The violence at Trump rallies

For years, in the Obama regime, naturally, blacks have been attacking whites and Asians in sudden but premeditated assaults, which came to be called “the knockout game”. You can read all about it here. Have you just heard about it? In that case you may have been dwelling on the planet of liberal media.

But one Trump supporter attacks a black agitator being removed from a Trump rally, and we have a national crisis of violence? No, what we have is a member of the white race punching a member of the liberal mascot victim group, American blacks. That is the crisis. Liberal victim groups are sacred! It is the only sacredness admitted by the Left to exist. And when whites, the most despised social group in Obama’s America, finally summon the courage to react to anti-white racism and discrimination, to the flooding of their country with uncontrolled immigration, to the decline of their living standards, and most important of all, to the endless attacks on their moral integrity for the crime of simply being white, well, folks, that is a a crisis of the most serious kind in the hegemony of leftist thought.

Here is a link to Ezra Klein’s heavy breathing on Trump’s “ideology of violence”. Klein writes:

 

The topic was protesters, and Trump’s frustration was clear. “They’re being politically correct the way they take them out,” he sighed. “Protesters, they realize there are no consequences to protesting anymore. There used to be consequences. There are none anymore.”

“Our country has to toughen up folks,” he continued. “We have to toughen up. These people are bringing us down. They are bringing us down. These people are so bad for our country, you have no idea.”

This is more than an aside; this is the core of Trump’s ideology. The protesters who interrupted his rally, the political correctness that kept the police from cracking their skulls, the press that takes the hippies’ side — this is why America has stopped being great. We were strong, and we were tough, and we didn’t take this kind of shit from anybody. And now we are weak, and we are scared, and we take this kind of shit from everybody.

I know intimately the tactics of the Left. They demonize, since rational opposition to their views is impossible. They never argue; they only seek one’s social exclusion. They incite the violence and then blame the victim of their violence for causing it. Trump had to shut down a rally in Chicago because of the threat of violence from a Left-wing organization, funded by Soros, yet that lickspittle National Post is blaming Trump.

03-15-16cle

 

This will continue and intensify until Trump wins the election. Make no mistake what this election is about: it is the reaction of the white race (and all other sensible people, but whites especially)  to its systematic denigration and exclusion from its place in the moral universe. The Left wants a racial fight? It has got one, and it is going to get more vicious, because it MUST be won, for the future of the American people. America will not long survive if its founding political culture is  destroyed by the destruction of the white race. Since the Left insists there is something particularly evil in being white, I am allowed, and Americans are allowed, to insist there is some particular virtue in the political order it upholds. Race-ism is a grievous moral distortion, but as a short-hand way of saying it, the political culture that made America great will not long survive the moral extinction planned for whites by the political Left. The attack on political correctness by Trump is an attack on everything that is wrong with America under Obama: of which the ideology of Saul Alinksy, Michael Moore, and Black Lives Matter are but exemplars.

You wanted this fight, you commie nihilists. You got one. Let liberals deplore all they want. This is a fight that must be allowed to play out.

Mrs. Dalwhinnie is pissed off

And not at me, for a change. No, nor at Gian Ghomeshi, the man who used to host  the leading morning show on CBC radio. She is pissed off at the women who testified against him. As their case has fallen apart under questioning, it appears they have lied, colluded, and compromized themselves hugely by having sexual relations with the odious Mr. Ghomeshi, after the alleged violent acts he committed against them. Mrs Dalwhinnie feels that her sex has been let down by the conniving creeps who testified against him. Apparently Christie Blatchford feels the same way.

Whatever else, the courtroom at Old City Hall, where the sex assault trial of Jian Ghomeshi ended Thursday, was generally a lousy place to be for a woman.

Everywhere you looked, there were women being caught in lies or omissions on the witness stand and then resorting to justifications for their evasive conduct taken straight from the therapist’s couch or latest self-help book; women being escorted in and out of the courtroom by protectors from the victim-witness office; women being soothed, IRL and online by their supporters, who took to labelling certain blogposts or tweets with “trigger warnings,” lest, God forbid, victims of sexual assault should accidentally wander onto a dangerous opinion or factual situation and be re-traumatized.

Tyler Anderson/National Post

Tyler Anderson/National Post Jian Ghomeshi arrives at the courthouse for the final day of his sexual assault trial in Toronto, Thursday, Feb. 11, 2016.

It was akin to being a member, by virtue of gender alone, of an over-delicate, slightly feeble-minded citizenry in need of perpetual deference and protection both.

God bless you, Blatchford, for saying that. Her video at the same site says the the women were duplicitous, lied, and misled the police. Worse, the environment at the police department has been overtaken by PC, where women are treated as a slightly feeble-minded citizenry in need of perpetual deference and protection.

I do not know where this feminist thing will end, but so far as I have ever been able to make out, it is and has been  a cry for privilege, for the right to compete but the entitlement to a better outcome, and above all, to be treated as morally superior.

Once, decades ago, I had one of those strange dinner gatherings that one can have in one’s thirties  where people who had never met before were at table together. A girlfriend of a friend of a friend started on the usual feminist rant: the full litany of “we are oppressed, have always been oppressed by males” and she quite clearly did not have the least expectation that anyone would dare to say a word against her. A older lady had taken out knitting as this was going on, and she stopped in a stitch and asked, fixing the young woman with an eye:

“So, are you saying then, that women are morally superior to men?”

A silence fell, as the young lady had the wit to realize that she could not go on without making precisely the kind of claim she said she abhorred when it was done to her sex.

And that pretty well sums up the entire history of feminism: the claim that women are morally superior beings to men. Nothing I have observed of women’s behaviour compared to men’s would lead me, or anyone else for that matter, to that conclusion. And so I no more defer to women than I do to men, other than on the basis of character, age, class, rank, infirmity and the myriad real things by which humans are distinguished.

As C.S.Lewis once observed, you might go to a woman for compassion but you would almost always go to a man for justice.

 

Toeing the line: such are the joys of a controlled broadcasting sector

One of my animating passions is the importance of the Internet for freedom of expression. You do not have to get your blogging licence renewed annually for $56.00 from the CRTC (just send your money by credit card to the Minister of Finance – they make it so easy and convenient to pay). Nor do you have to conform to the CRTC’s broadcasting exemption order, which gives you the right to “broadcast” across the Internet without a licence if you conform to its provisions.

As a blogger you do not belong to the regulated universe of broadcasting. You sit down to the computer and write, post pictures, upload videos, and voilà, your blog is ready for however many or few people can be attracted to it.

Broadcasting is a different matter. From the beginning, broadcasting has been heavily regulated by the state for cultural, economic and political purposes, everywhere in the world. The original justification was that broadcasters used precious radio spectrum, which is a public resource,  and that signal channels needed to be assigned to particular uses and users so that interference would be prevented.

But once the hand of regulation was laid on broadcasting, the grip has never ceased nor its hold lessened.

Take for example, the leading issue of our time: the role of Islam in our future. Europe has been convulsed with a refugee migration, numbering in the millions, of young males who have been taught by their religion and society that they are conquerors of women and that non-Muslims are fair game for assault and rape. Mixing young Muslim men from unreformed societies into the modern world of Europe: what could possibly go wrong?

Just about everything. But you are not going to hear about “Asian” sex slavery gangs in Britain, or mass sexual assaults in Europe from your carefully controlled state broadcasters. No sirree! The carefully  controlled public and private broadcasters exercize restraint and discretion in how they treat outrages committed by Islamic street trash.

Breitbart London reports the a top German journalist has admitted that the state broadcasters take their orders from the “political class”.

A retired media boss at a major German state broadcaster has admitted his network and others take orders from the government on what — and what not — to report.

National public service broadcaster Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen (ZDF), which was recently forced into a humiliating apology for their silence on migrant violence and sex assault is being drawn into a fresh scandal after one of their former bureau chiefs admitted the company takes orders from the government on what it reports. He said journalists received instructions to write news that would be “to Ms. Merkel’s liking”.

Former head of ZDF Bonn Dr. Wolfgang Herles make the remarks during a radio event (from minute 27) in Berlin where journalists discussed the media landscape. Moving on to the freedom of the press, the panel chair asked Dr. Herles whether things in Germany had got “seriously out of whack”. With an honesty perhaps unusual in Germany, Dr. Herles replied that ordinary Germans were totally losing faith in the media, something he called a “scandal”. He said:

“We have the problem that – now I’m mainly talking about the public [state] media – we have a closeness to the government. Not only because commentary is mainly in line with the grand coalition (CSU, CDU, and SPD), with the spectrum of opinion, but also because we are completely taken in by the agenda laid down by the political class”.

“We are completely taken in by the agenda of the political class”.

There is nothing unusual or surprizing in this admission; German media are no more directed by government than are Canadian, and if they are, it is irrelevant to the argument I am making.

Broadcast media are the slaves of the agenda of the political class. Their enslavement is manifested by government regulation, by whose grace and favour they hold their licences, and to government funding, which keeps them alive. And no one  should imagine that private broadcasters are any the less enslaved to government licences because they are also enslaved to private sources of advertizing revenues.

[Take our own broadcasting system as a case in point. We have only to consider Lisa LaFlamme of CTV news hyping every story of political incorrectness and victim-mongering versus the relative calmer national broadcaster, to see the truth of that assertion].

Can you think of one issue of importance in contemporary life where the broadcast media have not toed the line laid out by the political class? Islam? Anthropogenic global warming? Mass uncontrolled immigration?(in the US), multiculturalism? Political correctness?

toe the line 3

Toeing the line: all feet come forward the same distance and height

And can you think of a single important political issue since 1990 where the contest against it did not start in the unregulated blogosphere? Certainly talk radio in the United States has assisted the expression of non-conforming thought. Yet the overwhelming case against the preferred positions of the political class have had their origin and found their audience through the blogosphere.

The most important function of the controlled media, here and elsewhere, is to persuade you that opposition is useless, vain, even insane, and that despite what is before your eyes, you must doubt what you experience and conform to the vision laid out by the media. You are alone; you are powerless to resist. No one thinks like you. You do not speak in public what you feel in private. I call it the Iron Mask of political correctness. It is placed over all of us, and it is our duty to notice it and take it off.

The liberation that came with the Internet – an unlicensed and democratic medium – was to allow people to identify themselves and not be alone, to make it easy for small groups to form who could share their disbelief in the false gods set before them by the national media to worship.

Some views expressed on the net are crazy, some bad, some vicious. Of this there is no doubt.  But the negatives are eclipsed by the enormous increase of freedom of opinion made possible by the freedom, efficiency, and ubiquity of the Internet. The means of expression has been liberated from government licensing, for the time being. Let’s keep it that way.

toe the ine 2

Toeing the line: Government regulation of the broadcasting sector

All Trump, all the time,,, part (5)

Heather McDonald, chief editor of City Magazine, has this to say about Trump, whom she calls the Coarsener-in-Chief:

 

Trump is the embodiment of what the Italians call “maleducato”—poorly raised, ill-bred. Indeed, judging by the results, his upbringing seems to have involved no check whatsoever on the crudest male instincts for aggression and humiliation. Trump is unfailingly personal in his attacks. Nor is his comportment merely a refusal to be politically correct. Trump was on solid ground when he responded to Fox News’s Megyn Kelly during the first Republican debate that he had no time for political correctness. A repudiation of political correctness means truth-telling, however. Trump’s personal sneers are not truth-telling but merely the self-indulgent gestures of someone who makes no effort to control his desire to humiliate.

Conservatives, of all people, should understand the preciousness and precariousness of manners. Boys in particular need to be civilized. That task will be more difficult with Trump in the White House. There is no reason to think that Trump will change his tone should he get elected; he shows no sign of a capacity for introspection and self-correction. Any parent trying to raise a boy to be respectful, courteous, and at least occasionally self-effacing will have a hard time doing so when our national leader is so reflexively impolite, just as it is harder to raise girls to be sexually prudent when they are surrounded by media role models promoting promiscuity. The culture has been coarsened enough already. It doesn’t need further degradation from a president.

I agree with the sentiments. What is the cost in social manners that a Trump presidency would exact against the cost in further degradation of the United States in most other dimensions: economic, political, and in foreign relations, that would follow from a victory by Hillary Clinton?

Concerns for the coarsening of culture are legitimate, but they have to take their place against a background where forces seek to destroy western culture entirely. McDonald’s criticism is of a type that a friend of mine calls “high Tory”, and it is a tone that comes easily to some of us who believe ourselves well brought up.

The counterargument, which attracts me maybe more than it should, is that we have reached the stage where someone has to be repudiate the political correctness that is strangling us, and rip up the giant telephone book-sized rules of comportment (the iron masks of political correctness) that are not allowing us to think flexibly and appropriately about the political menace of Islam, about fighting the global warming scam, about the malicious role played by the Left in ruining universities, and about the entitlement culture that demands special awards for natives, women, gays and whoever else composes the left’s mascot groups of the moment.

When I contemplate the insane rules the Trudeau government is imposing on pipelines in Canada, I grow more tolerant of someone who is ready to rip up the social agreement that makes it difficult for people in polite society to say that global warming is a pile of shit, or that Islam is insane, or any of the myriad social shibboleths about race, class, sex and culture that keep us headed down the road to social disintegration.

All Trump, all the time…part(3)

Wow, things are moving fast. I drew attention to the attack on Trump from National Review magazine and the Great Pundit of Pundits, Scott Adams’, analysis of it. In his Master Persuader theory, he added another layer at the BOTTOM of the pile, that of capitulation. That is, after Identity, Analogy, and Reason have all failed to convince, capitulation means throwing the empty gun at the monster. That was NR’s anti-Trump issue and their capitulation to Trump.

Now, NR produces another screed which is nothing but a dumpster full of insults for Trump fans and supporters. For example:

“…[T]he candidacy of Donald Trump is something that could not happen in a nation that could read.
This is the full flower of post-literate politics.
Thomas Aquinas cautioned against “homo unius libri,” a warning that would not get very far with the typical Trump voter stuck sniggering over “homo.” (They’d snigger over “snigger,” too, for similar reasons.)”
…blah, blah, blah.
John Nolte at Breitbart takes this to task admirably(National Review Goes Full-Snob). For me, I have not seen quite such a spiteful, arrogant and contemptible assault on voters from any political party from any source over many years. Further, it’s not the political left, for we expect it from them, it’s the GOP Establishment, the GOPe, doing it, showing their inner contempt for ordinary folk who actually do real work in this world. It really is the final proof that they have totally lost it. NR is now cat box liner. A sad end for a once influential magazine.
Allow me to pay homage to the Master Persuader theory by adding yet another layer at the BOTTOM of the list below capitulation—self-immolation. To illustrate this, the first rule when stuck in a hole is,…stop digging. Not content with “throwing the empty gun at the monster”, NR sets about furiously digging a deeper hole for its own grave, standing in the pit, and spontaneously self-combusting. And, may I add, to the cheers and applause of the onlookers.
One has to wonder what these folks in the GOPe have between their ears, because it sure ain’t brains. If they want to alienate a huge chunk of their base vote, they’re going the right way about it. If they want to win the White House, make an alliance with the most powerful asset, do not antagonize it. If they want voters to support their program do not tell them they are idiots. Lord have mercy, these folks have the political IQ of a sack of hammers.
There’s nothing special about me, I fit pretty clearly on the right wing of the Republican Party. But when I see the GOPe trashing the most dynamic candidate EVAH, I throw my hands up in despair. Whatever misgivings I have about The Donald, I’m even more in favor of him now, and I’m willing to bet that there are a lot of others like me.
Rebel Yell

A villain’s life celebrated

mauricestrong

 

The Establishment is turning out for one of the biggest villains this country has ever produced: author of the Great Global Warming Scam, progenitor of trillions of dollars of wasted wealth, immiserator of nations, wrecker of economies, blighter of landscapes with noxious bird-killing giant windmills, preventer of economic development in the poor nations of the world, Maurice Strong. In today’s Hill Times

There will be a celebration of life for former public servant Maurice Strong at 3:30 p.m. in the Sir John A. Macdonald Building in Ottawa. Along with members of Maurice Strong’s family, this celebration will include Governor General David Johnston, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Speaker of the Senate George J. Furey, Speaker of the House of Commons Geoff Regan, Ontario Lieutenant Governor Elizabeth Dowdeswell, Environment and Climate Change Minister Catherine McKenna, as well as former Governor General Adrienne Clarkson, John Ralston Saul, and former prime ministers Joe Clark and Paul Martin. James Wolfensohn, former World Bank President, and Achim Steiner, executive director of UNEP and Under-Secretary General of the United Nations will also be at the ceremony. A broad range of Senators and Members of Parliament will be coming to pay tribute along with representatives from the diplomatic corps.

Those who long for earthly justice will wait for centuries before this man’s reputation matches his vile deeds and influence.

For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? Mathew 16:26

 

Media bias observed, instance 12,000,000,037

Today’s column by John Ivison presents the conventional view of the media classes. Entitled Tories Eye Changing Gay Union Stance, it discusses the Manichaean options before the federal Conservatives regarding gay marriage.

If the delegates in Vancouver vote to keep the clauses in question, it will confirm the prejudices about the party being the home of white, middle-aged bigots, beholden to no law but that of the Almighty.

But if the same-sex position is overturned, it will send the message that a new more tolerant and inclusive brand of conservatism is serious about challenging for power at the next election.

gay marriage

Manichaean refers to the doctrine of the Persian prophet Mani (216-276 AD), who held that there is a cosmic struggle between the forces of light and darkness.

An adherent of Manichaeism is called, especially in older sources,[9] a Manichee, or more recently Manichaean. By extension, the term “manichean” is widely applied (often used as a derogatory term) as an adjective to a philosophy of moral dualism, according to which a moral course of action involves a clear (or simplistic) choice between good and evil, or as a noun to people who hold such a view.

I was briefly married to a leftist, with the emphasis on ‘briefly’. The chief point of conversation was to signal virtue by how you named things. “Gay” meant you were enlightened and progressive, “fag” meant you were a reactionary bigot. No change whatever was required in one’s attitudes, which remained camouflaged behind progressive speech. Put on the iron mask of leftism and we can all talk through our masks: that is the first duty of the socialist citizen.

So in that spirit John Ivison is basically telling conservatives that leftists will judge conservatives to be electable if they hold attitudes approved of by leftists.

For my part I gave up the struggle against gay marriage long time ago, in that I see little harm, and if it does harm it constitutes issue #2491 in my list of things that a truly sensible regime might wish to reconsider and reform. But once you see this type of brow-beating by the media, you see it nearly everywhere.

Oh! the tyranny of having to fill column inches three times a week! What nonsense we are made to print!

 

Quotas for Oscars

There will be quotas of Oscar awards for black film makers and actors soon enough. The spread of identity politics is inevitable until some social convulsion repudiates them. So it is not surprizing that the Oscars are blamed – in this tail end of Obama-dom – for not having enough black (specifically Afro-American) nominees.

As Sir Ian McKellen noted, with irony, gay men do not get Oscars for portraying straight men, and Mark Reina, a self-proclaimed gay Latino member of Oscar-granting Academy got on his high horse about accusations of racism in the choice of Oscar contenders.
I suppose Reina has double the victim credibility as McKellen for being Latino and gay.

This will not end well, people. Once the media fasten on like lampreys to an equality of result issue – as this one is – there will be no way to settle it except by affirmative action for minorities. All minorities, that is, except white people. Be sure of that.

Best film for catering to  Afro-American self- victimization this year goes to – breathless pause – Straight outta Compton!!

Straight outta Compton, the invaluable Wikipedia informs us, concerns the rise of the rap music group NWA, or Niggers with Attitide, whose lyrics were accused of  glamorizing black on black violence.

Many critics feel that the album’s lyrics glamorize gang violence. The Washington Post writer David Mills wrote: “The hard-core street rappers defend their violent lyrics as a reflection of ‘reality.’ But for all the gunshots they mix into their music, rappers rarely try to dramatize that reality — a young man flat on the ground, a knot of lead in his chest, pleading as death slowly takes him in. It’s easier for them to imagine themselves pulling the trigger”. However, Wichita Eagle-Beacon editor Bud Norman noted that “They [N.W.A] don’t make it sound like much fun… They describe it with the same nonjudgmental resignation that a Kansan might use about a tornado.”[10]

To speak of young black men killing each other for sport or imagined offences against their dignity, as if these actions  were morally equivalent to damage from tornadoes, captures something gravely horrible about black American gang life: morons with pistols and no emotional control, coupled to savage instincts, killing each other for very little purpose.

Yessirree, Oscar committee, reform thyself, and put Straight Outta Compton on your Oscar list, ahead of ten other films of merit which did not make the list. This effort is one of the last gasps as the baneful Obama regime lives its last days.

The house divided, a “soft civil war”

An article on university life by Fred Siegel in City Journal says better than I can why things are going to hell. The article is a review of a book published 25 years ago by Arthur Schlesinger, an arch-Democrat courtier of the Kennedys, and a liberal academic of some repute. It was called “The disuniting of America: Reflections of a Multicultural Society”.  Schlesinger foresaw some of the issues raised by multiculturalism in universities, but could not possibly have seen how bad it has become since his time.

 

disuniting of America

I have excerpted the core of Siegel’s argument.

The connection between political correctness and the doctrine of multiculturalism is integral. PC proscribes open debate. Instead, in classic Communist fashion, it judges an argument on the basis of the interests it serves….

Collapsing standards in high schools and colleges reinforced one another. Ill-prepared college freshmen increasingly needed remedial assistance. They arrived at college equipped with the politically correct attitudes appropriate for what passed as “higher education” in the humanities and “social sciences.” They left with their attitudes reinforced. Likewise, academia increasingly marginalized or repelled students with less politically correct views….

As the faculty became increasingly uniform in its outlook, power passed to students, who were treated as precious consumers. At the same time, academic administrators, now outnumbering the faculty, aimed for a stress-free atmosphere on campus. Colleges across the country replaced their classes on American history with therapy sessions about diversity that demanded not just orthodox thinking but orthodox speaking and feeling as well….

Somehow, even as they have spent the last 30 years insisting on the fundamental differences between people, multiculturalists are surprised at the rise of a white nationalism that feeds into the support for Donald Trump. Trump replays the extremism of Obama. Trump and Obama have been drawn into a see-saw dynamic in which each plays off the excesses of the other. Trump speaks to the frustration and anger of people whose wages have stagnated as government bureaucracy has grown dramatically more intrusive. Trump is a peculiar spokesman for that honor-driven egalitarianism that Walter Russell Mead describes as “Jacksonian America.” “Our ruling class,” writes Angelo Codevilla, “has created ‘protected classes’ of Americans defined by race, sex, age, disability, origin, religion, and now homosexuality, (and perhaps Islam) whose members have privileges that outsiders do not. By so doing, they have shattered the principle of equality—the bedrock of the rule of law. Ruling class insiders use these officious classifications to harass their socio-political opponents.”

What rankles most among workaday white Americans is that, even as their incomes and life expectancies decline, and even as the protections promised in the Fourteenth Amendment are eviscerated in favor of new minority carve-outs, they’re accused of benefitting from “white privilege.”…

Trump is both a reaction to and expression of liberal delusions. Schlesinger’s fears have largely come to pass; we’ve become what he called a “quarrelsome spatter of enclaves.” Schlesinger was too much a part of the elite to imagine that the class he always thought of as representing the best of the future would come to be despised by a broad swath of Americans for its incompetence and ineffectuality. But what Schlesinger saw on the horizon seems to have arrived, with no sign of abating: we are in the midst of a soft civil war.

 

The National Review attacks Trump

This morning I read the National Review’s attack on Trump. It would have been devastating, had I cared for Conservatism Inc.’s views on the matter.

 

Trump is a philosophically unmoored political opportunist who would trash the broad conservative ideological consensus within the GOP in favor of a free-floating populism with strong-man overtones.

Maybe.

We need more fencing at the border, but the promise to make Mexico pay for it is silly bluster

Yes, probably.

As for illegal immigration, Trump pledges to deport the 11 million illegals here in the United States, a herculean administrative and logistical task beyond the capacity of the federal government.

Yes, it is impossible, but can you get  80%? The first 20%? Can the US at least enforce its current laws on immigration, as Obama conspicuously refuses to do? Very likely? Can you slowly begin to change the direction of the ship of state? Absolutely.

Indeed, Trump’s politics are those of an averagely well-informed businessman: Washington is full of problems; I am a problem-solver; let me at them. But if you have no familiarity with the relevant details and the levers of power, and no clear principles to guide you, you will, like most tenderfeet, get rolled.

The problem that Trump poses for the Republican intelligentsia is that of a man who seems disinclined to listen to their professional soothsaying. He does not care for them and they do not care for him.

Worse, I think, than any of Trump’s anti immigration stances is his complete rejection of the free-trade orthodoxy of the past forty years. This orthodoxy has held that America is best off when it can get China and Japan to make its goods, and as the States has not enough to pay for the imbalance of trade, the US can sell them Treasury Bills (debt) in exchange. Thus, as Trump points out, the Asian powers take American jobs, we get their consumer goods, US factories shut down and move out, and the American working class is left in a crisis of despondency, which is reducing their lifespans in somewhat the same way that Russian men are dying earlier. Labour force participation is also dropping as more and more people find they can get by on disability pensions.

If it had been any other ethnic group than whites, the recent news that there is a huge die-off of the American working class male would have been declared a national crisis. But in a world where Black Lives Matter, white lives do not – or so it appears.

All this is well described in Charles Murray’s Coming Apart, the State of White America, 1960-2010, which should be  reading for anyone reading Barrelstrength, and for opinion writing in the National Review.

The proposition advanced by white nationalists like Pat Buchanan is that you cannot really have the United States without a significant, probably majority, core of white people; that the United States is a nation, not just an assemblage of factories and suburbs, tied together by laws, and that the policies of free trade and mass immigration as well as a host of other policies which are anti-white, anti-productivity, and against social order,  are threatening the social core that makes the United States work, as a society, as a nation, as the great experiment in republican government that it is.

We have wandered far from Trump into the basic issues that are confronting the United States, and in many cases they are racial, in the sense not of black versus everyone else, or white versus everyone else, but what is the United States going to be in fifty years? Will it persist in any recognizable form?

The questions that lie below the level of free trade and walls against Mexico, and the objections of the Republican intellectual class, derive from basic anxieties about the fate of the country that cannot be discussed in polite company, but which everyone knows are the real issues.

Here is where Trump is generating support, and it goes far deeper than trade policy and immigration. He is acting as the icebreaker for the rest of us, plowing through the frozen seas of Marxist thought control known as political correctness, shattering one shibboleth after another. The effect is to free up society to have the discussions which are prevented by the iron masks to which people have submitted, or which have been placed upon their heads, by the actions of left-wing intelligentsia trying to make society “safe” from white people and their attitudes and beliefs.

When Chinese dynasties changed they had a period called “the rectification of names”, when all the politically correct labels were replaced and people could go back to calling things by their real or habitual names again. Inevitably the new dynasty would create its own set of prohibited terms and changed expressions. For a brief few years, people could talk freely.

We have not been able to talk freely for fifty years about race, religion, class, sex, or any of the important issues of life. The promise of Trump is that for a little while, maybe even longer, it will be possible to talk about what most people think are the real issues, not those chosen for us by the increasingly fatuous National Review.

________________________________________

Post script: Rush Limbaugh said the same yesterday.

LIMBAUGH: It’s something really simple . . . They’re fed up with the modern day Democratic Party . . . The Republican Party establishment does not understand this. They do not know who their conservative voters are. They’ve over-estimated their conservatism . . . They’re not liberals. They’re not Democrat. Many of them do not want to be thought of as conservatives for a host of reasons. So somebody who comes along and is able to convey that he or she understands why they’re angry and furthermore, is going to do everything to fix it, is going to own them. What’s happening here is that ‘nationalism’–dirty word, ooh people hate it–and ‘populism’–even dirtier word. Nationalism and populism have overtaken conservatism in terms of appeal.

Life is about life, which is biological and inherently racial, tribal or national (depending on the scale of aggregation you consider). It is not essentially about markets, trade, or technical innovation, though we hold these to be naturally good things. When the underlying anxieties of people start to concern themselves with the question”will we exist in 50 years?”, then the kind of anti-white racialist talk and action which is tolerated by the official conservatives and encouraged by the Left start to become the issue. Thus to discuss Trump is often to discuss issues that the post-World War 2 consensus had banished, and wished would go away, but will not.

And this is what has official conservatism concerned. The topics of which they are masters have been declared irrelevant, and no one gives a damn for their views. National Review could banish the brilliant British mathematician John Derbyshire from its pages for his frank discussion of what white people must do to be safe against black criminality, but National Review cannot banish the issue he raised or the anxieties Americans experience for their continued existence.