Living Bibi, Living Kim

Israel and North Korea have the same foreign policy.

That’s not fully true, but close enough that you’d be right to see it that way.

Here’s what I mean to say- Israel and North Korea have responded in the same way to similar problems, and they have been incredibly successful in doing so. It might be odd for you to read “foreign policy success” and “North Korea” so closely together, but the truth of the matter is that the poor, increasingly isolated regime has done an incredible job of maintaining itself over the past half-century, something stronger and larger regimes than itself have not been able to do. Certainly, if you look at Israel from an American perspective, you see a country adored by Congress, one we send over 3 billion in aid alone to annually, that has been a significant issue in every Presidential race in living memory; the issue, indeed, always seems to be who supports that nation more, whose plan will defend it more securely. Now look at North Korea: abandonment by its allies has only accelerated under Trump, with sweeping new sanctions targeting what little trade the country has left and assets owned by the ruling cabal recently being passed in the Security Council with an abstention by China. Certainly, there is a significant difference there, correct? Well, there is, but it’s mainly in the framing.

Let’s start with Israel. Regardless if you support or oppose the state’s actions, existence, or Washington’s involvement with them, you must admit that they have not only parlayed their position quite well, but employed an excellent game theory that’s maintained success, to borrow from Peterson, not only in each individual game, but throughout the metagame set. Now, there are a number of intricacies in the intra- and interstate situation of US support for Israel alone (cough cough, AIPAC), but right now I propose you look at what I feel is the cornerstone of their policy- The Sampson Option.

It’s the Cold War, and the US needs all the friends it can get. A brief conflict in 1948 ensured that a certain new country in the Middle East would not be a friend of the region’s more established states, who then sided, nominally, with the USSR. One thing lead to another, and Israel came to be snugly within the confines of American protection. This, however, was by no means assured- certainly, there were many powerful proponents of Israeli interests in America at this time, and you don’t have to be a genius to realize there still are. Despite this, Israel couldn’t always assume that America would rush to their aid just yet. Nixon, the ultimate political maverick and undisputed best President of the 20th Century, was just elected on a policy of getting ourselves out of Vietnam, and the public wanted no part in another quagmire. So, in 1973, when the Yom Kippur war broke out and Israel needed assistance, Nixon was hesitant to send supplies, lest he find himself on the slippery slope of intervention.

So, Israel did the sensible thing and threatened to destroy the world with Nuclear weapons.

It wasn’t that explicit, exactly, but that’s what the “Sampson Option” is- we stay up or everyone goes down with us. And it worked like a charm. Israel has semi-secretly had nuclear weaponry since the ’60s, and now they applied them. This way, a small country put itself on a parity of force with the US. If they fell, that’s game over. London, Paris, maybe even New York or Washington are gone. They made it apparent that it was in our best interests to have Israel survive, and you can call that detestable, insane, and so forth- I’d agree. And that’s the beauty. This was described as the “Mad Dog” strategy by general Moshe Dayan (two guesses as to his nationality). Israel made itself “too dangerous to bother”. In doing so, Israel managed, despite its size and uneasy positioning, to make sure that the premier global power would never want to see it fall. That weaponry made sure of it.

Now, how is North Korea any different?

I don’t mean to indict anyone here (I can feel the glares of every pro-Israeli twitter account on me right now), all I mean to say is that this strategy works, and both Israel and North Korea use it. Kim isn’t stupid, nor is he insane, but he loves that you think he is. That means you fear he’ll actually use what he has, making the nuclear arsenal an effective deterrent. He’s taken the concept of mad-dogging to a whole new level, and in a world where the US seems to invade or destabilize every regime they dislike, Kim knows that one day he could end up like Qaddafi, sodomized in a sewer with a bayonet. In that case, how is wanting a parity of force at all irrational? Sure, there are negatives, but Kim’s grandfather was on the losing side of an ideological conflict, and he knows his nation is too far down that path to change peacefully any time soon- indeed, his father saw what happened in allied Romania during the period of his rule. It’s the same strategy, only differing in the framing. Israel makes the threat with the goal of continued assistance, and it works. Even if the public and Pentagon wanted Israel wiped off the map, we couldn’t do it- you’ve given them nothing to lose at that point, and they have the tool that ensures we have plenty to. No one likes Kim, but he wants to survive in power, and get to the negotiation table. Saddam wanted the same, and his lack of conventional parity meant that he would be destroyed. The Kims saw this, and knew that a even a hated nation could survive if they, perhaps to put it lightly, made it clear the guy on the other side was better off supporting the status quo. As long as Kim has his weapons and we think he’ll use them, he cannot be removed from without. Israel survived a Cold War and a number of hot ones because of this strategy, and I’m certain that if nothing changes, the Kims will outlive this period just as well.

 

The Death of Saul Alinsky

Last Saturday, hundreds of thousands of people in cities across the country came out in defiant protest against Donald Trump. Bravely wearing those ridiculous, amorphous pink hats, women took to the streets with their neutered husbands and impressionable children in tow to “take on” the President. They chanted, they marched, they made their cool signs with all sorts of neat supplies from Michael’s, the unemployed hippies played their drums, Pocahontas made a rousing speech, and Madonna threatened to blow up the government.

They poured through the streets in wave after wave from Los Angeles to New York with their black, Muslim, queer, and Hispanic allies alongside them to make their voices heard! This should have been a political grand slam. Hey look over there! Those rambunctious, millennial women at the beginning of the parade dressed up like vaginas! Take that Drumpf! Look at all the clever signs! So funny, that old woman is mad because she still has to protest, what a riot!

According to the mainstream media, this was among the largest protests in US history. Surely the effects of such a dramatic event would be felt for months, maybe years to come! With such an enormous show of solidarity between white liberals and cosmopolitan minorities, who could possibly stop this group of people who collectively hold no institutional power? After all, the protestors say that this is the new normal, their “resistance” will continue all the time for the next four years.

But if that truly is the case, then so what? Who cares?

The past three months of protests and organizing have reached a scale never before seen in American history. The sheer amount of financial, political, and social capital at the disposal of left wing power players to drum up armies of disaffected, disenfranchised urban populations is unprecedented. Had it not been in response to an almost absolute seizure of power by America’s premier real estate mogul and the Republican Party, this activism would be the stuff of Saul Alinsky’s fantasies.

But of course, the object of this defiance is the one they call the madman, the God Emperor. A man who went up in the polls after he said that former presidential candidate and veteran John McCain was not a war hero because he was captured and tortured. A man who elicited laughter from an audience of GOP donors when he said that he had only called Rosie O’Donnell a “fat pig” and a “disgusting animal.” A man who told political royalty Jeb Bush that his brother lied the country into the Iraq War on a Republican stage yet went on to win the presidential nomination.

A man who, just four weeks before the presidential election was caught saying he could “grab (women) by the pussy” and within 48 hours recovered the race almost completely and then won it just three weeks later. Through attrition, Donald Trump has slowly but surely destroyed any significant measure of public pressure that the press or a protest could exert on him. The era of Saul Alinsky is over.

In fact, we witnessed the exact moment when the soul of that late Marxist agitator finally passed on into the ether. In the closing remarks of Barack Obama’s Farewell Address he said that if ordinary cultural Marxists wanted to affect change, they ought to “pick up a clipboard and do some organizing,” as he had done in Chicago. The perfectly pathetic call to action by a lame duck president was silenced not more than twelve hours later when the new President stole the news cycle the next morning by calling Buzzfeed, that repository of white hating degeneracy, a “failing pile of garbage.” That had been the last breath of Alinsky.

Few people could have guessed in which direction the nation would proceed after Obama because few could fathom how they could put the nation back together again. In the wake of the endlessly divisive, critical, malicious, self immolating politicking of the Democrat machine, how could the nation at once recover its identity crisis, break the shackles of political correctness, and then figure out how to right the ship?

The answer was simple. After eight years of corruption by an Alinskyite, basically a double agent trained in propagandizing through subversive speeches, we needed a doer. Any normal president would see the massive protests, the pink hats, hearing the pussy tape on repeat in their mind, tortured over how to answer a coalition of anarchists whose sole objective is to burn. Donald Trump shrugged, tweeted a mild acknowledgement, and went on to scrap the Trans Pacific Partnership two days later. Women’s March? When?

Moreover, Trump had already been winning against Alinsky throughout the election, and this was precipitated by Brexit. The entire Obama-Hillary strategy depended almost entirely on the passivity of white people, bullied into docile submission by the political correctness police.

Only with their obliging ignorance in the transformation of the country could the Democrat Party secure power by appealing to deep racialist sentiments within the various minority communities. Winning enormous margins of blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and counting on whites to stay home was the Alinsky ticket to a one party state. Demographically, with a pro amnesty President in office right now, this would have been all but assured.

With total power in sight, Hillary overplayed her hand and it took a strategist like Trump to see the vulnerability and exploit to critical effect. In each and every speech, Trump held a mirror up to the country and shocked enough people into realizing that we didn’t want a nation in which terrorism, race riots, unemployment, and Spanish predominated.

He parried with a bit of genius Alinsky rhetoric of his own, “Make America Great Again,” a statement which betrays a profoundly offensive but necessary truth about the state of the country veiled in a patriotic battle cry. At once daring the reckless liberal into either denying or affirming America’s greatness, either way strengthening a nationalistic brand which beats Alinsky’s racialist brand every time.

The grand women’s march on Saturday was no women’s march at all. An event without purpose, message, brand, or ultimately an effect. As Trump has coopted the nation’s true disenfranchised, the old Alinsky coalition has no banner to wave other than that of anarchy. Obamacare has been repealed, the TPP is dead, the Republicans inherited the union vote. All that’s left of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Saul Alinsky is those lousy pink hats.

 

Introducing Best Words Magazine

 

Political commentary has become almost worthless. With the proliferation of social media sites like Twitter, Facebook, and Tumblr, politics has regained its former prominence and once again became the national pastime this year as the nation watched Donald Trump fight his way to the White House. For years we, the ignorant, unwashed masses, looked to the professionals on Fox News and NBC to provide insightful commentary and accurate news.

As well all know, the professionals in both punditry and newscasting failed miserably in their respective rolls as nearly every talking head called the most recent presidential election for Hillary Clinton and seemingly every news man manipulated the facts to support her. George Will, a once great writer, now a melodramatic prima donna has been fired from Fox News. The New York Times is failing, and upon their defeat by Donald Trump in November issued a desperate letter to readers promising to do better.

The establishment has crumbled; but what of alternative media? Where the establishment lacked honesty and accuracy, the insurgent alternative media (a mostly conservative movement) lacks in quality and insight. Say what you will about Charles Krauthammer, he never tried to sell me a podcast, a coffee mug, a t-shirt, a magazine subscription, or a book (until the twilight of his career). George Will may have lost touch years ago but he never published an insultingly simple listicle “ten things you need to know…,” “five reasons why Barack Obama…,” etc.

It seems as though the Hamiltonian bourgeois press of the Cable news crowd as well as the Jacksonian proletariat press of the Twitter-sphere have both been bankrupted by their own excesses. The establishment media by their disconnection from the people and the insurgent media’s sloven appeasement of the people. Any self respecting young person would find himself disgusted by the pretentious musings of the elitist New York media as well as the internet sludge processed for partisan consumption.

Is there not a middle ground between Bill Kristol’s Weekly Standard and Ben Shapiro’s Daily Wire? Is there a middle ground that doesn’t air nutriceutical commercials every twenty minutes trying to sell super male vitality?

There is today.

Starting today, Wednesday January 25th, 2017, The Best Words Magazine will produce a weekly series of essays by a growing number of intelligent, ideologically diverse authors offering an alternative angle. Our focus is on providing well written, original opinion. Best Words is not a news publication, does not produce a podcast, and does not maintain a store.

Our only mission to provide top notch, well written commentary to challenge the endless conveyor belt of predictable, redundant, pre-chewed partisan hackery. We pull no punches, we are not ideologues, and we’re not radicals. The Best Words Magazine is for smart people who love their country and want the best words.

Tread on Them

Moments after President Trump’s historic inauguration last Friday, Alt-Right leader Richard Spencer was speaking to CBS News in a live interview when Suddenly a masked man — likely affiliated with the leftist terrorist group, ANTIFA — ran in front of the camera and sucker-punched Spencer, knocking him to the ground.

This attack, and its implications, inspired jubilation across the left wing blogosphere. The New York Times, for instance, published an article titled “Attack on Alt-Right Leader Has Internet Asking: Is it O.K. to Punch a Nazi?” The answer, unsurprisingly, from most of those interviewed was an unequivocal yes. One woman, who publishes a Tumblr blog called “Unequivocally Hilarious” wrote that “If you’re having a conversation about whether or not it’s okay to punch a Nazi, you’re having the wrong conversation.” Another interviewee, Twitter personality Kara Calavera, tweeted that “punching Nazis is the most [American] thing to do.”

The most noteworthy thing about this Spencer fiasco, however, was what was left largely unmentioned in this fountain of ink — on the other side of Washington, Republican commentator and pollster Frank Luntz was also attacked in a similar fashion, likely by members of the same group that attacked Spencer. Interestingly enough, Luntz and Spencer come from opposite ends of the right-wing spectrum — during the primaries, Luntz was a denizen of the “Never Trump” movement, and to my knowledge, didn’t vote for Donald Trump in the general election either.

Moreover, in counter-protests to the leftist demonstrations across the country, Trump supporters were met with similar violence. Live footage from Washington on the day of the inauguration shows counter-protesters being shouted at, threatened with sexual assault, beaten up, and one woman even being set on fire.

To ANTIFA and groups like it, there is no difference between moderates like Luntz and open white nationalists like Spencer, nor between the thousands of counter-protesters of every ideology in between. To the Left, the vast and diverse people of the Trump coalition are merely obstacles standing in the way of their political goals, and for that reason — in the eyes of many — violence against the Right is justified.

Even more emblematic of the current political climate is the counter-protesters’ response to this disturbing turn of events. As is not uncommon in any Republican gathering, you could find in the crowds of counter protesters at least one person proudly waving the Gadsden flag — a yellow banner with a snake printed above the words “Don’t Tread on Me.” If movements are defined by their symbols, then “Don’t Tread on Me” paints these conservatives as effete reactionaries.

Leftists agitators and groups like ANTIFA have figuratively declared war on the Right. To them, anyone on the Right is fair game, an enemy, and worthy of getting beaten up. The Right’s response is not to fight back or, God forbid, use the heavy hand of the government against these anarchists; but rather to just stand there, taking it, begging for mercy, waving their flag. “Please, please, please don’t step on the snake.”

This underscores a problem that has challenged the Right throughout all of American history, and has been particularly debilitating towards modern conservatives. A conservative, by definition, abides by their ideology, values and traditions that are perpetually on the path towards decline. If they were not declining, then the terms conservative — which derives from the operative “to conserve” — and liberal would not arise.

The Left, on the other hand, represents new, revolutionary forces which overthrow established (usually conservative) social and political orders — as such, the new invariably defeats the old, giving rise to new establishments. History belongs to those who change it, never to those battling to rewind it. This is why the (then) Leftist Puritans overthrew the Royal House of Stuart in 17th century Britain, why the Jacobins overthrew Louis XVI, why the Bolsheviks overthrew the Romanovs.

Of course, none of these examples work as an analogy for today’s ANTIFA because — without a modicum of doubt — the Left is the establishment in 21st century America. The entire culture is Leftist. The entire media (including ostensibly conservative networks like Fox) operates on liberal premises. Almost every Hollywood star is a liberal. All of the country’s largest corporations are Leftist and controlled by Leftist directors. The university system functions in a way that does not allow students to graduate as conservatives unless they entered as conservatives.

Absurdly, the masked men waving black banners of anarchy who attacked Richard Spencer and Frank Luntz could recite their ideology before a gathering of Fortune 500 CEOs and the managing partners of all their law firms, and their speech would offend literally not one person in the room. In fact, almost all would actually agree with them!

Indeed, it is the Right — particularly Trump supporters — who are the true heirs to the revolutionary mantle and the underground, punk aesthetic that would guide them towards a more compelling narrative. Yet they choose to reject it. They wave flags that beg for mercy. Their slogans can be summarized by the phrase “please leave us alone.” They behave like reactionaries losing their country, when they should act like revolutionaries taking it back.

Is there anything Trump supporters can do to make sure they don’t repeat the mistakes of past conservative movements? They can start by permanently excising the words “we just want to be left alone” from their parlance, and tearing up those accursed yellow banners of passive reaction. If they were to do this sincerely, their movement would cease to be “conservative” in its essence, and would evolve into a force capable of shaping history.

Applied Newspeak: Why Trump’s Speech Mattered

Commentary for Smart People