Zuckercucks

The irrepressible Milo continues to make friends and influence people as he criticizes the pointless, humiliating genuflection to Facebook performed by a few cuckservatives playing noble loser one more time:

A delegation of Establishment conservative types descended on Silicon Valley today to make Facebook look good. I have some thoughts about it. This is going to be a long column, so strap yourselves in.

I’m sure it wasn’t these conservative figures’ intent merely to assist in Facebook’s marketing efforts, but at this point, if maliciousness is ruled out as a motivation, extreme stupidity is the only possible remaining explanation.

That, and perhaps a touch of pathetic egotism. I think many of those invited are a little starstruck by Zuck. After all, he’s the millennial billionaire CEO of the largest social network on the planet, and has spent the last decade making old media irrelevant, a point made plain by the amount of “I’m on my way!!!!!!” Facebook posts posted by attendees today.

It’s hard to imagine Truman posting selfies on the way to Potsdam, or really any serious person about to engage in an endeavour that might affect the course of the national election. But hey, it’s current year, and all bets are off.

Eric Bolling let this attitude slip on Monday’s broadcast of The Five, where he congratulated Fox pundit Dana Perino on the “fantastic honor” of being invited to the meeting.

A meeting where Facebook refuses to admit they did anything wrong, held purely to make the company look good? I’m not sure, but I can’t remember the last time it was an “honor” to be invited as window-dressing by a corporation’s public relations department. Cucked by Zuck. How embarrassing!

We don’t need their platforms. We don’t kiss the gatekeepers’ asses. We storm the gates, tear them down, and erect our own institutions using their skulls as decorations. The Brainstorm knows what’s coming next. In August, the rest of you will too.

There is nothing to accommodate. We will replace them by Fox Newsing their CNNs, Breitbarting their Salons, and Castalia Housing their Tors. They can keep the left-liberal third of the literate population.

We’ll take the rest.


A message for the conservative establishment

Milo thunders like the prophets of yore:

I have a message for the conservative establishment: you fucked up big time… The assorted, well-fed, burbling lunatics, idiots and losers of the conservative media establishment and in conservative circles in general… These useless, fat blubbering losers!

“You conservatives made all the right noises but you have no appetite whatsoever to fix anything. You allowed the Left to continue to gain ground and gain ground and gain ground until a point at which — and I don’t think this is an exaggeration to say — the fabric of western culture is now at risk. From immigration, from multiculturalism, from the lies the Left tells.

Trump and I represent something that scares the Left — the utter, wholesale rejection of political correctness. Total defiance. The idea you don’t back down, you double down. When somebody comes to my event and says they’re offended by a joke, I rack my brain for a more offensive one… Trump does the same thing.

He has shown the one thing that no conservative politician or pundit or anybody really on the political Right in American public life has done for some 30 years. He has shown fearlessness, he’s not afraid of the Left. And that inspires terror in their hearts and I’m the same, I like to think.

Regardless of what you think of Milo, he is absolutely and utterly correct to condemn the craven conservative establishment in this manner. Their spirit of fear is not God-given, and their vaunted ideological principles have proven to be entirely nonexistent.

As my co-author, Red Eagle, conclusively demonstrated in Cuckservative: How “Conservatives” Betrayed America, conservatism is not even an ideology per se, but rather, an attitude, or to be less kind, a pose.

The early new rightists were interested in discerning the deeper roots of historical American political thought, and in turning its various strains into a viable, coherent political tradition. Some of them looked so deeply that they found inspiration from decidedly non-American sources, such as British conservative political thought. The latter was a generally elitist tradition, openly contemptuous of American-style independent citizenry and the freewheeling style of American political discourse. Among the leaders of this Anglophile camp was Russell Kirk, who is generally credited with coining the American use of the term conservative as a distinct political label. His most famous work, The Conservative Mind, proved to be quickly and profoundly influential soon after its publication in 1953. Kirk’s book synthesized various ideas from diverse 18th- and 19th-century thinkers, most prominently Edmund Burke, into six canons, or principles, of this new conservatism:

  1. Belief in a transcendent order, or body, of natural law, which rules society as well as conscience.
  2. Affection for the proliferating variety and mystery of human existence, as opposed to the narrowing uniformity, egalitarianism, and utilitarian aims of most radical systems.
  3. Conviction that civilized society requires orders and classes, as against the notion of a “classless society.”
  4. Persuasion that freedom and property are closely linked.
  5. Custom, convention, and old prescription are checks both upon man’s anarchic impulse and upon the innovator’s lust for power.
  6. Recognition that change may not be salutory reform: hasty innovation may be a devouring conflagration, rather than a torch of progress. Society must alter, for prudent change is the means of social preservation; but a statesman must take Providence into his calculations.

Whatever the left may say about them, Kirk’s principles are hardly the stuff of SS rallies. As a set of ideas, they’re not particularly systematic, particularly when compared with more radical philosophies like Marxism and its innumerable offshoots, or at the other extreme, the Objectivism of Ayn Rand. They are arguably more a set of generalized assertions and attitudes rather than principles per se. Even so, they do represent a particular worldview, though it is not the worldview of the Founding Fathers or of the early American political generations. Notice as well that several of these principles are primarily defined by that which they opposed: the dominant left-liberal worldview of the mid-20th century. From their very beginning the principles of conservatism were subordinate and defensive in nature, or less charitably, they were submissive and passive-aggressive in their relation to the left.

Conservatism cannot win. It cannot even conserve. If the West is to survive, it needs to abandon its consistent failures of the past and confidently embrace the pillars of its foundation: Christianity, the European nations, science, and capitalism. Any other strategy will fail. Any man who considers himself a Man of the West would do well to abandon the conservative establishment; it has already abandoned you.


Strength isn’t resolution

Jerry Pournelle shares a fascinating, and inadvertently illuminating, tale about Arnold Schwarzenegger:

I first met him at an agency party (we had the same agent); he was then the strongest man in the world and that and Conan was all we knew about him. He was very pleasant, and by chance the next day he met my wife in Nieman Marcus — it was a pre-Christmas party, and she was shopping for a present for me, we just having made a big sale (may have been Hammer, it was that long ago). He spent half an hour helping her look.

I know other such stories, all true.

He ran for governor as a lark, and when he was elected he got a pretty damn good team together to draft some fundamental propositions and constitutional amendments. They were pretty damned good.

The campaign for governor didn’t get very bitter — most thought he was a joke and the pro’s didn’t bother spending any money smearing him.

But the long knives came out over those propositions. Nurses in uniform at rallies screaming curses at him although most of the health professionals I know thought his reforms were needed and good; but wow did the unions hate them. It was the same all over: organized labor in particular called him the Austrian Hitler. He hated it. It really hurt him — he has a thinner skin than you might imagine. It got uncomfortable at home, too, what with his wife being a Kennedy clanswoman.

So when his propositions failed, he said the hell with it. They want crony government and gemutlicheit they can have it. Never took the job seriously again.

I’m not excusing him; he took the job, and he didn’t resign when he lost interest in it. He spent the rest of his office years making nice with everybody. Sure he became a joke and knew it, but it was better than nurses in uniform screaming NAZI at him.

It’s interesting how many strong and ambitious men – and consider how driven Arnold Schwarzenegger was compared to the average man – nevertheless crumble in the face of concerted opposition. Remember, very few go into politics because they don’t care if anyone likes them or not; they go into politics, and they are good at it, because they crave adoration and adulation.

I suspect this is why the Left is so successful at blunting, even turning, the Right on so many occasions; they know if they shriek loudly enough, and they do it long enough, they can cause their target to give up and quit.

This is also why they are so spectacularly unsuccessful with influencing the Alt Right. We simply don’t give a quantum of a damn about being called evil stupid Nazi racist bastards. We don’t pay any attention to their shrieking; to the extent we listen to it at all, it is music to our ears.

No wonder the likes of Mike Cernovich and Milo and even Rabid Puppies confuse them so much. They genuinely believe that we care what they think, they seriously believe that we somehow, deep down inside, are seeking their approval. And there is no reason why they shouldn’t, because past experience with conservatives, neocons, moderates, and cuckservatives have taught them that we do.

And that is downright funny. Useful as well. I shall have to ponder how we might be able to make use of this false impression in the future.


National Review hates working class whites

The beauty of the Trump campaign is that it is unmasking all of the entryists, infiltrators, and cuckservatives who have been leading conservatives astray for decades. Case in point, the white-hating “conservative” Kevin Williamson:

In a featured article for the prestigious conservative journal
entitled “The FatherFuhrer,” Williamson seeks to rebut criticism that he
and other conservatives don’t articulate any policies that would appeal
to Trump’s blue collar supporters.

Williamson, a long-time critic of The Donald, essentially agrees that
he doesn’t support any policies or rhetoric directly tailored to the
working-class — particularly about jobs being taken by outsourcing and
immigration — because it would be wrong to do so.

“It is immoral because it perpetuates a lie: that the white working
class that finds itself attracted to Trump has been victimized by
outside forces,” the NR roving correspondent writes. “[N]obody did this
to them. They failed themselves.”

He then goes on to make the conclusion that it’s great these
communities are dying out because they have a warped morality and are a
dead weight on the economy.

“The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that
they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally,
they are indefensible,” the conservative writer says.

What is conservative about calling working class white communities morally indefensible and deserving of death?

It’s telling that National Review, which fired everyone from Sobran to Derbyshire, not only didn’t fire Williamson, they published his appalling, anti-white hate.


New American reviews Cuckservative

The title of the magazine is a little ironic in light of the views expressed in Cuckservative, but it’s a good, substantial, and relatively positive review of the book nevertheless:

Cuckservative is co-written by Vox Day and John Red Eagle. Vox Day is the pseu­donym of a video game designer who has amassed quite a following in the online world with his often-controversial views. Day’s high IQ and technical approach to problem solving is felt throughout Cuckservative. Much effort is given to making the book’s main argument that immigration is the most important issue of our day and that “cuckservatives” are on the wrong side. “Thanks to their cuckservative ideology, America’s self-styled conservatives have literally betrayed the entire purpose of the Constitution of the United States, and in doing so, they have put the very survival of the nation at risk,” the authors charge….

The chapter “Christianity and Cuckservatism” went into depth on the strange decline into far-left racial politics that we’ve witnessed in modern Christianity. As churches across the country lecture their members on the lessons of “white privilege” and “institutional racism,” Cuckservative points out the blatant hypocrisy: “It never seems to occur to these white guilt-trippers that holding today’s white Christians responsible for the sins of their 18th-century or 1960s counterparts is no different than blaming today’s Jews for crucifying Christ.” Christians, both Left and Right, who have bought into the egalitarian premises of the Left and support open-border policies are described as “Churchians” who have nothing in common with traditional Christianity. “The false fruit of Churchian multiculturalism can be recognized by what is happening to Christian churches everywhere from Europe to the American Midwest. So-called Christians are not only actively welcoming those who do not worship Jesus Christ to invade their nations, they are also watering down Christian theology and in some cases, literally tearing down the symbols of Christian worship.”

Overall, the book provides a sound explanation of what’s wrong with the conservative movement, as well as why open immigration policies will spell certain political doom for our side. As an eBook, it’s very affordable and well worth the price. It’s a good book for anyone not familiar with the type of issues regularly covered by The New American, especially for
younger readers who are looking for a primer on the main issues facing us today. Readers with a STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) background should appreciate the book the most, owing to its technical and analytical dissection of the issue.

The Amazon reviews remain very positive too:

A Must-Read Book!

This book pulls back the covers from the greatest lie of modern politics, the imaginary “benefits” of mass immigration and multiculturalism. Using historical examples, economic evidence, and plain logic, the authors show that our current globalist outlook is nothing more or less than a recipe for conflict and decline throughout western civilization.

I very much enjoyed the section dealing with dishonest “christian” arguments regarding immigration. I am not personally religious, but I am a product of a largely Christian society, and not entirely biblically unlearned. It has been frustrating to me to see so many self-proclaimed “Christians” argue that we must betray our own society, our own children, and hand our entire civilization over to whoever demands it, in order to be good Christians. This section gives a biblical and common-sense answer to such feeble and self-righteous do-gooderism.

If I have any complaint, it is that the authors could have spent a little more time illustrating the economic effects of mass immigration, both the harm done to citizens, and the almost unimaginable greed it takes to sell out one’s own people for cheap labor. Billions of dollars are being made by a tiny number of people, at the expense of an increasingly poor and insecure public. Those profiteering from globalist nation-wrecking are traitors in the strongest sense of the word, and deserve to be treated as such. Whether a globalist capitalist profiteer, a sincere leftist seeking an imaginary multicultural “utopia”, or a false christian peddling white guilt to feel righteous, these deluded people are dangerous to civilization itself.

Interesting that even the non-Christians are capable of seeing the problem with societally destructive Churchianity. And the reviewer is right, the economics chapter is generally abstract and heavily technical, so the impact is perhaps less powerful than if we’d taken Red Eagle’s more storytelling-oriented approach. Mea culpa.

Don’t forget, Cuckservative is now out in audiobook as well.


That which goes unlinked

I found this guest poster’s response, to a commenter on a blog which may or may not be this one, to be interesting in its dedication to a) detail and b) avoiding the central issue at hand:

This is an interesting mix of “truthiness” and bigotry. Sarah is American by belief and choice, accused of being a “traitor” by people who think their ancestry and presence on the landmass of the US since birth make them guardians of the US nation-state. Aside from the incoherence (how can she be a traitor if she is not a member of the tribe?), the commenter attempts to other her by lumping her in with the virtue-signalling SJWs.

This commenter is sadly unAmerican in his resort to racist and sexist issue framing, completely misapplied to Sarah Hoyt. It’s unfortunate that the loud outpourings of these people, few in number but egging each other on in the fever swamps of sites like this blog-which-shall-go-unlinked, can so easily be used by progressive scribblers elsewhere to tar all dissenters from the Progressive program of thought control as racists, misogynists, and neo-Nazis (or worse!)

Which brings up a valid point these people have made: if Americanism is a bundle of individualist beliefs and attitudes, what about those with deep roots in the US, born and raised for generations there, who don’t accept those beliefs? If tolerance of difference is a watchword, then should those who don’t tolerate differences be suppressed or removed?

Our answer starts with looking at how we got to this point, where government has expanded and encroached on the private sphere of business and social organizations to the point where private action is viewed with suspicion, and a significant percentage of the population believes democracy means subjecting every action of business to the political process and regulation.

Americans were formerly known for their commitment to private charity and self-help organizations; the America of Alexis de Tocqueville in 1835 teemed with churches and private social organizations and lacked the inherited privilege and concentrations of unearned wealth and power seen in Europe. But he worried that “… a despotism under a democracy could see ‘a multitude of men’, uniformly alike, equal, ‘constantly circling for petty pleasures’, unaware of fellow citizens, and subject to the will of a powerful state which exerted an ‘immense protective power’. Tocqueville compared a potentially despotic democratic government to a protective parent who wants to keep its citizens (children) as ‘perpetual children’, and which doesn’t break men’s wills but rather guides it, and presides over people in the same way as a shepherd looking after a ‘flock of timid animals’. He also wrote that “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”

He was prescient. We have arrived at that state.

First, everyone would do well to settle down. Sarah Hoyt didn’t threaten to punch anyone. One of her white knights threatened to punch me if he ever encountered me, presumably due to my crimethink. As we see, their dedication to the propositions they profess doesn’t run terribly deep. But this is an intellectual dispute, and there is no need for anyone to get their panties in a bunch, or for fisticuffs.

Second, and more importantly, the post is mistitled. The situation is not “Sons of Liberty vs National Front” because in this particular case the Sons of Liberty are the National Front. Liberty and the Rights of Englishmen, are concepts that belong solely to the posterity of the American Founding Fathers, a posterity that excludes, among many, many other U.S. citizens, Sarah Hoyt.

Needless to say, they will try to redefine “posterity” just as they have redefined “American” and “democracy” and “liberal”. But if your position requires historical falsehoods, retrofittings, and redefinitions, your position is inherently flawed.

But the post does serve to nicely illustrate the intrinsically dishonest, pernicious, and untenable nature of the concept of the proposition nation, which anyone can join “by belief and choice”. Such a nation requires, absolutely requires, thought policing of the most stringent and ruthless variety, and is intrinsically totalitarian in a way that the most authoritarian “blood and soil” regime could never be.

It is no surprise that as a result of immigration and the necessary redefinition of what it is to be American, the country has become considerably less free despite the influx of these “belief and choice” citizens. The Know-Nothings were, more or less, correct. Indeed, the present situation is a direct consequence of the inability of 19th century immigrants to fully grasp the Rights of Englishmen, because they were never English and they will never be what might be described as Americans version 1.0. More recent arrivals are observably even less able to do so.

It’s rather ironic to observe that just as my maternal ancestors were robbed of their land and their heritage by one wave of colonists, my paternal ancesters are now being robbed of their birthright, their heritage, and even their name by succeeding waves of invaders.

The astonishing thing is that these advocates of the absurdity known as “the proposition nation” believe, genuinely believe, that they are the good guys. But they have confused rhetoric for reality, which is why their arguments inevitably end in either incoherence or untruths.

A Swedish reader comments: “The only mystery is why Swedish politicians have got it in their heads that everyone who sets foot on Swedish soil will immediately embrace our values, our view of women and our traditions.”

And so we see, the pernicious lie of the proposition nation spreads.


Why he left the conservative movement

A lifelong conservative Republican informs the conservative media why he is no longer a conservative:

Let me say up front that I am a life-long Republican and conservative. I have never voted for a Democrat in my life and have voted in every presidential and midterm election since 1988. I have never in my life considered myself anything but a conservative. I am pained to admit that the conservative media and many conservatives’ reaction to Donald Trump has caused me to no longer consider myself part of the movement. I would suggest to you that if you have lost people like me, and I am not alone, you might want to reconsider your reaction to Donald Trump. Let me explain why.

First, I spent the last 20 years watching the conservative media in Washington endorse and urge me to vote for one candidate after another who made a mockery of conservative principles and values. Everyone talks about how thankful we are for the Citizens’ United decision but seems to have forgotten how we were urged to vote for the coauthor of the law that the decision overturned. In 2012, we were told to vote for Mitt Romney, a Massachusetts liberal who proudly signed an individual insurance mandate into law and refused to repudiate the decision. Before that, there was George W. Bush, the man who decided it was America’s duty to bring democracy to the Middle East (more about him later). And before that, there was Bob Dole, the man who gave us the Americans with Disabilities Act. I, of course, voted for those candidates and do not regret doing so. I, however, am self-aware enough to realize I voted for them because I will vote for virtually anyone to keep the Left out of power and not because I thought them to be the best or even really a conservative choice. Given this history, the conservative media’s claims that the Republican party must reject Donald Trump because he is not a “conservative” are pathetic and ridiculous to those of us who are old enough to remember the last 25 years.

Second, it doesn’t appear to me that conservatives calling on people to reject Trump have any idea what it actually means to be a “conservative.” The word seems to have become a brand that some people attach to a set of partisan policy preferences, rather than the set of underlying principles about government and society it once was. Conservatism has become a dog’s breakfast of Wilsonian internationalism brought over from the Democratic Party after the New Left took it over, coupled with fanatical libertarian economics and religiously-driven positions on various culture war issues. No one seems to have any idea or concern for how these positions are consistent or reflect anything other than a general hatred for Democrats and the Left.

TL;DR: He is an American nationalist who rejects cuckservatism.

For many years, people on both sides of the political spectrum have repeatedly tried to label me a conservative. If you look back to the very beginning, to my first column on WND after 9/11, I have steadfastly resisted that label because I have always known that I do not share an outlook with those who proudly wear it.

I am a nationalist, I am a traditionalist, I am a Christian, and I am right-wing, but I am most definitely not a conservative. I never was and I never will be.

The reason is this: conservatives are nothing more than progressives in slow motion.

The author, a veteran, proceeds to address the neoconning of conservatism, as reflected in conservatism’s newfound enthusiasm for violently exporting what it deceptively calls “democracy” around the world:

Third, there is the issue of the war on Islamic extremism. Let me say upfront that, as a veteran of two foreign deployments in this war, I speak with some moral authority on it. So please do not lecture me on the need to sacrifice for one’s country or the nature of the threat that we face. I have gotten on that plane twice and have the medals and t-shirt to prove it. And, as a member of the one percent who have actually put my life on the line in these wars movement conservatives consider so vital, my question for you and every other conservatives is just when the hell did being conservative mean thinking the US has some kind of a duty to save foreign nations from themselves or bring our form of democratic republicanism to them by force? I fully understand the sad necessity to fight wars and I do not believe in “blow back” or any of the other nonsense that says the world will leave us alone if only we will do that same. At the same time, I cannot for the life of me understand how conservatives of all people convinced themselves that the solution to the 9-11 attacks was to forcibly create democracy in the Islamic world. I have even less explanations for how — 15 years and 10,000 plus lives later — conservatives refuse to examine their actions and expect the country to send more of its young to bleed and die over there to save the Iraqis who are clearly too slovenly and corrupt to save themselves.

The lowest moment of the election was when Trump said what everyone in the country knows: that invading Iraq was a mistake. Rather than engaging the question with honest self-reflection, all of the so called “conservatives” responded with the usual “How dare he?” Worse, they let Jeb Bush claim that Bush “kept us safe.” I can assure you that President Bush didn’t keep me safe. Do I and the other people in the military not count? Sure, we signed up to give our lives for our country and I will never regret doing so. But doesn’t our commitment require a corresponding responsibility on the part of the president to only expect us to do so when it is both necessary and in the national interest?

And since when is bringing democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan so much in the national interest that it is worth killing or maiming 50,000 Americans to try and achieve?

Devastating. Absolutely devastating.


The death of conservatism

Mike Cernovich explains how the pro-American mask has been stripped away from the globalists formerly known as conservatives:

Nationalism v. Globalism: The Death of Conservatism.

Trump’s rise has been met with cries that he is not a “true conservative.” The once-prestigious National Review devoted an entire issue crying about Trump. Called Against Trump, the issue brought in attacks from pro-war neocons and even the mentally-unstable Glen Beck.

What attacks on Trump failed to do was define conservatism. No one has been able to explain why waging wars on foreign soils or increasing federal spending more than any president since Lyndon B. Johnson, as George w. Bush did, was conservative. No one has explained how socialized medicine, which Mitt Roney enacted as government of Massachusetts, is conservative.

Question begging aside, Trump is not a “true conservative,” and in fact conservatism in the U.S. is dead.

Trump is a nationalist, which is a loaded term worthy of definition.

Nationalism derives from the root nation. A nationalist puts the interests of his own country, and by extension countrymen, above the interests of other nations. A nationalist puts America first. Nationalists will work with other countries, but only when in the best interest of the United States.

You’d think that the President of the United States would by definition be a nationalist. Nation is in the title of the job description. Yet mainstream conservatives have drifted away from nationalism and towards globalism.

To a globalist, Americans are no different from a Nigerian. If someone in a foreign land is able to do a job much cheaper than an American worker, then those jobs should be offshored. Americans, according to globalists, do not deserve to exist as an identity.

Globalists thus favor open borders, even though increased immigration lowers the wages of native-born Americans while increasing crimes. Marco Rubio, the darling of conservative elites, even sought to open America’s borders.

As part of the Gang of 8 (so named because 8 United State senators joined forces to bring a new world order to the U.S.), Rubio also sought to increase the number of migrants from Syria by millions. That the migrants from Syrian tend to be overwhelmingly men of prime-fighting age means nothing to Rubio or other globalists. America has no right to exist as a nation under the globalist worldview.

Trump rejected globalism with a powerful statement: Build the Wall. By building a wall, Trump meant the U.S. must erect a border between the United States and Mexico, as illegal immigrants, including drug dealers and even Islamic terrorists, poured across in the tens-of-millions. Building a wall is a powerful representation of nationalism.

“A nation cannot exist without a border,” Trump declared. A nation is it borders because a nation is its people. When you allow people who hate American values like freedom of speech, free enterprise, and tolerance for religion, you change the nation for the worse.

Mainstream conservatives, again, are globalists. They believe Americans do not have a right to exist as a people, and that America does not have the right to exist as a nation. Some my call that statement extreme, but if you do not define your borders or control who comes to America, as they do in Israel, how can you claim to be pro-America?

There is more, considerably more, there. A fair amount of it will be familiar to you if you have read Cuckservative: How “Conservatives” Betrayed America, but Mike puts his uniquely energetic spin on the matter. Read the whole thing.

And then ask yourself, how can any American, real or propositional, claim to be conservative when he actively opposes the conservation of America?


A Churchian sermon on politics

A Churchian cuckservative, appropriately named Peter Wehner, preaches a sermon against Donald Trump in the New York Times:

Among the most inexplicable developments in this bizarre political year is that Donald Trump is the candidate of choice of many evangelical Christians.

Mr. Trump won a plurality of evangelical votes in each of the last three Republican contests, in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. He won the glowing endorsement of Jerry Falwell Jr., the president of Liberty University, who has called him “one of the greatest visionaries of our time.” Last week, Pat Robertson, the founder and chairman of the Christian Broadcasting Network, told Mr. Trump during an interview, “You inspire us all.”

If this embrace strikes you as discordant, it should. This visionary and inspiring man humiliated his first wife by conducting a very public affair, chronically bullies and demeans people, and says he has never asked God for forgiveness. His name is emblazoned on a casino that features a strip club; he has discussed anal sex on the air with Howard Stern and, after complimenting his daughter Ivanka’s figure, pointed out that if she “weren’t my daughter, perhaps I would be dating her.” He once supported partial-birth abortion and to this day praises Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider. He is a narcissist appealing to people whose faith declares that pride goes before a fall.

Mr. Trump’s character is antithetical to many of the qualities evangelicals should prize in a political leader: integrity, compassion and reasoned convictions, wisdom and prudence, trustworthiness, a commitment to the moral good…. At its core, Christianity teaches that everyone, no matter at what
station or in what season in life, has inherent dignity and worth.
“Follow justice and justice alone,” Deuteronomy says, “so that you may
live and possess the land the Lord your God is giving you.” The attitude
of Thrasymachus is foreign to biblical Christianity. So is Trumpism. In
embracing it, evangelical Christians are doing incalculable damage to
their witness.

There are few Churchian phrases I hold in more contempt than “damage to their witness”. It’s passive-aggressive manipulative nonsense. In combination with their actions, use of the phrase shows what forked-tongued liars the Churchians are. The Churchian “witness” is pure poison. They preen and posture and virtue-signal and criticize and condemn, driving genuine believers from the pews while simultaneously welcoming women and sexual deviants and atheists to the pulpits.

Any decent, honest, self-respecting man would rather pledge his life to Satan, Cthulhu, or the Nameless Spirit of the Abyss than live life the way these mealy-mouthed, nominal Christians do. They don’t follow Jesus Christ and worship God, they follow public opinion and worship at the altar of social approval.

The punchline: Peter Wehner, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, served in the last three Republican administrations.

I don’t know if Jesus would vote for Donald Trump or not, but I know that he wouldn’t constantly lie like the Churchians do. And frankly, I think he’d drive an awful lot of Churchian sermonizers out of the Church with bullwhips, just as he drove the moneylenders out of the Temple.


American or Ameriboo?

Sarah Hoyt insists that she was “born American” in Portugal, to Portuguese parents:

I was born American. Yes, I was born in another country of foreign parents who would no more become American than fly unassisted, (and who desire it less than they wish to have have their heads shaved by a warthog) but I figure that was an accident of circumstance.  What really matters is that I was an American in my heart.  I just had to get here and become one in truth. (And that, by itself, is an American attitude.)

This week while talking to a friend about his foreign SO, I found myself explaining that other people, in other countries, have a hierarchy in their heads all the time — who is powerful, who isn’t, what attitude is proper.  You can find it (if you know where to look) even when reading British novels.

We’re not like that.  Whether we were born elsewhere or here, Americans — those of us who are proud of the name —  are rebels, revolutionaries, something new under the sun: a people who believe people should be equal in their right to life, the right to liberty, the right to pursue their happiness undisturbed by either inimical neighbors or oppressive “betters.”

It’s a bit ironic, in that the ideas she is using to justify her “born American” claim were initially put forth by four not-exactly-American individuals, one a French tourist, one a French immigrant, one a Russian Jew living in Britain, and one a Jew of Portuguese descent born in New York City.

Not a single one of whom belonged to the American posterity for whom the blessings of liberty were intended, according to the Preamble to the Constitution.

It’s telling, is it not, how all of these foreigners and immigrants just happened to produce a new definition of American that included them, a definition that was not held by the Founding Fathers. Nor is it a coincidence that this self-serving definition was subsequently used to justify the largest invasion to have ever taken place in human history, an invasion that has severely weakened the once-mighty American nation.

My fellow Native American, John Red Eagle, and I addressed this very point in our book Cuckservative:

America is not a propositional nation, it is a distinct nation of people with their own customs, traditions, DNA, and culture, and it is a nation that has the right to defend its own existence. 

The Founding Fathers were clear on the issue:

All persons born in the British American Colonies are, by the laws of God and nature and by the common law of England, exclusive of all charters from the Crown, well entitled, and by acts of the British Parliament are declared to be entitled, to all the natural, essential, inherent, and inseparable rights, liberties, and privileges of subjects born in Great Britain or within the realm.
 – Samuel Adams

“Although as to other foreigners it is thought better to discourage their settling together in large masses, wherein, as in our German settlements, they preserve for a long time their own languages, habits, and principles of government, and that they should distribute themselves sparsely among the natives for quicker amalgamation, yet English emigrants are without this inconvenience.”
 – Thomas Jefferson

The opinion advanced is undoubtedly correct, that foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners. They will also entertain opinions on government congenial with those under which they have lived; or, if they should be led hither from a preference to ours, how extremely unlikely is it that they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, so essential to real republicanism? 
– Alexander Hamilton


Why should the Palatine Boors be suffered to swarm into our settlements, and by herding together establish their languages and manners to the exclusion of ours? Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our language or customs, any more than they can acquire our complexion?
– Ben Franklin

One cannot no more become an American by virtue of one’s thoughts or feelings about revolution or equality than one can become Australian, Canadian, or any other nation of English descent. That’s why, unlike Irish-Americans, Swedish-Americans, and Italian-Americans, there are no hybrid “English-Americans”. Like it or not, the fact is that they are the American nation and the posterity of the Constitution.

The Japanese have a word for a foreigner who is so enamored of Japanese concepts and culture that they come to identify with it. We had a few in my class in Tokyo; they would wear their yukatas and religiously perform tea ceremonies every day. Sarah could be reasonably described as an American weebo.

The fact that America is a nation weakened and watered-down by mass immigration and over a century of intermingling with other nations does not change the fact of its historical existence. Many of its predecessor nations are now gone, lost forever to history, but that does not mean that they never existed in the first place.

The ironic thing about all this is that Sarah has repeatedly insisted that I “don’t get Europe” despite having lived in a European country for nearly two decades and most of my adult life. And perhaps she is right. Every European country I have visited has customs that occasionally strike me as certifiably insane. But what is also true is that she doesn’t know what America is, she is no more properly “American” than a Spanish-speaking Peruvian who has lived his entire life in Iquitos, and she certainly wasn’t born American in any sense of the term.

She is, without question, what might be called USian. But it is increasingly apparent that there is a large and growing gap between the USian transnationalists and the American nationalists, a gap that history strongly suggests will lead to either secession or civil war.

Moreover, in order to claim that she is American while simultaneously denying that I am Italian, she must deny that America is – or increasingly, was – a distinct nation of people with their own customs, traditions, DNA, and culture. And is that something that anyone who loves the American nation and is truly part of it would do?

Marco Rubio and Rupert Murdoch claim to be Americans too. But their actions observably belie their claims. What Sarah is pushing is a bizzare form of replacement theology, where right-thinking New Americans are grafted on to replace those pesky Old Americans whose blood and traditions and Constitution are no longer deemed necessary to the replacement nation.

Sarah writes: “We are a radical experiment, a nation not of blood and genes, but a nation of heart, of mind, of belief.”

Perhaps. But that is not America. That is the alien collective which is in the process of devouring the genuine American nation, staking claim to its property, and assuming its identity.

UPDATE: It is hilarious to see the commenters over there posturing, assuring Sarah she as American as they are, and asking “do you even history” while producing howlers like this:

The big difference you are missing – whether deliberately or not – is
that the United States is not one of those nations formed by forcing
other countries together into a whole.

In addition to eliminating hundreds of Indian nations (which is handwaved aside because Cherokee), there is the very slight matter of THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR which ended the voluntary union of sovereign countries and established the modern USian empire.

Like every other multi-ethnic empire in history, the USA is held together by force and nothing more than force. And it won’t hold together much longer, in part because there are now more Ameriboos than Americans residing in it.

UPDATE 2: See, they’re all about freedom of speech because they are totally real Americans. A white knight nobly riding to Sarah’s rescue – as if she can’t defend herself – tweeted both of us this:

Vox Day is a fucking fascist… I will punch the guy in his nazi face if I ever find him!

It’s funny to think how many people have said something like that. Yet for some reason, in person everyone tends to back down. I wonder if 29 years of weightlifting might have anything to do with that?