Skip to main content

The Problem Is The Clueless Super-Liberal White Women

 The Democratic Party isn’t winning the presidency lately. I’m going to put a language warning right here. Sometimes, a vulgar word or words is the clearest way to say something.

Donald Trump has been described as a carnival barker. I happen to think that is an insult to carnival barkers. He’s a self-involved amoral beast who was born leading off of third base. The only real difference between Bernie Madoff and Donald Trump is that Madoff went broke. If you have money—even if you borrowed it—you don’t have to be bound by anything, and this man isn’t.

That said, I don’t believe a whole bunch of left-wing garbage, and most people don’t.

Trump is a bullshitter, when he’s not doing something awful or illegal. But if you think about who votes in America, it’s probably a guy about 55, white, named Steve or Ron or Jim. That’s your median voter. I am not him; Tom Darrow and I are too throughly Christian to be the median voter. Most Americans identify as Christian, but Jim’s not a disciple, you see. His wife makes him go to Inoffensive White Community Church on occasion. Definitely Christmas and Easter.

Let’s take a pause.

What about the Democrats? Well, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the obvious discrediting of Marxist experiments still going on killed the economic aspects of the far Left here. So what does the far Left do? Focus on race and sexuality. If you can make a critical mass of people desperately unhappy, they won’t vote Republican, and they will convince themselves that the cosmetic changes to this capitalist project favored by mainstream Democrats are basically the same thing. The academy keeps the far Left going. The people on top of it promise the opportunity for others to get there through what’s left of the liberal arts. Say the right jargon, read the right books, presto, you’re Dr. Whoever, eventually insulated from any economic disasters that could happen if a True Believer screws something up. Then again, the Inner Party doesn’t believe their own bullshit; they just used it to get where they are. All these professors are usually monogamously married, unless they are vanilla gay. This will probably tick people off, but think about how fast academic jargon from liberal arts or social science (BTW, not science) gets into the mouth of the Democratic nominee. Why are they so social media savvy? Because young smart kids are the next generation of people to take those professor spots. And that’s why AOC and Mamdani and whoever else can say the word “socialist” without fear. If they weren’t ruling, they could run on the treadmill of academia if they had to. They’ll be rich and insulated even more than the academics.

Joe Biden has been legit elderly for some time now, but he’s always been a bullshitter. Legit blue collar at some point, but rich for decades as a politician. He was able to beat the Bullshitter-in-Chief by winning back just enough white men to offset the non-college white (and others) revolt of Trump. It probably was the worst four years in US presidential history from 2017 to 2021. Even Nixon and James Buchanan would be like, “Dude, get it together!” If we get really lucky, those men and women will be the “yuppies” of a new Republican Party. If we’re doomed, we’ll have violent social chaos between incels, racist bigots, and Marxist True Believers.

Women make up almost 60 percent of people graduating college. Of course they are getting in on the academic far Left game. Academic feminism serves that game. True flourishing of women worldwide has to be done elsewhere, by others. There might be some unwitting participants, like say, liberal ex-evangelicals. But that’s why they don’t know about the failures of Marxism-Leninism; they were being born when it collapsed at best. They grew up in a world where all that is in a book. And they spent a huge chunk of time at church camp. They might eventually listen to non-white moderates and conservatives, but right now they’re spouting Marxist jargon and bullshit, and generalizing it to all non-whites. How could they do otherwise? Not going to college was unfathomable.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Dear Alyse

 Today, you’re 35. Or at least you would be, in this place. You probably know this, but we’re OK. Not great, but OK. We know you wouldn’t want us moping around and weeping all the time. We try not to. Actually, I guess part of the problem is that you didn’t know how much we loved you. And that you didn’t know how to love yourself. I hope you have gotten to Love by now. Not a place, but fills everything in every way. I’m not Him, but he probably said, “Dear daughter/sister, you have been terribly hard on yourself. Rest now, and be at peace.” Anyway, teaching is going well, and I tell the kids all about you. They all say you are pretty. I usually can keep the boys from saying something gross for a few seconds. Mom and I are going to the game tonight. And like 6 more times, before I go back to South Carolina. I have seen Nicky twice, but I myself haven’t seen your younger kids. Bob took pictures of the day we said goodbye, and we did a family picture at the Abbey. I literally almost a...
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p...