All posts by Colin Kubacki

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.

 

An American Second Estate

If you happen to frequent any pro-Trump internet forums or follow some of the more jocular alt-right folks on Twitter, you’ve likely seen the “You Are Here” copypasta- a term used to describe short stories that lend themselves to being copied and pasted, hence the name. Now, if you haven’t, it’s essentially a list of everything the media has claimed that Trump would never do, followed by a list of everything the media currently believes that he will never do, separated by the phrase, “You Are Here.”

This meme was popular during the darker times of the election, when it served as a reminder of the extraordinary odds Trump had already overcome, making Clinton seem like the pushover that she turned out to be, rather than the juggernaut the MSM portrayed her to be. As more obstacles were overcame in the primary and GE season, the line break moved farther and farther down the list. An abridged version might look something, at the time of this article’s writing, like this:

>Trump will never run for President

>Trump will never be the Republican nominee

>Trump will never win the Election

>Trump will never build the wall

YOU ARE HERE

>Trump will never win every Cabinet confirmation

>Trump will never repeal and replace Obamacare

>Trump will never make Mexico pay for the wall

>Trump will never achieve 4% GDP growth

The media seems to possess the unique willingness and ability to remove themselves from reality, forget the record, and  isolate each political play by Trump as his great undoing. They have an uncanny talent for this, having definitively identified the end of Trump’s campaign over 20 times throughout the election, and twice now identifying crimes that will inevitable result in his impeachment.

Unfortunately, this tactic doesn’t work anymore.

The media’s repeated attempts to spin Trump as an illegitimate con-man have lost all validity. Their constant doomsday predictions mean nothing – Trump is getting the job done irrespective of the naysaying broadcast on the major news networks. It seems their only tools left are rigged opinion polling (we’ve seen how effective those are) and the incitement of violence against Trump supporters, which actually drives more independents into the welcome arms of the Right every day.

We in the Trump coalition welcome the protests they encourage and the faux outrage they sow- every headline bemoaning Trump’s travel ban is ammunition wasted four years before his reelection. Every dollar spent by George Soros bussing protesters to airports is a dollar spent not building DNC infrastructure. Every minute an activist spends shouting at a cop hoping to go home to his wife for dinner is a minute they aren’t preparing for the 2018 midterms. The Left Wing establishment and its media cronies are running the Anti-Nixon playbook, hoping to frame Trump as a tyrant besieged by his own people, in effect destroying his anti-establishment appeal and his electability along with it.

So why isn’t it working?

The media is mistakenly approaching the situation from their traditional ‘Fourth Estate’ position- a third party, independent institution, tasked with holding government accountable; but, having completely lost the trust of the American people over the course of this election, the media is relegated to a much different role- enforcers of purity, openly partisan hacks bemoaning political actions they disagree with, rather than reporting facts.

In doing so, they adopt the position of an establishment church – the Second Estate of French Revolutionary fame. In taking this new position, they have lost the ear of the American public, who simply listen no more — see the success of a personality like Tucker Carlson from Fox News, for example. The young, energetic, pro-Trump conservative is smashing records for his time slot, as less Americans lend their ears to the obstructionist “opposition party” on CNN and MSNBC.

Over the course of the election, that dying religion of progressivism retreated into itself, radicalizing its base while driving moderates away. Now, the preachers in the pulpits of liberal publications have a serious dilemma on their hands – without a single parishioner left in their pews, who will care that they label Trump a false conservative, a Nazi, or worse? For whom does Chuck Schumer, Don Lemon curse, or any other mainstream media clown perform? In the vaunted halls of the Church of the liberal press, the floor below them crumbles. For what is a God to a non-believer?

Applied Newspeak: Why Trump’s Speech Mattered