TRUMP SIGNALS SUPPORT FOR WHITE SOUTH AFRICANS

WHY DO THE BRITISH PEOPLE HATE DONALD TRUMP SO MUCH?

by Colin Liddell

Today Donald Trump arrives in the UK. Normally he is seen as a polarising figure—in British political parlance, a "Marmite politician" (named after a particularly pungent yeast spread)—you either love him or hate him.

But the funny thing is that in the UK he does not actually polarise very much. In fact, apart from a few LARPy UK Maga hats, almost everybody who has a voice seems to have a negative opinion of the man.

AMERICANS DREAM OF DEPORTING 'SLEEPERS'

 by James Lawrence

@JWLawrence85

As Vox Day so rightly says, Trump’s remark on DACA during his State of the Union address – “Americans are dreamers too” – was a masterstroke of rhetoric. On the minus side, I have to say I’m not as sanguine as Vox about Trump’s capacity to resist giving amnesty to 1.8 million illegal immigrants in exchange for a border wall – which, given that the job of guarding it would end up in the hands of a ruling elite determined to look the other way, would serve America about as well as the Great Wall served China when it was opened to the invading Manchus. Deporting the so-called DREAMers is vastly more important than building a border wall – and this, for all its importance, is only a single battle in the long metapolitical war against their patrons in the ruling elite.

I SUPPORT ALLE-GORE-ICAL VIOLENCE AGAINST CNN

by Edwin Oslan

Known alternately as the Corporate News Network, the Communist News Network and the Clinton News Network, CNN, a channel that less inquisitive minds have decided is the “centrist” and “balanced” news channel between a right wing Fox and a left wing MSNBC, committed what can only be described as an act of terrorism and intimidation.

PASSIVITY IS NOT AN OPTION

by James Lawrence

  

The political backlash by Western peoples against the ruling elite and the Left has met with nothing but defeat lately. First, Donald Trump decided to do some "artful dealing" by trading his populist and nationalist positions for acceptance by the corporate media and Deep State (and no, it hasn't worked). Then the French election showed us that a nationalist party with forty years of campaigning behind it, at a time of massive public discontent, could still lose to a hollow establishment-backed astroturf movement. Now we are seeing the people of Britain tone-policing each other even as they cower in fear of Muslim terrorists, while their political overlords have miraculously come up with yet another reason to stall for time on Brexit (not trying to be overly conspirational or anything, but...come on).

NAMELESS PODCAST: BANNON/KUSHNER: TIFF FOR TAT?

For the past week, the media has breathlessly reported an acrimonious feud between two of President Trump's central advisors: his son-in-law Jared Kushner, and his former chief of staff (and ex-Breitbart editor) Steve Bannon.

TRUMP IN 1980

In the context of current affairs, a 1980 interview granted by Donald Trump to broadcaster Rona Barrett is eye-opening indeed.

AMERICA FIRST

by Andy Nowicki

Unlike most on the Alt-Right, I have mostly been Trump-skeptical in orientation and outlook. I was glad that he won, of course, but that was really just because him winning meant that his opponent, that screechy horrid harpy from Hell, lost. Thus I don't approach this analysis as a sycophant or even a particular admirer of the newly-coronated God Emperor, on whose distinctive orange mop the crown now securely rests.

Still, even I have to admit that the Inauguration speech I just heard was quite an extraordinary one. A brazen, brass-balled, taboo-shattering peroration indeed. Though brief, it packed a mighty punch. Though not exactly eloquent (has the Donald ever been so, even with a prepared script?), it nevertheless retained a brusquely bracing brio. It danced to the rhetorical edge, and then thrillingly leaped over the edge, of what polite people  (much less newly-inaugurated presidents!) are supposed to be allowed to say in our benighted age which so arrogantly presumes its own righteousness.

TRUMP, THE PROVIDENTIAL LOUT: GOD'S DEMAGOGUE?

by Andy Nowicki

Those who believe in Providence will attest that it is a wondrous thing. Often it sees to it that our faults, shortcomings, and vices wind up serving the greater good, quite contrary to our intentions and expectations.

In such a manner, I believe, Providence might presently be working through Donald J. Trump, to all appearances a vain, egotistical, arrogant, imprudent, and irascible blowhard whose very character deficiencies are currently enabling him to take a heroic stand against unfathomable corruption and unspeakable evil, in a context in which men of a less problematic temperament might feel tempted to roll over, knuckle under, and plead “no mas!”

POLITICS ARE THE REAL 'SPORTSBALL': ELECTION AS PSY-OP

by Andy Nowicki

Three Presidential elections ago, I wrote an article for The Last Ditch entitled “I Loathe Democracy.”

In that piece, composed just days prior to the W. vs. Kerry throw-down of ’04, I noted the “elementary error in logic in the very notion of trusting the majority,” which is after all the principle upon which democracy is predicated. But, I added, the dimensions of my vitriol wasn’t limited to a mere quibble over an unsound calculation:

UN-ROCK THE VOTE

by Alex Kirillov

I recently saw a commercial for the MTV Video Music Awards. I must confess, I was momentarily transfixed. In this commercial, an astronaut approached a rocket ship as it landed in the middle of an empty, celestially illuminated, auditorium. Elegant classical music played as the announcer talked about artistic creation taking place in "a whole new space." It reminded me of some Alt-Right thinkers who view our political movement as the first step towards space travel and eventual galactic colonization. Man's conquering of the solar system, I realized, is not just a scientific endeavor, but also an aesthetic one: our work would metaphorically be using the solar system as our canvas - just as it had been depicted in the commercial.

VOTE NO CONFIDENCE!

by Ann Sterzinger

As bad as the Star Wars prequels were, I could almost kiss George Lucas for re-introducing the American public to the idea of a “No confidence” vote.

The other day I read a commenter somewhere musing that, because it’s so difficult for a third party to get any traction in the US presidential election, there should be a “NO” option: everyone should have the choice of saying they don’t like either of the choices they’ve been given. If more people vote NO than vote red or blue, then both major parties have to scrap their candidates and start over.

MARGINSTREAMING

by James Lawrence

The concept of a Right-Left spectrum of political ideas contains a measure of truth, but is all too easily spun into a justification of established power. As most people are naturally inclined to reject extremes for compromises, they are led to think of those in power as a “Goldilocks option” between those on the far ends of the spectrum, whose exclusion is rationalised as a consequence of their own extremism. 

Since our European Goldilocks presently finds herself gagged and shackled to her chair, poisoned by her ideological gruel, and assaulted by foreigners in her bed, we can surmise that it is these so-called “moderates” who are the true extremists. To make sense of this, we must move away from the judgementalism of the “political spectrum” towards a concept based purely on the facts of hegemony and marginalisation, namely that of the centre and the periphery.

CONSERVATISM INC'S LAST STAND

Conservatism Inc notices something hurtling towards it.

by Bay Area Guy

Lately, I stumbled upon an article on a site called The Federalist which—if the countless comments are any indication—is a popular purveyor of mainstream conservatism. Along with attacking Dota's old post on National Capitalism, this tirade of an article trots out all the hackneyed Conservatism 101 talking points. In order to illustrate the increasing irrelevancy of Conservatism Inc's platitudes, I'm going to go through this post bit by bit.

CRUZIN': A CONSPIRACY THEORY

Sexier (and scheme-ier) than you think he is?

by Andy Nowicki

Partisan politics are invariably poisonous. Indeed, boosterism breeds an ever-expansive propensity to a pernicious myopia. The more passionate one becomes in advocating for a particular candidate, the less that advocate is able to see, or care about, the truth; instead, such a one reflexively comes to believe, and just as reflexively to argue for, whichever “version” of the truth is most conducive to the likely success of one’s own candidate, and/or most presumably detrimental to the prospects of that candidate’s rivals.

But more is occluded than the fundamental ability, or willingness, to tease out fact, and conscientiously distinguish it from falsity. Another casualty of partisan punditry—whether carried out by the highest-paid, forever-flacking news television flunky or the merest envelope-licking volunteer—is a consequent inattention to subtlety. An enthusiastically compulsive partisan simply reacts to an event, rather than actually chewing it over; as a result, he frequently misses both the short-term truth of the matter and the long-term takeaway.

A case-in-point of this phenomenon is the reaction of partisans of various stripes to a recent National Enquirer piece, alleging that Presidential aspirant Ted Cruz is a serial adulterer.