The Conservative Counterculture

Kind of funny, really. When I was a kid (in the 60s) I was a hopeless square, being conservative, and even believing in God, although I had my problems with Him, as most do. But, hey, look at us now.

Yes, I know, Infowars. But, if it walks like a duck, and it talks like a duck…

And you know, he’s right. I don’t especially like Milo, or some of his beliefs, what I do like is that he’s out there, doing it his way. Bookworm recently said this:

Milo Yiannopoulos — rude and crude, but also smart, brave, funny, and bitchy. He’s a necessary counterweight to Progressives’ lethal Political Correctness.

With a swirling debate about whether Milo Yiannopoulos will be a keynote speaker at this year’s CPAC, I have a confession: I didn’t like Milo Yiannopoulos when he first popped up on my radar. At a first, superficial, glance, he was everything that rubs me the wrong way: His humor seemed to rely on crude insults and too often to trade in racial and religious stereotypes, he relentlessly leveraged those insults and stereotypes into media face time which seemed to drag conservativism down not build it up, and he had that whole drag queen vibe. I have issues, which I’ll explain in a few minutes, with the drag queen vibe. Having reached these conclusions, I dismissed Milo. There. Done.

The thing is, if you’re a conservative, Milo is not a person who can be — or should be — dismissed. I first got an inkling of this from my teenage son. Sick and tired of being on the receiving end of misanthropic third-wave feminist tirades at his school (which cannot be challenged because doing so is an unacceptable manifestation of cisgender male privilege and domination), he headed to the internet looking for rebuttals to these feminists. Even if the school’s uber-liberal environment bans voicing the rebuttals, at least he had the comfort of knowing they were there.

My son’s research led him directly to Steve Crowder and Milo. He appreciated Crowder’s unflinching, and almost invariably funny, take Islam’s issues with the West and he was completely awed at Milo’s ability to (in my son’s words) “destroy those feminazis.” My son therefore insisted I watch Milo’s epic feminazi destruction in action. I agreed, somewhat worried that I’d get one of Milo’s unpleasant, uber-queenie, racist, shock-value moments. Instead, I got this:

I hope you see what I see: A young man in complete command of the facts, debating at a high intellectual level using arguments familiar to most conservatives, and politely, completely, and matter-of-factly destroying the feminist mantra. Without being in any way offensive, he left those two women looking foolish and uninformed.

Here was a young, hip, edgy, gay, Jewish/Greek/Catholic guy attacking the Leftist shibboleths that so irritated my son. Without my putting any pressure on him, my son regularly hunted down both Milo’s and Crowder’s videos. (Incidentally, my focus on Milo here is not meant to denigrate Crowder’s virtues. It’s simply that he’s a less controversial figure, so I don’t feel compelled to go to his defense.) No wonder, then, that my son, unusually for a kid his age in my “true Blue” county was remarkably sanguine when Trump won.

All very true, in my experience. So we had the kerfluffle yesterday when Milo supposedly defended pedophilia. But did he? I doubt it. Book updated that post, here is what she said.

[And timing is everything. The day after I wrote an encomium to Milo, who speaks forcefully about (among other things) gender dysphoria and the danger to children in bathrooms, PJ Media claims he supports gay pedophilia — or, at least, being a provocateur, provocatively says things he implies he does. Milo is certainly firm in his outrage against the accusation. His defense makes sense to me, especially given how familiar I am with gay culture thanks to growing up and working in SF. This new data point doesn’t change the main points below. Here’s the deal: gay culture is different and one of Milo’s strengths is that he says America should not subordinate itself to gay culture.]

UPDATE: Milo seems to have been destroyed. Despite his books status as a best seller, Simon & Schuster has dumped it. Breitbart is silent about him.

As best as I can tell, thanks to Stephen Green’s research, these are the two worst things Milo said that would lead to an accusation that he’s a pedophile:

Milo’s money quote, which was edited out of the video, is this:

The law is probably about right, that’s probably roughly the right age. I think it’s probably about okay, but there are certainly people who are capable of giving consent at a younger age, I certainly consider myself to be one of them, people who are sexually active younger. I think it particularly happens in the gay world by the way. In many cases actually those relationships with older men…This is one reason I hate the left. This stupid one size fits all policing of culture. (People speak over each other). This sort of arbitrary and oppressive idea of consent, which totally destroys you know understanding that many of us have. The complexities and subtleties and complicated nature of many relationships. You know, people are messy and complex. In the homosexual world particularly. Some of those relationships between younger boys and older men, the sort of coming of age relationships, the relationships in which those older men help those young boys to discover who they are, and give them security and safety and provide them with love and a reliable and sort of a rock where they can’t speak to their parents. Some of those relationships are the most -”

And this was edited out as well:

“You’re misunderstanding what pedophilia means. Pedophilia is not a sexual attraction to somebody 13-years-old who is sexually mature. Pedophilia is attraction to children who have not reached puberty. Pedophilia is attraction to people who don’t have functioning sex organs yet. Who have not gone through puberty… That’s not what we are talking about. You don’t understand what pedophilia is if you are saying I’m defending it because I’m certainly not.”

In other words, Milo never said that he had sex with little boys or that he intended to do so. What he did say was that older gay men often introduce younger gay men into sex. I certainly saw that enough when I was living and working in San Francisco. It was too common practice for sexually confused 20 or 22 year olds to be taken under the wing of a 30 or 40 year old gay man. It was not pedophilia, it was gay mentoring and it’s obvious that Milo is referring to that practice.

As for Milo’s comment about pedophilia being a perverted passion for children who have not gone through adolescence, he’s correct. He’s also correct that children mature at different speeds. In my neighborhood, one kid at 12 had a nascent mustache and a voice deeper than my husband’s. Another finally got his growth spurt when he went off to college, although he’s still not shaving. Having said that, Milo made it clear that, given this variability, he has no problem with the current age of consent laws.

It’s very disturbing that this take-down of one of the most effective voices for conservativism came from the #NeverTrump crowd having a petty pique fit over Milo’s invitation to CPAC. Having said that, the information was out there, and if the renegade right hadn’t published it, the Lefties would have and in a way that was even worse.

I’ve heard from friends that Lefties are already piling on to this man who did nothing wrong other than making observations about the realities of the gay world and the physical maturation process. More than that, I find it incredibly ironic that this tut-tutting comes from the Left. These are the same people who demand that condoms, birth control advice, and abortion information should be given to kids as young as 11 in their schools, and who insist that a child can get an abortion with an adult okaying it something that is, of course, the best possible way for a true pedophile to destroy any genetic evidence of his crime.

And by the way, if this seems familiar, you’re seeing the same takedown that the Left and #NeverTrumpers did to Trump. He observed accurately enough that, if you’re rich and famous, women will indeed let you do anything to them. He did not say that he took advantage of this reality, yet he was instantly called a molester and subjected to the harshest castigation. And of course, most of the screaming came from the same side that was fine with Clinton raping women and using the pressure of his fame and power to coerce a women young enough to be his daughter to engage in a sordid workplace affair.

This whole thing sickens and disgusts me. We are in a political sewer in our country.

Yep, and so here you see what happens, Book, a nice Jewish lady in her 50s and me, a conservative Christian in my 60s, defending a brash young Brit, because he was essentially set up – again. We’ve both seen it time and time again, and enough is enough. I don’t agree with anyone, all the time, but I’m not the guy, and neither are you, that has, or should have the power to tell them, “sit down and shut up”. It used to be a free country, and with luck, and people like Milo, it will be again.

Do read her post linked above. But here’s the thing, what’s happening to Milo is exactly what the establishment tried to do to Trump. Trump is a well-known quantity, and because of it (and his personality) is known well enough to withstand it, even thrive on it. Milo maybe isn’t yet. He’s the same sort of brazen, in your face guy, but he works in an area that causes discomfort to many of us older guys, me included. But, my discomfort is no reason for him to be silenced, by anyone, neither is yours. What we call “Freedom of Speech” would be better named “Freedom to Offend” because that is what it is. If Milo had done actual pedophilia (and his definition is correct, ages of consent are a modern thing, because not all mature at the same rate, and we have wished to protect those that mature slower) that would be one thing, one that objective law would deal with, saying things, even things we may find distasteful or wrong is not.

The fact that this happened is even more proof that the puritans of the left (including many Republicans) simply can’t handle dissension. That is why Freedom now lives on the right, and Milo is one of its spokespeople. The left has become ‘the Man’ and this is the sound of people speaking truth to power. Deal with it. Because conservativism, no matter what the pearl clutchers think (even the #never Trumpers), has become the counterculture.

Paul J. Watson wrote about this recently in Canada Free Press and you should read that as well.

James Delingpole recently observed that Ted Mallach believes that “the Brexit and Trump shocks of 2016…are the counter-reaction to the global takeover by the liberal-left in 1968.”  This long overdue counter-reaction is, in fact, (as Milo and PJ Watson note) the vanguard of a new counter-culture—conservatism.

Let me be quick to point out that I am not referring to “conservatism” as it has been understood in the past—and the new conservatism should by no means be confused with the so called “neo-conservatives” (neocons), who are, of course, left wing big government globalists posing as right-wing conservative Republicans.  (Many of the Republican #NeverTrumpers come from their ranks).

Although the new counter-cultural brand of conservatism that I am talking about carries with it many key elements of traditional conservatism—such as a passion for freedom, patriotism, capitalism, religious freedom, and tolerance—it tends to be more pragmatic and less ideologically obsessed, more open-minded and less dogmatic than traditional conservatism.  Sort of libertarianism on a leash, with a dash of brash impertinence.

The core word in the new conservative counter-culture is freedom.  As in free-spirited, free-thinking, free enterprise, free market, free speech—free, freer, freest.

By and large our college campuses are currently anti-freedom, and promote and preach fear, intolerance, divisiveness, and scorn—muzzling free speech and indoctrinating students to be passionately and self-righteously fearful and contemptuous of anyone perceived as being outside the officially sanctioned leftist thought box.  Academia has become, in a word, repressiveMuch more repressive than they ever thought of being back in 1968.

American academia has morphed into a purveyor of Draconian thought policing that is diametrically opposed to what the counter-culture of the late 60s purportedly fought for.  Perhaps the strangest of the leftist campus reversals is from a “If it feels good do it” hedonism to a type of hysterical pearl-clutching puritanism.  In any event, it is way past time for a radical shift in direction.  I believe that with a cutting edge conservative counter-culture leading the way, we won’t get fooled again.

The “long march through the institutions” created not [a] collectivist utopia, but privileged elites in media, academe, and government whose stock portfolios, bank accounts, affluent zip-codes, and tony life-styles [are] indistinguishable from those of the robber-baron capitalists they demonized.—Bruce Thornton “Leftism:From Bloody Tragedy to Therapeutic Parody

via Hip Conservative Counter-Culture Vs. Repressive Liberal Establishment

It’s awfully late, but we’ve finally become the cool kids, just in time, I think.

Sunday Miscellany

cor-mrz021617-color_orig

It’s Sunday, I’m late (and lazy) so here’s some stuff for your education and enlightenment, without working too hard.

w1056

 

w1056-1

 

9999991

w1056-2

w1056-3

w1056-4

And, of course

w1056-5

The Trump Mutiny

ouragan sur le caine The Caine Mutiny  Année : 1954 - usa Humphrey Bogart, Fred MacMurray, Van Johnson  Réalisateur : Edward Dmytryk

ouragan sur le caine
The Caine Mutiny
Année : 1954 – usa
Humphrey Bogart, Fred MacMurray, Van Johnson
Réalisateur : Edward Dmytryk

Steve Berman advanced a thesis the other day. I think he has a point. It seems to me to be just about what is going on. The Caine Mutiny is one of my favorite books, and the intellectual ( perhaps pseudo-intellectual) Keefer really is the apple that spoils the barrel. Here’s Steve:

It wouldn’t surprise me if, behind closed doors and absent any electronic devices, intelligence community members call President Trump something like “Old Yellowstain.” There’s a mutiny brewing, one that’s being incited by the real cowards who hate Trump but hide whispering in the shadows.

If you’re familiar with the 1954 movie “The Caine Mutiny,” based on Herman Wouk’s Pultizer Prize-winning novel, you’ll know where I’m going here. If you haven’t read the book or seen the movie, read or watch it.

Here’s a quick synopsis for the unfamiliar, or those who need a refresher. Scroll down to skip my ersatz Cliff’s Notes, or you can read about it on Wikipedia.


In the movie, Humphrey Bogart plays Lt. Commander Phillip Francis Queeg, a regular Navy officer who served faithfully pre-World War II, who is now serving in wartime in a role for which he’s not accustomed. Van Johnson plays executive officer Lt. Stephen Maryk, and Fred MacMurray excellently portrays the intellectual novelist Lt. Thomas Keefer, the ship’s communications officer. […]

There’s a whispering campaign going on in the intelligence community. It’s a mutiny in the making. Withholding intelligence from the president because the IC doesn’t trust the man is not part of their job description.

Leaking highly classified material to the Washington Post which results in the resignation of the national security adviser to the president is not part of the job description. The whole “loyal to the Constitution” thing is the same choice faced by Keefer and Maryk in Wouk’s story. The captain is in charge of the boat, in a storm or on calm seas.

The Keefers are just waiting for a storm–it will come–when Queeg can be made to appear frozen in indecision or cowardice. Then they will encourage Maryk to relieve him. They will make it seem reasonable that Trump should be removed from office, by either impeachment or the 25th Amendment.

via The Trump Mutiny | The Resurgent

It’s a pretty good thesis, I think. It may not cover all cases, but I think it covers quite a few. So, do read the whole thing™.

But’s it’s Saturday, and time to slow down a bit. And besides, it’s a good movie

 

 

The Republic and the Preppers

downloadOk, this kerfuffle with General Flynn is either a tempest in a teacup or it may well be the most serious threat to the Republic ever, including the secessionists back in 1860. Too soon to tell, and by the time it is, it may well be too late to do anything about it.

That means that we may end up looking stupid as hell, but we can not and must not allow this to be swept under the rug.

My friend Ooobie, spent a good many years working for the Feds, as did her husband, I’ve found her views to be logical, and rational over the last few years. I do here, as well.

I watch astounded at the audacity of ignorant thugs hired by the left wreaking havoc on our nation. They are the paid hounds of hell, loosed on our society to force confrontation between the Marxist-Leninists (aka socialists) and the deplorables, also known as right-wingers, Nazis, neo-Nazis, fascists, and so on. (Did you ever notice how communists is never a dirty word for these guys?) I see that the unhinged Sarah Silverman became terrified by the neo-Nazi symbols painted all over New York. Those were, of course, utility markings that actually bore very little resemblance to a swastika. A woman contemptuous of Israel on a daily basis, she used her Jewish card to excuse her stupidity. Everything, including the tracks of slalom skiers, reminds her of swastikas, like the hiss of a snake is ingrained in a bird’s brain. Another tweeter skewered her stupidity with a series of tweets featuring “neo-Nazis” (utility workers) doing various neo-Nazi things, like raising the Iron Cross (a utility pole) that bore an obvious resemblance to “T” for Trump. He’s funny. She’s just, well, stupid.

Let’s be frank. There is a paid and coordinated effort to create public hysteria (the Russian menace; the Nazi regime) in order to feed approval for acts of subversion and treason against an elected president and the USG. They want to bring down Trump, and are happy to tear down the Constitution, individual rights and public order to do so. I worked for years for the USG, as did my husband. I have never seen this kind of open sabotage by people paid out of public funds. There was always a Democrat preference, but never the deliberate undermining of superiors. This is scary and shameful. This is unprecedented. These people want permanent power and we are the mote in their eye. […]

Another issue: the Russophobia. The degree of hysterical coverage of Russia has surpassed anything I have ever seen, which includes the entire Cold War. It is not a coincidence that this rise in public fear happens months after the USG funded a major program (under Obama) to counter Russian propaganda with US propaganda aimed at Russia.[…]

The two memes, that Russia is a major threat to the world and that they stole the US election for the evil Donald Trump, could bring an end to our system of government. We have reached a point where the rotten brats brought up in our indoctrination camps, aka public education, think a one-party dictatorship is a good thing, but only if they are it. Otherwise, “by any means necessary.”[…]

Here is what I want to see. I want to see the immigration raids continue relentlessly. I want to see the leakers tracked down and arrested and held without bail pending trial. I want an investigation of John Brennan and Mike Morell. I want an investigation into Soros funding of the rampant violence. I want both the Clinton server crimes and the Clinton Foundation crimes investigated. And I want to see the back of the Clintons (despite those ugly big saggy asses).

I usually have been a few years ahead of the curve in my predictions, although this year is a real drag on my average. But I’ll venture this. We are headed into a deliberately provoked civil war. Prepare for it.

For Christ’s sake, the Preppers were right.

via Sedition and treason stalk America | Ooobie on Everything Do read it.

There’s much I could add here, but there is little point. Ooobie is correct. This is not very far from a coup attempt, against an elected president by the bureaucracy this is why yesterday, I quoted President Eisenhower, he more than anybody else, in my lifetime, saw this coming. No doubt he thought it would be different, we rarely are given to see clearly into the future.

Then again, common sense could, I suppose, break out, and we can all go back to sleep. But I don’t think so, this time. There are too many who have been bought and paid for, by whatever you want to call that group, who adamantly oppose the very concept of the nation-state. To be honest, I see much the same happening in Britain, where the Brexiteers are often being shunted off to the side. On the continent, it’s worse, just ask Geert Wilders and others.

What’s unique this time, I think, is that it is a fair slice of the people, against the government, allied with the part of the population that has the idea that they are better fitted to rule than the people as a whole. As in Ooobie’s comment on Sarah Silverman above, and there are any number of examples, most of which I have, and will continue to, ignored. They aren’t. I’m not entirely sure they’re qualified to change their own diapers. They certainly haven’t the education to be anything but unemployed, nor have they enough social graces to be allowed in to dinner in the meanest of traditional homes.

As Ooobie said, “For Christ’s sake, the Preppers were right.”

I would only add, “Buy more ammunition.

Eisenhower, Flynn, and Trust

michael-flynn2-article-headerA bit more than 56 years ago President Eisenhower gave his farewell speech, he left us with a warning but first he talked about who we were.

Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology-global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle-with liberty at stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.

Has anything really changed? Sure the Soviet Union is in the dustbin of history, but it seems to me we face much the same enemy now, just by another name. He also said this:

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United State corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence-economic, political, even spiritual-is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

The only thing I would change in this is to add the intelligence community and the corporate news industry to the military industrial complex.

Seems to me that is what we are seeing play out now. You all know Bill Krystal, the supposedly conservative writer, well how about this?

I hate to say it, but to me, it comes pretty close to sedition.

Particularly since by all appearances, General Michaels Flynn’s ouster was nothing less than a political assassination.

Paul Mirengoff at Powerline says this

I have a few thoughts about the resignation of Ret. Gen. Michael Flynn. First, I’m calling it an “ouster” because it appears to be the result of a campaign against him. Indeed, Eli Lake calls it a “political assassination.”

Lake quotes Rep. Devin Nunes, chairman of the House intelligence committee, as follows: “”First it’s Flynn, next it will be Kellyanne Conway, then it will be Steve Bannon, then it will be Reince Priebus.” “Put another way,” Lake adds (melodramatically?), “Flynn is only the appetizer; Trump is the entree.”

This doesn’t mean Flynn didn’t deserve to go. If there was substantial reason to believe that he intentionally misled the administration about his conversation with the Russian ambassador, this was sufficient reason to oust him. […] Trump himself has tweeted:

The real story here is why are there so many illegal leaks coming out of Washington? Will these leaks be happening as I deal on N.Korea etc?

That’s a question that goes to the heart of American foreign policy. Paul adds

Intelligence analysts began to search for clues that could help explain Putin’s move [his announcement on December 30 of last year not to respond to the Obama administration’s sanctions]. The search turned up Kislyak’s communications, which the FBI routinely monitors, and the phone call in question with Flynn, a retired Army lieutenant general with years of intelligence experience.

Whether the contents of the phone call were obtained by monitoring the ambassador or by monitoring Flynn, I think Trump is right. The leaking of those contents is a big part of the story, and a disturbing one.

The media-intelligence community pipeline is a swamp that needs to be drained. But can it be?

That is the umpteen trillion dollar question. In large measure, the future of the Republic hinges on it.

Why? Because American have always in large measure been able to trust our government to act in America’s interest. This calls that into question, and then we get to what the guys at Right Angle are talking about.

What that trust is, in large measure, is the rule of law, and that is what has allowed the Anglosphere to far outpace the rest of the world in every sphere.

Winning with the Colonel

bf4d1850-1ac0-491f-9769-20525e35a0fcHere is one of those articles that is nearly impossible to shorten. Kurt Schlichter hits another home run.

The Left is getting massively out-Alinskyed, and the hilarious thing is that this band of withered hippies, unemployable millennial safe-space cases, and unlovable + unshaven libfeminists don’t even know it. Oh, their masters sure know it. Soros is bitterly having to ramp up his infusions of blood money to keep his community-organized “grassroots” movements afloat. The less dumb ones among the lying dinosaur media are panicking as their influence fades, and Chuck Schumer is enduring such a non-stop parade of serial humiliations that if the Senate were a penitentiary, he’d be McConnell’s prison Mitch.

The Leftist mafia godmaleidentifyingparents pulling the strings of the Marxist Muppets know the score – they are losing. And it’s awesome. Because, finally, the Right has taken Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals and shoved it up where #TheResistance don’t shine.

Thank you, Andrew Breitbart. You yelled “Follow me!” and led a movement that had previously been dominated by doofy wonks and bow-tied geeks over the top in a glorious bayonet charge against the paper tiger liberal elite. The Left hadn’t taken a good, solid gut punch since Ronald Reagan turned the Oval Office keys over to the wimpcons who found fighting Democrats uncouth because conflict made for awkward luncheons down at the club. Bizarrely, the guy who picked up the standard and carried it forward when our beloved commander was felled by fate was a New York billionaire with no identifiable ideological foundation who instinctively understood the one thing that could make up for his other failings: He knows how to fight liberals and win. For Donald Trump and the revitalized conservative movement, Alinsky’s book isn’t some dusty old commie tome – it’s a lifestyle.

Alinsky’s Rules are relatively simple, and they make sense when you are fighting a conventional opponent with an interest in maintaining the status quo. The Rules are terrific for dealing with an old-school conservative guy who drives a Buick, enjoys gardening, and doesn’t want any trouble. They aren’t so effective against conservative brawlers who like to punch, and who aren’t too fussy about whether it’s with tweets or with fists.

You know the Colonel is correct, if Breitbart has a legacy, it’s the current right, which fights the left all the time, everywhere, and you know what else, we’re winning. We won last summer in Britain, we won last November in America, and I suspect we’ll win more this year in Europe.

Rule 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Actually, we now have a lot of power. No, we don’t have direct power over liberal bastions like Hollywood, the media and academia, […]

Rule 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people” and Rule 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Stupid GOP wonkcons want to fight to where the liberals are strong, like on entitlements. Trump is smart enough to fight where liberals are weak, like on the economy. […]

Rule 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” This is not so much about pointing out the lies and hypocrisy that constitute Leftist orthodoxy – the vicious racism they deny is racism because it’s anti-white, the racism against non-whites who refuse to serve a liberal master, the sexism against women who think babies should be actually be born, and so on. It’s about not letting them tie us into knots by using our morals and values as bear traps to immobilize and neutralize us. Fortunately, most of us have discovered how losing our superficial “political values” helps us regain our freedom. […]

Read that link, Warden speaks for me, and many others like me and it’s why we’re winning.

Rule 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” Actually, the AR15 a more potent weapon, but ridicule will do as long as the Left doesn’t try to make good on its countless threats of violence and tyranny. Regardless, we finally we have a conservative corps that is willing to mock the members of that motley collection of pompous, inept, lying jerks we call the Democrat Party and its media catamite corps. […]

Rule 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” I’m having fun watching the liberals lose. How about you?

Rule 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” I don’t know – I doubt I am ever going to be tired of so much #winning.

Rule 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Remember the Trump outrage du jour a couple days ago when we were supposed to be on the verge of war with Australia? […]

via Shoving Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals Right Back in the Left’s Ugly Face – Kurt Schlichter

Do read the link, I’ve pushed fair use as far as I dare, giving you that much. The Colonel is right, and I doubt any of us are ever going to get tired of #winning, or not #caring, at least not before America is restored.

General Patton said just before the Normandy Invasion, it’s still true today, for the heirs of those men.

Americans love a winner. Americans will not tolerate a loser. Americans despise cowards. Americans play to win all of the time. I wouldn’t give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That’s why Americans have never lost nor will ever lose a war; for the very idea of losing is hateful to an American.

%d bloggers like this: