Trump for King

History does not repeat, but it rhymes.

Today’s America is Wiemar Germany.  But Trump is not Hitler.  Rather, Trump is Kemal Ataturk.

Kemal Ataturk abandoned most of the Turkish empire, because most of it was run against the interests of Turks.  It was the anti Turkish empire, as the American empire is the anti American empire.

This put Kemal Ataturk on a collision course with the Caliphate, which continued to rule by soft power what Turkey no longer ruled by hard power.  Which Caliphate he was eventually forced to destroy.

Hitler wanted a German Empire. Trump intends to disband the American empire, or as much of the American empire as costs Americans money and delights in telling New York that their provincials are much holier than Americans.

The Cathedral will not be pleased.  Being universalist, world empire is their heart and soul. Abandoning empire is going to piss them off a lot more than an eight year delay in turning America brown and ethnically cleansing whites is going to piss them off.

Trump is not particularly right wing. He is what was middle of the road yesterday, though progressives find it hard to tell the difference between yesterday’s middle of the road and people who chant “Heil Hitler”.   The Republican establishment frequently complains that Trump fails to endorse all the wonderful policies that they did absolutely nothing to give effect to when they had the presidency and both houses.

We love Trump for the wonderful job he is done on political correctness, for being ten times as manly as any other candidate, and, last but not least, for being the only politician who is serious about not letting in the entire rest of the world into America to live on crime, welfare, and voting Democratic.  Who else proposes to throw out anchor babies?

By the way, Tony Abbot kicked anchor babies out of Australia, and not a dog barked.  The judges cowered and hid as they realized an airforce special forces commando outranks a high court justice.   The left thought it would be a huge deal, and tried to make hay out of it, and no one paid the slightest attention.

But could Trump manage what Moldbug called “the true election”  – could he attain actual power to govern?

The presidency has been steadily accumulating legislative and budgetary power.  But the presidency is not the president.  The presidency is a horde of fireproof bureaucrats who theoretically answer to the president, but, being fireproof, do not in fact answer to anyone.  It is clear that they intend to ignore Trump and govern as they have always governed.

This will undoubtedly irritate Trump.  If he does something effectual, he is going to look quite a bit like Stalin or Cromwell, and this election will be the true election.

This seems like a ridiculously optimistic hope, and I suppose it is, but Trump does not seem like the kind of man who would plan to be president without planning to actually govern.

Obviously Trump, a middle of the roader, has no intention of implementing a restoration.

But for Trump to implement anything at all, he is going to have to make a good start on a restoration.

Tags:

76 Responses to “Trump for King”

  1. Steve Johnson says:

    Isn’t it amazing how the longer the Outer Party nomination process drags on the clearer it becomes that literally every non-Trump candidate is controlled by the blackmail material?

  2. Alf says:

    Nice insight into Trump’s psychology. I can’t imagine Trump enjoying white house power politics all that much.

  3. If elected Trump has promised to release the 28 pages. Shortly thereafter he will try the 911 criminals. That will shake things up in the governing oligarchy.

  4. Alan J. Perrick says:

    Well, interesting topic! Initial thoughts are that many “cucks” are paralysed at the idea of doing anything that might rival historical actions. Yet, the clock stops for no man, and one pivotal year centuries ago takes up just as much temporal space as one year in any recent decade.

    Lots more in this one, I’ll have to come back.

    A.J.P.

  5. Andrew E. says:

    Trump was on Hannity a few weeks ago for a townhall and Hannity, in his usual full mindless cheerleading mode, suggested Trump really was going to Washington to affect a revolution (meaning, I believe, the long sought conservative revolution). Trump was visibly repelled by the word and concept of revolution. He corrected Hannity: “No not revolution. I’m not talking about revolution. We just need common sense. That’s what I’m bringing.”

    I loved him even more after hearing that.

  6. Thales says:

    “Trump is Kemal Ataturk.”

    Were this statement to come to full fruition, I could think of no greater proof for a benevolent supreme being. Coronate the man, and through his reign shall we and our posterity endure the dark times ahead.

    • Minion says:

      So you want a dictator to impose secular feminism by force against an unwilling populace?

      • jim says:

        I want a dictator to make it as dangerous to be too far left as it is to be too far right.

        I want a dictator to answer Moldbug’s question as to what doctrines one must piously affirm to be acceptable, so that people no longer have to go even further left to be on the safe side.

        I want a dictator to replace free lance witchhunters with witchhunters that have to follow rules.

        • Minion says:

          “I want a dictator to make it as dangerous to be too far left as it is to be too far right.”
          We already had that with the Ottoman Caliphate. Not sure why you want to replace a legitimately reactionary system with a secular (if authoritarian) one

  7. “Trump is Kemal Ataturk.”

    insult to trump . Ataturk was a Liberal reformer:

    “With the reforms of Atatürk, Turkish women, who for centuries had been neglected, were given new rights. Thus with the civil code passed, Turkish women would now have the same rights as men, could be appointed to official posts, would have the right to vote and to be elected to Parliament. The monogamy principle and equal rights for women changed the spirit of Turkish society. ”

    Trump is running on a single issue: immigration, and having much success at it

    • jim says:

      Trump is a centrist, and that is fine with me. We have to have a Cromwell before we can have a Monck, a Stalin before we can have a Putin.

    • peppermint says:

      Atatürk was

      (1) Not confirmed to be a Jew
      (2) The Young Turks were led by Jews
      (3) Tried to turn Turkey into Europe
      (4) Like the other atheist feminist socialist Jews tried to turn Israel into Europe
      (5) According to the Turkish constitution, anyone living in Turkey is a Turk

      I mean, not that Trump isn’t also a civic nationalist. But Trump is living at a time when civic nationalism has failed and national nationalism is the only way forward.

  8. peppermint says:

    I’d settle for him destroying the media and the Republican Party as it was in 2015. Which he is already well on his way to doing, and he’s not even President yet.

    Oh, and the jewniversities. The jewniversities are going to need new enabling legislation soon, when the student loan debt gets untenable. Does Trump know that the jewniversities are a bad deal for America? Hopefully he can figure it out and let them burn.

    Does Trump know that the Internet needs anonymity and decentralization for his best supporters to have a safe space? Hopefully he can protect the Internet, too.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC7aYLBqevc

    • Mister Grumpus says:

      Thanks for bringing up the student loan crisis, and how its somehow-resolution will surely change the game — or at least reveal the game — of how those particular organs operate, and why, and for whom.

  9. Mister Grumpus says:

    Hot damn. You embarrass me, sir.

    Hitler was miffed that Germany lacked an empire, while Trump is miffed that we have one.

    Dang that I missed that myself.

  10. Mister Grumpus says:

    Also:

    Can you recommend one good NRx-ish analysis/retelling of Ataturk’s life, what he was about, what he did and how he did it?

  11. Minion says:

    Ataturk was a secular liberal who overthrew a patriarchal monarchy. Thanks to him, Turkey is one of the most feminist and liberal places in the Muslim world

    Not sure why you are defending him as an example

    • A pint thereof says:

      Isn’t it odd how the term “secular liberal” can most often be used to replace the words Jewish, homosexual, and Mason? Ataturk was all three of those things – and at a time when someone being all three of those things was particularly useful to the Jews, homosexuals, and Masons…..

      • Minion says:

        Ataturk was also an atheist who resented religion for putting constraints on tyranny.

        As a Muslim, it seems rather evident that British rule would have been far superior than letting Ataturk have his way with Turkey.

        Thankfully, we now have Erdogan hosing down fag parades with firetrucks, so I guess it still worked out in the end.

        • Irving says:

          >Thankfully, we now have Erdogan hosing down fag parades with firetrucks, so I guess it still worked out in the end.

          Until and unless Erdogan cracks down on the seditious Kurds, it won’t matter how many fag parades he’s hosed down — Turkey will cease to exist.

          • Minion says:

            The PKK and YPG are communist filth and need to be exterminated. However, they do not represent 90% of the Kurdish population, which is even more conservative and religious than the majority of Turks.

            And hopefully with the recent PKK terrorist attacks, Erdogan would have all the excuses needed to crush them with impunity.

    • jim says:

      He, in the end, inadvertently and against his will, overthrew a theocracy. We have a theocracy that needs overthrowing.

      • Minion says:

        A theocracy that is based on a 1400 year old tradition with an established sense of orthodoxy (and therefore selected against holiness spirals) is far better than a liberal “theocracy” whose mores change every few years (remember when it was still PC to be against gay marriage, heck, remember when the term “gay marriage” was still considered an oxymoron?), with people being purged for not moving toward the left fast enough.

        Ataturk introduced many liberal reforms, like gender equality, abolishing slavery, reducing the role of religion and family on society, and the like. He also reformed the Turkish script away from Arabic and into Latin, making the vast majority of society officially illiterate. He was a liberal tyrant par excellence.

        The ideological children of Ataturk is by and large liberal cathedralists (after all, they wanted to copy whatever was fashionable in Europe at the time- which these days means liberalism, fag rightism, feminism, etc)

        • peppermint says:

          No, it was never PC to be against gay marriage. Some gays in the early aughts countersignaled that marriage is inherently heteronormative, that gays shouldn’t want it, and that marriage should instead be abolished entirely. I knew very well that I was supposed to support gay marriage and be suspicious of straight marriage on the grounds that the man might oppress the woman.

          • Minion says:

            I am talking about the early 90’s not the aughts, where homosexuality was still taboo in many American circles.

            The main problem with liberal “morality” is that it changes every decade or so.

          • peppermint says:

            Yes, I am also talking about the ’90s and the aughts, when it was technically not a violation of the Civil Rights Act to be employed while saying gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry, because the government was setting a bad example by retaining and, worse, enforcing some laws dating back to the time of theocracy that for some reason were still on the books.

          • peppermint says:

            » Straight people have a privilege that allows them to do whatever they please and f— without fear. But not only do they live a life free of fear; they flaunt their freedom in my face. Their images are on my TV, in the magazine I bought, in the restaurant I want to eat in, and on the street where I live. I want there to be a moratorium on straight marriage, on babies, on public displays of affection among the opposite sex and media images that promote heterosexuality.

            http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/queernation.html

            (why yes, commies, history is a weapon)

    • The Oriental Neoreactionary says:

      Ataturk is a pragmatic secularist who exploited the grave mistakes of Ottoman monarchy.

      By the way, the last Ottoman Caliph was a modernist painter who attempted to draw nude pictures. Also he was not against most of Ataturk’s reforms.

      • Irving says:

        Not to offend, but wasn’t the last Ottoman Caliph also a homosexual? I think I read that somewhere.

        • The Oriental Neoreactionary says:

          He was married with four women, and had children from two of them, so I consider this is not true. But, I also heard this shit from some Turkish progressives.

  12. Sam J. says:

    What if Trump is Hitler? Not the real Hitler but say the powers that be saw that we were headed towards such a state that it was time for a Hitler to rise up. So thinking ahead they got their own Hitler, Trump.

    How will you know this is true? If Trump wins and prosecutes Bush and maybe Hillary for 9-11 and leaves out the Jews then you will know he’s a hired Hitler.

  13. peppermint says:

    violence against reporters:

    * Reporter is stunned to be knocked over by Secret Service agent he assaulted while trying to go to places he wasn’t permitted to go
    * Reporter is stunned to be yanked back from trying to grab Trump’s arm and ask him questions after the event ended

    that’s what reporters mean by “Trump supports violence”

  14. Alrenous says:

    Trump has lobbyists. He should already know the actual presidency is a sinecure at best. They will have told him that talking to the president doesn’t lead to results. He may even have tried it already, despite their advice.

    That said, I would also expect him to try to actually govern. I don’t believe the bureaucracy has enough flexibility to allow him to do so, but his mandate will not allow them to stop him either. One or the other will break, and much of America will break with them.

    I expect the vote fraud machine is already revved up. Trump would be well-advised to have his own auditors at every primary election, if at all possible.

    • GameOn says:

      >I expect the vote fraud machine is already revved up. Trump would be well-advised to have his own auditors at every primary election, if at all possible.

      He’s not willing to spend the money. Trump is a pretty rich guy, but he’s also very tight with his Cash. He may not be rich enough to pull this off.

  15. Zach says:

    Knuckleheads.

  16. Alan J. Perrick says:

    Looking back at the founding of the U.S., it is sometimes surprising how apparently hopeful the Constitution’s signers were. Did they really forbid peerages and other hereditary titles (A.1, S.9, C.8)? Yes, they did. Could they have anticipated the level of short-term thinking this refusal to allow hereditary power would generate? One has to think that it possibly crossed their minds.

    Yet, as the U.S. Constitution established no church as the official religion, its original interpretation allowed for each member states to have their own. Perhaps, it would go to follow that certain states _would_have_been_ able to also allow for hereditary titles and the power that goes along with them.

    At this point, though, the Contstitution’s application has changed from the document that directly followed the governance by the British crown to one that has been largely defanged by amendments and eventually regular legislations like Humpty Dumpty to ne’er be put together again. Mr Robert “Bob” Whitaker is somewhat right when he says that a “living constitution” means tyranny, so perhaps its time to bury that thing for a while or at least shoot big holes in the Demotism it produced by doing away with that horrible above-mentioned clause.

    A.J.P.

    • Minion says:

      Well, the lack of a liberal constitution did not stop Britain from swimming all the way to the left, just like America.

      Over there, the aristocracy was defeated by free market forces (eg new rich industrialists becoming wealthier than the aristocracy, cheep crops imported from abroad undercut the aristocratic plantations to the point of bankrupcy), so perhaps capitalism is ultimately to blame for the death of traditional society

      • jim says:

        Over there, the aristocracy was defeated by free market forces

        Marxist bullshit.

        Priests defeated warriors by demonization. They attacked the aristocracy for real and imaginary sexual misconduct, attributing female misbehavior to aristocratic male oppression and exploitation, and then demonized the (mostly aristocratic) heroes of the Crimean war.

        They reorganized military logistics to take power away from the (mostly aristocratic) warriors officers. The whore Florence Nightingale was made into a hero because they could not endure aristocratic military heroes.

        • Minion says:

          “Marxist bullshit”
          Then explain the Corn Laws. Why would the aristocracy want to prevent the importation of cheap crops from abroad unless it threatened their existence?

          And are you implying that the noveau riche had the same reactionary values as the aristocracy they replaced?

          The “priests” were only able to demonize the aristocracy once the aristocracy was too weak to garner respect and fear. Traditionally, aristocrats did not care who hated them, and in fact welcome haters, since having enemies was a sign that one is powerful and important enough to be hated (similar to Alpha Aloofness and Jerkboy Charisma that Game theorists preach).

          Therefore, the priestly class could not simply have demonized them to impotence, but rather, another force must have displaced the aristocracy (namely the merchant class) in terms of material power.

          • jim says:

            Then explain the Corn Laws.

            Corn laws were introduced in 1815 on the basis that peasants grow corn, and were related to the enclosures, which, in the complete reverse of everything you have read, were a land reform piously redistributing land from the aristocrats to the peasants. (The enclosures got demonized as a result of holy leftists outholyinging each other.)

            And are you implying that the noveau riche had the same reactionary values as the aristocracy they replaced?

            The non aristocratic rich did not replace the aristocratic rich. Wealthy and aristocrats coexisted all the way back to Chaucer and before.

            The wealthy hero scientist engineer CEO, mobilizing other people’s capital and other people’s labor to make scientific and technological advances widely available, as depicted by Ayn Rand, first becomes prominent shortly after the restoration, in the sixteen sixties. Aristocrats only seriously lost power in the period 1820 to 1860. So there is a period of a hundred and sixty years that completely fails to fit Marxist doctrine.

            To fit Marxist doctrine, you need Aristocrats out of power before scientific and technological advance gets started.

          • peppermint says:

            Okay, so the theory is that at some point around 1820, the aristocrats’ children all went to college and were told that the aristocracy is going to go away and good riddance because it was horrible, and started to try becoming professors and bureaucrats instead?

            And look at what was happening at colleges around 1811, when Shelly was kicked out for taking it too far. By 1848, Marx finally got around to writing The Communist Manifesto.

          • Minion says:

            Your argument omits the fact that the Aristocracy were strongly in favor of the Corn Laws, while the progressives were against it?

            >Wealthy and aristocrats coexisted all the way back to Chaucer and before.
            Wealthy commoners back then were still considered lower in the social hierarchy to the aristocracy, and were ultimately expected to support the latter through taxes. Industrial capitalism changed that, by not only enriching the bourgeoisie, but by impoverishing the aristocrats to the point of powerlessness

            If the bourgeoisie are naturally reactionary, then why is corporate America the biggest sponsor of fag rights? The bourgeoisie only cares about profit, not about traditional values.

            • jim says:

              If the repeal of the corn laws in 1846 shows the rise of the capitalists as the ruling class replacing the aristocracy, then the introduction of the corn laws in 1815 must have shown the rise of the aristocracy as the ruling class replacing the capitalists.

              Marxist nonsense.

              Industrial capitalism changed that, by not only enriching the bourgeoisie, but by impoverishing the aristocrats to the point of powerlessness

              Marxist bunkum. The aristocrats were impoverished by loss of power and prestige, which did not happen till halfway through the nineteenth century. They did not lose power and prestige by impoverishment.

              Industrial capitalism predates the Crimean war by quite a bit. We see the priestly class (by which I include the media and professoriat) attacking the prestige of the aristocratic warrior class as early as 1810, but it was around the time of the Crimean war that these attacks reached extraordinary savagery, and actually started to be effective.

              We are always ruled by priests or warriors. The bourgeoisie are the tea party – a powerless, frightened and crushed political irrelevance, then as now.

        • peppermint says:

          Treating aristocrats and priests like they’re static is Marxist thinking. What happened was the children of the aristocrats realized that they didn’t have much of a future in the aristocracy so they joined the priesthood and shouted priestly slogans as loud as possible.

          We saw this happening in earnest with the post-WWII generation in England dismantling the Empire and, meanwhile back at home there’s nineteen pakistanis living in a council flat; candidate for labor tells them what the game is then he tells them where it’s at.

    • peppermint says:

      Whitaker has the problem that he’s been trying to denounce the 20th century from the position of the 19th. He respects the idea of a constitution, while ridiculing the Constitutions of the USSR and the USA.

      In reality, the notion that a nation’s constitution is a document is ridiculous. A nation is a gene pool and its constitution is its genes.

      When you call the founders “hopeful”, you make the same mistake of taking commies seriously that Whitaker points out everywhere else. Commies are not serious people, and they know it, which is why they go for credentialism.

      • Alan J. Perrick says:

        “Peppermint Papist”,

        Please, go (back to a third-world, Roman Catholic cesspool).

        • peppermint says:

          AJP, last I checked the only Christian demonination that views the US Constitution as sacred was the Morons, who aren’t even Christians, since polygyny isn’t Christian.

          I don’t know how you can define Christianity that makes, not simply treason against the King who just protected the colonies in the French and Indian Wars, but treason involving working with the French and the Spanish against the King’s army, into a Christian act.

          • Stephen W says:

            What part of the bible condemns Polygamy?

            • jim says:

              You mean to ask “what part condemns polygyny?”

              Nothing in the bible condemns polygyny, although bishops are required to be married and monogamous.

              Polygynous households are depicted as having the problems you would expect, making it difficult for a husband of many women to perform the duties to his wives that Saint Paul commands.

              In practice, one can only treat one wife appropriately, and all one’s other women get the short end of the stick. There is nothing in the bible that plainly says one cannot be a good husband to several women. But truth is, one cannot. Of if one can, it is hard.

  17. Craken says:

    The Left may yet create opportunities for Trump by engaging in outrageous provocations. If sufficiently outrageous, the anti-Trump bureaucrats may be forced to act–and such action could generate a self-reinforcing cycle that would give Trump control of much of the bureaucracy. The Leftist fear and loathing of Trump is visceral, intense, likely to erupt in reckless resistance. They will reveal themselves at their worst and, repulsed by this chaos, the “centrists” will move Right.

    Added to the characteristic insanity of the Left is hubris unchecked for at least 83 years in America. They will provide the occasion for Trump’s effective assertion of control over the working government. Besides, Trump is not known for his meekness. If he demonstrated a flaw in business, it was overreaching. He’s the least likely President to be smothered by the limp, coddled, exclusively mediocre, risk-averse civil servantry.

    • Minion says:

      But those civil servants are protected by civil service laws from the president. I remember Moldbug argued that civil service protection was a key element of the Cathedral, as it allowed a bureaucratic elite to rule the government with a relative lack of political interference (as opposed to the spoils system, in which civil service positions were given to the president’s supporters, giving him full control of the civil service). The President, who is only in the government for 4-8 years, is rendered powerless against bureaucrats who were in government for most of their adult lives, and therefore know the government system more than their supposed boss does.

      As they stand now, the government bureaucracy is their own legally protected class. If they do revolt, then Trump’s best bet is to get the military to side with him against the civil servants (which may not be too hard to do, since the US military, or at least the US Marine Corp (one of the few institutional bastions of masculinity in the West), absolutely hates Cathedral interference into their affairs, such as forcing them to enlist and commission women into their services).

      This however, may spell the end of America as a cohesive entity, and I doubt Trump wants that (at the end of the day, he is more of a kosher nationalist than a true reactionary)

      • jim says:

        As I said, Trump has no intention or desire for the true election, but if we are very lucky, and the left foolishly and unreasonably intransigent, he may wind up making one anyway.

      • J. James says:

        In terms of Trump dealing with a rebellious and non-compliant civil service I see no reason why he could not follow Obama’s lead. Obama has presided over a quiet purge of the armed forces concentrating on general grade officers with over 200 forced into early retirement. Reacting to the new laws and regulations that promote homosexuality and transgenderism as well as continued official discrimination against white males there has been a voluntary flight from the lower NCO and officer ranks as it becomes more and more clear that the Federal government is both anti-Christian and anti-white. Now it is true that military people especially those wishing to hang on to their pension are not prone to publicly criticizing authority especially as compared to America’s multicultural degenerate civil service so we would expect to hear much more public wailing and outrage from a purged civil service. This would of course be increased by a hostile leftist media who could care less about the blighted careers of white male patriots but who will scream bloody murder as the Federal Civil Circus is cut down to size. Bottom line – an effective Trump presidency would have to be preceded by an early purge of the Federal Civil Service. We need to see whole departments, starting with the Department of Education, drastically reduced in size and where possible completely eliminated.

        • Minion says:

          Generals are basically politicians in uniforms these days, especially since they are politically appointed by congress and POTUS. They dont really represent the military rank and file, to a large extent

          The USMC, by the nature of their service (every serviceman is a rifleman- no room for desk jockeys), will naturally be harder to be purged by the cathedral, especially the lower ranks, since its staff relies on physically masculine men (so no room for women are trannies in the USMC either- a female “marine” is considered the biggest oxymoron in the armed forces). Therefore, they will likely be the only form of intra-government resistance to the cathedralization of the armed forces. However, they may prove to be a formidable one.

          Of course, we sometimes get calls to disband the USMC, due to its supposed redundancy to the Army (despite having radically different doctrines- and therefore combat capabilities). Perhaps the real reason is that it is likely to pose a threat to the cathedral if it is pushed to far.

          Also, I find it interesting that some of the most redpilled men tend to be servicemen, as they directly work with women in the military, with all the bullshit they bring to the workplace, disproving any notion of gender equality. So the military by be naturally hostile the cathedral (at least on gender issues), no matter how many purges they are (unless the Cathedral turns the military into a safe-zone daycare- which they just might)

          • Minion says:

            So I guess my point is- forget Trump. What we need is a military coup. I dont trust democracy to give us the Franco or Videla we are looking for.

  18. peppermint says:

    » He doesn’t have to support me. I really don’t believe I need his support

    Did Trump just kick Cruz out of the party? Up until now party identification was like gender identity, the individual gets to choose except that the non-Whites will intimidate each other into into sticking with their biological identification.

  19. Hi Jim,

    Big fan of your insights on Trump

    You may of heard of the new game about Trump up on Kickstarter

    https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1335955956/political-suicide-the-card-game-donald-trump-editi

    If you’re interested, I would be happy to send you a copy for some office fun 🙂

    Best
    Rich

  20. Seems to me that the notion women go for bad boys who master them, which I am by no means disputing, predicts that Trump’s mentioning he would punish women for abortions would help him with the female vote. Likewise, I guess Game predicts that tweeting out the photo of the wives should help him with the female vote– showing his far greater pre-selection.

    So far I believe Trump has had a large gender gap doing better with men in exit polls. I’m not sure this is entirely in accord with what Game theory would predict.

    • Minion says:

      Despite feminist propaganda to the contrary, the loudest anti-abortion voices tend to be women, not men. Feminists are deluded enough to think they speak for all women (they are likely speaking on behalf of corporate interests who want to turn women into wageslave employees and mindless consumers).

      “So far I believe Trump has had a large gender gap doing better with men in exit polls.”
      Supporting Trump considered low status in liberal circles (where most young women inhabit- such as colleges and big city America), which explains why women tend to not like Trump. Trump is considered “icky” to their social circle- if he was considered hip, they would vote for him even if he was a serial killer.

  21. Of course, it is in accord with what racial cuck theory would predict I presume.
    Maybe if it wasn’t for all his game, Trump would be doing even worse with women. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxpVwBzFAkw

    • jim says:

      Correct.

      Women are inclined to cheerfully acquiesce in invasion and conquest. Unowned women hunger and thirst for invasion and conquest.

      One more important reason why women should never have been given the vote. They at best just do not get territory and territoriality. At worst, single women hunger and thirst to be conquered.

      • That explains the gap in exit polls in the past perhaps, but not the latest move.
        Everybody seems to agree that Trump promising to spank women who break the law was a big loser with the women’s vote, including maybe even Scott Adams, although he hedges his bet. Just to opposite it seems of what this whole line of reasoning about female psychology would predict.

        • peppermint says:

          threatening to spank women: good
          threatening to threaten to spank women, then walking it back: cuck

          The long primary in 2008 was good for Obama and Clinton because there wasn’t any meaningful difference between them and they merely brought up all the character issues that the Republicans would bring up later anyway, which allowed Obama to claim to have been vetted.

          This long primary is damaging to Trump because it means he needs to be a Ronald Reagan Israel/abortion candidate. As Bob Whitaker points out, Ronald Reagan wasn’t himself an Israel/abortion candidate or a Ronald Reagan Israel/abortion Ronald Reagan president, but after the Ronald Reagan Ronald Reagan candidacy, the GOPe saw that they wanted access to the Ronald Reagan White working class voters, and went to the Ronald Reagan televangelists and bought them with Ronald Reagan promises about Israel/abortion, and, in GWB’s case, mo money fo dem programs.

        • jim says:

          This reasoning about female psychology would predict that making it then retreating from it under pressure would be a big loser.

  22. Alan J. Perrick says:

    Wouldn’t it be something if Mr Trump slipped General Monck’s name into one of his speeches in lieu of Patton, Eisenhower or McCarthy?

    A.J.P.

  23. The Dissenting Sociologist says:

    The widespread notion that the bureaucracy is somehow omnipotent and invincible is facile, poli-sci-101 stuff. It may have had some validity in old Europe, where civil service was an extremely high-status occupation, and the bureaucracy a formidable social class in its own right; but in these parts, a civil servant is just somebody who happens to work for the government, and if anything actually resented and despised by the people at large.

    In any case, civil servants, like most everybody else these days, are a rather venial and unheroic lot, easily bullied and/or bought, and not readily given to martyrdom; setting a few public examples by way of cutbacks and firings should suffice to bring the rest around. The same goes for the media and the universities; a judicious use of broadcasting regulations, anti-trust actions, and actual or threatened de-funding will do wonders to help diverse Cathedral functionaries (especially at the administrative level) see the light and keep their cushy jobs.

Leave a Reply