Recently I have been dealing with a lot of pro-Hillary/anti-Trump trolls. I live in a completely different universe than do guys who are pro-Hillary and anti-Trump. I have a hard time fathoming the social milieu in which a dude would get positive feels from signaling that he is pro-Hillary/anti-Trump. If I supported Hillary I would most certainly keep it to myself and would be deathly afraid that my secret might get out. If I got outed, I would probably just off myself because that’s the kind of humiliation you can never recover from. What kind of latte sipping crowd do you have to run with for there to be social capital in a guy signaling he’s for Hillary? I know some of these trolls are paid, but I wouldn’t besmirch my reputation like that for any amount of money. Good grief. Put down the latte boys and pick up a fishing pole. Listen to some country music. Watch some football. Do something. You seriously need to reconsider the crowd you are hanging with.
While there are parts I differ with, this article* by Charles Murray gets a lot right, especially with regard to the condescension of the new elite class toward working class whites. That’s why his antagonism toward Trump is so puzzling. While Murray has not been snarky about it, unlike much of the elite class he discusses, his objections to Trump have largely consisted, from what I have seen, to what I call sophistication signaling. In the face of the sea change in national character that he describes, such objections strike me as deck chairs on the Titanic.
* The article is behind a paywall on my computer, but I was able to access the whole thing when I clicked on it from FaceBook.
Some of us in the paleosphere recognized a paleo/populist streak in Palin before becoming the VP nominee for McCain neutered her. She endorsed Pat Buchanan in ’96. I suspect this Trump endorsement is a return to her roots.
I am automatically inclined to be sympathetic toward citizens in most any ideological beef against the Feds and Federal power. That said, I don’t necessarily think the long term agenda is furthered by rash actions of a few. Maybe a rash action by a motivated few sparks mass resistance, but maybe it also gets some good people thrown in jail or killed without actually advancing the ball. While I am hesitant to condemn the occupiers, I’m not sure I understand what their end game is here. What do they hope to accomplish?
This is a tricky issue for the GOP Presidential candidates, especially those running as anti-Establishment candidates. Some of their right flank is going to see any perceived lack of support of the occupiers as caving to the Feds, but some of their less ideological supporters might see this as a law and order issue and be less sympathetic to the occupiers. It seems to me that the winning play for a Republican Presidential candidate would be to promise to pardon the 2 Hammond ranchers if elected.
George will has his panties in a wad over Donald Trump and attempts to protect the integrity of conservatism as he sees it in this rant. Who does George Will think he is fooling acting as the defender of conservatism? Sam Francis had this pretender’s number 30 years ago. (Sorry for the odd spacing, but the original sources was in columns so that’s how it pasted.)
Although Will is sometimes called a
“neo-conservative,” he is not one. Neoconservatives
typically derive more or
less conservative policy positions from essentially
liberal premises. Will in fact does
the opposite: he derives from more or less
unexceptionable premises of classical
conservatism policy positions that are
often congruent with the current liberal
agenda. It is because he accepts, and
wants to be accepted by, the “achievements”
of modem liberalism that he ignores
or sneers at the serious conservative
thinkers and leaders of our time who
have sought to break liberal idols and that
he voices no criticism of the powers that
support liberalism. It is therefore not surprising
that his commentary is welcomed
in and rewarded by liberal power centers.
They have little to fear from him and his
ideas and much to gain if his version of
“conservatism” should gain currency. He
enjoys every prospect of a bright future in
their company. ~ Sam Francis, Modern Age, Spring 1986
What is desperately needed is an organization entirely dedicated to recruiting, training and funding Republican primary challengers. Even if most don’t win, no incumbent wants to deal with a primary challenger. Republican incumbents must pay a price for their perfidy if anything is going to change.
As anyone who knows me knows, I have no love loss for the Republican Party Establishment, but even I just assumed that a majority of House Republicans would vote against the omnibus spending bill, due to the outcry of the base, and it would pass because of the votes of a majority of the Dems. It passed 316 – 113 overall and 150 – 95 among the Republican caucus. Good grief! Even I underestimated the perfidy of the modern GOP. And you can’t just blame this on the GOP “Establishment.” 150 of your House members is the rank-and-file. Every Republican yea voter should be primaried.
A majority of House Republicans voted in favor of the omnibus spending bill, 150-95. This is absolutely ridiculous. If you haven’t figured out yet that the Republican Party as presently configured is worse than worthless, you aren’t paying attention. Every one of these jokers needs to be primaried.
Prominent conservative scholar William Lind has written this essay. In it, he virtually endorses Donald Trump. I don’t know if it is fair to characterize it as an outright endorsement, but his thoughts about Trump relative to the other candidates are clear.
“…he is the only candidate who understands what a Fourth Generation world will be like. The hysterical denunciations from all other candidates except Senator Cruz demonstrate they don’t get it. While that alone may not be enough to indicate Trump would be a good president, it strongly suggests none of his opponents are fit to hold the office. Whether they like it or not, or understand it or not, Fourth Generation war is what they and this country are facing.”
Baldwin has been saying some positive things about Trump, so this comes as a bit of a surprise. I respect Baldwin, so I’ll pass this on. I think the mistake he makes is in prioritizing the police state issues ahead of the immigration issue. This is from his Facebook page:
Faithful readers of this post know that I have previously provided objective commentary–complete with pluses and minuses–on most of the Republican presidential candidates. They also know that I have spoken quite positively about Donald Trump. But heretofore I have endorsed no one. Until now.
First, I believe the biggest threats to liberty we face have NOTHING to do with Islamic terrorism. We have far more to fear from those miscreants in Washington, D.C., and from the international bankers at the Federal Reserve than any radical Muslim. Hence, all of the fearmongering about Muslim jihad and Sharia Law in America only plays into the hands of the globalists who are orchestrating all of this madness.
Second, I am absolutely convinced that the greatest threats to our liberty are, 1) The neocon wars of aggression around the world–especially in the Middle East, 2) A burgeoning Police State here in the United States.
I have now had plenty of time to examine the candidates regarding his or her commitment to defeating these two great threats to our liberty; and there is only ONE Republican candidate that sees these threats and would use the power of the Oval Office to defeat them–or at least curtail them:
That candidate is RAND PAUL.
I know that Rand is NOT his dad. I am not nearly as excited about Rand as I was Ron. And there are several issues with which I disagree with Rand.
But I firmly believe Rand gets the whole neocon war issue and would put a stop to it if he were President. In this regard, Rand might be the ONLY major party presidential candidate who could potentially avert WWIII. I further believe Rand gets the Zionist issue and would not be a patsy for the Israeli lobby.
I also believe Rand truly sees the growing Police State in this country and would rein in these out-of-control federal Departments of Justice and Homeland Security.
NONE of the other candidates would do anything significant to change America’s foreign policy or to rein in the growing Police State in our country.
Accordingly, as I pan the two major party presidential candidates, there is only one choice in 2016: RAND PAUL.
This is the the comment I posted:
The biggest threat to liberty we face is the country turning irreversibly Blue in a couple of decades if current immigration trends continue. Immigration is the only issue that matters because all the other issue rise and fall on the country not turning Blue.