Trump and democracy

The Trump candidacy is great because:

The voices of the Cathedral from time to time say he will not be allowed to win, revealing the managed nature of democracy.

All the other candidates are ladyboys, revealing both the managed nature of democracy and the emasculating nature of progressivism. Also revealing that the Republican party is the outer party, a fake managed opposition. It makes “cuckservative” a devastatingly effective insult, linking their race traitor politics to their conspicuous lack of masculinity.

The voices of the Cathedral from time to time say that if he wins, will not be allowed to govern, revealing that they regard legislature and executive as mere theater, a meaningless show performed while the important people take care of the important stuff.

And best of all: Every time Trump opens his mouth, he widens the Overton Window.


36 Responses to “Trump and democracy”

  1. Alan J. Perrick says:

    -Meanwhile, a group called the White Genocide Project called for Mr Trump to be made the head of a ‘department for deportation’ and reportedly petitioned President Barack Obama to make it happen. The petition included the assertion that “diversity is a byword for genocide”. –

    Whether Mr Trump wins or loses, more pro-white ideas are exposing the Big Lie that is “Diversity”.


  2. […] likes the Trump candidacy for one reason: It forces our cultural masters to occasionally tell the truth about the shame nature of democracy. […]

  3. Zach says:

    Every friend I’ve ever known who is not a sheep, follows their own rules, and rejects society at large, all have their own unique reasons for liking Trump.

    A pretty large coincidence.

    • jim says:

      Trump is a huge problem for the Cathedral. Even if they fix the problem, the fact that they had to fix it is going to leave a mark.

  4. Erik says:

    Looking back a bit and laughing:

    Jun 16, 2015

    “I want to congratulate Donald Trump, who reportedly will declare today that he is running for president.

    Trump is the anti-LeBron — popularity is performance in politics, and Trump is the first candidate in modern presidential primary history to begin the campaign with a majority of his own party disliking him.

    Trump has a better chance of cameoing in another “Home Alone” movie with Macaulay Culkin — or playing in the NBA Finals — than winning the Republican nomination.”

  5. vxxc2014 says:

    Trump is what we got, follow him.

    Lead on Trump we’ll follow. If ye fall we’ll get another, for tasting leadership means you want more.

  6. Mark Citadel says:

    Doesn’t matter if he loses. In fact, I hope he loses. While it is beneficial to the far right to have the Overton window widened and then a rude populist be legitimately elected, it’s way better to have the Overton window widened and then a rude populist be illegitimately defeated.

    This fuels resentment, hatred of the system, increasingly hostile rhetoric, etc. The media will gush for Clinton finally ‘overcoming’ the patriarchy and waving to the crowds while Bill is fucking an MSNBC anchor in the background.But at home, many white men will be seething.

    Trump is like our A.C. Cuza. He grows the constituency of the radical right. The storm comes later.

    • Dr. Faust says:

      All hail the Great Leader!

    • jim says:

      Correct. The best, and by far the most likely, outcome is that Trump is illegitimately defeated, by bending the rules, or just declaring him racist, therefore ineligible.

      • Ivan .M says:

        The treachery would have to be obvious enough to overcome modern attention spans. I don’t think anything less than a really clumsy, supremely arrogant instance of rigging will do.

    • peppermint says:

      The Jewsmedia have literally no idea what to do about this goy who doesn’t play by the established rules. This is the scariest thing that’s ever happened to them.

      His father was in the KKK, his ex wife says he had a book of Hitler speeches on his nightstand, but the holocaust card is maxed out, when it’s mentioned everyone under 30 rolls their eyes. The difference between the elites and the masses is one of schelling points, so Moot has been a more powerful media mogul than Murdoch.

      If only the psychologists and social scientists had actually been a bit more interested in science – but they needed to be what they were, after all, the fundamentally Christian values underlying social justice were the reason it caught on in the first place.

  7. Thales says:

    “The candidates will be uninvited from subsequent debates if they accept an invitation to anything outside of the six sanctioned debates.”

    Rigging all over.

  8. Dr. Faust says:

    If leftism is feminine then the right is masculine. The right is for strength as a virtue. Not just a virtue but the greatest virtue. Weakness becomes taboo, becomes heresy, and sin. With the argument of strength as the greatest virtue we can offer an argument to the core of leftism.

    God created Adam first. But first he made value. He made a first. Then a second as represented by Eve. One and two are created each finding them self in the other by what they are not. Not one is two. Not male is female. Reducto absurdum.

    Value is hierarchy, is natural, is unequal.

    Strength is virtue. It is the greatest virtue. It is virtue from which all others spring forth. God is powerful. Most powerful. Who would follow a weak God? How could God be anything but powerful?

    Nazism was the attempt to make the west strong, to value the virtues of Rome. Strength. The swastika was jagged, right angles, nothing flowing nor organic and thus masculine. Men cling to this ideology because it instilled strength in them as virtue. Women followed Hitler, worshiped him as alpha incarnate. He in turn gave them not only himself but a nation of men who saw weakness as sin and strength as the greatest virtue.

    Strength cannot die because it is an idea. Only us mortals may die, our family, nation, and race. We die because we have no argument to equality. Offering nothing, how could the heart of man be turned to believe in nothing. He suffers the fate of nihilism, lost, staring into the abyss. He fills it with God if he finds faith, or drugs and suicide if not. Offer man strength and he will become strong.

    • jay says:

      ”The swastika was jagged, right angles, nothing flowing nor organic and thus masculine. ”

      The Man himself is organic and hence masculinity is organic. To deny the organic is to deny masculinity as well as femininity.

      Strength is the result of organic muscle powered by organic fuel.

      The flow of Femininity is more analogous to water than to the organic. And Masculinity with its inherent thymos and strength is analogous to fire.

      • Alan J. Perrick says:


        I think man is rather more analagous to earth. Fire is chaos, destruction, which is not generally considered to be the norm.

        Best regards,


        • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

          In most origin myths I’ve read. The earth is feminine, and the sky is masculine.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            Not entirely surprised to see you bringing paganism into the discussion, R.N.G….Papist sympathiser.


          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            Paganism is everything but Christianity, Judaism and possibly Islam. Not exactly a badge of dishonor. And classifying the Latin-rite as “pagan”, is a peculiar protestant trait. I’ve never heard whether the Eastern Orthodox, or Oriental Orthodox are classified as “pagan”.

            Regardless, the original project of placing “man” analogous to something like earth/fire/water/whatever, is kinda silly.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            Stop being degenerate. Unless, of course, you are addicted to it, in which case I would wish you a quick slide the rest of the way downhill.

      • Dr. Faust says:

        I write organic as it refers to aesthetics. But man also differs from woman by having straight hips while women have curved hips.

        • jay says:

          ”straight hips”

          Men are more angular and solid. staturesque. The source of order.
          Akin to an oak tree.

          Yes women are more curved and that reflects their more pliable water-like nature,

    • Joe says:

      I’d argue that a better definition of the highest value than “strength” is “excellence, in accordance with nature, leavened with kindness.”

      Strength is a variety of excellence, a very important one, but there are others. Living in accordance with nature’s imperatives is similarly important: the importance of families and the natural human instinct to feel an affinity for one’s tribe, for instance.

      And there are many other varieties of excellence – living up to your fullest potential, behaving wisely, and with prudence and self-discipline. Making “strength” alone the measure of the highest virtue does not quite capture the nuance of all of these other varieties of excellence.

      One big problem with the Nazis is that there was no kindness there. It was not necessary to exterminate “others” in order to have an excellent Germany. Simple deportation would have been adequate. If a society has no kindness, you have pure Darwinian law-of-the-jungle brutality, and that is not excellent. Kindness is a virtue when applied in a balanced way.

      Also, if you choose black uniforms with a skull on your cap to represent what you’re about, I think it indicates a deeply unbalanced, sick mindset. I don’t think the Nazis were excellent human beings. There was something mentally wrong there.

      One thing is certain, though: “equality” has almost nothing to do with excellence, except in very limited areas such as equal treatment under the law. In most cases, “equality” is the opposite of “excellence”.

      • jim says:

        I think we need to unambiguously reject the proposition of equal treatment under law. Notice that progressives have already done so with the “violence against woman act” which requires the police to always assume the man is in the wrong, absent clear and overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

        A violence against whites act is better supported by the evidence. Large numbers of whites are every year convicted for murdering blacks, but there is only about one case a year of a white murdering a black who was not engaged in a felony offense at the time. Which suggests that the vast majority of these convictions, almost all of them, are wrongful convictions that should have been treated as self defense. If we had a rule that in any conflict between a black and a white, the black was assumed to be in the wrong, absent clear and overwhelming evidence to the contrary, this would prevent an enormous number of wrongful convictions.

  9. R. Jones says:

    Why aren’t the prediction markets showing that trump will be the nominee? Do they know something that we don’t?

    Perhaps the predictors are are consumption smoothing. Hoping that either Trump will be nominated and if not, at least they will get rich…

    • jim says:

      Perhaps the predictors know the election is rigged.

      If rigged, all the better, the Trump outcome will reveal the rigging.

      • Dr. Faust says:

        It’s as it’s some type of sports movie where Trump is the underprivileged kid trying to make it against all odds and through his sheer determination (and a snappy training montage) he wins the big game.

    • Mandos says:

      Prediction markets are in the business of selling what is predictable. Trump for all his current momentum is still your typical black swan. He is not supposed to happen.

      But the margin they give to Bush here questions the credibility of their model anyway. Bush is a sitting duck.

    • Erik says:

      Predicting that Trump likely won’t be the President – I could buy that, given the massive Clinton Machine combined with the establishment hatred. But predicting that Trump won’t even be the nominee? That really has me wondering what is going on. (Also, that market has Joe Biden well ahead of Bernie Sanders. Interesting.)

      Consumption smoothing sounds like a very ad hoc excuse. I think the markets are usually correct – money where your mouth is, put up or shut up, and all that. I think maybe they don’t know a specific thing that we don’t, but they’re guessing on a general outline of things that we haven’t accounted for. At some point, Shit Will Happen to Trump. Maybe the Supreme Court will dislike him enough to vote him ineligible. Maybe the media will get their shit together to stop giving him attention, and focus on someone else. Maybe Trump will insult the wrong people or flip-flop the wrong way. (He’s demonstrated impressive ability to flip the right way, though, when he made an off the cuff remark about taking in unfortunate Syrians and a day later walked it back by saying we have to be very careful about letting in anyone from terroristland.)

    • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

      In 1992, 1996, 2008 and 2012, the Republican candidates that appealed to the base, led in the early part of the race. And the eventual victor came from the moderate wing of the party.

      This is a deliberate tactic, by the Republican party elites, They show some red meat to the base, and then nominate their preferred candidate.

      Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, Pat Buchanan, Mike Huckabee, and similar are Donald Trump’s predecessors. Though I like Trump more.

      • jim says:

        I don’t think it is a deliberate tactic so much as an emergent tactic. The leadership is horrified when the masses vote for a Republican Republican, and frantically find some way of getting a cuckservative nominated.

    • jim says:

      He is not really the NRx candidate – a genuine NRx candidate would stand on the platform of one man, one vote, once, that this is going to be the last election with one man one vote.

      • R7_Rocket says:

        He is not really the NRx candidate – a genuine NRx candidate would stand on the platform of one man, one vote, once, that this is going to be the last election with one man one vote.

        Come to think of it, this is the system of the Roman Emperors… And the Holy Roman Emperors. The Emperor was elected by the warriors to serve for life.

        • Candide III says:

          The Emperor was elected by the warriors to serve for life.

          Except when they latter happened to think that another Emperor would serve them better, and wage war on the previous one. Not the most productive of peace and order.

          • R7_Rocket says:

            That was quite a problem. Until Diocletian and Constantine, the Emperor’s position didn’t even officially exist. And even after, the way the army chose the Emperor was never formalized. The Holy Roman Empire, however, did formalize its imperial elections (The most powerful dukes had the title of “Elector.”)

Leave a Reply