Monthly Archives: July 2015

Has My Defense of The Donald Come to an End?

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump gestures at a news conference near the U.S.- Mexico border outside of Laredo, Texas July 23, 2015. REUTERS/Rick Wilking

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump gestures at a news conference near the U.S.- Mexico border outside of Laredo, Texas July 23, 2015. REUTERS/Rick Wilking

Look, so far I’ve defended Donald Trump against his critics, but every man has a line he just won’t cross. After this, I may have to part ways with the Trumpster. I just can’t bring myself to defend this atrocity. Donald Trump is worth 10 billion dollars, but he can’t bring himself to invest in a decent looking six panel hat? This abomination has “I’m headed to play shuffle board” all over it. SMH

Surprisingly, the geriatric set is apparently snapping them up.

Bernie Sanders Opposes Open Borders!

Weaver’s laws: 1. To advance conservative goals, often one must oppose conventional conservative positions.

2. Conservatives share some common interest with the libertarian-right but also with the socialist-left. And we oppose one another in other areas.

3. Mass immigration is unaffordable if employers are forced to pay workers well.

4. Americans, especially nonwhite Americans, will only tolerate a great wealth gap if their voting rights are rescinded.

5. A wealth imbalance serves big government interests by creating demand for big government “solutions”.

6. It is better to correct the wealth imbalance sooner rather than later. More damage (immigration) will be done if waiting later.

7. Between guns and butter, butter is better. And the police state is less likely without perpetual war.

In a recent interview, Bernie Sanders defends the nation-state (in a relative sense) and stands athwart open-borders:

Bernie Sanders:

Open borders? No, that’s a Koch brothers proposal.

Of course. That’s a right-wing proposal, which says essentially there is no United States.

It would make everybody in America poorer —you’re doing away with the concept of a nation state, and I don’t think there’s any country in the world that believes in that. If you believe in a nation state or in a country called the United States or UK or Denmark or any other country, you have an obligation in my view to do everything we can to help poor people. What right-wing people in this country would love is an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don’t believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country, I think we have to do everything we can to create millions of jobs.

You know what youth unemployment is in the United States of America today? If you’re a white high school graduate, it’s 33 percent, Hispanic 36 percent, African American 51 percent. You think we should open the borders and bring in a lot of low-wage workers, or do you think maybe we should try to get jobs for those kids?

I think from a moral responsibility we’ve got to work with the rest of the industrialized world to address the problems of international poverty, but you don’t do that by making people in this country even poorer.

This is yet further proof that the libertarians and finance-types are a major enemy of conservatives at this time. The conservative-libertarian alliance applies only to foreign policy, the NSA, gun rights, Department of Education, states rights, and similar specific areas. Conservatives also share common interests with the “socialist left” in other specific areas.

Certainly the state and “socialism” are a threat, but reducing immigration is also important. Mass immigration cannot be supported if companies are required to pay workers well.

Republicans who denounce “socialism” tend to support mega “defence” spending and America-last trade while standing weak on immigration. And it has been unions, with all their negatives, that have at least stood for America-first trade.

If we had opposed libertarians back in the 60s, or even the 90s, perhaps we wouldn’t have “lost” America. Paying workers reasonable wages is better than mass immigration.

The coming increased socialism in America is a terrible evil, but it’s an inevitable correction to the wealth imbalance. The sooner the US corrects, the less the damage (immigration) will be.

It is noteworthy that Obama also ran on improving the middle class (including America-first trade), only to exacerbate the wealth gap with immigration, America-last trade, and QE. A wealth imbalance bolsters DC’s power, increases the demand for big government solutions. So, it is advantageous to DC to grab more power in the name of reducing the wealth gap while acting oppositely, blaming Wall Street (or another fall guy), and ever seizing more power to “fix” things.

I don’t necessarily believe in Bernie Sanders, but we’ve seen repeatedly how “centrists” serve Wall Street interests – and on foreign policy, Likud interests. It seems a better gamble to go with the “socialist left” than with centrists of either party. If Trump, Webb, or Santorum can’t win, then Sanders might be the next-best alternative for conservatives.

News Flash: We’ve Been Betrayed by Establishment Conservatives

As Paul Gottfried pointed out recently, “No one on the Left sounds as unhinged as ‘conservative’ journalists like Max Boot (Furling the Confederate flag is just the start). Or for that matter, Jeff Jacoby (The Confederate flag is anti-American).” And Gottfried is right – it’s not just Establishment Conservatives in the media who are attacking their own base – the most shrill, hysterical slander against Southern heritage has come from “conservative” Republicans in office. For example, here’s Gottfried again in a piece entitled “The NeoCons’ Confederate Problem.” And if you have the stomach for it, watch Republican Jenny Horne screech that the “symbol of hate” flying on the South Carolina capital grounds MUST be removed:

The mania against all things Southern has made a lot of folks realize they have no representation in government. Elected officials who claim to be conservatives actually represent no one but the powers that be. We’ve been stabbed in the back too many times, whether it’s been the issue of same-sex “marriage,” abortion, amnesty for illegal aliens, Muslim immigration to this country, citizen surveillance, you name it, and we, the people, are always on the losing end.

A little witticism has popped up online in response. Establishment Conservatives are ridiculed as “cuckservatives.” The term blends the word “cuckold,” a man who’s faithful to his unfaithful wife, with “conservative.” Like all good political jokes, it serves up the truth with a side dish of humor. “Cuckservatives” may claim to represent conservatism, but actually advance leftist and Establishment interests because they have embraced the leftist worldview.

Is the term fitting? Consider this: What do authoritarian leftists do when challenged? They do not debate, but attack, and their go-to position is that only a racist, white supremacist, neo-nazi would DARE question their noble agenda. The most extreme example would be the “anti-racist” thugs who physically attack those who fail to think correctly. The more “respectable” leftists do the same thing, only without the gutter language. For example, here’s Heidi Beirich of the Southern Poverty Law Center slamming Pat Buchanan. At 1:45 into this video, Beirich says: “Neocons for the most part in white-supremacist circles are identified as Jews. So it’s actually an expression of anti-Semitism when he has material like that about Neocons. It comes from his right-wing, crazy, anti-Semitic views.”

Compare that language to that used by the so-called “conservative” Ace of Spades: “The word “#cuckservative” is being used as a banner-of-convenience by a conglomeration of several types of people, who range from what I’d call mere nativists to actual, hard-core, Nazi-flag-in-their-twitter profile white supremacists.”

Robert Stacy McCain, another Establishment Conservative, uses the same terms in his slam against the #Cuckservative revolt: “Thus, also, you don’t necessarily have to like Jews or be pro-Israel to be my friend. But if you start making noises about “international bankers” or “neocons” or otherwise signaling to me that you have a paranoid hostility toward Jews — what I call conspiratorial anti-semitism — well, no, I can’t hang with that.” And just to rub a little more salt into the wound, McCain’s assistant blogger, Wombat-socho, bragged the next day that he’d banned several commenters on the McCain blog, in effect, repelling what he called a “flood of racist/white nationalist/Nazi idiots.”

As a recent Washington Post article on this growing movement has noted, “‘#Cuckservative’ is a full-scale revolt.” For those who have had enough betrayal, and are sick and tired of always losing because we trusted Republican politicians, the “#Cuckservative” meme is at least a start.

If TNA and/or Ring of Honor Have Any Nads, They’ll Offer Hulk Hogan a Contract

Hulk Hogan has been purged from the WWE for something he said several years back that was recorded without his knowledge. I have no doubt that this is coming up now because Hogan is proceeding with a lawsuit against Gawker Media because of his sex tape they released. People who know about this sort of thing say that Hogan has a good chance of winning his lawsuit which could financially devastate Gawker which is reportedly already on shaky financial ground.

Hogan apparently dropped the N-word several times in a conversation regarding who his daughter was dating. I have not listened to the tape yet because I haven’t been able to bring myself to do so. I’m sure it will make me cringe. I will say that I think using the N-word is tacky and low class. It was never used in my family, and I’m sure if I used it I would have been corrected. Anyone who follows this blog knows I’m not claiming any superior PC sensibilities, nor am I claiming that my family was particularly enlightened by modern PC standards. I just think the use of the N-word is rude and low class, and that is what I was taught.

But the use of the N-word is also contextual, and some instances of its use might be more indicative of a certain mindset than others. A lot of white wrestlers who have escaped Hogan’s fate are likely guilty of the same or worse. They just haven’t been unlucky enough to have their recorded conversations released. Yet!

What bothers me is the sanctimony and the total purge. Hogan was guilty of an injudicious use of language. A temporary suspension would be sufficient. Attempting to totally wipe away the existence of by far the biggest star in the company’s history is just silly. Hopefully the fans will rebel. WWE fans have always had a special relationship with Hogan that is unlike any other. When Vince tried to bring him back as a heel as part of the NWO revival story line, the crowd wouldn’t treat him as a bad guy despite the writers’ best efforts. Which included him trying to run over someone with a truck if I recall correctly. When he faced The Rock at Wrestlemania that year, the fans cheered for Hogan against the script. Maybe a similar thing will happen here. It is difficult to imagine a real lifetime ban of Hogan from the WWE.

In the meantime, TNA or Ring of Honor should offer Hogan a contract. It would ingratiate them to the fans and bolster the outsider bad boy reputation they are attempting to cultivate.

Trump as Litmus Test: Ideology vs. Anti-Establishment

The Trump campaign has revealed to me a schism in the opposition coalition that I have not seen as vividly in the past. It’s hard to articulate precisely, but it’s between people who will tolerate deviations from their ideal just to see it stuck to the Man, and those who want it stuck to the Man but not like that. I suppose this has to do with some balance between how dearly you cling to your ideal vs. how badly you just want to watch the Establishment squirm. Since I long ago gave up hope of my ideal actually being restored, I’m pretty much in the screw the Establishment camp at this point. I say burn the Establishment house down Trump baby! Burn it down!

Chesterton’s America

Amazon has an uncommonly interesting summary of the book Chesterton’s America: A Distributist History of the United States, which is based around Cecil Chesterton’s work but includes excerpts from GK Chesterton and others.

One of those others is Kentuckian Herbert Agar, editor of the famous I’ll Take My Stand and, from the summary,

according to commentator Herbert Shapiro, “[G.K.] Chesterton’s leading American political disciple.”

More from the summary:

G.K. Chesterton called the approach featured here ‘very brilliant and original,’ but also prophesied that ‘it will not be taken sufficiently seriously; because the reader will have to wrench his mind out of a rut…to imagine anybody saying that a small, limited and agricultural America would have been better for everybody—especially Americans.’ ‘Chesterton’s America’—the first ever Distributist History of the United States—is your chance to prove him wrong!

It sounds wonderful.

EIC Asks: What Is Hillary’s Position on Trade?

Margaret Elkis writes:

Clinton’s populous message about helping out the middle class is also futile if she supports the TPP. With the TPP, we would be trading with countries that have minimum wages of $0.56 cents an hour. The flood of cheap imports into America will be putting our companies out of business! Just how could our industries compete with these low labor costs? For as much as they would try, there is no way American goods could cost the same as Vietnamese goods. This would decimate our industries costing us thousands if not millions of jobs! Another blow to middle class America.

Not to mention the fact that this will also make our companies want to move overseas for cheaper labor. It’s obvious, when you have the option of choosing to pay your employee $10.00 an hour or $0.56 cents an hour, you will most likely chose to pay $0.56 cents an hour! That same choice will be made by thousands of companies across the nation who will ship our jobs overseas. Kiss middle class America goodbye.

However, Obama of course ran on protectionist trade, then converted to “free trade” once elected. Words are cheap.

And it was Bill Clinton who gave us NAFTA. Anyway EIC, as always, is asking the right questions.

In a more recent article, EIC declares America-last trade is “class warfare“, brilliant insight. Quantitative easing and mass immigration of unskilled workers are also class warfare.

Zerohedge Continues Its Attack on Trump

Zerohedge likes to portray itself as a populist website standing for the little guy, frequently lamenting the declining middle class; but it’s revealing how fierce the attacks have been against Donald Trump, the leading anti-establishment figure, the only candidate who has proposed a real revival of the US middle class.

Recently we have poster “williambanzai7” mocking Trump with crude images (note the comments are fairly pro-Trump). And “Tyler Durdan” (anonymous) frets over Trump’s surge in popularity.

Trump is less of a war-monger, wants to bring jobs back to America while reducing mass immigration of unskilled workers, will stand athwart the US-global oligarchy; yet he has Zerohedge in a frenzy. Curious.

The best argument against Trump seems to be that he couldn’t defeat “Hitlery” in a general election. But are any of the Republicans, aside from Trump, better than Hillary? I’m awaiting a pro-Bush Zerohedge article, perhaps followed by an article defending “bomb, bomb Iran” McCain.

Commenter “Seasmoke” has it right: “Have Sanders and Trump team up. It might actually work knocking down the one party system.”

The election itself isn’t necessarily what’s so important. Trump is saying things the establishment doesn’t want said, not that Trump is perfect. Populism tends to be zany, because it’s “of the people”. And Trump is no professional politician.

Trump is however clearly strong, as strong as perhaps even Putin and Jinping. Like Putin, Trump could stand up to the US-global oligarchy. If Zerohedge believes he has a chance at winning, why not offer support? Who else is a better gamble if actually bothering to get involved with the election in the first place?