What’s for Lunch Tomorrow?

It is a well-known state of our condition than men natively avoid the unknown. In almost every circumstance, the tolerably bad is preferred to the potentially better. There is comfort in certainty, even when accompanied by misery. That’s why there is calm assurance in being a True Conservative.

A truco possesses an enviably unfailing clairvoyance. To know the positions he will defend with dogged tenacity tomorrow, is to ask only what he mocks of liberalism today. It’s a short path from ridicule to veneration. And so the truco sleeps like a babe at his mother’s bosom. His disposition unclouded by the fog of a mysterious future. Where the liberal hindquarters lead, he placidly follows.

And this piece is going to reek of contentment. So much that I may forward it for consideration to The Federalist for publication circa 2020. That should be sufficient time for its ideas to pass through the liberal digestive tract for conservative consumption.

We’ll start with some excerpts from an article today. The author, Damon Linker, is not one with which I am familiar. Though by appearances he enjoys a thriving sideline as pestilence in Peter Jackson films. Unfortunately there is little more than his looks to commend, as his lead-footed fulminations have long been the stock prose of liberals. Though don’t take my assessment of his writing definitively. The fact that he apparently teaches the craft at an American university should serve as indictment enough. Though what did he say that pertains to the future of True Conservatism? Nothing they’ll need to cite as a movement cornerstone for probably 10 years or so.

The GOP has a big problem. Millions of its voters are a civically incompetent mob.

That’s the headline. Obviously any reader of this august site could fill the tanks from here with no further aid from Mr. Linker. His adherence to boilerplate is strict: Trump is a lying, moronic, bigot who–by the author’s implication–is hardly more qualified to hold public office than Maxine Waters. Trump’s voters, moreover, are eagerly demagogued rubes and boobs so dumb as to have no more than a 1SD IQ advantage over the other incompetent mobs Linker finds entirely palatable. None of which bears mentioning aside from a question you may be asking yourself about his ethnicity. The answer to which is yes.

Though what caught my eye was the following sentiment, reiterated in the article’s conclusion:

Roughly 40 percent of the GOP base is voting out of a poisonous mixture of ignorance and spite. They are behaving like a mob. And thus their political choice deserves no deference or respect whatsoever.

There are a lot of Trump supporters in the GOP. The party may have no alternative but to defer to their choice of presidential nominee. But please, let’s not pretend that a Trump victory in the primaries would carry even an ounce of moral legitimacy.

That’s an interesting position. Trump votes are morally illegitimate. How far is the journey from morally illegitimate to legally so? If votes cast for Trump deserve no deference or respect whatsoever, why would we give it to them? And isn’t counting a vote all the respect one customarily offers? After all men don’t write poetry about paper ballots, so what other deference could be alluded to? There, of course, is no other.

As a result, the luridly described infirmities of Trump voters should disqualify their votes from consideration. We’ve already established the morality of this position, and the law lives downstream from that. The intended result being a franchise restricted to only those people voting absent a poisonous mixture of ignorance and spite. And what better indication of the presence of these elements than who a person votes for? So we’ll need to know who that was.

That means disenfranchisement of cultural felons isn’t the only plank you’ll be reading National Review endorse in your dotage. I predict the secret ballot will also find its footing increasingly tenuous among both liberals and their conservative valets. You see the emotional platforming for this daily on battle sites across the Internet.

You’re scum and a coward! Not even man enough to put your name and face behind your vile hateful words.

Yes, fair enough. Not every man has the spine to regurgitate bland liberal dogma under his real name. And since we should have the guts to take personal responsibility for our words, why not also our ballots? Just as with our expressions online, no harm at all will come to those making appropriate choices. I think most people will find their corporate employers quite tolerant of the electoral selections they are willing to tolerate. Just stay within the generous bounds of our values and no one should ever need to cover their name or their vote. It’s been so long ago, most can barely recall the Federalist Papers being written pseudonymously by craven refuse such as Hamilton and Madison. And we don’t want to return to those dark days.

So archive this post as prediction. Liberals will eventually seek oppositional disenfranchisement and the open ballot. We’ll see some years from now if it turns out to be paranoia. Though I think most historical American paranoids were too understated in their predictions. Very few would have imagined that a word conjured out of the ether by communist Jews would in a few generations become the totem of western civilization. By comparison, these forecasts are mild.

And those hoping for at least a perfunctory defense by the True Conservatives are destined for disappointment. Having fully subscribed to both the moral primacy of anti-racism as well as the coward-thesis of their anonymous alt-right antagonists, they have few intellectual parries, and no stomach for conflict on this terrain if they did.

The truth is conservatives just shuffle behind liberalism picking the peanuts out of its droppings. Any meal actually worth eating is served from the right.


17 thoughts on “What’s for Lunch Tomorrow?

  1. A modern confirmation of Robert Michels’ Iron Law of Oligarchy: all democratic movements and parties (if they last long enough and become big enough) are eventually subverted by a group of careerists who boost their own power and prosperity by, over time, systematically depriving the ordinary voter of any influence, cutting their own expertise as justification.

  2. “So much that I may forward it for consideration to The Federalist for publication circa 2020. That should be sufficient time for its ideas to pass through the liberal digestive tract for conservative consumption.”


    A man in a functional society is a man in bonds as contrasted with a vagabond.

    Previously, Westerners’ bonds were to God, family, and to their community members represented through enterprise and civic institutions. I would hypothesize (to be very charitable) that the vast majority of today’s westerners are Suicidal-Pussy worshipping-Atheistic-Materialists whose only bonds are to accumulation of Capital (especially those screaming loudest about “economic disenfranchisement”). That Capital advertises itself as individual “freedom” (you may ask yourself “Freedom from what exactly, it cannot mean freedom from all bonds?”) and that these atomized humans scream of “economic disenfranchisement” are only evidence that Capital has made its judgment: Through the ability to leverage the cognitive labor of fewer and fewer humans, information processing technologies and telecommunication; it no longer cares for the desires and needs of humanity.

    But for those who reject the primacy of Capital in a society that has traded its bonds to God, family, and their fellows for bonds in an institutionalized system of Capital accumulation; we as only the latest instance of history’s vagabonds?

  3. “None of which bears mentioning aside from a question you may be asking yourself about his ethnicity. The answer to which is yes.”

    Serious question here, no snark: if I ask myself that question about some random writer or public figure, are there ways to do that without embarking on an exhaustive Google search? Basically, I’m looking for shortcuts, kind of like Different T kindly provided us by linking to Online Etymology Dictionary (which I just bookmarked, thanks DT!). Is there a trustworthy Online Ethnicity Dictionary? Who’sAnEskimo.com?

    • Somewhat related to your inquiry is the history of what genealogy is required to be considered a “Jew” and how it has changed over history.

      You may consider that the current delineation of a “Jew” that qualifies for “Aliyah” only exists specifically because it is NOT utilized by certain “Jewry.” The comments of this post are relevant.

      According to what I’ve read, Israel is already moving towards gay-marriage and already legally kills around 10% of future Jewry and illegally kills another 10%.

  4. Who shall be that arbiter of moral legitimacy? Who shall set the threshold and who shall write the rules? I really don’t think the kid with a polysci degree from Michigan State is the man for the job.

  5. Off topic but I just drop by to say hello . I hope you are well, I will catch up on reading your posts soon. 😊😊

  6. Damon Linker was an editor at First Things while (IIRC) Fr. Richard J. Neuhaus was still alive. Then all the sudden, he got (prog) religion on the Gay “Marriage” issue. So many cocktail parties, so many rich gays.

  7. Meh, no need to kill blind ballots. The ballots don’t matter anyway. Instead, you just direct the voting machines to discount votes for Trump. That way everyone goes home happy: “Oh, look, he only got 30% of the popular vote anyway.” After all, our elites are smarter than Saddam Hussein; unanimity at the ballot box looks suspicious.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s