Just Nominate Incitatus Already

Having been good-naturedly needled by Nate about caesarism, I can only reply with this:

Speaker John Boehner has agreed to stay on as Speaker–not just until the Caucus nominates someone –but, until that person can confirm 218 votes on the House floor (needed to take the Speaker’s gavel). Short of that — Boehner will stay on for the rest of this Congress and steer legislation that is pending.

He was going to step down, but now he’s not, because there’s no clear-cut successor ready to take the reins.  Yeah.  And this on the heels of handpicked successor Kevin McCarthy unexpectedly dropping out.

And now all “the Caucus” — lovely name — has to do is come up juuuuuuust short on getting those 218 confirmed votes.  Gosh darn it, we tried for Real Reform ™, but the numbers weren’t there.  Out of our deep respect for the Constitution, we’ll have to let Boehner stay on and run the House as a Democrat.

I’d bet the GDP of Turkmenistan that McCarthy actually did have the votes to win.  Note the WaPo’s weasel wording:

Assuming Democrats follow past practice and support their leader, Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), or another Democrat for speaker, McCarthy can afford to lose no more than 29 Republican votes to retain a floor majority.

Biiiiiiiig assumption there, buddy.  The only reason the Dems wouldn’t vote for Boehner 2.0 is that it’s too obviously part of the con.  Any Dem legislation McCarthy passed — which as Boehner 2.0, would be roughly all of it — would be seen as a quid pro quo for their votes.

This way, they get everything they want and get to look like pure partisans.  The rubes are left with the impression that Republicans and Democrats actually oppose one another, instead of giving Caesar whatever he wants whenever he wants it…. and Caesar gets whatever he wants whenever he wants it.

Or, at least, that’s what I’d think about all this if I believed in conspiracy theories.

Settled Science Update

What’s that you say?  The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has over-estimated future global warming by as much as 10 times?

I’m shocked; shocked, I tells ya.  I can’t wait to hear how Dr. Evans, with his six degrees in applied math and his experience as a climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, doesn’t understand climate models.  Or is secretly in the pay of Halliburton.  Or once had lunch with Dick Cheney’s father’s brother’s nephew’s cousin’s former roommate.  Or something.  It’s always something.

Meanwhile, we must enact global socialism now, because the science is settled.

Dr Evans says his discovery “ought to change the world”.

“But the political obstacles are massive,” he said.

Squirty could not be reached for comment

Squirty could not be reached for comment

Church, State, Socialism, Society, and Laws

“Hey, I’m Good With Socialism”

This came from a Democrat co-worker who was unaware that anyone other than Hillary Clinton is running for the Democratic Party nomination.  When I told him that there was the Socialist pretending she’s not really a socialist, and the Socialist who at least admits he’s a socialist – he asked who the second one was, and I told him Bernie Sanders.  This is the same person who years ago asked me point blank, “Well, what’s wrong with Socialism?” (which I’ve feebly addressed before here and here.)

I gave him a one line answer which I’m sure he did not understand, and it was this: “It is incompatible with human nature.”

I am alarmed at the number of Bernie Sanders bumper stickers I see around this town.

But I was listening to Bill Whittle on one of his Stratosphere Lounge episodes this morning, and Bill did what we should be doing more of… he gave us an example everyone can understand.  And then my mind, as it tends to do, took that stick and ran with it

“The first lie of Communism is that if it’s a cold night out and we’re in the plains of North Dakota, and it’s thirty-five degrees below zero, and we hear bleating out in the barn, and it turns out that one of our cows is sick — [] that one of us will go out there at four o’clock in the morning in thirty degree below zero to take care of a cow that doesn’t belong to us. That we would, in fact, all pitch in and work for the collective as hard as we would work for ourselves. And it just ain’t so.” – Bill Whittle

Socialism is basically Communism Lite.

The idea of socialism is that if one of us does go out in the thirty degree below weather to take care of the farmer’s cow for a fee that the State gets to say how much of that fee that man gets to keep because somebody else didn’t get as big a fee for something he did for someone else, or because somebody else gets no fees for anything because he essentially does nothing — because it’s somehow not fair that they have less.

Capitalism is the idea that the man who goes out in the thirty below weather to take care of the farmer’s cow at 4:00 am will be paid a price he feels is worth his time and trouble — the caveat being that if the farmer is not willing to pay his price, the man does not get paid at all (nor does he have to go through the trouble). This encourages a negotiation — often unseen — where the farmer has incentive to pay what the vet would consider a fair price while the vet has an incentive to charge a price closer to what most farmers would consider fair.

In other words … it’s what people do naturally.

People also steal and maim and kill naturally. And these things are, of course, wrong. People are also naturally lazy and would like it of other people would just do the things they want done. Forcing people to do that is also wrong. And people love and empathize and help each other, and these things are, of course, right. And right and wrong are the concern of morality.

So what is morality, in general? C.S. Lewis broke it down like this:

“Morality, then, seems to be concerned with three things. Firstly, with fair play and harmony between individuals. Secondly, with what might be called tidying up or harmonising the things inside each individual. Thirdly, with the general purpose of human life as a whole: what man was made for: what course the whole fleet ought to be on: what tune the conductor of the band wants it to play.”

The first one is is that which we are concerned with enough that we institute Governments to enforce in a free society. The others are the realm of psychology and religious philosophy and practice — not that the first is not a concern of religion, it’s just the one that falls to the realm of the state.

But we need all three to make a society work, and the other two will necessarily inform some decisions in the realm of the first.

Harmonizing the things inside ones’ self is highly subjective, and the idea of what man was made for is also relatively subjective.  What the man taking care of the cow in thirty below weather does to make things right in himself — he may choose to do it for free if he feels that helping this man out is the right thing to do …. maybe to tidy and harmonize things within himself because he believes it is what he was made for. So who gets to decide these things? The simple answer is that it will either be the individual (or voluntary clusters of individuals) … or the state.  Leaving it to the individual is what we call “religious freedom”.

It is not the realm of the state to guide the soul. And while it is necessary for souls to guide the state in a free society, the soul, must in turn, be guided by something else. This is why, in the Preamble to our Constitution we have the words “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights” .  By their creator.  Not by themselves.  Not by any human being.  And not by the state.  And it lays out the three basic rights: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness [a paraphrase of Adam Smith’s “Property”]

And it is why John Adams wrote to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

The state needs guided souls.

But isn’t Socialism or Communism doing what Jesus said to do?

Well, no.  He would say to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’ s; and to God, the things that are God’ s. And Paul would say that we might give ourselves a pattern unto you, to imitate us.For also when we were with you, this we declared to you: that, if any man will not work, neither let him eat.

But when the state takes control of this guidance, it imposes its will on the individual conscience – and rights and duties are thus defined by the state. This is totalitarianism.

When the individual (or groups of voluntary individuals — which is still up to each individual in the end) does it, we have the closest thing to a free society we can have. The freest society we could have, where everyone just does whatever they want, however, is anarchy – where might and deception ultimately trump all else. This is why we institute the state – to help ensure that people play nice.

This kind of society, a free society, can only work, however — when there is a sufficient measure of homogeneity of moral opinion among the population. And the best proven practices to foster a homogeneity in moral opinion would be religious institutions. And a society can have multiple religious institutions and remain a cohesive society depending on the degree to which those religious institutions are similar – including the degree to which those who do not necessarily formally subscribe to any of those institutions have similar moral outlooks. And this is because you necessarily need a large concensus on the things which the state is tasked to enforce in order for them to be viewed as just and moral among the general population.

When these moral ideas are hashed out by individuals with relatively homogeneous moral guides, you can have a relatively free society. If any those institutions are given authority over the laws of the state, you have a religious theocracy. It is no different if the state becomes the arbitor of morality. In effect, the state will have become The Church, and your separation is out the window.

Laws (in a free society) are expressions of a society’s shared morals. They express things that will and won’t be allowed and what we will do with people who people who do things that are expressly not allowed – what is considered bad behavior.

Now the more laws a society has, the less free it is. This does not mean we should have no laws. But it does mean, if we value liberty, that we should be judicious about creating new ones.

Good religious institutions will in general foster a more well behaved population insofar as the population makes use of them. But it is of course no guarantee that any individual, church-goer or not, will live up to that institution’s standards, much less that of the society in which it exists. There will always be bad actors.

This idea that outlawing bad behavior gets rid of it — this is the root of the constant clamoring for new laws.

Laws give us a legal framework for confronting bad actors. It doesn’t, in general, stop bad actors from acting. Knowing there are consequences — the confrontation — that’s a deterrent. And deterrents are good. But even they don’t stop it. What stops it is a person who is willing and able to stop it — and it helps a lot if he has the law behind him to support his actions.

Multiculturalism is a lie.

Diversity is not a virtue in and of itself. A certain amount of diversity is a symptom of a free and just society. But it is not the cause. People want to come live in a place where there is a free and just society. Where there is tyranny, people must be forced to stay. “Which way are the boats headed?” is a good indicator. But when a free and just society begins to adjust its rules more to accommodate anyone who comes than the people coming adjust their worldview to that of the society they have come to, that society is not long for this world. It will be taken advantage of by bad actors from both within and outside of that society, and both its freeness and justness will erode either toward anarchy, which leads to totalitarianism by the brutish, or to totalitarianism by the demagogues who will be brutish in their pride.

The various flavors of Marxism are the prideful theories of people who believe they know what’s is best for everyone. Not everyone agrees on what’s best for everyone, which is why it must always be applied at the point of a gun. In addition, their are very often used by demagogues to gain power for whatever reason they choose. They are seductive ideas on the surface. But as Bill’s example of the farmer’s cow on a cold North Dakota night, it is wholly incompatible with the reality of human nature.

nature /ˈnāCHər/ 2. the basic or inherent features of something, especially when seen as characteristic of it.

Conspiracy Theories in the Age of Asperger’s

We’ve been having a little discussion about Teh Jooos! in the comments here lately, so a little primer on the nature of conspiracy theories might be useful.

Despite my idol David Stove’s evisceration of Karl Popper, Popperism’s test of whether or not a proposition is “scientific” takes care of any and all conspiracy theories: Is it falsifiable?

If your hypothesis is “all swans are white,” all one has to do is produce a black swan to falsify it.  It’s neat, rigorous, and above all clear — here’s a black swan; ergo your hypothesis is false.

Now, Popper and his disciples get up to all kinds of chicanery with this.  They’ll maintain, for example, that no matter how many white swans you have, or black swans you don’t have, the proposition “all swans are white” is no closer to being proven than it would be if there were only one swan in the whole world…. and eventually that’s how you get jackalopes down at the local community college English Department claiming gravity is a social construction.

But whatever.  In the real world, common sense rules, and if there’s no way your theory about flouridated water or chemtrails or, yes, Teh Joooos! could ever be falsified, then you’re outside the realms of reason, my friend.

The problem is, not all “conspiracy theories” are Conspiracy Theories, and in this, the Age of Asperger’s, it’s sometimes difficult for some folks to tell them apart.  When I describe our political system as Caesarism, for example, and call the ruling elite Caesar (or DemPublicans, or what have you), some folks seem to think I think Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, John Boehner, and Jeb Bush are all on some secret Journolist server where they coordinate their various gaffes and misquotes and general tomfoolery.

Because internet people don’t process nuance, in other words, one is often forced to either state one’s argument in legalese, or risk getting dragged off into the weeds of irrelevant conspirazoid nonsense.

For example, there’s a perfectly easy and obvious explanation for why “the Jews” tend to act against America’s — and Israel’s! — best geopolitical interests.  It’s because — follow closely now — they tend to be doctrinaire fucking marxoids.  And they tend to be doctrinaire fucking marxoids because they have, on average, higher IQs than the rest of us, and thus spend much longer in the higher ed pipeline (and, as tertiary-degreed brainworkers, can afford to live far from the results of their preferred policies — just like their professors).

The correlation between “high IQ” and “blithering political idiocy” is entirely cultural, and well established.  The genetic link between “susceptibility to Tay-Sachs Disease” and “propensity to vote Democrat” exists only in certain excitable folks’ imaginations.

You’ll note, I hope, that this explanation of mine is entirely falsifiable.  Find me a handful of Jews who are

  • high IQ and
  • doctrinaire fucking marxoids and
  • working in America/Israel’s best interests

and we’ll talk.

Meanwhile, since I’m not a thoroughgoing Popperite, I’ll throw you some additional evidence for my hypothesis.  There’s a certain group that is, on average,

  • low IQ and
  • doctrinaire fucking marxoids and
  • against America/Israel’s best interests

I’m referring, of course, to blacks.  The same HBD folks who scream and yell the loudest about Teh Jooos! are the ones who scream and yell the loudest about the low average IQ of Africans and African-Americans.  Granting them their precious HBD, then, we see that blacks and Jews are at opposite ends of the spectrum, brain-wise, but prefer the exact same policies.


Tinfoil Hats in History

It’s really tough to separate an idea from its adherents.  A major reason folks aren’t drawing lessons from recent history, I’m starting to think, is because it’s hard to see the useful bits in among the sludge.

I can’t count the number of times, for instance, that I’ve written something to the effect of “people don’t understand Fascism because they can’t stop thinking about Hitler.”  Nazism is so comically theatrical that we forget there were real ideas under the armbands and the mustache and the snazzy Hugo Boss uniforms.  I tried to get around this by talking about Japan, but — aside from the fact that this history isn’t widely known — people still seem to be under the impression that, because the Fascists lost the war, Fascism is completely discredited.

It’s not.  China is doing national socialism right this very minute.  But because the Chinese have sludge of a different sort — they claim to be communists, and people believe them — that’s not a viable option either.  So I write about the F-word, and people still think I’m talking about the Waffen-SS goose stepping down Main Street.

Or take the Confederacy.  Those guys were absolutely right about the Constitution.  The government the Founders intended looked way more like what they were trying to do in Richmond than anything that has ever come out of Washington.  The 14th Amendment is a joke, imposed at bayonet point.  But we can’t even talk about theories of republican government in this country, because slavery.  This is not to say slavery wasn’t a monstrous evil, but just as corporatism doesn’t necessarily, logically entail jackboots and armbands, so proclaiming the 14th Amendment to be a huge mistake doesn’t entail a burning desire to bring back Jim Crow.

Which is the point I was trying to make in a comment, below.  By waving the anti-semite flag, folks on the alt-right are making it impossible to discuss any of their other ideas.  Steve Sailer, for example, likes to joke about how big league pundits obviously read him, but never give him any credit or invite him on any of their shows.  He should be thanking his lucky stars for that.  Right now, the networks don’t want to take the very real risk he’d start foaming at the mouth and spouting Protocols of the Elders of Zion shit.

Trust me: If alt-right ideas ever start gaining real traction — if Trump conclusively wins the next debate, say — that’s exactly what the networks are going to do.  They’ll trot out Sailer and Co. and start asking them loaded questions about Israel.

And then we’re sunk.

The “Alt-Right” in a Nutshell

Human biodiversity rules!  Intelligence is the only thing that matters in a postindustrial economy.  There is nothing but IQ, IQ and race are inseparable, and that’s why blacks, Mexicans, etc. always lag behind whites in the first world.  Biomechanics is god!!!


But the Jews?  Conspiracy!!!  Never mind all that stuff we just said about IQ being the only thing that matters, that biomechanics is god, etc etc.  Yes yes, IQ and race are inseparable, and IQ is the only thing that matters, but there’s no way the Jews and their top-of-the-heap group IQ could ever have risen to the top honestly.  It’s simply not possible that a group with the highest average brainpower could disproportionately excel in fields that take a lot of brainpower, like finance….. but, ummm… biomechanics is god!!!!

Handing a microphone to these fucking tinfoil heads won’t be the worst aspect of Trump’s presidency, but it’ll be up there.


Whither the Media?

P.J. O’Rourke used to joke about the kind of journalism he called MEGO: My Eyes Glaze Over.  You know, those tedious ten-part thumbsuckers the New York Times runs on slow news days, with titles like “Whither Gambia?”

This won’t be one of those… if only because of the pictures.


You see, Caesar has a problem.  One of his constant petty annoyances is having to deal with people who won’t accept that they’re cogs in the machine.  People like Washington Post reporter Chris Cilizza:

But, I believe really strongly that the decline in trust in the media is primarily attributable to partisans — whether in politics or in the media — who have a vested interest in casting the press as hopelessly biased. What better way for liberal or conservative talk radio to (a) lure listeners and (b) stoke outrage than to insist that the mainstream media is lying to you? What better way for politicians to raise money from partisans already skeptical about the media than to say the media isn’t telling the truth?

As Ace of Spades, the author of the link, points out, it is indeed partisans — bloody obvious partisans like Chris Cilizza — who are the answer to the question, “why don’t people trust the media?”  People are finally starting to catch on to the con.

Which is bad news for Caesar.  Remember, the whole idea behind Caesarism is to make the plebs think their opinion matters.  A competently biased press is good for that.  But guys like Cilizza — and his butt buddies at CNN, Fox, the NewYork Times, National Review, etc. — aren’t content to take Caesar’s paychecks.  They too want to think their opinion matters; that they’re shaping policy.

They know they’re conning the voters on Caesar’s behalf, in other words, but they’ve conned themselves as well — “surely the guy who concocted this whole DemPublican dumbshow for the rubes would never pull the same scam on us!

Hey, nobody ever said journalists were bright.

And now Caesar faces a dilemma.  How to restore trust in the media?  Knowing as we do that Ace’s proposed solution — employing competent, nonpartisan journalists — is not in Caesar’s interests, we’re left with two likely options:

1) Caesar could go the embezzling-court-eunuch route, and crucify a few of the more obvious hacks in full view of the public.  The problem with this option is that a fair part of the public, and all of the media, consider journalists a de facto priesthood.  How does one execute a high priest of one’s own cult for blasphemy?  Oh, it’s been done, but the optics can be tricky.  What charge can you hang on him that won’t implicate everyone else in the college of cardinals?  Which brings us to my suggested solution….

Macho_Man_Randy_Savage2) Professional wrestling!!  Part of the joy of pro wrestling, I’m told, is knowing that it’s fake.  The outsized personalities, the gravity-defying moves, the theatricality… this could definitely work for the media.  Most of the WaPo‘s coverage lo these last ten years has been little more than a polysyllabic version of “Obama… oh yeah!!!” anyway.  Instead of pretending you’re not part of the show, Chris Cilizza, embrace being part of the show.  You get to keep your job, you get to pretend you’re delivering a valuable service (albeit not the one you thought you were), and, above all, you avoid ending up stretched across a telephone pole next to the Washington Monument.

Oh yeah!!!

Hail Caesar

I see stuff like this and I have to laugh.

Even if enough Republicans vote to boot Boehner out of the speaker’s chair, Democrats could of course vote to keep him in it– and, again, keeping power is all that matters to these guys, even if he becomes, essentially, the Democratic Speaker of the House despite the Republicans holding the House….

…If Boehner and other Republicans conspire to deliver us a “Unity Government” of united Democrats and Republicans — well, I guess all I’ve been saying is entirely vindicated.

What, you’re just figuring this out now?

caesar1There’s a technical term for this kind of thing, y’all: Caesarism.  Read ’em and weep:

By the term “Caesarism” I mean that kind of government which, irrespective of any constitutional formulation that it may have, is in its inward self a return to thorough formlessness. It does not matter that Augustus in Rome, and Huang Ti in China, Amasis in Egypt and Alp Arslan in Baghdad disguised their position under antique forms. the spirit of these forms was dead, and so all institutions, however carefully maintained, were thenceforth destitute of all meaning and weight. Real importance centred in the wholly personal power exercised by the Caesar…

{281]With the formed state having finished its course, high history also lays itself down weary to sleep. Man becomes a plant again adhering to the soil, dumb and enduring. The timeless village and the “eternal” peasant reappear, begetting children and burying seed in Mother Earth.. Men live from hand to mouth, with petty thrifts and petty fortunes and endure…

Oswald Spengler had all this pegged 100 years ago.  You’ll recall, I’m sure, that the Roman “republic” never went away.  Even under the worst despot — Caracalla, say — the Senate still “debated” things; tribunes of the plebs still “vetoed” motions; and the Emperor himself had to go through the whole kabuki routine of being merely the “first citizen,” with all his offices and powers awarded him by the people’s representatives through entirely constitutional means.

This kept the masses (relatively) quiet.  You’ve heard Noam Chomsky’s phrase, “manufactured consent”?  All this senate-and-people stuff was manufactured dissent.  Sham elections, dumbshow debates… they provide a nice spectacle, and buying votes spreads the wealth around a little bit.  It’s cheaper than nonstop gladiator shows, and you don’t have to risk marching the army in to shove your policies down the masses’ throats.  So long as the plebs occasionally “win” one against the Emperor’s toadies — a minor court eunuch executed for embezzlement or some such — everyone can pretend they’re not slaves; that Caesar’s not a despot; that the barbarians our Legions are paying to thump other barbarians on the wrong side of the Rhine are dutiful citizen-soldiers of the glorious Republic, the spearhead of civilization.  Hell, Caracalla even had his own version of the DREAM Act.

Whatever happens, the Elite get what they want.  Just like in modern America.  With all due respect to the blogfather, there really is no difference between Left and Right… not down there where the cheese binds.  Sure, the “Left” will never vote with the loggers against the spotted owls, just as the “Right” will never vote against the unborn and with Planned Parenthood… but Planned Parenthood gets funded all the same, and the owls get logged as soon as the proper Democratic palms get greased.

“Left” and “Right” no longer mean anything, in other words, because they describe options that simply don’t exist anymore.  The whole ridiculous farce of “elections,” the “Supreme Court,” “debates”…. the only things these decide is who gets to be Caesar’s public flak-catcher for a few years.  We the People — that is, We the Plebs — “vote” for these people, and our “votes” have exactly the same impact on our politics as the drunken comments we scream at tv coaches have on football games.

The only difference is, Boehner is a bit dumber than Pelosi (as team “Right” is generally a little bit dumber than team “Left”), so he’s having a hard time giving the plebs the bare minimum kabuki show required.  It’s as if Tom Brady marched out to midfield with a psi gauge and deflated his own footballs, right there in front of the screaming crowd and a zillion fans watching at home.

The fact that bigtime political commentators are just now starting to figure this out tells you all you need to know about how Caesar finds it so easy to keep doing what he does.

Hail Caesar.

Colors, Flags, Slogans, Armbands

Most of the media misread Trump because they’re stupid, but even the smarter bloggers out there really don’t realize that he’s not a politician.*  Trumpism may be parasitic on the comatose near-corpse of the Republican Party, and he may have to go through the motions of party politics, but Trump’s bid for the Presidency isn’t a campaign — it’s a mass movement, and he’s a movement-builder.

To be fair, Trump himself might not realize it.  I’m still not entirely sure he’s serious about winning.  But assuming he is, and assuming he’s got some sense of himself as a movement leader, not a politician, I’d advise the following:

Embrace the loyalty pledge.  Remember that ridiculous furor a month or so back, when all the other GOP candidates kept harassing him to sign the loyalty oath?  Aside from cracking a few Catch-22 type jokes, I didn’t think much of it at the time.  It seemed like the kind of stupid, flailing gesture the GOP is addicted to — a sort of in-house version of their patented Failure Theater — and I thought Trump was just humoring them because he really doesn’t care about the Party machine.

Maybe he was… or maybe he was stupid like a fox.  Either way, it’s a golden opportunity, especially now that certain insidery types are talking about a third party run by a Cuckstablishment type.  Trump can play this one to the rafters — he’s the only one in the whole damn race to have given his word and stuck by it.  Nobody else had to sign the Great Loyalty Oath, and surprise surprise, they’re setting up to sell him out.  Loyalty is a yuuuuge virtue among the proles — it’s all they’ve got left.

Get a loyalty oath of his own.  Building on that, I’d drum up a catchy slogan — “Honoring American Values” or some such — and urge all his supporters to publicly take an oath to do the same.  Have them sign an online petition, say, and reward them for doing it.  His website could feature the True American(tm) of the Week who signed the pledge, and he could hand out lapel pins that say “I took the pledge!” or something.  And speaking of pins…

Get an official campaign color.  Armbands are a bit on the nose at this point, but there’s nothing wrong with asking people to wear certain colors.  Liberals do this kind of thing all the time — cf. the NFL wearing that ridiculous pink gear every October.  I’d advise against white — again, a bit on the nose right now — but since conservatives are “red” right now, I’d jump all over that.  Wear something bright red at every appearance, and encourage all supporters to wear as much red as possible at all times.  Once that takes off…

Yep, go with the armbands.  Or, at least, some very visible lapel pins or, better yet, some patches that can be ironed on to ballcaps and / or hunting vests.  Trump’s support right now is almost entirely among the proletariat, and they don’t do political bumper stickers (“NRA life member” stickers, sure).  Bumper stickers, besides being too conventional, are almost entirely an upper-middle class thing — they’re tribal signifiers for the SUV crowd, which is why liberals love them.

The point is to emphasize the movement, not the campaign.  Regular politicians do bumper stickers; they’re genteel displays of political virtue.  Trump is brash and irreverent; so too should his movement be.  The type of person who rushed to buy a Confederate flag after Charleston is exactly the kind of person who’s going to vote for Trump, and he’s got to make them even more visible.  The Establishment — by which I mean the Dempublican Party — is scared absolutely shitless at the thought of the proles developing some class consciousness.  Make Trumpista armbands loud and proud, and pretty soon you’ve got a working-class version of the pantywaist college kid’s Che shirt — a cheap accessory that stands for generic “rebellion.”

D, if you’re reading this… I got a million more.  And I work cheap.  Call me.


*They sneer at his lack of government experience, of course, and what they perceive as his lack of political acumen….but this attitude assumes he’s a still typical — just very bad — politician.

If Lovin’ This is Wrong, I Don’t Wanna Be Right

Breitbart (if you can get past the autoplay adware kludge):

A Morning Consult poll, released Friday, surveyed 504 registered voters who watched Wednesday’s Republican primary debate and has only good news for Republican frontrunner Donald Trump and Carly Fiorina. While the poll’s sample size is small (with a 4.4% margin of error), the poll’s trend is worth noting.

In this same poll, prior to Wednesday night’s debate, Trump sat at 33% support. Dr. Ben Carson sat in second place with 17% support. Today Trump enjoys 36% support. Carson is still in second place but with just 12% support.

Trump’s lead increased from +16 points to  +24%. That’s an +8% jump.

The Ace of Spades guys (whom I generally respect and mostly like) keep on insisting it’s over for Trump.  The grasshopper seems to lie heavy on this one, too.

Now, I’m sure y’all are probably as sick of reading about Trump as I am of writing about him.  So I want to clearly explain why I think this is so important.  Let me start by quoting Vox Day’s take on all this:

Both Fiorina and Carson are no-hope non-candidates. The fact that both of them have more appeal than the Walker, Rubio, Cruz, Christie, Bush III et al suffices to demonstrate how little faith the grassroots has in the Establishment.

It’s pretty simple. Both American and European politics are about IMMIGRATION, IMMIGRATION, and IMMIGRATION. If you don’t support immediately repatriating ALL illegal immigrants as a STARTING POINT, you’re just not an electable candidate anymore.

That’s not precisely true.  Immigration is an epiphenomenon.  It’s actually even simpler than that:

The Elite are offering us two choices.  We can be either

1) passive consumers on the company tit, spending our rapidly decreasing wages on iCrap made by smaller, browner, poorer people, or

2) smaller, browner, poorer people.

That’s it.  It’s not — despite all the howling on the alt-right — anti-white animus; it’s just the logic of the bottom line.  If present trends continue, our imported lumpen-Aztecs will themselves be replaced, soon enough, by lumpen-Africans.  You do know there’s 1.3 billion more of them in the pipeline, right?

Karl Marx was right, y’all.  This is where laissez-faire leads; there can be no other.

You-Know-Who, who knew his Marx, saw all this.  And the Chinese, who definitely know their Marx, see it as well.  There’s a reason they seem content to remain a regional hegemon, despite their economy going kerflooey — by 2050, the life of a peasant in Shandong will seem unimaginably luxurious compared to the life of a peasant in San Francisco.  And the People’s Liberation Army knows a thing or two about managing recalcitrant populations.

Trump — a businessman — is simply following that logic where it leads.

It remains an open question, of course, how much of this is conscious.  You-Know-Who didn’t have much of a coherent platform, either.  He simply made a statement that seemed all too obvious to millions of his countrymen: Whether you’re a barely-making-it clerk in a Jewish bank in Berlin, or a prole pulling a shift in People’s Heavy Tractor Manufactory #202 in Krasnoyarsk, you are not you — you are a production-unit, a consumption-unit, a cell in a vast spreadsheet that, if present trends continue, will soon cover the whole earth.  Your fears and desires, your hopes and dreams, your gods, your traditions, your ancestors, your descendants… all meaningless.  You are a cog, and you will do as you’re told, or you will be scrapped — because that’s what one does with defective cogs.

And that’s why I called this piece “If Loving This is Wrong, I Don’t Wanna Be Right.”  Because You-Know-Who also had a huge, tightly organized Party, with several massive paramilitary formations at his beck and call.  He had Party members salted throughout the civil service, the police, the army.  And because of this, he had massive leverage — at least one Weimar chancellor was assured that, unless the far right* was brought into the governming coalition, a civil war would break out… which the army simply didn’t have the manpower to stop.

What I’m getting at is this: Trump, with his half-assed, off-the-cuff, ridiculous clown show candidacy, may well be the best alternative on offer.  “Vote me, and be Americans again” isn’t going away.  If Trump doesn’t ride that slogan to the White House, it’s going to become the slogan of a large, tightly organized Party, with several massive paramilitary formations at its beck and call.  Thanks to President Jebillary’s open door policies, that party won’t have an outright majority… but You-Know-Who’s never did either.  And not everyone at the Pentagon is a drooling imbecile — at some point, some bright young staff officer is going to advise President Jebillary that, in the increasingly likely event of shots fired, we’re not going to have enough loyal troops to stop it.

Not that the clown show presidency would be any fun, either.  Some bad shit is coming down the road, and we passed the turnoff a long time ago.  Our choice isn’t between better or worse flavors of Business as Usual; it’s between Bad and Much, Much Worse.

Me?  I’m voting for Bad.  And it seems like more and more people are joining me.



*not that You-Know-Who was a conservative, of course, but for convenience I’m using the term the history books use.  That way, if you want to check my work, you won’t constantly be tripping over references to the National Socialists as “right-wing.”