Skip to main content

It Was Self Defense

 I started to see a reel posted by a friend that was created by a working-class white guy. Credit to him for that, at least. Most spokespeople for Democrats are pathetic classist snobs. Uber-rich old money educrats who are so disconnected from ordinary people that a fake rich plutocrat got to play Donnie Populist all the way to the White House. Twice. Can you seriously believe it? The alleged party of racial minorities, the vulnerable, and the forgotten is actually the party of neo-Marxist pseudo-intellectual Mad Libs, outmaneuvered by a vulgar reality star, who drove a garbage truck and did a shift at McDonald’s.

In a very profound way, Donald Trump is the antithesis of everything the Republican Party I had known stood for. The Cold War had continued the bipartisan consensus that won the Second World War. The Democrats got off-track when they let the Marxism and fascism we defeated gain a foothold in their ranks. It wasn’t economic Marxism, at least by the late 1960s. It was revolution via division on lines of race, sex, and gender. Contentment and natural solidarity is the enemy of revolution. Revolution abides not equality before the law. Revolution destroys law in service to “righteous” aggression.

Pretending Communist Russia wasn’t nationalistic is as ridiculous as saying Nazi Germany wasn’t Marxist. If you conquer the world it’s easy to cosplay at the fraternity of humanity.

It should have been impossible to hold the broken glass of the non-Left together, but Reagan was like Sam Gamgee, and he held the fractious fellowship together against existential domination and evil.

That was a huge digression; I’m sorry. The dude in the reel went on about today’s “conservatives” and their opposition to DEI, “the blacks” and “the gays” and that it was all rooted in a Trumpist lack of accountability for their own circumstances. First of all, he sounded way more bigoted than any Trump supporter I have known or heard of. Neither Trump nor his supporters are scary bigots; they are at worst the kind of bigots that use outmoded terms for people they don’t know. Like Archie Bunker without the jokes. Speaking of that, Trump is like a Democrat’s caricature of a Republican. People went for him, though, because they looked at Hillary and Kamala and thought, “Just what the hell is this?” DEI is often terrible, because it’s a bait-and-switch. Who in the world is against diversity, equity, and inclusion? But the ideology and its trainings perpetuate the idea that injustice is permanent, and that goodwill and common purpose are a waste of time. Ask who gains from unremitting conflict and distance between people. Ask who benefits from excluding white male and “cisgendered” people. Who needs to make sure that “male” and “female” are just terms with no permanent referents in objective reality? The worst part of Trump is that he didn’t fight the scary people. That his personal vendettas are more important than true equality and a peaceful tolerance and respect. Just a reminder that I never considered supporting him. I’m pro-life and pro-traditional family. I’m willing to anger the ignorant for the sake of the most vulnerable. But I didn’t even roll the dice to trash Roe v. Wade and get some textualist judges. The Supreme Court is in a good place, as are many federal courts. A judicially conservative Court is not a Trumpist one.

The scary people carried torches at Charlottesville. They call racially mixed families impure, and call their heads “cucks.” They platform Nick Fuentes and pine for the Third Reich. You get the idea. 

But I assert that Ibram Kendi, and Robin DiAngelo, “The Squad,” etc. are the mirror image of all that. Grievance is the fuel of their purpose. Harmony vitiates our need for them. They essentially offer only two choices: consent and capitulation. Just like the Marxists of old, they are ready to attribute false consciousness to anyone they think should agree but won’t.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We Don't Need No Magisterium: (Jason's Version) (But Actually, We Do)

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...

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...

Who Is Out Here Having Sex And Children With People They Don’t Like?

 And look, I’m not married. I’ve never been married. I have no children. I didn’t choose that; things just worked out that way. If you must know, I haven’t had sexual intercourse either. I probably should say “coitus,” so I am not arguing with some progressive activist about what “sexual intercourse” means. But I figured out from influencer videos or something what a “dead bedroom” was. Unless a couple mutually agrees that they don’t want to have sex/coitus anymore (hopefully to pray and serve) this is usually bad. I’ve known enough couples that it’s probably an indicator of trouble, especially for couples who are still able to have children. Is it really that wild to at least hope that Mr. and Mrs. Vance love each other? That a fourth child yet born at least might indicate that they enjoy each other?  Children are definitely not responsible for their parents’ happiness. That’s absolutely true. But wouldn’t any child hope their parents were happy, when they came into being? As...