Why Old Books Matter

Compare and contrast the lies of this so-called “conservative” with an objective historical account from 110 years ago.

There is no Palestinian land, plain and simple. If there were, when would it have been founded, and by whom? What would its borders have been, and what about the name of its capital? What would its major cities have been? What would have constituted the basis of its economy? What form of government would it have lived under?

Was Palestine ever recognized as an entity by another country? By whom? What was the language of the country called Palestine? What was Palestine’s religion? What was the name of its currency?

There Was Never a Country Called Palestine, American Thinker, 12 February 2012

Mr. Sobel’s posturing notwithstanding, the easily verifiable fact is that the entry for this supposedly nonexistent land called PALESTINE in the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica runs for 27 pages. The entry answers all of Mr. Sobel’s rhetorical questions, and then some, in considerable detail. A brief selection:

PALESTINE, a geographical name of rather loose application. Etymological strictness would require it to denote exclusively the narrow strip of coast-land once occupied by the Philistines, from whose name it is derived. It is, however, conventionally used as a name for the territory which, in the Old Testament, is claimed as the inheritance of the pre-exilic Hebrews; thus it may be said generally to denote the southern third of the province of Syria. Except in the west, where the country is bordered by the Mediterranean Sea, the limit of this territory cannot be laid down on the map as a definite line. The modern subdivisions under the jurisdiction of the Ottoman Empire are in no sense conterminous with those of antiquity, and hence do not afford a boundary by which Palestine can be separated exactly from the rest of Syria in the north, or from the Sinaitic and Arabian deserts in the south and east; nor are the records of ancient boundaries sufficiently full and definite to make possible the complete demarcation of the country. Even the convention above referred to is inexact: it includes the Philistine territory, claimed but never settled by the Hebrews, and excludes the outlying parts of the large area claimed in Num. xxxiv. as the Hebrew possession (from the “River of Egypt” to Hamath).

Population.—The inhabitants of Palestine are composed of a large number of elements, differing widely in ethnological affinities, language and religion. It may be interesting to mention, as an illustration of their heterogeneousness, that early in the 20th century a list of no less than fifty languages, spoken in Jerusalem as vernaculars, was there drawn up by a party of men whose various official positions enabled them to possess accurate information on the subject. It is therefore no easy task to write concisely and at the same time with sufficient fullness on the ethnology of Palestine.

There are two classes into which the population of Palestine can be divided—the nomadic and the sedentary. The former is especially characteristic of Eastern Palestine, though Western Palestine also contains its full share. The pure Arab origin of the Bedouins is recognized in common conversation in the country, the word “Arab” being almost restricted to denote these wanderers, and seldom applied to the dwellers in towns and villages. It should be mentioned that there is another, entirely independent, nomad race, the despised Nowar, who correspond to the gipsies or tinkers of European countries. These people live under the poorest conditions, by doing smith’s work; they speak among themselves a Romani dialect, much contaminated with Arabic in its vocabulary.

The sedentary population of the country villages—the fellahin, or agriculturists—is, on the whole, comparatively unmixed; but traces of various intrusive strains assert themselves. It is by no means unreasonable to suppose that there is a fundamental Canaanite element in this population: the “hewers of wood and drawers of water” often remain undisturbed through successive occupations of a land; and there is a remarkable correspondence of type between many of the modern fellahin and skeletons of ancient inhabitants which have been recovered in the course of excavation. New elements no doubt came in under the Assyrian, Persian and Roman dominations, and in more recent times there has been much contamination. The spread of Islam introduced a very considerable Neo-Arabian infusion. Those from southern Arabia were known as the Yaman tribe, those from northern Arabia the Kais (Qais). These two divisions absorbed the previous peasant population, and still nominally exist; down to the middle of the 19th century they were a fruitful source of quarrels and of bloodshed. The two great clans were further subdivided into families, but these minor divisions are also being gradually broken down. In the 19th century the short-lived Egyptian government introduced into the population an element from that country which still persists in the villages. These newcomers have not been completely assimilated with the villagers among whom they have found a home; the latter despise them, and discourage intermarriage.

Some of the larger villages—notably Bethlehem—which have always been leavened by Christianity, and with the development of industry have become comparatively prosperous, show tangible results of these happier circumstances in a higher standard of physique among the men and of personal appearance among the women. It is not uncommon in popular writings to attribute this superiority to a crusader strain—a theory which no one can possibly countenance who knows what miserable degenerates the half-breed descendants of the crusaders rapidly became, as a result of their immoral life and their ignorance of the sanitary precautions necessary in a trying climate.

The population of the larger towns is of a much more complex nature. In each there is primarily a large Arab element, consisting for the greater part of members of important and wealthy families. Thus, in Jerusalem, much of the local influence is in the hands of the families of El-Khalidi, El-Husseini and one or two others, who derive their descent from the heroes of the early days of Islam. The Turkish element is small, consisting exclusively of officials sent individually from Constantinople. There are very large contingents from the Mediterranean countries, especially Armenia, Greece and Italy, principally engaged in trade. The extraordinary development of Jewish colonization has since 1870 effected a revolution in the balance of population in some parts of the country, notably in Jerusalem. There are few residents in the country from the more eastern parts of Asia—if we except the Turkoman settlements in the Jaulan, a number of Persians, and a fairly large Afghan colony that since 1905 has established itself in Jaffa. The Mutāwileh (Motawila), who form the majority of the inhabitants of the villages north-west of Galilee, are probably long-settled immigrants from Persia. Some tribes of Kurds live in tents and huts near Lake Huleh. If the inmates of the countless monastic establishments be excluded, comparatively few from northern or western Europe will remain: the German “Templar” colonies being perhaps the most important. There must also be mentioned a Bosnian colony established at Caesarea Palestina, and the Circassian settlements placed in certain centres of Eastern Palestine by the Turkish government in order to keep a restraint on the Bedouin: the latter are also found in Galilee. There was formerly a large Sudanese and Algerian element in the population of some of the large towns, but these have been much reduced in numbers since the beginning of the 20th century: the Algerians however still maintain themselves in parts of Galilee.

The most interesting of all the non-Arab communities in the country, however, is without doubt the Samaritan sect in Nablus (Shechem); a gradually disappearing body, which has maintained an independent existence from the time when they were first settled by the Assyrians to occupy the land left waste by the captivity of the kingdom of Israel.

The total population of the country is roughly estimated at 650,000, but no authentic official census exists from which satisfactory information on this point is obtainable. Some two-thirds of this number are Moslems, the rest Christians of various sects, and Jews. The largest town in Palestine is Jerusalem, estimated to contain a population of about 60,000. The other towns of above 10,000 inhabitants are Jaffa (45,000), Gaza (35,000), Safed (30,000), Nablus (25,000), Kerak (20,000), Hebron (18,500), Es-Salt (15,000), Acre (11,000), Nazareth (11,000).

Encyclopedia Brittanica 1911, Vol. 19-20 MUN to PAY

The liars and propagandists should be considerably more cautious about attempting to deceive the literate with their lies about history. The truth tends to reveal rather more than they were originally attempting to hide.

JERUSALEM, the chief city of Palestine. Letters found at Tell el-Amarna in Egypt, written by an early ruler of Jerusalem, show that the name existed under the form Urusalim, i.e. “City of Salim” or “City of Peace,” many years before the Israelites under Joshua entered Canaan.

Encyclopedia Brittanica 1911, Vol. 13-14 HAR to ITA


How Google Bought National Review

One can’t really say that National Review was corrupted by Google’s money, because National Review was a neoclown psyop from the start. But as Emerald Robinson documents, Google became the primary policy influence over the conservative flagship organ starting sometime after Donald Trump was elected in 2016:

There were rumors in the summer of 2018 that an audiotape was circulating that would send shockwaves through the think tanks of Washington and the conservative intellectual movement in particular. A top Google executive had been recorded telling his fellow employees that Google generously donated to conservative think tanks and magazines to dampen criticism of their anti-conservative bias. In essence, Google was buying off Conservatism Inc. and the GOP establishment to stay silent while Google monitored, harassed, and excluded Trump supporters. If true, the tape sounded like a smoking gun: incontrovertible evidence of the corruption and double-dealing of Conservatism Inc. that would permanently discredit it with Republican voters.

I was told that the tape had been offered as an exclusive to the Wall Street Journal. Months went by, and nothing happened. (There were rumors during that time that Big Tech lobbyists were trying very hard to get the Wall Street Journal to kill the story.) Then I began to get a series of messages from various anonymous sources that the organizations that were guilty of taking Google money to stay silent included: the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), the Cato Institute, CPAC, the Weekly Standard and the National Review. (A weak article appeared on September 27th by John McKinnon in the Wall Street Journal but it hardly mentioned the tape or its implications.) This was, needless to say, a huge story: was it possible that the entire conservative intellectual movement was being bought off by Big Tech companies?

Finally, I was approached by an insider at one of the think tanks who confirmed the main details. You could say I broke the story (since the Wall Street Journal piece had really buried it) on Twitter on October 30th, by saying:

BREAKING: Source tells me that NeverTrumper mags took cash from top Internet company to suppress stories of bias against conservatives & Trump supporters. Audio recording of top tech executive explaining strategy has leaked to major newspaper.

My hope was that it would shake the Wall Street Journal out of its lethargy: either publish the contents of the tape or let someone else use it. It would also sow panic among the guilty — who would want to get out ahead of the story in order to spin it. So it was not surprising that one of the first people to attack my story was Jonah Goldberg, one of the chief editors of the National Review. (It’s important to note that my tweet had not named his magazine as one of the guilty parties.) Goldberg was dismissive of my reporting on Twitter: “LOL. Love the idea you have sources.”

Jonah Goldberg had, once again, given himself up at the first sign of shooting….

Meanwhile the funding of the magazine now relies even more heavily on Big Tech money: the back page of the June 1, 2021 issue was a full-page Facebook ad. Inside the same issue, in case you missed the point, there was a two-page ad from Google. The National Review didn’t bother trying to win back its old subscribers by becoming more conservative. Instead, it flipped them a giant middle finger. This final insult might lead us to think the unthinkable about the soy boys who sank Buckley’s flagship. The same feeble metrosexuals who attacked the Covington Catholic boys, and printed pro-Jeffrey Epstein articles, and tried to discredit Carter Page, and pushed the Russia Hoax might not actually be conservatives after all. Their role does not seem to be halting the Left. Their role seems to be: pretending to be conservative in order to persuade actual conservatives to lose gracefully to the Left.

Conservatives must finally recognize something that’s very depressing and very important: the conservative intellectual movement in America didn’t just fail. It aided and abetted the Left for money. The Left bought off the Right’s leading conservative intellectuals. And its think tanks. And its “flagship” magazines. This is not hyperbole or conjecture. I’ve got the receipts. Until conservatives understand the depth and breadth of that betrayal, they won’t have any chance of rebuilding that movement out of the ashes any time soon.

How The National Review Sold Its Soul to Google, Emerald Robinson

Read the whole thing. It’s a fascinating demonstration of what treacherous little cuck-weasels Jonah Goldberg and David French are, which isn’t exactly a surprise. But it’s still useful to have conclusive evidence convicting them of what we’d already figured out.

Don’t EVER call yourself a conservative. A conservative, ironically enough, is nothing more than a beer-swilling surrender monkey whose primary objective is to avoid anyone calling him racist or anti-semitic. Conservatism is neither a political ideology nor a viable philosophy for any self-respecting man or woman of the West.


Another day, another gatekeeper

One would think conservatives would stop falling for the traps that gatekeepers are laying for them, but then, they are conservatives. Now we’re being told Rumble is the new Parler:

Glenn Greenwald has urged internet users to leave behind YouTube’s ceaseless content-policing and migrate to Rumble, after he and a group of prominent pundits set up shop at the laissez-faire video platform. The veteran journalist, along with former Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard and several other well-known commentators, have joined Rumble’s “deep pool of content talent,” the company said in a press release on Thursday. As part of the agreement, Rumble will provide the all-star content creators with resources to help them produce videos that will be exclusive to the site for a limited time.

The platform’s popularity has skyrocketed, experiencing a 25-fold increase in viewership over the past year.

Under the deal, Greenwald will continue his ‘System Update’ video program that he began while still at the Intercept and continued when he took up independent reporting at Substack. The show will appear on Rumble two hours before it is published elsewhere.

It’s not clear how much Greenwald is being compensated for the move, but he said the “ample funding package” would be used to pay for a “highly professionalized form of video.”

Translation: like Substack, Rumble is paying for “pundits” and recognizable “influencers” to use their platform. Of course, they’ll exert exactly the same content control that all the SJW-controlled platforms do, they just won’t be as obvious about it at first.

No thanks. I’ll stick with Unauthorized.

Discuss on SG.

The conservative defense of pedophilia

Rod Dreher thinks it’s all just a joke. They’re not evil, they’re just stupid, you see:

What these smart-asses in San Francisco did was make a satirical song and video that would win them plaudits in their own circles by making fun of normies. They posted this online on July 1. My guess is that they began hearing back today from LGBT people outside of safe blue districts telling them that they are out of their damn minds. This is confirming the worst possible stereotype: the gays are targeting our kids. I say fantastic: the San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus said the quiet part out loud. Sure, they say in the video that they’re talking about converting them into being “tolerant and fair,” but that is not at all how it will be received. And that, I’m sure, is why the fools took it down.
I’m still flabbergasted by how idiotic this was. These childless men apparently have no idea at all how most people feel about their children.

Do you see the way in which the good conservative can’t bring himself to condemn proud and overt evil even when it openly declares that it is coming for his children?

They are smart-asses. They are fools. They are idiots. Dreher is willing to call them anything except that which they are: the wicked.

The reason you know Dreher and all other conservatives of his kind are defenders of evil is because you will never, ever, see them accepting satire as an excuse when it comes to actual jokes about blacks, Jews, or homosexuals. To the contrary, they will be the first to denounce even an actual joke told by a comedian at a professional comedy event as incontrovertible evidence of racism, anti-semitism, or homophobia.

But outright pedophilia professed in a non-comedic setting by a group containing multiple convicted pedophiles? Well, that can’t possibly be a collection of the wicked publicly celebrating their evil lusts, it’s just obvious satire making fun of normies that went a little too far because they’re insufficiently intelligent to understand the very difficult concept of parental love.

This is exactly what is meant by pedophistry. Rod Dreher isn’t a pedophile, and yet he publicly defends them and excuses their evil. And those who attempt to pass off evil as stupidity are both defending and enabling it.

Not one cent for their own

While media conservatives are giddy about the chance to financially support their political “opponents”.

Matt Walsh@MattWalshBlog

As you’ve heard, @AOC’s abuela is living in a dilapidated home that was ravaged by Hurricane Maria. AOC is unable to help her own grandma for whatever reason, so I have set up this Go Fund Me campaign to save her home. Please give if you can. #HelpAbuela

Cuckservatives love nothing better than to “surprise” people by materially supporting their enemies. Their primary objective is to be publicly seen as the nice people. As Stalin learned, the Left doesn’t even need to buy the rope with which to hang them, conservatives will literally give it to their would-be executioners for free.

Are you even a little bit surprised to learn that Ben Shapiro is pushing this idiocy too?

UPDATE: For the benefit of those who are apparently too slow to understand that everyone here knows perfectly well what these moronic cucks were intending, we are aware the very clever plan is to OWN THE LIBS and MAKE THE DEMS LOOK LIKE HYPOCRITES! Our criticism is based on the fact that this objective is an unnecessary, pointless, and wasteful bit of grandstanding.

Ideas don’t have consequences

The American Conservatives points out that if they did, all the neoclowns in the media would be unemployed:

When the University of Chicago Press brought out Richard Weaver’s book Ideas Have Consequences in 1948, it was instantly hailed as a landmark text on American conservatism. The title itself has become a sort of rallying cry for the conservative intelligentsia. I’d wager that 98 percent of those who utter the phrase “Ideas have consequences!” have never read the book, nor even heard of Richard Weaver.

What’s ironic is that Weaver himself hated the title. He hated it so much, in fact, that he nearly pulled the book. Looking back, his objection was prophetic. When it comes to the American right, ideas—good or bad—have no consequences whatsoever.

Take the war in Iraq, the greatest policy snafu in American history. Our crusade to depose Saddam Hussein was built on lies: that he was in possession of nuclear weapons, that he was sheltering Al Qaeda, etc. Granted, many of those lies came straight from the “intelligence community.” But, from day one, there were voices on the right who called B.S. Many of them gathered together in a magazine called The American Conservative; maybe you’ve heard of it.

Even if one can be forgiven for trusting the U.S. government back in those halcyon days, pro-war pundits also promised that Iraq would be over in five months, tops. That wasn’t just wrong; it was insane. The idea that we could purge the Iraqi government of Ba’athists right down to the last postman, install a stable transitional government, and leave Afghanistan a functional modern democracy—all in five months—was insane. Anyone who repeated that line was either stupid, evil, or both.

Some, like Bill Kristol, went even further. In November of 2002, he said: “We can remove Saddam because that could start a chain reaction in the Arab world that would be very healthy.” That’s nuts. It’s just nuts.

Now, tell me this. Once every single argument in favor of the Iraq war was proved categorically false, did anyone lose their jobs? Did any politicians or pundits suddenly disappear from the airwaves? Did their bad, stupid, evil ideas have any consequences? (For their careers, I mean. Their ideas certainly had consequences for the hundreds of thousands of dead soldiers and civilians.) Of course not.

What about those hawks who referred to the war’s critics as “unpatriotic conservatives”? Most of them are making six figures in the legacy media. Others are “senior fellows” at any of the millions of think-tanks across the Beltway. Because ideas don’t have consequences.

It is astonishing how many conservatives still listen to morons like Ben Shapiro or definitely-not-methheads like Jordan Peterson despite the fact that their ideas have repeatedly been proven to be false, harmful, or false and harmful.

Yes, people are wrong from time to time. Even smart, handsome individuals who correctly call economic crisis in advance are occasionally wrong. But there is a difference between not being perfectly omniscient and repeatedly pushing bad, stupid, and evil ideas on the public.

Also, America First is the new Tea Party. The once-nationalist rhetoric has already been subsumed and subverted by the Buckley wing of the Republican faction of the bifactional ruling party.

The Noble Lie of the Proposition Nation

Conservative civnattery can never save the USA because civic nationalism was always a banner waved by those who sought to destroy the American nation and replace the republic of the sovereign States with an empire. Brion McClanahan demonstrates that both the 1619 Project of the SJWs and the 1776 Commission of the conservatives are designed to push an entirely false and ahistoric revision of the founding of the United States of America on the maleducated children of the empire:

Hannah-Jones considers the United States to be a “nation founded on both an ideal and a lie.” The ideal is that “all mean are created equal” with “certain unalienable rights,” i.e., the “proposition nation.” But, unlike the Straussians, Hannah-Jones does not let Northern white men off the hook, for she sees them as as complicit as Southerners in betraying that ideal. She summarizes the core position of “The 1619 Project” as follows:

 Yet despite being violently denied the freedom and justice promised to all, black Americans believed fervently in the American creed. Through centuries of black resistance and protest, we have helped the country live up to its founding ideals. And not only for ourselves—black rights struggles paved the way for every other rights struggle, including women’s and gay rights, immigrant and disability rights.

 To the Straussians who crafted “The 1776 Report” and their conservative pundit allies like Dinesh D’Souza, Glenn Beck, and the late Rush Limbaugh, not all white Americans should be blamed for the sins of the South. In their view, there were “good” white Americans—abolitionists, Northern members of the founding generation, and Lincoln—who recognized the inhumanity of slavery and tried to end it. Even Southern members of the founding generation, including Jefferson himself, but also Washington, Madison, Mason, and a host of other Virginians, thought enough of humanity to pave the way for Lincoln to revolutionize the Revolution in the Gettysburg Address.

 “The 1776 Report” suggests that the founders (not excluding those who hailed from Southern states) created the mechanism to end slavery through the Constitution and cannot be blamed for the evil deeds of later pro-slavery Southerners who ignored the true founding of America. More importantly, the report’s authors believe they are free from the stain of racism because they adhere to the “correct” view of American history. In other words, “Don’t blame us. We voted for Lincoln.”

 Hannah-Jones, on the other hand, does not make this distinction, nor does she differentiate between Lincoln and Calhoun. Both were guilty of America’s “original sin” of racism. Neither man held views on race that are acceptable to modern Americans, let alone “woke” social justice warriors. Hannah-Jones is as critical of Lincoln’s colonization plans as of Calhoun’s “positive good” speech. Frankly, she is at least being more consistent than the self-righteous conservatives on the 1776 Commission.

 The attempt by the authors of “The 1776 Report” to beg absolution from the political left for the sin of slavery is a fatal miscalculation. The left’s game is cancel culture, and it’s a game in which conservatives will always be playing defense. You cannot play the left’s game on their field and by their rules and hope for success. Charges of racism are emotional, not intellectual, and are used—successfully—to change the narrative. Instead of focusing on the contributions antebellum Americans made to Western civilization, we are instead debating who was the least racist and bigoted among them. This is unproductive.

Conservatives cannot appease the left by regurgitating its distorted vision of the founding. Placing the lofty ideals of the Declaration at the center of the founding is a distortion of history.

Consider that Jefferson himself downplayed the importance of the Declaration’s phrase “all men are created equal,” and that, for much of the period leading up to the Civil War, Jeffersonians in both the North and South championed the principles of state sovereignty, rather than those of an egalitarian, propositional nation. To Jefferson, the last paragraph, not the second, provided the most important language of the Declaration. Most of the founding generation agreed.

The story written during the debates over the Constitution in 1787 and 1788 provides a more robust and authentic American vision of the founding. The principles that predominated in those debates unified most Americans for decades and created a populist national base.

The founders drafted two constitutions for the central government and a host of state constitutions that reaffirmed their commitment to a union of states and the principles of federalism. The Constitution would not have been ratified in 1788 had the founding generation believed that the states would be consolidated into one national government.

That argument took center stage in every state ratifying convention in 1787 and 1788. Rarely was the Declaration mentioned, even in passing, and none of the founders ever referred to the line “all men are created equal” with religious reverence, contrary to what the Straussians and their leftist allies would have you believe.

For example, James Wilson of Pennsylvania made federalism a central theme of his State House Yard Speech in October 1787, just a few weeks after the Constitution had been signed in Philadelphia. Wilson mentioned the Declaration in one of his speeches before the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention in December 1787, but only to show that the people had a right to “alter or abolish” either a state government or a central government. That was the American tradition.

Delegates to the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention in January 1788 were told that the powers of the central government would be limited to those “expressly delegated” and that the language of what would become the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution imported the same meaning as the second article of the Articles of Confederation, namely that each state retained its “sovereignty and independence.” No one mentioned Jefferson’s “all men are created equal” phrase.

Even in Virginia, the state that gave the United States the Declaration, the delegates never mentioned that document when debating the Constitution. And it was only mentioned twice during the Philadelphia Convention in 1787, in both instances by nationalists for the purpose of  arguing that the Union predated the states—a position flatly rejected by most of the men in attendance.

Despite these historical facts, the authors of “The 1776 Report” insist that “The meaning and purpose of the Constitution of 1787…cannot be understood without recourse to the principles of the Declaration of Independence….” If that’s true, then the founding generation should have made that meaning explicit during the ratification debates, or at the very least in Philadelphia. But they didn’t. “States’ rights,” not the phantasm of a proposition nation, dominated the debates between the Founding Fathers. 

Race, equality, and history make liars of every conservative. The undeniable fact that they are not dedicated to the truth, but are rather committed to the Noble Lie in the interests of a false and wordly ideal, is why they have relentlessly failed to conserve so much as the women’s bathroom, and why no honest person should consider himself a conservative.

The cucks cry

Perhaps if elected Republicans had ever done a single damn thing to fight the growth of Cancel Culture instead of desperately reassuring everyone that they love blacks, Jews, and foreigners more than their own children, one might be inclined to feel a modicum of sympathy for two Georgia state legislators who lost their jobs due to “a series of tweets” by the sexual predators at The Lincoln Project.

Last week, in a span of 24 hours, my reputation and business were destroyed by a series of tweets in which The Lincoln Project knowingly lied about me. Among other things, they falsely accused me of trying to “suppress voters and people” in several tweets that also tagged my employer and several of its well-known clients. The goal was to cancel me and inflict as much harm as possible, and they succeeded. Unfortunately, disgusting tactics like these are becoming the norm and the truth does not seem to matter anymore.

The truth is that I co-sponsored and voted for bi-partisan Georgia Senate Bill 62, which provides ballots in the state of Georgia to have a watermark, seal, and other security elements to include the precinct number—which are best practices. I did not sponsor or vote in favor of other recent bills in Georgia that sought to limit no excuse absentee balloting and reduce weekend voting. As a matter of fact, some groups attacked me for not supporting these other measures. My record is crystal clear. I believe voting is a sacred right and should be available, transparent, and secure for all citizens. I am proud of my work in this area.

The fact that I serve in elected office does not justify what happened to me. I am also a husband and father, as well as a source of income for my family and many other people who worked for me in the private sector. In Georgia, we are a citizen’s legislature and considered part-time. I do not earn my living serving as a state Senator. In fact, I donated my $17,000 a year salary to charity. I earned a living in business. I worked with incredible people, built a great team, and we were very successful.

Even though The Lincoln Project is plagued by well-publicized allegations of sexual harassment and financial impropriety that have been covered by almost every major media outlet, its “words matter” and have had devastating consequences. Because of their tweets, I have already been falsely labeled, lost my job, and received threats against my entire family.

Even after being successfully canceled, conservatives still don’t learn. They would rather cry about “disgusting tactics” to the enemy media rather than author a fucking law to do something about it. But those “disgusting tactics” are not becoming the norm, they are the norm. They were becoming the norm back in 2005 when people like me were being attacked by the SFWA and the ADL, with the full approval of conservatives who were more than happy to distance themselves from “extremists” and “nationalists” and “supremacists”.

Don’t ever support a conservative. There is absolutely no point in doing so. They don’t fight. They will never fight, not even when their backs are up against the wall. They permitted the weaponization of social media by making the technology companies legally unaccountable under Section 230 and their own literally blasphemous free speech dogma.

I see that people sometimes wonder why the Left keeps pushing its agenda when so many conservative Americans are armed.

It’s because they know perfectly well that all those conservatives are ever going to do is issue dire warnings and wag their fingers about the possibility that someone else is eventually going to do something about it.

A wholly-owned subsidiary

The  professional “conservative movement” is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party. They’re literally playing for the other side.

A conservative political action committee is about to unleash a flurry of ads targeting six House Republicans who objected to certifying the Presidential election in January. Among the house members being targeted in the ads are Alabama Republican Representative Mo Brooks, and Northwest Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz.

The Republican Accountability Project says among their goals with the ad campaign is to work to unseat those who have tried to overturn a legitimate election and supported impunity for political violence, and to push back against lies and conspiracy theories about widespread voter fraud and “rigged” elections.

Never trust anyone who describes himself as a “conservative” these days. In the 68 years since the publication of The Conservative Mind, conservatism hasn’t conserved anything at all. It’s “nationalist” or nothing, because that is literally the only issue that actually matters anymore. The age of ideology ended in the USA in 1965, but it took until 2015 for Americans to even begin to realize this due to the slow-moving cancer of negative demographics.

Conservatism is cuckservatism. They are one and the same.

When will they learn?

Clay Travis avoids the frying pan, which is nice.

Tired of the “woke” mainstream sports media and big tech companies spouting far-left rhetoric, while refusing to accept any other opinion? As always, OutKick has an alternative for you. Introducing Outkick.locals.com, a new subscriber-based platform designed to allow you to engage with OutKick founder Clay Travis, as well as OutKick contributors and fans.

Clay and other OutKick contributors will be active within the outkick.locals posting text threads, pictures, videos, and responding to your posts. You can ask questions, discuss and debate with each other, and share content or things you may see elsewhere in the sports world.

Locals.com, is a creator crowdfunding site cofounded by Dave Rubin and Assaf Lev. It started in 2019 and is based in New York City. The site was founded after Rubin and Jordan Peterson left Patreon in protest of their policies on creator deplatforming.

10 out of 10 for intentions. 2 out of 10 for execution. At best. This is all too reminiscent of the whole “Forget Twitter, I’m going to Parler!” routine. 

It amazes me how few people recognize the gatekeeper routine.