American Apartheid
What the St. Louis Couple Says About America (McCloskey Story)
Demographic Genocide
Old news. They already got their wars and flooded our countries with Muslims.
Now we are being overtaken by a revolutionary mob and big corporate (anarcho-tyranny).
This Mike Braun is an extreme character, and it is shocking that he is in the Senate. If we had any organization at all – literally, just anything – we could successfully primary him with literally anyone. But his position isn’t that far out from that of Mitch McConnell or Kevin McCarthy, both of whom are refusing to do anything at all to stop these vicious blacks and their white female allies tearing up the civilization that white men – their voters – built.
To be honest, I don’t really understand what is going on here. I am fully aware that the Republicans are shills, but obviously, they shill for specific issues and will in general be okay on the black issue. I am legitimately incapable of understanding what their agenda is here.
Honestly, it looks like some kind of a conspiracy. Like someone took these people in a room, and said, “look, guy – you’re going to have to go along with this, or we’ll drop your Pizzagate file.” But although it looks like that, I don’t think that’s what’s happening. I think what’s happening is that they’ve backed themselves into an ideological corner where they just simply can’t defend their own voters anymore.
What the GOP and the Republican media establishment has done is accept the premise that “racism” is pure evil, and that it should be universally opposed. This is a completely faulty premise, but they were bullied into accepting it by the Jews. If you went back to the 90s and especially the 80s, you’d find Republicans pretty regularly speaking out against black crime and the problems created by various immigrant groups. But William F. Buckley brought all of these Jews into the conservative movement, and they pushed the idea that the left is right about racism, and everything instead has to be about “ideology.”
“Colorblindness” was introduced as a part of the ideology, accepting the premise of blacks being biologically similar to whites and holding that if you could just convince them to join the ideology, you would then be able to live peacefully with them and they would help you with your society instead of acting like ridiculous savages. Part of the plan is that you first have to convince them you’re not a racist.
That famous tweet by the “conservative Jew” Ben Shapiro pretty much sums the whole thing up.
This Jewish trick that race doesn’t matter and what matters is this vague and shifting ideology means that conservatives do not possess the ability to address anything at all that touches on race. They have spent so very much personal energy and political capital attempting to convince people that they are not racist that to put themselves in a position where they can be called racists – for disagreeing with a race revolution – is simply too much for them.
They went all in on this idea of colorblind ideology as the path to a peace-riddled liberal society, the idea that if race didn’t exist black people would stop acting black, and now they are checking their box of ideological tools and not finding anything to respond to a black racial uprising. Because for their plan to succeed, they have to convince everyone that they’re not racists – and then, all of the sudden, BOOM – black people act like normal humans.
1
2
The GOP did nothing to stop the Jews from railroading Steve King for allegedly saying that “Western Civilization” shouldn’t have the same negative connotations as “white supremacy.” In fact, Kevin McCarthy supported it, and piled on. Because this is all a trap – a box, where you take all of these various paths according to the ideology, and eventually, you have no way out.
Because technically, their ideology is that blacks shouldn’t be rising up along racial lines. But the part where they have to avoid being called racists in order to convince the blacks to act like people takes primacy over their ability to disagree with a black uprising.
Understand: there is no such thing as a “right-wing ideology.” Ideology is a leftist concept, invented by the Jew Karl Marx. This idea of “we can use a system” appeals to white people, but it just doesn’t work. Instead, you should have an ideal vision of the future, and use practical means to work toward that future. That’s all. Systemizing actions based on a theoretical invisible structure of ideas always necessarily leads to a discombobulated kind of mission creep, where you lose sight of what you’re even trying to accomplish.
The American nation was started as a continuation of European civilization. That’s why a bunch of British guys were obsessed with Greek architecture.
That’s what Republicans should be doing: Western civilization. They should not be doing whatever this ideological thing is, which I honestly do not even fully understand. They will say “small government” is at the core of it, but that isn’t an end in itself. When deconstructed, the ideology appears to have the singular goal of delivering cheaper consumer products.
As a practical fact of life, blackness is incompatible with Western civilization. It’s also probably incompatible with delivering cheaper consumer products. We should be trying to reduce blackness, not enlarge it.
Mark Levin and Sean Hannity have been repeating this on radio and television for twenty years. No results. This is not the secret you people think it is.
This sort of thing serves the left and doesn't bother them at all.
Waste of time. Delusional.
There has probably never been a more brainwashed and delusional "humanity" in history than there is today.
That's pretty much changed with the left since the military has gone full global homo. The American military is basically the global enforcement of rainbow flags and tranny rights now.
Where is that lost of Jews who changed their names when you need it…
List
Also…riot the country with a black takeover revolution…
She cares about the black takeover revolution. No denying that.
You miss the point. "DR3" or "Dems are the real racists" has not and will not ever work. You are operating from a defensive position inside the lefts moral framework which is "whites are racist" aka "whites are evil".
https://dailycaller.com/2016/05/03/the-man-behind-the-hilarious-conservative-pundit-parody-account-speaks-out/
I guess a lot of that frustration emerges from my conviction that the Left hasn’t had an original thought in years. They’ve hit an intellectual dead end, and rather than re-assessing their theories they’ve instead contented themselves for the past couple decades in finding increasingly nonsensical and bizarre applications for those theories. Like a great big hunt for the next “systemic oppression” to write a Slate article about. It’s a movement that’s culminating in things like mass campus hysteria over a poop swastika and solemn thinkpieces in defense of rioting and arson. That’s the kind of stuff their intellectual vanguard is up to.
And for the most part conservative pundits, who are supposed to be our intellectual vanguard, are still losing ground to them. Sad!
Why the handle @DemsRRealRacist?
Because to me that’s the quintessential self-defeating conservative move: “Democrats are the REAL racists!” You grant total moral authority to the other side, and then you attempt to show how you embody their (superior) ideals better than they do. It’s a bad scene.
If we’re looking at the conservative movement on the level of national politics, I think a lot of existing critiques are accurate. Our politicians are beholden to monied interests, both foreign and domestic, rather than the people they represent. We’re far too interventionist abroad. And we have this quixotic faith that the Constitution can ride in on a white horse and save us, even though it’s become clear that the Constitution means whatever five of nine Ivy Leaguers in DC say it means and the powers that be can ignore at will anyway.
I don’t think that the problem with respectable conservatism is just that they’re afraid of being called racist or sexist or homophobic. They certainly are afraid of that, yes, but I think that the deeper problem is they’ve fully internalized a whole raft of premises about race, about gender, about “sexual orientation” that are extremly recent, extremely radical, leftist, and in many ways totally incompatible with the traditional American worldview that they purport to cherish.
The contemporary conservative pundit is in a precarious position. On the one hand, he agrees with his liberal friends that the United States prior to, say, the 1960s was a frightfully bigoted and hateful place, full of all sorts of phobias and -isms and other such indefensible attitudes. On the other hand, he wants his liberal friends to respect the political and cultural principles we’ve inherited from that evil and benighted past. It’s a weak position, and I don’t think many people besides other professional conservative pundits find it very compelling.
This is one of the reasons why the more established conservative thinkers have been so bad at controlling the conversation this election cycle. The main reason, no doubt, is Trump, who is a virtuoso at getting his opponents to chase their own tails. But down in the trenches of social media a lot of pundits are also taking heat from their right for the first time, and they’re reacting by getting down and dirty with their detractors, which makes them seem like anything but the principled, high-minded voices of reason they want to be perceived as. Trump supporters, by comparison, have no such pretensions to erudite sophistication, so we’re at an advantage in these exchanges.
1
A while back there was some Black Lives Matter activist that got into an altercation at a Trump rally in Birmingham. The media immediately escalated into full-on hissy fit mode about how hateful racist Trump supporters had cruelly abused this innocent peaceful protester, and they went to Trump to extract their apology. Now any other politician in the race, left or right, would have given them just that. A normal politician would have tucked his tail, put on his somberest face, and started disavowing anything that moved: “That’s not who we are!” But Trump didn’t. What did Trump say? “Maybe he should have been roughed up.” And it was beautiful! Not only because it was probably true. I’m willing to bet that guy did start it. But also because it showed Trump’s willingness to stand by his supporters rather than throwing them under the bus for moral brownie points from the media.
Why do you think conservatives hate Trump so much?
I think it’s all pretty prosaic. Trump threatens their little club. He threatens their money and their prestige. They’re fighting Trump harder than they ever fought Obama and harder than they ever will fight Hillary because, while losing the White House to hostile libs might not be ideal, it doesn’t represent the threat to the existing order that a Trump administration would.
This touches on one of Trump’s major selling points, by the way, at least for me. He doesn’t seem all that ideological either. I think he’s a goal-oriented, results-oriented thinker, which prevents him from becoming ideologically rigid and getting bogged down in the interminable partisan disputes that kind of rigidity engenders. And I say that’s the way to go, especially in our current cultural milieu. We’re a fragmented and polarized country, almost hopelessly so it looks like. You’re not going to build a coalition by stringently enforcing ideological conformity (no disrespect intended to Ted Cruz’s plan for uniting the country behind Constitutional originalism and a flat tax!). But you might be able to build a coalition by outlining a goal—such as breaking the grip of special interests on DC or reviving the economic prospects of our working and middle classes—that a lot of groups, despite their ideological differences or even incompatibility, are willing to work towards.
Do you think Trump is carving up a new opening on the Right for a counter ideology to movement conservatism?
Absolutely. I would even go a little farther and say that Trump is part catalyst and part product of an ongoing realignment in Western politics. The political divisions Trump brings into relief are not so much between liberal and conservative but between nationalist and globalist. He has these bizarre notions, articulated just the other day in his foreign policy speech, that America should be governed in such a way that it secures the blessings of liberty for its people and their posterity—rather than for any random person the world over who up and decides to “migrate” here.
That’s the instinct that puts him to the left of movement conservatism on issues like healthcare and trade, while placing him far, far to their right on issues like immigration. He wants his countrymen and women to be healthy and prosperous and safe, which is needless to say yucky and nativist and very problematic.
That’s the sort of counter ideology that Trump is bringing to bear against movement conservatism. You can call it nationalism. You can call it populism. You can call it what you want, but I would argue that it’s conservative in a far more profound and fundamental sense than what passes for conservatism in Washington DC, because it’s setting out to conserve not just the political principles but the sovereignty and the culture and the future of the American people themselves from powerful geopolitical forces that are eroding those things as we speak.
What do you think about your popularity among mainstream conservatives like Ann Coulter and Tucker Carlson?
Couldn’t be happier about it, honestly.
Coulter has been trolling milquetoast conservatives a lot longer and a lot harder than I have. So it was very gratifying for me to catch the attention of one of the masters of my craft.
As for the rest of them, yeah, I still couldn’t be happier. I mean if there’s any grand theory behind my account, it’s that mainstream conservatism is impotent because it has an artificially narrow range of ideas that it’s willing to interrogate and/or espouse. Seeing some less-inhibited and less-constrained conservative ideas get out there, even in joke form, encourages me quite a bit. Heck, Rich Lowry could retweet Conservative Pundit from the official National Review Twitter account, to all twelve of their remaining loyalists, and my first impulse wouldn’t be to worry about whether I’d been watering down my material. I’d just be glad that I’m getting more eyes on it.
my conviction that the Left hasn’t had an original thought in years. They’ve hit an intellectual dead end, and rather than re-assessing their theories they’ve instead contented themselves for the past couple decades in finding increasingly nonsensical and bizarre applications for those theories. Like a great big hunt for the next “systemic oppression” to write a Slate article about. It’s a movement that’s culminating in things like mass campus hysteria over a poop swastika and solemn thinkpieces in defense of rioting and arson. That’s the kind of stuff their intellectual vanguard is up to.
And for the most part conservative pundits, who are supposed to be our intellectual vanguard, are still losing ground to them. Sad!
Why the handle @DemsRRealRacist?
Because to me that’s the quintessential self-defeating conservative move: “Democrats are the REAL racists!” You grant total moral authority to the other side, and then you attempt to show how you embody their (superior) ideals better than they do. It’s a bad scene.
If we’re looking at the conservative movement on the level of national politics, I think a lot of existing critiques are accurate. Our politicians are beholden to monied interests, both foreign and domestic, rather than the people they represent. We’re far too interventionist abroad. And we have this quixotic faith that the Constitution can ride in on a white horse and save us, even though it’s become clear that the Constitution means whatever five of nine Ivy Leaguers in DC say it means and the powers that be can ignore at will anyway.
I don’t think that the problem with respectable conservatism is just that they’re afraid of being called racist or sexist or homophobic. They certainly are afraid of that, yes, but I think that the deeper problem is they’ve fully internalized a whole raft of premises about race, about gender, about “sexual orientation” that are extremly recent, extremely radical, leftist, and in many ways totally incompatible with the traditional American worldview that they purport to cherish.
The contemporary conservative pundit is in a precarious position. On the one hand, he agrees with his liberal friends that the United States prior to, say, the 1960s was a frightfully bigoted and hateful place, full of all sorts of phobias and -isms and other such indefensible attitudes. On the other hand, he wants his liberal friends to respect the political and cultural principles we’ve inherited from that evil and benighted past. It’s a weak position, and I don’t think many people besides other professional conservative pundits find it very compelling.
Here's the sad truth that you have to grasp. The southern democrats that you all lambast as "racist" did in actual fact…
…become republicans…
Political re-alignment happens over the course of time and it did in this instance.
My point is that strategy by R's loses because of what "conservative pundit" is trying to explain in that dailycaller interview in 2016.
People do it because they are still indoctrinated by the left. Rather than "outliberal" the liberals on "racism". It would be more effective to point out how this "anti racism" agenda is a scam to destroy white Americans and America in general. Period.
It's time to take your own side rather than all these Democrat "minorities" who hate you because of their Indocrination.
DR3 is a scam by CONservative inc. so they can be considered legitimate by the left and get careers and be on tv.