Miss Congeniality No More

Defeat sometimes offers winning’s wisest counsel. That’s the impression I have watching cod-fish Clinton writhing on the Email hook. The perceived impact of which has been a bit surprising. I read that 30% of those polled felt her lingering legal jeopardy would potentially impact their vote. That’s an admirably robust figure for national fickleness. She and Trump have staked fairly remote poles in their vision of America. To think nearly a third of the electorate would flounce from one to the other because of Email infirmities makes me wonder much less why Mylie Cyrus is a very wealthy woman.

Though obviously it’s not just about Emails, but rather the weight of accumulating evidence about the Clinton corruption machine and Hilly’s haughty dismissal of legal boundaries the hoi polloi cross only under pain of imprisonment. Still, if you want a brown America and mushroom clouds over Moscow, the choice couldn’t be more plain. And I can’t imagine the opinion of a white male FBI chief is going to much dissuade you.

That failure to dissuade is the lesson in realpolitik democrats are now implicitly teaching. Compared to the capricious preening of their counterparts, democrats have maintained iron-discipline throughout the now daily-debacle. They form a cordon of hacks around every impropriety that comes dripping into the sunlight. Critics are met by a phalanx of human Wiener penis pics. Hillary accusers are Putin puppets, and every one of them is anti-woman QE-fucking-D. Harry Reid has even formally accused Comey of breaking the law himself. You swing a hammer, we swing an ax.

It’s all been very impressive. I believe there are now some four separate inquiry/investigations concerning the Clintons directly or of their close associates. James O’Keefe has heroically recorded verbal admissions of violent incitement at Trump rallies along with boasts about 50 years of liberal election fraud. Wikileaks has essentially live-streamed the ongoing octopus-copulation between the Clinton campaign and its media porn whores. For none of which has Anderson Cooper yet secured a disavowal.

That’s because the disavow game is a chump’s exercise intended strictly for those who excel in that role: conservatives.

And do they ever. Trump faced an insurrection of sniffing salon ladies practically from the moment he announced his candidacy. With every old indiscretion unearthed by the left’s trash monkeys, NeverTrumpers would vainly sashay before the cameras in their chastity belts. Libs paint camouflage on their face before going to political war, while conservatives paint mascara. The point of which to look lovely in their perpetual virtue pageant. Mirror mirror on the wall, who is the most moral of them all?

img_2926

One of the most conspicuous of these conservative lady-boys is Nebraska senator Ben Sasse, who recently furrowed his brow to wonder aloud why democrats weren’t desecrating their own flawed candidate as republican rectitude should dictate. You can’t expect a mere senator to understand politics, though there is a very simple answer to that: the left wants to win, they want to rule, and they want to build favelas on the bones of your conservative constituents.

This is why the alt-right is tearing through their blubber. Republicans have confused conflict for pomp. As they spray their hair, the left forms ranks to fight. That one side of this contest consistently wins is something that requires lavish corporate subsidies to never comprehend.

But the days of pummeling beautiful losers are drawing to a close. Many millions of Americans are going to vote for an uncouth pussy-grabbing bastard who builds a wall and smashes crusty orange-colored fists into the snouts of their enemies. That’s the future of petri-dish Western politics. And it’s well time conservatives left the changing room to get on the right side of it.

19 thoughts on “Miss Congeniality No More

  1. What is going on with the GOP and how it failed white voters is blindingly obvious to all but the most highly paid pundit. You have to wonder just how much money and manilla envelopes of compromising photos it took to get control of the leadership to this degree.

  2. The “Judeo-Christian Conservatives”will go down with the ship before they ever realize or fix their flawed world view.

    • “A torpedo amidships and their wish is granted! Up periscope, me hearties! The good ship Yeshua Abraham is on the horizon!” (Cap’n Kek)

  3. To think nearly a third of the electorate would flounce from one to the other because of Email infirmities makes me wonder much less why Mylie Cyrus is a very wealthy woman.

    I wondered about that survey. Wasn’t the question put in terms of whether it would make one less likely to vote for her? The results then could include in large part people who were not planning to vote for her and now are even less likely to do so.

  4. And do they ever. Trump faced an insurrection of sniffing salon ladies practically from the moment he announced his candidacy. With every old indiscretion unearthed by the left’s trash monkeys, NeverTrumpers would vainly sashay before the cameras in their chastity belts. Libs paint camouflage on their face before going to political war, while conservatives paint mascara. The point of which to look lovely in their perpetual virtue pageant. Mirror mirror on the wall, who is the most moral of them all?

    There is much eloquence and accuracy in this passage.

    However, I do not think the proper strategy is to abandon moral argument. Rather, we must learn to make better ones. Our people (and, perhaps, all homo sapiens) have a need, individually and as an identity group, to stand on the moral high ground. The answer then is to find the arguments and rhetoric to get us there.

    A partial analogy is Madeleine Albright’s response to an unwelcome legal opinion from State Department (if my memory of the anecdote serves) counsel: “Get better lawyers.”

    A naked exhortation that we jettison with values and pursue selfish interests may not be as persuasive as other approaches. The pursuit of interests, at minimum, should be placed within a moral framework (for example, reciprocity, self defense).

    • However, I do not think the proper strategy is to abandon moral argument. Rather, we must learn to make better ones. Our people (and, perhaps, all homo sapiens) have a need, individually and as an identity group, to stand on the moral high ground.

      There’s no doubt. And hopefully that moral justification is well-covered in prior writings here. But the fact is that we are stewards of nothing we don’t live to bear. Did Martel periodically use coarse language about women? Was the Greek leader at Salamis insufficiently respectful of immigrant cultures? I don’t know. But we can be assured that if Ben Sasse were in a solon’s robes at the time, calls of “Never Themistocles!” would peal from the gallery as Persians massed in the bay.

      • Exactly. Never Trumpers are straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. Small personal/venial moral failings are nothing compared to letting Christendom itself be destroyed from the inside and out.

      • But we can be assured that if Ben Sasse were in a solon’s robes at the time, calls of “Never Themistocles!” would peal from the gallery as Persians massed in the bay.

        LOL

      • Thank you for the diplomatic reply and for indulging my typos and awkward prose. I write diplomatic because I suppose my original comment could have been taken as criticism, and I don’t think I meant it that way. I certainly did not mean to suggest that you are not a good advocate for us.

        In the interest of giving well-intended feedback, however, I would add that when you draw a distinction in your writing between interests and values, I have not always directly perceived the moral justification behind your advocacy of pursuing interests. (Other than, we’d better follow this pathway, or perish.)

        (I’ll take the opportunity to include some questions that I’ve had relating to this subject. What is the purpose of “values”? What in fact defines them, and how do they differ from interests? Do you accord them some usefulness to us? I would think they probably have some, in some circumstances at least, given how spellbinding the are. It seems doubtful they serve no purpose given how powerful and pervasive they are in our society.)

      • I’ll try to spell this out with more clarity in the future. Though aside from the stark utilitarian impetus to survive–a moral justification in itself I’d assert–interests are highly symbiotic with values. Even the most selfless moralist must comprehend that his cherished values require a vehicle to bear them forward. A vehicle of people like him.

        And so if his life has no other function whatsoever, morality compels him to cultivate his own interests that he may be a vessel for his values. Otherwise he’s got the attention of no one but the undertaker.

      • Reader:

        The pursuit of interests requires and, in fact, can have no moral justification. Interests are conceptually prior to morality, and morality exists to serve interests.

        Morality mediates conflicting interests of members of the moral community to further the interest of the community as a unit and to maximize the interests of “individual” group members in the aggregate.

    • However, I do not think the proper strategy is to abandon moral argument. Rather, we must learn to make better ones. Our people (and, perhaps, all homo sapiens) have a need, individually and as an identity group, to stand on the moral high ground. The answer then is to find the arguments and rhetoric to get us there.

      Aggression is always wrong. The Left is a machine of perpetual aggression. Immigration is aggression. Self-defense is always right. The moral high ground is obviously ours.

      • Possibly from an objective standpoint. But being so doesn’t make it so. The view does not come across at all in public discourse, narrative. In fact, the opposite one does. Perhaps we should put more effort towards the development of arguments from self defense for opposing “immigration.” So what do those look like, pithily?

        That’s a general observation, by the way, and not made with respect to our host here.

  5. Pingback: Miss Congeniality No More | Reaction Times

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