Category Archives: Politics

Allegation Nation

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:

[TWEET: 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]

And this lovely tweet from yesterday, after reports of President Trump lending his support for Moore surfaced.

[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.

President-Elect Trump, and Mitt Romney dine, representing a devious MAGA uprising ready to eat the lunch of the petrified establishment

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.

It’s sexy when he does it, not so much Matt Lauer (allegedly)

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.

Globalist Reinforcements

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.

Roy Moore Is Not a Loss for Trump

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.

On Donald Trump Jr’s Collusion With The Russians

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.

Continue reading On Donald Trump Jr’s Collusion With The Russians

The Meme Heard Round The World (Or, CNN Can’t Take A Joke)

The entirely media-created, faux outrage laden Trump Wrestlemania Twitter ‘controversy’ took an interesting turn when CNN, unable to take its loss like a man, decided to threaten the individual who made the meme which the President so gleefully posted over the weekend.

Of course, CNN will interpret it differently, but a look at what happened would render their interpretation invalid. Analyzing this episode is important for various reasons, which will be made clear as I go on.

But first, to the events themselves. After Trump posted the now famous tweet heard ‘round the world, the Washington Post published this article, detailing that the GIF came from a Reddit user called ‘HanAssholeSolo,’ (HAS). It then chronicled HAS’s history of questionable posts on Reddit. Other journalists took this and began to broadcast the wrongthink of HAS all across Twitter. Continue reading The Meme Heard Round The World (Or, CNN Can’t Take A Joke)

Happy 241st, America

Today, the United States of America turns 241 years old, and according to the press, its new President has spoiled the party mood.  He has done this by way of his general vulgarity, and his attacks on the free press.

Of course by ‘the free press,’ I refer to publications such as the New York Times, Washington Post and CNN, and it is publications such as these which have advanced the charge, echoed by those with leftist political, social and economic persuasions.

This latest round of pants wetting was induced by a Trump Twitter double salvo: the first aimed at MSNBC Morning Joe hosts Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough:

(Tweets: I heard poorly rated Morning Joe speaks badly of me (don’t watch anymore). Then how come low I.Q. Crazy Mika, along with Psycho Joe, came to Mar-a-Lago 3 nights in a row around New Year’s Eve, and insisted on joining me. She was bleeding badly from a face-lift. I said no!)

And the second aimed at CNN:

In truth, both of these episodes are examples of shitposting par excellence. Joe and Mika had, after giving reasonable, balanced coverage of the President during his run through the primaries, turned on a dime after receiving massive criticism from fellow leftists and decided to become Trump Derangement Syndrome: The TV Show. Continue reading Happy 241st, America

Competing Conspiracies

With respect to President Donald Trump, the Russian government, and the mainstream media, there are two narratives which have vied for the public’s attention over the past several months. They are as follows:

  1. The Russian government conspired with the Trump campaign in some capacity in order to tilt the election in his favor.
  2. The Obama administration ran surveillance on the Trump campaign, most likely illegally

The former narrative has been advanced by leftists, the neoconservative globalist element of the right, and the mainstream media. The latter narrative was introduced by President Trump himself, seemingly in response to the growing hysteria fomented by that first narrative.

The ultimate origin of Conspiracy #1 is the unconventional views President Trump holds on the topic of Russia. Congressman Dennis Heck referenced this during the much hyped Congressional hearing on Russian intervention in the 2016 election, dutifully playing up the idea that the Trump campaign may have colluded in the scheme:

Republicans who are always so strong against geopolitical foes like Russia, I know my colleagues on this committee take the Russia threat very seriously. Why wouldn’t the people who inhabit the White House? How else can we explain an Administration that beats up our oldest allies, like Australia and Britain, and our strongest and most sacrosanct alliance, like NATO, but never, ever say a bad word about Putin. In fact, they say a lot of good words about Putin.

An administration that we have heard decisively makes up baseless wiretapping charges against a former United States President, equates our intelligence agencies to Nazi Germany, and argues moral equivalents between a repressive, authoritarian states with an abhorrent human rights record like Russia in our free and open democracy. And yet, this Administration never, ever utters any criticism of Russia.

During the presidential election, Trump was one of the few candidates who did not, implicitly or explicitly, advocate for war with Russia. The Republicans, with the notable exception of Rand Paul, opposed Trump on this point, constantly falling over themselves describing how tough they would be on Putin and how badly they wanted to “punch the Russians in the nose,” in the words of John Kasich.

Hillary Clinton also expressed her desire for aggro with the Russians, consistently stating her support for  no-fly zone over Syria, even after it was pointed out by top generals that establishing such a zone would lead to war. Chris Wallace explicitly laid this out to her in the third Presidential debate, all but asking her “do you want war with Russia?” She brushed aside the grave implications and stood by her position.

That Trump stood so steadfastly against Republican and Democratic establishment orthodoxy meant that the media establishment had no choice but to fall in line against Trump. Given that this orthodoxy was, and is an anti-Putin, anti-Russia position, the media had no problems with this course. After all, Putin is a massive check on the globalist, leftist policy prescription for world. Geopolitically he resists NATO, and culturally he has promoted more traditionalist, Christian views within Russia, and has been critical of the West and its relative abandonment of those views.

Prior to the election, the media angst over Trump’s Putin views was limited to just another bad view in a long list of bad views Trump held.  The media and his political opponents were far more interested in exploring the RACIST SEXIST HOMOPHOBE XENOPHOBE line of criticism. To the extent Russians were mentioned before the election, it was to deflect attention away from the substance of the DNC leaks and the Podesta leaks. The fact that the Democrats were exposed as corrupt and duplicitous was supposed to be forgotten, simply because it was allegedly Russians who exposed that truth.

It was only after the election that the view that the Russian government ‘hacked the election’ for the purpose of installing Donald Trump as president took shape and metastasized to the point where a much hyped Congressional hearing on that matter took place this past Monday. Having failed in denying Trump the presidency on the basis of him being a ‘bigot,’ the coalition of leftist, neoconservative globalists and their media mouthpieces moved to paint Trump’s political stance on the subject of Russia and foreign policy as something much more nefarious than just an opposing viewpoint.

Adam Schiff, ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee which held the aforementioned hearing on Monday said in his opening remarks that Trump’s continued insistence on NATO countries paying their fair share, as they had already agreed to, was evidence of a quid pro quo, in which the Russian government hacked documents to help Trump in exchange for Trump’s tough talk:

The hacked documents would be in exchange for a Trump administration policy that de-emphasizes Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and instead focuses on criticizing NATO countries for not paying their fair share. Policies which even as recently as the President’s meeting last week with Angela Merkel have now presently come to pass.

Rand Paul, who, as mentioned before, was one of the few Republicans unwilling to sign on to a policy of war with Russia during the campaign, found himself in an explosive tiff with Senator John McCain last week. McCain, the foremost symbol of neoconservative  globalism, wanted to put forth a resolution which would support Montenegro’s entrance into NATO. McCain was asking for a unanimous consent request which would have allowed the measure to go to a full Senate vote, without debate, had it been passed without objection.

In the stunning video below, McCain, knowing that a Paul objection was imminent, moved to declare anyone who would object to be in cahoots with the Russians. Paul remained unnerved, raised his objection and left the room.

McCain then launched into an angry invective against Senator Paul, accusing him of ‘working for Vladamir Putin.’  All because Paul wanted the Senate to have a discussion about the merits of including Montenegro, a poor country which would almost certainly end up being a ward of NATO, into the organization. The only clear ‘merit’ would be that geopolitically, it would annoy the Russians. Thus, the unwillingness of Paul to unnecessarily provoke Russia must mean that he is a Russian agent. Such is the rationale of globalists of every political bent.

Of course, there was the infamous ‘dossier,’ which contained unsubstantiated information collected by a British intelligence agent at the behest of Trump’s political enemies, which alleged that the Russian government had ‘kompromat’ on Trump which was held over his head as blackmail.

Then there was Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who during his confirmation hearings, was asked by Senator Al Franken whether he would have an issue investigating associates of the Trump campaign who had contacted Russian officials in the context of the 2016 election, as had been reported at the time.

Sessions answered that he himself, having been such an associate, did not have any contact with the Russians. It was later unearthed that Sessions had in fact had one meeting with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak in his capacity as a member of the Senate Armed Forces Committee, and an informal meet-and-greet with Kislyak at the Republican National Convention, publicly, in the presence of several other ambassadors.

Indeed, Sessions had had over 25 similar meetings in his Senate office in the same Armed Forces Committee capacity as his meeting with Kislyak, including one with the Ukrainian ambassador the day before. Yet, this seemingly routine meeting was used as evidence to suggest that Sessions had perjured himself during his confirmation hearings, prompting calls for his resignation from the post. The Russian Conspiracy frenzy was at its highest.

 

Connecting the Dots

 

It was then that Trump dropped his infamous tweet storm, early on a Saturday Morning:

[Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my “wires tapped” in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!]

[Is it legal for a sitting President to be “wire tapping” a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!]

[I’d bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!]

[How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate.Bad (or sick) guy!]

_____________________________________________

The conspiracy Trump put forth was largely sourced from the first conspiracy, that his campaign colluded with the Russians. In spinning that narrative, the media continually cited anonymous officials who were essentially leaking classified information. Consider the following news items:

January 19/20, 2017, NYT: Intercepted Russian Communications Part of Inquiry Into Trump Associates. The version of this story that ran in the print version had this headline: Wiretapped Data Used In Inquiry of Trump Aides – Examining Russian Ties:

The F.B.I. is leading the investigations, aided by the National Security Agency, the C.I.A. and the Treasury Department’s financial crimes unit. The investigators have accelerated their efforts in recent weeks but have found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, the officials said. One official said intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House.

That would be the Obama White House, as all of this took place before Inauguration at noon on January 20.

February 9, 2017, Washington Post: National security adviser Flynn discussed sanctions with Russian ambassador, despite denials, officials say

Pence also made a more sweeping assertion, saying there had been no contact between members of Trump’s team and Russia during the campaign. To suggest otherwise, he said, “is to give credence to some of these bizarre rumors that have swirled around the candidacy.”

Neither of those assertions is consistent with the fuller account of Flynn’s contacts with Kislyak provided by officials who had access to reports from U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies that routinely monitor the communications of Russian diplomats. Nine current and former officials, who were in senior positions at multiple agencies at the time of the calls, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.

All of those officials said Flynn’s references to the election-related sanctions were explicit. Two of those officials went further, saying that Flynn urged Russia not to overreact to the penalties being imposed by President Barack Obama, making clear that the two sides would be in position to review the matter after Trump was sworn in as president.

February 14, 2017, NYT: Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence

Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials.

American law enforcement and intelligence agencies intercepted the communications around the same time they were discovering evidence that Russia was trying to disrupt the presidential election by hacking into the Democratic National Committee, three of the officials said. The intelligence agencies then sought to learn whether the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians on the hacking or other efforts to influence the election.

[…]

The National Security Agency, which monitors the communications of foreign intelligence services, initially captured the calls between Mr. Trump’s associates and the Russians as part of routine foreign surveillance. After that, the F.B.I. asked the N.S.A. to collect as much information as possible about the Russian operatives on the phone calls, and to search through troves of previous intercepted communications that had not been analyzed.

March 1, 2017, NYT: Obama Administration Rushed to Preserve Intelligence of Russian Election Hacking

American allies, including the British and the Dutch, had provided information describing meetings in European cities between Russian officials — and others close to Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin — and associates of President-elect Trump, according to three former American officials who requested anonymity in discussing classified intelligence.

Separately, American intelligence agencies had intercepted communications of Russian officials, some of them within the Kremlin, discussing contacts with Trump associates.

[…]

As Inauguration Day approached, Obama White House officials grew convinced that the intelligence was damning and that they needed to ensure that as many people as possible inside government could see it, even if people without security clearances could not. Some officials began asking specific questions at intelligence briefings, knowing the answers would be archived and could be easily unearthed by investigators — including the Senate Intelligence Committee, which in early January announced an inquiry into Russian efforts to influence the election.

At intelligence agencies, there was a push to process as much raw intelligence as possible into analyses, and to keep the reports at a relatively low classification level to ensure as wide a readership as possible across the government — and, in some cases, among European allies. This allowed the upload of as much intelligence as possible to Intellipedia, a secret wiki used by American analysts to share information.

The mainstream media’s own reporting details a story of intelligence officials speaking under the cloak of anonymity to disclose classified information, or in the case of General Flynn, to disclose the fact that his name had been improperly identified as the American in conversation with Kislyak, given Flynn himself was not under investigation.

The media then went on to report with glee the manner in which the Obama administration sought to widely disseminate this information across the government to ensure that such leaks as we have seen happened.

All of this was done to buttress the Russia/Trump collusion angle with the innuendo provided by those numerous anonymous intelligence officials. The legality of the leaks were hand-waved away by political pundits as merely the sort of thing that happens in every administration, and thus was no big deal.

Trump’s tweets changed all of that. In directly accusing President Obama of tapping his phones, Trump brought the legality of the leaks front and center.

The globalist set, who were quick to exalt the leaks with religious fervor when it came to spinning the Collusion Theory, were all of a sudden on the defensive. They made sure to emphasize the fact that Trump had offered no evidence to back his tweets (despite having no evidence themselves with respect to the Collusion Theory). A clear example of the mental gymnastics invoked to contort oneself from a tricky situation was seen in this piece from Liz Spayd, Public Editor of the New York Times.

In it, she dealt with the obvious discrepancy between the Times explicitly reporting on the existence of “wiretapped communications” and the idea that Trump’s tweets were inaccurate by essentially saying that the Times never wrote that Obama himself directed the wiretapping.

Which brings me to the issue of semantics. The Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote a fiery piece condemning Trump based on his supposed rocky relationship with the Truth. It used as its centerpiece Trump’s claims that Obama had him wiretapped. These claims were officially shot down by FBI director James Comey and NSA chief Mike Rogers during the aforementioned hearing on Monday, giving the media the green light to officially brand Trump a ‘liar.’

This logic ultimately relies on a hyper-literal interpretation of Trump’s tweets. As in President Obama personally ordered some sort of wiretap – as in a physical method from a 1960s spy novel. It is true that no such, literal wiretapping occurred.

However, it is clear – from the media’s own reporting – that the existence of “intercepted communications,” which is the digital age equivalent of wiretapping, was involved, and indeed was instrumental to the narrative building which occurred. Furthermore, these communications were intercepted by various intelligence agencies, which, owing to their being a part of the executive branch, were under the authority of one President Obama.

Said differently, President Obama did not personally direct a fake painting crew to enter Trump Tower one afternoon and bug the place while Donald Trump was out to lunch. What undeniably did happen was that agencies in the Obama administration ran into members of Trump’s team as they were monitoring the communications of foreigners (which might have been legal), and then proceeded to leak some of the details to the media (which definitely is not legal).

Further credence to this point was given on Wednesday by Devin Nunes, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. He came forth with the revelation that information he had received indicated that individuals associated with the Trump team had been involved in an “incidental collection,” meaning that those individuals had been subject to surveillance owing to the fact they were on the other end of a call with another individual who was being monitored, as opposed to being monitored party themselves.

The magnitude of this will be more apparent as time goes on.

 

Delegitimizing 45

 

No matter how this saga ends up, the intentions of the globalist cohort of establishment Republicans, Democrats and the media is clear – Delegitimize the Trump presidency. One can easily see this in the hypocrisy surrounding Trump’s tweet claims vis-a-vis the assertion that the Russians ‘hacked the election.’

The propensity of the media to talk up Trump’s loose, bombastic, exaggerative manner of speaking, while somewhat accurate, renders its deliberate decision to adhere to the most hyper-literal interpretation of Trump’s tweets to be a bit odd. After all, if all Trump does is speak in exaggerations, then why were those Tweets not treated as simply another exaggeration? Why was the language in those tweets not treated as the colloquialisms they were, but made out to be gravely literal?

These rhetorical questions are relevant given the phrase ‘hacked the election’ was never scrutinized along its literal meaning with the same aggressiveness, despite being equally as colloquial as ‘Obama wiretapped my phones.’ On top of this, the literal meaning (that Russian operatives would have remotely tampered with voting machines to get certain desired outcomes), had been put down by the intelligence community on several occasions, including the Monday hearing in which it was reiterated that not one vote was altered, and that the tallies from November 8 were correct.

Even the colloquial meaning of ‘hacked the election,’ that Russian operatives via their alleged dissemination of DNC and Podesta emails, and the propagation of ‘fake news’ changed the tenor of the election in a way that favored Trump, faces scrutiny.

Stanford University conducted a study into the matter of fake news, and concluded that the phenomenon had a marginal impact at best:

The researchers also noted that, though social media is an important outlet that Americans use to get their news, only 34 percent of those surveyed trust the information they get from social media, while most still depend on television as their main source of information. In comparing the top 690 U.S. news sites with 65 fake news sites, they found that only 10 percent of total site traffic to news sites comes from social media. However, fake news sites predominantly depend on social media for views. Therefore, it is misleading to focus on Facebook metrics in citing fake news as a major issue during the election.

Allcott and Gentzkow concluded, “Our data suggest that social media were not the most important source of election news, and even the most widely circulated fake news stories were seen by only a small fraction of Americans. For fake news to have changed the outcome of the election, a single fake news story would need to have convinced about 0.7 percent of Clinton voters and non-voters who saw it to shift their votes to Trump.” They added, “For fake news to have changed the outcome of the election, a single fake article would need to have had the same persuasive effect as 36 television campaign ads.”

Given the fact that the vast majority of Americans still depend on the television and more conventional sources of news, and given the fact that the vast majority of the coverage therein was negative to Trump, to the tune of 90%, it is more accurate to allege that the leftist mainstream media ‘hacked the election’ with the purpose of electing Hillary Clinton.

The reason for the hypocrisy is that intellectual honesty, journalistic integrity and plain fighting fair is secondary to the aim of delegitimizing President Trump’s administration in the eyes of the American public. Having failed to prevent Trump from winning the presidency, the globalist set has taken to undermine him as a foreign agent. Note the words of Congressman Heck from the Monday Intelligence Hearing:

Let’s be clear though. This is not about party. It’s not about relitigating the election. It’s not as if anything we do here will put a President from a different political party in the Oval Office. So, I hope that it’s clear that it’s about something much more important. And no, it’s not about political motivation, to my friend who said and suggested that earlier, this is about patriotism, about something way more important than party.

The game plan has been, and will continue to be playing politics under the guise of patriotism. Trump’s original sin was disagreeing with the globalists and their visions of war with Russia and continued NATO expansion. For this he is being made out to be a Russian agent, the figurehead of a Red Scare 2.0. Every time Trump orders a salad with Russian dressing, or the leaked workout routine of one of his associates is shown to include Russian Oblique Twists, the media will be there with the knives out.

It’s already begun, with CNN releasing a counter attack to the Nunes news, alleging that Trump associate Roger Stone colluded with Julian Assange of Wikileaks, and perhaps notorious hacker Guccifer 2.0. That assertion is based on various tweets and interviews Stone gave, in which he was essentially cheerleading the imminent release of Clinton information by Assange. The intimation, is that Stone, who publicly declared having spoken to Assange on several occasions, was in on it because he knew Assange was going to leak information.

However, Assange himself publicly declared that he was going to release information months before he did, rendering most of Stone’s alleged inside knowledge of the coming leaks to be nothing more than speculation on what the publicly declared upcoming leaks would be.

It is this sort of reporting, full of innuendo, and the rehashing old narratives, which will wear thin on the American public. Much like the constant charges of racism, sexism, homophobia and xenophobia which laced the pre-election coverage of Trump, the Russia conspiracy will end up being the post-election version of The Boy Who Cried Wolf.

With each passing report propagating the Collusion Theory (and burying deep within them the fact that there is no evidence, in order to retain legitimacy), the public will continues to see the game for what it is – an attempt at the political assassination of President Trump.

The fact of the matter remains, that to this point, the only thing that we know for a fact happened, based on public reporting, is that Trump officials had been the subject of surveillance, and had those communications illegally leaked to the media. Thus, Trump’s ‘Wiretap’ Conspiracy Theory is far closer to being Conspiracy Fact than the Collusion Conspiracy.

And it will remain so. This is a fight the globalists cannot win, and it will only be a matter of time before that is made apparent to the masses.

The Dawn of An Era, Part 3: More Anti-Trump Dissent (Trump Derangement Syndrome)

This is Part 3 of The Dawn of An Era, which is a series about the onset of the Trump presidency. Previous Parts:  Part 1, Part 2

In part 2, I described the underlying source of the vociferous anti-Trump dissent which has only grown louder in the months since the election. Long story short, multiple decades of a shift away from more traditional mores both socially and culturally has left the US and the West in general at the precipice of something potentially serious.

Said differently, the set of individuals who want to party every night because it’s fun outweighed those who understood that we won’t pass the final exam unless we hit the books at some point. Now, the night before the exam, the Study Crew won and is demanding an all-night cram session. The Partiers are upset.

The reaction to President Trump initiating an Executive Order to restrict travel to the United States is the latest example of outsized consternation when it comes to anything Trump does. Via Conservative Treehouse:

If you review the actual text of the executive order (copied below in full) what you will immediately notice is the order doesn’t specify ANY countries to be included in the Visa suspension (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen).

President Trump is not suspending visas from countries his team selected, they are simply suspending visa approval from countries President Obama selected.  Additionally, Trump is suspending ALL visa applications from those countries – nothing to do with Muslim applications.

• In 2013 President Obama suspended refugees from Iraq for six months.  • In 2015 Congress passed, and Obama signed, a law restricting visas from states of concern; • and in 2016 Obama’s DHS, Jeh Johnson, expanded those restrictions.  …. all President Trump is doing is taking the same action as Obama 2013, and applying Visa restrictions to the nation states Obama selected in 2015 and 2016.

From the Executive order:

[…] ” to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas). ” (link)

U.S.C.1187 Law Link Here

The President Obama  Department of Homeland Security already targeted those seven listed countries for the past several years as nations of concern.

In February of 2016 the Department of Homeland Security announced that was continuing its implementation of the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 with the addition of Libya, Somalia, and Yemen as three countries of additional concern.

These developments led to outrage over the weekend, with protests breaking out in several major airports. The Old Media gave it wall to wall coverage, stressing the size of the crowds (as they are wont to do with anti-Trump protests, versus ignoring the pro-Trump crowd sizes he got campaigning), and inundating the public with the usual tales of innocent families being split up, children crying and so on.

**********

Why this outrage, when similar actions by the Obama administration, let alone the constant, daily bombings of the countries in question by said administration, were met with silence? This video of a protester is instructive:

In case the video is taken down or doesn’t work, it shows an airport protester being interviewed and asked about the similarity between the Obama and Trump actions, and whether the former’s concerned her. Her answer was that it didn’t concern her because… “I love President Obama. I wish he were still here.”

What that shows is that there is a high level logical bankruptcy in today’s political discourse which has been replaced by emotion. In this battle of rhetoric Trump’s opponents are working with a severe disadvantage. As I articulated in Part 2, the leftist position is essentially one seeks the primacy of r-selection, as opposed to K-selection.  The problem for leftists is that humans as a species are K-selected animals; in terms of civilizations, they only can be established and maintained via applying K-selected traits.

Once civilizations are established, and wealth is generated, on then can r’s flourish. r-selected behavior is never the foundation of civilizational success. As such, leftists are always fighting an uphill battle against nature. It is why communists have always had to take over by force, point the guns at the populace and give them a choice: comply or die.

The battle leftists in America are fighting against is essentially one against sustainability. In a very simplistic sense, leftists live by the dictum ‘whatever feels good, is good.’ This governs decision making, and at a political level, can become government policy. The Partiers vs The Studiers conflict thus becomes deficit spending and credit-fuelled consumption versus savings and investment. For decades, the former strategy has won, with the Keynesians and Cultural Marxists supplying the intellectual backing for economic and social profligacy respectively.

This has created an r-selected society which cannot deal well with conflict and emotional pain. The Anonymous Conservative, who I referred to in part 2, has done fantastic work in this area, showing how the amygdala in the brain of leftists may be behind this trouble to deal with emotional pain. This article, courtesy of his blog, goes into detail about the plight of the Millennial generation, in that its upbringing has left it incapable of dealing with the real world:

Leadership consultant Simon Sinek has been told that millennials – people born after 1982 – are ‘entitled, narcissistic, self-interested, unfocused and lazy’ – but he believes it is not their fault.

The author’s response to the ‘millennial question’ on Inside Quest ‘broke the internet’ after he revealed why many young people may display the undesirable qualities listed by their bosses.

He explained millennials grew up in an environment where ‘every child wins a prize’ only to find the ‘real world’ after school is much different.

Where they were told they were special all the time, they were told they could have anything they want in life just because they want it.

Note that the mere broaching of this view was enough to spark enough outrage to ‘break the internet,’ only proving the point of the observer that Millennials are emotionally fragile, unable to cope with the fact that someone may have a differing opinion.

And Donald Trump might as well be an avalanche of real world, realtalking, counterattacking disagreement, descending upon the straw huts that are the Millennial amygdala with Biblical force.

With respect to Trump’s Executive Order, the logic of it is sound, despite the poor implementation of it. And it has already borne fruit, in that Saudi Arabia, which was left off the list of countries impacted, is now willing to negotiate to construct safe zones for refugees, something they had no interest in doing before.

This development would be infinitely better for the potentially millions affected in the region, who can be better housed temporarily in a part of the world which is more familiar to them than having to risk life and limb to trek halfway around the world to Western Europe and the USA, with its vastly different culture, climate and language, for a start.

However, it is Donald Trump who is doing it, so it must be bad. The direct dichotomy established by the airport protester above (Obama = good, Trump = evil, similar to the manner in which conservatives believe leftists are just misguided, while leftists believe conservatives are evil) comes from that base inability to deal with the harsh truths of the real world.

Unfortunately, after multiple decades of cultural Marxist influence, this deficiency has pervaded every strata of our society, from the general population, through to the elites in our media and in government.

A great example of this is seen in the examination of this video of President Clinton, which is now doing the rounds after the Immigration ban chaos:

Here, Clinton, speaking at his 1995 State of the Union address, sounds very Trumpian, yet he is still revered 22 years later, to the extent that he was a selling point for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign. Meanwhile Trump is continued to be held out as Literally Hitler. However, if Trump is Hitler, and about to turn the US into Nazi Germany, why are leftists then so keen on importing millions of refugees to be subjected to that horror? Once again, the intellectual deficiency of their position creeps through.

**********

In terms of the leftist opposition, the media and the government will be whom Trump will be fighting the loudest battles with, and the first indications are that he is up to that fight.

With respect to the media, he has been employing the ‘flooding the zone’ strategy since his Inauguration. In the first 10 days of his presidency, Trump has signed 18 executive actions. They have been:

  1. Dismantling Obamacare
  2. A regulatory freeze
  3. Stopping US government funds going to international organizations which fund abortions
  4. Withdrawing from TPP
  5. Federal hiring freeze
  6. Granting Keystone Pipeline
  7. Granting Dakota Access Pipeline
  8. Expediting Environmental Reviews
  9. Using American materials to build the Pipelines
  10. Speeding up Manufacturing Reviews
  11. Targeting Sanctuary Cities
  12. Building The Wall
  13. Rebuilding the military
  14. The Aforementioned ‘Muslim Ban’
  15. Plan to Defeat ISIS
  16. Steve Bannon to NSC
  17. Lobbying restrictions for executive branch officials
  18. Reducing regulations

With the exception of defeating ISIS, ALL of these orders are outrageous to leftists, as they either diminish the structures artificially supporting an r-selected society, or actively promote the establishment of K-selected strategies. Each of these orders on their own are meaty enough to require a minimum of two or three days of solid 95% negative media coverage, yet they have all been dropped on the media in the span of 10 days. Even as I write this, Trump has scheduled his pick to replace Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia for later tonight, moving it up from later in the week, further intensifying the flooding of the zone.

This has led to nothing short of pandemonium amongs the chattering classes. Michael Tracey explores this further:

More than once over the past few days, I have been asked both online and off: “How in the hell am I supposed to keep up with everything that’s going on? How do I, as a non-professional, somewhat casual consumer of news, figure out how to process all this information constantly being thrown at me from every direction, knowing that some of it will be phony hysterics and misdirection, while some of it will also be gravely serious and demand my attention?”

My answer is: I…don’t know. I’m working on it.

Even journalists whose “one job” is to sort the news on any given day are failing immensely at this task — often their “heart is in the right place,” but the task is extremely daunting. For one thing, clearly Trump has calculated that it’s in some sense to his benefit when everyone is completely overwhelmed and suffering from a form of cognitive overload; it allows him to move briskly from issue to issue without staying there for very long — he’s essentially breaking the national attention span by saturating it with information, controversy, hysteria, real problems, fake problems, fights, feuds, tweets, and all the rest. He is keenly aware of how to prod the media into indulging its worst instincts, so a vicious cycle emerges where Trump does something outlandish, and then the media responds by acting outlandishly in its own right.

Tracey, despite subscribing somewhat to the leftist baseline view that Trump is an authoritarian dictator-in-waiting, simply for being in defiance of the r-selected primacy of Cultural Marxism, is one of the few prominent journalists who understands what is going on.

Trump is flooding his opposition with so much outrage-inducing stuff that it cannot focus on one specific thing, deconstruct it, and drive home to the public why it is bad and Trump should be admonished. Instead, the commotion is unfocused and seemingly random, such that from the outside, it looks like a bunch of children whining about everything, making incoherent noise that is probably best ignored.

The problem for the media is that Trump has unlimited ammunition in this war. He has the support of the population, which elected him, and gave him a friendly Congress to work. More importantly, he is immune to the biggest weapon the media has – shame. For decades the media has bullied anyone with a traditionally conservative view of the world into submission, labeling them knuckle-dragging racists, sexists and homophobes.

Trump does not give one scintilla of shit about any such charges leveled at him by the media. In fact, he laughs at them, both on Twitter and in real life. Chuck Schumer found this out when his emotional statement regarding the ‘Muslim ban,’ made while fighting through tears, was met with an inquiry from Trump about which acting coach he used.

In the face of near universal outrage over the immigration actions, including wall to wall crisis coverage on network nightly news this weekend, Trump’s team released a statement calling the immigration order a ‘massive success.’ In short, Trump is a master troll, who is outwitting a millennial class, who having been raised in the internet era should be wise to trolls and should know not to feed them.

But remember, we’re talking about millennials, leftists, and millennial leftists. That cohort, highly subject to emotional incontinence, packs Old Media newsrooms and left leaning upstarts, and thus these organizations can’t help but to play right into Trump’s hands.

**********

The fight with the government should be similarly messy, but President Trump has shown he has the stones for that as well. Part of the reason the Immigration order is down to the fact that Trump is working with a skeleton crew of a cabinet, owing to obstruction from the Democrats in the Senate. This was probably what led to the messy issuance of the immigration order, and the public relations mess that followed.

The order was further challenged by a few judges, leading to a situation which pitted border agents against federal courts. Early this evening, acting Attorney General Sally Yates announced in a statement that she instructed the Department of Justice to not defend Trump’s order. Here is part of her statement:

I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right. At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the executive order is lawful.

It is telling that Yates, a holdover from the Obama administration until Senator Jeff Sessions is confirmed, cites the leftist, highly subjective concept of (social) justice and ‘standing for what is right,’ before concerning herself with legality. The construction of that statement speaks to the typical leftist, r-selected desire to place comfort (feel good platitudes) over cold reality (the law).

Trump responded by firing Yates hours later, in a display of business-like ruthlessness. The NYT article on the events of the day quotes Press Secretary Sean Spicer who had this to say regarding government officials who may seek to stand in the way of the Trump Doctrine, amid rumors of a mutiny in the still-Obama dominated State Department:

“These career bureaucrats have a problem with it?” Mr. Spicer said. “They should either get with the program or they can go.”

The defiant combativeness of the Trump administration is unlike anything we have seen in decades, certainly in my less-than-40 years on this earth. To a slothful, emotionally weak, r-selected society such as ours has become, the aggressiveness, speed and calculation with which the Trump administration has acted in just 10 days on the job is potentially fatal.

What is more, given the Trump administration is seeking moves that are towards the K direction, they have with them the Truth, as it were, if indeed buttressing and advancing Western Civilization is the goal. It is no different to the wisdom of preparation and study when one knows the exam is near, and eschewing partying until the job is done.

That orders to further American energy independence, secure a porous border and direct cities to actually follow existing US law can be deemed worthy of such a stern backlash, from the legions of protesters to the obstructionists in the highest ranks of government, only speaks to the level of the rot and the difficulty of the task. Fortunately for Trump, and those who agree with what he stands for, the solution is merely one of will. The weakness of the opposition means that it can be continually disoriented with continued jabs to the emotional midsection.

Trump understands this.  Rather than take it easy with his early moves, Trump has eschewed the idea of ‘political capital,’ understanding that his power rather comes from ‘electorate capital.’ Trump understands that he has tons of it behind him, including among the rank and file in government agencies and the military, as a result of his drive and efficiency in Getting Things Done. He has used this early position of strength to double down, subjecting the opposition to continued horror by turning up the Emotional Pain dial past 11. With every tweet, signature ceremony and TV appearance he is triggering the left, which at some point will go apoplectic as a result, flaming out in a blaze of glory – a phenomenon known as Trump Derangement Syndrome.

The irony of all of this is the ‘tolerance’ which social justice warriors demand others show towards them, but not vice versa, was shown in spades for decades by the K-selected. They stood by as tradition evaporated, along with God, leaving behind a moral wasteland. The K’s tolerated this not because they liked it, but because of their loyalty to the group. As long as the West was chugging along in peace and continued wealth, a few gay night clubs, higher taxes, welfare and abortion clinics were ok. Now that the abundance of the West has deteriorated, and culture has frayed, the excesses have become less tolerable, and it is precisely at this time that the r-selected are demanding more excesses, and more tolerance of deviance. When this has not been granted, the response has been the outbursts we are seeing in the infancy of the Trump era.

Ask any 5 year old how well it has worked to throw a tantrum in public in an attempt to get his or her way. In all of history, the child tantrum-thrower has recorded a very low success rate. This is what is coming to the left if it doesn’t wise up. With every car smashed, with each road blocked, with each Trump supporter knocked cold, with each politician crying on television, the public will grow wearier and wearier of their antics.

This alone will gain Trump more converts, and to the extent his policies work and a saner culture devoid of the degeneracy of a decadent age emerges, the leftist, r-selected position will wither into obscurity as the very nature of social justice warriors will work against them. The same susceptibility to emotional pain, which leads them to seek comfort over anything else will lead them towards Trumpism, as the emotional pain anti-Trump ostracism will engender in the new Trumpmerica will become too great to bear.

One day, we’ll look at the Trump riots and shake our heads in amazement, wondering how anyone could have thought negatively about what he stood for, let alone being angry enough to launch a fierce, mouth-frothing, soft insurrection.

The Dawn of An Era, Part 2: Anti-Trump Dissent

This is Part 2 of The Dawn of An Era, which is a series about the onset of the Trump presidency. You can read part 1 here.

From the first day of President Trump’s campaign on June 16 2015,to his Inauguration on January 20, 2017, there has been vociferous dissent, beyond the standard charges of ‘racism, sexism, homophobia’ that have been applied to any and all Republicans in the past. This dissent was more visceral in nature, and rightly so, as Trump’s candidacy was an existential threat to the elevation of the hyperfocus on identity politics and grievance culture.

Since the election in particular, this dissent has escalated to a fever pitch level, with a desperate anti-Trump cohort seeking to label his presidency as illegitimate. This culminated with the Women’s March which took place the day after the Inauguration.

Before that, there were more ‘intellectual’ appeals to the idea that we, as an American populace, have been had. This piece in the Huffington Post, published days before the Inauguration, sought to advance that angle by proclaiming that Hillary Clinton is the true President of the United States. I’ll deal with that particular piece some other time, but I brought it up to show what passed for ‘reasoned’ arguments against a Trump presidency.

Having been rebuffed in the arena of logic and political discourse, the anti-Trump argument became one of violence and protest. For the purposes of this article, I’ll focus on the legions which descended upon Washington DC with the express purpose of disrupting the Inaugural through violence, and the legions which appeared in Washington DC and in major cities across the globe to protest the Trump presidency, in order to make a more general  point.

So what exactly were the women of the Women’s march marching against? What do they want? This article from Return of Kings, poses that question, in a quite forceful manner:

What more do Anglo women possibly want? They already spend 90% more money than they earn in the economy. They gobble up 66% of public spending from the welfare state while men pay 75% of the taxes to support this gynocentric system. Women hypocritically make up 80% of all spending decisions in the materialistic, extremely wasteful and environmentally destructive economy they later complain about as not being “green” enough.

They then hypocritically say they Don’t Need a Man™ while statistics prove them dead wrong. Without men for the government to rob women would be up the creek without a paddle.

What’s most satisfying about the Daily Mail article was reading the “Best rated” comments below the article. Nobody is buying the propaganda establishment media is crapping out anymore. User Right Auntie wrote:

“I’m not quite sure what they are protesting. Women in America can drive a car, get an education, get a mortgage and purchase a home. They can be doctors, lawyers, architects, engineers. They can be ministers or atheists. They can have children without men. They can speak their minds. I’m positive that they can still do these things now that Trump is president. This just looks like a giant hissy fit because their candidate lost. Being a sore loser is never a good thing.”

Indeed, what are these women protesting? They live such decadent lives they’re literally killing the goose that lays the golden egg as the future belongs to those whose children will be in it, and the men who made their exorbitant, selfish existence possible are either breeding with other ethnic groups or becoming genetic dead ends.

The points brought up here ultimately speak to the base difference between conservative and liberal leaning individuals, which is in the realm of reproductive strategy. I’m, of course, referring to r/K selection theory.

There has been plenty written about the subject, so I won’t dive too deeply into the biology, but only list some basic characteristics of each reproductive strategy.

R-selected traits include the following: low energy required to reproduce, limited competition, limited loyalty to the group, many offspring produced, early sexual maturity, promiscuity, short life expectancy, abundant resources, and low parental investment. K-selected traits include: higher energy required to reproduce, increased competition, high group loyalty, few offspring, later sexual maturity, pair bonding, longer life expectancy, limited resources, and high parental investment.

In recent years, this biological theory has been applied to politics and shed some insights on the right/left divide.  It has also been used more cynically by those on the right to declare moral superiority over those on the left by virtue of their adherence to a more K-selected strategy.

Indeed, humans are clearly a K-selected animal generally speaking, but do exhibit strains of r-selected behavior across its ranks. And here I will make an important point: the question is not the moral superiority of one strategy versus another, but rather the effectiveness of one strategy versus another in the creation, maintenance and advancement of Civilization.

**********

Sir John Glubb came to the conclusion in his famous work, The Fate of Empires that the life cycle of empires throughout history is as follows:

The Age of Pioneers (outburst)

The Age of Conquests

The Age of Commerce

The Age of Affluence

The Age of Intellect

The Age of Decadence

The limited resource environment facing pioneers and those who would conquer leads to a more K-selected existence, along the lines of what we would term as more traditional values. Then, as such a society continues to expand, and produce more and more wealth through the ages of commerce and affluence, this later environment of abundant resources leads to a more r-selected, more decadent lifestyle.

The catalyst for this transition is seemingly the age of Intellect, which according to Glubb, ends up biting off more than it could chew with respect to Civilization building:

Perhaps the most dangerous by-product of the Age of Intellect is the unconscious growth of the idea that the human brain can solve the problems of the world. Even on the low level of practical affairs this is patently untrue. Any small human activity, the local bowls club or the ladies’ luncheon club, requires for its survival a measure of self-sacrifice and service on the part of the members. In a wider national sphere, the survival of the nation depends basically on the loyalty and self-sacrifice of the citizens. The impression that the situation can be saved by mental cleverness, without unselfishness or human self-dedication, can only lead to collapse.

With respect to the current American Empire, this Age of Intellect by-product clearly manifested itself in the work of the Cultural Marxists of the Frankfurt School. In promoting an ‘anything goes’ way of life, they came in direct opposition to the traditional values based upon self-sacrifice and discipline which came before it.

Consider the following passage from Herbert Marcuse, a leading intellect of the time, taken from his 1955 book Eros & Civilization:

Reason is the rationality of the performance principle. Even at the beginning of Western civilization, long before this principle was institutionalized, reason was defined as an instrument of constraint, of instinctual suppression; the domain of the instincts, sensuousness, was considered as eternally hostile and detrimental to reason. The categories in which philosophy has comprehended the human existence have retained the connection between reason and suppression: whatever belongs to the sphere of sensuousness, pleasure, impulse has the connotation of being antagonistic to reason—something that has to be subjugated, constrained.

The ‘performance principle’ was Marcuse’s description of the phenomenon by which human beings restrain their rather primitive, libidinous, pleasure-seeking energies and direct them towards productive effort beyond that necessary to sustain.

Marcuse’s main point was that if man could unchain that pleasure-seeking energy – Eros – from its shackles once sustenance was achieved, he would be better off eschewing the production of ‘surplus value’ so as to be able to experience more of the pleasure principle. The obvious flaw here is that virtually all of civilization as we know it is the direct result from this ‘surplus value.’

That is, if man had never worked beyond the point where he was fed and sheltered, man would still be living in caves. The wheel, spear, sword, ship, steam engine, light bulb, and semi -conductor are wholly unnecessary from the standpoint of man finding food to eat, water to drink and shelter to take refuge in. It is precisely because primitive man did not heed Marcuse’s ‘wisdom’ that enabled him to produce the very comforts of a modern Western world that Marcuse enjoyed when he wrote, comforts which cannot be maintained if his dictum were followed. When put this way, that Marcuse and those of his ilk are considered to be at or near the pinnacle of intellectual thought, when their advocacy essentially amounts to man being governed by his most base impulses, is absurd.

It is this conundrum which is the logical albatross weighing down the push for Cultural Marxism, and its attendant r-strategy lifestyle onto the forefront of society. The Woman’s March on the day after the Inaugural was at its core a representation of that drive.

The feminism underpinning the march, itself an element of cultural Marxism, is largely based on the idea that women and men are exactly the same, such that women and men are not bound by biology to be disposed to certain life tracks. In terms of sex and reproduction, things like The Pill, antibiotics, the ubiquity of contraception and easy access to abortion and divorce of modern times has created a sexual environment that allows men and women to essentially artificially avoid the consequences of their actions, seemingly paving the way for a Marcusian liberation and embrace of Eros.

In prior generations, this was not as true. Promiscuous women placed themselves at risk every time they engaged in a sexual encounter. At the very least, their promiscuity would see them shunned by the community. Beyond that, they could easily contract diseases or become pregnant, with little recourse, being forced to have a child on her own, with little support from the government and society. She would be a pariah.

The mere fear of being looked down upon in the group was enough to incentive behaviors that were more conducive to the ultimate success of the group, like stable marriage.

These days, thanks to the aforementioned advancements in birth control, there is a far greater reduction to the ‘penalties’ that were once meted out in prior generations. We are at point now where women are actively encouraged to be ‘independent,’ promiscuous during their child bearing years, while they pursue hot-shot careers in the same manner as men do.

**********

The recent passing of Mary Tyler Moore is timely in this regard, as her show was the first major American sitcom to advance these themes. Despite the apparent dysfunction built into the ‘independent woman’ trope, it was ultimately glamorized and thus became a template for millions of women to follow. The approval of the lifestyle it was advocating is signaled in its opening title, with the cheerful jingle ending with the infamous line ‘you’re going to make it after all!’

Cloris Leachman (left), Mary Tyler Moore (centre), Valerie Harper pose, sitting on stools, wearing Seveties fashions, in a publicity portrait issued for the US television series, ‘The Mary Tyler Moore Show’, USA, circa 1974. The sitcom starred Leachman as ‘Phyllis Lindstrom’, Tyler Moore as ‘Mary Richards’, and Harper as ‘Rhoda Morgenstern’. (Photo by Silver Screen Collection/Getty Images)

Moore was the spiritual godmother of the legion of modern women who today cramp into urban apartments, seeking high flying careers, and streamline their promiscuity with dating apps. However, as sanitized as the Mary Tyler Moore Show looked, there was an ugliness lurking under the surface. Moore very much lived her life in the vein of her on screen self. She got married, had a child and then divorced, just prior to her career really taking off.

Moore admits to putting more effort into her work than her child:

“During the first year of ‘The Dick Van Dyke Show,’ as thrilled and bursting with excitement over my work as I was, I was equally without emotion at home,” she wrote of her divorce in 1961 from Meeker. “There is no question about it. By the time Richie was 5, I had already let him down. When he needed me the most, I was busier and even more self-concerned than I had been when he was an impressionable infant.”

Moore’s decision to spend her energies on her work had detrimental results on her family. She had remarried, and introduced her son to the stepdad life, another quirk of the decadence spawned from the age of intellect.

Her son did not take well to all of this, and as a result grew distant from his mother. Moore turned to alcohol and became an alcoholic. On some level perhaps, she understood the horrendous decisions she had made in abdicating her main duty as mother to pursue her career, and attempted to self-medicate via the bottle. Her son, devoid of the nurturing that mothers provide, turned to drink and drugs and ended up dying via a gun in dubious circumstances.

I do not judge Moore, but her experience is instructive. She lived her life in a very r-selected manner, particularly with respect to her son. In this regard, one of the main ideals of feminism – that a woman can have it all, both high powered career and loving family – is shattered. A woman who is putting in the 14-18 hour days which are necessary to be a force in any industry by default cannot devote that time to her children in the manner they need, in particular when they are very young.

As I mentioned earlier, humans are K-selected animals, which take a long time to develop. Humans are born well before they are fully developed, unable to walk or talk for about a year out of the womb. It is not until the mid 20s that a human is fully developed mentally and physically. This represents an enormous parental investment in order to see a child to proper maturity, along with an enormous investment of the group to ensure a wider stability for those mature children to eventually contribute to.

This stark reality is why societies behaving under traditional mores demanded that a woman seek stability from her male partner before it ever got to the level of pregnancy. They understood, in particular during times in which abortions, and contraception were much less of an option, that a pregnancy itself was an acceptance of a multi-decade burden, the willingness to undertake that enormous parental investment.

In other words, this is self-sacrifice Glubb referred to as being subject to eradication as a by-product of the Intellectual age. Moore’s story is an example. Having had her child, in a traditional world she would have sacrificed her career to give her son the proper attention he needed. Applying a bit of Marcuse, in the context of motherhood, this would mean suffering the ‘surplus value’ of doing anything beyond waking up in the morning, feeding your child and then tucking him or her to bed at night. It would mean restraining her desire to experience the ‘Eros’ of a high powered career.

Infamous 1983 cover story which covered the trend that shows like the Mary Tyler Moore show helped to kick off

Feminists (and thus cultural Marxists) abhor the thought of self-sacrifice in this manner, which they consider ‘oppression,’ and thus look fondly onto Moore since she chose to experience the ‘Eros’ of being a high flying actress. A small irony is that in eschewing the self-sacrifice needed to raise her son properly Moore ended up sacrificed her son instead, to show the world through her TV exactly how to do the same. For this, she was rewarded by society with fame and fortune, where in prior generations she’d have been ridiculed.

This r-selected, Eros-seeking pathway was meant to ‘liberate’ man (in this case women), but it succumbs to Marcusian logic trap. If all women take the Moore route in life, a high percentage of children would end up on the path of her son – a drug addled alcoholic who died an early death. A generation of such individuals would not be long for the maintenance of, let alone the furtherance of the society it inherited. Hence, collapse, as per Glubb.

**********

For America and the West generally, its status circa the 1960s as a wealthy civilization with vast resources (which were accumulated during K-centric generations from the time of Industrialization), introduced the conditions in which the r-selected lifestyle could flourish. The intellectual age, and the influence of the cultural Marxists gave the green light, and behavioral values changed. The shift towards r-selected traits such as nihilism and short term thinking, the embrace of the promiscuous lifestyle and all it entails, has generally been considered to be a good thing.

And indeed, the feminism Moore helped to glamorize has taken hold over the last few decades. We are starting now to see the results of the deterioration of traditional norms in the shape of more broken families, a rise in single motherhood and attendant poverty levels. This has put large swaths of American children on a path to failure before they reach their teenage years.

As I mentioned in part 1, the fate of our younger generations has involved the succumbing to drugs, pornography, excessive video game playing, with millions of men checking out of society both romantically and vocationally. This mirrors the downfall of Moore’s son and points to the results of the r-selected trait of low parental involvement. Society-wide, our crumbling infrastructure, failing schools and hollowed out factories point to the same kind of low investment in the future.

Where vice and an overindulgence in entertainment have eased the pains on the micro level, on the macro level our societal debt binge to the tune of trillions, which enabled us to import tons of foreign goods has afforded us the illusion of stability thanks to that abundance of goods. The problem is that it can’t last and isn’t sustainable. Enter Trump.

For the purposes of this discussion, Trump is an enigma, an example of the duality of the r/K strategies in one man. He is a man who on one hand who has been divorced twice, enjoying extensive, well documented stints as a playboy. In contrast to this highly r streak stands his status as a patriarch, with his 5 children and 8 grandchildren existing in a tightly knit, well-structured family setting which is the manifestation of K.

You can see some of this in this excerpt from an interview he did with Playboy in 2004. In talking about his playboy years, he has the following to say:

What was your wildest memory from those days?

You saw things at Studio 54 that you had never seen before. You would see not one superstar but 30 of them, and you’d suddenly realize how many so-called superstars there are. Or you’d see the top models in the world getting screwed on tables in the middle of the dance floor. You would see things you just don’t see today primarily because of AIDS and other diseases. But it was incredible. You’d see the most beautiful women in the world, the most beautiful people in the world. Then, an hour later, you’d see them making love right in front of you. And I’m there saying, “Excuse me?”

And what were you up to?

I was there having a good time. You don’t need drugs and alcohol to have a good time. You can get high on life. That’s what I do.

Were you dating a million models at the time?

A million. I was dating lots and lots of women. I just had a great time. They were great years, but that was pre-AIDS, and you could do things in those days that today you’re at risk doing. AIDS has changed a lot.

Was there a time when you worried about AIDS because of all you’d done?

There was, but I got tested. I think it’s hard for young kids today. It’s a whole different thing. I tell my sons just to get a nice girlfriend and be happy, because it’s dangerous out there. It’s Vietnam. I guess now we can say it’s Iraq—same deal, right?

Even there, he partook in the general r-infused degeneracy of 1970s NYC nightlife, while abstaining from drugs and alcohol. He dated tons of women, but advised his sons to opt for a more K-strategy of pair bonding.

One of the few things the media universally praised Trump for during the campaign were his children, who all were lauded as fantastic, down to earth people, despite being raised with tremendous wealth.

Many rightly saw it as a testament to Trump as a man that he could raise such good kids when it is very easy for the children of the rich to go off the rails, owing to their relatively unlimited abundance killing off any work ethic. In other words, the way Trump raised his children, in a manner heavily infused by K – no drugs, no alcohol and a predilection for pair boding – suggests that he ultimately understands the superiority of K as the stability-achieving strategy.

With Trump’s calling for America First, the lamentation of the destruction of the American spirit and eschewal of feel good concepts such as political correctness, Trump is seeking to reproduce that on a national scale, injecting America with a high dose of K.

In this respect, the contrast between Trump and Hillary Clinton was even clearer, given the appeal of the latter to the ‘independent,’ high flying power woman trope that shows such as the Mary Tyler Moore show popularized.

Trump’s victory on election night was a victory for K. In a society which had come to pedestalize the r-strategy, this presented a big conflict, which the riots and protests sought to address. On the surface it would seem the r-strategy, and its penchant for ‘anything goes’ and the ‘live and let live’ approach to the world should not lash out in the emotional manner in which it has. After all, K-strategies are merely a different way of doing things, and thus should be permissible in a truly liberal world.

The problem for the r is that the K strategy, and its focus on self-sacrifice, discipline and restraint necessarily inhibits the r strategy of promoting Eros. The government sanction and funding of abortion, and to a larger degree single motherhood, for example, was a prime theme of the Women’s March. Should the K strategy Trump favors return, the cost of the promiscuous, divorce on-demand lifestyle espoused by the r strategy would fall once again on those who engage in that lifestyle. People would then be forced to choose between restraint and accepting possible negative consequences for profligacy, a scenario which r’s find to be unacceptable.

Hence, the change to K is thus an existential threat to the r strategy, and this explains the violent backlash. Yet when you examine the dynamics involved, you begin to see even more clearly the foolishness of trying to adopt the r-strategy, the virulent ‘WE HATE PATRIARCHY’ strain in particular, as the basis for a stable society.

It is the K strategy and its much maligned ‘Patriarchy’ which is responsible for the high level of organization that enables the existence of the major cities in which the riots were held. It is responsible for the many modes of advanced communication which made the planning of such marches possible. It is responsible for the invention, and proliferation of mass transportation, whether that be train, rail or auto, which got these protesters to their destinations.

It is responsible for the fact that the protesters were able to march in peace, without fear for their physical safety. In this regard they were protected on multiple levels.  On the ideological level, the establishment of a relatively free society came with it the idea that all voices, even ones of unpopular dissent, have a right to make their case known and to be heard. On a physical level, the loyalty to group, a K strategy, underpins the actions of the police force protecting the physical persons of those expressing an American right from those who would disrupt them.  Finally, that K-selected Patriarchy, in the shape of the majority male sanitation workers of major cities, is what is responsible for restoring cleanliness to the city after being trashed by protesters and rioters.

As if this hypocrisy wasn’t enough, what of the protesters and rioters themselves? This was the same lot who labeled President Trump as a fascist constantly from the moment he initiated his campaign, yet responded to a fairly contested election with violence, property destruction and harassment of those who were only ‘guilty’ of supporting a different candidate.

Random limo burned in protest of Trump’s election
Activists race after being hit by a stun grenade while protesting against U.S. President-elect Donald Trump on the sidelines of the inauguration in Washington, U.S., January 20, 2017. REUTERS/Adrees Latif

All one has to do is to type ‘Trump supporters attacked’ into the search bar on YouTube to find thousands of videos from before, and after the election. This footage, in particular of a child partaking in Inauguration day rioting speaks volumes with respect to the r-strategy dynamic:

The fact that his parents either condoned him being there, or were so out of touch that they had no clue that their child was swept up in that scene, is irrelevant. Either way it smacks of the low parental investment, rapid maturity of the r-strategy. That kid should be at home playing computer games, and generally acting like a kid, as opposed to being used as a prop by his parents for their political activism.

In the Women’s March, similar vulgarity was abounding, particularly from the celebrities on show. Ashley Judd and Madonna, both living out the r-strategy to the max, took to the stage to extol the virtues of their ‘nastiness’ to the world.

This is the same crowd that stood aghast at some of Donald Trump’s more ‘colorful’ comments during the campaign, on the basis that ‘children were watching.’ This was the idea behind one of Hillary Clinton’s more effective campaign ads. Yet this crowd had no qualms with being colorful themselves in front of those same children, and the following video highlights that hypocrisy.

**********

This outsized response to an emotional slight is characteristic of the r-strategy. It is a particularly amazing hypocrisy for marchers and rioters who have the disposable income to spend hundreds on a whim to fly Washington DC, dressed in $200 coats, $100 sneakers, brandishing $700 iPhones and drinking $5 cups of coffee, all to either aimlessly walk around for a few hours in 40 degree weather with zero concern for their physical safety, or to break the windows of the very Starbucks cafes which are representative of the K-derived abundance which enables them to live out their r-selected predilections with little disturbance…turn around and complain of oppression.

A demonstrator smashes a Starbucks window in Washington DC

Furthermore, they, at least some of them are pushing to uphold and advance the acceptance of one such predilection, abortion, when the act is in most cases an abdication of responsibility for one’s actions, and beyond this represents the literal extinguishing of the future. And with that, the hopes for the advancement of the same civilization which afforded them the freedom and abundance to make such a weighty decision in comfort, departs. For the r-selected nihilists who have become far too common in our age, this isn’t a problem. For those who wish to see future generations truly enjoy in the spoils that we have enjoyed, it is a problem.

I’ll stress it one more time: this is not a moral dilemma as much as it is a logical one. As humans, K’s and r’s exist across populations, within them, and even within individuals. However true that may be, humans are a K species foremost, and thus the r-strategy is a secondary feature at best.

In terms of politics, it means that r-leftism is constantly fighting an uphill battle against its K-nature. It can be seen in the economics of the left, which require constant expansion of debt and credit to maintain the abundance it promises to its adherents. Given that debt cannot be undertaken indefinitely there will always be a painful day of reckoning.

It can be seen socially, as adherence to hyperleftist views have to be buttressed with drugs, porn, endless entertainment, psychiatry, prescription medicine and more to ease the pain. Ultimately, as Glubb shows, it is the K strategy which is what forms the foundation of any organized civilization, and r-strategies which signal its collapse.

This election was largely about the realization among a sizable portion of the electorate, perhaps subconsciously, that there is a K way to do things, and an r way to do things. Those that understood this also had to understand that the adoption of cultural Marxism and much of the ideology of New Left brings with it the seeds of collapse, while to the extent that we still had a comfortable society was down to the prior successes of a more traditional society.

The attempt to revert to such a traditional society from one that has been living the opposite way for such a long time will not come without friction. This dissent is embodied by the frantic explanations devoid of logic, and the riots protests of pure emotional angst. The dissent will pass with the return of true abundance, as the fundamental realities and success of the K Way take hold once again.

The Dawn of An Era, Part 1: Trump’s Inaugural Address

Welcome to The Dawn of An Era, which will be a multi-part look at the current state of affairs as we enter the Trump era, and the impact Trump will have based on his stated campaign aims and what he has already accomplished. As I write, we are a week into the administration, and things are moving at an electric pace. Executive orders are being signed left and right, and for the most part Trump has delivered on the campaign promises he made.

This has not come without dissent. There was a massive anti-Trump march which had its nexus in Washington DC, but had several hundred counterparts both in the US and around the world. The news media has been in a constant battle with Trump from the word go, and the Democrats have vowed to be obstructionists.

The reason for the dissent on a basic level is that President Trump is seeking to upset the social, economic and geopolitical order. It is an order that was established in the years following World War 2 and has persisted since. Though many see this order to be futile, in terms of long term sustainability, it has not necessarily collapsed to such a blatantly obvious crisis point that even the most visually challenged could recognize that change was needed. This series will focus on Trump and his quest to affect change, much needed, but highly unpopular.

We’ll start with the Inaugural Address.

Stylistically, President Trump’s first words as President Trump were Trumpian in nature. His address was forceful, direct, and didn’t mince words. The delivery was not the silkiest, smoothest delivery we’ve come to expect from our most accomplished politicians. There was little room for the extravagant language, endless platitudes and anecdotal accounts which color modern political speeches of this nature. Many criticized this, comparing Trump’s address past Inaugurals. “This was no JFK or Reagan,” they would say.

These critics are the same who, for seemingly the entirety of Trump’s campaign, have been waiting for him to change his tone, to finally pander to the masses – to be Presidential. The inaugural became yet another in the list of moments, such as the acceptance speech at the convention, or his post-labor day campaigning, or the debates, when the infamous ‘pivot’ was meant occur. Indeed the initial consensus opinion was that it was a good speech – for his supporters, which did little to embrace anyone else.

Why everyone was expecting such a pivot is beyond me. Trump didn’t even pivot at the Al Smith dinner, which is traditionally a moment when campaigning is put on hold for a night.  And that is the point – the time for traditional politics is over, to the extent it does not comport with the goal of Making America Great Again.

Trump made this crystal clear right from the start of the address, saying:

Every four years we gather on these steps to carry out the orderly and peaceful transfer of power. We are grateful to President Obama and Michelle Obama. They have been magnificent.

Today’s ceremony however has very special meaning, because today we are not merely transferring power from one administration to the other, but from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the people.

For too long, a small group in our nation’s Capitol has reaped the rewards of government while the people have born the cost. Washington has flourished, but the people did not share in its wealth. The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country. Their victories have not been your victories. Their triumphs have not been your triumphs.

This sentiment is easily verified by the widely accepted fact that by various measures, the American middle class household has not seen an increase in income in as long as 40 years, while 5 of the 10 richest counties in the country (including 5 of the top 6) are counties which surround Washington D.C. It is clear that Washington’s politics-as-usual has not been working for the rest of the country, and beyond that, DC has acted more like a leech sucking blood from the veins of the American economy than anything beneficial.

To this end, Trump ran on a campaign of ‘Draining The Swamp,’ focusing on ending the parasitical relationship DC politics has with the American people. He has issued an executive order banning administration officials from lobbying foreign governments for life and imposed a five year ban for other sorts of lobbying.

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan had previously voiced his opposition to such a ban, on the grounds that it would limit the opportunities for DC politicos to earn money after serving in office:

“I don’t think we should tell men and women we want a citizen legislature, take time out of your private life and come and serve and then go back into private life and you can’t get engaged in civics,” the speaker said. “I think that’s dangerous. I don’t think that’s a good idea.”

That Ryan would equate getting involved in civics with lobbying, to the point it would be ‘dangerous’ to curtail that intertwining, is indicative of the deterioration of American politics, with respect to politicians looking out for the interests of their donors as opposed to that of their constituents as a whole.

Decades of this transfer of wealth, and the general primacy of DC politicians over everything else has drained America of its swashbuckling spirit, leaving it a shadow of itself. By that, I mean the US in many ways is just coasting along, as opposed to forging ahead with an undeterred grit. That the US is still the greatest country in the world is a testament to the unprecedented ingenuity displayed by those who came before us, such that their efforts were enough to sustain multiple generations.

This point sets the stage for one of the more controversial passages of the address:

At the center of this movement is a crucial conviction: that a nation exists to serve its citizens.

Americans want great schools for their children, safe neighborhoods for their families, and good jobs for themselves.

These are the just and reasonable demands of a righteous public.

But for too many of our citizens, a different reality exists: Mothers and children trapped in poverty in our inner cities; rusted-out factories scattered like tombstones across the landscape of our nation; an education system, flush with cash, but which leaves our young and beautiful students deprived of knowledge; and the crime and gangs and drugs that have stolen too many lives and robbed our country of so much unrealized potential.

This American carnage stops right here and stops right now.

The decline of stable marriages and the rise of single motherhood have created a situation in which more and more children in America are being raised in a less than ideal environment. Already off to a rocky start, they are further limited by a K-12 educational system which has been in decline for decades, and a higher educational system which reinforces this decline by failing to challenge intellectual deficiencies, instead opting for what feels good.

When these kids get out of school, saddled with tens of thousands in debt on average, they are thrust into an economy which under the hood is not as robust as it once was. The burdens of excessive regulation, taxes, and a refusal for central banks to allow prices to properly adjust to changing economic conditions  has created an situation in which employers have fled the country, leaving behind the carcasses of factories which once were the engine of America.

These, combined with a few other factors, have resulted in the lowest labor force participation rate in over 40 years. In particular, 10 million men of prime working age have economically disappeared, a rate which rivals the Great Depression.

The basic human debilitation of this combination of over indebtedness and a lack of work has led to many checking out of society. Marriage rates have declined, women are having fewer children and are having them later, and many men have all together checked out of the romantic game completely, preferring to satiate themselves with the sea of pornography and video games that are on offer.

Then there is the self-medication of drugs and prescription medicine. Suicides are on the rise. Drug overdoses are on the rise, and at least in terms of women, anti-depressant consumption is on the rise. While crime as a whole has fallen, it has risen in some inner cities, where the confluence of many of the aforementioned issues has been felt acutely.

The totality of all of this is the ‘carnage’ of which Trump speaks. Critics have scolded Trump for painting a picture of the United States having devolved into some sort of Mad Max style war zone; although for many select inner cities it may feel that way. And on the surface, things are fine. When you flip the light switch in your house, the room lights up. Most people have access to the internet and cable. The vast majority of Americans can grab a $5 latte at Starbucks any time they want.

It is true that in an absolute sense the United States is wealthier (as defined by having more ‘stuff’) and healthier (as defined by life expectancy) than ever before. But the term ‘Chiraq’ didn’t come out of thin air.

The problem, which Trump seemingly understands, is that much of the progress of recent decades wasn’t necessarily attained in the right way. That is, instead of savings and investment, through which a mass production of goods occurred, the resultant lowering of prices enabling mass consumption, the United States adopted a model by which it borrowed and printed trillions to buy goods produced in foreign factories.

Socially, a ‘modern family’ lifestyle promulgated by the entertainment industry has led to a sort of non-culture which is perhaps more diverse but also less cohesive. Hence, the progresses we have made in the last few decades have been unevenly distributed and fleeting.

That these shifts underpin the gains we’ve made in the modern era render them unsustainable. And on some level we collectively know this, which is why we sedate ourselves with Netflix, drugs, and porn. It’s hard to see a future when you’re inundated with student loans, still relying on your parents for money and without stable employment, even after doing everything your elders told you to do as you were growing up. If you believe your days will be spent moving from one cramped urban apartment to another, it makes sense to succumb to the aforementioned vices, and then some, to combat the banality of it all.

The result, as Trump correctly stated, is the theft of life and the American spirit, and the continued piling up of unrealized American potential.

Having laid out the problem, the address then looked forward, onto the mindset with which that problem would be dealt with: America First.

From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land. From this moment on, it’s going to be America First.

Every decision on trade, on taxes, on immigration, on foreign affairs, will be made to benefit American workers and American families.

[…]

We will bring back our jobs. We will bring back our borders. We will bring back our wealth. And we will bring back our dreams.

We will build new roads, and highways, and bridges, and airports, and tunnels, and railways all across our wonderful nation.

We will get our people off of welfare and back to work – rebuilding our country with American hands and American labor.

We will follow two simple rules: Buy American and Hire American.

We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world – but we do so with the understanding that it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first.

We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example for everyone to follow.

This portion of the speech was also controversial, for its blatant nationalism. The likes of Bill Kristol, by now the poster child for the globalist neoconservative position, had this to say regarding the address:

I’ll be unembarrassedly old-fashioned here: It is profoundly depressing and vulgar to hear an American president proclaim “America First.”

The ‘vulgarity’ of the phrase no doubt stems from the original ‘America First’ movement led by Charles Lindbergh just prior to the US entry into WWII. He blamed British and Jewish interests for attempting to push the United States into war. For this he has been branded an Anti-Semite by History (though curiously nothing about any special hatred for the British).

I’m not going to re-litigate the issue here, but I will suggest that merely not wanting war for the US, no matter how much of a ‘no brainer’ it might be, does not necessarily classify one as a villain. Trump’s fierce nationalism has garnered similar charges of villainy from the globalist set – they view anything other than a society with no borders, multiculturalism and military interventionism as a crime to humanity.

In this sense, that last line about not seeking ‘to impose our way of life on anyone’ must have been extremely difficult to hear. For this has been the policy of the United States for nigh on 70 years. During that time, the US has tried her hand at Imperialism, attempting to overthrow dozens of foreign governments which were doing things it didn’t like. It spent trillions and amassed body counts in the millions, directly and indirectly, while showing little to no remorse.

All the while, on the home front, things remained fine on the surface, but underneath it a steady deterioration had begun, and continues to this day, as I’ve described.

The only beneficiaries of that paradigm have been the elites in politics, big business, Wall Street, and the infamous military-industrial complex President Eisenhower warned about as he left office. Trump’s hyper nationalism is a repudiation of that dynamic. Trump continued:

At the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States of America, and through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other.

When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice.

The Bible tells us, “how good and pleasant it is when God’s people live together in unity.” We must speak our minds openly, debate our disagreements honestly, but always pursue solidarity.

When America is united, America is totally unstoppable. There should be no fear – we are protected, and we will always be protected. We will be protected by the great men and women of our military and law enforcement and, most importantly, we are protected by God.

Finally, we must think big and dream even bigger.

In America, we understand that a nation is only living as long as it is striving. We will no longer accept politicians who are all talk and no action – constantly complaining but never doing anything about it. The time for empty talk is over. Now arrives the hour of action.

Do not let anyone tell you it cannot be done. No challenge can match the heart and fight and spirit of America.

One thing that struck me upon listening to the address was the spiritual nature imbued into it. Perhaps it is a sign of the times, but referencing God and spirituality in a political sense that is more than just a token reference is a bit of a rarity. What Trump spoke to here was the fact that true unity comes from a common cause, the United States of America, a cause which in turn is furthered by the extent to which it accepts the direction of God.

The mere concept of a higher power, something beyond our individual existence to which we should strive to better ourselves, has become increasingly foreign in modern times. We have slowly succumbed to a putrid nihilism characterized by short term, molecular thinking and YOLOism.

Trump is right: when you all have the same basic goal, you have no room for hating the man standing next to you. To the extent you and your counterparts differ, they are generally how you are going to go about achieving the overarching goal. Those differences, in turn, come from differences in your basic constitution as human beings. The farmer, the mathematician and the banker all bring value to America, and their individual differences are only of value because they enable them to specialize in their respective fields, all directed towards a singular target, furthering America.

Contrast that sentiment to the words of the leader of the opposition in Congress, Chuck Schumer, who addressed the crowd moments before President Trump was sworn in:

We Americans have always been a forward-looking, problem-solving, optimistic, patriotic, and decent people. Whatever our race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, whether we’re immigrant or native-born, whether we live with disabilities or do not, in wealth or in poverty, we’re all exceptional in our commonly held yet fierce devotion to our country. And in our willingness to sacrifice our time, energy, and even our lives to making it a more perfect union.

Whereas Trump’s vision starts from a patriotic vision of country, striving for more, and trickles down to the individual who will make it happen, Schumer starts with the delineation of all the possible characteristics of the individual, working up to what is supposedly a common devotion to the country. Schumer’s pathway is nonsensical: if indeed all of those disparate groups have a burning devotion to achieving a lofty goal, the individual differences and characteristics are by definition irrelevant. Only the goal matters. Yet the deliberate focus on of all of these differences is itself an attempt to make them relevant, suggesting a unifying goal isn’t what is most important.

It is fitting that Schumer’s Ode to Identity Politics came in what was literally the final minutes of the Obama administration, which were (hopefully) the final minutes of the multi decade march of cultural Marxism and globalist views which have polluted Republican and Democratic administrations alike.

The forceful tenor of the Trump’s speech which followed was, in my view, akin to the loud smack of a judge’s gavel, signifying the finality of a decision. In this case, a decision to fundamentally change course, away from an America which had comfortably coasted on its laurels to one which as going to get its hands dirty once again with a view to achieving something greater.

That Trump made such an aggressive speech with Presidents Carter, Clinton, Bush, and Obama sitting mere feet from him was further symbolism. The latter three in particular have been stewards of the cultural and economic decline we are in the midst of, the legacy of which was the improbability known as ‘President Trump.’

The address was a stern declaration that we as a nation are going to turn this ship around, despite the odds, and despite the stern opposition from the ‘respectable class’, so represented by those former presidents who gazed upon Trump as he spoke. Because of them, the task Trump seeks to take on is perhaps more difficult than anything any modern president has had to achieve.

But the very fact Donald Trump was standing there to speak at all is testament to the fact that ultimate success in that Herculean task is in fact possible.