Losing your political virginity

I don’t post on modern stuff because the American brain is so wasted it will forget about “the biggest thing in the world” in two weeks.  But still.

I can respect that people don’t want to vote for Trump.  That makes sense.  Stop saying “This is the last straw for the GOP,” as though the GOP suddenly betrayed conservative principles and you will go no further.

If you convinced yourself to vote for McCain or Romney and thought that was conservatism, please stop pretending you are a political virgin.  You lost that card a long time ago.


Rejoinder to Goldberg/National Review

I normally despise anything National Review writes, but every now and then they can be very helpful even if very wrong.  In “Denationalizing Politics” Jonah Goldberg notes,

Donald Trump almost never uses the language of traditional American conservatism, with its emphasis on classically liberal notions of limited government, constitutionalism, individualism, and free trade.

Well, yes. Though given National Review’s support for neocon wars, one wonders how committed to constitutionalism they are.

Still, these visions leave millions of traditional conservatives and committed libertarians without a natural home in either major political party

Welcome to my world for the past two decades. Not fun, is it?  

No one simply lives in the United States of America. We live in Peoria, Harlem, and Seattle. The virtues built close to home, Levin argues, are those that make us good citizens and ultimately draw us together.

This is almost true.  I like the “go local” part of it.  The problem is that the United States as a singular entity was never supposed to exist.  We are supposed to be a collection of federal republics.

What would be so terrible about letting diverse communities decide how they want to live and spend their tax dollars?

Didn’t you guys call for the mass suicide of white communities?

As a whole much of Goldberg’s post sounds like something I would write.  The problem is the neocon agenda.  How can we empower local communities (“not cede power to Washington”) when the federal government expanded under his hero George W. Bush?

But isn’t “nationalism” dangerous?  Depends on what you mean by that term.  I think “nationalism” as used today is an empty term that serves only to link the enemy with Hitler. Of course, those who studied philosophical romanticism and the development of cultural cohesion know that no proponent uses the term like that.  

So what is nationalism?  Goldberg doesn’t actually define it but I think he means something like state centralization of power at the expense of local and international communities.  In doing so he makes a classic error in defining the state in modern, post-Enlightenment terms as some sort of bureaucratic apparatus. Goldberg sees the state as synonymous with the nation. Earlier Romantics (and the middle ages) did not use such a definition.  “Nation” for them was the cohesion of a number of unifying factors: culture, religion, language. Oh yeah, see Augustine’s City of God 19.24-26, “common bonds of love.”  State as a modern bureaucratic invention did not happen until much later.

Thus, we can define nationalism–no doubt as Herder defined it–as promoting the cultural cohesion of different groups who are defined and bound together by their shared objects of love.  Far from being “xenophobic” or “wacist,” this is the most loving and culturally enriching thing one can do.

Tell me what is better:  Ethiopian Orthodox art or some watered down white-boy band pop music?  Tell me what is better: the mosque at Timbuktu or Bauhaus architecture?  Tell me what is better: the Tao te Ching or 50 Shades of Grey?

I wonder if the loss of a culture is the reason for much of the mental illness in America today.

But moving on:  without nationalism and a strong identity, we are simply Lockean atoms bouncing in the Void.  Uprooted communities who live in fear and angst will not be able to stop the Internal Bankster Regime.


Notes on Matt Johnson’s take on Herder

This is a highlight of Matthew Raphael Johnson’s “Some Thoughts on Johann Herder and Modernism” (originally available at www.rusjournal.com/herder.html; accessed 19 February 2009.  That website is now defunct and Johnson is slowly moving his material to the new and highly-recommended www.rusjournal.org).

These posts will try to show why the GOP utterly failed to account for the rise of  Trump and ultimately on why neoconservatism/neoliberalism not only is politically shallow, but probably mentally alienated.

  1. Herder’s Critique of the Enlightenment: the study of man is different from the study of empirical science.
    1. Peoples are distorted if they are abstracted from their whole.
  2. The idea of social contract is a false bill of goods.
    1. For such a contract to exist the civilizational apparatus would have to already be in place.
    2. This is why attempts to spread “democracy” universally fail.
  3. We are born into community and cannot exist apart from it.  Thus, the idea of autonomous man is false.
  4. Epistemological premise of Herder: the conceptualization of data must always use poetry and memory as valid modes of knowing.
    1. Epistemology is intensely social.
    2. If we divorce it from the social life in which we find it–and the historical consciousness–then we divorce knowledge from reality.
    3. We cannot remove “romance” from reason.
    4. The spirit of loyalty and tradition is what maintains loyalty, not mathematical and economic equations.  (This is why Donald Trump won the nomination.)  
      1. These are relations of family, church, village.
      2. These relations are immediate because it is these relations that make conceptual mediation (i.e., reason) possible.
  5. Aesthetics: to aestheticize nature is to imprint the general will upon it and place it within the cultural vortex.
    1. Language, tradition, memory must all form a unified whole.
    2. Failure to do this results in alienation.
  6. Organic is not pantheistic
    1. What does “organic” mean?  
    2. Simply that the whole is manifest in the part.
  7. The nation is not the State.
    1. Custom, tradition, and nationality are not things one “consents” to.
    2. They are the conditions for one to consent to anything.
    3. “Liberal” consent is a fraud.  No one consents to be economically ruled by George Soros.

So…on Trump

I’ve restrained myself on political commentary this season, especially on Facebook.  For the record, I don’t see myself voting for Trump.  There, I’ve said it.  You can breathe easier now.

Thesis:  Trump is the mirror of American culture.

Everyone is angry that he is rude and vulgar.  Yeah, what of it?  He probably best represents pop-culture America than any other candidate, if that is the case.

But he is an unrepentant fornicator.  Well, that’s on his soul and he will answer to God for it.  Again, given adultery and out of wedlock birth rates in America, who better to represent us?

The difference between Trump and everyone else is that Trump is honest about what he will do.  (Well, so is Hillary in a grimmer fashion).  He isn’t telling us polite insincerities about “our values.”  He speaks in concrete terms.  He doesn’t talk about “Fighting Terrorism.”  He is specific on border problems.

How can an Evangelical support him?  I have no idea but I might be able to guess.  GOP has broken every promise they have made to Evangelicals over the past 20 years.  It has moved closer to the center and some of its pundits boasted of “needing a new face.”  I had always interpreted that as their typical “Running an unwinnable neo-con/liberal” against the Dems.   I never thought that it would be Trump.

The Left calls working-class America “rednecks.”  The Neo-Con right calls them “low-information voters.”  The problem is that Beltway has always believed the universe is Washington D.C.  No one else matters.  They are about to pay for that.

I am not defending Donald Trump.  I am giving a prophetic analysis akin to how the OT prophets condemned Israel (while also condemning Israel’s punishers).