual opportunity reduced to a minimum unless married women, and usually unmarried women also, were compelled to suffer legal and social disadvantages. The manner in which the marital and parental authorities were modified was the same in each society. In every case the same situations arose; the same sentiments were expressed; the same changes were made; the same results ensued.
The history of these societies consists of a series of monotonous repetitions; and it is difficult to decide which aspect of the story is the more significant: the lamentable lack of original thought which in each case the reformers displayed, or the amazing alacrity with which, after a period of intense compulsory continence, the human organism seizes the earliest opportunity to satisfy its innate desires in a direct or perverted manner. Sometimes a man has been heard to declare that he wishes both to enjoy the advantages of high culture and to abolish compulsory continence.
The inherent nature of the human organism, however, seems to be such that these desires are incompatible, even contradictory. The reformer may be likened to the foolish boy who desires both to keep his cake and to consume it. Any human society is free to choose either to display great energy or to enjoy sexual freedom; the evidence is that it cannot do both for more than one generation.
Thus, our current disregard of sexual mores and biological realities seems to be the latest in the long list of such periods found throughout the human story, rather than being something new.
This current iteration, the Feminist Thotocracy, was ushered in by the likes of Gloria Stienem and Helen Gurley Brown, who pushed for female independence from men, particularly financial independence. In terms of timing, it is no accident that the feminist movement really got traction in the 1960s and 1970s; this was a civilizational high long removed from the nadir that was shaped by the Great Depression and World War II. The unprecedented comfort that came from a society which was packed to the gills with consumer goods overflowing from its factories slowly led to the idea that the restraints which characterized Depression era America were no longer necessary.
It was time to stop being so square.
Thus, The Pill, ubiquitous abortion, divorce-on-a-whim and the virtues of single motherhood and promiscuity became staples of the culture, warping gender relations. A great symbol of how cultural views have been turned on its head came last week, as Prince Harry announced his engagement to a 36 year old divorced American actress, to much glee and fanfare. Some 81 years earlier, his great-grandfather’s brother, Edward VIII also wanted to marry an American divorcee past her prime. Edward, who was King at the time, was met with a stern social, political and family backlash, such that he chose to abdicate the throne rather than find another woman.
For a more detailed glimpse at what this cultural shift has wrought in the new century, consider this Vanity Fair article from 2015 about the Tinderification of Millennial dating. The interesting thing about Tinder is that it is a distillation of the precise sexual landscape which our libertine sexual reformers would prefer – instant gratification, no strings attached, pleasure-above-all hedonistic delight. Yet under the surface, the realities of male and female sex differences assert themselves. In the article both men and women feel a tinge of disappointment with the modern dating game – the women feel used and the men unchallenged. It is exactly what one who has not drunk from the chalice of Pretty Lies would expect.
The article is a must read in its entirety, but this passage in particular is of some import with respect to the conflagration of allegations put forth in recent weeks. It reads:
Men in the age of dating apps can be very cavalier, women say. One would think that having access to these nifty machines (their phones) that can summon up an abundance of no-strings-attached sex would make them feel happy, even grateful, and so inspired to be polite. But, based on interviews with more than 50 young women in New York, Indiana, and Delaware, aged 19 to 29, the opposite seems to be the case. “ ‘He drove me home in the morning.’ That’s a big deal,” said Rebecca, 21, a senior at the University of Delaware. “ ‘He kissed me good-bye.’ That shouldn’t be a big deal, but boys pull back from that because—”
“They don’t wanna give you the wrong idea,” said her classmate Kayla, 20.
Hearing story after story about the ill-mannered behavior of young women’s sex partners (“I had sex with a guy and he ignored me as I got dressed and I saw he was back on Tinder”), I wondered if there could be a parallel to Naomi Wolf’s The Beauty Myth (1991). Wolf posited that, as women achieved more social and political power, there was more pressure on them to be “beautiful” as a means of undermining their empowerment. Is it possible that now the potentially de-stabilizing trend women are having to contend with is the lack of respect they encounter from the men with whom they have sex? Could the ready availability of sex provided by dating apps actually be making men respect women less? “Too easy,” “Too easy,” “Too easy,” I heard again and again from young men when asked if there was anything about dating apps they didn’t like.
Bring all of this up to young men, however, and they scoff. Women are just as responsible for “the shit show that dating has become,” according to one. “Romance is completely dead, and it’s the girls’ fault,” says Alex, 25, a New Yorker who works in the film industry. “They act like all they want is to have sex with you and then they yell at you for not wanting to have a relationship. How are you gonna feel romantic about a girl like that? Oh, and by the way? I met you on Tinder.”
“Women do exactly the same things guys do,” said Matt, 26, who works in a New York art gallery. “I’ve had girls sleep with me off OkCupid and then just ghost me”—that is, disappear, in a digital sense, not returning texts. “They play the game the exact same way. They have a bunch of people going at the same time—they’re fielding their options. They’re always looking for somebody better, who has a better job or more money.” A few young women admitted to me that they use dating apps as a way to get free meals. “I call it Tinder food stamps,” one said.
Even the emphasis on looks inherent in a dating game based on swiping on photos is something men complain women are just as guilty of buying into. “They say in their profiles, ‘No shirtless pictures,’ but that’s bullshit,” says Nick, the same as above. “The day I switched to a shirtless picture with my tattoos, immediately, within a few minutes, I had, like, 15 matches.”
And if women aren’t interested in being treated as sexual objects, why do they self-objectify in their profile pictures? some men ask. “There’s a lot of girls who are just like, Check me out, I’m hot, I’m wearing a bikini,” says Jason, the Brooklyn photographer, who on his OkCupid profile calls himself a “feminist.” “I don’t know if it’s my place to tell a girl she shouldn’t be flaunting her sexuality if that’s what she wants to do. But,” he adds, “some guys might take the wrong idea from it.”
Men talk about the nudes they receive from women. They show off the nudes. “Tit pics and booty pics,” said Austin, 22, a college student in Indiana. “My phone is full of ‘em.”
And what about unsolicited dick pics? “They want to see your dick,” insists Adam, 23, a male model in New York. “They get excited from it. They’re like, ‘Oh my God, you’re huge.’ ”
No woman I talked to said she had ever asked for one. And yet, “If you’re a girl who’s trying to date, it’s normal to get dick pics all the time,” said Olivia, 24, a Brandeis graduate. “It’s like we have dicks flying at us.”
There are striking parallels between the Tinderized dating market for Millennials and the world we’ve now become privy to as a result of the Weinsteins of the world, with the tales of indecent exposure and crude, explicit messaging within the halls of power rivaling that seen in the internet dating landscape. In both cases, a subset of men who found themselves possessing things women want in abundance (power, money, fame, access to those things, even just a nice physique), and used it to systematically, if crudely, extract sex from a multitude of women while investing little beyond that on any particular one of them.
These are features, not bugs of a licentious culture. More specifically, this workplace hanky panky which is now being reclassed as sexual assault was officially sanctioned by the Boomers during the President Clinton/Monica Lewinsky scandal. The cries of ‘it’s just sex’ codified a set of relations between the genders that encouraged what the Vanity Fair article calls a ‘psychosexual obesity’ in which unlimited sexual appetites are met. For some.
Women accepted the concomitant absence of intimacy because these relations could, in theory, accrue to them the access to the financial independence, wealth and possible fame their feminist foremothers told them would be oh so empowering.
However the morning after has brought with it regret, dissatisfaction, shame and diminished self-worth as opposed to the promised exhilaration of not-needing-no-man. Studies have been conducted which show that female happiness has declined over the last four decades, in a direct inverse relationship to the rise of the Feminist Thotocracy. For young Tinderellas, their disappointment is tempered by a delusion that they still have their best years ahead of them, in which things might get better. Their older sisters, who have already been through the ringer, have no such luxury.
In either case, the discrepancies between the feminist promise of unlimited bliss and the disappointing reality had to be rectified somehow and it was done through the increased use of prescription medication among women, and the propagation of the idea that the West is a ‘rape culture.’ Both of these coping mechanisms are really an attempt at an after the fact absolution from the consequences of one’s actions.
Either her brain chemicals ‘acted up’ which necessitates drugs, or society ‘acted up’ and left women vulnerable to predation, necessitating the demonization of male sexuality and the public humiliation and ruination of any and all offenders.
Another aspect of this which is of interest concerns the fact that the vast majority of the offenders are self-described ‘male feminists,’ which is really a way to describe a beta male who loudly ingratiates himself with girls catering to their every ideological whim with the express purpose of cashing in later by getting sex. To date, no bona fide ‘players’ such as Clint Eastwood, Warren Beatty, Jack Nicholson or Leonardo DiCaprio have been caught up in this, despite having bed a medium sized city worth of women between them.
This speaks to the reality of the much maligned, aforementioned Trump ‘Pussy Tape’ – in which Trump was merely outlining an Ugly Truth. There is a certain class of men who can ‘grab’em by the pussy.’ Those now infamous words merely constitute a figurative phrase describing the fact that a man of a certain ‘sexyness’ can do or say things to women that less attractive men would be crucified for, provided it is done or said at just the right moment. Indeed, it is this sense of timing and execution which in part marks a man as sexually superior and thus attractive to women. What is deliberately left from any mainstream discussion of that Access Hollywood tape is the fact that Trump prefaced the pussygrab comment with the reality that when you’re famous (read: charming and attractive), they LET you do it.
The real reason that tape caused so much outrage was that the Ugly Truth was thrust so bluntly in the face of the public, with no warning. The vast majority of women hated that an aspect of their nature they would rather keep hidden was put on blast, by a man no less. (In this regard, women have exposed these things themselves by making the 50 Shades of Grey books some of the most sold in human history, but it required one to look beneath the surface to realize the Ugly Truth). Men were outraged by the tape because it confirmed to them that they could move heaven and earth in pursuit of a woman, but would still likely lose out to a well-timed wink from a charming Cad.
Unfortunately for women, common sense dictates that the sexiest 20 or 30% of males are much less visible, let alone attainable. Yet, the prescribed life plan for girls as per Feminist Thotocracy practitioners is as follows: Participate in the 4 year party known as college, having sex with lots of boys. Then graduate, shack up with a few gal pals in some coffin apartment in a big city, before spending the next 10 years or so ‘finding yourself,’ focusing on your career, while sleeping with more boys. Then, at age 35, begin thinking about settling down with Prince Charming.
This license to embark on an infinite search for the right alpha male doesn’t magically command a greater number of them to appear from the ether. In fact, it is more likely that increased promiscuity will result in increased encounters with beta types who have, through their competence in the professional world, attain power and resources which lets them attempt to lord more easily over subjective realms such as love and sex. This is particularly true in the diverse, more global metropolises.
What this may lead to is an otherwise less appealing man attempting to replicate the silky smooth maneuver he saw Don Draper do successfully on TV once, thinking that his having a fat bank account, for instance, is a direct substitute for attraction. What wasn’t realized was that it was never about the objective execution of the ‘move,’ but who was doing it.
The aggregation of put-on horror expressed at the sexual advances revealed in these allegations, ranging from the oafish and awkward to the downright deviant, mirrors that from the ‘trapped’ housewives of yesteryear, in a way. To the extent that the #metoo campaign is right and this behavior is more widespread, it is really the endgame of the voluntary realignment of culture and society which was ushered in by the Cultural Marxists.
Women have ultimately eschewed stay at home ‘drudgery’ and boring sex with Tim the Accountant, and in its stead accepted professional drudgery while stuck in a remote-locking sex office with Matt Lauer, as Harvey Weinstein jerks off into the decorative potted plants in the corner, as their inbox overflows with Charlie Rose’s intimate fantasies. At least the former scenario granted women the warmth of a stable family life from the deal, as opposed to the ruthlessness of corporate servitude. The Don Drapers and Christian Greys are very few and very far in between. It is little wonder that female happiness has been on the decline.
One of the girls in the aforementioned Vanity Fair article laments the fact that it’s the girls who have lost control in the modern hypersexual world. It seems as though the allegation furor is an attempt to wrest control away from the re-emergence of the sexual realities which were meant to have been relegated to the dustbin of history. As I remarked earlier, the vast majority of the claims we have heard to date cannot be adjudicated through legal means, and those making the claims by and large know this. The true aim, then, is to attempt to rewrite the rules of sex so as to favor women to a degree we haven’t yet seen, while retroactively assigning punishment for past offenses based on those new rules.
The aim is to create a world in which the sexual rules are unknown; that is there are no society-wide codes of conduct regarding sex and gender. Simultaneously, catastrophic societal, professional and perhaps legal punishment is to be doled out for the mere allegation of impropriety, although there is no way to know when a rule is broken until after the fact, when an accuser declares she was wronged. And of course, to prevent perpetuating a Rape Culture of oppression, the accuser should always be believed.
This is communist tyranny in its most pure form, here tinged with a bit of pink. No surprise, given feminism is little more than Cultural Marxism applied to gender relations. The goal is control, and the Masculine seeks the opposite of that. So it must be infused with soy until a suitable level of compliance is attained. It is a New Puritanism, ironically ushered in by ‘sex positive’ leftists.
In the end, the attempt to establish a FemenReich will fall short. Men will respond by cordoning themselves off from any non-professional contact with women on the job, and perhaps resort to recording all professional contacts. The Mike Pence Rule will be in full effect.
Of course women will cry foul about this too, and in so doing push men into a corner from which they were certainly react, most likely with a collective pimp hand raised in righteous indignation.
Failing this reemergence of a collective testicular fortitude, the specter of societal collapse will do the trick. As per Unwin, as degeneracy continues to proliferate, society building and society enhancing behaviors will decline, leaving the West vulnerable. And in the midst of the next society-wide panic, there will be no time for pithy concerns about ‘rape culture.’ It will most likely be the Woke Millenials, alongside their younger Generation Zyklon understudies which will shepherd society through those turbulent times. Meanwhile, what is left of the Boomers and the older Gen Xers watch their libertine ideals swept aside, universally regarded as lunacy, ironically relegating them to the exact ‘wrong side of history’ their tall tales and Pretty Lies were meant to keep them from.
The mark of a good grasp of politics circa 2017 is the understanding that the ideological battle is not between principled conservatives and social justice seeking leftists but between nationalists and globalists. In America, this ideological battle is waged by the following belligerents: the Democrats, social justice warriors, Republican establishment, the media and academia on the side of globalism; the Dissident Right, President Trump and his supporters on the side of nationalism.
The fault line was clearly on display this week, as President Trump, former presidents Obama and Bush, and Senator John McCain all made comments which spoke to the divide. Consider the following quotes:
First, President Trump, during a keynote address at the Heritage Foundation:
We believe we should preserve our history, not tear it down. Now, they are trying to destroy statues of Christopher Columbus. What’s next? It has to be stopped; it’s heritage.
You understand that our glorious heritage is the foundation of everything we hope to achieve.
Senator John McCain, speaking at the Liberty Medal Ceremony in Philadelphia:
To fear the world we have organized and led for three-quarters of a century, to abandon the ideals we have advanced around the globe, to refuse the obligations of international leadership and our duty to remain “the last best hope of earth” for the sake of some half-baked, spurious nationalism cooked up by people who would rather find scapegoats than solve problems is as unpatriotic as an attachment to any other tired dogma of the past that Americans consigned to the ash heap of history.
We live in a land made of ideals, not blood and soil. We are the custodians of those ideals at home, and their champion abroad. We have done great good in the world. That leadership has had its costs, but we have become incomparably powerful and wealthy as we did. We have a moral obligation to continue in our just cause, and we would bring more than shame on ourselves if we don’t. We will not thrive in a world where our leadership and ideals are absent. We wouldn’t deserve to.
Former President George W. Bush, speaking at an event in New York City:
We’ve seen nationalism distorted into nativism – forgotten the dynamism that immigration has always brought to America. We see a fading confidence in the value of free markets and international trade – forgetting that conflict, instability, and poverty follow in the wake of protectionism.
We have seen the return of isolationist sentiments – forgetting that American security is directly threatened by the chaos and despair of distant places, where threats such as terrorism, infectious disease, criminal gangs and drug trafficking tend to emerge.
We should not be blind to the economic and social dislocations caused by globalization. People are hurting. They are angry. And, they are frustrated. We must hear them and help them. But we can’t wish globalization away, any more than we could wish away the agricultural revolution or the industrial revolution. One strength of free societies is their ability to adapt to economic and social disruptions.
Our identity as a nation – unlike many other nations – is not determined by geography or ethnicity, by soil or blood. Being an American involves the embrace of high ideals and civic responsibility…
This means that people of every race, religion, and ethnicity can be fully and equally American. It means that bigotry or white supremacy in any form is blasphemy against the American creed. And it means that the very identity of our nation depends on the passing of civic ideals to the next generation.
It is particularly interesting that both McCain and Bush specifically denounced ‘blood and soil’ as the determining factor of our nation, and Trump, while not necessarily making specific argument for Blood and Soil, nevertheless highlighted Christopher Columbus and his role in discovering the land which would end up becoming the United States.
It is an unmistakable fact that without the exploits of Columbus and the Europeans who followed, in particular the British, there would be no United States. The ‘high ideals and civic responsibility,’ which McCain and Bush both referenced, are a result of those exploits. Their foundations lie in the people and their culture which established the land as theirs.
According to Bush and McCain, merely embracing those ideals are the prerequisites to being American. If the Founding Fathers had taken that advice prior to the Revolution, they’d have been embracing American ideals all day long until they were blue in the face, but they would have been doing so from within the British Empire as colonials. Their mere embracing did not make them the earliest Americans. It wasn’t until, in the face of continued tyranny from the Crown, they decided to spill ‘blood’ for the sovereignty of the ‘soil’ on which they stood, that a nation was born. And it continues to the extent that their heritage is passed on from generation to generation.
Bush and McCain seem to believe that the identity of that nation known as the Unites States is not a narrowly defined Renegade Brit mentality buttressed by Greco-Roman philosophical and legal precepts. Instead it is identified more by nebulous universal ideals open to anyone and everyone.
It is here we focus on McCain and his effusive praise for those globalist ideals. His praise is founded more on the idea that America is the ‘custodian’ of these ideals, the one dominant global power. He sees America and her might as little more than a tool to be used hammering any and all disagreeable nail which happens to pop up on the world stage.
McCain’s idea of proper foreign policy for America is exemplified by his 2014 comments on the situation in Crimea. He remarked:
We are all Ukrainians in the respect that we have a sovereign nation that is again with international boundaries… that is again being taken in as part of Russia. That is not acceptable to an America that stands up for the rights of human beings. We are Georgians. And we are Ukrainians.
In a sense he is right. Owing to 75 years of globalist foreign policy, we have a situation in which the vast majority of Western Europe is essentially allied against Russia via NATO, backed by American dollars and American military might. While Ukraine is not officially a member of NATO, its adversarial stance against Russia has earned it some rhetorical sanctuary under the American tent of influence. We are all Ukrainians because if they are attacked, our alliance is attacked. To maintain the leadership McCain so values in this realm, American lives are to be sacrificed.
Many of McCain’s fellow Americans are coming to see things a bit differently, wondering why the affairs of the Ukrainians, Russians, or indeed Syrians and Iraqis necessitate Americans being sent halfway around the world to die. And they’d be right to wonder, considering that when it comes to the sovereignty of those pieces of land, half a world away, the likes of McCain and Bush are lightning fast to advocate risking American lives in their defense. Yet, when it comes to the American piece of land, we are suddenly told that the soil is not the identity of the nation. Ukrainian borders are sacred. American borders aren’t.
The media reaction to the Bush and McCain comments was instructive in the context of the globalist and nationalist ideological battle. As I outlined at the start, the GOP establishment, of which McCain and Bush are a part, is allied with the mainstream press on the side of globalism. As such, the media was in full support of Bush and McCain.
CNN in particular was gushing over McCain’s comments, declaring that everyone HAD to read his speech as though it was the latest entry into the pantheon of great American political speeches. The ever odious Chris Cillizza made the typically modern declaration that merely making a left leaning argument is the same thing as making a convincing, devastatingly thorough argument.
As for Bush, anyone with a tangential appreciation of American politics over the last decade or so understands the degree to which the 43rd president was made into a laughing stock, and the butt of jokes. Now his words are held high as though sacred.
In McCain’s case, the irony is that this is the same John McCain who was painted out by the media to be a dangerous, dark figure in 2008, owing to the same plans for global domination though endless wars which are now praised because the anti-globalist Russians are now more prominently in the crosshairs. This is the same John McCain who CNN bashed as being ‘intellectually shallow.’ This apparent mental midget is now being recast as a Titan of the Senate, a wise sage with an independent streak as per the New York Times.
Of course, the reason for the about face is that McCain once sought the Presidency and therefore found himself in opposition to Barack Obama, the media’s darling. Today, he stands against President Trump, put out as the ultimate evil according to the press.
But it is more than this. Back in 2008, the argument was not about globalism versus nationalism, but rather who among the elite was to benefit the most from the spoils of globalism, at the expense of the rest of the country. Under McCain, it would have been the military industrial complex and multinational corporations reaping the most benefit. Under Obama, it was those groups, in addition to the Media–Academia Complex, and a burgeoning Grievance Industry.
In 2016, Trump rode a wave of nationalist sentiment, fueled by the disdain the public had for distant, out of touch bureaucrats further extending their reach, and as well for their media sycophants who pathologized any and dissent to the globalist march forward.
This pathologizing was evident in Bush’s remarks, in which he castigated bigotry, which he described as ‘blasphemy’ against the ‘American creed.’ When sent through the Globalist Translator, the statement says that bigotry (defined in 2017 as the failure to acquiesce to the demands of any non-white, non-male, non-Christian, or non-heterosexual) is an affront to the deity that is Globalism. Said differently, to disseminate Ugly Truths is to commit a mortal sin. Bush’s words can then be seen as an excommunication of Trumpism from the Church of the Globalist Niceities and Political Correctness.
That said, Trump has done just fine in the wilderness. His first nine months have seen the death of TPP, a ‘free trade’ deal which would have continued in the NAFTA tradition of harming domestic industry for the benefit of foreign industry. It saw the US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement, which would have had similar deleterious effects on domestic industry. It saw concrete steps taken to properly secure the border, with immigration agencies emboldened to actually do their jobs and prototypes for a border wall under construction. It saw the relative reduction in American warmongering, with Trump’s bark being much larger than his bite, to the dismay of Johm McCain. In short, vast swaths of the legacy of the Bush and Obama administrations have come undone, or are on the way to being undone.
And thus, the game has changed from an intra-squad squabble between the separate Globalist factions to a battle for all the marbles with a now vibrant opposition, represented by Trump. And as with McCain, the media has been dutiful in its praise for the likes of Ben Sasse, Mitt Romney, Jeff Flake, Bob Corker, and even Mitch McConnell, to name a few. Praise, because they had unkind words either for Trump, nationalism in general, or both. These individuals, who were once considered evil by default simply because of their identification as Republicans, finally gained heralding as true statesmen in their disavowal of the current President, and nationalism.
This dynamic is to be kept in mind as one considers the media reporting on Trump and his agenda vis-à-vis congress. For example, the current narrative when it comes to the tiffs the President has had with some of the aforementioned names is that he is shooting himself in the foot because he needs these individuals to pass legislation. This was most evident during the Corker episode.
The truth is that the squabbles reveal that what I outlined at the start – that the Repbulcan party, particularly the establishment wing – is not aligned with Trump when it comes to the Globalist vs Nationalist debate. In this sense, Trump does not truly have a majority in both chambers of Congress, such that the absence of major legislation is somehow a failure. The reality is that, at least in the Senate, Trump has at most about 48 votes on any given piece of Trump proposed legislation. There are generally at least 3 moderate (globalist) Republicans who will deny Trump real headway on getting the Trump agenda through legislation.
This is why the likes of Steve Bannon have come out swinging in recent weeks, declaring war on the GOP establishment as it pertains to the 2018 midterm elections, on behalf of Trump. His pledge to run primary candidates against Republicans who are insufficiently for, or outright against the Trump, nationalist agenda has been seen as potentially damaging to the Republican party.
This analysis only makes sense to those with an inadequate understanding of the true political demarcations afoot. People like Bannon correctly understand that Republicans like Flake, Sasse and McCain might as well be Democrats, given their opposition to the fundamental changes that would be required to advance the Trump agenda. So they must be replaced by ‘Trump Republicans.’
At an impromptu joint press conference with Trump and McConnell at the beginning of the week, the former spewed the orthodoxy of the globalist establishment, which was to say that doing his job to keep a Republican majority meant putting forth candidates which could actually win in a general election Translated, this means candidates who seek to be all things to all people, who never offend, always toe the line, espousing pretty lies and condemning ugly truths.
The bottom line for McConnell is that his way is looking to be the losing way, as in truth, it has been for decades. The difference now is that the elites are finally beginning to feel the losses which before only accrued to the masses. Trump’s election to date is the largest such loss. But more are seemingly on the horizon. Jeff Flake looks to be in trouble. McConnell himself enjoys a rock bottom approval rating in Kentucky of 18%. Bob Corker, perhaps seeing the writing on the wall, isn’t even going to bother running to hold on to his Senate seat next year. Luther Strange, the McConnell choice in the Alabama special election was defeated by Roy Moore, the Bannonite selection.
In Europe, the forces of nationalism have been boosted this week by an election win in Austria, and the turmoil in Spain. George Soros announced that he is committing $18 billion in fresh capital to his Open Society project. And looking to the future, Generation Z, mischievously referred to as Generation Zyklon by the right wing Internet troll brigade, is shaping up to be the most right leaning generation in decades.
All of this puts those wails made this week by the old guard of McCain, Bush and Obama in context. Their fervent defense of the tired, old order, is a testament to the desperation they must feel.
The reinforcements are necessary, because they’re losing.
Much has been made of the Republican Primary for an Alabama special election which took place this past Tuesday night between Luther Strange and Judge Roy Moore. The reason is the amount of attention it received from higher ups in the GOP, President Trump and Mitch McConnell in particular.
The election is being held to fill the senate seat vacated by Jeff Sessions as he left to take on the duties of Attorney General. Both McConnell and Trump had backed Luther Strange in the primary, with the latter holding a rally in Alabama last Friday to stump for Strange. Vice President Mike Pence also held a rally for Strange in the days leading up to Tuesday.
The voters had different ideas however, and expressed them by handing Moore the victory. It wasn’t even close. This has caused a bit of a stir in the political punditry business, as your standard politial bloviator can not conceive of a situation in which a local candidate losing with the explicit support of the President, Vice President and Senate Majority Leader as anything other than a disaster.
As usual, the conventional political analysis is wrong.
By all accounts, Luther Strange was the candidate with the GOP Establishment seal of approval, while Roy Moore was the candidate which espoused a more ‘traditionalist’ mindset, which is a large element of the Make America Great Again mindset in totality. The voters preferred the latter.
The intervention of Trump undoubtedly clouds things, and there is no doubt the fact that he backed a losing horse here is a bit of a negative. But it is more than dwarfed by the big picture, which is that Trumpism is larger than Trump the man. The media has gone to great lengths to describe how ‘crazy’ Moore is, pointing out endlessly that he was kicked from the Alabama bench twice, once for refusing to remove the Ten Commandments from public display, and the other time for refusing to abide by the gay marriage law of 2015. He also famously waived a gun around on stage during a speech in show of his support for the Second Amendment.
To the standard political bloviator, these things are highly problematic. To Trump voters, however, this is the exact sort of fight that DC politicians, even supposedly conservative politicians, have failed to show for a long time. For decades, traditional minded voters have watched as politician after politician promised to uphold their values, and then subsequently went on to surrender all of those values, right down to the sanctity of the girls’ bathroom.
It is the reason Trump himself won, despite being ‘unpresidential.’ To this day, this charge is leveled against him as evidence of his failure as a President. However, the fact that he is not another Bush, Obama or Clinton is his exact appeal, as ‘presidential’ has come to mean the slow but sure destruction of American heritage and values in each and every respect. May Trump continue to be ‘unpresidential.’
Similarly, someone like Moore is a breath of fresh air in comparison to the staid ‘conservatives’ like McConnell which have polluted the DC air for too long. Indeed, it was probably the association with McConnell that sunk Strange.
In the wake of Strange’s defeat, many pundits are just now asking questions about an upheaval on the right, as though 2016 didn’t happen. Their wonderment at the result suggests they are still unaware of the realignment that has taken place over the last 18 months. Politics is no longer Republicans versus Democrats vying for which side of the Uniparty coin will be face up. It is about the establishment Republicans, Democrats, their special interests and mainstream media, which collectively making up the Uniparty, against those who want to MAGA.
In Alabama, the MAGA candidate won, and in doing so defied Trump himself. This, combined with Tennessee senator Bob Corker, Uniparty denizen announcing that he would not stand for re-election in 2018, represented a YUGE night for MAGA politics. As I wrote before, it is indicative of a Trumpism which is politically viable without Trump himself leading the charge. This is the theme for the 2018 terms.
The latest in the growing list of ‘smoking gun evidence’ of the Russia Collusion Theory was unearthed by the New York Times over the weekend when it dropped this story which outlined a June 2016 meeting in which Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manfort and Jared Kushner met with a Russian lawyer at Trump Tower. The article was titled ‘Trump Team Met With Lawyer Linked to Kremlin During Campaign.’ The next day, a follow up article, ‘Trump’s Son Met With Russian Lawyer After Being Promised Damaging Information on Clinton,’ focused further on the premise under which that meeting was conducted, which was the potential divulgence by a Russian national of information damaging to Hillary Clinton.
Obviously this narrative, as described by the NYT, sounds bad. For months, the left, in conjunction with their allies on the establishment right, have promoted the Russian Collusion Theory, the idea that the Russian government colluded with the Trump campaign to obtain and disseminate emails from John Podesta and the DNC through Wikileaks. In this regard, the DJT Jr. meeting is a possible smoking gun because it contains the elements ‘emails,’ ‘members of the Trump campaign,’ and ‘Russians.’ However, a sober look at the facts, and applying basic common sense and deductive reasoning will render this smoking gun as nothing of the sort. It will result in a bad week of press for DJT Jr. and nothing more. Quote me on that.