An Assad Apologetic

I should preface this by stating that I do not believe this would be the best option for the Muslim World or the greater MENA region. I think that there are better ways to solve many of the problems in the region, which include terrorism, the expansion of Islamism in both the West and the secular states of the area, and the persecution of Christians and other minorities. However, as a thought experiment, many of the issues surrounding the Muslim World, and even issues between and involving Western States, could potentially be solved by completing the system of Ba’athism and giving Bashar al-Assad dominion over the whole of the Middle East North Africa region.

To the average Western audience, I’m certain that this seems both bizarre and laughably wrong. I can already hear the scoffs- but this is a more serious suggestion than one may first believe. From the perspective of International Relations, this is actually quite sane. My personal beliefs regarding MENA are somewhat unorthodox and based in my Catholic faith, which I don’t seek to convince you of in this blog post, so I’ll attempt to argue for this from a reasonably centrist perspective rather than purely my own.

One criticism I’m certain I would hear should I ever verbally present this idea to someone is that of instability- Assad has spent the last half-decade barely holding his country together, and one highly doubts that much would change if his beleaguered regime were to be thrust into a position of administration over the whole of his region. Firstly, one must realize that the greatest threat to total and human security in the Middle East is not intranational conflicts, but rather, international wars. The Syrian Civil War has been bloody, with perhaps 400,000 soldiers and civilians killed total. The Iran-Iraq War, meanwhile, cost perhaps double that number of Iranian soldiers alone to perish, according to official Iraqi estimates. When the number of civilians and Iraqi casualties is added to this sum, we find that over 1.1 million individuals perished as a result of this conflict- over 275% as many as died in the Syrian conflict. Also, consider the ramifications of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, causing the UN to issue an embargo of the former nation that, according to 34-year UN administrative veteran Denis Halliday, amounted to a genocide. The New York Times reported that perhaps 576,000 children died as a result of starvation from these actions.

That leads into my next counterpoint to the issue of instability- one could ask, “Well, why wouldn’t Assad’s government be warlike? Certainly, if Saddam could build the fourth largest military in the world and invade his neighbors, why not Assad, given all of Alexander’s empire?”

Assad would never be able to do this because he would constantly be bogged down with local bruhahas and peacekeeping. The administrative demands of such an empire would be vast, and the sheer military presence required to prevent any serious outbreaks of separatism would make mounting a foreign invasion impossible. Additionally, his only real targets for invasion would either be countries where brutal wars are currently ongoing, such as Sudan and Somalia, where a foreign intervention for the purposes of bringing about lasting and serious order would likely be a positive change regarding human security. One topic that many in the US are concerned about is Israel- wouldn’t, despite all we’ve mentioned before, there still be the possibility of war between such a large state and such a small, relatively isolated nation? No. Coalescing all political authority in Assad would firstly greatly reduce the possibility of in invasion of Israel- such a war in the modern day could really only be fought covertly, as Israel would be able to and arguably would be justified in threatening a nuclear blast on Assad’s home and capital should they be outright invaded. Additionally, the sheer size and mere possibility that the whole of MENA’s armies may rush across the Israeli border in a way never before seen, truly under one banner, would not only greatly deter Israeli aggression, but also, perhaps finally bring Israel to the negotiating table over such issues as the Golan Heights and Palestine. Now, one may object- “Assad wouldn’t be able to invade, but could call every unit around to respond to an invasion? What gives?” Well, a number of things, including the fact that an Israeli invasion would be the Platonic ideal of a “rally around the flag” moment, and that the international community, including the USA (as evidenced by President Trump’s current tone on Israeli settlements and policy, and similar statements from Macron and others) would quite likely not support such an action. Politically, a democracy (no matter how draconian) like Israel could not justify a traditional invasion against such a large state to their voters when they could only get away with such minimal intervention in the depths of the Syrian Civil War, even after the first reported use of chemical weapons by Assad.

Now, we’ve agreed that the state will never be stable in the way that, say, the United States is stable. This can and likely would be a generally good thing, but of course, this all leads into the next issue- “With instability, people are going to want to leave! Forced from their homes- how many refugees will there be now?”

There will be no better impetus for the European Community to actually create a meaningful, permanent solution to the refugee solution than this serious political change. Firstly, the practice of dictators like Erdogan of Turkey of condoning migration for political gain would have to be seriously addressed with a persona non grata like Assad in charge. The political ramifications of this, in addition to the drastic change in circumstances, would likely cause many nations including the growingly Islamo-sceptic France of Emmanuel Macron to actively support helping migrants in their own country or neighboring countries.

Speaking of the West, this sort of thing would very likely solve a number of issues facing the West politically. For example, despite their current state of alliance, the goals of these countries would invariably begin to clash. These would be two petroleum-centric states who desire similar spheres of influence and occupy territory incredibly close to one another. While Russia has previously been able to make friends with states like Syria and Iran, who perceived a need for protection and were grateful for the assistance provided by Russia, Russia would no longer be able to act as a powerbroker for such a large state with undoubtedly serious aspirations. They would naturally disagree, forcing the area into a multipolar balance of power situation, where the US and Russia could be forced to settle their differences regarding such things as NATO and Ukraine for their collective good. The same goes for the US and the EU- there would certainly be a more pressing reason for nations like Germany to cede to Trump’s military spending demands if such a state existed just across two straights.

Again, I don’t support this as a solution to the issues of the Muslim World. However, if one purports to value human security and stability in the region, then it’s intellectually honest and frankly almost necessary to hold or at least consider this as a hypothetical solution. Obviously, this is a pipe dream- I don’t believe this is feasible in any way, and hardly believe that this is possible. However, I only seek to describe the results of such a thing, and after considering the implications from the perspective chosen, there is reason to suppose the expansion of Assad’s dominion to be a very good thing.

Understanding Ourselves

We don’t truly understand the modern right.

No one does. I honestly don’t either. Well, I have an idea, but that comes a little later.

While we can all understand the motivations, goals, driving forces and spirit of the movement, we demonstrably do not understand it. My rationale in making this statement is an important distinction- while we can understand what is behind our ongoing revolutionary period, we cannot model it in the real world. We are unable to define where it will succeed and where it will not. It’s hard to say exactly why growth can be so rapid, yet seemingly capped in Germany, or how Geert Wilders lost his First-Place spot within a fortnight of the Dutch Elections. It’s hard to chalk it up to anything beyond the Anglophonic Spirit as to why Brexit and Trump succeeded while Le Penn failed (which is a fun an interesting explanation, truly, but I don’t believe a very good one).  When the French Nationalists, Hofer, and Wilders all piled up their second-place finishes, it seemed that our historical moment had passed. However, the defeat was not unmitigated, and some would say the results only seemed a failure because of how successful the parties actually were. The historic swell in popularity among ideas that had been confined to fringe movements like the BNP for much of the post-Cold War era was remarkable to begin with, and that we would see anything other than outright victory as a failure is a sign of how high the watermark truly became. The dominant way of thinking, once this was accepted, was espoused in The Economist magazine first- that Nationalism should be seen as neither a fad, nor an instant recipe for revolution- rather, it would become an integral part of European politics. It may not win many elections outright, but it will always be there, draining support from centrist or establishment parties, demanding concessions and coalitions, as many movements have done throughout modern European electoral history. For a while, I toyed with this model and decided it stood up- indeed, it seemed neat and clean, explaining the European Situation well. I would even go as far to say that I liked it.

On further inspection, however, the model has failed to explain a few things.

For example, it doesn’t explain geographical divides. In the V4, largely the cradle of modern anti-establishment right-wing politics, the National Spirit is still alive and well. These nations- Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and what I will only call by the accurate and linguistically aesthetic name Bohemia- continued to successfully stand to the EU and oppose almost all immigration, save for white Ukrainian refugees. Poland’s ruling authoritarian party continued to gain support, and now stands with over majority support in the country’s multi-party system. The staunch arch-conservative Viktor Obran of Hungary is massively popular, and the EU reaction to his border fence has only made him more firmly supported among his nation.

This question cannot be answered by a simple historical outlook tacked onto the original model. Certainly, it seems as though there is a Cold War East-West divide, down to internal divisions in countries themselves. Look at Germany- the AfD fared well for a relatively new part through much of the country, but the truly stunning results were all found in the former GDR. Additionally, the V4 were all firmly within Moscow’s Sphere of Influence. All this would lead one to assume it is a divide largely based off of Cold War allegiance. However, this cannot be the case.

For example, look to the Baltics. The predominant leftist, neoliberal, often green and socialist sentiment there is a complete buck to the idea that post-communists states serve especially as an incubator for the far right. For a disparate example on the other side of Europe, look to Romania, a post-communist state dominated by Social Democrats. Such undercurrents can be found quite often in the East, and with an n as small as we currently have for measuring European post-communist states, it destroys the idea that there exists a simple causal relationship here.

However, what really dealt the death blow to this amended model, in my opinion, was the result of the Austrian elections. Here we had an affluent, Western European state which had just put a green in the presidency twice elect a party lead by Sebastian Kurz. Kurz, the youngest European Foreign Minister and now youngest Chancellor in Austrian History, previously proposed to ban non-German version of the Koran and argued before the EU in favor of a hardline, 50-point plan to crack down on border crossings, and campaigned on getting Austria out of the EU altogether. He is currently presiding over a rightward shift in both his nominally center-right party and Austria altogether.

Now, we have the Czech Elections. A post-communist state, certainly, but quite modernized by most measures- it ranks next to hypermodern South Korea in terms of GDP per capita (PPP), and not too far off from countries like Japan, France, and Israel. This most recent Czech election was possibly the most significant internal political upheaval a country can have. Leading the pack is Andrej Babiš’ party. Babiš is not a conservative by traditional measurements, but rather an anti-establishment pragmatist billionaire populist (never heard that before). In second place we have the conservatives, and in a tie for a very close third, we have the aggressively anti-establishment Pirate Party (who have never before held a seat in the Czech Parliament) and the Eurosceptic, right-wing populist SPD. The Communist party fell from third place to fifth place- and shockingly, the ruling Social Democratic party collapsed, falling from a strong first place to sixth in vote share. In neighboring Hungary and Poland, it was the right-wing, nationalist sentiment that drove stunning successes, but here, it is the populism. So what is it? Is it an economic divide that drives this- and if so, why has Germany generally stuck with Merkel? It isn’t geographic- could it be cultural? Economic? Well, perhaps.

I have an inkling as to what might be the determining factor. I am of the belief that there is a determining factor to whether or not a state will undergo a right wing or populist upheaval, and if so, what sort of upheaval it will go through.

I believe that a country will undergo such a thing if, and only if, two things are true- one, that the country is largely divided into homogeneous and high-trust societal units, and secondly, that these units perceive an existential threat for themselves and those like them that is not yet completed. If this threat is primarily demographic, the upheaval will tend to the right, while more economic issues will lend themselves to general populism.

This, in my opinion, explains a lot. It helps explain basic things, and bases itself off of them, such as why whites in large, diverse cities vote for the establishment left primarily. It helps explain why countries like Poland and Hungary, who can see what has happened in Germany and France, react more strongly to it than those countries do themselves. It explains why the Baltics, not in the path of Middle Eastern Migrants and for whom neoliberalism has proved an economic success, retain their leftist, often technocratic governments. It explains why general, big-tent populism was the primary winner in Bohemia, who has failed to restart their economy since 2008. It explains even the perceived East-West divide on the continent when one considers homogeneity-reducing immigration was far higher in the West, and the stifling effects of communism on economic growth in the East. Moreover, it explains even internal divisions- for example, the support for Brexit in the Labor North, Left-Wing Wales, and non-industrial Cornwall. It is even applicable in the US, and explains a number of primary and general election results- why Bernie won the Rust Belt but lost California, for one, or why Ted Cruz won in stable, seemingly non-threatened Iowa but lost when the discussion turned to opiates in New Hampshire. It even helps explain why Trump came so close in Minnesota- the influx of Muslims was threatening to the homogeneity of the majority, who (because of the State’s large, decentralized and largely rural nature) could see it, but remained 90%+ white.

Now, my model may very well not be correct. As I said before, the n in relation to these things is small- even if every European Country imitated it perfectly, as well as the US and Japan, the n would barely go above 50, and we’ve only been in a period of major upheaval for about one year. We’ve had enough time to feel out if some things might not be true, but proving anything will take a long while. Additionally, the model isn’t entirely comprehensive, and may only be effective at making snapshot calls. However, all things considered, I know not any model other than this that can explain the what and why of our modern revolution.

A Birth in Barcelona; or, The Case for Conservative Action

Conservative doesn’t mean a lot. In America especially, the label has become such a broad descriptor, and the “conservative” Republican Party so big-tent that I doubt there’s a single pillar of modern policy that truly unites all those who suppose themselves conservative. Evangelicals, Libertarians, right-wing Populists, Reaganites, modern disciples of Goldwater, even those that many would consider to be in the greater “alt-right movement”, from Reactionaries to Anarcho-Capitalists to National Socialists consider themselves right-of-center, and thus, perhaps erroneously in some cases, conservative. We live in a time when you wouldn’t be wrong to say that the horizons of expectations for conservative thought are being furthered and undermined primarily by madmen on Twitter, everyone from Huey Long-loving National Bolsheviks to German Idealists, and in some measure all the way up to the President himself. Certainly, there are guiding principles of order and tradition that you will find extant at least at the base level of reason within all right-wing schools of thought, but it is almost impossible to identify a single action that a state ought to take according to meta-ideology of Conservatism.

That is, save for one.

There is one thing that all people who legitimately base their worldview off a Western school of conservative thought can attest to; that so long as a state exists it should serve the interests of the Nation. There is no right-wing ideology that disputes this. Whether one is a Libertarian and believes that the state is founded by a people to preserve their rights, a Fascist and sees the state as an expression of the national will, or even as reactionary to be a Neo-Feudalist or Monarchist, the role of the state as serving a nation above all else is one of the most foundational tenets of every branch of Conservative thought. Whether it be a small, ad-hoc body to simply protect the rights of the people, or a paternalistic, absolutist state, this is a bedrock claim of every Conservative ideology, and always finds itself serving as boilerplate in Conservative rhetoric and theory (and from time to time, even governance). Even if one is a pure Integrist, one must concede that the purpose of such action is not God’s alone, nor primarily God’s- if it were, one would seek to either do away with the state altogether in favor of the law of God, or at least remove oneself entirely from politics and work solely as a theologian or artist to bring him glory. Such a concept is not even confined solely to Western Conservatism. For example, any understanding of the Ottoman and Near-Eastern Circle of Justice will reveal those same universal undertones driving the Turkish Empire’s thought. This is as intrinsic to Conservatism as just about anything can be, and is not at all a given- the basic presuppositions of nearly all leftist ideology, from modern Neoliberalism and egalitarian social democracy, all the way to Marxism and left-Anarchism represent a subversive and suicidal forced value judgement of the international over the national, and equity over true interest. This, I believe, is the most important tool for understanding the purpose and vital force for Conservatism.

I forgive you if you don’t see what exactly this has to do with political violence.

Now, I want to clarify what I am proposing. I am not advocating for violence in the way that it is so often portrayed. Most everyone on the right should agree that simply beating protesters or AntiFa on the streets has little real political gain in it, and you one should be very wary of those who disagree. That is why I do not propose that those on the right should continue to just march, get into fights because of it, and be demonized for a week because of it. Certainly, there is something to be said about the visibility and framing that can be parlayed the first or second time, but over time, such a thing within a stable system will do nothing but re-enforce the position of the entrenched establishment, as those on the left and right are pushed from the edges into a security-seeking center.

So, why and how do I support right-wing political violence? It all goes back to Catalonia.

Catalonia is the greatest political event of our time- in my opinion better than Brexit’s 12-point comeback the day of the vote, and yes, even better than Trump’s impossible ascension. The reason why I say this is because Catalonia was barely even a political event. This was supposed to be a grand display of the fine principles of democracy, and the ultimate victory of the far left, who grabbed the Nationalist, Populist surge worldwide and used it to break away from a Kingdom and secure a Marxist State within the EU. Yes, the moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends towards justice, and now the Catalan people would, through the power of pure, unfettered, unconstitutional democracy, see the dream of the great progressive Democrat Woodrow Wilson realized and finally declare independence.

Except that’s not quite what happened. In a slight change of plans, they all got their heads splattered across the sidewalk instead.

The reason for this was coordinated, controlled, and smart actions by Spanish Police and Civilians, representing Nationalist and Conservative interests. Right-Wing civilians would enter and disrupt certain indoor agglomerations of leftists, including meetings and polling stations, reducing the left’s cohesion and organization, usually driving them apart and/or into the street. This usually was not explicitly aggressive, and normally involved only shouting and masses displacing masses. It was violence, but in a strict sense of the word, and if done correctly, the only blows between civilians were from the left, or at least, clearly started by the left. From there, police forces had a much easier time pacifying them.

This is a simple, effective way the right can be physically active in situations like these. The right never came into conflict with police, and successfully stopped, or at least aided the state in stopping, leftist political action. It was, therefore, very clearly an action in the interests of the right. Additionally, while one can lament the entrance of violence into the political process, and desire the removal of it, one cannot argue that a people aiding a state in performing its most basic duty of protecting the nation is at all contrary to either the ideology or spirit of Conservatism when one understands that central rule of Conservatism.

This should manifest thusly- the right stops instigating. Marches will not get us anywhere; right-wing demonstration very rarely has. This has been attested to time and time again. Instead, the right becomes a response crew. When AntiFa or BLM is protesting or reacting to some speaker, the right gears up, but not for some street brawl. Our movement cries out for parallel institutions, and leftist violence hands us the role of a parastatal. The right should be offering protection to any business that wants it. Crazed blacks planning to loot your store because a cop shot a mugger? Communists ready to burn it down because Ann Coulter is explaining why immigration is bad at the local College? Hey, we’ll stand in front of your store and defend it for you. The right should not instigate violence, only defend private property with the consent of owners. Soon, your organizations become known and requested. People see you as a reasonable defense against leftism. And then the seeds of popular right-wing non-governmental organizations are born, and hey, we’re strong and armored to boot. These groups can aide law enforcement rather than fight with them, something that will instantly win over the public. These groups will be organizing, arming, and training young, right-wing men all to the cheers of the public and the acceptance of the police, and stopping leftist demonstrations the entire time. There is no conceivable downside to having a popular and effective paramilitary on your side, and this is the quickest and most effective way to it.

Something was born in Barcelona- the right-wing textbook on physical political action. It’s now up to us- stay our current trajectory and hope one more YouTube vlog will finally be the thing to get Hart-Celler repealed, or actually do something to change it.

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.

Commentary for Smart People