May 30, 2016

Happy Memorial Day!

…to all. Today, I’ll be thinking of our vets and showing my appreciation for their sacrifices by slathering mustard and peppers on a hot dog and stuffing my face with Deviled-egg potato salad.

Then there’s this: I know I haven’t been posting a ton here — and that many regular readers have left because of what I have chosen to publish (Orange Julius ain’t the boss of me, as I believe I’ve made quite clear of late, which has rendered me an arrogant elitist without the common sense God gave the electoral realist who have kept the promises of the Founders and Framers so sacrosanct!) — but I sure can use some cash if you feel like donating and are in a position where you’re able to.

Protein wisdom has brought in exactly $236 over the past 8 or 9 months. Proving just how well a passionate presentation of principles pays!

If only I had the character of a Jim Hoft or an Ann Coulter or a Sean Hannity. I mean, I’d be a miserable opportunist, sure. But at least I’d be a miserable opportunist with some cabbage to spend on carpet repairs and some minor landscaping to fill in holes left by a pair of bored dogs.

Oh well. At least I can still look in a mirror.

Posted by Jeff G. @ 9:07am
18 comments | Trackback


May 28, 2016

No, #NeverTrump can’t “fail”

There’s a simple fact about many in the #NeverTrump movement that putative “conservative” pundits don’t seem to understand, try as we might to explain it to them: #NeverTrump is not the opening bid in some ongoing electoral negotiation. Rather, it’s a final position already reached — call it SETTLED SCIENCE! — and one that won’t change simply because the latest batch of party “pragmatists” lecture us on the need to act like “adults” and return ourselves to the “real world,” surreally defined these days as the one in which Donald Trump, a man with Mondale’s (D) trade policy , McGovern’s (D) foreign policy, and Wallace’s (D) populist charm (and a hefty haul of his remaining spiritual heirs) is the GOP standard bearer; while movement conservatives, who’ve rejected him for his loutish and confused populism, his lack of personal integrity, his frighteningly totalitarian tendencies, and his statist policies, are but silly obstructionist purists who Just Don’t Know How Things Work.

So let me be as clear as I can here: #NeverTrump means never Trump. I mean, it’s right there in the hashtag, for Chrissakes! And it can’t “fail” — as the burgeoning establishment narrative would have you believe — because it is its own self-enclosed system, one whose only condition for actuation is the very individual neverness that defines it. Whether Trump wins or loses is of no consequence to our entrenched neverosity. All that matters is that we aren’t responsible for either outcome. When the new Workers Party is frenzying itself to seize the means of production, we’ll be hanging back in our bourgeois suburban digs giggling at hapless hikers being eaten by giant spiders on Animal Planet Monster Week episodes.

Look: if you were previously anti-Trump but believe you need to back the presumptive GOP nominee because he’s the only person left standing in the way of the dangerous women he backed for President 8 years ago (and for Secretary of State after that*), I understand. To you it’s a practical choice. You’re a Party person. A Team Player! So thoroughly filled with common sense conservatism it dampens your pits! You understand that to have any actual impact on the real world you can’t just sit back and bitch on Twitter about how ugly is Trump’s body of lifework. Instead, you recognize that in order to beat the evil master-criminal Hillary you must actively stump for a guy who tries to intimidate judges and plaintiffs, who practices lawfare against “losers,” who supports a host of progressive policies and promises to make America Great again by reintroducing us to the wonders of trade protectionism, union vigor, price controls, federal mandatory minimum wage increases, racial nationalism (disguised as economic populism — and at odds with race-based affirmative action, which he supports), gender fluidity, and a medical system under which insurance companies are mandated to pay for pre-existing conditions while consumers aren’t compelled to pay any kind of fine for not purchasing insurance, thereby taking away every incentive to buy “insurance” in the first place. In one of the most ridiculous stated policy prescriptions ever recorded.

You do all this for FREEDOM, naturally.

But that I understand your position doesn’t mean your position is any less wrong. My ability to recognize your opportunistic practicality doesn’t make that practicality any less soul-crushingly stupid, nor any less enabling of a corrupted political culture driven by increasingly aggressive moral and intellectual rot. Your guiding principle, simply put, is backing the lesser of two evils — the payoff being that you share partial corporate ownership, you hope, in the ascendant evil that gets to be in charge of you for a bit. And you can justify your complicity by chiding the supposed “moral vanity” of those who choose not to spend the rest of their days averting their eyes from every mirror.

That’s your call. I understand it. And more power to you!

But once again, the truth is simple, and all your pleading and cajoling, all your shaming and cuck-calling, all your pointed barbs at “purists” and “TrueCons” with our outmoded principles (when you use that word, make sure you hit the second p hard, almost like you’re spitting it out), won’t change that truth: Never means never. No means no. And we aren’t negotiating. The issue is settled. The die is cast. And any further discussion is pining for the fjords.

Some of us, it turns out, are really quite okay with being “losers.” We’re perfectly content to remove ourselves from a sad, failed, corrupt party that for decades now hasn’t represented our interests and, in its leadership, openly disdains us and seeks our crushedness. And that’s because we recognize that what it’ll take to drag an orange con man over the finish line is not worth what we’ll have to give up to help those of you for whom winning is a form of personal validation.

So. To sum up:

We aren’t egoists. An egoist is the malignantly narcissistic candidate you demand we fall in line and support.

We aren’t sanctimonious. That appellation more properly belongs to those who insist that our refusal to heed their righteous call to defeat the Demon Hillary marks us as unclean and selfish, unwilling to join the congregation whose calling is to bring about the Greater Good.

We aren’t “purists.” Purists are those who put party uber alles and demand others do the same.

And we aren’t “ideologues.” Because ideologues ignore experience. Ideologues refuse to learn from history. Ideologues base their beliefs on abstract ideas and utopian wishcastings — like, eg, that a guy with little political experience and a host of dubious personal connections to Marxists and race-baiters will heal the racial divide and lower the oceans; or maybe that a guy who has lived his life as a scion of corporatism and government cronyism for going on seventy years will suddenly evolve from boisterous sideshow “billionaire” to a national savior and a tremendous statesman.

We get it. But frankly? We don’t care. Truth is, we’re just not that into you.



*even after Benghazi, Trump assured us Clinton was doing a “good job.”

Posted by Jeff G. @ 10:12am
221 comments | Trackback


May 14, 2016

Of cabbages and kings: my response to a Trumper

Yesterday, in the comments to my month-old post on the Trump phenomenon and those long-time site readers of pw who’ve somehow lemming-bounced their way onto the #TrumpTrain! — which is, if we’re being honest, just a convoy of shabby, overstuffed short buses pretending to be mighty locomotives piercing a virgin white landscape of latent American engreatenment — serr8d, a freshly-minted mouthpiece for Orange Julius, took me to task for what he considers my intellectual sins against Trump supporters. Seems my smugly smug elitism is showing. Or at the very least, I’m not properly and with hushed deference hiding my contempt for the brazen and entitled mass stupidity of moron clusters playing working-class hero on their iphones, dull-eyed and full-throated cultists laying claim to being The People while many of us who have worked tirelessly to return the country to its propositional moorings are dismissed as “establishment dupes” or “failed conservatives,” relics whose flaccid Constitution is an impediment to the aim of Making America Great Again. Which of course, only Donald Trump can do. Somehow. Through, like, rambling rallies and the intellectual uprising of “nationalists” who have determined themselves fit to supplant Constitutional “fetishists” with the good kind of progressive essentialist tribalism.

I’ll lay out the indictment against me in full, then post my response (elevated from the thread to my earlier post by popular demand!).

Writes the Trumper and decade-long pw reader — whose honor I’ve besmirched with my outward disgust at an old, Orange-dyed, racoon-eyed con man currently FOXNewsing his way to the head of a party ticket that he in no recognizable way represents:


Problems with @proteinwisdom’s (and his like-minded associates’) approach to tackling the real and growing dangers we face as a culture are their failures to acknowledge any solutions not perfectly ‘pure’ by their definition of ‘conservatism’ (marked tunnel vision), but also their embrace of the tactics of SJW leftists to attack those they deem impure. And there’s fewer and fewer who can pass his purity tests.

Look at @proteinwisdom’s vitriolic time line. There’s not a string of Tweets 10 deep where one can find substance without wading through attacks on others he considers too dimwitted to cheer his overzealous visions. It’s a shame I can’t help but recall Vox’s column on the smugness of the Liberal mind…

Jeff continues to embrace leftist’s tactics of unsubstantiated name-calling, derisive guilt-by-association put-downs, and holier-than-thou smugness that sours his and his lock-step followers ever-narrowing vision.

Sure, it’s dark theater, but there comes a time when one must wise up.

“When I was young, I used to admire intelligent people;
as I grow older, I admire kind people.”
– Abraham Joshua Heschel

To which I’ve now replied:

Here, let me unpack this nonsense, since Serr8d tried to slip it into what he hoped was a dead thread. We’ll do it the old-fashioned way — with a fisking – which I likely invented anyway. So from an identitarian standpoint I’m the UR man, the singularity of blogging.

Problems with @proteinwisdom’s (and his like-minded associates’) approach to tackling the real and growing dangers we face as a culture are their failures to acknowledge any solutions not perfectly ‘pure’ by their definition of ‘conservatism’ (marked tunnel vision), but also their embrace of the tactics of SJW leftists to attack those they deem impure. And there’s fewer and fewer who can pass his purity tests.

First, let’s point the obvious: “the real and growing dangers we face as a culture” aren’t identified by serr8d but rather assumed to be homogeneous to all who believe we’re moving in a bad direction. He gets this newfound appreciation for meaningless generic puffery from his new friends, I take it, which just illustrates the danger of moving from a forum of thinking people to a farm of drones with ready-made memes and superficial arguments.

For me, the “real and growing dangers” we face right now in this election cycle are the eagerness and alacrity with which certain people who long identified as conservatives and Constitutionalists are willing to dismiss their own supposed principles for a man who has spent his life backing the very establishment politicians who we’re all in agreement are a large part of the problem. In his pre-Trumper life, Serr8d was fond of quoting or RT me — including this post, which laid out what I believed were the real and growing dangers we faced as a political system. All of that is to be dismissed now that the Orange Mondale has deigned to lead us out of the wilderness of globalist Jew rule and reaffirm our whiteness and greatness.

Second, I find it curious that serr8d would accuse me of adopting SJW tactics when the entirety of the Trump movement and its nationalism base is itself one poorly disguised SJW beg. Trump is always a victim of something: Colorado’s caucus system, the media, Lyin’ Ted, local governments, the Justice Department looking into his “university” racket, et al. And people like serr8d reflexively spring to his defense.

In a string of Tweets this morning I laid it out how this SJW charade works — you can go find them if you wish to review the argument in its entirety, but the gist of it was that the charge of SJW has become, to Trumpers, akin to shouting “RACIST!” “SEXIST!” “HOMOPHOBIC!” — with the supposed affront of being targeted by “SJWs” designed (they hope) as an inoculation against the tribalism they themselves police and enforce with lists and threats.

It is not being a SJW to notice real patterns of behavior and the actual members of a coalition: that charge is meant to shame those of us addressing empirical facts that don’t show particularly well on sellouts like serr8d in order that he and they won’t have to answer for them.

Well, fuck that and fuck him. He’s backing a prog populist / anti-American (in the propositional sense) nationalist who has already announced he’s for a fed minimum wage increase, price controls on pharmaceutical companies, socialized medicine, feelz bathroom policies, race-based affirmative action, protectionism and capricious tariffs, a wealth tax, and continuing federal control over public lands. He’s spent his life backing career pols and funding leftist causes. That he was allowed to smear and try to destroy the reputation of a man like Cruz who has demonstrably defended my liberties is revolting to me. To succor such behavior is to reveal yourself as the very kind of “pragmatist” I’ve spent years here exposing as mere political opportunists.

How serr8d squares what and who he backs with his years online screaming about the ESTABLISHMENT is, to put it mildly, an unresolvable dilemma.

In short, is isn’t being a SJW to notice what is obvious; whereas it IS being a SJW to try to keep me from pointing out that the camouflage these pro tribalists rely on isn’t working — at least not on me.

But back to my original point: Other dangers we face — and which I’ve laid out for 15 years — include surrendering to leftist notions of language and playing on their field under their rules. So when Serr8d writes,

Look at @proteinwisdom’s vitriolic time line. There’s not a string of Tweets 10 deep where one can find substance without wading through attacks on others he considers too dimwitted to cheer his overzealous visions. It’s a shame I can’t help but recall Vox’s column on the smugness of the Liberal mind…

…the gist of his indictment is that I continue to call out those who are too moronic to recognize how they are in fact helping leftists and the leftist project — only this time, because he falls on the dumb side of things, the attacks are “vitriolic”, “overzealous,” and smug. That is, right away, the complaint is how his honor has been victimized!

That sounds…familiar, somehow.

But let’s continue:

Jeff continues to embrace leftist’s tactics of unsubstantiated name-calling, derisive guilt-by-association put-downs, and holier-than-thou smugness that sours his and his lock-step followers ever-narrowing vision.

Firstly, for me to “continue to embrace leftist’s tactics” I’d have to have embraced them in the first place rather than having spent years shining a light on them so that we can readily locate them and combat them. Secondly, what serr8d does here — unexpectedly! And with all the agility of a Trump policy speech — is conflate substantial attacks on what are very real morons with very real associations to the most unsavory of anti-Jew progressives and racial “realists” and “identitarians”, with “unsubstantiated” attacks.

That of course begs the question, because if I didn’t believe the attacks were substantiated by the dangers they pose to a Constitutional representative republic and the liberty of me and mine, I wouldn’t waste time leveling them. And of course, serr8d provides no evidence any of the rhetoric he decries is unsubstantiated, incidental, or motivated by sanctimony.

More, “lock-step followers” is, I take it, code for readers who agree with me — which is an odd charge to level, given my demonstrative willingness over the years here to take on all comers (recall the Letterman threads?), and my reputation for being quite willing and able to engage with views not my own in order to argue the righteousness of the beliefs and principles I hold.

So, uh, sorry…? Though in my defense, I’d argue not wanting to hang out and listen to your cultish excuses for backing a con man is not the same as demanding lock-step followers. It’s merely me not wanting to become stupider for having to constantly read your programmatic apologias.

And as for the “ever-narrowing vision”– I’ve been a constitutionalist and a classical liberal as long as this site has been active. My vision hasn’t narrowed: it has stayed focused on what I believe is necessary to reclaim this country from scheming pols divorced from the Founders and Framers — and if anything, I’ve even expanded my vision to take on those who claim to be on “our side” but who back candidates and ideas that are anathema to liberty, classical liberalism, and representative republicanism.

Sure, it’s dark theater, but there comes a time when one must wise up.

“When I was young, I used to admire intelligent people;
as I grow older, I admire kind people.”
– Abraham Joshua Heschel

Ted Cruz’s presidential assassin father could not be reached for comment.


There. Now you too can have your say if you so desire. Personally, I’m so fucking done with these whining frauds that I feel like having the Mexican government build a wall around me. Just throw in a few dozen cases of cerveza and some guac and chips and wake me up when this latest “populist agrarian nationalist” nightmare — which looks for all the world like a Nixonian reprise drop-stitched to Mondale’s trade policies and McGovern’s foreign policy — is over. At which time I’ll happily celebrate with a dozen or so fish tacos.

Posted by Jeff G. @ 7:40am
657 comments | Trackback


May 7, 2016

On Trump, sombreros, and a newish Third Way

In Richard Brautigan’s Sombrero Fallout, the titular Mexican hat appears inexplicably in the center of a small town, having recently descended from the Heavens like some empty, woven-straw signifier. To those inclined to map teleological import to such an event, the hat is much like a Jesus-faced pancake or a Central-American statue of the Virgin Mary weeping blood. Or perhaps it’s the mark of an alien visitation, a gift from some far-flung taco-loving race of slightly zany oversized hat-sharers. Or else it’s part of some sinister government psy-op to gauge how a town, confronted by such a conveniently fraught occurrence, will react to an epistemological crisis made frighteningly immediate by the appearance of an unclaimed, unmanned Bandito bonnet. It is, in short, to them a sign rather than a signifier. As such, it must be reacted to, made to mean something. The plan of the town’s political bosses is to control the framing, to own the narrative it must first invent and then defend. The pols seek to determine meaning and browbeat recalcitrant interpretative apostates into joining in a united front proclaiming the portent of this sudden sombrero — the hope being that to define the event is to control it and somehow constrain its trajectory.

— Which may just be the perfect metaphor for the Trump “movement” and the current RNC campaign to validate it — from Reince to Newt to Noonan to whatever program it is that runs the Hannity talking points generator FNC props up all Max Headroom-like on the TV screen most nights — save the nagging regret that Trump’s YUGE Skull Island Kong Wall, had it been built just a little sooner, would have kept the rapey Mexican hat out of our American street to begin with. Because Trump, like that sombrero, is an outsized blank slate dropped in front of a gawking crowd. He is a gibbering physical signifier to which the hopes of desperate, needy, and largely pig-ignorant voters have been pinned, the whole mess then punctuated with a signature red ball cap.

But that’s just me spitballing.

In an important column this morning, radio host Steve Deace spoke to the longer-term aims of what is now known as the #NeverTrump movement, and in it he all but spells out the relevant undercurrent: #NeverTrump — for conservatives, at least — isn’t some short-term political strategy to replace Trump with someone less repulsive and less inclined to shockingly frank authoritarian impulses. Instead, it’s a long-term political goal, one that recognizes that there is very little left the GOP has to offer actual conservatives, and that the GOPe’s prior ploys to water-down to an Oliver Twistian-gruel the conservative label have allowed progressive populists to declare conservatism’s failures in the absence of a real conservative referent, as well as to tether — to the ill-informed and intellectually incurious — Constitutionalists like Ted Cruz to the institutional rot at the heart of GOP establishment he has demonstrably and vigorously fought against, be it for religious liberty, the 2A in his Heller amicus, or for US sovereignty in Medellin.

So the question becomes, what are Republicans to do with a Republican party that would allow a progressive populist boasting Mondale’s trade policy and McGovern foreign policy — that is, a leftist Democrat that looks for all the world like an angry and retouched Circus Peanut — to carry its flag? And the answer is simple: get the hell out and don’t look back.

Half a decade ago I wrote about the American revolutionary impulse as an atmosphere of sorts, something that could disappear and reappear under a variety of labels as establishment elites in both parties sought to destroy each new uprising. At the time, the TEA Party was working within the GOP to try to regain our Constitutional moorings, and true to its self-interested insularity, the GOP establishment, having first pretended to embrace this movement, was getting to work infiltrating it, undermining it, and — as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell famously vowed, buoyed by Trump money — hoping to “crush” it.

If this primary season taught movement conservatives any one thing, it’s this: there is little to be gained working within the GOP for conservative and classical liberal ends. The Party stands for nothing; it is the playground for opportunists and hucksters, for influence peddlers and those who feed off of that particular locust swarm, be they media parasites or recently unearthed Republican relics looking to resurrect their political fortunes. And so it follows — for me, at least — that the time is now finally right to break free. We needed first to try the controlled demolition of a TEA Party insurgency. That having been rebuffed, we can in good conscience — and with a sense of righteous resolve — move on to more aggressive ground clearing.

Towards a new party

I am not a political scientist. But I am someone who understands the power of principles — a word that, along with “purity,” is these days often used pejoratively to shame those who resist the putatively nuanced pragmatism that establishmentarians use to defend their own supposed intellectual superiority and depth of thought.

And it should be a principal goal of a new party to beat back such anti-intellectualist nonsense. I’ve discussed elsewhere how appealing to principle is itself the most effective pragmatic weapon in the classical liberal arsenal. I’ll now add that “purity” in the name of Constitutional fidelity is not remotely untoward, vapid, or regressively rigid, but is rather the imperative of a propositional compact like the one that is the basis for American Exceptionalism properly understood.

Many of Trump’s populist-nationalist-progressivist-agragrian-racial-realist-tribalist adepts and cultists have declared the death of both conservatism and Constitutionalism — even as they simultaneously acknowledge that Constitutionalism’s failure, as they see it, arises from the various political removes from Constitutional fidelity that (ironically!) progressivism and populism have wrought, and that conservatism has sought to staunch. That is, they’ve determined that the problem with Constitutionalism is that Constitutionalism hasn’t been practiced — an observation closely akin to arguing that dieting fails because people break their diets, or that a steak fails at being a carrot because the steak comes from a butchered cow and frustratingly resists growing under ground.

My answer to them is this: are you people for real?

And unfortunately, they are — though to me they appear less as thinking agents than a base coagulation of political half-thoughts and old ideologies made prominently manifest in a preposterous Orange bore whose garish and phony alpha-male shtick is undercut by his whiny threats at lawfare and his string of blustery Mean Girl Tweets.

The rest of us want no place in such a populist phlegm ball. And for those willing to stare down the Blob, I seek to outline the simple and clear platform for a new party, one that rejects the barren wasteland of today’s GOP, whose sole remaining virtue — save its institutionalized advantage in getting on ballots — is a cluster of House Dems and less than a handful of Senators.

The platform

Six items. Listed. Cleanly, clearly, in a form even those reared on PowerPoint can readily digest. For a party as yet unnamed. That’s all that’s necessary to lay out the makings of a new movement, I believe — one that isn’t really new at all but rather has been bracketed by the “progress” of the Gramscian long march the left has deployed to devalue American Exceptionalism, and that too many of the “right” have either adopted or surrendered to. Here are those six items, in no particular order:

1) Individual liberty
2) Federalism and representative republicanism
3) Constitutionalism
4) Judicial originalism
5) National sovereignty
6) Free-market capitalism

These are the foundations of a new and potentially revolutionary party, one that does not react defensively to being principled nor considers “purity” in defense of its core beliefs anything but solid earth upon which to pitch its tent. Anyone can join this party; but to do so they must accept as inviolable the 6 foundational platform items. The price of admission, in other words, is a belief in the social compact upon which this country was founded. Nothing more.

1) Individual liberty: the Constitution exists to constrain government and delineate its proper function. It is a physical realization of the ideas found in the Declaration of Independence, chief among which is the concept of natural rights that government exists to protect but can never remove. These are individual rights. And as such, the perversity of contemporary nationalism — which attempts to homogenize the state around a national government that claims to stand in for a supposed collective will — is rejected. We are a nation of individuals. Not of individuals subservient to a mythologized nation state.

2) Federalism and representative republicanism: Those powers not enumerated as belonging to the federal government belong to the several states. Period. No longer will the states be satellite clients of a federal government whose prime lawmaking function now flows from the Executive branch through an unelected and untouchable bureaucratic apparatus. States and the citizens of those states will choose representatives to speak to their interests. Direct democracy was considered a danger by our Founders and Framers. Our party will hold caucuses, not primaries. We will work to choose those we believe will reflect our interests most rigorously. We won’t be held hostage by open primaries or preference polls open to those swayed solely by name recognition, incumbency, or temporary emotional pique. One goal of the party will be the repeal of the 17th Amendment — a result of a prior populist push that rendered the current Senate redundant. Too, we will use the power of legislative local recall to thwart those who wish to run under our brand but then refuse to govern as it demands.

3) Constitutionalism: We are a nation of laws. Equality before the law is a central conceit of Constitutionalism and to the very idea of equality as we understand it. Equality of outcome is anathema to individual liberty as a social project. We are born of the American Revolution, not the French Revolution. We are a propositional nation, not a tribal one. Those beliefs that prove incompatible with the Constitution are to be rejected and never willingly imported: Fabian socialism, Marxism, communism, Maoism, Sharia — these are alien and destructive parasitic political philosophies seeking a host in our body politic, with the long-term hope of hollowing out the host to make of it a puppet disguised in Constitutional garb. Religious freedom is not freedom from religion; tolerance is not a right never to be offended; a well-regulated militia is not a delimiting descriptor but rather an all-encompassing one, etc.

4) Judicial originalism: long-time readers of protein wisdom will know instantly how this plank is perhaps the most crucial in the platform. In the absence of some metaphysical force that can arbitrate all disagreements in textual interpretation, the best we can do is embrace the very model that performs our Constitutionally prescribed lawmaking function: law is written and ratified by a legislature made up of corporate agency that intends; law is therefore to be conceived of as a fixed product of that intention — albeit within the conventional constructs we abide by when it comes to judicial interpretation. To that end, the role of the judiciary is to as closely as possible determine that intended meaning and appeal to it as the fixed meaning of any law. Laws are made by a specific collection of individuals in a specific spatio-temporal context. They mean what they mean, not what they can later be made to imply. Stare decisis is often the bane of judicial conservatism. No more. Deference is given to the Constitution, not to some faulty misrepresentation of its meaning by those inclined toward linguistically incoherent hermeneutics.

5) National sovereignty: We are a nation state. We can and must determine our own parameters for national autonomy. And that determination belongs to the people through their representatives, not a unitary Executive. Thus, we are entitled to control immigration, provide whatever obstacles to it we think in our best national interests, and remove those who have broken our laws — including secreting themselves into the country illegally, whether through border jumping or visa overstays. Our foreign policy will be designed to reflect our national interests. The Reagan model of Kirkpatrick/Weinberg will hold in check the impulse toward Wilsonian democracy projects and neoconservative nation building exercises. But it will also recognize the importance of allies and of American presence in international relations.

6) Free-market capitalism: Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell. Ted Cruz at the FTC. This is to be vigorously juxtaposed against the destructive forces of corporatism and crony capitalism preferred by the two major parties, their lobbyists and donors, and influence buyers like Donald Trump. Such “capitalism” is the foundation of liberal fascism, which is the political stage nearly all proto-socialist countries eventually settle into, with government choosing winners and losers, rewarding friends, punishing foes, and using mere caprice to determine policy. It fights to quell competition at the behest of those already at the latter’s top. It is an attempt to kidnap and zip-tie to a radiator the Invisible hand. The idea that Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders might be allowed to dictate where a company settles or whether or not it qualifies for “punishment” is, to put it as clearly as I can, batshit crazy.


And that’s it. Six items. Listed. Cleanly, clearly.

My aim here is not to limit the foundational assumptions that may wind up animating such a party. It is to publish a relatively simple and I hope easily understandable and memorable umbrella platform that can be fleshed out w policy using the 6 items as guides. And importantly, from the perspective of our Founding and Framing, this enterprise is to be marketed as a centrist party, one that marries classical liberalism and libertarianism to a federalist delivery system. Through it, we who agree to its terms can work as a coalition to take the stink off of “principle” and embrace the liberating “purity” of accepting the terms of the social compact that joined the civil society to limited government with the belief that a free people can and will make the best choices for themselves.

And it sure as hell beats the incomprehensible and always-fluid nostrums of an orange septuagenarian and those Republican cheerleaders and party appartchiks insisting we find a way not only to support them but to then spend the next 4 years defending them as representative of our own political philosophy.

Because screw all that.

And of course, outlaw. Pass it along!

Posted by Jeff G. @ 12:46pm
177 comments | Trackback

May 16, 2016

“If Meat Eaters Acted like Vegans” [Darleen Click]

Posted by Darleen @ 11:20am
3 comments | Trackback

May 15, 2016

Orange is the New Black [Darleen Click]

orange-is-the-new-black copy

Posted by Darleen @ 5:14pm
11 comments | Trackback

May 4, 2016

Thoughts My Brain Made [Mac]

Posted by McG @ 5:46am
79 comments | Trackback

May 3, 2016

The bully you’ve brought to the party … [Darleen Click]

Is the bully you have to dance with.


Posted by Darleen @ 8:04pm
74 comments | Trackback

April 27, 2016

Scripps students: Hating white people is legitimate [Darleen Click]

Poor ladies, didn’t anyone let them know that the college they are attending was founded and funded by GASP white people?

Last summer, two Scripps College students spent approximately 500 hours creating a 217-page “ Unofficial Scripps Survival Guide” intended to help new students acclimate to the college, with lengthy discussions of topics ranging from food and money management to gender identity, race, and privilege.

The authors state that the term “Preferred Gender Pronoun” (PGP) should be replaced with “Gender Pronoun” to avoid offending students whose gender identity differs from their biological sex.

“While it may seem new and positive, PGP is actually not a good thing,” they write. “There’s nothing wrong with Gender Pronouns! However once we say ‘preferred’ we’re invalidating the entire idea. How people identify is how they identify; it is not a ‘preference.’” […]

The Scripps Survival Guide defines “White Privilege” as “the set of unearned benefits white people gain as a result of systematic racism and discrimination” that “benefits even those white people who are disadvantaged by other forms of institutionalized oppression like ableism, classism, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia.”

The authors add that “asking people of color to educate us about racism,” “asking people of color to absolve us of our guilt,” and “identifying the ways that we are engaging in the perpetuation of white supremacy” are all things that “we need to stop doing right now.” In a section titled “Dear white students,” they elaborate that “[r]everse racism cannot exist because white people maintain power over people of color” and “because there are no institutions that were founded with the intention of discriminating against white people on the basis of their skin [color].”

Since the guide’s publication, several student movements across the Claremont College system (the “5C’s”)—including a “Hurting and Healing” event held by The 5C Students of Color Alliance—have advocated for the creation of racially segregated spaces (called “Safe Spaces”) that are off-limits to white students. […]

“Anger is a legitimate response to oppression,” the authors state in their letter to white people, “as is sadness, fear, frustration, exhaustion, and a general distaste or hatred of white people.”

All that wonderful education … for $50,000 a year.

Posted by Darleen @ 7:41am
15 comments | Trackback

April 20, 2016

Federal Court rules that biological sex is a myth [Darleen Click]

Well, how special .. we have several state Attorney Generals who want to put in prison people who deny the Settled Science(tm) of Anthropomorphic Global Warming, at the same time, we had the 4th Circuit Appellate court rule that biological sex is a myth. (from page six of the ruling).


The scare quotes around biological sex are especially precious.

Black is white; up is down; and ….

“You are a slow learner, Winston,” said O’Brien gently.

“How can I help it?” he blubbered. “How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four.”

“Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.” (“1984” Orwell)

Posted by Darleen @ 7:35pm
33 comments | Trackback

← Older posts