Friday, May 27, 2016

- The NRO Trump Tantrum

Liberals see themselves as the eternal good guys fighting against the forces of injustice and hate. This is technically called ‘ego investment’. And it distorts their vision in just the right way so that when things change they lack the ability to see that they have actually become the forces of injustice and hate.

As examples, Liberals advocate for those with certain politically preferred identities to receive blatant preference in University admission (providing injustice to the more deserving taken exclusively on merit) or rage with anger and violence at those that disagree with them ( advancing the promotion of hate).

But Ego investment is not the exclusive domain of Liberals. Conservatives we have discovered, are capable of the same kind of investment in their political beliefs. And it makes it just as impossible for them to see when they’re making a mistake too.

I believe we’re seeing this ‘ego investment’ at National Review.

There are principled reasons to dislike Trump the candidate, and I agree with most of them. But I’ve read them all in the pages of NR along with many other unprincipled reasons as well. They HATE the man. They hate how he sounds. They hate the way he presents himself.

But judged in the single dimension terms that politicians are usually assessed, Trumps actual positions simply aren’t challenging enough to justify the rampant and deeply personal hostility I read there. They are not ideal perhaps, but they aren’t that far outside the lines. He’s not proposing camps and ovens, like the folks at NR seem to envision. He may not be within the acceptable bounds of the chattering classes, but as has been demonstrated by the voters, he's well within the bounds of most of the American public.

So what’s setting them off this way? Why have they become so shrill and so emotional? I believe they aren’t thinking rationally because they are emotionally invested in their idea of what a candidate should look and sound like, and Trump just ain’t it.

They are blue pill men, accustomed to blue pill communications. That is to say that as Feminism has redefined the way we communicate with one another and made it much more feminine, they have boiled along with the rest of the frogs. This is no sin mind you. The vast majority of American men have done the same. But Trump is changing that dynamic, and the shock to their system from that change seems very jarring to them.

Nothing brings this to light for me as much as this extremely thoughtful piece from John O’Sullivan. He’s in his 70’s, lives in eastern Europe, and can remember when this is how men sounded. To him, the Nationalism of the Alt-right doesn’t seem quite as out of place as it seems to for the rest of the much younger NRO crowd:

Another group of alleged invaders are so-called nationalists. It’s been a surprise to me to discover that nationalists are not conservatives in good standing, since they used to be the third leg of the conservative tripod, alongside social and economic conservatives. Some years ago when no one was looking, however, this tripod underwent a transplant, and national conservatives were quietly replaced by “defense conservatives.” That is an absurdly thin and tepid concept (unless you happen to be a defense contractor, in which case the concept becomes a fat and passionate one.) It probably reflects the nervousness of mainstream parties and moderate politicians about the full range of national conservative issues that include, as well as foreign policy and defense, crime, multiculturalism, Ferguson-like social disorder, and immigration. National conservatism has a domestic concern for the social fabric as well as an outward-looking one for the national interest. (Indeed, I once suggested “social-fabric conservatives” as an alternative to national conservatives.) But because it takes a critical or skeptical view of leftist positions on crime, multiculturalism, etc., it is likely to invite accusations of racism, xenophobia, and much else from the very same leftists. These accusations apparently paralyze thought. For very few conservative politicians have shown enough nous to reply that an accusation of white racism requires more evidence than that the person accused is white. Instead they remain more or less quiescent, avoiding controversy, in the face of mob violence to shut down political opponents and openly racist campaigns to delegitimize the police.

That does not sound like a man raging emotionally against Trump or Trump’s supporters. It doesn’t sound like a temper tantrum, or a refusal to play with the other children because they don’t like how the game is going. That sounds like a thoughtful man. A man. A man who isn’t threatened or challenged emotionally, and is ready to engage in worthy debate. If the Nationalists of the Alt-Right can’t make their case, then so be it. But unlike most at NRO with their focus on the worst of Trump's supporters, he strikes me as a man who is willing to listen.

We on the right need NR to be more engaged in this debate. But for them to do so persuasively, they need to quit acting like angry spoiled children, and quit thinking like women. They need to realize what specifically is driving their animosity, and face that with a clear eye like O'Sullivan is.

Back in the day, the older wiser members of the tribe were much admired for their perspective. I hope the kids at NR can do the same because O’Sullivan is pointing the way. There is a legitimate debate to be had here about policy. And it’s time for NR to stand up to the left’s idiotic accusations of racism and misogyny, and start engaging in it. We'd all be better off if they did.

Wednesday, May 25, 2016

- Breaking: Katy Couric Is A Propagandist

I almost didn't say anything about this because it hardly passes as news to me, but Katy Couric has produced and Anti-gun piece of propaganda disguised as a non-partisan documentary about gun culture. Shocking I know. The story itself though is almost as egregious as what NBC news did to George Zimmerman, when they edited the 911 call to make it sound like he was attacking Trayvon.

The Story is here. Watch the video taken from the Documentary as produced, and then listen to the unedited audio below it. What you'll hear is a lucid discussion of prior restraint, and some other thoughtful commentary from America's gun owners. But Katy couldn't show it that way. Instead she edited the video to make it seem like no one had any answers.

Journalists. They are all undiluted scum.

- Charles Murray's Rationalizations

There is no one in public policy that I find more continuously persuasive, than Charles Murray. His NR piece today makes the case for people like him, public policy ‘experts’ of the right, continuing their public opposition to Donald Trump. His points, as always, have at least some validity. But in my opinion he’s missing something critically important.

As you know, the #1 rule of RFNJ is: “How we decide is who we are.” And one thing I’ve noticed over the years is that what we all convince ourselves is free will, often isn’t. We tend to go with our strengths, the things that are easiest for us.

So in my case for example, without realizing it at the time, my insecurity about my modest upbringing pushed me in the direction of quant work. “My numbers are every bit as good as their numbers” I thought. (They being the Exeter - Harvard/MIT/Yale guys I was competing with.) I never imagined that someone with my modest lineage would be taken as seriously as those guys, and to some limited degree I was right.

I also have a friend (a former coworker) who is a much better mathematician than me, but who does similar work. He is the second son of a Spanish baron, and attended (and excelled in) the most elite schools in Europe. His upbringing was very different than mine, but he ended up in the same place. And when I got to know him, I discovered that the reason this was so was because he couldn’t trust his family emotionally, and as a second son he was seen as something less valuable for very amorphous reasons. He was drawn to mathematics because it allowed him to get ‘the right’ answer. Life is complicated but math has rules that can be learned and mastered, and this was a great comfort to him.

So here are two guys, with almost diametrically opposed life experiences, but came to the same place at roughly the same time, and ended up doing the same work. So what did we have in common? In terms of experience, not a thing. But we were both born with brains that made complex mathematics easier for us than most. So when presented with the gazillion life choices that make up a childhood, we both went to the areas where we were mentally strongest to come up with a solution. And by doing so over a lifetime, our strengths became even stronger and more likely to be chosen.

So where is the free will in that? Both of us were born with brains for math, so in effect that skill is what drove us. Whatever the problem we were facing, we tended toward our mutual strength to solve it. That’s not free will, that’s almost Taoist in its determinism. Our genes defined how our brains worked, and our brains put us on a path, which although they followed completely different routes, inevitably led us both to the exact same place.

So back to Charles Murray and Trump. Dr. Murray is urging his colleagues not to make any rationalizations about the reason Trump is saying the things he is, and to only judge him on the content of his words. Is this because that’s how Charles Murray thinks and speaks? In my opinion probably. And since it’s worked so well for him over the years, he’s urging others to do the same. But Donald Trump is not a personally risk averse policy expert. There is nothing about him which is academic. All the decisions in his life have come with an element of risk that Charles Murray has never had to face. And to treat his words in the same way, in my mind, is categorically incorrect.

I’m not a Trump fan, and I feel that way for some of the reasons Dr. Murray mentions. But to me, what Donald Trump looks like he’s doing with his public words is negotiating. He’s doing exactly what anyone in the private sector would do. He’s taking an extreme position in all things, and will then get all he can from the other interested parties. Is he going to pursue goals which are in the best interests of the country rather than himself? I have no clue. But neither does Dr. Murray. And if we’re both going to be speculating on something like that, then I think it’s going to be more helpful to judge Donald Trump for what he is, than to judge him for what Dr. Murray is. This isn’t a rationalization, though Dr. Murray would probably describe it as such. It’s simply trying to understand someone on their own terms.

So who is Donald Trump? He’s a man who was born with a huge safety net and has limited success compared to others in similar circumstances. Bu that same safety net gave him the chance to pursue highly risky strategies for success which he did not fear to do. In the meantime he’s been wildly successful at self-promotion and persuasion. I know half a dozen men who could buy and sell Donald Trump, that no-one has ever heard of. That lack of self promotion on their part may speak to some weaknesses of theirs, but it certainly speaks to Donald Trump's strengths. All these facts would tell me he has a big ego, and considerable courage. He is also probably of something less than a top tier intelligence, but not stupid either. Many a silver spoon has been the last thing hocked when the money was all gone.

All in, I share Dr. Murray’s view that he’s a man of dubious morals, dubious intelligence, and dubious character. But in my mind, so too is everyone in Washington. And this is not a multiple choice question. We don’t’ vote for the best person, but the best person available.

There is another issue which I think is deeply relevant here. The only way that Donald Trump seems meaningfully different to me is that his emotional message is very masculine, rather than the feminine message we typically see from right leaning pols. Those that are accustomed to the soft spoken pol would be taken aback by that confrontational style, and I believe this is having a meaningful effect on Dr. Murray in all the ways that he has been taught to ‘think’ like a woman.

I’m not impugning his character, intelligence, or motives. I’m not calling him effeminate in any way. But he has lived in a culture so steeped in Feminine propriety that I believe he can’t see around it. More than that, I believe that ‘thinking like a woman’ (to use my own shorthand) in some respects, is more natural for Dr. Murray than others. He isn’t irrational like many women, but he did choose a career where he is relatively insulated from personal risk of being incorrect, and where masculine dominance is frowned upon at the very least. His career path is one where his substantial intelligence and irreducible logic would be a huge driver of his success, but where he didn’t have to compete directly with other men.

It’s just speculation on my part, similar to his own about Donald Trump, but I think that sentiment is blinding him to the truth about the nominee. I think his horror at someone who communicates so differently than anyone who has come before, is forcing him to make a categorical error. And I think his advice to judge Trump on his public statements alone, while perfectly logical, is in fact incorrect.

How we decide is who we are. And that goes for Dr. Murray and Donald Trump both. If you want to understand how they decide, look at what they’re good at and the path they’ve chose in life. Look at the story, and see where success and failure have come to them. Then you can see who they really are, no matter if they try to hide it behind intellectual talk, or emotional bluster or both. It doesn’t matter where they started nor for that matter where they ended. Life and luck play a part in that for us all. But if you want to know them just look at how they got wherever it is. There is no lying about that.

If you apply the same standard to Hillary, it quickly becomes clear that she is a FAR worse choice than Trump.

PS - Guys, if you think it's worthy, please forward this one around. I've spent my whole life in the capital markets where suppression of the ego is critical to success, so I lack strong self promotion skills as well. But I really do think this piece speaks to how Trump should be best viewed to judge him accurately.

Tuesday, May 24, 2016

- "Consent Of The Goverened" Required

I don’t know if you’ve ever heard of the deep web, but if not, let me clue you in.

It’s a fully encrypted version of the internet that runs on the same infrastructure, and can be accessed from your normal computer with a specialized encrypted browser. Do a little reading, get a copy of the Tor browser, a bitcoin account at coinbase, and that's it. you're all set to buy or sell in a global market, with total anonymity.

There are all sorts of vendors already up on the deepweb, and you can buy all sorts of things that would be illegal to buy normally, but since you make purchases in total anonymity (even from the seller) the government will never know it's you.

There is some risk of course. But most of the risk will be when you actually take possession of whatever it is you’ve bought. If you want REAL anonymity you need to do that without leaving a paper trail, which is harder than it actually seems. But, assuming you can jump all the hurdles for managing delivery, it’s completely possible to buy anything you want, so long as you don’t care about breaking the law.

Most of what they sell on the Deepweb markets is illegal drugs. I don’t do drugs so I don't much care about that. It’s kind of interesting to see people quoting heroin and cocaine by the ounce for bitcoins, but in my case, that's really just a kind of perverse window shopping. (It is perfectly legal to browse by the way, so long as you don’t buy anything.)

I thought this was particularly interesting though because I’m something of an aficionado on firearms regulation. In NJ I know every idiosyncrasy of every law concerning the right to keep and bear, and I’m learning the laws in NYC. And it sets up what I thought was an interesting dichotomy.

In NYC where I live, if I wanted to buy a gun to keep in my home, it would be a real challenge but possible. I have an impeccably clean record, and the resources and determination to pay the fees and jump through the hoops. It’s a few hundred in fees, some fingerprints, some copies of some of my personal paperwork, an investigation by the police, and a few other odds and ends including registration of my firearms (I assume that’s so they can come confiscate them later when they feel the need.) All in, it takes somewhere between 3 to 6 months.

On the deepweb, I can buy a fully automatic FN-LAR machine gun in less than 15 minutes, and they promise delivery anywhere in the world, in less than 4 weeks. Price in US Dollars: $3,650.00.

Isn’t that interesting? So long as I’m prepared to break the law, I can get a fully automatic machine gun which is illegal everywhere in the country, nearly instantly. I’m no hardened criminal or gang banger. I have no ‘connections’ in the illicit trade of anything. I don’t even smoke pot. There is no Russian mafia involved, or some guy named Vinny. All I need is a bitcoin account, a Tor browser, a location to drop ship, and presto, I’m a really well armed felon.

The FN-LAR isn’t my gun of choice of course, but I am hardly the great expert on deepweb technology either, and I’m sure I could be pickier if I spent a bit more time. It took me a grand total of 10 minutes to find someone willing to sell me a used, reasonably good condition, military issued machine gun that fires NATO spec ammo, from a prominent and completely reliable manufacturer.

Now obviously I’m not going to do it. I have far too much to lose. But if I ever decided I no longer have too much to lose, it’s very interesting to me that the problem is so easy to solve. When things fall apart you can set yourself up as your neighborhood armory with little more than a laptop and some technical knowledge.

So how in the world can the gun banners actually believe that they can ‘prohibit guns’ in an environment like this? They can’t crack the deepweb. The math for the encryption is rock solid. Bitcoin? Good luck. They can try to watch every single drop location with some sort of security camera system, but I don’t see how. And if I were really paranoid about it, I could just buy someone else’s identity on the deepweb first. Use that to rent the mailbox, and send the enforcers of our gun laws running after them.

Forget about your ghost guns and 3D printed receivers. If you have the resources you can go online, right this second, and buy surface to surface missiles left over from the Bosnian war, and the government will never be the wiser. How do you ‘regulate’ in an environment like that?

I have no big issue to raise here apart from the impossibility of the liberals in government ever getting what they want. You simply cannot disarm 300 million people if they don’t want to be. Especially when they can be re-armed as easily as this. The only real strategy that the government has then is in actually obtaining the full consent of the governed.

All the rest is just wishful thinking on the part of the tyrannical.

- Continuing To Insult Donald Trump

Kevin Williamson’s view of Donald Trump and the Alt-Right is, by the standards of even this odd ball election, very strong. This morning at about 5:00 AM I read that Kevin called Trump:

“A corrupt, venal, backward, moronic psychopath”.

Hard to walk that one back, not that Kevin is particularly inclined to. Not a ton of ambiguity there.

Regarding the Alt-right he’s been somewhat more circumspect. While he’s said enough in public to more than make his feelings known, he did stop somewhat short of calling them psychopaths. And let’s all be fair here, there are a few guys out there who claim to support the alt-right, who are using it as a forum for some less frequently heard from political corners – at least since they got that guy out of the doorway at the University of Alabama.

But there are a few crazies in any movement, and if you ask me the Alt-Right has been far cruder and more unfair with Kevin Williamson than he has with them. His famous bit about how people should move from their failing towns to ‘a place where the jobs are’, was widely misquoted in the same style that made Roosh into a “pro-rape rally organizer”. But some of the same people who defended Roosh were more than happy to verbally burn Kevin at the Twitter stake. And if you ask me the Alt-Right hasn’t only been much harder on Kevin than he has on them, they’ve also been much further from the mark.

Kevin is a strong individual. A man of intense will, genuine courage, and occasionally bull headed opinions which he is never shy in expressing. You may disagree with him, but it won’t be because he’s vague about it. And even if you do, even if everyone does, he isn’t going to change his mind about a single god-damned thing. He’ll change his mind if you can convince him he’s factually incorrect, but he’s not the kind of person to reverse a view only because it’s become unpopular.

What’s more, I don’t think Kevin is completely wrong. At the very least he’s not nearly as wrong as his critics. But that puts me in kind of a tough spot because on a personal basis, he thinks I am wrong. Very wrong. Fundamentally wrong as a question of principle. The kind of wrong that makes you believe you’ve completely misjudged a person’s character. So I find myself in the difficult position of defending a man who is totally disgusted with my opinions, and joining him in attacking a man who for better or worse, represents the last dismal grey hope of preventing catastrophe.

Kevin has a totally legitimate view of Trump. Trump benefited from Real estate deals where government was heavily involved, and resulted in investors losing money. He has a carnival barker alter ego that he whips out whenever the red light on the camera goes on, and has extremely questionable and deeply dangerous ideas about America’s role in the world, financial and otherwise. That’s corrupt, venal, and backward, so I’ll score Kevin as more or less correct for 3 out of 4.

But the currently serving president scores at least 2 out of 4 (corrupt and backward) and several former presidents are generally viewed to have embraced the others. So when I look at Trump and see a man not appreciably different in quality than anyone else involved politics. Certainly Hillary Clinton is every bit as venal, corrupt, and backward. So why is Donald Trump so much more deserving of Kevin’s rage?

Kevin is no Republican shill. He isn’t even a Republican. And to my knowledge he’s never lived ‘inside the beltway’. He’s a Texas boy of modest origins, who spent a bit of time in NY and Philly, but currently resides in greater Houston. About half the time he lived in NYC he actually resided in the south Bronx. Elitist hack for the ruling classes? I don’t think so. I can’t think of anyone who less fits that bill.

“The Derb” said in a podcast that he believes Kevin is cultivating a ‘Donorist-Capitalist-Neocon bad boy’ image. But I wonder about that too. If Kevin were speaking his mind with great passion publicly but was more reserved in private, then I’d be more convinced. But I can assure you, that is not the case here. If anything he seems to me like he’s holding it back some in public. I am convinced that his hostility to the change in the sentiments of the electorate is genuine and heartfelt.

Here’s one possible cause, and certainly the one we’ll be hearing from team Hillary. In modern politically correct America, the reason Trump’s supporters like him is an easily indictable thing. You can claim that he is a xenophobic, racist, hater of haters, who is supported by haters who dream of camps and ovens. You can say that he hates Muslims and Mexicans, and is inhumanely trying to punish them. You can say he and his supporters are the leftist caricature of their deepest enemy come to life, with their Klan hoods and nooses just now being dug out of storage for the inaugural celebrations.

But I don’t personally believe that Kevin really buys into that. In my whole life I’ve met exactly one (white) person whose opinions were motivated by racial hatred, and no one I know thinks anything of him. It’s more the stuff of prison yard politics than actual public discourse. And just because the left is convinced it’s true, doesn’t mean it actually is, so I doubt that Kevin is really persuaded by it. Besides, the left was calling Kevin Williamson and everyone else to the right of Noam Chomsky a racist two seconds ago so it takes a considerable amount of sting out of the accusation. Certainly enough for conservatives like Kevin to ignore it.

OK. So if a very smart guy that I know holds an opinion diametrically opposed to mine, maybe I am missing the mark. Maybe this was a great missed opportunity for conservatism or something. Maybe there really is something more awful about Donald Trump in terms of character than Barak Obama, Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio. Maybe the carnival barker – build a wall populism really will end the Republic as we know it. Maybe the fact that Trump is as ideologically unmoored as … Richard Nixon, Tom Delay, or Kelly Ayotte really does represent some heretofore unknown risk to the world order.

Or maybe, Kevin Williamson doesn’t like it when stupid people do things for stupid reasons, and then call him a blood sucking, elitist, traitorous bastard for trying to call them out on it. I know it would annoy me. Or maybe he truly believes (contrary to current momentum at least) that the battle has already been lost, and there is no harm in announcing himself as the first of the conservatives to give Trump what he would therefore have coming. Maybe sees himself as already working on what comes after him.

I don’t think there is any doubt that the ‘intellectual wing’ of the Republican Party has been summarily rejected by the electorate, and Trump is cheering them on. But it’s hard for me to imagine that these deeply personal attacks on Trump the man are still a product of political principle. The nomination is settled business so we’re past that now, or at least should be. But Kevin still wails away on Trump the man as vigorously as ever, that’s not principle, that’s personal.

As for his criticisms of the idea of Trump rather than the man, I agree with Kevin in some places and disagree with others. I don’t think throwing up obstacles to trade is a good idea, but changing our immigration policies and how we deal with the Muslim world absolutely is. Has Trump got the right ideas? I have no clue. I’d bet probably not. But probably is a very big and very important word when the only alternative that we’ll ever be presented with is Hillary Clinton. And at this point it’s well beyond any academic discussion of what we could do, and has become a discussion about what we are going to do.

Hillary is, first and foremost, a woman. She was born and bred in the neo-Marxist traditions of Feminism, and believes in the Duluth model. She has stated that all (female) rape accusers should by default be believed (except of course those that accuse her husband). She has specifically said in her policy publications that she will do whatever she can to eliminate the second amendment, even if she must resort to executive actions to do so. And she is already on record advocating for the wholesale admittance of ‘Syrian’ refugees in the continental US. No one who is as smart and clear headed as Kevin Williamson can be under any illusions about Hillary. So why exactly does he think it’s still a good idea to use all his energy to attack the one and only thing standing between America and THAT?

I confess, it’s a mystery to me. I can see why he stands by his past statements as a matter of principle, but I don’t understand why he thinks the best thing he can do for America is to continue to go back to the well for more invective. Surely America has bigger problems than the sturdiness of Donald Trump’s recent conversion, or the fact that his character is as questionable as anyone else in Washington. Sure, he has some bad ideas. Everyone in Washington does. Certainly Hillary does. And if offered a choice between the devil and the deep blue sea, I’m a pretty strong swimmer so I’ll take my chances.

This is for the most part a defense of Kevin, but I think he’s dead wrong about one thing. Trump for all his faults, has benefited the Republic by his treatment of the media, and his unwillingness to be cowed. He’s acted like a man. He’s ridiculed, ignored, and dismissed all the standard leftist expletives and ‘gotcha’ points that have sunk other candidates. He’s ‘pushing back’ on the culture, which as we know, is upstream of politics and where the fight should have been happening all along. If the Republican insiders had done so, there would have been no room for Trump.

And I think we’d be much better off if National Review and Kevin in particular, began to engage in that fight for the culture. I wish they’d push back, Trump like, on the idea that only women can save us, and that we can only see progress if our men behaved more like them. When it comes to the words racist and misogynist, only the left with its near total control on our culture is defining what those mean. And the result is all that nonsense about privilege and implied guilt by race. So to continue to pound away on the presumptive Republican nominee seems to me to be a total wasted effort. At this point I think Kevin Williamson is harming his own credibility and depriving the rest of us of his combative nature where it might do the most good. I think we’d all be better served if Kevin were to put down his gun, and take a new look at the battlefield, so he can see where our real enemies are.

I’m not arguing he should change his position, or let bygones be bygones, or admit that “The Derb” is right about a great many things. I’m not asking him to change his views or recant his statements. He’s already told me to go f*** myself once, and if I tried to get him to change his mind, he’d probably just do so again. All I’m saying is, there are greater dangers to America than the few nasty troglodytes in the deepest dungeons of the Alt-right, and the Republic would benefit greatly if Kevin stepped back and noticed a few of them.

I don’t hate women, or blacks, or Mexicans, or Muslims. I don’t hate anyone. And I don’t deserve the guilt trip that the left is trying so desperately to lay at my feet. I don’t deserve to be found guilty by a jury of my accusers. And I wish there were better voices in the public sphere coming to my defense than Donald Trump and his supporters. But they’re all still too busy insulting Donald Trump.

Monday, May 23, 2016

- My Most Important Pre-Election Post

Ok... you don't like Trump. Neither do I. You think he's potentially dangerous and can end the western world. I do too. And you've decided you're going to just 'not vote' because you live in a state where you think it won't matter, and you can just vote for a 'real conservative' next time. Don't do it. You need to hold your nose and vote for the guy, just like I will. you need to go out there and convince your friends, your family, and every man you know to do the same. Why? Because of this issue so effectively highlighted by "The Heartiste":

Austria had an election recently, pitting a nationalist, immigration restrictionist patriot (Hofer) against a globalist, open borders nutjob (Van der Bellen). The vote results confirm a pattern seen all over the Western world: White women are voting in the shitlib traitors who will drown White nations in a polluted sea of third world misery.

Allowing Hillary Clinton to win this election is going to result in the end of the United States of America.

National Review and the Never Trump folks are wrong. If we allow (another) woman to hold the Whitehouse for 4 (more) years, she will pursue a position of peace through unconditional surrender. And what they've been seeing in Belgium, Paris and across Europe, will be happening in Orland, Cleveland and Minneapolis. And for your trouble, American society will begin to look like an American college campus. No second amendment rights, no presumption of innocence for men accused of sexual harassment of women (think false rape accusations) and more 'fairness' where if your white or Asian, you will be forced by law to check your privilege, so someone less qualified can be treated 'fairly'. and if you ask me... THAT's when they'll be coming for 'the Jews'.

I don't know if there are enough men left in America to matter. But if there are, you had better get the guys together... all of them... and go vote for Trump. He's probably a bad choice, but the other option is to see the end of America.