Trump’s choices

I know my point of view is out of step with much of the right, but I am not happy with some of the choices Trump is making for his cabinet. They seem decidedly politically correct to me.

At first glance it might seem that Jeff Sessions was a sound choice, but given how he is leaning over backwards to prove he is ‘not a racist’, citing his bona fides as a champion of desegregation/civil rights activist, we’re going to be seeing a lot more of the ‘mainstream’ right posturing and marginalizing of the traditional South. It’s already happening, with the usual ‘Democrats are the real racists’ articles.

Sessions was born in 1946 so he is old enough to have grown up amongst unreconstructed Southerners. Truth be told there were very few Whites back in those times who broke rank with fellow Whites — even in the North — to make common cause with blacks; usually only the most liberal would do so. Did he really have an epiphany then or is he just being a typical politician and going whichever way the winds blow? He is also a Methodist by faith and it does seem that Methodists today are a very liberal denomination, given to ‘social justice’ crusading.

Surely, also, Sessions must know something of that certain ‘taboo’ organization, which he ‘broke the back’ of in his state; that at least at its inception it was not a terrorist mob, but a self-defense organization, made necessary by the fact that there was no law and order or justice for the disenfranchised Whites in the South. They were preyed upon by carpetbaggers from the North, traitor ‘scallywags’ from amongst their own, and by the newly-freed slaves, who ran rampant. That now-proscribed organization was at first made up of respectable men, of the upper classes, who simply wanted to protect their families and lives in a lawless situation, that of Reconstruction. There is no excuse for a man like Sessions not to know that history, and I am certain he does know it. He chooses to participate in the anti-White, PC interpretation of the past.

The organization of that same name is apparently not the same now, being mostly composed of agents and operatives, according to what I’ve heard. Even so, how much violence have they committed, such as they are, as opposed to BLM? Or foreign terrorists?

Will anyone ever step forward to try to correct the popular delusions about that era of history? Trump, according to some of the faithful, has destroyed PC — but from where I stand it looks to be as entrenched as ever.

Maybe Sessions will be ‘good’ on immigration. Maybe. But I’m not taking that on faith.

Then there’s Nimrata “Nikki” Haley, who presided over the removal of the Confederate Battle Flag in South Carolina. Trump was aware of the CBF controversy, and I thought he had said something that vaguely indicated support for ‘free expression’ where the flag was concerned. But why, then, pick this woman?

Surprisingly quite a few Southrons, because of what I see as unwarranted blind faith in Trump are giving him a pass on this.

This evidently makes me a ‘purist’ or ‘hard-liner’ in some people’s eyes because I don’t have that kind of faith. So be it; I’m used to this being the case. Despite the amount of time and space I devote to these political things, I have less and less belief in our political system, or in politics per se; everyone these days says politics is all about compromise and dissimulating if need be to trick the enemy (and the constituencies). If so, then there’s no hope of real solutions there. If lying and dissembling is intrinsic to politics, necessarily, then it won’t save us. I have thought more and more that the culture is where the battle is to be fought. As long as the edifice of lies that is our society is still mostly unchanged, politics won’t be the solution. It only reflects the wider world, corrupt as it is.

As far as the endless defenses of moves like this by Trump, I get a definite feeling of déjà vu, taking me back to the ‘W’ years, in which everything G.W. Bush did was rationalized as ‘he’s gaming the system‘, or ‘it’s strategery‘, or ‘it’s rope-a-dope.’ Everything was a brilliant move shrewdly disguised as blundering. No one wanted to admit that his actions were exactly what they appeared to be, rather than some clever, cunning maneuver. I expect that kind of pattern with Trump; the true believers are so invested in him that there will be literally no end of the rationalizations.

Minorities voted Trump?

According to the exit polls I’ve seen since the election, there was no upsurge in minority votes for Trump this time, as contrasted to previous candidates. Yet I keep seeing claims on every other right-leaning blog that ‘Hispanics went for Trump’ or ‘lots of blacks voted for Trump.’ Depends on how you define ‘lots’, apparently. According to the Diversity is Chaos blog, citing Reuters/Ipsos polls, Trump got 8 percent of the black vote, and 27 percent of Hispanic votes.

Now, can we please, please dispense with the wishful thinking, the spin, and the half-truths/half lies? Why is this going on? I thought the right was the realist faction in America. Are people purposely lying or are they just pulling numbers out of their hats? Somebody on a right-wing blog today claimed that 33 percent of Hispanics voted for Trump; of course they cited no source.

It does seem to me to be especially important to many people on the right, even on what is deemed ‘hard right’, to imagine that lots of POCs are, or could be, on our side, if we just make them welcome. Obviously that was Donald Trump’s belief (or strategy), given his constant efforts to court minorities, especially blacks and (legal) Hispanics. But all evidence is that it didn’t work, because according to the Diversity is Chaos post, Trump had less support from Hispanics and blacks than any president in the last 40 years. His percentage of the Hispanic vote was the same as Mitt Romney’s, and less than the alleged 40 percent that George W. Bush got in 2004.

Even in that often-cited 2004 total, there were those who doubted that the 40 percent was accurate, but it seemed as if the GOP was doing some magical thinking, as if saying that Hispanics were coming over to our side would make it true.

And if blacks and Hispanics did join the GOP or a theoretical ‘right-wing’ party (none exists, of course) what would we have then? Eventually two parties where Whites and their interests are marginalized.

Secession for some, not others

I see that some Oregonians are talking of their state seceding after the Trump victory. Typical childish tantrum-throwing, sulking and ‘threats’ from the overgrown infants called ‘progressives.’

I thought it was bad enough during the G.W. Bush years, but the left has grown ‘progressively’ more unhinged with each passing year.

Why not let Oregon and California, likewise, go if they no longer want to be part of these United States? If a majority of Oregonians want to secede I believe (as did my ancestors) that they have a right to do so. After all, in a purportedly free country, how can we keep people in the Union by coercion or force?

However it appears that most of Oregon, comprising the rural areas mainly, voted Republican in this election; this Christian Trejbal quoted in the piece is evidently not typical of Oregon residents, though he may delude himself that he is. After all he probably associates only with other ‘progressives’ and lives in a bubble in one of the liberal enclaves: a big city or an academic town.

As for California, as it is now well on the way to becoming a majority Mexican state, maybe there is a case for that state to secede, based on majority sentiment. Some people have been saying for years that we should throw California to the Mexican government and in return they might stop sending their rejects and criminals across our border. I doubt California would be enough to satisfy them; if they could conquer it demographically, by stealth over the years, they can do the same with other states. Why facilitate the takeover? And if the border with Mexico was moved north, why on earth would Mexicans or other Latin Americans respect that border any more than they have respected the current border?

If California became part of Mexico, we would have to get serious about enforcing the immigration laws, and stop leaving the doors wide open for anyone and everyone to come sauntering in. But the thing that exasperates me most about this secession talk is that the media treats the Oregon and California threats as reasonable, while any talk from the South of secession meets with scorn. Even among conservatives online, many Northerners want to re-fight the War Between the States, throwing around words like ‘treason’ when any Southern state or state mentions seceding.

Why the double standard? Many Northerners want to play the role of a control-freak spouse, saying ‘if you leave, I’ll hunt you down and kill you. You can never leave..’ Half a million people died in the War Between the States because, dammit, the South had no right to break up the Holy Sacred Union. They had to be crushed, subdued, and humbled — even to this day, with the destruction of our monuments, the banning of our flag, and even the exhuming of our heroes. So let the northern states who want their ‘progressive multicult utopias leave, and let them live with the consequences of their actions. No sneaking back into our country, no restoration of citizenship. Or maybe if they begged to re-enter the Union they would have to undergo Reconstruction as their ancestors inflicted on the South. It would be fitting.


Yesterday I was cautiously optimistic, but I admit that Trump’s victory today was somewhat surprising  — and I admit that all the naysaying talk about how ”They” wouldn’t  let him win, or “They” wouldn’t allow us to take back our country was even affecting my attitude.

Even now, as Hillary (or Queen Xanxia as I’ve been calling her: a Dr. Who allusion) has reportedly conceded, there are honestly Republicans on the Internet saying they won’t believe it, because she would never concede. Or they are saying that Trump can’t officially win until she appears in public and makes a formal concession speech. This is how hard it is for some to accept that the ‘Lizard Queen’ is not invincible or superhuman. They really think she can hold up the process by not making a formal speech. As far as I know there is no law that the losing candidate has to officially concede in front of the national media — it may be a tradition but it is not an ironclad rule, surely.

I still remember election night in November, 2000 when that sore loser Al Gore, after having called G.W. Bush to concede, then turned around shortly thereafter and took back his concession. I was flabbergasted; so graceless and childish on his part. So we can never overestimate the left’s capacity for treachery and dishonesty — but though they may have fits of  petulance and try to sabotage things, they can’t overturn the results of the election just because they don’t like to lose.

I think our folk have lived under political correctness and leftist manipulation for so long that we are like a psychologically beaten and whipped people. I think we’ll need de-programming or something to re-learn our self-confidence and to stop overestimating our enemies. ‘They are but men’, as the Bible says of the arrogant and powerful; they are not superhuman, not even Hillary.

No predictions, but…

I wouldn’t be foolish enough to predict the result of tomorrow’s election. I certainly have hopes for a certain outcome, and I certainly do pray for the desired outcome.

I will say that, contrary to the belief of the Republican faithful like those at Free Republic, I don’t believe that there will be a groundswell of support for Trump among blacks. Or Hispanics. Those who claim to see that are wishful thinkers — in my opinion.

Malcolm Jaggers, at The Right Stuff, says much the same thing in a good piece today, titled About Those Mythical Conservative Blacks.

“The spectacle that Trump has made of himself trying to persuade Blacks in particular to vote for him have been not just futile, but almost embarrassing. Establishment Republicans think it’s simply fantastic, which kind of proves how feckless it is. Yes, there are realpolitik reasons for urban outreach that go beyond face value. Nonetheless, there is just no evidence that Blacks are yearning for “economic zones” to be created in the inner city. I would love to be contradicted on that point, and if Blacks vote for Trump at a percentage higher than I can count on one hand, I will consider myself officially contradicted.”

The ‘economic zones’ that have been proposed sound rather familiar. They were promoted by Jack Kemp and later by the Reagan administration. Need I say that they weren’t a smashing success? Regardless, even if we believed such things would work to ‘lift up’ minorities, as the TRS piece points out, they tend to vote by race; they are not attracted by policy proposals and abstract ideas.

However if a few minorities cross over and vote for Trump, so much the better, but then the GOP will end up, possibly, as a demographic mirror image of the Democrats, as we try to include everybody, and those ‘everybodies’ want coddling and special attention to their causes and their ‘felt needs.’

Then there’s this: if (heaven forbid) we lose this election, the party honchos will be saying ‘we didn’t do enough outreach to minorities; we’ve got to try harder.’ How has that worked out so far?


Shock and denial

‘…there is nothing new under the sun.‘ – Ecclesiastes, 1:9

That was written by Solomon many centuries ago. And it’s true, even when it comes to human depravity. Some of us say that today’s world is much more depraved than the recent past, and at least on the surface, that view can be defended. There was a brief period, under the influence of Christianity, when human evil was somewhat diminished, or at least, to take a more skeptical view, driven underground.

Critics of the Bible, who are more outspoken today than ever, frequently like to point at certain incidents in the Old Testament which they say constitute proof that the Bible is ‘full of filth’. Yes, there are some very distasteful and shocking episodes in those books of Scripture, but they are there as a stark illustration of what unredeemed humanity is capable of. In no way are they meant to titillate, or to sensationalize, much less to excuse human evil.

On the other hand, we have Christians who are so high-minded that they avoid such passages because they prefer a Christian faith that is all sweetness and light; they don’t like to be confronted with the ugly side of this world. Then there are the many Christians of today who don’t believe in the supernatural; they may (or may not) believe in the virgin birth, or Jesus’ miracles of healing, or his walking on water — but they don’t believe, truly, in a Devil. One of my highly-educated Christian friends says she does not believe in a ‘literal’ Satan, only in the fact of a human ‘shadow side’ that we all possess, and that we must all ‘own’. That’s not the same, though, as the Biblical view that all human beings are fallen; she believes we are ‘basically good’.

For these people, any talk of various forms of depravity being practiced by prominent and powerful people is not credible, because it does not fit the complacent worldview these people have cobbled together for themselves. It shakes their very idea of life itself and of human nature to even ponder the possibility that some of the worst rumors may be true. They don’t want to believe it.

We see that expressed here on this Reddit thread, where several people who appear to be very worldly-wise are voicing extreme shock about some of the allegations that are being bandied about. Yet I myself am not shocked, nor do I rule out the real possibility that where there is smoke, (which has been evident for many years), there may just be fire. And this, considering that I don’t watch modern movies or TV shows because of their decadence and vulgarity;  therefore I’ve developed no tolerance to it, as have many of those who consume it avidly. It does have a way of inuring people, making them shockproof, as I call it. Yet many people are seemingly shocked by what is being discussed these last few days.

Ann Barnhardt writes briefly about the allegations on her blog, and points out that she has been warning of this for years. Maybe it takes someone who seriously believes in such a thing as ‘spiritual wickedness in high places’ to accept the plausibility of it. I think that she has written about similar allegations regarding the highest circles in the Catholic hierarchy. So these things are not unheard of; where were all these oh-so-stunned people all these years?

Remember, too, the ongoing accusations against the rich and powerful in the UK? Maybe many Americans are not as familiar with those stories. There were many, many people of both sexes who reported being the victims, as teens or children, of certain celebrities like the late Jimmy Savile.

But Jimmy still has his staunch fans who defend his ”good name”, saying that the accusers were liars looking for attention or money. And that response to their stories explains, in part, why we don’t hear from the purported victims — there are powerful forces who will stifle their claims, and there are just plain stupid people, fans of the ‘celebrities’ and the politicians who are the accused, who will shout ‘liar!’ at the victims.

More examples? Rolf Harris, yes, the ‘Tie Me Kangaroo Down, Sport’ guy. “Oh, but he was so warm, so funny, so witty, he just couldn’t do things like that!” Same with Michael Jackson in this country.

Another factor in these cases is the “normalcy bias” which I referred to the other day. People are strongly invested in protecting their particular, comfy version of reality. It seems to pose a threat to people’s mental well-being to imagine that they may have been wrong to trust in a predictable and mostly benign world and people.

But we might dismiss the accused celebrity deviates as just being the typical ‘artistic’ personality, the type who dabble in the transgressive. Michael Jackson was just eccentric and misunderstood. Savile just liked kids. Same with Rolf Harris, et al.
But what of the very powerful, who presumably have ‘everything to lose’? Have people forgotten, or maybe they never heard of, the Belgian scandals?

The link above may be considered biased by some, but here are other accounts:

From the left-wing BBC

and as we see here, Wikileaks was also involved in publishing details of the Dutroux case several years ago, which implicated people at the highest levels in Belgium and possibly elsewhere.

Why, then, is there still an unwillingness to even consider the veracity of the allegations? It’s not as though it’s unprecedented. Maybe the fact that only those who are sneered at as ‘tinfoil hat’ sources have written about these things, while the “mainstream” controlled media, in recent years, shies away.

I suppose we should be encouraged to see that there are still Americans who are capable of being shocked at the mention of these things. Yet if we avert our eyes and insist that it’s just too much to believe, then we are enabling such things, which do in fact happen in this fallen world.

Christians in particular are called to be ‘wise as serpents’ yet harmless as doves. But if we are to be  ‘dove-like’ when confronted with evil, what use are we?

‘What they saw’

The headline on this piece quotes a source saying that investigating NYPD officers were ‘sickened by what they saw’ in the e-mail evidence in the Hillary investigation.

How trustworthy the sources are here is beyond me; I’m not familiar with the websites from which this information comes, so I leave that judgement to those who know more about them.

What I do know, because I remember the late 1990s during the Clinton pre-impeachment scandal(s), is that all the right-wing forums were a-buzz with rumor and speculation every time someone leaked new ‘revelations’ about the Clintons’ misconduct. Every time, the headlines screamed ‘Latest bombshells will finally expose the Clintons! Smoking gun found!‘ or similar sensationalism. Whatever it was, there was always something that was promoted as being ‘the Big One! This is it! This will make Clinton resign!’

As history shows, no matter what was revealed, it was never enough to cause the shameless Clintons and their minions and defenders to admit anything, much less to retire in disgrace. They brazened it out till the bitter end, even being so bold as to trash the White House when they departed. Of course the liberal lying media denied what happened, following their pattern of covering up anything done by ‘their own.’ If you search on the subject you will find the media sycophants calling the damage just ‘pranks’ and mischief, downplaying it, if not outright denying that it happened.

This is what happens with a dishonest media machine; Thomas Jefferson wrote so often of the vital importance of a free and independent press. We are now living the consequences of not guarding against the corruption of the media, and the concentration of media control in a few, very politicized hands.

So, it may be that these latest ‘bombshells’, this time involving much more than ‘juvenile pranks’ like trashing the White House, or worse even than the Lewinski lewdness, will prove devastating to the corrupt Democrat crime machine and all their degenerate associates and contributors. We can hope.

But personally I am not investing too much in this latest story, not until it is actually out in the open, if ever. It may prove to be yet another of many damp squibs, as with virtually all of the ‘explosive revelations’ against the Clintons in the late 90s.

The thing is, our enemies, the ‘progressives’, liberals, Democrats, are people who are generally lacking in morals, especially as regards sexual behavior. Even when sexual behavior becomes transgressive to the point of violating the laws of God and man, they have no sense of shame. They generally can’t be shocked, being very amoral people in a deep sense. Oh, sure, they have perfected the art of feigning shock, when they can find a political enemy caught in some compromising situation  — like when some Christian minister is caught in sexual misbehavior. Then they suddenly are full of high morals, reacting with condemnation, for example, if the misbehavior happens to involve homosexuality — while normally they champion, no, celebrate homosexuality. And look at how they defend, even now, Roman Polanski.

They are not like normal people who recoil from certain things naturally; they are hardened in their amorality; everything is excused as a lack of understanding on our part; everyone is a victim of genes or childhood trauma (child abusers, for example) or their behavior is called good and natural (transsexualism, homosexuality, bestiality).

There is nothing much that can shock them, and when it comes to politics they would defend the Devil himself because after all he is one of their own.

So, we’ll see what develops. It would be a great surprise, and decidedly a good thing if some eleventh-hour revelation brings down the Democrats and all their associates and enablers, especially in the media. That would be the kind of deus-ex-machina we need, but if they are to be defeated it may just be down to the usual factors: let the elections play out, and pray that the vote-rigging does not work this time for the Democrat machine.

A New ‘New Deal’











Categorize this under ‘more White paternalism.’


Evangelicals prefer Trump

According to one poll, 69 per cent of Evangelicals prefer Trump.

This contradicts what many of the news media have been saying, and it’s also the opposite of the popular opinion on many Alt-Right/dissident right blogs, where people say that Christians will not vote for Trump.

Personally I think that the seculars out there who are Trump supporters simply have a low opinion of Christians (or Evangelicals specifically), as the public at large has been conditioned to have negative images of Christians. So many on the secular right are lumping Christians together with the ‘Churchians.’ Not all Christians are Churchians, or ‘cucked’.

I live in a town where the majority of people are Christian, I mean, actively Christian, who belong to churches and attend every Sunday. They even read (and believe) their Bibles. They aren’t just casual Christians; they’re not just Christians by default because they haven’t yet become Moslems or Hindus or Mormons or atheists. But in my town, the vast majority of yard signs, bumper stickers or other such displays are for Trump. I have seen one sign for Hillary, though there may be a handful here and there.

Even in the University town which is about 20 minutes away, I have seen a total of two yard signs for Hillary. It’s hard to believe because that town, population about 80,000, is an ultra-liberal town, populated by many academics and young naive college kids. There are still some ‘Bernie’ signs there that were never taken down; Bernie was the choice for most of the lefties there. But I’ve seen two Hillary signs in my recent visits.

Anecdotes aren’t data, I know. But if there is a lot of support for Hillary, people must be too embarrassed to show their support. I can only hope they will be too embarrassed to go to the polls to vote for Hillary.

The media, I think, are trying to demoralize potential Trump voters by their barrage of false data and skewed ‘news.’

Big revelations no surprise

The Drudge headline about the Enquirer’s ‘stunning revelations’ about Hillary gives the impression that these stories are something new. In fact, as most people are aware the rumors and allegations have been circulating for decades. So the ‘revelations’ are about as surprising as Shep Smith’s admission that he is gay. It’s old news.

Will it have any effect on voters? I can’t imagine those who are supporting Hillary turning against her, as that demographic is already fully programmed with the pro-homosexual belief system; they can only see it as a plus that Hillary may be ‘gay.’ Being ‘gay’ is now hailed as an act of ‘bravery and courage’, though how it is ”courageous” to be what one is supposedly born to be is unclear to me. According to the ‘gay gene’ believers, homosexuals have no choice in the matter; they are simply genetically gay. No matter; things don’t have to make sense to the PC crowd; their brains are full of all kinds of conflicting beliefs and contradictions. They don’t even see that, so lost are they.

So Hillary’s core supporters will not turn against her, but will likely hail her for these ‘revelations’, and/or accuse those who are reporting the story of being ‘homophobic bigots.’ She will be twice as heroic because she might become more of a victim, and all the world loves a victim today.

Will some of the liberal ‘evangelicals’ who are horrified by voting for Trump be shocked by these stories, and change their vote from Hillary to Trump? No, those people are usually pro-”tolerance” already. Many of the churches, even some of the more conservative, historically Calvinistic churches, are adopting gay-friendly policies; “love the sinner, hate only the sin”, as their spiritual exemplar Gandhi said.

I’ve said before that there are no social conservatives left anymore; that may be a slight exaggeration. There are, however, vanishingly few Christians, let alone non-Christians, who object to homosexuality or any kind of sexual misbehavior anymore. The GOP, which was for a while the home of something called the Christian Right, is for the most part willing to welcome homosexuals. What kind of resistance did the political right put up against same-sex ‘marriage’?

As the GOP tolerates the presence of people like Lindsey Graham, obviously they are not going to suddenly go all moralistic about a story like this one about Hillary. No doubt there are quite a few closeted homosexuals in the Republican Party; remember Larry Craig? Then there was Denny Hastert, whose history was more reprehensible because it involved minors. So no, the Republicans don’t have room to throw stones here. They too have become corrupt and compromised.

One charge that could be made here with the Hillary allegations is hypocrisy; why has she not openly announced her sexual preferences, if true? It can’t be because of “homophobia” or fear of an intolerant public, because society has become almost infatuated with gays, thanks to concerted efforts by homosexual ”activists” and a complicit media. So why would anyone not want to capitalize on their ”special” sexuality, in a perverse age that hails such things as ‘heroic’? Why not cash in on that capital and make use of it? There’s no reason to fear coming out these days, while remaining closeted could be seen as not just hypocritical, but cowardly.

But not to worry; I don’t think this will change things one way or the other.